Learning styles

@raalkivictorieux, Master Ra’al Ki Victorieux

Uncover the diverse world of learning styles with an in-depth overview that caters to both students and educators. Understanding how individuals process and absorb information is key to effective education. #LearningStyles #Education #AtmaUnum https://wp.me/p3JLEZ-4px

Understanding how learners process and absorb information is a critical component of effective education, both for students seeking to optimize their study methods and for educators striving to accommodate diverse learning preferences. With a plethora of learning styles and models available, it becomes imperative to explore the various perspectives on how individuals learn best, catering to a wide range of characteristics and modalities. This comprehensive overview delves into the intricate details of different learning styles and models, shedding light on their implications for both students and educators. As we embark on this exploration, it is essential to consider the ongoing debate surrounding the practical application and validity of learning styles in education, emphasizing the need for continuous research and critical evaluation of their impact on educational outcomes.

Every student has a strategy they use to remember information more efficiently while studying. Some of them take notes; some make diagrams; some prefer to listen to lectures, etc. Since no learning style fits all students, scientists have conducted research in order to understand the way students learn new information best. Recent studies and theories from psychologists and experts in the field suggest that there are anywhere between 3 to 170 different types of learning styles.

Visual learning style

Visual learners are individuals who prefer to take in their information visually—be that with maps, graphs, diagrams, charts, and others. However, they don’t necessarily respond well to photos or videos, rather needing their information using different visual aids such as patterns and shapes. The best way to present to visual learners is by showing them the relationship between different ideas visually. For instance, when explaining a scientific process, it can be done by using a flow chart or a conceptual map.

Auditory learning style

Auditory learners are individuals who learn better when they take in information in auditory form when it is heard or spoken. They are prone to sorting their ideas after speaking, rather than thinking ideas through before. Since, to them, saying things out loud helps them understand the concept. Auditory learners learn best when information is presented to them via strategies that involve talking, such as lectures and group discussions. They can benefit from repeating back the lessons, having recordings of the lectures, group activities that require classmates explaining ideas, etc.

Kinesthetic learning style

Kinesthetic learners are individuals who prefer to learn by doing. They enjoy a hands-on experience. They are usually more in touch with reality and more connected to it, which is why they require using tactile experience to understand something better.

The best way to present new information to a kinesthetic learner is through personal experience, practice, examples, or simulations. For instance, they can remember an experiment by recreating it themselves.

Reading/Writing learning style

Reading/writing learners consume information best when it’s in words, whether that’s by writing it down or reading it. To them, text is more powerful than any kind of visual or auditory representation of an idea. These individuals usually perform very well on written assignments.

There are different ways to get a reading/writing learner to engage and understand a certain lesson. For instance, it would be best to have them describe charts and diagrams by written statements, take written quizzes on the topics, or give them written assignments.

Logical/analytical learners

Analytical learners depend on logic and analytical skills to understand a particular subject. These types of learners search for connections, causes, patterns, and results in their learning. A teacher can engage and motivate analytical learners by posing questions that require interpretation, using material that activates problem-solving skills and stimulating students to reach conclusions based on facts or reasoning.

Social/linguistic learners

These types of learners favor educational lessons that include peer work or participation. Social/ linguistic learners get two things out of this participation: socializing (which they love) and a better understanding of a subject. Teachers can motivate these types of learners by using role-playing, group activities, and encouraging student interaction (asking questions, sharing stories, etc.).

Solitary learners

Otherwise known as solo learners, these students are the opposite of social learners. Solitary learners prefer to study alone without having to interact with other learners. Individual work is a solo student’s forte. Teachers can help these types of learners by using activities that require individual work (including keeping a diary) and problem-solving skills, recognizing a student’s individual accomplishments, etc.

Nature learners

These types of learners excel when in contact with nature. A nature learner’s ideal study environment is a calm and relaxing environment. If we had to compare nature learners with another type, it would be tactile learners. The only difference is the nature part of this deal, as nature learners need to be outside to learn better. While learning in nature may not always be possible, teachers can still nurture this learning style in students by assigning hands-on activities, having classes outdoors when possible, and using nature examples when explaining a new lesson.

