Sense of Style — i.e. Learning theories

Fashion icon, Iris Apfel. 

Style is everything. 

Learning styles, in this case.

I should start by admitting that the concept doesn't always sit well with me. It often bugs me and I'm tempted to ask it to go and sit elsewhere.

I understand: in our culture we champion individuality. I should get to do whatever I want so long as I don't prevent y'all from doing the same — yes, I used y'all. In Spanish we have a pronoun for it, two actually, and English used to have one too, which means that I'm just bringing it back in style. And if you don't like it...

As I was saying, we're all about our idiosyncracies, life choices, points of view. If I want to wear this; eat that; join a certain subculture; write with an excessive use of examples and digressions, it is my god-given right to do it. And I also understand that no teacher — or parent — can deny that children tread through in different ways and at different rates, which renders the traditional one-size-fit-all approach to education anachronistic and narrow. We don't want that. And yet, I cannot help but ask, is all this scrambling to design for every individual style a sound pedagogical way forward?

It isn't like I intend to rebut the great Howard Gardner's charge against the autocracy of the logical-mathematical intelligence in Education. Nor would I dare to disagree with Kolb and Dunn & Dunn on how different people respond to different stimuli and that ignoring such preferences would be a gross oversight. I even welcome being expected to plan out of my comfort zone. What bothers me is this perennial hunch that herding students into the visual, aural, kinesthetic, or any compartmentalised style is like drawing a perimetre on how they can learn, when we should instead encourage them to realise the many other ways they might.

It certainly doesn't help that every time I've taken a learning style test (which I have done many times, oddly enough) my results should have displayed a different combination of styles and rates. I wouldn't dare to say that the questionnaires are faulty or the theory flawed — just yet — but I often wonder: 1) could it be that learning styles are environmentally conditioned rather than innate? and, 2) if that should be the case then, what about my upbringing or schooling had a hand in my diverse results?

There is a third issue I often wonder about. It is the fact that one's perception of one's preferred learning styles may or may not accurately reflect reality. I am aware, for example, that previous assessments have often influenced the answers I've chosen in subsequent ones only to return even more astounding results. What I mean is this: I may not know myself as well as I thought, and assessing tools (formal or informal) might not accurately inform us of how people truly learn best.

There is so much there, I know.

I decided to unpack it. And maybe even experiment with my students.

The Science of learning styles

Given that I couldn't conduct rigorous experimentation on my Department's budget, I turned to Science. Specifically, sources focusing on the effect of the learning style theory in classroom tools and learning outcomes. Unsurprisingly, I soon found myself in a bit of a theoretical minefield.

A quick scan of the literature shows numerous proponents in favour, against and somewhere in the middle. Those effusively rooting for it, like Larkin et. al (2002), abound in evidence on the many ways learning can take place and iterate Dunn's assertion that, once properly determined via the correct assessment tool, "a match between a student’s style and a teacher’s style will lead to improved student attitudes and higher academic achievement." (cited by Larkin, 2002, p.2). In reading any of the thousands of papers praising LS, one is easily swept away by the current of optimism. The problem arises however, where the overwhelming consensus regarding attitudinal benefits is eclipsed by a growing debate around the cognitive merits of the theory and its promise of exponential academic growth.   

Those on the skeptic side, like Pashler et. al. (2009), insist that assessment tools are unreliable and usually classify people into types rather than offer levels for each style. Most shockingly, the swell in detractors reveals that even if ample research is devoted to people exhibiting preferred ways to receive information, no experimental methodology has been used to test how the theory lands in practical terms; how is it applied and whether it has any effect in creating new knowledge. In fact, while the concept of learning styles has been almost universally embraced, there is virtually no evidence to substantiate the claim that tailored planning has any direct effect on improving learning outcomes.

Somewhere in the middle there is a compromise: voices like that of Cindy May (2018) warning us against seeking theories that inform us what type of person we are rather than embracing these ideas as methodological suggestions. In her look at the current map of the learning styles discussion, she proposes a change in terminology: thinking of them as "learning strategies" rather than styles. Her point is well made by referring to a recent experiment by Husmann and O’Loughlin (2018), where 400 students were assessed with the VARK for both learning styles and study strategies with contradicting results. The disassociation between their choices and behaviour indicated that students are often unaware of what is truly effective for them and, in practice, will naturally gravitate towards strategies unlike the learning styles they explicitly identify with. 

Even if this seems discouraging, her bottom line is not. As highlighted in her article for Scientific American, May points to the fact that Cognitive Science has succeeded in identifying learning procedures beneficial to students pretty much across the board: spacing their study, experiencing knowledge in various ways, self-testing, and elaborating on materials to find meaningful connections, among others. Methods that are backed by decades of empirical evidence and recent neurological research.

So, does that mean that we should ditch the LS for being a passing fad?

Not just yet. There's something of value in a proposition that is highly wearable in practice. This is, even if it isn't the be all and end all of how we learn best, teaching with learning styles in mind could still be useful for developing best teaching practices. And let also keep in mind that Multiple Intelligences and learning styles are often brought to the table together but are ot the same. Apples and pears, they are. For more on that, have a read of Valerie Strauss' adamant exploration, and distinction, in this Washington Post article.

My two cents on style

Upon reflection, I am glad that I decided to follow my doubts about learning styles down this critical path. Not just because it validated some old concerns but because it helped me to see them in a new light.

Perhaps the idea of learning styles has become so popular because of how they amplify the thinking of teachers, rather than students. And the successes many researchers have noticed in terms of achievement might be best explained by the variety in classroom activities, rather than their specificity. If anything I know from my decidedly empirical but prolonged research it is that students want to explore different ways to learn. To express their individuality in the strategies they adopt and to consolidate and deepen knowledge by tackling their learning from different angles. Likewise, I am aware that considering LS has served me well by forcing me to practice lateral thinking. In approaching the same topic in various ways I have discovered myself more creative and provided students with broader, deeper learning experiences.

And it could well be that it is this proactive view where the value of learning styles lies for us educators. In using them as learning and teaching strategies with the potential to free our minds and put wings on ideas, rather than boxes where to squeeze our students and their brains.

Now, I don't know about you but that is an idea I can happily make my own.

Takeaways:

• Learning styles is a popular but increasingly controversial idea in education.
• They pose the risk of segregating learners rather than integrating learning.
• Only testing can determine a learner's style, but tools are contradicting and have become a thriving global business.
• Research shows that students are often unaware of the strategies they actually use to learn.
• A better approach is to see them as learning strategies that may enrich the learner's experience.

Have anything to say? Leave a comment below. 

References:

Cassidy *, S. (2004). Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834 

Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2018). Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles? Disparities among Undergraduate Anatomy Students’ Study Strategies, Class Performance, and Reported VARK Learning Styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777

Krauts, A., & Samita. (2019). Learning style preferences among adolescent students. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 6(2), 305i–312i. http://www.ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_20543742.pdf

L Larkin, T., Feldgen, M., & Clúa, O. (2002, November). A Global Approach to Learning Styles. F1F, 9–14. 

May, C. (2018, May 29). The Problem with ‘Learning Styles’. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x