Margaret:

I think for the novice facilitator, it would be helpful for him/her to have an idea of students' learning styles, especially when operating in a situation with limited multimedia resources. Such knowledge can help the facilitator to bring balance in choosing multimedia for class sessions. However, facilitators should help students to develop all learning styles as we live in a digital world where media dominates our living, learning, and teaching. The attached supports the need to diversify media and teaching styles to accommodate for students diverse backgrounds.

Best regards,

Debra

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

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

In my former work place, the University of Hong Kong,  I had chance to follow up Zhang Lifang and her graduate students'  extensive research on the topic. Zhang has worked  with Robert J Sternberg.

Their main claim is that students' meta-cognitive and self-regulation have a significant impact on their learning (knowing to know; autonomous and proactive learning, which are in turn related to attitude and behavior). Their theory appears to assume that individual students differ in preference and style when it comes to learning.  There are more than one 'best' style, so, there is something called 'matching style' that is most effective to individual leaner (as against one-size-fits-all style).

Sure, they have been criticized.  A balanced critique is from John Hattie. He says (2009, p. 195):

"The claim is that teaching is more effective when these learning preferences are taken into account-although others have claimed the opposite: that we should be teaching students the learning styles they do not have (Apter, 2001).

It is hard to discern the meaning of some of these meta-analyses. One conclusion, given the average effect size of d = 0.41, is that learning style is somewhat important. But when we delve deeper, the model includes a mixture of attributes, especially the confusion of learning styles with learning strategies. Further, many of the meta-analyses correlate the learning style scores with achievement and thus are neither aptitude-treatment interactions nor learning style interventions. Many studies say no more than what students learn is correlated with achievement. Kavale and Forness (1987), for example, were interested in students with learning difficulties and found little support for the claim that there were higher outcomes when teaching students based on Some supposed strength in auditory (d = 0.18) , visual (d = 0.09), or kinesthetic d = 0.18) preference."

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning : a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London ; New York: Routledge.

Now, your question, Margaret:

I think that with average effect size of d = 0.41 in Hattie's analysis, using learning style theory in teaching practice is not bad. But it is not spectacular either.

Regarding your question "Wondering what others think about the usefulness (or not)", I can only give my own opinion. I find Learning Style theory just too sophisticated to implement in my ordinary teaching practice. Besides, based on Hattie's other studies, we know that teaching intervention can achieve up to effect size of d = 0.7. if not more.  So this is my thinking: why should I commit myself to this theory?

Dear Margaret,

I am in favour with Jea and Debra.

At first - What is your goal? The aim is very inportant, if we analize something in the reaserching field. You know lot`s of the controversy.

In music education this strategy is used to the analized the music peaces; or for collecting some information by music image. This is a thechnic, based on the psychoanalise. The result is: more products of music imagination, deep fehling.

The controversy make wide the opportunitis to use music as an instrument as inside.

HI Jae and Debra

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I agree that the problem with much of the literature is that the studies are not truly assessing the impact, use, or effectiveness of “learning styles” but rather teaching strategies and learning strategies. We also know that the content being taught very much influences the most effective teaching and learning strategies. I think there are too many confounding factors in the research to either fully negate or embrace the concept of learning styles. What happens is the old adage, people want to “throw the baby out with the bath water”! J 

Very anecdotally, I teach a class on teaching to graduate physical therapy students and have done so for the past 15 years or so. To help them understand themselves and others a bit better I do have them complete a learning styles inventory. Then I put them in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups for several different active learning activities. I would say in at least 95% of the cases students relate to the concepts based on their “style”. For me there is some face validity to the concept. However, I also turn it around and we discuss how, as graduate students and as effective learners they have had to learn to adapt and to to use ALL learning styles. Again, they agree. So, I am not yet ready to negate the relevance of learning styles in understanding our broad audience of learners; rather, I prefer to think about using a variety of strategies to both support and challenge potential style preferences. 

I also agree with Debra regarding the novice facilitator. I think whenever we can give new learners a framework or some other way to remember information they are more likely to retain and use that information. Learning styles is a nice framework for helping novice learners consider both style and strategies for teaching a diverse group of learners. I talk about “teaching around the wheel”. I teach my students that to capture all members of the audience throughout their instructional session it is important to incorporate all types of strategies reflection, action, concrete examples, and theory/facts.

