Hi Kiran

I am not exactly sure where you are going with this? IMO the stimulus to learning is the question Why? If so then in order to learn one must be constantly curious about what one experiences and also somewhat skeptical of the currently popular answers that have been proposed. This is not an easy way to live because it creates uncertainty and people do not like uncertainty. Therefore we seek to believe that we already have the answer to everything. Our social system purports to encourage learning but it many ways it actually appears to promote conformity. A lot of resources are spent on teaching but is this the promotion of questioning and learning or rather the enforcement of conformity? Is there anything more irritating than the student or colleague who insists on continually asking why? 

Concise Answer:

The use of learning styles (LS) will not improve teaching or learning.

Longer Answer:

Learning Styles: An Overview of the Core Evidence

Introduction

Learning styles (LS) is one of the most popular and pervasive theories in education.1-5 LS are such a common belief that we hear about the value of LS from both educators and students alike. Educators from Kindergarten to college claim that LS improves student learning outcomes while students often attribute doing poorly in a class to a failure of the instructor to teach to “their learning style”. LS is a favorite topic among college educators as well, speakers at national conferences claim that all students should complete a Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and this is essential to achieving good learning outcomes. When asked for evidence that would support these claims they offer the books published by individuals who derive income from selling learning style instruments, LS training seminars, and even some educational textbooks that reference the aforementioned materials to support their claims. Many LS proponents claim that you just need to use multiple LS theories suggesting that using multiple models is even better any single LS instrument, with no evidential support. If you run a simple mathematical interaction model on this idea the result is more potential LS than people currently on the planet.

Philosophy

There two foundational considerations in an approach to the evidence on any educational topic. The first consideration is that theories that can be tested should be tested. The LS hypothesis can be and has been tested. The second is that educators have a duty to base their teaching on the best available scientific evidence. A parallel medical analogy would be that the same expectations apply to a physician treating patients, it is reasonable to expect the treatments they administer are based on the best scientific evidence available. If physicians fail to base their treatment on evidence, then harm can come to the patient and likewise, educators can harm students.

Methodology

An extensive body of scientific literature exists on LS, however, due to the limited length and nature of this forum, it will focus on the recent key literature and meta-analysis. However, in order to fully understand the long history today, we will have a brief discussion of the history of LS is included. This history provides a larger context to understand the current evidence.

Origins and Popularity

LS is not a new or novel idea to education It dates back to the late 1800s. The original ideas were not referenced as learning styles but as "modality", however, modality is the core concept of many learning styles models today. Since that time, thousands of LS publications have become available. The trials and peer-reviewed meta-analysis of the 1900's repeatedly found LS had significant increases in new models and theories that promised to improve learning, however, produced no compelling evidence to support those claims. Despite that lack of evidence, LS continued to gain popularity and widespread acceptance as sales representatives touted the benefits of their tests and seminars. LS seems to have a common sense appeal that makes intuitive sense to most people.

The learning styles hypotheses

         A quick dissection of the LS hypotheses will allow for separate examination of the parts of the hypothesis that are supported by evidence and which parts of the hypothesis that are not. The learning style hypothesis is best understood based on three parts.

Hypothesis part 1: People have preferences and preferences differ from one person to another, however, cluster into similar patterns.

Hypothesis part 2: There are some "key preferences" that influence learning. These groups of "key preferences" are what groups together to form the basis of LS theories and models.

Hypothesis part 3: When the learner experiences instructional content consistent with these “key preferences” they learn better. If the instructional material is customized consistent with their "key preferences" they will learn better. This is often referred to as the meshing or matching hypothesis.

Analysis of the LS hypothesis

To validate LS, we need studies that use an appropriate methodology to test the hypothesis. In other words, Learners of a particular LS would need to learn more from a presentation tailored to their particular LS and less from presentation tailored to other purported LS and visa versa. This effect is best described as a style-treatment interaction.

Hypothesis part 1: People have differences. Learning styles may be so appealing due to this first part of the concept that is well supported by the scientific evidence. This idea that people have different preferences is not difficult to grasp or even demonstrate with supporting evidence.

Hypothesis part 2: The experts cannot agree on what “Key Preferences” influence learning. The experts cannot agree on what the “key preferences” are. This disagreement was the state of LS in the 1980s, and those differences have been magnified today with more models than ever before. An extensive review conducted in 2004 found “no less than 71 different models.”1 The “key preferences” that LS theorists argue are dissimilar enough that a classification system was developed to group the various LS models into five different of types of preferences. The Sentinel issue at this point in the hypothesis is that the LS theorists cannot agree on what “key preferences” influence learning or even what type of preferences influence learning. 

