While reading this review of learning styles, I got the impression
of a series of struggling living bodies strapped to the laboratory
bench for dissection. You could be forgiven for thinking that the
purpose of this review was not to understand a range of learning
style approaches, but rather to debunk them under the cold hard
glare of academic rigour (alongside the odd additional article
in the press). This is a pity, since while I agree that the field
is littered with sloppy thinking and inadequate research, we have
a great deal more to gain from understanding the approaches than
from attempting to destroy their credibility. I should, however,
probably begin by admitting personal and professional interest.
As Head of the Division of Dyslexia, Literacy and Learning Styles
at the LLU+, London South Bank University, I cannot be considered
impartial. Even more incriminating, I have created my own learning
style approach and am mentioned in dispatches (as it were) in this
review . However, paradoxically, this is a reason why I would agree
with much of what this review argues. After all, I would not have
taken the time and trouble to invent my own conceptualisation of
learning styles and how to begin to identify them if I had been
overwhelmingly impressed by any one of the many others.
When placing the 13 models singled out on the academic rack, a
number of criticisms are applied across the range. However, some
of these, are rather missing the point. For example, a central
criticism is that very few of these models can be shown to have
test re-test reliability. This is an important test for statistical
analysis, but I will argue, much less important for learning styles.
It is true that some models make claims about such reliability
and it is only fair to test these claims. However, others do not.
Indeed, one of my own misgivings, apparently shared by the reviewers,
about most such tests, "tools", or "inventories" is
that they are based on questionnaires and can therefore only provide
a snapshot based on self awareness. I would argue that many learners,
particularly those most vulnerable in an educational environment,
have poor self-awareness about their learning styles, strengths
and weaknesses. Consequently, it could be seen as a significant
strength if their views changed during a learning style approach.
Test, re-test reliability is therefore not a valid test of the
effectiveness of a learning style approach. One might almost say
the opposite. It depends on whether the initial test is intended
to define the characteristic of a learning style, or to begin a
process whereby the learner understands their learning style. In
my view, the latter is an essential part of the approach and one
that, in my experience, most teachers prefer. It is a process done
with learners, not to them. It should not be merely a labelling
process. However, I would agree with the review that many of the
models intend it to be and this is always problematic.
The second major criticism, with which I would agree, is that
many of the approaches fail to be clear, or disagree, about what
the consequences of such initial assessments should be. For example,
some argue that it is important to develop areas of weakness identified
in the learning style "inventory", others that it is
important to use strengths to compensate for weaknesses. Others
that awareness itself leads to better learning (or teaching). My
own view is that working with strengths is always more effective
than working on weaknesses, but that initial impressions of what
these are need to be tested through learning activities. The review
is critical of approaches which “limit” the learning
to preferred styles. Again, this is missing an important part of
the learning process involved here. It is important to start with
your preferred approach before addressing the learning through
less preferred approaches. Many learning style practitioners argue
that information is best received through the individual’s
preferred learning style. It is a question of order, rather than
limitation. Getting this right is empowering, getting it wrong
can be devastating for the learner, particularly for those most
vulnerable in our educational institutions. However, all that matters
in the end is that learning (as well as teaching) becomes self-reflective
and therefore more capable of improvement.
Tied to this criticism, is the underlying critique, that learning
styles approaches decontextualise learning from social structure
and the forces of socio-economic background. Again, this criticism
is somewhat misplaced, as this can be levelled at almost any pedagogic
approach. It was very interesting to see Bernstein presented as
a comparison. I worked with Bernstein in the 1970’s as a
Ph.D student. Indeed it was my suggestion that his conceptual tools
of “classification” and “framing” could
be used beyond the analysis of pedagogic practice to an analysis
of social class itself. It was this, if I say so myself, which
enabled Bernstein to develop a theoretical framework that was capable
of analysing pedagogy within the context of social structure, power
and control. However, this was a theoretical perspective and not
based on research evidence. Indeed, I would suggest that a research
review of the evidence would be even more problematic than this
has proved to be for learning styles. Nevertheless, as a sociologist,
I would agree that it is extremely important to recognise that
socio-economic background remains a pivotal concept in understanding
the learning experience. We know, for example, that despite massive
expansion in the HE sector, the percentage of students from lower
socio-economic background has changed not at all in the last 50
years. This is a fundamental failure of widening participation
of epic proportions. No-one has discovered a method of changing
this. However, I would argue that a (generic) learning styles approach
offers fresh hope that we can challenge this social determinism.
My argument runs like this. IQ tests correlate with socio-economic
background because that is precisely what they tend to measure.
