by Rosana Garcia (Writing for Teachers)
People learn in different ways and
educators have to be aware of it when planning classes. Therefore, teachers
must match their teaching styles with their students’ learning styles to
achieve a significant learning (Doyle and Rutherford,
1984).
These are some of the ideas
that have become very popular among learning style researchers. There are over
71 different theory models. The most
common theory is related to sensory preferences, by Walter Burke Barbe (1926). The modalities can be divided into three
main areas: visual, auditory and kinesthetic (movement-oriented). Visual learners absorb information by taking notes and observing
the body language and facial expression from the teachers. Auditory learners
are more sensitive to tone of voice,
pitch, speed and other nuances; they learn best through talking, discussing, listening
to lectures and reading aloud. Kinesthetic learners learn best by
executing physical activities and can be easily distracted if they sit still
for long periods.
Another well-known
theory related to experiential learning, developed by David A. Kolb (1984, as
cited by Putintseva, 2006), is rearranged
into Accommodator, Converger, Diverger
and Assimilator. These four approaches form a learning cycle from experience,
to observation, to conceptualization, to experimentation, and back to
experience.
A personality-based
model was built by B. McCarthy and H. Gardner
(1990, as cited by Putintseva,
2006), who identified four learning styles:
innovative, analytic, common sense and dynamic. Innovative learners aim for personal meaning while learning,
whereas Analytic learners are
reflective on facts and aim for intellectual development.
Common sense learners aim for
practical and straightforward solutions, while Dynamic learners make use of deductive thinking for hidden
possibilities.
Although these theories of learning
style seem valid at first, some well-respected researchers have debated their limitations
and utility. Robert A. Bjork and colleagues (1999, p. 105)
claim that “any
credible validation of learning-styles-based instruction requires robust
documentation of a very particular type of experimental finding with several
necessary criteria.” They add that “an
important feature of processing in a specific cognitive style is that when one
encounters a stimulus that is presented in a non-preferred modality, one
mentally converts that information into his or her preferred modality.”
Stephen Downes (2009, as cited by Finley, 2015), considers
the learning style approach “very narrow
and based on a narrow "instructivist"
definition of teaching as a form of instruction to produce content recall.”
There are few studies that have provided
enough evidence for learning styles as valid, but many studies that prove these
theories as myth. According to Christian Jarrett (2015), the learning style is
still widely believed because teachers like to think they are sensitive to
their students’ needs. Besides, it is more comforting to rely on the success or
failure of a class based on a wrong teaching style.
I believe that, by
observation, interaction and engagement in different activities, teachers can
get the most of their students regardless of their learning preferences.
Teachers should challenge their students to go beyond their comfort zone of
learning. This could be achieved by offering a range of activities within a
learner-centered, communicative approach.
References:
Tatyana Putintseva - The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 3, March
2006.
Rebecca L.
Oxford - Learning Styles & Strategies/Oxford, GALA 2003.
Joy M. Reid - TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 1987.
Christian Jarrett (2015) - https://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes
Todd Finley,
2015 - https://www.edutopia.org/article/learning-styles-real-and-useful-todd-finley
Walter Doyle and Barry
Rutherford - Theory Into Practice Vol.
23, No. 1, Winter 1984
Walter B. Barbe - Psychology and education of the gifted, 1926.
H. Pashler, M. McDaniel,
D. Rohrer, and R. Bjork - Learning
Styles: Concepts and Evidence, Vol. 9, No. 23, 1999.
