Learning Styles: Final Paper

The following notes draw from material that was prepared to facilitate discussion in the Learning Styles session at the 2002 REC PI Meeting of 5/16/02 and from the discussion that occurred at the meeting. They reflect my personal impressions of work on the topic as informed by selective reading of the literature and by the comments of participants in the discussion. They are organized as suggested by the memo of 5/14/02 from Kathy Zantal-Wiener.

Current state of research

It is clear that people differ in many ways and, in particular, in ways that have implications for how well they learn. This fact has given rise to the concept of learning styles (Dunn & Griggs, 1988; R. Sims & S. Sims, 1995; Sternberg & Zhang, 2001; Wooldridge, 1995). The general notion is that people differ with respect to their style -- preferred or most effective way -- of learning. An auxiliary notion is that people learn best when the approach to teaching, and other aspects of the learning situation, are well matched to their style.

The idea that teachers should strive to develop approaches to teaching that match individual learning styles appears to be popular within the educational community (Geary & Sims, 1995; Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990; S. Sims & R. Sims, 1995), although the counter idea that deliberate mismatching should be done to promote flexibility and creative thinking also has its defenders (See Messick, 1994). Recognition of the importance of individual differences for learning is generally acknowledged to be a good thing, but the extent to which teachers should be expected to accommodate all those differences in their approach to instruction must be considered an open question. It may be that, in some instances, the goal should be to make the differences go away.

There are many claims of effectiveness of this or that approach to teaching in the literature, especially with respect to the accommodation of learning styles. Too often the claims are based on questionable data, or no data at all.

Summary of discussion

Several questions, from my notes of 5/9/02, "Learning Styles: What is a Learning Style? What Does it Matter?", were used as points of departure for the discussion. It was not possible -- perhaps not desirable -- to hold the discussion strictly to each of these questions in turn, but each question was mentioned during the course of the session and participants made comments that were germane to most of them. Here I will repeat the questions and give my sense of how comments related to them (undoubtedly interpreted and embellished by my own biases that were developed both by the discussion and the preparation of the notes beforehand).

What is a learning style?

The concept is vague. As used in the literature, the term appears to have a variety of connotations, some relatively specific and others sufficiently broad to encompass a wide range of personality traits, attitudes, preferences and other characteristics that distinguish one individual from another with respect to the effectiveness with which they learn.

How do learning styles correspond to related style concepts (e.g., cognitive, thinking styles)?

Some writers (e.g., Sternberg and Zhang, 2001) explicitly distinguish among learning styles, cognitive styles and thinking styles. Most writers do not make equally sharp distinctions. Most treat "learning style" and "cognitive style" as more or less synonymous terms. Many of the distinctions that have been made to categorize people with respect to cognitive styles -- field dependence versus field independence, reflectiveness versus impulsiveness, focused versus unfocused scanning, broad versus narrow categorizing, differences in styles of conceptualization (thematic-relational, analytic-descriptive, categorical-inferential), leveling versus sharpening, and converging versus diverging -- are often used to classify them with respect to learning sytles as well. There is perhaps some basis for treating learning styles as a subset of cognitive styles. Messick (1994) does this in his discussion of cognitive styles.

I am not aware of much being made of thinking styles, as distinct from from learning or cognitive styles, in the literature. There does, however, seem to be a fairly clear distinction between thinking and learning skills, or thinking and learning strategies. Perhaps this is partly because there is a research community that focuses on the development or teaching of thinking skills and strategies and another that focuses on learning skills and strategies. My sense is that there is more communication within than between these groups.

Are there identifiable different learning styes? If so what are they?

Many different learning styles have been identified, at least conceptually, in the literature, and a variety of learning style taxonomies have been proposed. One such taxonomy that seems to have been very influential is that of Kolb (1971, 1978; Smith & Kolb, 1985), according to which people differ with respect to two continua or dimensions: a perceiving, or doing-watching continuum, the ends of which are identified as active experimentation and reflective observation, and a processing or feeling-thinking continuum, the ends of which are concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. These continua, or dimensions, are typically referred to in the literature simply as the active-reflective dimension and the concrete-abstract dimension.

The four possible combinations of these characteristics -- active concrete, active abstract, reflective concrete, reflective abstract -- define a two-dimensional space of learning styles within which, any learner can presumably be located. The taxonomy appears to have been used to categorize learners in terms of the quadrant of the space where they best fit. The quadrants allegedly distinguish four styles: converging (defined by the combination of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation), diverging (concrete experience and reflective observation), assimilating (abstract conceptualization and reflective observation, and accommodating (concrete experience and active experimentation).

Numerous other taxonomies of styles have been proposed. For reviews, see Curry (1987), Riding and Cheema (1991) and Shipman and Shipman (1985). In the literature I was able to peruse, none was more conspicuous than Kolb's.

