BRIEFING NOTE

1 Education Endowment Foundation (2013). Learning styles: low impact for very low cost, based on moderate evidence

October 2013 Series briefing note 41 The City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development (CSD) is an independent, not for profit research and development body which is committed to improving the policy and practice of work-related education and training internationally. It is part of the City & Guilds Group. This briefing note forms part of a series of notes produced by CSD on issues affecting the global vocational education and training sector. These notes aim to briefly summarise and compare existing research, policy and practice in different countries, and to use this to develop general principles as a starting point for debate among education stakeholders. For more comprehensive information on specific issues please refer to the further reading sections of the notes, or contact CSD directly.

LEARNING STYLES 1. Introduction 2. Learning style theories and tools 3. Why are learning styles inventories still used? 4. Recommendations 5. Recommended further reading

1. INTRODUCTION “Learning styles” refers to the concept that people have different learning preferences or approaches to learning (a learning style), and that learners will be more successful if they are taught in ways that suit their style. The concept has proven popular among practitioners as a plausible explanation of differences between learners, and has attracted a great deal of research interest. There are several thousand different models that seek to define different learning styles, and that offer tools for diagnosing them. As summarised by the Education Endowment Foundation however, “Where gains [in learning] have been documented, these may come from [learners] taking responsibility for learning, rather than directly from the use of learning styles approaches … The evidence for the lack of impact (and in some cases detrimental effect) of using learning styles approaches has been shown in a number of studies.”1 This note finds that teachers should be careful not to label learners as always having particular strengths or preferences based on a learning styles approach. There is also no evidence that teachers must consider learning styles in order to teach a class with differing abilities and strengths. Teaching methods can instead be varied by consideration of the subject matter, and the understanding and proficiency shown by individual learners. Nonetheless, teachers that use learning style concepts in their teaching tend to value them, partly because discussing learning styles can involve learners in considering their learning and behaviour. If learners doing this become more aware of their capacity to learn, then it can benefit them. However given the lack of proven validity – and potentially misleading nature – of learning styles inventories, inspectors and managers in educational settings should not put pressure on teachers to consider or assess learning styles.

2. LEARNING STYLE THEORIES AND TOOLS A systematic review by Frank Coffield, David Moseley, Elaine Hall and Kathryn Ecclestone in 2004 continues to offer the most comprehensive outline of learning styles theories and models. They identified 3,800, and reviewed more than 800 of these. To summarise the field, they classified them into four different over-arching theories.

Learning styles 2

Theory 1: Learning styles are “constitutionally based” Proponents are of the strong belief that people possess inherited or developed biological traits that affect their cognition, and that these alter what teaching methods will succeed for any given individual. Learning styles inventories by Dunn and Dunn (1979; 2002), and by Dunn, Dunn and Price (1992; 1996) are among the best known that aim to diagnose learning styles on this basis. 2 The Dunn and Dunn model says that learners’ preferences can be environmental (eg what noise levels they prefer); sociological (eg whether they recognise authority or not); or emotional (eg whether they are motivated). The model also considers “physical modality preferences”, such as a preference for auditory learning which includes listening, discussing or recording, or for kinaesthetic learning, which includes creative pursuits such as acting, building or designing.3 Teachers and learners explore the model through a questionnaire (termed a learning style inventory or LSI), by which learners indicate their preferences across each of these areas. One of the points in favour of going through the process is that it is likely to encourage teachers and students to talk about learning and behaviour and reach a mutual understanding. However the central claim that using these LSI tools will boost learning remains unproven.4 For example, Dunn & Dunn’s Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) was applied in the UK in 2003 with four further education colleges. 259 students participated along with their teachers, and unfortunately achieve less well and were more likely to drop out compared to the control group.5 This was despite the fact that teachers and students took a positive view of the initiative. Theory 2: Learning styles reflect a person’s cognitive structure “Cognitive structure” refers to the mental processes people use to make sense of information. Some theorists believe that different individuals differ significantly in their cognitive structure, and that these differences can be reliably diagnosed as learning styles. Witkin’s tests of “field dependence” and “field independence” have been among the most influential in this field.6 These tested whether a person can orient themselves or an object going against visual cues, and whether they can pick out simple figures hidden in more complex surroundings. Concepts of learning styles have been put forward that use tests such as these as a basis. For example, Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) claims to find out what a person’s tendency is when they’re processing information, using visual computer-based tests. In the first test, people that work more quickly to match visual items are defined as “holist”, whereas those that work more quickly to interpret embedded figures are defined as “analytic”. The second test tries to define learners as verbal (remembering information primarily as words), or visual (remembering as imagery), using a similar method. Like other learning styles models, the validity and reliability of these tests is unproven. The research finds that people taking the CSA have not obtained similar scores when they re-take the test,7 which suggests that CSA results do not indicate a fixed learning style. Critics also argue that particular cognitive differences found in tests should not dictate the type of teaching a learner receives, and that stereotyping them could restrict and damage their learning.8 When it comes to testing cognitive structure to guide teaching, Coffield et al. conclude that “there is little strong evidence for improved outcomes” coming from any of the models and instruments devised. 9

