Abstract
Adult learners are attracted to learning opportunities (e.g. course offers) which seem promising in terms of allowing them to match their choices to their own perceived predispositions. To find out more about their personal learning style, some adult learners may fill in a questionnaire designed by researchers who aim (and claim) to enable both course providers and learners to optimise learning outcomes. The evaluation of these questionnaires measures learning styles using indicators developed for this purpose, but the results are not conclusive and their utility is therefore questionable. This narrative review critically examines some of the research which explores the usefulness of considering students’ learning styles in adult education. The authors present a discussion – which remains hypothetical – on why the use of learning styles measures continues to be popular despite the absence of rigorous research findings to support this practice. Factors discussed by the authors include confirmation bias (making choices which confirm our prejudices) and user qualification (limiting availability to trained users, e.g. psychologists) as well as limited resources and skills in evaluating research, paired with educators’ quest to implement evidence-focused techniques. The authors conclude that while learning styles assessments can be useful for the purpose of reflection on strengths and weaknesses, they should play a limited role in educational choices.
Résumé
Le style d’apprentissage d’un adulte doit éclairer et non pas limiter ses choix éducatifs – Les apprenants adultes sont attirés par les opportunités d’apprentissage (par exemple les cours proposés) qui leur semblent prometteuses en ce qu’elles leur permettent de faire correspondre leur choix à leurs prédispositions ressenties. Pour en savoir davantage sur le style d’apprentissage individuel, les adultes sont parfois invités à remplir un questionnaire conçu par des chercheurs qui entendent (et prétendent) permettre à la fois aux prestataires et aux apprenants d’optimiser les résultats d’apprentissage. Le traitement de ces questionnaires évalue les styles d’apprentissage au moyen d’indicateurs élaborés dans ce but, mais les résultats ne sont pas concluants et leur utilité est par conséquent contestable. Le présent examen narratif jette un regard critique sur plusieurs études qui examinent l’utilité d’explorer les styles d’apprentissage dans l’éducation et la formation des adultes. Les auteures soumettent une analyse – qui demeure hypothétique – sur les raisons pour lesquelles l’évaluation des styles d’apprentissage continue à être répandue, malgré l’absence de résultats scientifiques rigoureux à la base de cette pratique. Parmi les facteurs analysés figurent le préjugé de confirmation (faire des choix qui confirment nos préjugés) et la qualification de l’utilisateur (accès limité à des utilisateurs qualifiés, par exemple des psychologues), en outre l’insuffisance de ressources et de compétences pour évaluer la recherche, associée à la demande des éducateurs d’appliquer des techniques axées sur des données probantes. Les auteures concluent que si l’évaluation des styles d’apprentissage peut être utile dans l’optique d’une réflexion sur les forces et les faiblesses, elle devrait jouer un rôle limité dans les choix éducatifs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
While the terms are often used interchangeably, there is in fact a difference between learning styles and approaches to learning. Briefly, a learning style is our preference for how we like to experience learning, while a learning approach is how we think about the function of our learning. We further consider this difference at the beginning of the section entitled “Conceptual challenges”.
In a nutshell, deep learning refers to active cognitive engagement with a topic and involves drawing on and feeding into the learner’s long-term memory. By contrast, surface learning involves memorising facts without necessarily understanding them, drawing on and feeding into our short-term memory. Finally, strategic learning is learning to suit a specific purpose, e.g., learning content only related to an exam.
“The holist has many goals and working topics under his aim topic; the serialist has one goal and working topic, which may be the aim topic. Evidence suggests that the holist is assimilating information from many topics in order to learn the ‘aim’ topic, while the serialist moves on to another topic only when he is completely certain about the one he is currently studying” (Pask 1976, p. 130; italics in the original).
David Kolb’s four-stage model of experiential learning, conceptualised as a cycle, encompasses (1) concrete experiences (CE); (2) reflective observation (RO); (3) abstract conceptualization (AC); and (4) active experimentation (AE). (Kolb 1984).
Originating in the fields of philosophy and mathematics (Russell 1903), a type theory strives to avoid paradoxes. In the learning styles context, a type theory contends that there are a number of distinct types of learners and instructional methods that suit each type.
“The Index of Learning Styles is an online survey instrument used to assess preferences on four dimensions (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/global) of a learning style model formulated by Richard M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman. The instrument was developed and validated by Richard M. Felder and Barbara A. Soloman. Users answer 44 a–b questions and submit the survey, and their four preferences are reported back to them immediately to be copied or printed out. The results are not stored: when the report window is closed, the results are irretrievably lost (NCSU 2017). The “four preferences” refer to inclinations towards a learning style which is (1) either active or passive; (2) sensing or intuitive; (3) visual or verbal; and (4) sequential or global. The questionnaire is available at https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ [accessed 5 November 2017].
