I was first exposed to the concept of learning styles during an AmeriCorps training I attended in my early 20’s. I had been hired as a crew leader, and part of my job was training other AmeriCorps members during structured pre-service training as well as on-the-job during service projects. During my crew leader training there was a PowerPoint presentation that discussed learning styles in regard to understanding why crew members might not “get it” – “it” being whatever was being taught – during their training.
The three learning styles presented were visual, verbal, and kinesthetic. They were clearly presented as learning styles, not preferences.
I also recall there was mention of linear versus global learners, with the former individual learning best when information is presented in a linear, logical fashion, and the latter individual having “ah ha” moments (a.k.a learning) only after having enough types of information to see the shape of a topic or being able to connect the dots of information, so to speak. In retrospect, the global learner seems like what Brown et al. (2014) refers to low-structure builders, in that it takes that individual longer to see the underlying frameworks of novel material, thus resulting in the “ah ah” moment long after high-structure builders have grasped and created a coherent mental model of the material. During this training, learning styles were presented as a normal fact of life.
The three learning styles presented were visual, verbal, and kinesthetic. They were clearly presented as learning styles, not preferences.
I also recall there was mention of linear versus global learners, with the former individual learning best when information is presented in a linear, logical fashion, and the latter individual having “ah ha” moments (a.k.a learning) only after having enough types of information to see the shape of a topic or being able to connect the dots of information, so to speak. In retrospect, the global learner seems like what Brown et al. (2014) refers to low-structure builders, in that it takes that individual longer to see the underlying frameworks of novel material, thus resulting in the “ah ah” moment long after high-structure builders have grasped and created a coherent mental model of the material. During this training, learning styles were presented as a normal fact of life.
Fast forward several years to my second key encounter with learning styles. I was completing a Professional Train-The-Trainer certificate program and the University of MN. I dug out a certificate workbook and sure enough, there is a section on learning styles. I even found the learning styles inventory I took as part of the coursework. The title of that module was Learning Style Preferences, which is more in line with what research indicates – that we all have preferences about how we interact with and learn material (Pashler et al., 2009, Brown et al., 2004). Yet, below the module title there is some conflicting information. The instructor defined learning styles preferences as “The way learners concentrate on, process, and retain new and difficult information. A biologically and developmentally imposed set of personal characteristics that make the same teaching method effective for some students and ineffective for others” (Bialek, 2015). This seems to indicate there is a biological difference in all learners, not just in folks who have dyslexia or other neurophysiological differences that affect information processing (Brown et al., 2014). That definition also states that if the instructional methods does not match the learner’s style, learning will be less effective. As I have come to understand, this is a myth unsupported by research (e.g., Pashler et al., 2009). To add another layer of confusion, the workbook lists the advantages of knowing your own learning style, including heightened self-awareness of your strengths and weakness as a learner in order to take control of your learning. This is very similar to the advice that Brown et al. (2014) provides but is based in an incorrect understanding of what learning styles are and are not, despite the inclusion of the word “preferences” in the module title. So, myth mixed with truth or at least reasonable advice on understanding one's own learning preferences.
Even though I do not specifically recall using learning styles to design training during my time as a crew leader and later as I advanced into a more formal and regular training role, it probably did influence me to some degree because it is so prevalent. There is an abundance of information on learning styles on the internet. You cannot run a search about training tools or resources without encountering this idea, and the mere frequency makes you want to believe it’s true. Learning styles is also an easy heuristic for beginning trainers to use, which probably contributes to its attractiveness. The concept provides a model for incorporating several instructional techniques, which can be helpful to learners, but not because individuals can only learn best in a certain “style”.
Bialek, T. K. (2015). Design and develop training solutions. University of Minnesota.
Brown, P. C., Rodedinger, H. L. III, McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Belknap Press.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Comments
Post a Comment