Due to the extremely large number of different learning style theories out there (Coffield et al., 2004 lists over 70 different schemas/models!), my method for this blog will be to focus on one theory at a time and try and review what can be found. Some of the reviews will be entirely theoretical and others will (hopefully) be evidence based.
Due to the popularity of the auditory learner vs visual learner vs kinesthetic learner idea, I decided to start my research there. The model is officially recognized as the VARK model. The four letters of VARK stand for the four types of learners: Visual, Aural, Reading and writing, and Kinesthetic. This model of learning styles was (from what I can tell) proposed and popularized primarily by Neil Fleming. Fleming expanded on usual models by including the “R” style of learner. That is, prior to Fleming (1995) there were other theories out there, but these theories failed to include the “Reading and writing learner.” I will write more about these earlier models in later posts.
Fleming’s purpose was to develop a questionnaire to differentiate various methods of learning and to aid educators and education administrators by encouraging them to develop different modes of teaching for the various types of students in the classroom. For example, Fleming discusses two types of learners that are not served well with current educational practices:
“The third group are not well served by present day methods of teaching in a university. They are the visuals. This does not mean that they are restricted merely to picture information or enhancements using colour and layout. They like information to arrive in the form of graphs, charts, and flow diagrams.”
“In a tertiary education system we should feel sorry for the kinesthetics, who prefer their teachers to use field trips, experiments, role plays, games and experiential learning because those hands-on methods are seldom used.”
The discussion over the existence of preferences of learning styles/modes has been uncontroversial. Nearly everyone will agree that they prefer one method of instruction over another. The quotes above go one step beyond this. They seem to indicate that if a student’s preferences are not catered to (by the teacher or institution) the success of the student is jeopardized. Where is the evidence of this though?
The brief evidence that was presented included the following:
“[Two students] said that they required input from at least two modes to get a ‘full understanding’ whereas those with a strong preference usually comment that one mode is enough.”
Three case studies are also presented in the paper. Here is an example of one of them:
“Jim used the VARK questionnaire and agreed with the preference for read-write approaches to studying. He found lectures confusing and asked to be excused from attending them. Instead, he met with the teacher on a regular basis and kept track of the topics being covered. He used the library to read about the subject and claimed that he learnt more. The textbook was sufficient for a good grade (B+) in a marketing subject.”
Anecdotal evidence is never worth much. There is a reason that introspection is not a valid method of research anymore.
In all fairness, the purpose of Fleming (1995) really wasn’t to provide evidence for VARK but instead it was more of a theory paper. The paper does go a bit beyond theory when it encourages the use of their questionnaire/model in educational circles.
“Each presentation in another mode gathers in another group of students who might otherwise have missed the point of have been forced to rote learn some formulas and definitions suited to the R students. The workload for the teacher is greater but the learning for the students is better …teachers have to be aware that any one presentation of new material may be understood by only some students.”
Unfortunately, the argument for the use of this model, as presented in this particular paper, is extremely weak. While there is agreement that preferences for learning through certain modalities (V, A, R, or K) seem to exist, the idea that students get a benefit when learning through their preferred modality over any other modality is missing.
References
Coffield, F., Moseley, 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.
Fleming, N.D; (1995), I'm different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom, in Zelmer,A., (ed.) Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA),HERDSA, Volume 18, pp. 308 – 313
No comments:
Post a Comment