(another) Review of Learning Styles

I’ve got to provide an overview of an internal review of ‘learning styles’ this week, and I’ve decided to try to provide something positive that people can use. I know most of this stuff has been said before, but for those new to teaching and learning I hope there is some stuff here you can use to develop your approaches. Many of the points in “Principles of better lesson design” are from Hattie’s latest work (2012)

A group of staff were asked to address the question: “Are we really teaching in a way that promotes effective learning for individual students amongst each of our students, given the sea change in technology and young peoples’ differing backgrounds, skills, attitudes and aspirations?”
The author reviewed the contested issue of learning styles and considered how best to address the need for students to learn in different ways. It was intended that a set of strategies or guidelines could be formulated to help teachers plan and deliver their lessons in ways that would better engage students and enhance learning. An extensive literature search was performed to identify relevant sources to inform the review. The main reports and recent experimental studies were critically analysed, and the key themes that repeatedly emerged across studies were identified. A bibliography of documents consulted appears at the end of this document.

Conclusions: Using Learning Styles

There is no adequate evidence base to justify the use of ‘learning styles’ or brain-based learning approaches that have been used in teaching. These tend to categorise people, or they are used inappropriately to make decisions on teaching strategies.
Staff should not be using learning styles questionnaires to categorise, label or otherwise ‘organise’ students. Integrating learning styles assessments into educational practice and organising teaching and learning around the results is unlikely to impact student outcomes in a meaningful way and is not considered best practice. Tutors would be better advised to plan learning around pedagogical practices that have a strong evidence base.

Why not use ‘learning styles’ in the classroom?

There is a lack of credible independent evidence to support the assertions made about the wide range of learning styles currently available;

The self selection questionnaires used to identify a dominant or preferred ‘learning style’ are unreliable and cannot demonstrate test-retest validity;

Self selection questionnaires are not sampling learning behaviour but learners’ impressions.

The ‘learning styles’ approaches have been refuted by significant independent research and analysis from researchers in England, Wales, the USA and New Zealand eg Coffield (2004), Howard-Jones (2007), Geake (2007), Pashler et al (2008) and Hattie (2012).

Planning for learning

Based on 15 years research involving over 50,000 studies, Hattie (20012; 51) suggests that lesson planning should include five essential components: Challenge, Confidence, High expectations, Commitment, and Conceptual understanding.

Planned lessons should;

Invoke appropriate challenges that engage students’ commitment to invest in learning;

Capitalise on and build on students’ confidence to attain the learning intentions;

Be based on appropriately high expectations of outcomes for students;

Lead to students having goals to master, and encourage them to invest in their learning; and

Have learning intentions (aims) and success criteria (outcomes) that are explicitly known by the student.

(Hattie (20012; 51)

In order to guide tutors to moving towards these principles, a set of guidelines have been drawn from the research.

Principles of better lesson design

1. Start your planning by asking “How can they learn this?” – not “How can I teach it?”
2. When designing a lesson have clear Aims (the learning intentions) and Outcomes (the success criteria).
a. Learning intentions for any lesson need to include a combination of surface, deep and conceptual goals.
i. Surface Learning: Accepting new facts and ideas (content) uncritically and attempting to store them as isolated, unconnected items.
ii. Deep Learning: Examining new facts and ideas (content) critically, and tying them into existing cognitive structures and making numerous links between ideas.
iii. Concept Learning: Building conceptual understanding of new facts and ideas (content) and using this in future learning.
b. Both the teacher and the student must know where the lesson is going.
c. Have a way of knowing that the desired learning has been achieved (the success criteria or outcome). This does not mean knowing if and when the students complete the activities, but knowing whether they gain the concepts and understanding relative to the lesson’s intentions.
d. Consider stating the purpose of the lesson so that students can see how it relates to other lessons, activities or assessment tasks.
3. Keep each activity (or learning episode) to about 10 minutes before doing something different.
4. Identify additional easier and harder learning tasks that keep all students on track longer.
5. Pay attention to each student’s abilities, talents and interests.
6. Decide what is really important in what you are teaching, and teach it and convey it in different ways. There is no need to classify students into different ‘intelligences’.
7. Use multiple ways of teaching, and offer many ways of learning:

