Thai Educators Network

Using learning styles effectively in class
Dr Mina Eaves

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dr Mina carefully led Thailand Educators Network into and through the world of learning styles in a fascinating and thought provoking journey into her area of expertise and passion.

Beginning with an introduction into learning styles, Dr Eaves began by suggesting that learning style definitions include one or more of following: 1) Habitual information processing style – how learners perceive, store and organize information; 2) Learning strategies - adaptive responses to material and context; or 3) Instructional preferences.

With this in mind, she overwhelmed us with the fact that there are currently over 100 learning style models used widely, and she added with foreboding in her voice, “assumed”, she stressed, “assumed to improve learning…”

However, before moving on to this titillating nugget of information to follow, Dr Mina provided a very brief history of learning styles divided into two distinct eras.

The 1970s and 80s, she explained saw an explosion in learning styles models including wholist-analytical (field independence), verbal-imagery, left-right brain, VAK models with visual, auditory and kinesthetic as key words, Kolb-based models and his ideas about activist, reflector, theorist, pragmatist/concrete learners and the interactionist models dealing with environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological and psychological issues.

The 1990s and up to now see more emphasis on metacognition  and the way learners learn in terms of, for example, self-insight and self-regulation of learning.

Returning repeatedly, Dr Mina referred to the Coffield Report (2004) Dr Mina reviewed how the report had studied 100 different learning styles models and then offered some detailed information for the 13 Most Popular Learning Styles Models.

Appendix: Learning styles models

The following is a brief summary of the key points of 13 of the most popular and influential models of learning styles (adapted from Coffield et al. 2004).

Gregorc – Mind Styles Delineator (GSD)
• Two dimensions: concrete-abstract and sequential-random
• Most learners prefer a variety of instructional approaches
• Issues of validity and reliability
• No empirical evidence that using Gregorc’s model brings any learning benefits

Dunn and Dunn – Learning Styles Questionnaire/Inventory
• Four styles: environmental, sociological, emotional, physical
• Aims to help teachers identify individual instructional preferences and adapt pedagogy and the learning environment accordingly
• Widely used internationally
• Lack of independent research to support this model

Riding – Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA)
• Two dimensions: wholist-analytic, verbaliser-imager
• Evidence of links between cognitive styles and instructional preferences
• Need to take working memory into account as well as cognitive styles
• Although the model has potential value, Riding’s instrument for measuring cognitive style is not reliable

Myers-Briggs – Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
• Based on Jung’s theory of personality – four bipolar scales (perceiving/judging, sensing/intuition, thinking/feeling, extraversion/introversion) producing 16 personality types
• Conceived as a tool to categorise personality, not just approaches to learning
• Limited evidence that matching teacher and learner types may increase performance

Apter – Motivational Style Profile (MSP)
• Based on motivational ‘states’, not fixed types, in four domains: means–ends, rules, transactions, relationships
• Theory of personality, not learning style
• Although not widely researched, the theory’s emphasis on motivation may have considerable relevance for education

Jackson – Learning Styles Profiler (LSP)
• Four types: initiator, reasoner, analyst, implementer
• Mostly used in business
• Emphasises the importance of personal development through building up multiple strengths

Kolb – Learning Styles Inventory (LSI)
• Four styles: active, reflective, abstract, concrete
• Learning styles are not fixed personality traits, but relatively stable patterns of behaviour
• Students should gain competence in all four learning styles to become balanced, integrated learners

Honey and Mumford – Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
• Four types: activists, reflectors, theorists, pragmatists
• Learning style is defined as ‘a description of the attitudes and behaviour which determine an individual’s preferred way of learning’
• Most people exhibit more than one trait

Herrmann – Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)
• Four types: theorists, organisers, innovators, humanitarians
• Most people have two or more strong preferences
• Originally based on brain research, but social, cultural and experiential factors are more important in determining learning preferences
• Learners should develop the flexibility to respond to particular learning situations, regardless of their natural preferences
• Well established in business but not widely used in education

Allinson and Hayes – Cognitive Styles Index (CSI)
• One bipolar dimension: intuition-analysis
• Relatively high level of validity and reliability
• Intended for use in business rather than education

Entwistle – Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST)
• Three approaches: deep, surface, strategic
• Deep learning is seen as the most effective and beneficial
• Intended to characterise approaches, not individuals
• Widely used in UK higher education
• Offers recommendations for designing instruction to promote deep learning

Vermunt – Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS)
• Four approaches: meaning-directed, application-directed, reproduction-directed, undirected
• Each learning style affects five dimensions: cognitive processing, learning orientation (motivation), affective processes (feelings about learning), mental model of learning, regulation of learning
• Used mainly in higher education
• Combines cognitive and emotional aspects
• Emphasis on the teaching-learning environment rather than individual differences

Sternberg – Thinking Styles (TSI)
• Thirteen thinking styles divided into three functions, four forms, two levels, two scopes and two leanings
• Distinguishes between styles and abilities – a style is ‘a preferred way of using the abilities one has’
• Learners have a profile of styles, not just one single style
• Profiles of styles may differ according to gender and cultural background
• Styles are teachable and should fit the context, so a variety of teaching and assessment methods is desirable.