Accommodator learning style

Concrete Experience + Active Experiment: strong in “hands-on” practical doing (e.g., physical therapists). Accommodators learn best through concrete experimentation. These activities include practicing in laboratories, collecting observations, reading primary text, participating in simulations and fieldwork, working problem sets, and studying examples and case studies.

Converger learning style

Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment: strong in practical “hands-on” application of theories (e.g., engineers). These learners work best when there is a simple and correct answer to a problem. Their dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. These individuals prefer dealing with things rather than people and tend to excel in the physical sciences and engineering.

Diverger learning style

Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation: strong in imaginative ability and discussion (e.g., social workers). These individuals learn best through concrete experience and reflective observation. A strength is their imaginative ability. They tend to be people-oriented, react with emotions, and excel in humanities and the liberal arts.

Assimilator learning style

Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation: strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., philosophers). The dominant learning orientations of these people are abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. Abstract conceptualization activities include listening to lectures, writing papers, building models, completing projects, and developing analogies.

Activist learning style

Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. Activists like to be involved in new experiences and are enthusiastic about new ideas. They enjoy doing things and tend to act first and consider the implications afterwards. They are unlikely to prepare for the learning experience or review their learning afterwards.

Reflector learning style

Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first-hand and from others, and prefer to analyse them thoroughly and think about them from every possible angle before coming to any definite conclusions.

Theorist learning style

Theorists like to analyse and synthesise. They assimilate and convert disparate facts and observations into coherent, logical theories. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic above all. Qualified knowledge in a system, is the best way to learn for a theorist, because that is what a theorist does: Gathers theory, puts all of it into a system, a model, a scheme, a structure, etc. In opposition to the reflector, the theorist prefers to work alone to ensure that the work is done properly.

Pragmatist learning style

Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. Pragmatists want to see how to put their learning into practice in the real world. Uninterested in abstract concepts, they like see demonstrations of real world application.

Concrete sequential learning style

A concrete sequential learner prefers physical or hands-on learning experiences and is timeline or results oriented. They also prefer directions that are clear and detailed and often work from start to finish without missing a step.

Abstract random learning style

Abstract random learners organize information through reflection, and thrive in unstructured, people-oriented environments. The ‘real’ world for abstract random learners is the world of feelings and emotions. The AR learner’s mind absorbs ideas, information, and impressions.

Abstract sequential learning style

Abstract Sequential students are logical and deliberate. They learn best in a structured environment. They are knowledgeable, analytic thinkers with a clear sense of objectivity. They prefer systematic processes and are thorough in their work.

Concrete random learning style

The concrete random learning style consists of taking risks and experimenting. This type of learner prefers trial-and-error methods when finding solutions to problems. The abstract sequential learning style consists of analyzing and using logic in problem solving.

Avoidant learning style

Individuals with avoidant style don’t like to be present in the classroom and don’t participate in the activities other students and the teacher do in the classroom. In general, they don’t enjoy the classroom climate and whatever is happening in the classroom.

Participative learning style

Participant learners are eager to learn and enjoy classroom activities and discussion. They take responsibility for their learning, and are eager to do as much class work as possible.

Competitive learning style

Competitive learning style refers to students who emphasize high grades and attention from lecturers.

Collaborative learning style

A collaborative (or cooperative) learning approach involves pupils working together on activities or learning tasks in a group small enough to ensure that everyone participates. Pupils in the group may work on separate tasks contributing to a common overall outcome, or work together on a shared task.

Dependent learning style

Dependent learners look to teacher and peers as a source of structure and guidance, and prefer authority figures to tell them what to do. They show little intellectual curiosity and learn only what is required.

Independent learning style

Independent students prefer independent study, self-paced instruction, and working alone on course projects rather than. with other students. They like to think for themselves and are confident. in their learning abilities; and they prefer to learn content that they feel.

How Do Students Learn Best?

