Diverse Learning Styles in the Classroom
Publishing Solutions Group
Full-service development, production, translation and audio for print & digital products. K-16. SOWMBA certified.
By Emilie Guan
Summer 2024 Intern
Introduction
“Learning styles” is a pedagogical term that encompasses the many theories of how learners take in information, especially in the classroom. A foundational concept for learning styles theories is that individuals have different, and preferred, ways of learning. Many theories go further and posit that an individual’s learning can be optimized by customizing their education to fit their preferred style[1]. Specifically, we commonly focus on these differences as “(a) differential preferences for processing certain types of information or (b) for processing information in certain ways”[2]. For instance, the popularly designated learning styles of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners would fall under preferences for processing types of information while differences between so-called “intuitive” or “analytical” thinkers would refer to the latter. The field of learning styles has many different schools of thought on how to define, research, and quantify these learning preferences, which is partially why there are many conflicting opinions on even how to classify or measure this theory. Perhaps more importantly, since its popularization in the 1970s, there has been very little empirical or conclusive evidence that tailoring learning styles has an impact on learning levels or academic performance[3].
Learning Styles as a Persisting Pedagogical Theory
If there is little pedagogical research to back up the claims of learning styles theories, why is it such a pervasive teaching method in K-12 classrooms? A 2020 study in the Frontiers in? Education journal found that 89.1% of the 15,045 educator participants believed that students learn better when instruction matches their preferred learning style, and that this false belief persisted over time despite ample evidence against it[4]. This is potentially because it has appeared in popular discourse many times and might have gained credibility and traction through this repeated exposure. Additionally, many individuals when prompted will self-identify a learning style(s) that they feel they understand better through—it’s probably not uncommon to remember a classmate state something like, “I’m a visual learner, so I find it easier to work with diagrams and graphs,” which all reinforces learning styles as an effective method in the classroom[2]. Furthermore, the fact that there are diverse learners, whether culturally, linguistically, through aptitude, etc., is well-known; therefore, it is intuitive to think that individuals can be categorized into distinct “learner types” through learning styles. The proliferation of theories, such as the Myers-Briggs personality types (MBTI) in the 1940s despite a lack of strong research support, has popularized the notion of people being able to be sorted into “types”[5]. Finally, as many researchers have hypothesized, an additional layer of intuitiveness comes from individuals, especially parents for their children, wanting to be viewed, treated, and taught as unique pupils in the classroom, which the learning styles theory would help reinforce[5].
?Better Understanding the Limits of Learning Styles
One important distinction in the learning styles hypothesis is the idea of “learning style” versus “aptitude.” It can be a common misconception to conflate the two; for instance, Gardener’s theory of multiple intelligences is often confused as types of learning styles since it too has abilities or intelligences in categories such as “visual-spatial,” “verbal-linguistic,” and “bodily kinesthetic.” While Gardener’s theory is one of intellectual ability, learning styles are instead how a learner approaches a range of content. Gardener himself said, “When one has a thorough understanding of a topic, one can typically think of it in several ways,” which alludes to how someone with high visual-spatial intelligence may not always learn material best through visual means, or they may also learn some content better through auditory or kinesthetic methods[6].?
As mentioned in the introduction, a specific subsection of the learning styles hypothesis is the “meshing hypothesis,” or the assertion that matching one’s instruction to the learning style of the learner is a more efficient method and produces more positive learning outcomes. In a pivotal 2009 study on learning styles, Pashler and colleagues, in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, reviewed well-designed studies on the meshing hypothesis and found that none of them had statistically significant or meaningful results supporting better learning outcomes (and that some results were actually worse with meshing). They then set forth a set of guidelines on how to test the meshing hypothesis in the future, namely through the following steps: “Participants were divided into groups based on their learning style; participants from each group were assigned to receive one of the multiple instructional methods; and, participants completed an assessment of the material that was the same for all students”[7]. A subsequent 2015 study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology from Rogowsky and colleagues followed Pashler and colleagues’ guidelines, and their results once more failed to corroborate the meshing or matching hypothesis[8].???
Potential Alternatives
In the conclusions and recommendations of many studies on learning styles, researchers have concluded that learning styles are, from a scientific perspective, a myth. Its persistence in pedagogical instruction is not only inefficient but potentially harmful. They advise that focusing instructional resources and energy on figuring out how to best match instruction to content instead of specific learning style would be more efficient. Furthermore, studies have found that an emphasis on using multiple methods or combined styles of learning the same concept, thereby reinforcing and layering learning, can be more beneficial than assuming a learner consistently learns best through a single method. A 2017 study by Mayer and colleagues advocates for “multimedia learning,” where the presentation of information is complementary and congruent—for instance, they found that PowerPoint presentations where the visual and auditory information was synchronously delivered was much more effective for learning than when just auditory or visual information alone was transmitted[9].?
Moreover, although appealing for efficiency reasons, thinking about learners and our own selves as “types” can be a rather limiting mindset—encouraging students to understand their learning as fluid and evolving can be helpful, especially when they are young and in K-12 classrooms. If educators want to better understand and therefore be able to better support their students, there are other student characteristics that can be legitimately useful indicators, as Dinsmore and colleagues have outlined in their 2022 paper. For example, attending to prior knowledge (as well as educational background/history), strategy use (which is what students use to complete a task, not how they prefer to receive information), and student interest have research-backed support and can be more easily measurable[10].?
Conclusion
The balance that educators are always trying to strike is one of honoring individuals as unique learners and personalizing their education, yet also understanding that an overemphasis on singularly unique instruction is nearly impossible in a classroom. This is not just due to constraints such as teacher shortages, budgets, and time, but also because it limits how much educators can relate and support learners across commonalities and with their previous teaching experience. Learning styles and their subsequent categorization of learners has understandable appeal because it offers educators a way to infer characteristics of students and how they might respond to certain types of instruction; when accurate, this can be invaluable in K-12 classrooms, but an expansive of body of work has shown that to not be the case for learning styles. Instead, psychologists and educators should work towards bringing in more scientifically backed strategies into the classroom so that students may have better learning experiences and outcomes.?
领英推荐
Publishing Solutions Group
Publishing Solutions Group is committed to better understanding the current pedagogical landscape and body of research, including the common myth of learning styles, in order to best support student’s learning as well as the educational materials and strategies of our clients.
We work with clients to both create and edit content that best aligns with the curriculum and the most effective way to support learning adhesiveness throughout the K-12 journey and beyond.
??