Taken from http://industry.becta.org.uk/content_files/industry/resources/Key%20docs/Content_developers/learning_styles.doc

The Coffield Report, Dr Mina went on, recommended the following models for use with higher-education students: Vermunt (Inventory of Learning Styles- ILS) and Entwistle (Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students-ASSIST); while for the workplace, Allinson and Hayes (Cognitive Styles Index- CSI) and Apter (Motivational Style Profile- MSP).

Dr Mina was clearly in her field of expertise as she led us through some very convincing arguments against using learning styles.

1. Over-simplistic as learning is a complex interaction
2. Lab findings over-extended and used to label learners inappropriately
3. Learning improvement claims are over-inflated
4. Too many conflicting models as this kind of testing is a lucrative business
5. Problems with validity and reliability of the actual questionnaires
6. Eurocentric in that it is not known if they hold weight in non-Western contexts

Again, taken from the Coffield report, the following points help to throw further doubt on the validity of learning style models:

• There is no secure evidential base to support any one theory of learning styles – it is important to be aware of the limitations of any learning styles model and indeed of the field as a whole.
• Any theory or model of learning styles is necessarily a simplification of the complexity of how students learn.
• Learning styles are at best one of a range of factors determining how learners react to learning opportunities – environment, culture (of both learner and institution), teaching methods and curriculum requirements are all part of a complex pattern of interactions.
• Representing knowledge in multiple formats does appear to result in learning gains – however, it is at least as effective to match the presentation of content to the nature of the subject matter as it is to match it to individual learning styles.
• There is a danger inherent in learning styles of labeling students as particular kinds of learners – given the lack of robust evidence in the field, labeling strategies seems safer than labeling learners.
• An awareness of learning styles theories may help to develop metacognition and the ability to learn how to learn.
• At least some aspects of learning styles and strategies can be taught, regardless of natural inclination.

http://industry.becta.org.uk/content_files/industry/resources/Key%20docs/Content_developers/learning_styles.pdf

Dr Mina went on; however, to suggest that learning styles should not be abandoned completely as it can offer some insights into how to teach and the various ways we tend to learn, or even prefer to learn depending on the subject matter and what we plan to do with acquired knowledge and/or skills.

Among other things, she recommended to

1. Use well-designed, reputable and appropriate questionnaires
2. Be aware of their limits and to avoid labeling learners and stereotyping
3. Integrate ideas into the learning context and just as a one-off session
4. Use to develop learner self-insight and self-regulation into their learning processes (metacognition)
5. Remind teachers to use multiple strategies and monitor learning effectiveness

In conclusion, Dr Mina made it clear that while learning styles is a very controversial and misunderstood area, with the careful selection of a learning styles model and questionnaire carefully based on reliability and validity, we can use these questionnaires to help our students develop metacognition rather than to categorize them which should lead into the use of a wide range of teaching strategies to accommodate all learning styles.

Sound advice from someone who clearly knows her topic, Dr Mina will be back again to share more of her insights into education and in particular, education in Thailand.

While searching on the internet, the following information about the paper Dr Mina shared with us was found and I feel should be shared:

Learning styles technology and supporting overseas learners
Author: Mina Eaves
Journal: Multicultural Education & Technology Journal

Year: 2009 Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Page: 61 - 73
ISSN: 1750-497X
DOI: 10.1108/17504970910951156
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present details of a study investigating learning styles differences of Thai students in England compared to local students in England and Thailand. It also discusses key issues in using learning styles in multicultural and international education, given their wide availability online.

Design/methodology/approach – A mixed methods design is used, including a psychometric approach using Vermunt's Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS) with three postgraduate Business student samples – Thai (in England, n=26), European (in England, n=16) and Thai (in Thailand, n=122) and a qualitative approach using focus groups, interviews and open-ended questionnaires with the Thai (in England, n=43) sample only.

Findings – One-way independent analysis of variance analyses on ILS scores show that learning styles differ significantly between the three samples on each of the test occasions, particularly in meaning-directed learning and undirected learning. The qualitative data analysis shows that Thai students in England perceive culturally-determined differences in teaching and learning behaviour between Thai and English higher education environments that can cause difficulties for them.

Research limitations/implications – The use of mixed methods gives data of greater breadth and depth than a single method; however, the sample sizes are somewhat limited.

Practical implications – Thai students in England require additional support from educators and educational institutions.

Originality/value – This paper provides a valuable insight into the learning styles and needs of Thai students in England, given the paucity of research in this area.

Keywords: Cross-cultural studies, England, Learning styles, overseas students, Students, Thailand

Article Type: Research paper

Article URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/17504970910951156