Given that everyone has a unique learning method, it would be wrong to say that a specific learning style is the best way to go. However, understanding your own style of learning is important to your studies. Since the way someone best consumes information can be a deciding factor in their academic success, understanding what kind of learner they are is vital. You can do this by trying different methods of learning, and then deciding which one, or what combination of styles helps you remember best. Once you know what kind of styles fit you, you can tailor your studies to fit your needs.

There are many factors that affect how someone learns best, including the environment, and cognitive and emotional factors. However, understanding your learning style can help you learn more easily.

On the other hand, even teachers need to be aware of the many different learning styles they might encounter when teaching. Though it is easier for one individual to understand and incorporate a specific learning style to get better results, it is not that easy for a teacher with, say, 20 students in one classroom. However, this does not mean that a teacher should just give up trying to understand and cater to their students’ needs altogether. A simple solution to this dilemma might be using as many activities and exercises as possible that cater to different learning styles. This way, a teacher has a better chance of reaching a bigger ‘audience’, and every student gets an opportunity to learn in their preferred circumstances every once in a while.

Controversy on the validity of using learning styles in education

Learning styles refer to a range of theories that aim to account for differences in individuals’ learning. Although there is ample evidence that individuals express personal preferences on how they prefer to receive information,  few studies have found validity in using learning styles in education.  Many theories share the proposition that humans can be classified according to their “style” of learning, but differ on how the proposed styles should be defined, categorized and assessed.  A common concept is that individuals differ in how they learn.

The idea of individualized learning styles became popular in the 1970s. This has greatly influenced education despite the criticism that the idea has received from some researchers.  Proponents recommend that teachers run a needs analysis to assess the learning styles of their students and adapt their classroom methods to best fit each student’s learning style. Critics claim that there is no consistent evidence that better student outcomes result from identifying an individual student’s learning style and teaching for specific learning styles. Since 2012, learning styles have often been referred to as a “neuromyth” in education. There is evidence of empirical and pedagogical problems related to forcing learning tasks to “correspond to differences in a one-to-one fashion”. Studies contradict the widespread “meshing hypothesis” that a student will learn best if taught in a method deemed appropriate for the student’s learning style. However, a 2020 systematic review suggested that a majority (89%) of educators around the world continue to believe that the meshing hypothesis is correct.

Studies further show that teachers cannot assess the learning style of their students accurately. In one study, students were asked to take an inventory of their learning styles. After nearly 400 students completed the inventory, 70% did not use study habits that matched their preferred learning method. This study also indicated that students who used study methods that matched their preferred learning style performed no better on tests than students who did not.

Overview of models

There are many different learning styles models; one literature review identified 71 different models. Only a few models are described below.

David Kolb’s model

David A. Kolb’s model is based on his experiential learning model, as explained in his book Experiential Learning. Kolb’s model outlines two related approaches toward grasping experience: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, as well as two related approaches toward transforming experience: Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation.  According to Kolb’s model, the ideal learning process engages all four of these modes in response to situational demands; they form a learning cycle from experience to observation to conceptualization to experimentation and back to experience. In order for learning to be effective, Kolb postulated, all four of these approaches must be incorporated. As individuals attempt to use all four approaches, they may tend to develop strengths in one experience-grasping approach and one experience-transforming approach, leading them to prefer one of the following four learning styles:

1. Accommodator = Concrete Experience + Active Experiment: strong in “hands-on” practical doing (e.g., physical therapists)
2. Converger = Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experiment: strong in practical “hands-on” application of theories (e.g., engineers)
3. Diverger = Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation: strong in imaginative ability and discussion (e.g., social workers)
4. Assimilator = Abstract Conceptualization + Reflective Observation: strong in inductive reasoning and creation of theories (e.g., philosophers)

Kolb’s model gave rise to the Learning Style Inventory, an assessment method used to determine an individual’s learning style. According to this model, individuals may exhibit a preference for one of the four styles—Accommodating, Converging, Diverging and Assimilating—depending on their approach to learning in Kolb’s experiential learning model.