So your question about “why commit”?  I think it depends on what we are committing to – If we are committed to evidence based teaching then we need to look at the available evidence in light of our learners’ needs as well as our own experience. The challenge is sometimes in the limitations of the evidence.

Excellent post Margaret Plack, I totally agree. 

Regarding your original question, I still can remember how enlightening I found Learning Styles theory when I first came across it during my own graduate studies. Since that time I've used it with my students, in a number of different ways, but most useful has been the ability for me as a teacher to recognise the ways that students learn and suggest strategies. 

Most importantly, however, it is useful for the reflective teacher to improve, preparing instruction with a range of strategies in mind, rather than teach to one's own learning style as we naturally do. 

I teach Music Education. 

Students will learn if they are interested. Try to see things from the student's perspective. Where do they come from? What is their background? For example, my building science predecessor learned that the students were keen on soccer, so he simply adapted his teaching style slightly and framed his examples to incorporate that known interest. 

He asked: How do you light a soccer stadium? How do you wire up a sports club building? etc. 

Previous respondents are right to suggest that Prof Hattie's research provides a measured answer to this question. However, let me give you an illustration from practice. Ten years ago I was running a primary (elementary) school in a challenging coastal town, characterised by high social deprivation. The school was in Special Measures (ie, judged to be failing) and we were on that journey to get the school to good. We had done a lot of work to raise standards but realised that our upcoming Year 4 (grade 3) students were likely to unpick much of that work. There was a high proportion of boys who were badly behaved, poor attending, low achievers that we badly needed to address. One of my deputy heads (vice principals) suggested that we group them by learning style when they entered Year 5. This was just on the edge of being a rather discredited theory even then but we decided that we would run with it. And we would also do this for the current Year 5 as they transferred to Year 6. It was a £50,000 solution as it was going to mean recruiting two additional teachers in order to re-organise into four classes from the current three in each year group. There was additional funding from a government fund to support schools in challenging circumstances.

At the end of Year 4  and Y5 we gave the kids a simple, but effective, test of their preferred learning styles and re-grouped the new Y5 and Y6 classes with one class of around 25 largely auditory learners, one smaller class of broadly kinaesthetic learners and two classes of around 25 who were broadly visual or VK learners. We placed the most successful teachers with the smaller (K) groups. These K classes were entirely boys - so there was a gender thing going on as well. Within a few weeks it was clear that the impact across the board was significant. Kids with a history of bad behaviour (in a school where behaviour was a real issue at the time of being placed in SM) suddenly and dramatically became not just well-behaved but trustworthy and reliable. Have a responsible job to do? These kids could do it.  They also, just as dramatically, raised their school attendance so that kids with attendance around 80% were coming in at 95%. And this had a dramatic impact on standards and learning. Ask a kid what he was doing, and he'd proudly show you what he was learning. It did not matter that his was something he should have learned two years ago; he was learning.

At the other end, the auditory group - by and large the smart thinkers - were making astonishing progress such that, when school inspectors turned up at the end of the first year of this programme, they were eighteen months above their peers in math. Something this school had never done. Meanwhile the mixed visual classes were making rock steady progress because learning was not disrupted by high demand kids' poor behaviour.

The whole thing is summed up in an end-of-unit exercise where classes had to construct a full -size (air raid) shelter on the school field from wire and cardboard. The mixed style groups got on well, produced solid and effective structures. The K boys, however, quickly and deftly designed, built, tested and modified really robust and neat structures. Meanwhile, the 'bright' auditory kids were sitting amid collapsed wire and sheets of card wondering why they could not do it. This enabled us to say to them, 'look, you guys are good with your head, but these guys are great with their hands. When you are running your business and want a cabinet built, these are the people you will be calling on.'

It was a very successful project that was limited only by the available funding. We made the national education press but, because of the sometimes aggressive opposition to  'learning styles', had to take a lot of criticism. All I can say is that, for these kids - all the kids in those years - it worked, raised standards, improved progress and raised self-esteem.

