More on Learning Styles

Today Mark Oehlert points to Stephen Downes' post Professor Pans 'Learning Style' Teaching Method (in particular, the comments thread which I had missed as I typically just read Downes post right through the feed reader).

The whole Learning Styles controversy just won't go away; it's an entrenched theory at all levels in the education and e-learning field. The Telegraph article that Downes refers to shows how much attention the topic still garners.

I went on a mad crusade a few months ago trying to figure out if the Learning Styles theory holds any water after reading Ruth Clark & Richard Mayer's book, e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. Read about my humble moment regarding learning styles and more on my history with learning styles. Jean Marrapodi, in the comments on that post, urged me not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I went on to write more about debunking the learning styles myth and why some folks consider learning styles to be a form of fortune telling.

The fact is, there are still a lot of people who stand behind the theory and believe it to be a useful tool when teaching. And there are people making a business out of it.

In fact, just yesterday, I received an email from Performance Professionals, the company behind the TIPP Learning System, the "learning character profile" I completed last year for a teaching job.

Some excerpts from that email:

Last month Performance Professionals launched our redesigned website and began offering several new products through the TIPP™ Learning System. The good news for your friends and family is that NOW they too can access the TIPP™ Assessment and receive a personalized Learning-Character™ Profile just like you...

Second, we are also happy to announce the availability of our newest product, a set of Learning-Character™ Profiles for Parent-Teachers. These profiles are specially designed to help adults help kids learn!

A special offer to me, because I took the test in the past:

Because you have used the TIPP™ Learning System in the past, we would like to offer you the opportunity to re-take the TIPP™ Assessment and update your profile (...because our learning-style values can change over time) and receive either a full Parent-Teacher profile (LCPPT) or a new Instructor profile (LCPI) at the significantly reduced rate of $9.95. [My emphasis added in bold].

On the website, Performance Professionals describes the customized Learning-Character™ Profile as a way to "gain insight into how you learn and how you can help others do the same."

To be fair, I did gain some insight from the experience and found my mind more open to the different ways people approach content and, perhaps, learn.

So should I pay $9.95 to see if my profile results are different today than they were a year ago?

Don't Be a Tyrant!

A post from the Eide Neurolearning Blog from 2005.

The Tyranny of Thinking Styles

When some people hear the word "dog", they picture an image of a dog, while others see the printed word "d-o-g".

"It's worth our while to think more about the tyranny of our individual thinking styles, and the bias that can result if we don't consider how differently our students may think from us."

Thinking styles -- learning styles -- the point is, we all approach content differently. As teachers and instructional designers, what matters is that we keep this in mind and don't apply our own preferences as the sole method of presentation.

Learning Styles as Fortune Telling

My research into understanding the role of learning styles in e-Learning continues. I'm struck by why I find this topic so interesting. As a practical person, I tend to avoid theory. But in my quest for an informal M.Ed, I've got to get into theory a bit, right? Somehow this is an easy starting point. And it's kind of controversial, which makes it fun.

I was pointed in the direction of a good article on learning styles from Harold Stolovich via Guy Wallace.

Steven Stahl, Different Strokes for Different Folks? A Critique of Learning Styles American Educator (Fall 1999) American Federation of Teachers.

"The reason researchers roll their eyes at learning styles is the utter failure to find that assessing children's learning and matching to instructional methods has any effect on their learning."

Rather than segregating learners by different styles where they will receive "one-dimensional instruction", we should instead create "multidimensional instruction" using a variety of activities and presentation modes.

Learning Styles and Fortune Telling: We like learning styles because we get a flash of recognition; we see ourself as a pattern. It's like reading our daily horoscope.

Reliability of learning styles test is generally pretty low. A 1.0 rating is 100% reliable. The author cited two learning styles tests which came in at .60 and .70. This is consistent with my own experience taking learning styles tests. My answers were influenced by my mood, how I wanted to be perceived (by others, by myself), my fatigue level.

"The other possibility is that learning styles may change from month to month, or even week to week." I would also add that learning styles may change from topic to topic and level of expertise.

"Rather than different methods being appropriate for different children, we ought to think about different methods being appropriate for children at different stages in their development."

From the perspective of the adult learner, I think it's appropriate to think of skill level in these terms: a novice might have a different "learning style" from an expert. So when designing e-Learning courses, think about the skill level of your audience and present to their "current abilities and the demands of the task they have to master next."