Although Kolb’s model is widely used, a 2013 study pointed out that Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, among its other weaknesses, incorrectly dichotomizes individuals on the abstract/concrete and reflective/action dimensions of experiential learning (in much the same way as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator does in a different context), and proposed instead that these dimensions be treated as continuous rather than dichotomous/binary variables.

In an article that addressed Kolb’s work through 2005, Mark K. Smith reviewed some critiques of Kolb’s model, and identified six key issues regarding the model:

1. The model doesn’t adequately address the process of reflection;
2. The claims it makes about the four learning styles are extravagant;
3. It doesn’t sufficiently address the fact of different cultural conditions and experiences;
4. The idea of stages/steps doesn’t necessarily match reality;
5. It has only weak empirical evidence;
6. The relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more complex than Kolb draws it.

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford’s model

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford adapted Kolb’s experiential learning model. First, they renamed the stages in the learning cycle to accord with managerial experiences: having an experience, reviewing the experience, concluding from the experience, and planning the next steps. Second, they aligned these stages to four learning styles named:

1. Activist
2. Reflector
3. Theorist
4. Pragmatist

These learning styles are not innate to an individual but rather are developed based on an individual’s experiences and preferences. Based on this model, the Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) was developed to allow individuals to assess and reflect on how they consume information and learn from their experiences. It serves as an alternative to Kolb’s LSI as it directly asks about common behaviors found in the workplace compared to judging how an individual learns. Having completed the self-assessment, managers are encouraged to focus on strengthening underutilized styles in order to become better equipped to learn from a wide range of everyday experiences. A MORI survey commissioned by The Campaign for Learning in 1999 found the Honey and Mumford LSQ to be the most widely used system for assessing preferred learning styles in the local government sector in the UK.

Learning modalities

Walter Burke Barbe and colleagues proposed three learning modalities (often identified by the acronym VAK):

1. Visualizing modality: They focus on pictures, and shapes, like sculptures and paintings.
2. Auditory modality: They focus on listening, rhythms, tone, and chants.
3. Kinesthetic modality: They focus on gestures, body movements, object manipulation, and positioning.

Barbe and colleagues reported that learning modality strengths can occur independently or in combination (although the most frequent modality strengths, according to their research, are visual or mixed), they can change over time, and they become integrated with age. They also pointed out that learning modality strengths are different from preferences; a person’s self-reported modality preference may not correspond to their empirically measured modality strength. This disconnect between strengths and preferences was confirmed by a subsequent study.

Nevertheless, some scholars have criticized the VAK model. Psychologist Scott Lilienfeld and colleagues have argued that much use of the VAK model is nothing more than pseudoscience or a psychological urban legend.

Neil Fleming’s VAK/VARK model

Neil Fleming’s VARK model and inventory expanded upon earlier notions of sensory modalities such as the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues and the representational systems (VAKOG) in neuro-linguistic programming. The four sensory modalities in Fleming’s model are:

1. Visual learning
2. Aural learning (listening)
3. Reading/writing learning
4. Kinesthetic learning
5. Multimodality (MM)

While the fifth modality isn’t considered one of the four learning styles, it covers those who fit equally among two or more areas, or without one frontrunner:

Fleming claimed that visual learners have a preference for seeing (visual aids that represent ideas using methods other than words, such as graphs, charts, diagrams, symbols, etc.). Subsequent neuroimaging research has suggested that visual learners convert words into images in the brain and vice versa, but some psychologists have argued that this “is not an instance of learning styles, rather, it is an instance of ability appearing as a style”. Likewise, Fleming claimed that auditory learners best learn through listening (lectures, discussions, tapes, etc.), and tactile/kinesthetic learners prefer to learn via experience—moving, touching, and doing (active exploration of the world, science projects, experiments, etc.). Students can use the model and inventory to identify their preferred learning style and, it is claimed, improve their learning by focusing on the mode that benefits them the most. Fleming’s model also posits two types of multimodality. This means that not everyone has one defined preferred modality of learning; some people may have a mixture that makes up their preferred learning style. There are two types of multimodality learners: VARK type one learners are able to assimilate their learning style to those around them. VARK type two learners need to receive input or output in all of their preferred styles. They will continue to work until all preferred learning areas have been met.

