aboutlearning

Blog week December 21

Last week Ed Week published an article by Debra Viadero entitled
Cognitive Scientists Debunk Learning-Style Theories
Here is her first paragraph.

“At one time or another, we've all heard "experts" assert that children have different learning styles. Some children, for instance, may be visual learners, while others best absorb information by hearing it. Other theories categorize learners as "assimilators," "divergers," and who knows what else. A teacher's job, according to this line of thinking, is to find out what student's individual learning styles are and tailor instruction accordingly.

A study published this week points up one big problem with these kinds of theories: There's no evidence for them.”

Here is our response published in Comments after the article and written by Michael McCarthy and myself.

As the authors of this article seem to recognize, there are many different “philosophies” comprising the learning styles field so the question of validity must first address the particular learning styles strand being evaluated. Some who would argue for “matching” instruction to style while others who argue for addressing the full range of approaches in a systematic way.

To state that all of these fields of research are not founded in solid research is just not true. The study of Psychology Type goes back to Carl Jung and his work in the different ways people perceive and process information. This field of research has an extremely strong research base and is no longer being questioned as legitimate by anyone in the education field. This research base is also the foundation of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, one of the most prominent tests in the field of psychology.

For a thorough overview of the research on learning type validity, we refer your readers to Pierce Howard’s conclusions in his large volume, The Owner’s Manual for the Brain, Chapter 21, “The Big Five”, 2000. Over 7,000 people, chosen by Costa and McCrae from six different language bases, were found to have these comparable four propensities. http://www.centacs.com/research-development/the-big-five. Here is a cite from Costa and McCrae on the research base: “The Five Factor Model (FFM) has become one of the most accepted models in contemporary psychology.”

We encourage the authors to review the extensive work or David A. Kolb at Case Western University in Experiential Learning theory. His Learning Model elevated the style conversation to a cycle of learning.  According to Kolb, people move from concrete experience (CE), to reflective observation (RO), to  abstract conceptualization (AC) to Active Experimentation (AE). The Kolb model is rooted in the work John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin and other writers in experiential learning. David Kob and others have found that different styles are more comfortable in parts of the cycle, but all learning moves through all four.

In general, we are disappointed with this article. It is not elegant journalism to say “Other theories categorize learners as “assimilators’, “divergers’ and who knows what else.” These words sprang from the mouth of Jean Claude Piaget, one of the most prominent educational researchers of his time.

But the most serious flaw in the article is the assumption that teachers and trainers must determine the student’s style and teach only to that particular style. This is a narrow look at one section of the learning style field. Our model (4MAT) is based on addressing all four styles with diverse instructional activities that appeal to all the different types or learners. We help teachers get students to understand: 1) Why it is important, 2) what key ideas are being taught, 3) how to apply learning in their lives, and 4) how to adapt learning in new contexts and situations.

Research on using the learning cycle as a tool for creating more dynamic and engaging learning experiences is quite substantial. We have many control/experimental research studies that document the positive impact of this approach, including the following two studies. One was published in the Journal of Cancer Education, and one published in the Elementary School Journal.

Using 4MAT for Breast Self Examination Training Cite: Control/Experimental Design
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1931598?log$=activity

UNC Chapel Hill Research on 4MAT: Control/Experimental Design
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1001688

The 4MAT® Research Guide
http://www.4mat.eu/theory---studies--research.aspx

About Learning has trained hundreds of thousands of teachers in this approach. as well as trainers in both corporate and government, and has seen the positive results among students in many setting and in many different subject areas. We encourage anyone who is interested to evaluate the basis of the model and its practical use as a tool for enhancing instructional performance in all fields.