Comments on: Don’t Pander to Learning Styles http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/dont-pander-learning-styles/learning-models/ Bite sized nuggets of leadership development wisdom for HR and L&D professionals Wed, 26 May 2010 01:12:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Don’t Pander to Learning Styles | GainMore Advantage http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/dont-pander-learning-styles/learning-models/comment-page-1/#comment-580 Don’t Pander to Learning Styles | GainMore Advantage Wed, 26 May 2010 01:12:32 +0000 http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/dont-pander-learning-styles/learning-models/#comment-580 [...] Don’t Pander to Learning Styles. addthis_url = [...] [...] Don’t Pander to Learning Styles. addthis_url = [...]

]]> By: Dr John Kenworthy http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/dont-pander-learning-styles/learning-models/comment-page-1/#comment-579 Dr John Kenworthy Wed, 26 May 2010 01:08:46 +0000 http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/dont-pander-learning-styles/learning-models/#comment-579 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. 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.

]]>