The Hawthorne effect means that in just trying to understand your students, you influence them for the good. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Instead of "teaching about" learning styles, why not invite the students to analyze the evidence and critically interrogate the "myths"? You can create tasks for them such as ask them to create a "myth busters" video, or have a debate on why some educators cling to learning styles. Or, you can ask them to differentiate (following Debra's post) between the concept of "learning styles" versus "culturally responsive pedagogy" (two very different things.

This is a great resource for dispelling myths about learning styles (that is, no credible evidence supports their existence)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cedar_Riener/publication/249039450_The_Myth_of_Learning_Styles/links/0046353c694205e957000000.pdf

And you can direct learners here for additional resources: http://lessonremodel.blogspot.ca/2013/02/popular-education-myths-wag-of-finger.html

Article The Myth of Learning Styles

You might be interested in the attache paper:

Kettunen, J. (2013). Bridging the gap between learning inside and outside of higher education institutions, in Katri Aaltonen, Annica Isacsson, Jari Laukia & Liisa Vanhanen-Nuutinen (toim.), Practical skills, education and development – Vocational education and training in Finland, HAAGA-HELIA University of Applied Sciences, Vantaa: Multiprint, 51-63.

A slightly different perceptive:

This is an interesting topic and creates much debate when we discuss classroom practice. Even though it can be summarised that neuroscience indicates or has proven that concepts such as VAK (visual, auditory and kinaesthetic) learning preferences are not reflected within brain scans. There is a clear a need for such considerations within the learning event. For example, using images to capture your audience or to give a clear overview of the lesson (a picture paints a thousand words). Alternatively, the use of audio books for people with poor language skills or who have a specific learning need.  

When considering higher education (HE) in further education (FE), stereotypically, sport science students demand kinaesthetic or practical based learning, although they understand the need for the academic side too.  Other theories of relevance, for example, Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory and Mayer and Anderson Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning consider how information and its presentation impacts on the receivers (students) ability to access it.  Therefore, another rather simplest way of looking that this could be: 

• Intro) provide clear overview of intended learning
• Key terms) provide top level information for student to engage with, in an authentic and meaningful way (learning key terms, definitions and making connections).
• Analysing) interrogate how these key terms interact within the domain
• Judgement) make conclusions about topic/ theory

The critical component is the pedagogical or andragogical approach(es) which is used to transmit and promote engagement with the materials.  For example, in the introduction stage, this could be videos and images which are used to hook or capture the audience whilst providing an opportunity to conceptualise the intended learning. Whereas the key term stage could be a simple matching exercise.

Whether you prescribe to these theories or not, you cannot escape the demands of the students for effective learning events as this equates to student satisfaction levels.  Recent trends within UK higher education, around inclusion, equality and diversity has seen the rise of terms like ‘belongingness’ and ‘reasonable adjustment.’  For example, the video or image used in the introduction may not be culturally relevant or appropriate to all member of the audience. Thus, it would be reasonable for the video to be changed or explained within context to allow the students from different cultures to understand the relevance of the video.

Hi!

Look at other discussions on RG about this as well! My take on this is; 

Yes, students can have preferences on how to learn

No, no categorizations, among the 40+ known models. seems to be ingenious, to be polite.

No, you cannot easily adapt class teaching to individual learning styles

What gives some possibility is the possibility to variation and customisation by the learner himself. If a broader variety of possibilities are offered to learn and to show learning about X, students have better possibilities of finding what suits them and pass through the course.

 Dear Margaret,

Please find a minute to contribute to this qüestion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_Innovation_in_education_related_to

Thank you very much! :-)

Margaret,

 At the Department of Educational Sciences, Leuven university (Belgium) there has been a long tradition in linking teaching and learning research.  Reading your question evokes lasting questions about the relationship between teaching (learning environments) and student characteristics .

 The question "How to adapt instruction to individual learner characteristics" has been tackled in different ways, dependent on the state-of-the-art of educational and psychological research at a given moment in time. Moreover, some concepts, like learning style,  share common features with other ones, like 'aptitude'.

 An interesting chapter is the one of Snow, who, together with Cronbach, opened avenues for individualization of teaching and learning. Indeed, massification of education called for educational approaches that recognize dimensions of student's individuality.  See: Snow, R. E. (1989) Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. L . Ackerman, R.J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.).  Learning and individual differences: Advances in theory and research. A series of books in psychology., (pp. 13-59). New York, NY:  Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

 Snow  observed that ATIs are very common in education, and that ATI combinations are complex and difficult to demonstrate clearly so that no particular ATI effect is sufficiently understood to be the basis for instructional practice. This seems an interesting point regarding your question.

