Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Rethinking Learning Styles

31 December 2008 by Clark 12 Comments

I’ve pointed out the problems with learning styles in the past, but I want to rethink them with you, as we took quite a positive out of them in a unique way.   This was back in 99-2000, when I led a project developing an intelligently adaptive learning system (Intellectricity ™; inspired by Joe Miller‘s vision of a system that respected who you were as a learner).   The system took a unique approach, adapting on the basis of who you were as a learner instead of your demonstrated domain knowledge (though it did that, too, though not like an intelligent tutoring system).

To do this, I looked long and hard at learning styles, including Jonassen & Grabowksi’s uncritical compendium, and (the other) John Carroll’s Cognitive Factor Analysis research.   I decided then what I still do now, that essentially all of the learning style instruments are garbage.   It’s not just me saying this, but so does a commissioned study by the Learning and Skills Research Centre.   And, as I previously reported, psychologist Daniel Willingham says we shouldn’t adapt learning to styles. So, is there anything to salvage?

I want to say yes.   The obvious reason is to recognize that learners do differ, and help learning designers be mindful of that.   And there are some insights.   For example, take Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences.   When I was investigating learning styles, I didn’t like having bimodal dimensions, say where you’re either an introvert or an extrovert. The problem is, those are so context-dependent that you could be an introvert in the classroom, and an extrovert in the lunchroom.   Or even topic by topic.   I liked that Gardner assesses how social (interpersonal) you are separate from how independent (intrapersonal) you are. That became one of our principles when I challenged our psychometrician and our senior cognitive scientist to argue contrary, and they agreed with me.

So we took a different approach.   Starting from a premise of how learners differ in regards to learning, we made it more a competency than a characteristic: “how good are you at learning socially” (and I’d now add Marcia Conner‘s distinction of small group versus large group) separate from “how good are you at learning on your own”.

We ended up developing 31 different characteristics to evaluate, and chose the 9 we expected to have the most leverage into the first version of the system (which we got up and running).   These were across cognitive, affective (read: personality, e.g. the big 5 psychological traits), and conative (motivation, anxiety or ‘safety’, etc).   We had the system adapt on the basis of these competencies, not in changing the media to accommodate styles, but looking at different sequencing between (what I argue are the important characteristics) of example, concept, practice, etc.

We also believed that many if not all of these learning competencies could be improved, and designed strategies to develop skills over time. The premise did require a long-term relationship with the system, but that was our goal anyway.

The point here being that if, instead of fixed characteristics, we think of a suite of malleable learning competencies as a way in which our learners can differ, we gain two things.   First, we find ways we can support learners who have weaknesses in particular learning competencies (dealing with visual data representations, for example), and second, we can develop them in those competencies as well (which goes hand in hand with Michelle Martin & Tony Karrer’s Work Literacy).

It’s also a tangible investment in organizational competency, and potentially the only real leverage an organization can have, going forward.   Think: learning skills instead of learning styles, and develop your learners accordingly!

Comments

  1. Nick Kearney says

    31 December 2008 at 5:11 PM

    This is refreshing. Learning styles always looked clearer when seen as a set of perspectives, rather than a blueprint of characteristics. I always found it difficult to address the issue when learners said “I’m really a visual learner” in the same way as people say, for example, “I’m a Leo” and I tended, perhaps a little obtusely, to focus on what they weren’t. If you can do that, let’s work on the rest. Isn’t that a teachers responsibility?
    Competencies looks like a useful way of looking at it. How do you link in learners own understandings of their “learning style” to that? Is that kind of reflection one more competency in the list, part of the metacognitive section perhaps, or is it transversal?
    Best
    Nick

  2. Sui Fai John Mak says

    31 December 2008 at 5:36 PM

    Hi Clark,
    Many thanks for your insights on learning styles. You post here has provided another important direction on research relating to learning styles and competencies. I have written a few posts on learning styles and am interested in conducting further research that relates to neuroscience findings. I have been thinking about organizational competency, but have found a fundamental “issue”: what is required by organisation may not be the same as that by an individual and vice versa. How could one resolve the conflict between the two? Besides, under network learning, the focus seems to be on autonomy and openness, whereas under organisation learning, the focus is to comply with “group’s decision” and one must be a team player, with “closeness” or “membership” under teamworking. Do you see it as an issue?
    Great to learn your views.
    Happy New Year.
    John

  3. Dan Willingham says

    2 January 2009 at 6:27 AM

    There are two ideas here that I find very interesting: first, thinking of styles as unimodal, rather than bimodal dimensions. As you point out, there is not reason that the endpoints for a dimension need to be inversely correlated. (Although I wouldn’t think of Gardner’s MI theory as an example of that principle, although it may have been the inspiration, as it is an abilities theory rather than a styles theory).
    The other intriguing idea is using this principle in an adaptive system as a way of determining empirically what “learning styles” might mean. In other words, letting the data show you the extent to which there is consistency of style across tasks, occasions, etc., rather than starting with a theory and using a couple of one-shot tests to verify or disconfirm.
    Really interesting stuff.

