I am glad that I was finally able to read a scholarly article about why learning styles are not an effective means to think about learners. I had often been told that the idea of learning styles is not valid and should not be paid attention to, but no one had ever said why that is so. This article clearly lays out results of a literature review, and can lend credence to why this method is not appropriate.
It does seem that the fact that there are learning preferences is an important distinction. Sure, I could learn something if I really put my mind to it and have the motivation for it, no matter how terrible the format. Yet, how satisfying is this learning experience, and how likely am I as a result of this experience to want to learn more? The authors of this review seem to have left out this idea of student satisfaction, and I would like to see a review of how having something match up to your learning preference affects your satisfaction. It seems to be well proven that the meshing theory does not lead to better grades or assessment results, but if it does lead to more satisfied students who are more likely to transfer their new knowledge to other areas and build more of an enthusiasm for the subject matter or for learning in general, than it does seem to be worthy of the time, money, and effort required to match teaching methods to learners’ preferences.
Another interesting item that this article brought to mind is the fact that people may have preferences and think that they will learn better with one type of teaching method, but this does not always end up being true. I recently read an article in Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet, which is a compilation of articles about web conferencing and other ways of communicating “face-to-face” while online. One interesting article by Walther (2011) discusses how many people think that they would prefer to collaborate and discuss in a face-to-face online environment, but it turns out that it is not as effective and they are not as satisfied. People think that face to face discussion allows for more visual cues, facial expressions, tones of voice, etc., which would lead to more friendly feelings and better understanding. Nevertheless, the author claims that video conferencing does not always allow us to see each other well enough to really read our visual cues, and Parkinson and Lea (2011), authors of another article, show that the delay involved with conferencing software can make communication even more difficult. Walther (2011) claims that we should not jump to using this software just because we think we prefer face-to-face communication. Do you agree? Personally, I find that I really enjoy the face-to-face class sessions we have online, although I do agree that the delay and the inadvertent interruptions we make because of it can be distracting. Nevertheless, even if I do not agree with them, they do make the point that sometimes what you prefer might not always be the best for communication or learning.
It also seems that sticking to learning styles can actually be limiting for students. If we agree with James’ belief that associations and connections are what help us learn, and that students need to assimilate and accommodate as Piaget and Vygotsky would say, wouldn’t that mean that each student will do that differently? Even if they are a “visual learner,” they might read something that reminds them of a song they like and connect it with something auditory. Just because they might prefer to look at pictures rather than read or hear rather than do does not mean that they cannot make connections with all of these different channels. As educators, we should try to provide as varied an approach as possible, even if we are in a class full of “auditory learners.” You never know when a particular image or sound or passage in a book is going to make a deep, meaningful, long lasting connection with a student. I think Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork (2009) said it best when they claimed:
Given the capacity of humans to learn, it seems especially important to keep all avenues, options, and aspirations open for our students, our children, and ourselves. Toward that end, we think the primary focus should be on identifying and introducing the experiences, activities, and challenges that enhance everybody’s learning. (p. 117).
References:
Parkinson, Brian & Lea, Martin (2011). Video-linking emotions. In Arvid Kappas & Nicole C. Kramer (Eds.), Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet (pp. 100-126). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.
Walther, Joseph B. (2011). Visual cues in computer-mediated communication: sometimes less is more. In Arvid Kappas & Nicole C. Kramer (Eds.), Face-to-Face Communication over the Internet (pp. 17-37). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hi Carly,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. We should not place our sole focus on learning styles in the classroom. Some students have more than one learning style but we need to make sure that the focus is on learning and not trying to specify if a child has one learning style. I believe that if we utilize various learning styles in the classroom students will begin to warm to many learning styles. But as noted in the article, there were no articles that gave conclusive evidence that teaching according to learning styles is an effective measure in the classroom. Overall, we need to teach our students so that they can learn and carry their knowledge with them as they go to other grade levels.
Carly - The point you raise in the second paragraph is a good one (and one that motivation researchers would likely endorse). In the human's total output, it could be that adapting to a learner's preferred style has direct benefits that are nonacademic such as fostering curiosity or a love of learning. This is worth keeping in mind.
ReplyDelete