Hypothesis part 3: No difference in learning outcomes:

At best, a single study with appropriate methods might be argued as support for the existence of a style-treatment interaction. The authors reported an interaction between style-treatment, however, the interaction while based on preferences and aptitudes was not based on any learning styles model. While an extensive LS trial was conducted by Massa and Mayer in 2006 and found no support for any style-treatment interaction. 7 An earlier 2002 experimental trial found no style-treatment interaction 8. An international trial again found no evidence to support matching instruction to preferences resulted in any difference in learning outcomes 9. Finally, an experimental trial studied medical students and consistent with the other trials demonstrated no style-treatment interaction 10.

Related evidence and other issues

         In addition to that evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, there is considerable evidence that many of the LS instruments have significant issues. Mayer found that using different learning style inventories, even ones that purportedly measured the same attributes often disagreed with each other. A test of reliability measures had the same individual taking the same instrument at a several weeks apart, and this often resulted in different results. 7 Other researchers express similar concerns “Some of the best known and widely used instruments have such serious weaknesses that we recommend that their use in research and in practice should be discontinued.”1 Another study found “participants'  self-assessment of their learning style was shown to be out of line with more objective measures.”9

Implications for educators

There are two key issues here for educators. Both issues center around the consequences of using an invalid construct to understand and teach the material. Most educators have limited resources and should channel those resources toward valid constructs that will improve learning outcomes. The first issue is that the use of limited resources on LS is a waste. The second issue is that the use of LS by educators in the absence of validation results in a misunderstanding of how instruction and learning works, which can significantly impair their effectiveness. This could be analogous to the common cold, a low-level viral infection that spreads easily via an airborne vector.

Conclusions and recommendations

People have different preferences, and this claim is easily substantiated. However, customizing instruction to these preferences does not improve learning. Evidence that supports that teaching to any set of preferences results in any improvement in learning is absent from any appropriately designed trials. Multiple well-designed experiments flatly contradict the meshing hypothesis. The absence of confirming of the hypothesis in the shadow of numerous studies that contradict the hypothesis should lead educators to focus better their resources on educational practices and interventions that are theoretically-grounded and empirically-validated. The recent evidence that currently available represents a clear consensus. For those who are still intrigued by the mythical allure and unsubstantiated promises of LS. A recent article on the LS evidence argued that better evidence may be available to support the existence of Bigfoot than LS. 4 In other studies placebo’s have demonstrated more results that LS.

References

1. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. 2004.

2. Scott C. The enduring appeal of learning styles. Australian Journal of Education. 2010;54:5-17.

3. Riener C, Willingham D. The myth of learning styles. Change: The Magazine of higher learning. 2010;42:32-35.

4. La Lopa J. The Difference Between Bigfoot and Learning Styles: There May Be Better Evidence to Support the Existence of Bigfoot. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology. 2013;11:356-376.

5. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest. 2008;9:105-119.

6. Dunn R, DeBello T, Brennan P, Krimsky J, Murrain P. Learning style researchers define differences differently. Educational Leadership. 1981;38:372-375.

7. Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences. 2006;16:321-335.

8. Constantinidou F, Baker S. Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain Lang. 2002;82:296-311.

9. Krätzig GP, Arbuthnott KD. Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006;98:238.

10. Cook DA, Thompson WG, Thomas KG, Thomas MR. Lack of interaction between sensing-intuitive learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: a randomized crossover trial. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:79-90.

------------------------------------

Here is another recently published similar take on the current use of LS. This author references a recent international survey of educators with 96% beliving in LS.

http://www.educationworld.com/managing-learning-styles-myth

And another a bit older article, but similar conclusion

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00091383.2010.503139

Dear Kiran,

Like you, I also think that learning is the key to self-transformation, growth, and development. If we were not capable of learning and adapting to changes in our environment, and also of profiting from past experiences, we would be doomed to collapsing in a relatively brief period of time. It is not a mere coincidence that humans are able to learn even in their pre-natal period.

As I see it, there are several types of learning, for example, rote learning or memorizing and understanding. When the former is the case, it is likely that we become conformist people, that is, people who passively accept ready-made or established truths, that is, truths imposed on us from outside. When the latter is the case, it is likely that we become creators and innovators, that is, people who actively understand, reinvent or reconstruct what they learn (see, for this respect, Piaget's views on education). In addition, when the former is the case, we generally give up questioning what we learned through a formal or informal education. In contradistinction, when the latter is the case we maintain, say, a healthy, not a Pirronic or radical, skepticism. These two styles of learning have to do with what might be called "the how" of learning. 

