Category Archives: learning styles

Why does the idea of learning styles persist?

I have written elsewhere on my blog about this question. Over the past decade (plus) I have reviewed what must be hundreds of applications for HEA/ AdvanceHE fellowships, supported applications and taught on postgraduate certificate courses. However, despite the work of Coffield et al (2004) published two decades ago the idea of learning styles seems to be a prevalent as ever.

Over the past decade (plus), I have reviewed what must be hundreds of applications for HEA/AdvanceHE fellowships, supported applications, and taught on postgraduate certificate courses. However, despite the work of Coffield et al. (2004) published two decades ago, the idea of learning styles seems to be as prevalent as ever. (See also Pashler et al 2008).

I’ll start by saying this blog post is partly speculative and partly autobiographical.

The first peer-reviewed education paper I ever published referenced learning styles in the context of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity (Canning, 2005). That paper examined the idea of disciplinarity with regard to quality assurance and its challenges for interdisciplinary area studies courses. I not only accepted that students have learning styles, but also that each discipline is likely to be more suitable for some learning styles than others (Bradbeer, 1999, p. 388). It would therefore follow that interdisciplinary courses might be problematic if they incorporated different disciplines which support students with different learning styles.

Bradbeer (1999, 394) concludes:

Barriers to interdisciplinarity arise because of differences in disciplinary epistemologies, discourses and traditions of teaching and learning. Students also bring to bear very different learning approaches and styles. Some of these learning styles are much more adaptive to particular disciplinary knowledge structures than others. Students face a number of bewildering challenges as they first try to adapt to their chosen area of specialisation, then to move between it and other disciplines and finally to be able to work equally effectively in them all.


As a newcomer to educational development at the time, I sought to read widely around a range of pedagogic subjects. As an ‘immigrant’ to the discipline of education, I was aware that there was a lot I did not know. I searched the education literature looking for the works of Kolb and Honey and Mumford – to my amazement, I did not find anything. I had assumed these much-discussed theorists would have produced a substantial peer-reviewed literature, but there was nothing to be found. Just because something does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal does not automatically make it wrong of course, but a lack of peer-reviewed articles surprised me.

Although originating in the 1970s, ideas of learning styles seem to have taken off in a big way after I left school in the 1990s. I did not come across the idea until I started working in higher education. I had not picked up on the idea during my university career up to that date, but it seemed to be the ‘big thing’ in education pedagogy. However, 20 years later, why am I still reading AdvanceHE fellowship applications with references to learning styles?

  • I suspect that people write things like ‘I tailor my teaching practices to reflect different learning styles’ because they think that is what the people marking the applications want to read. The great thing about the idea of learning styles is that it comes across as very inclusive and ethical. I suspect they really mean is that they use a variety of teaching methods.
  • Newer (and not so new) academics are of a generation that were sold the ideas of learning styles and were encouraged to believe they have a learning style. It was interesting hearing a teacher refer to my son as a ‘kinaesthetic learner’ because he didn’t like sitting still and preferred walking around.
  • They may have been recently taught or mentored by people who told them that learning styles are a thing—this is the one that worries me most. However, there is no shortage of well-meaning references to learning styles on university webpages and plenty of psychology and educational websites promoting the idea.
  • They are intellectually committed to the idea of learning styles, despite being presented with evidence about the challenges. This is the one I find most unlikely. There are still academics operating in the space of learning styles and learning patterns (e.g., Vermunt and Donche, 2017), but I have never seen Vermunt’s work referenced by those writing about learning styles.

Does it actually matter if teachers of students ‘believe’ in learning styles? Continue reading Why does the idea of learning styles persist?

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

The problem with learning styles.

I wrote the text here for our PGCertificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) participants. It can be shared and edited if you find it helpful (Creative commons licence).

The video by Dr Paul Penn (University of East London) is available from YouTube.

You may have come across the idea of learning styles, either as a student or as a teacher. You may have heard of students being described as 'visual learners' or 'kinaesthetic learners'. You may have taken a test which purports to help you identify your learning style and discovered that you are an 'auditory learner', a visual learner, a 'kinaesthetic learner', an activist or a pragmatist,. Common learning styles tests include VAK, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory and Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ).

At first glance the idea of learning styles is attractive one --after all, it is perfectly reasonable to state that people learn in different ways. Moreover, if as teachers we can identify the learning styles of our students, then surely adapting our teaching for different learning styles will increase the chance of them being successful?

In 2004 Coffield et al were able to identify 71 (!) models of learning styles and deeply analysed 13 of these. The number of learnings style inventories alone ought to be a matter a concern for us. It is clear that they can't be all right. Moreover Coffield et al identified a lack of independent evidence for any of these.

Additionally, identifying yourself or another person as a particular sort of learner can be very self-limiting. If you take on an identity that you are a certain type of learner you start to believe that you are unable to learn in any other way. If we label ourselves and others as having a particular learning style, then we are really limiting the possibilities of what we might be able to learn.

The Coffield report runs to 182 pages, but Paul Penn's three minute video provides a short overview of the key issues (contains mild swearing).

Reference

Coffield, F. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Creative commons:
Creative Commons Licence
The problem with learning styles by John Canning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://johncanning.net/wp/?p=2574.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Learning styles: Why does the idea persist?

One the interesting things about teaching on a PGCert in Learning and Teaching in HE and supporting experienced staff though their HEA Fellowships is observing the continuing stickiness of the idea of ‘learning styles.’ I see lots of references to colleagues stating that they adapt (or try to adapt) their teaching practices to suit students in accordance with their “learning styles” (Reference Myers-Briggs, Honey, and Mumford, VARK etc.).

An awareness that not all students learn in the same way is important, but the idea that each student is a certain ‘type’ of learner is somewhat problematic. If you studied in the 1990s or 2000s you may have been encouraged to take a test to find out your learning style or you may have been told that you are a ‘kinaesthetic learner’ or a ‘visual learner’. Some of the best known inventories of learning styles include Myers-Briggs, Kolb and Honey and Mumford, and some colleagues purport to use these.

In 2004 Frank Coffield and others produced a report which analysed 13 learning style inventories in depth and referenced many more. The fact that there are so many choices of learning style inventories would probably indicate that they cannot all be correct. As well as putting pressure on the teacher to adapt their teaching to take into account every possible learning style, the idea of being a ‘visual learner’ or a ‘kinaesthetic learner’ can be self limiting for students too – if they think they learn in a certain way they can be closed to the possibilities of learning in different ways, or may not seek to develop in areas they feel weaker in.

15 years after Coffield I’ve not done much in the way of finding out why such strong belief in learning styles continues to persist, but some ideas has emerged in talking to colleagues. One theory is that the students who were tested and categorised into these different learning types are now the teachers and are bringing these ideas into their classrooms. Secondly, there remains an industry around learning styles with vested business interested. Thirdly there are educationalists, psychologists and others whose beliefs in learning styles persist.

Many are quite surprised when I tell them about Coffield et al’s report as they assumed that learning styles is an inherent part of the good practice. Rather than getting cross about this, most seem surprisingly relieved and liberated when they find out the idea has been found wanting.

As noted above rejecting the idea of learning styles does not means that mean that we accept that everyone learns in the same way.

  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • StumbleUpon