Clark & Mayer address this a bit in e-Learning and the Science of Instruction when talking about closed navigation vs. learner control. Novices should be given less control, while experts should have more options and open navigation. "Program control gave better results during initial learning, while learner control was more effective at alter stages." (p. 236) Navigation isn't really about "learning styles" per se, but it is clearly about program design.

Harold Stolovich's take on the subject of learning styles, is that, yes, we all have different styles and approaches, but that these aren't the main thing we should be focusing on as designers of learning. "Best to apply universally sound methods to enhance learning. Vary activities to maintain interest and attention. Provide support and control mechanisms to help learners "stick with it." This way, you address all learning styles."

The EduTech Wiki also has a good overview on learning style theory.

And on that note, I think I'm pretty much done now with my learning styles assignment. For the moment.

Debunking the Learning Styles Myth

As you may know, I've been on a focused mission to better understand so-called learning styles and their place -- or not -- in e-Learning. Over the past week, I've been seriously reviewing my own outdated assumptions (go here and here for more on that).

Came across this post on Guy Wallace's Pursing Performance Blog, Debunking the Myth -- There Is No Such Thing as "Learning Styles". I take it that Guy is not a fan of learning styles.

Guy includes the text of a 2001 article by Sigmund Tobias of Fordham University. Tobias states:

Some adaptations to learning styles may lead instructional developers to teach concepts using multiple illustrations. In such practices, the instructional material may illustrate concepts, presumably the complex ones, in different ways, leading learners to form multiple representations. The designer may assume that the multiple illustrations work because learners choose the representation that is most congruent to their learning styles. It is probably more accurate that such instruction is effective because the multiple illustrations induce learners to devote more time to these concepts.

There's an important distinction to make between "learning style" and "instructional method."

Thoughts? Comments? Talk amongst yourselves....

If you're interested in learning more about learning styles, check out these posts: Learning Styles as Fortune Telling and Don't Be a Tyrant!

Learning Styles

In 1996, when I first started working as an "instructional designer", I was taught about learning styles. In the context of e-Learning (back then it was just plain old CBT), this meant you had audio/video on the screen with timed text bullets. The learner could listen to the audio if her preferred style was auditory, OR read the text if her preferred style was visual. That's about all I knew of it. But it seemed to make sense. Give the learner a variety of ways to access the content -- on the same screen.

When I was in trade school a few years ago, all of us student were brought through a three-day class session on learning styles. The thinking being, that if you understood your own learning style, then you could maximize your strengths and preferences for better study techniques, notetaking, and, ultimately, better learning. We each took a survey, the results of which showed what type of learner you were. I came out as a VKA (Visual, Kinesthetic, Auditory). This means that I learn best through my visual channel, next kinesthetic, with audio being my weakest channel.

Last year, we did a similar exercise at the school -- although this time, I was a teacher taking the test. We used a different approach: The Playground Theory of Learning developed by Shelly Loewen. Loewen's TIPP system is for "helping learners maximize their learning efforts and helping instructors address the learning differences of individuals and groups with ease." See my earlier posting for more on that experience: TIPP . Loewen's system classifies learners into Traditional, Playful, Personal, and Ideational with a visual, audiotory or kinesthetic preference. This time, I scored stronger on auditory than visual. Imagine my confusion.

I've been looking into the learning styles theory a bit the last few days, after having a humble learning moment.

I found some great articles/old posts on learning styles, thanks to Cathy Moore who pointed me to her reading list. Thanks, Cathy -- great stuff!

1) Learning Styles, ha, ha, ha
Jay Cross December 2005
The comment thread is really great.

2) Brian Alger -- Experience Designers Network
Learning Styles: Whose Styles Are These And Why Should They Matter To Me?

Theories do not help us to expand our awareness and understanding of learning; they serve to reduce and confine it.

3) Brian Alger -- Experience Designers Network
Learning Styles: Whose styles are these and what are they for?

The idea of learning styles commonly refers to some notion for a preferred way of learning. It implies that each of us has a natural inclination toward learning of some kind, and that if that natural inclination can be identified then teaching experiences
can be provided that facilitate our learning. Obviously, there is diversity in learning. However, to identify a generic set of abstract categories, label people according to these categories, and then provide experiences designed to help people in that category learn contains a variety of assumptions that need to be examined more closely...

Brian makes this important distinction:

Perhaps part of the solution is to separate, to some degree, the idea of being educated from the idea of learning. We might then explore the notion of "educating" styles - which seems like a term more appropriate to what is being described as learning styles. This would help to unhinge the assumptions that learning and education are intimately connected.