What about the "why" of learning? Here, we can also think of two styles of learning, that is, we can think of intrinsically-motivated learners and extrinsically-motivated learners. ( See, for this respect, Deci's theory of self-determination and his distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation). When the former is the case, learners like learning because, for example, they are intellectually curious and want to be self-actualized and fulfilled people according to Maslow's pyramid of one's interests and needs. When the latter is the case, learners learn mainly because of practical reasons, such as to earn money, become recognized by others, and the like. Needless to say, conformist learners are to extrinsically-oriented learners as innovative learners are to intrinsically-oriented learners.

As I see it, any theory of learning has do address what I call the four Hs of learning: The what, the how, the why and the when of learning.

What do learners learn? In a more or less direct way, what learners learn is related to the true, the good, and the beautiful. Note that the true, the good, and the beautiful are universal categories, regardless of they are seen at different places and times. 

How do learners learn, that is, what psychological (e.g., assimilation/ accommodation) and neural processes (e.g., electrical potentials, neural firings, connections among neurons) occur while learning is happening? In this vein, when rote learning is the case, accommodation triumphs over assimilation and the opposite happens when reconstruction and understanding is the case. Also, when the former is the case our brain is, say, less activated than when the latter is the case.

Why do learners learn? In a nutshell, people learn to survive and self-transform.  Even so, the two styles of learning mentioned above (i.e., intrinsically-oriented learners and extrinsically-oriented learners) substantiate two types of reasons that lead people to learn (e.g., intellectual curiosity or to look for the unknown/to get external rewards). Of course, these two types of reasons may coexist in the same individual.

When do learners learn? Are there critical periods to learn certain subject matters? As we know, it is generally easier to learn a foreign language when we are relatively young (e.g., 7-8 years) than relatively old (e.g., above 50 years). This fact is mainly due to neural reasons. When a theory of learning takes into account the when of learning, it easily accepts that, for example, it would be a waste of time to try to teach the proportionality concept to a 4-year-old child. The proportionality concept is much above a 4-year-old child's ability to understand.

I hope I have got your question and that this helps.

Best regards.

Here's a link to a similar question on RG that can add to this conversation. I started out believing that each student had a particular learning style (see attached) and so you had to use different ones in bringing synergy to the classroom. But as technology revolutionized education, teaching, and learning, I realise that students learn using all their different senses (e.g., hearing, seeing, touching) together in this digital age.

Best regards,

Debra

Article One Style Does Not Fit All: Facilitating Cultural Difference...

Article How Much Multimedia Should You Add to PowerPoint Slides When...

The previous replies are interesting

Charlie Baycroft.

Thanks for discussing your opinion about Learning.

Thanks to the people that have provided such detailed answers and references. I learned some things from this opportunity. You did not teach me. You did make the information available to me to assimilate or not as I wished. Should I choose to do so for my own benefit, I could study what you have said in more detail and also read and learn more about this issue from the references you have provided. The problem with our current culture is that everything becomes viewed from a materialistic  and product perspective. So education becomes a product to sell and students become consumers of the products. The reality is that teachers cannot make people learn unless the student are motivated and intent on learning. Teachers can only provide students with an opportunity to learn. Students have to actively take advantage of this opportunity if they wish to learn. It is probably true that individuals assimilate knowledge in different ways but those difference are probably for more unique and different than we realise. When people develop their "products", which are probably based on what they think worked for them and then try to promote and sell them they mislead us for their own benefit. Perhaps we all have our own unique way of learning and perhaps we can help other people to better understand the way in which they learn but we cannot do this by assuming that our way will be appropriate for anyone else. Schools are not factories where teachers manufacture educated people. They should IMO be viewed as facilities where students are provided with a structured opportunity and assistance to learn if they so desire. Schools should also assess the relative success that students have achieved by way of examinations but teachers are not the people responsible for the performance of the students on these examinations. The performance is the responsibility of the student. The opportunity to learn has never been greater than it is today. If you have a question, Google can probably provide the answer in many different forms and ways. People like to say that the teachers are failing their students but it is probably the student that are failing because they lack the motivation to learn.

Charles Foat Sir,

Thanks for giving your views about Leaning styles, your opinion concerning learning styles that consists will not improve teaching but my query is Learning Styles bring the team synergy.Please discuss your point of view.

Orlando M Lourenço,

Thanks for sharing your point of view about Learning styles,you discuss some aspects of leaning but my query is Learning Styles bring the team synergy.

Debra Sharon Ferdinand-James Sir,

'Thanks for giving some valuable suggestions concerning through some research papers.

Ahmed Al mayahi Sir,

Thanks for involving in discussion.