Gregorc & Butler’s model

Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler organized a model describing different learning styles rooted in the way individuals acquire and process information differently. This model posits that an individual’s perceptual abilities are the foundation of his or her specific learning strengths, or learning styles.

In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: concrete and abstract, and two ordering abilities: random and sequential. Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the five senses, while abstract perceptions involve the understanding of ideas, qualities, and concepts which cannot be seen. In regard to the two ordering abilities, sequential ordering involves the organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of information in chunks and in no specific order. The model posits that both of the perceptual qualities and both of the ordering abilities are present in each individual, but some qualities and ordering abilities are more dominant within certain individuals.

The model posits that individuals with different combinations learn in different ways—they have different strengths, different things make sense to them, different things are difficult for them, and they ask different questions throughout the learning process. There are four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering abilities based on dominance:

1. Concrete sequential
2. Abstract random
3. Abstract sequential
4. Concrete random

The validity of Gregorc’s model has been questioned by Thomas Reio and Albert Wiswell following experimental trials. Gregorc argues that his critics have “scientifically-limited views” and that they wrongly repudiate the “mystical elements” of “the spirit” that can only be discerned by a “subtle human instrument”.

Cognitive approaches

Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann, in 1974, formulated the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale. It was developed to analyze the attitudes of students and how they approach learning. The test was originally designed to provide teachers with insight on how to approach instructional plans for college students. Grasha’s background was in cognitive processes and coping techniques. Unlike some models of cognitive styles which are relatively nonjudgmental, Grasha and Riechmann distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive styles. The names of Grasha and Riechmann’s learning styles are:

1. Avoidant
2. Participative
3. Competitive
4. Collaborative
5. Dependent
6. Independent

Aiming to explain why aptitude tests, school grades, and classroom performance often fail to identify real ability, Robert Sternberg listed various cognitive dimensions in his book Thinking Styles. Several other models are also often used when researching cognitive styles; some of these models are described in books that Sternberg co-edited, such as Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles.

NASSP model

In the 1980s, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) formed a task force to study learning styles. The task force defined three broad categories of style—cognitive, affective, and physiological—and 31 variables, including the perceptual strengths and preferences from the VAK model of Barbe and colleagues, but also many other variables such as need for structure, types of motivation, time of day preferences, and so on.  They defined a learning style as “a gestalt—not an amalgam of related characteristics but greater than any of its parts. It is a composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human development and reflected in learner behavior.”

• Cognitive styles are preferred ways of perception, organization and retention.
• Affective styles represent the motivational dimensions of the learning personality; each learner has a personal motivational approach.
• Physiological styles are bodily states or predispositions, including sex-related differences, health and nutrition, and reaction to physical surroundings, such as preferences for levels of light, sound, and temperature.

According to the NASSP task force, styles are hypothetical constructs that help to explain the learning (and teaching) process. They posited that one can recognize the learning style of an individual student by observing his or her behavior.[39]: 138  Learning has taken place only when one observes a relatively stable change in learner behavior resulting from what has been experienced.

Assessment methods

A 2004 non-peer-reviewed literature review criticized most of the main instruments used to identify an individual’s learning style. In conducting the review, Frank Coffield and his colleagues selected 13 of the most influential models of the 71 models they identified, including most of the models described in this article. They examined the theoretical origins and terms of each model, and the instrument that purported to assess individuals against the learning styles defined by the model. They analyzed the claims made by the author(s), external studies of these claims, and independent empirical evidence of the relationship between the learning style identified by the instrument and students’ actual learning. Coffield’s team found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research. This means that even if the underlying theories were sound, educators are frequently unable to correctly identify the theoretically correct learning style for any given student, so the theory would end up being misapplied in practice.

