Why learning styles are important

Listen to someone tell you how to get there. Look at a map. When you get a new gadget that needs to be assembled, you: Just start putting it together. Ask someone to read you the directions. Read all of the steps before you begin. If you have to work on a project with others, you would rather: Help to build and construct a model. Participate in group discussions and brainstorm ideas. Draw graphs or scribe group notes. You tend to like classes that include: Hands-on experiments.

Lots of lectures. Reading assignments. When studying a play in English class, you prefer to: Act it out. Listen to the play read by others. Read the play silently to yourself. Give a presentation. Create a poster. When you are distracted, you most often find yourself: Fidgeting or playing with your pencil.

Listening to or participating in conversations. Doodling on your notebook paper. When you work at solving a challenging problem, do you: Make a model of the problem or walk through all of the steps in your mind? Call a few friends or talk to an expert for advice? If you need to fidget, try doing so in a way that will not disturb others. Use the Tangle Jr.

They were asked to comment on general clarity and were specifically asked to comment on the section regarding the evidence for the use of Learning Styles and whether it would disengage participants see below.

Key concepts in the survey were addressed twice, from different approaches, so as to ensure the quality of data obtained. Participants were first asked to confirm that they were academics in Higher Education. They were then asked about their use of five teaching methods, four of which are supported by research evidence [Worked Examples, Feedback, Microteaching and Peer Teaching Hattie, ] and Learning Styles.

They were then asked to rank these methods by efficacy. For each of these individual Learning Styles classifications we identified, in our question, the individual styles that result e. To allow comparisons with existing literature, we used the same question as Dekker et al. We then explained to participants about the lack of an evidence base for the use of Learning Styles, including the work of Coffield et al.

We explained that this fact may be surprising, and that participants would be free to enter any comments they had at the end of the survey. Those academics who piloted the initial survey were specifically asked to comment on this aspect of the survey to ensure that it was neutral and objective.

We then asked participants to rate their agreement with some of the proposed harms associated with the use of Learning Styles. Mixed into the questions about harms were some proposed reasons to use Learning Styles, regardless of the evidence. Agreement was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Finally, participants were asked for some basic demographic information and then offered the opportunity to provide free-text comments on the content of the survey. Quantitative data were analyzed by non-parametric methods; specific tests are described in the results.

Percentages of participants agreeing, or disagreeing, with a particular statement were calculated by collapsing the two relevant statements within the Likert scale e.

Qualitative data free-text comments were analyzed using a simple ground-up thematic analysis Braun and Clarke, to identify common themes. Both authors independently read and re-read the comments to identify their own common themes. The authors then met and discussed these, arriving at agreed common themes and quantifying the numbers of participants who had raised comments for each theme. Many participant comments were pertinent to more than one theme.

We addressed this question from two perspectives. Academics were asked to identify which teaching methods, from a list of 5, they had used in the last 12 months.

Results are shown in Figure 1. Thirty-three percent of participants reported having used Learning Styles in the last 12 months, but this was lower than the evidence-based techniques of formative assessment, worked examples, and peer teaching. The examples chosen were those most commonly found in a recent study of the literature on Learning Styles Newton, Use of various teaching methods in the last 12 months.

Academics were asked which of the methods they had used in the last 12 months. Four of the methods were accompanied by a brief description: Formative Assessment practice tests , Peer Teaching students teaching each other , Learning Styles matching teaching to student Learning Styles. Microteaching peer review by educators using recorded teaching. We subsequently asked two, more general, questions about Learning Styles.

The first of these was the same as that used by Dekker et al. These data show a contrast between a general belief in the use of Learning Styles, which is much higher than actual use Figure 2. Belief in use of Learning Styles. At different points throughout the survey, participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statements regarding their belief in, and their actual use of, Learning Styles.

These questions were asked prior to informing participants about the lack of evidence for the use of Learning Styles. When asked if they believed in the use of Learning Styles 1,2 , approximately two thirds of participants agreed, whereas when asked specifically about actual use 3,4 , agreement dropped to one-third. If so, please state which one Given students a LSQ. Used LS in year. There was significant agreement with all the proposed difficulties associated with the use of Learning Styles, as shown in Figure 3.

In addition, some information cannot be presented in a single style e. In this section of the survey we also included two questions that were not about proposed harms. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with various difficulties that have been proposed to result from the use of Learning Styles. Participants agreed with all the proposed harms but there was a stronger agreement compared to other options with the idea that the use of Learning Styles is conceptually flawed.

The first was to determine how frequently each harm appeared as the top ranked reason. The second was to calculate a ranking score, such that the top ranked harm was scored 6, and the lowest ranked scored 1, and then to sum these across the participants. Both are shown in Table 1.

Results from both methods were similar and agreed with the prior analysis Figure 3 , with participants most concerned about the basic conceptual flaws associated with the use of Learning Styles, alongside a potential pigeonholing of learners into a particular style.

TABLE 1. Ranking of proposed harms as compelling reasons not to use Learning Styles. Toward the end of the questionnaire, we asked participants two question to determine whether the completion of the questionnaire had made any difference to their understanding of the evidence base for the use of Learning Styles. However, almost one-third of participants still agreed with the statement; they intended to continue using Learning Styles. The completion of the survey instrument associated with a change of participants views of Learning Styles.

This then raised a series of interesting questions about why participants would persist in using Learning Styles despite having been presented with all the evidence showing that they are not effective although participants were not specifically asked whether they would persist in the matching of instructional design to student Learning Style.

Thus we were reluctant to undertake extensive post hoc analysis to identify relationships within the sample. When splitting the data into these two groups, we observed that almost all Forty-eight participants left free-text comments.

The dominant common theme, raised by 23 participants was the need to use a variety of teaching methods in order to for example keep students engaged or to promote reflection. Eight participants commented that they were aware of the lack of evidence base for the use of Learning Styles and eight participants also gave their own examples of why Learning Styles were conceptually flawed.

Take spelling for example: a visual learner might like to include the word or words in a quick poster or billboard, an auditory learner might prefer a mock spelling bee, and a kinaesthetic child might respond well to using scrabble pieces. Just try things out and see what works.

Teachers love hearing about solutions, not just problems. You may well end up helping other children as well. Our individualised programmes are designed with plenty of options, so each student can choose activities that suit their preferred learning styles. Give us a call for a Free Assessment now and we will design a program that will give your child the confidence to do well for the whole year.