Provide abstract and conceptual tasks requiring thinking

Allow time for self study and introspection

Find ways of creating interaction with other students

Get students thinking about tasks, and discussing, working and sharing with other students

Use individual, pair, small group and whole class activities

Involve speaking and listening in the lesson – and not just from the teacher

Find ways of using rhythm & sound

Create opportunities for movement and physical activity

Use drawings and imagery to illustrate the teaching, and for learners to show their learning

Find ways to involve and use of examples from nature
(based on Gardner (1999) and Hattie (2012))

Bibliography

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say in practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.
Entwistle, N.J., & Ramsden, P., 1983. Understanding Student Learning. Croom Helm, London.
Gagné, R. M., 1965. The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Gardner, Howard., 1999. Intelligence Reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century, New York: Basic Books.
Hattie, J., 2009. Visible Learning; a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement Routledge, London.
Hattie, J., 2012. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning Routledge, London.
Howard-Jones, P., Pickering, S., & and Diack, A. 2007. Perceptions of the role of neuroscience in education. The Innovation Unit, London.
Marton, F., and Saljo, R. (1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D.J. Hounsell and N.J. Entwistle, (eds.), The Experience of Learning. (2nd. edn.), Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & and Bjork, R., 2008. Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI). 9,3, 103-116

How to cite this blog:
Trangmar, R., (2012) Teaching and Learning for 21st Century Learners. [online] Available from: http://yrathro.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/another-review-of-learning-styles/ [Accessed 17 March 2012]

You can download a PDF file from here: 21cTeachingAndLearning_LearningStyles_2011v3

… and always, keep an eye on Steve Wheeler’s blog here …

Still using learning styles to guide your journey?

I keep finding evidence of learning styles being used in my place, and the associated college down the road. Maybe people are just outdated or don’t read enough. The latest work from Pashler et.al is as persuasive as Coffield’s work. The difference is that Pashler is based in the USA where most of the left-right brain stuff has ‘credibility’. Perhaps we can bury this set of fantasies for ever now?

“We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice.” (p105 in the summary – in the italics which took some time for me to read)

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

and not forgetting Coffield’s work: (Download without registering)

https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/login.aspx?code=041543&P=041543PD&action=pdfdl&src=WEBGEN

Using Learning Styles in the classroom; Sound teaching or psycho-babble?

“We must move. . . towards creating an appropriate learning environment; concentrate on understanding better how people learn so that they can be better helped to learn . . . redesigning the very processes of learning, assessment and organisation so as to fit the objectives and learning styles of the students” (Tomlinson 1996;4).

It is not presently known to what extent learning styles inventories are used by staff across our College. The author has used the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Entwistle’s ASSIST, Marton and Säljö’s Deep and Surface Learning and McCarthy’s 4MAT system as well as several other lateralised brain dominance models such as VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in management and teacher education courses over the last ten years. The most common models probably found in the college are Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences, with some lesser use of Myers-Briggs (management courses), Entwistle, and Marton and Säljö (teacher education). Many of the inventories originally designed in the United States tend towards a physiological framework based on brain lateralisation and dominance; UK designed frameworks tend towards a psychological structure based on cognitive choices.

Research into Learning Styles
Coffield et al (2004a, 2004b) undertook a thorough and systematic approach of the literature and models associated with learning styles, and found 71 models, of which 13 could be classed as major styles. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 44 (Coffield et al 2004; 139). Coffield et al’s work was critical of the models found and explored the lack of engagement of researchers with theories other than their own, and the large commercial industry that had grown up around particular inventories. There was also criticism of the application of inventories.

“Many teachers use the most well-known instruments with explicit acknowledgement of the source and a clear idea of why they have chosen a particular model. However, it is also common, particularly on in-service training, management or professional development courses, for participants to analyse their learning styles using an unnamed questionnaire with no accompanying explanation or rationale. In many ways, the use of different inventories of learning styles has acquired an unexamined life of its own, where the notion of learning styles itself and the various means to measure it are accepted without question. Mainstream use has too often become separated from the research field. More problematically, it has also become isolated from deeper questions about whether a particular inventory has a sufficient theoretical basis to warrant either the research industry which has grown around it, or the pedagogical uses to which it is currently put.” (Coffield, 2004b; 2).