Learning Style Inventory

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is connected with David A. Kolb’s model and is used to determine a student’s learning style. Previous versions of the LSI have been criticized for problems with validity, reliability, and other issues. Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four learning styles of previous versions with nine new learning styles: initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing. The LSI is intended to help employees or students “understand how their learning style impacts upon problem solving, teamwork, handling conflict, communication and career choice; develop more learning flexibility; find out why teams work well—or badly—together; strengthen their overall learning.”

A completely different Learning Styles Inventory is associated with a binary division of learning styles, developed by Richard Felder and Linda Silverman. In Felder and Silverman’s model, learning styles are a balance between pairs of extremes such as: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Verbal/Visual, and Sequential/Global. Students receive four scores describing these balances. Like the LSI mentioned above, this inventory provides overviews and synopses for teachers.

NASSP Learning Style Profile

The NASSP Learning Style Profile (LSP) is a second-generation instrument for the diagnosis of student cognitive styles, perceptual responses, and study and instructional preferences. The LSP is a diagnostic tool intended as the basis for comprehensive style assessment with students in the sixth to twelfth grades. It was developed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals research department in conjunction with a national task force of learning style experts. The Profile was developed in four phases with initial work undertaken at the University of Vermont (cognitive elements), Ohio State University (affective elements), and St. John’s University (physiological/environmental elements). Rigid validation and normative studies were conducted using factor analytic methods to ensure strong construct validity and subscale independence.

The LSP contains 23 scales representing four higher order factors: cognitive styles, perceptual responses, study preferences and instructional preferences (the affective and physiological elements). The LSP scales are: analytic skill, spatial skill, discrimination skill, categorizing skill, sequential processing skill, simultaneous processing skill, memory skill, perceptual response: visual, perceptual response: auditory, perceptual response: emotive, persistence orientation, verbal risk orientation, verbal-spatial preference, manipulative preference, study time preference: early morning, study time preference: late morning, study time preference: afternoon, study time preference: evening, grouping preference, posture preference, mobility preference, sound preference, lighting preference, temperature preference.

Other methods

Other methods (usually questionnaires) used to identify learning styles include Neil Fleming’s VARK Questionnaire and Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler.  Many other tests have gathered popularity and various levels of credibility among students and teachers.

In the classroom

For a teacher to use the learning styles model, the teacher has to be able to correctly match each student to a learning style. This is a generally unsuccessful exercise due to inappropriate tools. For an assessment tool to be useful, it needs to be a valid test, which is to say that it actually has to put all of the “style A” students in the “A” group, all of the “style B” students in the “B” group, and so forth. Research indicates that very few, if any, of the psychometric tests promoted in conjunction with the learning styles idea have the necessary validity to be useful in practice. Some models, such as Anthony Gregorc’s Gregorc Style Delineator, are “theoretically and psychometrically flawed” and “not suitable for the assessment of individuals”.

Furthermore, knowing a student’s learning style does not seem to have any practical value for the student. In 2019, the American Association of Anatomists published a study that investigated whether learning styles had any effect on the final outcomes of an anatomy course. The study found that even when being told they had a specific learning style, the students did not change their study habits, and those students that did use their theoretically dominant learning style had no greater success in the course; specific study strategies, unrelated to learning style, were positively correlated with final course grade.

Dunn and Dunn

Various researchers have attempted to hypothesize ways in which learning style theory can be used in the classroom. Two such scholars are Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn, who build upon a learning modalities approach.

Although learning styles will inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn say that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques, and the development of “contract activity packages”. Redesigning the classroom involves locating dividers that can be used to arrange the room creatively (such as having different learning stations and instructional areas), clearing the floor area, and incorporating students’ thoughts and ideas into the design of the classroom.

Dunn and Dunn’s “contract activity packages” are educational plans that use: a clear statement of the learning need; multisensory resources (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic); activities through which the newly mastered information can be used creatively; the sharing of creative projects within small groups; at least three small-group techniques; a pre-test, a self-test, and a post-test.

Dunn and Dunn’s learning styles model is widely used in schools in the United States, and 177 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals referring to this model.  However, the conclusion of a review by Coffield and colleagues was: “Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model.”

