One of the more popular learning-style theories is based on the notion that students learn better through one of the following presentation methods: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (i.e., seeing, hearing, or doing). This theory states that students can learn with all of these methods but have a strong inclination toward one style. So, auditory learners will learn best by hearing information, visual learners by seeing visual representations of information, and kinesthetic learners by doing a physical activity. However, I have often felt, as Professor Willingham claims in his short video, “Learning Styles Don’t Exist,” that the current theories of individual learning styles, as they are often applied to individual learners, are misguided.
One argument for the popular visual-auditory-kinesthetic line of reasoning is that we know memories can be stored in all three formats (Willingham, n.d.) and, furthermore, that some people have better visual recall, some people have better auditory recall, and some people have better kinesthetic recall. We can see these sense memories at work in, for instance, an artist who draws a picture from memory, a singer who matches pitch from memory, or a dancer who performs dance steps from memory. However, the problem with equating the quality of a learner’s specific sense memories to a specific learning style is that it doesn’t account for the actual material to be learned.
The majority of subjects taught in schools are concept or meaning based knowledge and, therefore, not stored as sense memories (Willingham, n.d.). A sense memory may include the specific images used in a presentation, the tone a teacher used to lecture, or even how badly your hand cramped writing an essay with a pencil, but the sense memory will not contain the actual concepts taught in the lesson. Understanding comes from the student’s ability to grasp the concepts presented. The concept, lesson, or material to be taught has a greater impact on appropriate teaching style than a student’s perceived tendency toward a learning style does. Some material specifically lends itself to visual learning, some to auditory, some to kinesthetic. Let’s look at the game of baseball before we come back to the meaning-based subjects of the classroom.
Generally accepted notions of learning theory tell us that visual learners will learn to play baseball by watching the game played, auditory learners by hearing the game explained, and kinesthetic learners by playing the game. I think most people would recoil from this notion and feel that the only way to learn to play baseball is to actually play baseball, but here too we would be making a broad generalization that doesn’t take specifics into account. Without too much debate, we may readily agree that batting and fielding fundamentals are better suited to kinesthetic learning activities. But what about positions on the field? What about specific rules of the game? Batting averages? ERAs? We might be better able to deliver this material with diagrams or verbal explanations, respectively. The point is that we should let the material dictate the appropriate method of presentation. If we go back into the classroom, this fact becomes even more apparent.
As I said before, the majority of subjects taught in schools are concept or meaning based. And if concepts and meaning are not stored as sense memories, then it is illogical to assume that a student’s ability with a particular sense memory should dictate the presentation of material. If a teacher is presenting a visual concept, maybe surface area or volume in geometry class, then it makes sense to use visual aids, but that visual aid will still need some verbal explanation and may also benefit from some physical activity. And we may run through this same argument for material that lends itself to auditory or kinesthetic learning methods. Again, we see the material, not the student’s preference, determines how we present the material, but by attempting to work in all three domains, we can do our best to ensure students’ understanding and retention of the material.
One of Willingham’s (n.d.) major points is that a student’s personal preference (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) for a specific presentation style or activity does not have any real influence on retention, understanding, or true learning. Studies cited by Medina in Brain Rules (2008) and studies conducted by Pashler et al. (2008) all corroborate the notion that personal preference, or perceived learning style as currently practiced, has no bearing on how well students learn.
Medina (2008) states outright that “vision trumps all other senses” (p. 221) and that “vision is probably the best single tool we have for learning anything” (p.233). He cites several studies to back up his claims, but the one I found particularly interesting was the study where retention was measured 72 hours after information was presented only orally, only visually, and both orally and visually. The results showed that people retained 10% of the information presented orally, 35% of the information presented visually, and 65% of the information presented both orally and visually (Medina, 2014, slide 3). A proponent of learning style theory would have assumed that retention would be based on learning style: students with an auditory preference would have retained more auditory information, etc. However, this was not the case. Regardless of learning preference, visual trumped auditory, and both taken together almost doubled the retention of visual-only presentation.
We also have the results of Pashler et al. (2008) who published their results in a 117-page paper in a peer reviewed psychology journal. Their conclusion was this:
Our review of the literature disclosed ample evidence that children and adults will, if asked, express preferences about how they prefer information to be presented to them. There is also plentiful evidence arguing that people differ in the degree to which they have some fairly specific aptitudes for different kinds of thinking and for processing different types of information. However, we found virtually no evidence for the interaction pattern mentioned above, which was judged to be a precondition for validating the educational applications of learning styles. Although the literature on learning styles is enormous, very few studies have even used an experimental methodology capable of testing the validity of learning styles applied to education. Moreover, of those that did use an appropriate method, several found results that flatly contradict the popular meshing hypothesis.
We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all. Further research on the use of learning-styles assessment in instruction may in some cases be warranted, but such research needs to be performed appropriately. (para. 4 & 5)
This conclusion came from four PhDs from four different universities. Medina and Willingham each have a PhD. And still the majority of people insist on responding to the “Learning Styles Don’t Exist” video as if Willingham were some kind of lunatic who doesn’t know what he is talking about. No scientific method has validated learning style theory. On the contrary, everything I have been able to find shows that empirical research has disproved learning style theory as currently espoused in the majority of education circles. As I stated earlier, we must let material dictate teaching style. But, by using a multimodal approach, we can do our best to ensure our students have every opportunity to grasp the material we present.
References
Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules: 12 principals for surviving and thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Willingham, D. (n.d.) Learning Styles Don’t Exist [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thoughts?