Coffield et al were also critical of the use of the various instruments. In many cases the tests were being administered uncritically and in isolation, and in ignorance of their original purpose. In some cases the tests were being used for psychometric profiling, yet the original research indicated that this was not how they should be used. Most of the tests were based on simple self-report questions which relied on the respondent’s ability to categorise their own behaviour accurately and objectively, and to give objective yet socially acceptable responses. Amongst Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) findings is the important statement “we therefore advise against pedagogical interventions based solely on any of the learning styles instruments” (my emphasis). The statistical analysis of the test results, based on possible unreliable test questions also raised questions over any validity of the test results.

Research studies presented at the Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference (Cardiff 2-3 July 2007) described peer-reviewed and statistically valid research into brain activity using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanning technology (Geake, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2007). This showed that the concept of left-right brain activity was a myth as from the images and tests conducted, it could be seen that most of the brain is involved during learning activities. Although some centres of the brain are more active than others during certain processes, there is no brain lateralisation occurring depending on the teaching or learning activity being undertaken, and neural connections occur across the whole of the brain. Other work being conducted at Swansea University using electro-encephalograms (EEG) supports these findings.

Following the author’s return from the Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, he was given an unsourced summary document titled ‘Recommendations for institutions inspected (published reports only – 4)’ . Key question 2, point 3 indicated that tutors should ‘use the information on learners’ preferred learning styles to set more differentiated tasks in lessons’. This clearly goes against Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) advice and also against earlier research from Curry (1987; 17 in Coffield et.al, 2004b, 153) who stated that;

“The poor general quality of available instruments (makes it) unwise to use any one instrument as a true indicator of learning styles … using only one measure assumes [that] that measure is more correct than the others. At this time (1987) the evidence cannot support that assumption.” (my emphasis)

A brief Google search on “Estyn + VAK” discovered a report to Conwy Learning and Creativity Scrutiny Committee (James, 2007) that gives an indication of the possible misuse of a learning style assessment. The background paper suggests that;
“All Conwy schools are addressing the gender issue with regard to the performance of the boys by implementing elements of the following strategies:
Recognition of each pupil’s VAK (Visual and Kinaesthetic) style and that boys respond better to kinaesthetic learning styles.” (James, 2007; 7)”
It could be suggested that this assessment is perpetuating gender stereotyping by supporting the myth that ‘boys are better with their hands’. The only thing that the psychologists agree about is that a primate’s brain tends more towards visual activity. Another example from the Further Education sector is the assertion by another college’s training manager that ‘taking their staff through the Herrmann Brain Dominance Training will get the quality of learning and teaching from Good to Outstanding’ (Witheld, 2007).
In Coffield et al’s there is a specific reference to OFSTED and ALI (2004b; 135).
“OFSTED and ALI – although neither inspectorate appears to have an official view on learning styles, reports on particular institutions reveal simplistic assumptions about learning styles as the basis for judgements about ‘good practice’; these assumptions need to be re-assessed in the light of our report.”

Snake Oil or Something Else?
The Teacher Education team at College (and elsewhere) use Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences in the construction of sound frameworks for teaching and learning. VAK and Accelerated Learning frameworks are used in the management of behaviour through providing a wide variety of different teaching methods. Another College is putting great emphasis on HBDI training for staff and students. It is felt that the use of these approaches (and their alleged success) rely more on a varied and balanced repertoire of teaching and learning activities, and the impact of a more motivated teacher than any possible psychological base. It is also possible that a positive feedback loop created through success in the classroom is being associated with the new strategies, and to deny the use of the strategies might demotivate a committed member of staff. For these reasons it is felt that the strategies be continued, but that staff are made aware of their correct use and the limitations of the chosen strategy.

What is concerning, and there is not yet any evidence that this is taking place within our College (although there are indications that it occurs elsewhere), is where learners are tested and then labelled as (ie) ‘Visual’ or ‘Pragmatists’ and then only taught according to their perceived strength.

