Understanding learning styles
How individual humans learn is a meaty subject, and if the research of heavyweights Howard Gardner (2009) and David Kolb (2011) is any indication, it gets meatier the longer you think about it. Over the years, both have expanded the number of learning styles identified in their work, producing increasingly complicated – and presumably accurate – views of how people prefer to learn. But for our purposes, we can take a simpler view.
VAK – or Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic – is a learning styles model with intuitive appeal and a history going back nearly a century. Seeing and reading comprise the visual learning style, listening and speaking comprise the auditory learning style, and touching and doing comprise the kinesthetic learning style. “According to the VAK model, most people possess a dominant or preferred learning style. However, some people have a mixed and evenly balanced blend of the three styles” (Chislett and Chapman, 2005, para. 9).
Reflecting on my preferred learning style
My first pass at the VAK self-test confirmed what I had discovered before: I’m predominantly a visual learner. I prefer text sources in my schoolwork, maps for getting around, and recipes for cooking. I read instructions when I get a new piece of electronic equipment, and use email most of the time to communicate with the world. In these situations at least, I seem to trust words on a page more than anything else. After reflecting a bit on this, I decided to revisit the self-test with some different scenarios in mind. The results surprised me. I found that I was sometimes an auditory learner and sometimes a kinesthetic learner, as well.
For example, I was recently in a music store in Iceland and saw instruments I’d never seen before. I immediately wanted to pick them up and experiment with them. It never crossed my mind to read a manual. Then I considered how I exercise. I watch myself in a mirror and note how the correct form feels. In both cases, I’m using a kinesthetic learning style. As for the auditory component, I learn a tremendous amount from listening to old-timers talk about their experiences with horses, just as I learn a lot when I share my own experiences with my students. I also listen to talk radio daily while exercising or doing outside chores. These are certainly examples of an auditory learning style. So what does all this mean? Could it be that preferred learning styles vary not only from one person to the next but also from one context to the next?
Learning theories and learning styles
Learning styles are part of the larger subject of learning theory. Learning theories abound – fifty of them are nicely summarized in the Theory into Practice Database (Kearsley, 2011) – but those that have been most influential in American education during the past century are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. In very simple terms, behaviorism is concerned with manipulating stimuli to produce correct responses in the student. Cognitivism focuses on the mental processes and structures used in learning. And constructivism sees learning as creating personal meaning through authentic, problem-oriented experiences.
Which of these learning theories supports my preferred learning style? The answer, of course, is that all of them do. When I learn a new musical instrument I do it by immersing myself in the sort of authentic, hands-on scenario that constructivists endorse. When I reconcile what I’ve learned from an old-timer with my previous schema about horses, I’m using the mental processes of most interest to cognitivists. And when I consult a manual to learn how to find
unused frequencies for a wireless microphone, I’m firmly in the world of behaviorism.
Systematic eclecticism
Like many of my classmates and instructors, I claim no allegiance to one learning theory over another. In fact, I think it is foolish and unnecessary to become an “ist.” Each theory is a window giving me a different view on the complex phenomenon of learning, and there are contexts where each will shine, where each will be the most appropriate underpinning for an instructional strategy. The worst thing a learner, teacher, or instructional designer can do is become so loyal to a particular learning theory as to miss seeing when it’s not the best choice. Indeed, choosing the best approach for the context – a sort of cherry picking G.E. Snelbecker dubbed systematic eclecticism (as cited in Ertmer & Newby, 1993) – has genuine appeal to those of us who like a little common sense with our learning theory.
Should learning be easy?
But there is another issue wrapped up in the notion of preferred learning styles. Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu said, “A scholar who cherishes the love of comfort is not fit to be deemed a scholar” (ThinkExist.com, 2010). Learning is, by its very nature, a growth experience. It requires stretching, getting out of one’s comfort zone. It can be unsettling and difficult, which is precisely why there is such satisfaction awaiting the diligent student. Yet aligning learning theories and instructional strategies with a student’s preferred learning style is intended to make learning easier. Ignoring for a moment the impossibility of catering to every student’s preferred learning style in every course, is this really the right thing to do? Is this the right way to encourage scholarship and the will to be a self-directed lifelong learner?
Thinking back
On this subject, I need to make a distinction between my views as a student and asfa teacher. My return to college was after a 36-year absence. It seemed like everything had changed. I had my doubts about the instructional strategies used in the program. I wasn’t always sure what to do. Some of the reading assignments were long and difficult. I was older and philosophically out-of-sync with some teachers, and most of my classmates. Certainly I wasn’tin my comfort zone, nor was I using my preferred learning styles. So, I did what I had to do. I adapted, I stretched, I grew, and now I am succeeding. The feeling of accomplishment is indescribable. I am better for having worked outside my comfort zone.
When I’m really honest with myself, I don’t care much about whether instructional strategies align with my preferred learning styles. I know that I’ll adapt and learn, regardless. I also know that I tend to learn differently depending on the context and that I can learn as much – or even more – when there is poor alignment between the instructional strategy and my instinctive approach to that learning task.
As an educator, I can’t afford to take this attitude. I need to serve students with all levels of motivation, experience, and ability. Understanding how they prefer to learn is good information to have, especially if I want to challenge them now and then to try something different.
References
Chislett, V. & Chapman, A. (2005). VAK learning styles self-test. Retrieved from
http://www.businessballs.com/vaklearningstylestest.htm
Ertmer, P. & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4),50-72.
Gardner, H. (2009). Multiple intelligences. Retrieved from http://www.howardgardner.com/MI/mi.html
Kearsley, G. (2011). Explorations in learning & instruction: The theories into practice database. Retrieved from http://tip.psychology.org/
Kolb, D. (2011). Kolb learning style inventory (LSI) version 4. Retrieved from
http://learningfromexperience.com/tools/kolb-learning-style-inventory-lsi/
ThinkExist.com. (2010). Retrieved from http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_scholar_who_cherishes_the_love_of_comfort_I
s/11351.html
No comments:
Post a Comment