Two recent studies present contrasting views on the impact of learning styles on student achievement, leaving educators in a quandary. Should they adopt learning styles or reject them?
In the first study, Hattie’s analysis suggests that the issue lies not in the concept of learning preferences, but in how they are misconstrued. Teachers often mix up learning styles with strategies, leading to lesson plans based on VAK (visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic) assessments that don’t correlate with actual learning improvements. While the idea of personalized learning is appealing, it lacks concrete evidence of enhancement.
On the other hand, Erdem & Kaf’s study presents a different scenario. They focused on experimental studies where students were taught using methods tailored to their specific learning style, such as the Kolb or Dunn & Dunn models. These weren’t just surveys or quizzes; they were structured interventions, particularly in science and math, which showed substantial improvements in student achievement.
So, what’s the verdict for teachers?
Hattie & O’Leary advocate for discarding the learning styles model altogether. They argue that it diverts attention from effective strategies with robust evidence, such as retrieval practice, self-questioning, and spaced learning. They advocate for a shift towards metacognitive teaching, where students reflect on which strategies work best for them, rather than adhering to rigid learning style categories.
Erdem & Kaf, however, advocate for continued use of learning styles, particularly in STEM subjects, provided they are used to inform how students access material, not how content is delivered. They call for more cross-disciplinary research to validate their findings, which are based on studies in Turkey and unpublished work.
While Erdem & Kaf’s research may not be incorrect, its impact is limited due to its focus on a single country and unpublished status. Hattie and O’Leary’s meta-analysis factors in 100,000 students and past, published research from around the globe, offering a broader perspective.
In conclusion, while Erdem & Kaf’s study may present a different opinion, it is outnumbered by a larger body of research consistently finding no measurable benefit from learning styles. Therefore, it’s essential for educators to consider the methodology and scope of the research before making a decision about incorporating learning styles into their teaching methods.
As always, this blog post aims to provide a comprehensive, objective perspective on teaching styles, focusing on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) rather than controversy.
Thank you, Sara, for your positive approach.
Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Your comments are welcome! Please log in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