At this stage, we are trying to make sure that learning styles information is used within the limitations suggested through Coffield’s work. There is also a progress of educating staff as to the limitations of learning styles tests and the possible damage that could be caused through the use or misuse of an unreliable instrument. What is important is to encourage staff to use a balanced and varied range of teaching activities.

References
Biggs, A., 2000. Promoting Learning Styles Analysis among vocational students. Education and Training, 42, 1, pp16-23
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004a. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say in practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. (84 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041540.aspx)
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004b. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (182 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041543.aspx)
Geake, J., 2007 ‘Neuroscience and Neuromythology’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
Howard-Jones, P., 2007 ‘Education and Neuroscience: approaching collaboration in the UK’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
James, G., 2007 Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee Report, 18th January 2007. Conwy County Borough Council. Downloaded from http://www.conwy.gov.uk/E_MINUTES/e_post2002/e_scrutiny/e_learning/e_reports/010_Schools%20Test%20and%20Exam%20Perf%20Report.pdf 12th July 2007
Tomlinson, J., 1996 Inclusive Learning: The Report of the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Committee, FEFC, Coventry.

(first posted at http://eduspaces.net/trangwales/weblog/471876.html October 9 2008)

Using Learning Styles in the classroom; Sound teaching or psycho-babble?

“We must move. . . towards creating an appropriate learning environment; concentrate on understanding better how people learn so that they can be better helped to learn . . . redesigning the very processes of learning, assessment and organisation so as to fit the objectives and learning styles of the students” (Tomlinson 1996;4).

It is not presently known to what extent learning styles inventories are used by staff across our College. The author has used the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Entwistle’s ASSIST, Marton and Säljö’s Deep and Surface Learning and McCarthy’s 4MAT system as well as several other lateralised brain dominance models such as VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in management and teacher education courses over the last ten years. The most common models probably found in the college are Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences, with some lesser use of Myers-Briggs (management courses), Entwistle, and Marton and Säljö (teacher education). Many of the inventories originally designed in the United States tend towards a physiological framework based on brain lateralisation and dominance; UK designed frameworks tend towards a psychological structure based on cognitive choices.

Research into Learning Styles
Coffield et al (2004a, 2004b) undertook a thorough and systematic approach of the literature and models associated with learning styles, and found 71 models, of which 13 could be classed as major styles. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 44 (Coffield et al 2004; 139). Coffield et al’s work was critical of the models found and explored the lack of engagement of researchers with theories other than their own, and the large commercial industry that had grown up around particular inventories. There was also criticism of the application of inventories.

“Many teachers use the most well-known instruments with explicit acknowledgement of the source and a clear idea of why they have chosen a particular model. However, it is also common, particularly on in-service training, management or professional development courses, for participants to analyse their learning styles using an unnamed questionnaire with no accompanying explanation or rationale. In many ways, the use of different inventories of learning styles has acquired an unexamined life of its own, where the notion of learning styles itself and the various means to measure it are accepted without question. Mainstream use has too often become separated from the research field. More problematically, it has also become isolated from deeper questions about whether a particular inventory has a sufficient theoretical basis to warrant either the research industry which has grown around it, or the pedagogical uses to which it is currently put.” (Coffield, 2004b; 2).

Coffield et al were also critical of the use of the various instruments. In many cases the tests were being administered uncritically and in isolation, and in ignorance of their original purpose. In some cases the tests were being used for psychometric profiling, yet the original research indicated that this was not how they should be used. Most of the tests were based on simple self-report questions which relied on the respondent’s ability to categorise their own behaviour accurately and objectively, and to give objective yet socially acceptable responses. Amongst Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) findings is the important statement “we therefore advise against pedagogical interventions based solely on any of the learning styles instruments” (my emphasis). The statistical analysis of the test results, based on possible unreliable test questions also raised questions over any validity of the test results.

Research studies presented at the Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference (Cardiff 2-3 July 2007) described peer-reviewed and statistically valid research into brain activity using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanning technology (Geake, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2007). This showed that the concept of left-right brain activity was a myth as from the images and tests conducted, it could be seen that most of the brain is involved during learning activities. Although some centres of the brain are more active than others during certain processes, there is no brain lateralisation occurring depending on the teaching or learning activity being undertaken, and neural connections occur across the whole of the brain. Other work being conducted at Swansea University using electro-encephalograms (EEG) supports these findings.

