Views & Opinion
Education is still failing students by pedalling debunked learning styles
Comment by ELIZABETH ELLIS, Head of School of Digital Education at Arden University
Gaining momentum in the 70s, the learning style theory suggests that different students learn best when information is presented to them in a particular way. The most frequently referenced styles referenced are visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic, which assume that some individuals learn best by: looking at pictures, listening, or through hands-on activities. The assumption that students have distinct learning styles and learn
best through these channels has influenced teacher practice for decades; this is despite there being a lack of evidence that such styles even exist within learners and pose any individual benefits when adopted.
The general consensus is that some people learn in different ways because of how their brains work, i.e., some are more of a “right brain” (creative) person or “left brain” (analytical) person - this notion is incorrect. Research does show that different types of information are processed in different areas of the brain. However, the brain is interconnected; this means that as soon as one modality (e.g. sight) is activated, others are too. So, while it’s true that learners express preferences about how they want to receive information, scientists say this is nothing to do with how the brain works and how it retains that information. Despite the fact there is ample evidence proving learning styles to be a myth, worryingly, a study shows that a substantial majority of educators, almost 90%, from samples all over the world in all types of education, reported that they believe in the efficacy of learning styles, notwithstanding the fact that a learner could be at risk of being pigeonholed and consequently lose their motivation as a result.
Why do educators believe in learning styles? As noted in research by Willingham et al., the proposed ‘solution’ of using learning styles has been to create categories of learners based on their unique learning styles. For many, learning styles offer a middle ground between treating every student the same way and treating every student uniquely.
Once exposed to all these seemingly reliable (or at least not overtly unreliable) ways to learn, confirmation bias - the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs - could easily support and maintain the belief that learning styles are a viable method. For example, if a teacher was helping a student struggling with a concept and tries a few different ways of explaining it but to no avail, but then decides to draw a diagram and the idea clicks, it is natural for the teacher and student to conclude that the student must be a visual learner. But perhaps it was an effective way to
20
www.education-today.co.uk
communicate that idea and any learner would have benefited from the diagram.
A second possible reason for widespread belief is the confusion between ability and style. Most researchers agree that ability is multifaceted, and that people vary in these abilities. From there, it is a short step to the idea that weakness in one ability can be supplemented with strength in another through the presentation of content, where in fact trying to improve access for all abilities through an approach such as universal design for learning would be more constructive and beneficial.
The harm in learning styles
Adopting the learning style method can cause more harm than progress, including: the creation of unwarranted and unrealistic expectations among educators; matching a student to a learning style could waste time and resources, and it could potentially demotivate students.
The learning style theory can enhance self-limiting beliefs – particularly for students who have had prior poor formal education experiences. Adopting a learning method or a particular label such as ‘visual learner ‘or being ‘right-brained/ left-brained’, can plant the idea for a student that they can’t, and will never be able to learn unless information is presented in a particular way.
Ironically, learning styles can also prevent students from taking ownership of their learning, as the responsibility shifts back to the teacher and their ability to present information in the required format for that student. And if information given in the preferred method, such as via audio for a supposed auditory learner, is not retained by the student, it could potentially demotivate the learner and allow them to believe they are incapable of learning that material and thus struggle with the subject – when in fact, another explanation or method dissecting the learning material may be needed and may help.
Developing more inclusive learning
Prioritising inclusive pedagogies that recognise, value, and support all students to succeed is vital. This can be done via multiple means of engagement through activity design, representation, or through action and expression. By focussing on ‘learning design’ throughout the educational journey educators can not only consider students’ current levels of knowledge and ability, but also focus on the skills and knowledge they would want them to have by the time they finish the class/programme. It offers an important baseline that builds in elements that are universal, including digital skills, capability, graduate outcomes, and authentic assessment. There are a plethora of learning design frameworks and approaches that can be applied to learning experiences, from a 5-minute microlecture to a 4-hour online workshop. Frameworks such as UCL’s Conversational Framework and its attendant ABC method provides educators with a stage which can be populated by the dialogue of educator with student, put into action with a range of activity types that allow students to engage with topics in multiple ways. This steers away from the idea that students need to engage in specific, simplistic styles to acquire knowledge. Instead, incorporating learning design frameworks
continued on page 21 November 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
