So, Are There Different Learning Styles?
When I was finishing my teaching credential, one entire class hinged on the idea of different learning styles. There was a self assessment we received that allowed us to pinpoint our best learning style of three major ones–auditory, visual, or tactile-kinesthetic. Most of the class identified as visual learners, and the teacher pointed out that most teachers are, in fact, visual learners. That’s why we tend to present information in a visual fashion, and that’s why we fail to reach many of our students. We learned to use movement or flash cards that students could touch for those who learned better in tactile and kinesthetic ways. We learned that students who are auditory learners would often ask more questions and need repetition.
All of this knowledge fundamentally changed the way I approached teaching and my level of patience with students. The only thing that sort of bothered me about the learning styles was seeing how teachers in this particular class I was taking started to pigeon hole themselves, as in, “See, I’m a visual learner, so this other thing just doesn’t make any sense to me.” I thought that those folks were probably just a little too suggestible.
As it turns out, I might have been highly suggestible myself. The entire idea that there are different learning styles has actually never been scientifically demonstrated. I could have sworn it seemed true, but Mommy Myth Busters have just busted it.
We’ve all grown up being told that we learn better in different ways: some by doing, some by seeing, some by hearing… This notion supported by the very real feeling that we do, in fact, absorb information better in some learning environments than in others. Well, the Association for Psychological Science now says that learning styles are all a bunch of hooey. They have reviewed all recognized studies that claim that a “visual learner” or an “auditory learner” exists, and have concluded that those studies “have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.” That being said, it is still entirely possible that “learning styles” actually do exist, but basically what APS has declared is that nobody has ever sufficiently proven it.
Anecdotally, I can say that as a teacher, using different methods to teach not only seemed to work, it just seemed like simple common sense. Of course people learn differently, right? However, as a skeptic, I look back at my whole hearted acceptance of this notion and I’m a tiny bit embarrassed. I mean, okay, it’s understandable that I swallowed the concept, considering I picked it up in a college course taught by an education expert. However, I never asked for evidence that the effectiveness of learning styles had ever been proven. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to second guess the idea, especially because my work experience validated it.
I am constantly running into surprises like this as a skeptic. First organic food, and now learning styles? Is there nothing I can trust because it sounds right?
Lee Said,
December 21, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
I took some of these tests to see what my ’style’ was back when I was tutoring. It turns out that I answer the questions very differently and get a different result when thinking about teaching/learning math vs thinking about teaching/learning anthropology or english.
I can also identify some moments where I needed a visual or auditory explanation of something before it ‘clicked’ but I might need one type one day and another the next.
It’s still valid to use different teaching methods to reach the whole class – as you say it still seems like common sense to present the information in as many ways as possible.
Fiona Said,
December 21, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
I need visual supports, and can’t deal with too much auditory input, but I’m not sure what that is. I still strongly push use of visual along with verbal because classrooms are often so verbal that the less-strong kids in their language skills miss out.
And hands-on rocks for some kids.
Aaron Helton Said,
December 22, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
I think the trick is that multiple instructional approaches for the same topic simply provides reinforcement for that topic, improving the learning rate. This seems like a plausible explanation for what seems to happen in the classroom when teachers are accommodating different “learning styles.”
Incidentally, I don’t remember any mention of learning styles when I was young, so I don’t know what I would be classified now. I’m kinda happy about that, now that I think about it
Julie Said,
December 22, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
Aaron, excellent point, and I’m surprised that didn’t occur to me! Of course repetition in ways that are slightly different (and therefore not boring) would reenforce learning.
It still might be that some kids need specific types of input, but overall, I bet your explanation would be the more likely one.