4) Jean Marrapodi just pointed me to Bernice McCarthy's 4MAT approach. Her slide "People Learn Differently" looks very similar to Loewen's Playground Theory.

Humble Learning Moment

File this one under the challenging of outdated theories and assumptions.

I've been reading e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2003) by Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer. I'd say this is a must-read for learning/experience/ instructional designers, or whatever you may call yourself. For a great summary of the book, head over to Clive's blog.

When I got to chapter 6, "Applying the Redundancy Principle", I started to get that squirmy, oh-crap feeling. The realization that I've been working off some really outdated theories...as recently as this week.

The old theory:

Up until now, I've gone along with that concept of learning styles, which the book's authors tell me is based on the information delivery theory. This is the notion that we all have a preferred channels for learning: visual or auditory. (I've always included kinesthetic on the list as well.)

So when designing a program with different learning styles in mind, one presents information in multiple formats: both as onscreen text and audio along with an illustrative graphic. The idea being if you're more visual, you'll read...if you're more auditory you'll listen. You present the content in multiple ways so that the user can access the information in their preferred way.

So here's this program I've been working on: lots of animated graphics, audio narration, and timed text bullets (a full transcript of the audio does not appear on the screen -- just key points to underscore the audio).

Apparently , this is considered a Bad Move. Overwhelms the learner's visual channel. OK -- duh. Now it seems painfully obvious to me that this is what's going on, and explains why I so easily tune out with these types of presentations.

The new theory -- the Redundancy Principle:

The Redundancy Principle is based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The notion is that people process verbal and visual information in separate channels. It's not one preferred style over another. Each channel can only process and handle so much information at once. So, if you present an animated graphic, the learner must look at the graphic in order to absorb the information. If you're also presenting onscreen text, you're overwhelming the learner. They don't know where to look and the visual channel gets overloaded.

The best presentation method is to show an animation/important graphic with narrated audio only -- no text. Don't include redundant on-screen text.

If you're not displaying a graphic or animation or other visual illustration, then text with audio is fine. (Be sure to read the book for more detailed information, research evidence, and examples of when it is ok to use redundant onscreen text).

I suppose if you still go for the learning styles approach, then you're best to opt for multiple representations of the content. Present the content in a variety of ways over a couple of pages. Clark Quinn is an advocate of this approach. In the session I took with him at the eLearning Guild event, he talked about multiple representations as a way to forge stronger pathways of memory in the brain. Cut a trail through the virgin forest; beat a path through the woods; create better connections in the brain by providing more opportunities for the learner to connect with the content.

A humble learning moment for this instructional designer.

Another take on Cognitive Load Theory

The authors of the Eide Neurolearning Blog weigh in on recent research and articles on cognitive load (including the death of Powerpoint that have been talked about here). While they recognize that some of this info is useful for understanding ways to effectively present information, "...the researchers still underestimate the diversity of their audience." Their main take-home point:

For the classroom, what may seem to be redundant information in a presentation, may be necessary for students with different information processing preferences.

This comes back to some of the basic "instructional design" I learned early in the game: that it's important to present information in a variety of ways because each of us learns differently and has a different learning style (in addition to providing that critical repetition and reinforcement -- what Clark Quinn called "multiple representations" in his session at the eLearning Guild event: "Deeper Learning Cognitive Science and Instructional Design")

On a sidebar note: assessing your own learning style is a whole 'nother matter.

One test showed me to be a VKA learner (Visual, Kinesthetic, Auditory)...

The TIPP learning theory showed me to be Traditional Personal with a visual preference (although I was also high on the auditory scale).

It's so easy to take one of these tests and skew your own results.

TIPP Learning Styles

Last week, all of the instructors at the school where I teach had to take an online test to assess our learning styles. This was a new model for me, called TIPP (Traditional, Ideational, Playful, Personal). The idea is that as learners, all of us have elements of these styles when we learn, although some will be stronger than others.

I scored as Traditional Personal, with a visual preference.

Traditional = values safety and rules. This learner needs to be told what to do and how. "What are the instructions?" They ask and observe first, and then act.

Personal = values relationships. For this type of learner, it's all about personal connections. Personal learners relate first, and then act.

Playful = values experimentation. This learner creates his or her own rules. They act first, and then reflect.

Ideational = values theory and concepts. This learner creates his or her rules. This person thinks and then observes, but may never act.

These qualities are then balanced by the VKA -- visual, kinesthetic or auditory. Do you learn best by seeing, doing/touching, hearing?

The difficulty with taking any of these types of tests, is that if you have any idea where it's going, it can be very easy to skew the results.