What the resource is:
This influential report by the Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC) undertaken in 2005 critically reviews the literature on learning styles and examines in detail 13 of the most influential models. The report concludes that it matters fundamentally which instrument is chosen. The implications for teaching and learning in post-16 learning were reported as being serious and of concern to learners, teachers and trainers, managers, researchers and inspectors. The report was aimed at post 16 education but the findings are applicable to all other phases of education where ‘learning styles’ approaches have been applied or suggested.
The aims of the resource:
The review sought to answer the following questions:
- What models of learning styles are influential and potentially influential?
- What empirical evidence is there to support the claims made for these models?
- What are the broad implications for pedagogy of these models?
- What empirical evidence is there that models of learning styles have an impact on students’ learning?
Key findings or focus:
The review recognises the intuitive appeal of learning styles across education which the authors suggest has arisen in recognition of the fact that “that students vary enormously in the speed and manner with which they pick up new information and ideas, and the confidence with which they process and use them.” P 7 However, in their review of the research one key finding is salutary:
“There is not a single theory of cognitive or of learning style which is supported by evidence from longitudinal studies of stylistic similarities and differences in twins.” p 18 In other words the many different theories of learning styles are not supported by the research. The notion of learning styles is an over simplification and needs further critical examination.
The authors suggest that problems arise from the interplay of three factors; the theory, the pedagogy and the commercial activity arising from the marketing of learning style inventories and interventions. The review identifies 71 models of learning styles with 13 of these being dominant. The research underpinning learning styles tends to be a large number of small scale studies with small samples of students in specific contexts. Few studies were robust enough to offer clear implications for practice. Within pedagogy there is little theory building linking to the emerging evidence bases. “The commercial gains for creators of successful learning styles instruments are so large that critical engagement with the theoretical and empirical bases of their claims tends to be unwelcome.” P 8 This has accompanied their unquestioned use in professional development sessions which in turn has influenced classroom practice. Theory has become detached from practice in a process of over simplification that ignores what is known or still needs to be researched about teaching and learning.
At its extreme, some advocates of learning styles suggest that they are a fixed characteristic and that certain socio- economic groups have learning styles which are so fixed that teaching interventions should focus only on maximizing the effective use of the learning style that the learner has rather than teaching new styles. In contrast others believe that they are learned dispositions and that learning is context specific and so are subject to change.
The report critically examines the claims made for different learning style models according to a range of validity, reliability and generalisability measures.
In addition, the report identifies a possible myth in education that may have arisen from an uncritical interpretation of learning styles. That of modality matching where it is assumed that a learner who is identified as having a strength in processing in one modality should by taught mainly in that modality.
Rourke et al (2002) found that “There is substantial evidence for the existence of modality-specific strengths and weaknesses (for example in visual, auditory or kinaesthetic processing) in people with various types of learning difficulty”. They continue “However, it has not been established that matching instruction to individual sensory or perceptual strengths and weaknesses is more effective than designing instruction to include, for all learners, content-appropriate forms of presentation and response, which may or may not be multi-sensory.”
The authors then state that the research of Constantinidou and Baker (2002) found that pictorial presentation was “advantageous for all adults tested in a simple item-recall task, irrespective of a high or low learning-style preference for imagery, and was especially advantageous for those with a strong preference for verbal processing.”
So perhaps, Confucius was right, A picture can be worth a thousand words or perhaps one dance sequence. Incidentally, Douglas Adams famously countered this in that one word can conjure a thousand pictures. The report is also critical of assumptions that reading can be viewed as a largely visually activity as it can stimulate engagement with a vast range of meanings.
The quality, authority and credibility of the resource:
This is a large and influential study undertaken by reputable researchers that provides a highly credible critique of learning styles and an industry that it has come to dominate and depend upon.
The implications for ITE tutors/mentors:
Perhaps learning styles has encouraged false expectations of how learning may be enabled. It appeared to make the process of assessment and teaching simpler but at a significant cost for the learner in that he or she may be labelled and then allocated certain learning experiences on the basis of the label. There is currently no research on the impact of being labelled as a kinaesthetic learner on long term educational outcomes. Many courses already have modules that encourage a strong engagement with ‘how teaching enables learning to occur based upon strong educational evidence that recognises the richness and diversity of learner characteristics.’ This report may be a useful resource in this respect.
The renewed emphasis on multi agency working as a consequence of the every child matters and youth matters agendas might be an opportunity for shared course modules with social work, health and psychology. In this context, the psychology modules could enhance existing coverage and help counter the intuitive over simplification that ‘learning styles’ can engender.
The relevance to ITE students:
This report is a powerful critique of learning styles. Students are keen to understand the complexities of teaching and the learning styles approach has been superficially attractive as a way forward. Time spent investigating the theory and practice of assessment for learning within and across subjects, personalisation and differentiation may be more fruitful in the immediate and longer term.
Reviewed by:
Mike Blamires
Keywords
Learning characteristics, learning styles, learning differences. Personalisation. differentiation.LSRC
Find out more
Coffield, F. ,Moseley, D. , Hall, E. & Ecclestone.K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning
LSRC
Archived on TTRB3 at:
Related Articles
- KS3/4 Modern Foreign Languages: Assessment for Learning & Peer Assessment
- Personalised learning
- Secondary Assessment – Assessment for Learning: Questions and Answers
- Literature Review of E-assessment
- Personalised Learning and Pupil Voice: The East Sussex Project
- The role of teachers in the assessment of learning
2002 QTS Standards
S2.4 Understand physical, intellectual, linguistic, social, cultural and emotional development, S3.2.1 Make appropriate use of a range of monitoring and assessment strategies