With the increasing need for adults to engage in lifelong learning, especially in terms of vocational upskilling, the market for psychological tests and assessments to help them decide on what to enrol in is thriving. Potential purchasers include individuals (learners and educators) and institutions. The purpose of a provider’s user qualification standard is to avoid misuse by restricting the sale and distribution subject to certain conditions (e.g. only selling to qualified psychologists).
The meshing hypothesis refers to the idea that “the theoretical basis for the formulation of cross-over interactions is typically based on a preferential model” (Kirschner 2015).
References
Ausburn, L. J. (2002). The freedom versus focus dilemma in customized self-directed learning environment: A comparison of perceptions of adult and younger students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(3), 225–235.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419–444. Retrieved 5 November 2017 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.294.3868&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Coffield, F., Mosely, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Cornelius, S., Gordon, C., & Ackland, A. (2011). Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: an activity-focused course design. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 381–393.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (Montreal, QC, 11–15 April). Retrieved 26 October 2017 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED235185.pdf
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, ON: Canadian College of Health Service Executives.
Cuthbert, P. F. (2005). The student learning process: Learning styles or learning approaches? Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 235–249.
DeBello, T. C. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning styles models: Variables, appropriate population, validity of instrumentation and the research behind them. Journal of Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, 6(3), 203–222.
Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2013). Motivation and learning strategies for college success. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willinghm, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Prentice Hall.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). Learning styles inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1996). Learning styles inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
English, L., Luckett, P., & Mladenovic, R. (2004). Encouraging a deep approach to learning through curriculum design. Accounting Education, 13(4), 461–488.
Entwistle, N. J. (1991). Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment. Higher Education, 22(3), 201–204.
Entwistle, N. (2001). Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education. Kybernetes, 30(5/6), 593–603.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Feeley, A. M., & Biggerstaff, D. L. (2015). Exam success at undergraduate and graduate-entry medical schools: Is learning style or learning approach more important? A critical review exploring links between academic success, learning styles, and learning approaches among school-leaver entry (“traditional”) and graduate-entry (“nontraditional”) medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 27(3), 237–244.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International journal of engineering education, 21(1), 103–112. Retrieved 5 November 2017 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSdir/ILS_Validation(IJEE).pdf.
Ficksman, M., & Adelizzi, J. (2010). The clinical practice of educational therapy. New York: Routledge.
Given, B. K. (2002). Teaching to the brain’s natural learning systems. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (formerly the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Gough, S. (2010). Technical and vocational education and training: An investment-based approach. London/New York: Continuum International.
Gove, W. (Ed.). (1980). The labelling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective. New York, NY: Wiley.
Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult’s guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of Kolb’s learning style inventory version 3 (1999). Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 249–257.
Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Do learners really know what’s best? Urban legends in education, Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.
Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Is what learners say that they prefer good for them? 3-star learning experiences, 28 July [blogpost]. Retrieved from 5 Nov 2017. https://3starlearningexperiences.wordpress.com/tag/learning-styles-hypothesis/.
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to an-dragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). The learning styles inventory: Technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Mirghani, M., Stankosky, M., & Murray, A. (2004). Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross-functional team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 127–142.
Misko, J. (1994). Review of research 2: Learning styles. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
Moran, A. P., Egan, A., Bates, U., Guerin, S., Coleman, U., O’Sullivan, C., & Shovlin, M. (2006). The learning support unit research project: The development and evaluation of a learning and thinking skills intervention for first-year students in University College Dublin. Final report to the Higher Education Authority (September 2006). Dublin: University College Dublin (UCD), Learning Support Unit.
NCSU (North Carolina State University) (2017). Index of learning styles (ILS) [webpage]. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Retrieved 3 November 2017 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
Newton, P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology. 6, Article 1908 [online]. Retrieved 26 October 2017 from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908/full.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128–148. Retrieved 3 November 2017 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.565.1188&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Rajaratnam, N., & D’Cruz, S. M. (2016). Learning styles and learning approaches: Are they different? Education for Health, 29(1), 59–60.
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards categorisation of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 5–27.
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (2002). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton.
Reid, G. (2005). Learning styles and inclusion. London: Sage.
Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3–4), 193–215.
Russell, B. (1903). Appendix B: The doctrine of types. In B. Russell, The principles of mathematics (pp. 534–540). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 5 November 2017 from http://bertrandrussellsocietylibrary.org/br-pom/br-pom-ch61.html.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). “Learning styles” and instructional design. Innovations in Education and Training International, 33(4), 185–193.
Smith, P., & Dalton, J. (2005). Accommodating learning styles: Relevance and good practice in vocational education and training. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). Retrieved 26 October 2017 from https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0022/4576/nr3013s.pdf.
Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (1999). Index of learning styles. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.
Ungerleider, D. (2011). Educational therapy in action: Behind and beyond the office door. New York: Routledge.
Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review., 16(4), 359–384.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barry, M., Egan, A. An adult learner’s learning style should inform but not limit educational choices. Int Rev Educ 64, 31–42 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9694-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9694-6