Thank you to everyone who joined our discussion on Monday, June 2nd, as we explored the topic of learning styles in contemporary education. The following paper was reviewed:
Catherine Scott critically examined the popular theory of ‘learning styles,’ which until now remains entrenched in a wide variety of institutions, such as schools, government departments, businesses and even churches. While many educators continually strive to tailor their teaching strategies to match the individual attributes of their learners and accommodate ‘learning styles’ in which they acquire information best, the literature actually deems this a counterproductive approach.
Scott identified a wide array of evidence that disproves the theory of learning styles and shows its utility in teaching and learning to be negligible. According to the literature, adapting teaching methods to compliment learning styles rarely translates into improved educational outcomes, and can even be harmful to the learning process. Despite this knowledge, a multitude of different learning style (and teaching style) theories and models exist and continue to receive encouragement in contemporary education.
The group discussed the multitude of learning style theories that exist and the difficulties associated with choosing an appropriate one to address. Scott mentions that at least 71 different styles of learning are currently circulating. The group unanimously agreed that this number was astounding, and that many of them also serve as commercial products. Scott goes on to address the commercial concerns associated with learning styles and their economical worth later on in the paper, calling into question whether or not the concept serves as evidenced theory or a fad.
Several of the instructors present admitted to using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) to measure learning styles in the past. While no one was currently using them, the impact of learning style theories in nursing education was nonetheless illustrated here.
Scott identified several studies that deem this approach, along with others, ineffective in diagnosing learning styles accurately and consistently. Researchers also found that even within one model, the learning styles identified often depended on the instrumentation used, and thus served as an unreliable basis for planning teaching strategies.
Scott also argued that time spent attempting to apply the theory in classrooms and administering unreliable tests to guide instruction was a waste of valuable teaching and learning time. After emphasizing the abundant use of learning style strategies worldwide, she compared the evidence for efficacy to several studies that support use of ‘effective feedback,’ suggesting that “universities are expending disproportionate amounts of time and effort on a worthless strategy to the comparative neglect of arguably a highly effective component of teaching: feedback.”
One problem identified within the concept of learning styles was its conflation with other theories, such as personality types and cognitive theories, which often collide to hinder the predictive validity of learning styles. As well, many group members agreed that the learning styles theory heavily reflected a westernized culture, which assumes that students fall into a fixed range of ability with no room for change or growth with respect to learning and diversification. In the paper, this was referred to as the “entity model of ability,” which is resistant to environmental influences.
Scott suggested that such a model is harmful to students as it predisposes teachers to formulate rigid opinions regarding the student which are out of context and based on snap judgments. This type of thinking is thought to lead to stereotyping and ultimately the manifestation of harmful effects on students. One attendee agreed and added that self-labelling also becomes an issue. She explained that a student may label themselves as a ‘visual learner’ and begin to believe that other areas of learning aren’t achievable. When faced with something like hands-on work, the student may have a predisposed idea that are incompetent in this respect and therefore limit their ability to diversify their learning.
Another member of the group commented that regardless of learning styles, motivation overrides learning styles, and stated that “when you have a particular interest in something, you’re more focused on learning it.” Everyone agreed with this statement, and concluded that the most effective teaching methods incorporate a wide array of elements that change every fifteen minutes or so to keep the class engaged and optimize learning.
After a thorough discussion and analysis of learning style theories, we concluded that a focus on more effective, evidence-based teaching strategies was most likely a better use of the educator’s time and would likely result in better learning outcomes for students.
Below are the presentation slides used throughout the discussion:
EKM JC Slides: Learning Styles
Thank you to all who attended the journal club. The next Elizabeth Kenny McCann Scholarship of Teaching and Learning journal club will be held on Tuesday, June 17th at 12pm in room T182. Cookies will be provided. Please RSVP to Erendira if you plan to attend.
In a related blogpost Bernie discusses learning styles and the persistence of educational neuro-myths here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/realscience/2014/06/07/neuromyths-in-education-why-do-they-persist/
