“An additional reason to abandon learning styles” – teachers and pupils do not agree on the pupils’ preferred learning style

34372257313_7291897a62_b-2.jpgBy Christian Jarrett

“Learning styles” – there can be few ideas that have created such a stark disconnect between the experts on the ground and the evidence published in scholarly journals. Endorsed by the overwhelming majority of teachers, yet dismissed by most psychologists and educational neuroscientists as a “neuromyth”, the basis of learning styles is that people learn better when taught via their preferred learning modality, usually (but not always) described as either visual, auditory or kinaesthetic.

Many studies have already uncovered serious problems with the learning styles concept, such as that measures of learning styles are invalid and that students do not in fact learn better via their preferred modality. Now further evidence against learning styles comes from Greece, in one of the first investigations on the topic to involve primary school pupils.

Writing in Frontiers in Education, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou and her colleagues report that teachers and pupils did not agree on the pupils’ preferred learning modality – a significant blow for the learning styles concept since “teachers typically adopt learning styles within a classroom context by relying on their own assessment of students’ learning styles.”

The study was simple enough – nearly 200 fifth- and sixth-grade pupils (average age 11 years) from five schools chose which was their preferred learning style out of visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. They also completed a short IQ test (the Raven’s matrices). Next, their teachers – 19 took part – first provided an open-ended answer to the question “Does teaching that is tailor-made to the students’ learning style reinforce the students’ performance?”, then they were asked to identify each of their pupils’ favoured style (such that each child was rated by one teacher).

All of the participating teachers endorsed the concept of learning styles. However, there was not a statistically significant correlation between the teachers’ judgments of their pupils’ favoured learning style and the pupils’ own declaration of their preference. “We posit that identifying preferred learning style can be a hit-and-miss process, with no agreement between the assessment made by teachers and students,” the researchers said.

There was also no association between the teachers’ judgments of pupils’ learning style and the pupils’ IQ, suggesting the teachers were not using IQ as a proxy for learning style.

A weakness of the study was that the teachers were not asked specifically about the kind of learning styles approach they used or favoured, so it’s possible they were not familiar with the visual, auditory, kinaesthetic breakdown, though this seems unlikely since this so-called VARK model is the most popular.

Papadatou-Pastou and her team concluded that “… if the identification of learning styles … is unreliable, as evidence by the findings of the present study, this should constitute an additional reason why teachers should abandon the use of learning styles in instruction.”

The Learning Styles Educational Neuromyth: Lack of Agreement Between Teachers’ Judgments, Self-Assessment, and Students’ Intelligence

Image via JoanDragonfly / Flickr

Christian Jarrett (@Psych_Writer) is Editor of BPS Research Digest

6 thoughts on ““An additional reason to abandon learning styles” – teachers and pupils do not agree on the pupils’ preferred learning style”

  1. Perhaps rather then abandoning learning styles completely, teachers could have a discussions around LS with their students, in a more shared-decision making manner…? It still leaves the scepticism around the measures and validity of the LS however, but could go some way in alleviating this disconnect. Also, the students’ “preferred” learning style may not necessarily equate to their most “efficient” learning style, would have been useful to see how this would have been captured and what that means in practice.
    I used to think I was a kinaesthetic learner because I felt I was “doing” the learning – but now I realise it was the process of self-elaboration (having read your other article) that actually facilitating and the embedded my learning, rather than any one learning style – which is useful to think about!

    Thanks for this 🙂

    Like

  2. Is this THAT surprising? Research on the experience of learning shows that the perception of the receipt of information and the memory thereof is consistently inconsistent. In Karpicke and Roediger III (2008), the participants anticipated marks ranging by about 5% as the outcome of four different ways of learning, but the actual marks varied by ~45%.

    In addition, the idea of the experiencing self and the remembering self could appear here as ‘what the student thinks their learning style is’ (the experience of learning) and ‘what the teacher perceives their learning style to be’ (what is actually learned).

    Like

  3. Rather than abandoning learning styles, all teachers and presenters of important information should develop expertise in conveying information in a variety of styles. I do not want to return to the flawed idea that teacher as lecturer and student as passive recipient is “real” education.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s