Nirmala S.V.S.G Madam,

Thanks for sharing your point of view with Debra Sharon Ferdinand-James.

 Charlie Baycroft,

Sorry Sir, If I hurt your feelings.I apologize. totally I agree with your point of view education becomes a product to sell and students become consumers of the product that is teacher's pain.

Kiran. No apology necessary. Of course you did not hurt my feelings. That is one of the other problems that we have in society. Oppression of  freedom to say what we think.

If someone disagrees with my ideas on a topic I consider it to be a good thing because

Who am I to think that I am always right when experience has taught me that sometimes (?often) I am wrong? If you have a different idea or opinion than I do I will regard it as an opportunity and respect your right to have your own opinion and state it. How can I learn anything new if other people do not feel entitled to share their point of view with me?

When I was young we always said "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me."  If you might physically attack me that would hurt. If you would (which I doubt very much) intentionally insult me and challenge my tender little ego I might feel angry or disappointed but I am not injured. 

Let's pretend that someone in this conversation would say, "Charlie, you are a silly old fool that knows nothing about Learning Styles and their importance in education!"  

Perhaps I am such a silly old fool because I have to admit that I am not an authority in this field (or any other to be totally honest). Of course, I would not like you to say this quite so bluntly but how i react to it is my choice. I would have many choices based on what I perceive your motivation to be in insulting me. I could accept your challenge to change the topic and "fight back". I could disagree and ask you to justify your opinion. I could just terminate the discussion. Lots of choices depending on the circumstances and the mood I might be in at the time.

I think we both probably agree that most teachers are sincere caring people who have an important and increasingly difficult role in our society. However, I have had experiences which contradict this opinion. I might base my opinion on these experiences and say the problem with education is "useless teachers" and that might provoke a reaction from you? How you react is really your choice because I am not physically intimidating or dominating you. Maybe the most valid reaction might be to pity me for being so bitter and cynical that I cannot see the forest for the trees?

I once read that "education is a process of converting empty minds into open minds". Is that the goal of the people that are administering our systems of education? Or, is the goal now to enforce conformity of thought and action? I am not a great fan of the "thought police" and political correctness or the belief that we are hurting each other by having different opinions on things. 

IMO, thought and actions are different things. I am opposed to actions that disrupt civil order and harm other people but not to thoughts or opinions.

Let's say I am some loathsome creature who things it is ok to think of women as sexual objects that I am entitled to treat as I like and physically interfere with. IMO, that would be quite wrong and sad but do I deserve to be punished for having these thoughts? Let's say that I act on these thoughts and grab women by the ___________. Should I be punished or elected POTUS?

Let's first discuss the validity and reliability of the learning styles theory and then decide whether there is still any point in answering this question: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/12/no-evidence-to-back-idea-of-learning-styles

Maria D. Avgerinou,

Thanks for sharing link.

Assuming that the people listed are real then that seems to address the topic.

Kiran,

An answer to the follow-up question more specific to the effect of LS on team synergy. You are correct I did end my prior response before engaging the synergy concept.

Regarding educational teams, would the team be more effective if they attended workshops or used any educational technique that is not effective regarding teaching or learning outcomes? The result is that teachers misunderstand evidence-based instruction and cognitive science as well as how students learn best. This results in wasted time and resources to attempt to customize match instruction to student preferences.

The result is that teachers misunderstand evidence-based instruction and cognitive science as well as how students learn best. This results in wasted time and resources to attempt to customize match instruction to student preferences.

I believe intentionally introducing a misunderstanding of teaching, cognitive science, and learning would not increase synergy but detract from team synergy. If a team wanted to implement a more cost-effective and modern version of LS. Harry Potter sorting hats are available for purchase at the cost of around $18. This is much more cost effective than training seminars for faculty, and learning style instruments administered to students. It appears the validity and reliability of the hat method are similar to actual LS instruments.

Here is another article I just came across yesterday that references a recent publication:

http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/5/25-1

The An & Carr article that it references provides a new fresh look and advances some new arguments, even though the big idea remains that exhaustive attempts have been made to demonstrate validity and reliability without success. The article does offer other approaches that may be better directions to persue.

An, D., & Carr, M., Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: Recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050

Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316529423_Learning_styles_theory_fails_to_explain_learning_and_achievement_Recommendations_for_alternative_approaches

For team synergy, I would recommend starting with a theoretically -grounded, empirically-validated intervention to implement. This would give you the greatest possibility of improving team synergy.

Hope that helps.

-Charles

Article Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achieve...

Charles Foat Sir,

Thanks for expand the answer related to LS & suggest research paper relatively.