Following the author’s return from the Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, he was given an unsourced summary document titled ‘Recommendations for institutions inspected (published reports only – 4)’ . Key question 2, point 3 indicated that tutors should ‘use the information on learners’ preferred learning styles to set more differentiated tasks in lessons’. This clearly goes against Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) advice and also against earlier research from Curry (1987; 17 in Coffield et.al, 2004b, 153) who stated that;

“The poor general quality of available instruments (makes it) unwise to use any one instrument as a true indicator of learning styles … using only one measure assumes [that] that measure is more correct than the others. At this time (1987) the evidence cannot support that assumption.” (my emphasis)

A brief Google search on “Estyn + VAK” discovered a report to Conwy Learning and Creativity Scrutiny Committee (James, 2007) that gives an indication of the possible misuse of a learning style assessment. The background paper suggests that;
“All Conwy schools are addressing the gender issue with regard to the performance of the boys by implementing elements of the following strategies:
Recognition of each pupil’s VAK (Visual and Kinaesthetic) style and that boys respond better to kinaesthetic learning styles.” (James, 2007; 7)”
It could be suggested that this assessment is perpetuating gender stereotyping by supporting the myth that ‘boys are better with their hands’. The only thing that the psychologists agree about is that a primate’s brain tends more towards visual activity. Another example from the Further Education sector is the assertion by another college’s training manager that ‘taking their staff through the Herrmann Brain Dominance Training will get the quality of learning and teaching from Good to Outstanding’ (Witheld, 2007).
In Coffield et al’s there is a specific reference to OFSTED and ALI (2004b; 135).
“OFSTED and ALI – although neither inspectorate appears to have an official view on learning styles, reports on particular institutions reveal simplistic assumptions about learning styles as the basis for judgements about ‘good practice’; these assumptions need to be re-assessed in the light of our report.”

Snake Oil or Something Else?
The Teacher Education team at College (and elsewhere) use Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences in the construction of sound frameworks for teaching and learning. VAK and Accelerated Learning frameworks are used in the management of behaviour through providing a wide variety of different teaching methods. Another College is putting great emphasis on HBDI training for staff and students. It is felt that the use of these approaches (and their alleged success) rely more on a varied and balanced repertoire of teaching and learning activities, and the impact of a more motivated teacher than any possible psychological base. It is also possible that a positive feedback loop created through success in the classroom is being associated with the new strategies, and to deny the use of the strategies might demotivate a committed member of staff. For these reasons it is felt that the strategies be continued, but that staff are made aware of their correct use and the limitations of the chosen strategy.

What is concerning, and there is not yet any evidence that this is taking place within our College (although there are indications that it occurs elsewhere), is where learners are tested and then labelled as (ie) ‘Visual’ or ‘Pragmatists’ and then only taught according to their perceived strength.

At this stage, we are trying to make sure that learning styles information is used within the limitations suggested through Coffield’s work. There is also a progress of educating staff as to the limitations of learning styles tests and the possible damage that could be caused through the use or misuse of an unreliable instrument. What is important is to encourage staff to use a balanced and varied range of teaching activities.

References
Biggs, A., 2000. Promoting Learning Styles Analysis among vocational students. Education and Training, 42, 1, pp16-23
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004a. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say in practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. (84 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041540.aspx)
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004b. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (182 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041543.aspx)
Geake, J., 2007 ‘Neuroscience and Neuromythology’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
Howard-Jones, P., 2007 ‘Education and Neuroscience: approaching collaboration in the UK’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
James, G., 2007 Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee Report, 18th January 2007. Conwy County Borough Council. Downloaded from http://www.conwy.gov.uk/E_MINUTES/e_post2002/e_scrutiny/e_learning/e_reports/010_Schools%20Test%20and%20Exam%20Perf%20Report.pdf 12th July 2007
Tomlinson, J., 1996 Inclusive Learning: The Report of the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Committee, FEFC, Coventry.

(first posted at http://eduspaces.net/trangwales/weblog/471876.html October 9 2008)