 Afterwards, with the upraise of cognitive learning  psychology, learning styles have been used as a core concept to describe dimensions in learner's cognitive activity. A colleague of mine in the Netherlands, Jan Vermunt, did interesting work on this topic. See:  Vermunt, J.D. (1996).  Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31: 25-50.

 He describes areas in which learning styles differ: the strategies students use to process learning contents, the strategies they use to regulate their learning, the affective processes that occur during studying, and the mental models of learning and learning orientations of students. These styles were referred to as an undirected, a reproduction directed, a meaning directed and an application directed learning style" (p.46). He was, moreover, interested in the impact of learning styles research on instructional design.

A more general overview of the learning style conclusions  can be found in  Pashler, H.,  McDaniel, M.,  Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008) Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.  

"Our review of the learning-styles literature led us to define a particular type of evidence that we see as a minimum precondition for validating the use of a learning-style assessment in an instructional setting. As described earlier, we have been unable to find any evidence that clearly meets this standard. Moreover, several studies that used the appropriate type of research design found results that contradict the most widely held version of the learning-styles hypothesis, namely, what we have referred to as the meshing hypothesis (Constantinidou & Baker, 2002; Massa & Mayer, 2006). The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing. If classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated." (p.117).  This brings us back to your questioin.

In conclusion: the bulk of literature on learning styles confirms the lasting tension between practice- based and theory-based approaches of the interaction between teaching and learning. In my opinion, in educational settings, a mix of research-based and practice-based interventions is needed. Indeed, research outcomes, given intrinsic limitations of  research content, method and conditions, never cover the complexity of teaching and learning.  Reflected practice  complements research endeavors.

Joost, thank you very much for your very thoughtful answer. As a physical therapist I very strongly believe in evidence based practice. However, to effectively implement true evidence based practice one must consider the patient in front of you as well as your own experience. I think the same tension between research and practice sometimes exists not only in education but in the medicine and health fields as well. In addition, new evidence is being produced daily - what was not, sometimes is - so I go back to my comment, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water; yet, let's be judicious in how we apply our knowledge! Again, thank you for your references as well. 

Margaret, interesting to know that have a physical therapist background. This is a different , more individual context than education and classroom teaching. In my answer,  I already mentioned Dick Snow's ATI research. He did some interesting work in the field of Psychotherapie as well.  See: Snow, R. (1991) Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a Framework for Research on Individual Differences in Psychotherapy.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ,59, (2), 205-216

Remarkable how research frameworks shift as the result of (1) some disappointment with the research output (mostly due to higher compexity than initially expected) and (2) upraise of new frameworks that promise a better solution to the problem than preceeding ones. It resembles, after all,  the Myth of Sisyphus.....

I most recently (a day ago) as a committee member supervised a doc dissertation on this topic and it is very interesting. The student had a very impressive most up to date arrangement of learning styles literature.   Will  ask permission to share some of her sources with you, if interested. Please inbox me for more details. Thanks!

All of the conversations on this topic are very interesting and informative. To meet the needs of diverse learners I use the Universal Design for Leaners (UDL) Model - from http://www.udlcenter.org/  Look at the Research tab on the website. 

"Universal Design for Learning

is a set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn.UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone--not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs."

Who uses UDL and has it been successful for you?

Carmella

According to my knowledge and observation, the learning styles are mostly the replica of the teaching style of all of us.

For eg. In one of my classes, where i could not access the materials prepared for executing an activity for teaching learning styles. Immediately an idea came to me. Its just asking all the students to explain his neighbor on what all had happened on the day from morning till the moment i entered into their classrooms. Surprisingly, each one of them exhibited different unique styles, such as global vs. sequential, auditory, kinaesthetic vs. visual, social vs. solitaire, logical vs. sensuous, verbal vs. written etc. This proved the fact that the way in which they learn is the which we explain also. the way in which we understand things is the way in which we reciprocate also. So, the need for understanding the learning style is much more important than just teaching itself, i believe.