The idea that you should tailor your programs to the unique learning styles of your participants is nothing more than a myth.
The problem is not with learning styles, per se, but with the misguided notion that teachers and trainers should pander to these styles. This notion is underpinned by a belief that matching your approach to your learners’ preferred styles will help them to learn more effectively. Sadly, despite its popularity, research1 does not support this belief.
One reason the idea gained traction is that (as Shaun pointed out in his article Learning Agility Explained) society is reluctant to admit that some people are simply better learners than others. We prefer to believe that if someone is not learning, whether at school or in the workplace, then it is because we haven’t discovered—and catered to—their preferred way of learning. For an amusing satirical account of this view, read the article Parents of Nasal Learners Demand Odour-Based Curriculum.
This does not mean that understanding learning styles is a worthless exercise. As Kolb highlighted, people do have a tendency to prefer particular types of learning activities. However, deep learning requires people to engage with a range of learning activities outside of their preferred style. Therefore, you need to include a range of activities in your programs.
Nor does it mean that you cannot increase the odds that learning will occur. However, you do this through better participant selection, better program design and better delivery, not by pandering to people’s preferred learning styles.
Notes
- Lilienfeld, S., Ruscio, J. & Beyerstein, B. (2010), ‘Busting Big Myths In Popular Psychology’, The Scientific American Mind, March-April. ↩
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
In my own research that, in part, assessed whether there is a significant difference in learning and transfer with different delivery methods (Simulation, game and case study) showed no significant differences. In fact, the results even appear contrary to the theories.
But this could be due to the assessment of learning styles.
I used the Kolb LSI in spite of much criticism partly because it is a self-assessment and partly because it may not be a suitable instrument for working managers (Honey and Mumford, 1982). This may explain why the results of the analysis did not support the hypothesis that learning and learning transfer would be different when learning style and learning method were ‘matched’ , or it may indicate that the critiques for learning style as a concept would consider this supporting evidence for their position.
Either way, the results in my comprehensive research do not appear to provide much insight into the observed differences in learning, transfer or results according to an individual’s learning style preference.
The results can be found in my new book ‘Developing managers using simulations’ published by LAP in June 2010.
So, I agree, don’t pander to the learning style preferences. My current research in this area is beginning to suggest that it is the emotional (Limbic) impact of the content and method that does make a difference and that the ‘blockages’ to learning and transfer have more to do with an individuals cognitive biases.
{ 1 trackback }