2 Coffield, F. Moseley, D. Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London (UK): Learning and Skills Research Centre, p. 21 3 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid. p. 21 4 Coffield et al. (2004). ibid, pp. 29-30 5 Klein, C. Swaby, A. Richardson, G. & Leung, C. (2003). Using a learning styles approach to improve learning, achievement and retention in further education, as referenced by Coffield et al. (2004) ibid: p. 33 6 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid. p. 37 7 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid. p. 43 8 Saracho, O.N. (1998b). Research directions for cognitive style and education, International Journal of Educational Research, 29(3): p. 288, as referenced in Coffield et al.(2004). Ibid: p. 39 9 Coffield et al. (2004). ibid: p. 40

Learning styles 3

Theory 3: Learning styles are one feature of a stable personality type Proponents of this theory see someone’s learning style as one observable aspect of their personality type, and they see personality type as relatively fixed. The best known diagnostic tool in this area is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). 10 The MBTI was first developed by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers in the 1940s. The standard version has 93 multiple choice questions designed for people to use individually to consider their reactions and preferences. The findings were expected to have relevance for teaching and learning as well as other aspects of day to day life. The “INFP” type for example has artistic, reflective, and sensitive as positive traits, and careless and lazy as negative traits. The MBTI has since been widely applied to professional fields such as career development, and is used as a management tool. 11 Personality researchers judge the traits described in the MBTI to be fairly valid, but the reliability of the results are more questionable: the 1985 user manual states that only 65% of people maintain the same personality type on a retest. The significance of MBTI results for learning is also thoroughly speculative, with Coffield et al. finding that “there are few, if any, studies which are able to confirm correlations between specific [personality] types and improved attainment.”12 Theory 4: Learning styles are “flexibly stable learning preferences” Proponents of this theory say that learning styles are better viewed as collections of approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning, rather than as fixed traits. David Kolb provided the main inspiration for this theory with his book Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1984), which came with its own learning styles inventory. In Kolb’s Inventory, learning styles emerge from a cycle of learning, which consists of “concrete experience”, “reflective observation”, “abstract conceptualisation”, and “abstract experimentation”. He suggests that people form habits as to which part of the cycle they use, which develop into stable preferences, or styles. For example, learners with a “converging style” are thought to prefer abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. Learners with a “diverging style” are thought to prefer concrete experience, and reflective observation. To diagnose learning styles, Kolb’s Inventory presents learners with twelve incomplete sentences. In each sentence they choose between four words that finish the sentence and are expected to describe their learning. For example, the sentence “I learn best from…” can finish with “rational theories”, “personal relationships”, “a chance to try out and practice”, or “observation”. The learner has to choose one of the four options in each case. Kolb’s theories about experiential learning are influential internationally, and his Learning Styles Inventory has been published in many different languages. However researchers have always challenged whether the LSI is reliable, whether its categories are valid, and whether it measures what it purports to measure. Several studies have found that only just over half of learners maintain the same diagnosis on a re-test, and that more than 10% switch to a completely opposite “style”.13 The most recent empirical study we have come across found that “at best [the test] provides random numbers.”14