The fact that there are so many different competing proposals for classifying learning styles is worrisome, from a scientific point of view. One would hope that, if the concept is valid, research would lead to a convergence of views regarding the nature of the underlying reality.

The problem of reification was mentioned in our sesson. Taxonomies appear to be taken very seriously by some writers of teachers' guides and instructional material. They are treated not as hypothetical structures but as factual revelations of the way things are.

Can learning styles be assessed empirically?

Many instruments have been developed for the purpose of assessing learning styles. At least 32 had been published as of 1991 (Campbell, 1991). My sense is that the reliability and validity of many of these instruments have not been well established and that the different instruments may give rather different pitures of the styles that characterize a given learner.

Are learning styles innate, or are they acquired through experience? Can/should they be taught?

Some writers appear to believe that learning styles, whether innate or acquired, are relatively permanent and that, therefore, efforts should be made to tailor instruction to those styles. Others seem to believe that people can acquire learning styles, or modify those that they have, and that teachers should attempt to facilitate replacement of styles that do not work well with those that do.

Someone in our session pointed out the importance of recognizing the possibility that a learner's preferred style may not be the best style for him/her. Some (not all) writers seem either to have made the assumption that all styles are equally good, and that teachers should teach to a learner's style -- whatever that happens to be.

To what extent do learning styles differ as a function of gender, ethnicity, culture, age, etc.?

Many writers hold that members of different culturally or demographically delimited groups have somewhat different learning styles (e.g., Anderson, 1988; Dunn, Gemake, Jalali & Zenhausern, 1990; Kleinfeld & Nelson, 1991; Smith & Kolb, 1985; Zhang &Sternberg,2001). The opposite position is argued by Hilliard (1994).

What is the evidence that teaching to learning styles works?

Although there are many claims in the literature of the importance of matching teaching styles to learning styles and of the effectiveness of doing so, compelling empirical data substantiating those claims appear to be sparse. Most of the data that are presented as evidence of effectiveness are anecdotal and subject to more than one interpretation. I am not aware of any study done with sufficient control to rule out the possibility of effects stemming from the increased attention participating students receive, teacher motivation, or other sources of artifactual results.

It is extremely difficult to control for such effects in educational settings -- to do real "placebo" studies -- and in the absence of adequate controls, it is much too easy to read conclusions into results that are challengeable on various grounds. It is very hard to know how much of the effect of an educational innovartion is a consequence of such variables as the greater attention that students are receiveing, greater motivation and raised expectations of teachers and so on.

One suggestion that came out of our discussion was that teachers should play to learners' cognitive strengths. Said that way, it seems obvious. But of course it leaves the question of the extent to which strengths (or weaknesses) are attributable to styles as distinct from other variables (intelligence, curiosity, mental discipline, . . .).

A participant noted the possibility that style taxonomies (or models and theoretical constructs more generally) provide structure and guidance for teachers and may, for that reason, be helpful at least in some instances, whether scientifically valid or not. There seems to be little doubt that the concept of learning styles has had a sigificant impact on (some) teachers' thinking, whether or not it has affected the effectiveness of instruction.

Recommendations

There is a need to sharpen the distinction between learning styles and closely related concepts such as other style concepts (cognitive, thinking, . . .), attitudes, dispositions, strategies, preferences, . . . Much of the literature on the topic is vague and ambiguous. In particular, the distinctions that now exist are fuzzy at best, and this makes for more than a little confusion and obfuscation.

The theoretical status of the learning style construct needs clarification. A compelling demonstration that the construct has predictive value would go a long way toward establishing its scientific utility.

It would be good if the danger of taking any particular style taxonomy more seriously than the evidence of its validity justifies were more widely recognized.

The assumption that all styles are equally good should be challenged.

Some methodological questions deserve more attention than they have received, e.g., what should be taken as evidence of the existence of learning styles, as distinct from other variables that demonstrably affect learning?

If one takes the view that a person's learning style -- his/her characteristic way of approaching learning tasks -- is a function of several interacting variables (abilities, habits, inclinations, dispotions, beliefs, knowledge of learning strategies, . . .) what are the implications for research? For educational practice?

An implication of this view for research is the desirability of greater focus on the component variables -- on how they affect learning singly and interactively. A question that is prompted by this perspective is whether there is anything left over to account for when the effects of all the style components are taken into account.

There should be a search for points of leverage. What changes in conventional ways of instruction are likely to have the largest beneficial effects? It is important to acknowledge the possibility of expending time and energy on the wrong goals, and thereby incurring significant opportunity costs that may not be recognized as such.

There is a need for better controlled evaluation studies conducted by investigators without vested interest in the outcomes.

