How do you train for different learning styles?

The greatest myth in education is that learning styles exist. They do not. Over and over research shows it doesn't. What helps people learn is not aligning their style with a single teaching style, but to give ALL students multi-modal education. Reinforce lecture with great visuals. When it fits, allow them to use their hands, etc. AND, learning really happens when thinking is applied. So problem solving or asking learners to explain how they would teach the subject they are learning about. “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning styles approach within education, and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing.” - Learning styles: Concepts and evidence (2008).

There's no other better learning styles that can help people absorb information and skills than the osmosis learning style.

There is not enough evidence to say that Learning Styles exist. We might have some preferences depending on the topic, the situation

My experience has been that even if learners' preference scores are high for any learning style, a class is made up of various combinations and it is good practice to mix modalities without overdoing any one aspect. If you have played a video, space out some time for reflection. If you have delivered a concept, create space for discussions. It is imperative to incorporate kinesthetic energizers to break the monotony and keep everyone awake. We all process information differently and that's a known fact so I wouldn't say learning styles is a myth, but heavy reliance on one type could be. Mix & match and experiment to keep testing your own content and delivery style. And not all of this applies to purely technical content.

In nutshell, there is no better way than hands on training.Its similar to the principle of not knowing how to swim until you dive

At a previous restaurant organization, we deployed gamified training that was made available on the employees mobile devices. The platform allowed for a training video or reading materials to be followed by quizzes. The questions were all multiple choice and true/false formatted. We noticed a direct correlation between stores that had a high participation rate with their quality of product knowledge. This was especially helpful with training recipes. The employee would learn from reading, getting quizzed on them, and physically executing.

Mix and match work better also to keep the audience's interest. We all disconnect from any meeting / training if there is no question/quiz or interaction, given our attention span and the fact that we are (I know I do...) multitasking behind screens during online meetings, trainings to keep up with the workload and requests.

AI does not exist. At this place and time at least. What is currently being promoted at the market as the "Artificial Intelligence" is not an intelligence of any kind. From a purely IT perspective it is a chatbot (or number of competing chatbots) connected to the database, multiple search engines and visualisation programs, noting else. So called "AI" is incapable of generating any new ideas, to solve complex problems(where both source of the problem and the solution are not known, and often don't exist yet) and to create an invention. Because its emotional intelligence, fantasy, imagination and curiosity level are 0%.

I include interactive activities, role-playing, simulations, and practical exercises that allow them to engage physically and apply what they've learned. I usually engage during our 10 minutes briefing before the team headed to their work assignment.

One thing that employees find helpful, they need ongoing feedback from the beginning. A culture of constant coaching is crucial and sets the expectations for ongoing improvement. Tone and demeanor go a long way when someone is giving feedback.

Evaluating training has nothing to do with learning styles (which have been debunked ad nauseum), but everything to do with designing effective training. In order to be able to evaluate training, we need to know what we're evaluating it against. What does success look like? What is the optimal/terminal performance model? What knowledge and skills will the performers need to close the gap? Focusing on what people need to do then designing resources and activities to help them do that is the way to design effective training. People will learn when they can connect the new to the old, the concept to the purpose, when the delivery format reflects the reality of the application, regardless of how they *prefer* to learn.

Rather than focussing on learning styles (which has a questionable evidence base) influencing a training agenda I prefer to focus on an individuals capacity to develop and grow. Training is limited by nature, but if we focus instead on vertical development, they will naturally expand their capacity to understand concepts in more complex and interconnected ways.

Emily Bender has said that synthetic machines should not be relied upon for accurate information. This an important consideration when contemplating the veracity of the outputs of “AI” systems.