Each person has his/her own learning style. Take a professional development book and you will find its advocates. Contrary to the believers of this “common knowledge,” this statement is a myth. Reiner and Willingham (2010) debunk this myth and explain why the claim “learning could be improved by matching the mode of instruction to the preferred learning style of the student” is not backed by solid evidence. The following sections are three important discussion points this writer makes about the article.
There is no scientific proof that learning styles exist.
Learning style is defined as “the preferred bodily sense through which one receives information, whether visual, auditory, or kinesthetic” (Reiner & Willingham, 2010, p.33). For learning style theorists, learners would be able to learn faster or better if teachers would recognize the student’s learning style and adjust the method of teaching to meet those styles. For several decades since the 1940s, there has been a huge amount of studies done to put categories in the way students learn.
In the interview with Professor Willingham, he said that no one has been able to test the theory in the correct manner. Despite hundreds of tests, the predictions favoring learning styles theorists were not seen. There is just no clear, scientific, reliable evidence that learning styles exist. The results of experiments would vary depending on the day the tests were given or the type of material used for these tests. In the flipside, just as there is no reliable evidence that learning styles exists, experts could not also prove that learning styles do not exist. In the article, the writers identified several claims of learning styles theorists that are valid. The first is the learners’ differences from each other. Students would differ from one another in terms of their interests, backgrounds, capacity to learn, and even disabilities in learning. All these are the ones that should be taken into consideration when planning the variety of methods in teaching. When conveying information teachers need to look into each of the students’ interests, background, and capacities to absorb the knowledge so that the learning process would be more efficient. It is not effective to label a student to have particular learning styles and pattern the teaching method according to this. The emphasis should be placed on the meaning that will be conveyed.
Conveying meaning is more important than focusing on the style
The content of the message needs to be emphasized more than the manner it has been acquired. How effective a meaning is conveyed would depend on the kind of content a material has. For example, learning a new language is best done through the auditory process where the teacher speaks the words using the correct pronunciation, intonation, stress, and even accent while the learner listens and repeats the words. A person considered to have a “visual learning style” and that with an “auditory learning style” would learn how to speak the language in a similar way. The differences would like not in their supposedly learning styles but in their interest to learn, capacity to learn, their background, and even if a learning disability is present or absent. Teachers use a variety of methods to convey meaning. Preschoolers connect dots to form letters or to develop numeracy skills. It is not the motions of the hand that helps the “supposedly kinesthetic learner” develop good drawings, but the details are those that he/she remembers in the drawings that were made.
The message or content can be expressed in a variety of ways. There are just certain ways or conduits that would bring across the message more effectively. Geography is best learned when maps, visual representations, are used. Poetry, more meaningful when read out loud and learners are able to hear the beauty of the words. A game of basketball would teach balance, speed, and teamwork.
The theoretical perspective is relevant to educators
It is important that educators are made aware about the theoretical perspective so that they would better understand the claims of learning styles theorists. Actually, Professor Willingham reiterated that the learning style concept is not presented in any of the Education textbooks. Despite the absence, though, future students believe that the teaching styles concept is true. It would be beneficial for student teachers to be informed by their textbooks that learning styles do not exist so that when they plan out their methods they would focus on the correct dimensions. However, this is not the case at present as the concept of learning styles is being marketed in the professional development field. Thus, it is best that educators are well-informed about the theoretical perspective.
Getting the whole picture is important so that educators are not swayed when claims, such as the one mentioned at the beginning of the essay, are made for purposes of improving one’s teaching methods. It is not sufficient that theories are proclaimed. There has to be valid, reliable, and sufficient information about how these theories were tested. Both sides of the theory need also to be made known. In the case of learning styles, the author claims that these do not exist for lack of solid evidence. However, as Professor Willingham has said, “we looked really hard, but we couldn’t prove that it [also] doesn’t exist.”
References
Riener, C., & Willingham, D. (2010) The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5), 32-35.