There should be more recognition of the possibility of misuse of the style concept, e.g., as a misdiagnosis of the basis of learning difficulties -- an excuse for failure that may be due to other causese, such as lack of motivation, lack of ability, lack of teacher competence, misallocation of energy or resources.

It is probably important to make a distinction between scientific and educational goals. The scientific goal should be better understanding of the learning process, development of a more adequate (predictive) theory of learning. The educational goal should be to provide more effective educational experiences, to do a better job of facilitating student learning. These goals are related, but they are not the same.

References

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 2-9.

Campbell, B. J. (July/August, 1991). Planning for a student learning style. Journal of Education for Business (pp. 356-358).

Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian College of Health Service Executives.

Dunn, R., Gemake, J., Jalali, F., & Zenhausern, R. (1990). Cross-cultural differences in learning styles of elementary-age students from four ethnic backgrounds. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 68-93.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Geary, W. T., & Sims, R. R. (1995). Adapting faculty and student learning styles: Implicatons for accounting education. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 117-127). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction: Making learning personal, empowering, and successful. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hilliard, A. (1994). How diversity matters: Insights on diversity. Kappa Delta Pi, p. 6.

Kleinfeld, J., & Nelson, P. (1991). Adapting instruction to Native Americans' learning styles: An iconoclastic view. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 22, 273-82.

Kolb, D. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1978). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Messick, S. (1994). Cognitive styles and learning. In T. Husén & N. V. Postelthwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (Second Edition, Volume 2) (pp. 868-872). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.

Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.

Shipman, S., & Shipman, V. C. (1985). Cognitive styles: Some conceptual, methodological and applied issues. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Volume 12). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (1995a). Learning enhancement in higher education. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 1-24). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Sims, S. J., & Sims, R. R. (1995). Learning and learning styles: A review and look to the future. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 193-210). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Smith, D., & Kolb, D. A. (1985). User guide for the learning-style inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L-F. (2001). Preface. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. vii-x). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/college instruction: Integrating the results of learning style research into course design and delivery. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (49-67). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Zhang, L-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, =and cognitive styles (pp. 197-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Postscript

As a means of stimulating thinking, the following form was distributed to participants at the beginning of the session, with an invitation for those who wished to do so to fill it out and turn it in sometime durring the conference:

Please assign a number to each of the following factors to indicate your view of its relative importance as a determinant of the efficiency and quality of learning. If you think a factor has no effect on learning, assign 0 to it. The only rule is that the (non-zero) numbers assigned to any two factors should indicate the relative importance of those factors in your view. Suppose, for example, that you assign numbers to Factors A, B, C and D as follows:

6--Factor A
30--Factor B
12--Factor C
6--Factor D

This would mean that you think B is 5 times as important as A, that C is twice as important as A, and that B is 2.5 times as important as C, that A and D are equally important, etc. The factors are grouped into those that relate to the learner, those that relate to the teacher and those that relate to other variables, which I will refer to as "contextual". They are listed alphabetically in each category. Note that the factors are not all mutually independent, so this scheme is not statistically copacetic, but we will use it anyway. Add as many factors in each category as you like.

Please assign numbers to indicate your view of the relative importance of the three types of variables.

___ Learner
___ Teacher
___ Contextual

Nine participants filled out the form. (Three identified themselves as researchers, two as teachers or professors, two as both researchers and teachers orm professors, one as a psychologist, and one did not identify him/herself. Two teacher-professors also mentioned being parents of school-aged children.) Later I normalized the numbers assigned to each form (forced them to add to 1.0) and pooled them to produce aggregate ratings. Those ratings, multiplied by 1,000 to get rid of the decimal points are presented below. (The numbers in the table actually add to 1,022 because of rounding errors and the fact that not every participant rated every item.)

The data are too sparse, of course, and the conditions too informal to justify any very precise conclusions, but perhaps it is worth noting that the most important factors, according to this little poll are:

• 44 Interest in subject (by learner)
• 43 Intrinsic motivation (of learner)
• 41 Enthusiasm for teaching (of teacher)
• 40 Parental/home support 38 Knowledge of subject (of teacher)
• 37 Interest in subject (of teacher)
• 37 Time on task

The least important factors, in decreasing order of importance, again according to this non-scientific poll, are:

• 25 Values/attitudes (of teacher)
• 24 Teaching experience
• 24 Teaching style (TS)
• 23 Learning style (LS)
• 23 Match btw LS (student) and TS (teacher)
• 22 Knowledge of ed theory
• 22 Technology

Participants were also asked to assign numbers to indicate their views of the relative importance of the three types of variables (learner, teacher and contextual). The results of their pooled assignments, normalized to 100, were as follows:

• 40 Learner
• 28 Teacher
• 32 Contextual