3. WHY ARE LEARNING STYLES INVENTORIES STILL USED? One issue that underlies many of the difficulties with learning styles inventories outlined above is that most of them are based on self-reported preferences: the learner fills in a questionnaire that generates a result, but the results may have not have a strong relationship to learners’ actual strengths. Pashler et al. (2008) cite a “well- 10 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid: p. 46 11 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid: p. 47 12 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid: p. 51 13 Coffield et al. (2004). Ibid: p. 64 14 Martin, S. (2010). Teachers using learning styles: Torn between research and accountability? Teaching and Teacher Education 26: pp. 1583-1591

Learning styles 4

executed study [which finds] that preference for visual versus verbal information shows hardly any relationship to an individual’s objectively measured [visual and verbal] aptitude.”15 Some approaches such as Riding’s CSA seek to answer this criticism, by assigning scores for performance in particular tests. However these tests lack independent proof that they are valid and reliable. It is therefore worth considering why learning styles inventories became so popular, and what are their enduring strengths? A study published in 201016 provides some insight into this. Conducted in four secondary schools with “outstanding” inspection ratings, the research found that LSIs devised by Kolb and by Honey and Mumford, that were being routinely used, did not generate consistent findings about students. The researcher then explored whether and why teachers would still use them. Through his interviews he found that teachers were very reluctant to stop using these methods, for the following reasons:

• Face validity: Learning styles theories say that not all people learn in the same way, therefore you can’t teach them in the same way. This feels like common sense and speaks to a frequent concern for teachers as they seek to address the different pace and confidence with which different people learn. The researchers generating learning styles inventories are also seen as reputable sources.

• Implications for quality assurance and inspection: Teachers and schools felt that using learning styles

inventories would show that they were striving to offer individualised learning, therefore providing important evidence of good practice to inspectors. Their recent designation as an “outstanding” school would make them even less likely to change their approach, in case it compromised their good rating.

• Lack of awareness of evidence: Teachers said that they were not aware of research on learning styles

instruments, and that they have little or no contact with research literature.

• Pedagogy: Many of the teachers were more interested that students might be encouraged and engaged by the use of LSIs than they were in the results or reliability of the tests. For some teachers, diagnosing learning styles was also seen as a way to show conformity and defend against “fads” coming from policy-makers or from managers in schools, which might otherwise affect their underlying teaching methods.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS Research into learning styles over the last ten years (and previously) suggests that:

• Use of learning styles inventories, where it occurs, should work toward ‘metacognition’ among learners: encouraging them to take responsibility for how they learn. Learning styles inventories should not be used to label learners as always having a particular preference or strength.

• It is valuable for teachers to vary their approach according to the subject or skill they are teaching, and on

an individual basis. However, individualised teaching can be guided by the level of prior knowledge or skill demonstrated by the learner. There is no evidence that it should necessarily be based on learning styles. Managers and inspectors of educational institutions should not require teachers or trainers to use learning styles inventories.

15 Massa, L.J. & Mayer, R.E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis, Learning and Individual Differences 16: pp. 321–336; as referenced in Pashler, H. McDaniel, M. Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3): p. 112 16 Martin, S. (2010). Teachers using learning styles: Torn between research and accountability? Teaching and Teacher Education 26: pp. 1583-1591

Learning styles 5

5. RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING Coffield, F. Moseley, D. Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. Learning and Skills Research Centre. Available from: http://www.leerbeleving.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/learning-styles.pdf Dembo, M.H. & Howard, K. (2007). Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2): pp. 101-109. Available from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ767768.pdf Martin, S. (2010). Teachers using learning styles: Torn between research and accountability? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26: pp. 1583-1591. Written by Olivia Varley-Winter October 2013 olivia.varley-winter@skillsdevelopment.org

City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development

1 Giltspur Street, London, EC1A 9DD, United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)20 7294 2796 W: www.skillsdevelopment.org E: info@skillsdevelopment.org

Twitter: @skillsdev