Sprenger’s Differentiation

Another scholar who believes that learning styles should have an effect on the classroom is Marilee Sprenger in Differentiation through Learning Styles and Memory. She bases her work on three premises:

1. Teachers can be learners, and learners teachers. We are all both.
2. Everyone can learn under the right circumstances.
3. Learning is fun! Make it appealing.

Sprenger details how to teach in visual, auditory, or tactile/kinesthetic ways. Methods for visual learners include ensuring that students can see words written, using pictures, and drawing timelines for events. Methods for auditory learners include repeating words aloud, small-group discussion, debates, listening to books on tape, oral reports, and oral interpretation. Methods for tactile/kinesthetic learners include hands-on activities (experiments, etc.), projects, frequent breaks to allow movement, visual aids, role play, and field trips. By using a variety of teaching methods from each of these categories, teachers cater to different learning styles at once, and improve learning by challenging students to learn in different ways.

James W. Keefe and John M. Jenkins have incorporated learning style assessment as a basic component in their “personalized instruction” model of schooling. Six basic elements constitute the culture and context of personalized instruction. The cultural components—teacher role, student learning characteristics, and collegial relationships—establish the foundation of personalization and ensure that the school prizes a caring and collaborative environment. The contextual factors—interactivity, flexible scheduling, and authentic assessment—establish the structure of personalization.

According to Keefe and Jenkins, cognitive and learning style analysis have a special role in the process of personalizing instruction. The assessment of student learning style, more than any other element except the teacher role, establishes the foundation for a personalized approach to schooling: for student advisement and placement, for appropriate retraining of student cognitive skills, for adaptive instructional strategy, and for the authentic evaluation of learning. Some learners respond best in instructional environments based on an analysis of their perceptual and environmental style preferences: most individualized and personalized teaching methods reflect this point of view. Other learners, however, need help to function successfully in any learning environment. If a youngster cannot cope under conventional instruction, enhancing his cognitive skills may make successful achievement possible.

Many of the student learning problems that learning style diagnosis attempts to solve relate directly to elements of the human information processing system. Processes such as attention, perception and memory, and operations such as integration and retrieval of information are internal to the system. Any hope for improving student learning necessarily involves an understanding and application of information processing theory. Learning style assessment can provide a window to understanding and managing this process.

At least one study evaluating teaching styles and learning styles, however, has found that congruent groups have no significant differences in achievement from incongruent groups. Furthermore, learning style in this study varied by demography, specifically by age, suggesting a change in learning style as one gets older and acquires more experience. While significant age differences did occur, as well as no experimental manipulation of classroom assignment, the findings do call into question the aim of congruent teaching–learning styles in the classroom.

Educational researchers Eileen Carnell and Caroline Lodge concluded that learning styles are not fixed and that they are dependent on circumstance, purpose and conditions.

Conclusion

It is evident from the extensive and detailed overview of learning styles and models provided that there is a wealth of information available to both students and educators to aid in understanding individual learning preferences. The various models mentioned, from Kolb’s experiential learning model to Fleming’s VARK model, offer different perspectives on how people process and absorb information, catering to a wide range of characteristics and modalities.

However, it is essential to note the ongoing debate regarding the implementation of learning styles in education. While educators may find these models helpful in diversifying their teaching methods, thorough assessment and consideration are required to ensure that students’ individual needs are being met effectively. The controversy surrounding the validity and practical application of learning styles emphasizes the necessity for continued research and critical evaluation of their impact on educational outcomes.

In conclusion, understanding and accommodating diverse learning styles can contribute to a more inclusive and effective educational environment. By acknowledging individual preferences and incorporating various teaching strategies, educators can create a more comprehensive and engaging learning experience for all students. It is crucial to balance the utilization of learning styles models with an awareness of their limitations and the evolving nature of individual learning preferences.

<3 We invite you to read more of Atma Unum content in art & culture, personal development and social justice in this link: https://atmaunum.com/category/lengua/english/

<3 We hope you liked this article. We appreciate you like, comment, or share. We also invite you to purchase our books on Amazon Kindle.