However, as teachers, our expectations of individual learners remain
constrained by our perception of “fixed ability”. There
is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that students we believe have
high ability are consequently successful, those we believe have
low ability tend not to be. However, a learning styles approach
offers a way out of this mental cul-de-sac. It offers an alternative
explanation that failure is a result of a mismatch between learning
style and teaching strategy. In my experience, once teachers experience
a single learner, that somewhere in their hearts they had written
off, suddenly blossoming due to a small change in their teaching
strategy, they can never explain low achievement as low ability
again. Something changes at a very fundamental level in their perceptions
that a mere intellectual argument cannot begin to challenge. I
would also argue that once a learner experiences the difference
between successful and unsuccessful learning, and recognises why
this has occurred, they can never continue to be passive recipients
of knowledge again either. Consequently, despite this review's
criticism that learning style approaches are apolitical, I would
argue that they can have a radicalising effect of unparalleled
proportions. Particularly when those from "non-traditional" backgrounds
might be more vulnerable to the mismatch between learning style
and teaching strategy than middle class learners.
Part of applying academic rigour and analysis to the range of
learning styles models is to ask such questions as how can we know
that any effect of an intervention is caused by what we think (or
believe) it to be caused by? Questions such as these are useful
academic questions. They are less useful to practitioners who merely
want to make a difference and are unperturbed by what factor is
the most significant. Career academics work on the principle of
critical analysis and subjecting the evidence to scrutiny and ensuring
that conclusions drawn are beyond reasonable doubt. To do otherwise
is to “lack rigour” and make themselves vulnerable
in the competitive world of academia. Practitioners are trying
to do something substantially different. They are trying to make
a difference on the basis of the balance of evidence. In short,
they need to take risks. To extend the legal metaphor, the problem
with this review is that practitioners feel like they are being
told they are guilty until proved innocent. This does not lead
to research based practice, but the application of “safe
solutions”.
It would be very interesting to see a research review of “chalk
and talk”, for example, and compare the results. It seems
to me that almost any “research review” of specific
teaching methods will provide very little evidence that it works.
As practitioners we have to compare these strategies and make choices.
In this context the review highlights the importance of feedback.
Few teachers would disagree with this. However, I would argue that
a learning styles approach can, for example, make the feedback
more effective by making it more meaningful to a wider range of
learners. Almost all practitioners blend a range of strategies
and approaches. My experience is that a learning styles approach
can make this more coherent and focused for both the teacher and
the learner.
Another problem with the review is that in its apparent desire
to discredit learning styles, it occasionally overstates the case
that can be made from the evidence (or lack of it). For example,
it criticises the research undertaken by the LLU+ (before my time)
claiming that there was no benefit to the intervention group. This
is incorrect. There was a disappointingly small, but statistically
significant benefit. This was particularly significant when it
was discovered that the intervention groups had a much higher percentage
of ESOL learners than the control groups. In these circumstances
we would not have been surprised if the intervention groups would
have done less well than the control groups. Moreover, the qualitative
evidence was extremely positive. Students made many statements
such as:
“…it was different this time, it was good fun.”
“It makes you remember stuff more easily (than writing)… when
you do it for yourself you just remember it more than copying it
down.”
“…I learn from the group when I won’t forget
but the teacher teaching most of it I forget the content.”
Teachers comments included:
“They appear to be in general more motivated and enthusiastic
when their learning styles are being catered for.”
“It shows that it actually works when they have been able
to take in that information.”
“…It’s a slightly more complex task but they
actually seemed to grasp it….”
“I was really impressed with them today, I really was….”
“F is quite weak and I was surprised…(she) made the
most progress in the group.”
“I was really pleased in the end….even the weaker
ones…produced quite a bit in a written summary and did it
quite well.”
“Relationships notably improve.”
These are not insignificant findings.
Learning style practitioners rarely publish their research and
this can leave too little to review. I would suggest that it is
likely that most of the “best” practice is at FE level,
while most of the “best” research is done at HE level.
However, it is a new and burgeoning area of practice and research
and there is much more to be done. My own (unpublished) screening
of students at New College, University of Southampton included
indicators of socio-economic background, academic skills and learning/cognitive
styles. A factor analysis concluded that 47% of the variance of
academic achievement could be explained by the strength of preference
for thinking visually or verbally (about twice the apparent predictive
power of socio-economic background). One of the difficulties of
analysing the relationship between learning styles and social class
at HE level is that so few from lower socio-economic background
can be found in HE. The samples become too small. Consequently,
if for no other reason, we need more research in the FE sector.
Indeed, we need to encourage more practice and better funded research
into learning styles so that we can get to the bottom of extremely
exciting practice from a research perspective.
Like these reviewers I would agree that there are problems of
inadequate methodology, commercial interests, inconsistencies and
ill-conceived models and methods of identification. It is also
full of invention, imagination, excitement, hope and new possibilities
in what can only be described as a rather tired educational arena
that has failed to challenge the self-fulfilling prophecies of
educational failure for learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
In this context, it is essential that such “reviews” are
not allowed to discredit the approach. We need more invention and
risk taking as well as better research to unlock our education
systems.
Dr Ross Cooper, Assistant Director, LLU+, Head of Dyslexia, Literacy
and Learning Styles Division, London South Bank University.
|