  4. Clark says

    5 January 2009 at 10:44 AM

    Nick, Joe’s concept was helping learners understand themselves as learners, and I reckon that if we know things about them, we should share. Having them know themselves as a learner is a meta-cognitive thing that can help them look at their own learning and consequently, by having it visible, have them able to reflect and improve it.

    John, I like to think it’s in an organization’s interest to have learners improve, so the two should be coincident. To me it may be an issue of the organization saying, in effect: we’ll invest our effort in improving you, and in return you’ll invest your effort in our goals.

    Dan, yes, the unimodal came more from an abilities perspective, but I think there’re reasons to decouple, or at least consider. And yes, in a longterm relationship in a system you do get some evidence. We were going to put our assessment in a ‘game’, where your decisions indicated your actual processing characteristics. More useful than self-report, certainly. But the ability to track and datamine is an interesting proposition, if you know what to track (just saw an announcement for an educational datamining conference). One of the opportunities of suitable meta-tagging and data-logging.

    Thanks for the feedback!

  5. Virginia Yonkers says

    6 January 2009 at 11:17 AM

    As someone who did not fit the teaching “style” in a traditional classroom, I can say that a change in instructional design does make a difference for a student. I like that you term them learning “abilities” rather than “style” as style seems to me to be something that is a preference that can be turned on and off. My daughter has auditory processing problems and as such is a “visual” learner which can be tested. This means she is able to take visual cues and convert that to “learning”. Oral stimulus, such as lecture, is difficult for her, especially when there are other noises as she converts all the sounds into one big message (not able to tease out one sentence from another from different speakers).

    I was wondering how you have approached the differences in media. It seems that all of the current research on information overload, brain waves and parts of the brain that is being used for different types of thinking and stimulus would also help inform your system.

  6. Clark says

    6 January 2009 at 4:20 PM

    Virginia, I’m trying to separate out using the right medium for the message (e.g. a diagram for static relationships, animation for dynamic) versus a flexible ordering of elements: example first for some, problem first for others, concept first for yet others. This is initially for typical learners; I’m not attempting to account for accessibility, e.g. processing deficits at this point, but I’m definitely sensitive and think there are interesting ways to consider providing such support. Have a look at John Sweller’s excellent work on Cognitive Load Theory and media for some great thoughts on differences in media and learning effects. Much of it is summarized in Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller’s Efficiency in Learning.

  7. Sasalak says

    21 January 2009 at 5:47 AM

    Exactly, giving up “Learning Style” and think about “Learning Skill” instead. I found that it’s impossible to identified exactly individual learning style because it is changed overtime and depended on the several aspects. Moreover, it’s not the good idea to adjust the theme of learning pedagogy suit to individual learning style. The thing that we should do is to find the way of appropriate learning skill development.

  8. Robert Bacal says

    10 June 2009 at 1:43 PM

    Just a very late thought, since I’ve just found “here”. There’s an assumption that matching instructional methods to learning style will result in greater learning, but there’s actually research on both sides — that learning is best when matched, and also when there’s a deliberate mismatch.

    Different models predict and explain each finding.

  9. Ryan Tracey says

    15 August 2010 at 7:45 PM

    That’s an excellent suggestion, Nick, to consider learning “skills” rather than learning “styles”.

    I think another perspective (though not mutually exclusive) is to consider so-called learning styles in terms of learner “preferences”. In the corporate sector, I see learner engagement as a serious challenge. If we can better accommodate the learner’s preferences, perhaps we can boost their enjoyment of the learning experience?

  10. Leslie LeMaster says

    15 October 2010 at 2:57 PM

    Check out the 4MAT Instructional Design System and the research that supports it by Dr. Bernice McCarthy and her perspective on Learning Styles. I believe you will find it interesting. See more at Aboutlearning.com

  11. Clark says

    18 October 2010 at 11:29 AM

    Thanks for the feedback. Yes, issue of match or mismatch, the problem is reconciling them into a bigger picture. I believe the additional factor will be their confidence and anxiety that will determine which to do when, but am waiting for the research to catch up. Read the UK study for a good analysis of why folks don’t have a vested interest in open research. Preferences matter, tho’ what a learner prefers may not be best (at least until we start explicitly addressing learner capabilities). And 4MAT is one I do not like: both for the basis (Kolb’s core model’s been questioned), and for her proprietary approach. Again, see the UK study (Learning and Skills Research Centre link above). And the new study led by Hal Pashler.

Trackbacks

  1. CIVNET | Blog | Learnlets.com says:
    27 January 2011 at 12:38 PM

    […] Rethinking Learning Styles […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

License

Previous Posts

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok