“We must move. . . towards creating an appropriate learning environment; concentrate on understanding better how people learn so that they can be better helped to learn . . . redesigning the very processes of learning, assessment and organisation so as to fit the objectives and learning styles of the students” (Tomlinson 1996;4).
It is not presently known to what extent learning styles inventories are used by staff across our College. The author has used the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ), Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Entwistle’s ASSIST, Marton and Säljö’s Deep and Surface Learning and McCarthy’s 4MAT system as well as several other lateralised brain dominance models such as VAK (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic) and Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in management and teacher education courses over the last ten years. The most common models probably found in the college are Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences, with some lesser use of Myers-Briggs (management courses), Entwistle, and Marton and Säljö (teacher education). Many of the inventories originally designed in the United States tend towards a physiological framework based on brain lateralisation and dominance; UK designed frameworks tend towards a psychological structure based on cognitive choices.
Research into Learning Styles
Coffield et al (2004a, 2004b) undertook a thorough and systematic approach of the literature and models associated with learning styles, and found 71 models, of which 13 could be classed as major styles. A summary of the findings can be found in Table 44 (Coffield et al 2004; 139). Coffield et al’s work was critical of the models found and explored the lack of engagement of researchers with theories other than their own, and the large commercial industry that had grown up around particular inventories. There was also criticism of the application of inventories.
“Many teachers use the most well-known instruments with explicit acknowledgement of the source and a clear idea of why they have chosen a particular model. However, it is also common, particularly on in-service training, management or professional development courses, for participants to analyse their learning styles using an unnamed questionnaire with no accompanying explanation or rationale. In many ways, the use of different inventories of learning styles has acquired an unexamined life of its own, where the notion of learning styles itself and the various means to measure it are accepted without question. Mainstream use has too often become separated from the research field. More problematically, it has also become isolated from deeper questions about whether a particular inventory has a sufficient theoretical basis to warrant either the research industry which has grown around it, or the pedagogical uses to which it is currently put.” (Coffield, 2004b; 2).
Coffield et al were also critical of the use of the various instruments. In many cases the tests were being administered uncritically and in isolation, and in ignorance of their original purpose. In some cases the tests were being used for psychometric profiling, yet the original research indicated that this was not how they should be used. Most of the tests were based on simple self-report questions which relied on the respondent’s ability to categorise their own behaviour accurately and objectively, and to give objective yet socially acceptable responses. Amongst Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) findings is the important statement “we therefore advise against pedagogical interventions based solely on any of the learning styles instruments” (my emphasis). The statistical analysis of the test results, based on possible unreliable test questions also raised questions over any validity of the test results.
Research studies presented at the Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference (Cardiff 2-3 July 2007) described peer-reviewed and statistically valid research into brain activity using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanning technology (Geake, 2007; Howard-Jones, 2007). This showed that the concept of left-right brain activity was a myth as from the images and tests conducted, it could be seen that most of the brain is involved during learning activities. Although some centres of the brain are more active than others during certain processes, there is no brain lateralisation occurring depending on the teaching or learning activity being undertaken, and neural connections occur across the whole of the brain. Other work being conducted at Swansea University using electro-encephalograms (EEG) supports these findings.
Following the author’s return from the Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, he was given an unsourced summary document titled ‘Recommendations for institutions inspected (published reports only – 4)’ . Key question 2, point 3 indicated that tutors should ‘use the information on learners’ preferred learning styles to set more differentiated tasks in lessons’. This clearly goes against Coffield et al’s (2004b; 140) advice and also against earlier research from Curry (1987; 17 in Coffield et.al, 2004b, 153) who stated that;
“The poor general quality of available instruments (makes it) unwise to use any one instrument as a true indicator of learning styles … using only one measure assumes [that] that measure is more correct than the others. At this time (1987) the evidence cannot support that assumption.” (my emphasis)
A brief Google search on “Estyn + VAK” discovered a report to Conwy Learning and Creativity Scrutiny Committee (James, 2007) that gives an indication of the possible misuse of a learning style assessment. The background paper suggests that;
“All Conwy schools are addressing the gender issue with regard to the performance of the boys by implementing elements of the following strategies:
Recognition of each pupil’s VAK (Visual and Kinaesthetic) style and that boys respond better to kinaesthetic learning styles.” (James, 2007; 7)”
It could be suggested that this assessment is perpetuating gender stereotyping by supporting the myth that ‘boys are better with their hands’. The only thing that the psychologists agree about is that a primate’s brain tends more towards visual activity. Another example from the Further Education sector is the assertion by another college’s training manager that ‘taking their staff through the Herrmann Brain Dominance Training will get the quality of learning and teaching from Good to Outstanding’ (Witheld, 2007).
In Coffield et al’s there is a specific reference to OFSTED and ALI (2004b; 135).
“OFSTED and ALI – although neither inspectorate appears to have an official view on learning styles, reports on particular institutions reveal simplistic assumptions about learning styles as the basis for judgements about ‘good practice’; these assumptions need to be re-assessed in the light of our report.”
Snake Oil or Something Else?
The Teacher Education team at College (and elsewhere) use Honey and Mumford, Kolb, VAK and Multiple Intelligences in the construction of sound frameworks for teaching and learning. VAK and Accelerated Learning frameworks are used in the management of behaviour through providing a wide variety of different teaching methods. Another College is putting great emphasis on HBDI training for staff and students. It is felt that the use of these approaches (and their alleged success) rely more on a varied and balanced repertoire of teaching and learning activities, and the impact of a more motivated teacher than any possible psychological base. It is also possible that a positive feedback loop created through success in the classroom is being associated with the new strategies, and to deny the use of the strategies might demotivate a committed member of staff. For these reasons it is felt that the strategies be continued, but that staff are made aware of their correct use and the limitations of the chosen strategy.
What is concerning, and there is not yet any evidence that this is taking place within our College (although there are indications that it occurs elsewhere), is where learners are tested and then labelled as (ie) ‘Visual’ or ‘Pragmatists’ and then only taught according to their perceived strength.
At this stage, we are trying to make sure that learning styles information is used within the limitations suggested through Coffield's work. There is also a progress of educating staff as to the limitations of learning styles tests and the possible damage that could be caused through the use or misuse of an unreliable instrument. What is important is to ncourage staff to use a balanced and varied range of teaching activities.
References
Biggs, A., 2000. Promoting Learning Styles Analysis among vocational students. Education and Training, 42, 1, pp16-23
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004a. Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say in practice. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. (84 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041540.aspx)
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K., 2004b. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (182 pages – download from http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/pubs/pages/041543.aspx)
Geake, J., 2007 ‘Neuroscience and Neuromythology’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
Howard-Jones, P., 2007 ‘Education and Neuroscience: approaching collaboration in the UK’ Proceedings of Teaching at the Cutting Edge: Implementing educational and neuroscience research in the classroom. Welsh Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Cardiff 9th July 2007.
James, G., 2007 Learning and Skills Scrutiny Committee Report, 18th January 2007. Conwy County Borough Council. Downloaded from http://www.conwy.gov.uk/E_MINUTES/e_post2002/e_scrutiny/e_learning/e_reports/010_Schools%20Test%20and%20Exam%20Perf%20Report.pdf 12th July 2007
Tomlinson, J., 1996 Inclusive Learning: The Report of the Learning Difficulties and Disabilities Committee, FEFC, Coventry.
rred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby "schooled" to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is "schooled" to accept service in place of value. Medical treatment is mistaken for health care, social work for the improvement of community life, police protection for safety, military poise for national security, the rat race for productive work. Health, learning, dignity, independence, and creative endeavour are defined as little more than the performance of the institutions which claim to serve these ends, and their improvement is made to depend on allocating more resources to the management of hospitals, schools, and other agencies in question. 
