# data[].attributes.body
The term "learning styles" is used to describe how people learn in different ways. This can include how learners gather, interpret, organize, and come to conclusions. There are four different main learning styles: visual, aural (audio), verbal, and kinesthetic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cite this guide: Chick, N. (2010). Learning Styles. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/learning-styles-preferences/.

What are Learning Styles?

The term learning styles is widely used to describe how learners gather, sift through, interpret, organize, come to conclusions about, and "store" information for further use. As spelled out in VARK (one of the most popular learning styles inventories), these styles are often categorized by sensory approaches: isual, ural, verbal [eading/writing], and inesthetic. Many of the models that don't resemble the VARK's sensory focus are reminiscent of Felder and Silverman's Index of Learning Styles, with a continuum of descriptors for how learners process and organize information: active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, verbal-visual, and sequential-global.

There are well over 70 different learning styles schemes (Coffield, 2004), most of which are supported by "a thriving industry devoted to publishing learning-styles tests and guidebooks" and "professional development workshops for teachers and educators" (Pashler, et al., 2009, p. 105).

Despite the variation in categories, the fundamental idea behind learning styles is the same: that each of us has a specific learning style (sometimes called a "preference"), and we learn best when information is presented to us in this style. For example, visual learners would learn any subject matter best if given graphically or through other kinds of visual images, kinesthetic learners would learn more effectively if they could involve bodily movements in the learning process, and so on. The message thus given to instructors is that "optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals' learning style[s] and tailoring instruction accordingly" (Pashler, et al., 2009, p. 105).

Despite the popularity of learning styles and inventories such as the VARK, it's important to know that there is no evidence to support the idea that matching activities to one's learning style improves learning. It's not simply a matter of "the absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence of absence." On the contrary, for years researchers have tried to make this connection through hundreds of studies.

In 2009, Psychological Science in the Public Interest commissioned cognitive psychologists Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork to evaluate the research on learning styles to determine whether there is credible evidence to support using learning styles in instruction. They came to a startling but clear conclusion: "Although the literature on learning styles is enormous," they "found virtually no evidence" supporting the idea that "instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preference of the learner." Many of those studies suffered from weak research design, rendering them far from convincing. Others with an effective experimental design "found results that flatly contradict the popular" assumptions about learning styles (p. 105). In sum,

"The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing" (p. 117).

Why Are They So Popular?

Pashler and his colleagues point to some reasons to explain why learning styles have gained-and kept-such traction, aside from the enormous industry that supports the concept. First, people like to identify themselves and others by "type." Such categories help order the social environment and offer quick ways of understanding each other. Also, this approach appeals to the idea that learners should be recognized as "unique individuals"-or, more precisely, that differences among students should be acknowledged-rather than treated as a number in a crowd or a faceless class of students (p. 107). Carried further, teaching to different learning styles suggests that " all people have the potential to learn effectively and easily if only instruction is tailored to their individual learning styles " (p. 107).

There may be another reason why this approach to learning styles is so widely accepted. They very loosely resemble the concept of metacognition, or the process of thinking about one's thinking. For instance, having your students describe which study strategies and conditions for their last exam worked for them and which didn't is likely to improve their studying on the next exam (Tanner, 2012). Integrating such metacognitive activities into the classroom-unlike learning styles-is supported by a wealth of research (e.g., Askell Williams, Lawson, & Murray-Harvey, 2007; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Butler & Winne, 1995; Isaacson & Fujita, 2006; Nelson & Dunlosky, 1991; Tobias & Everson, 2002).

Importantly, metacognition is focused on planning, monitoring, and evaluating any kind of thinking about thinking and does nothing to connect one's identity or abilities to any singular approach to knowledge. (For more information about metacognition, see CFT Assistant Director Cynthia Brame's " Thinking about Metacognition " blog post, and stay tuned for a Teaching Guide on metacognition this spring.)

Now What?

There is, however, something you can take away from these different approaches to learning-not based on the learner, but instead on the content being learned. To explore the persistence of the belief in learning styles, CFT Assistant Director Nancy Chick interviewed Dr. Bill Cerbin, Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and former Carnegie Scholar with the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. He points out that the differences identified by the labels "visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and reading/writing" are more appropriately connected to the nature of the discipline:

"There may be evidence that indicates that there are some ways to teach some subjects that are just better than others, despite the learning styles of individuals.... If you're thinking about teaching sculpture, I'm not sure that long tracts of verbal descriptions of statues or of sculptures would be a particularly effective way for individuals to learn about works of art. Naturally, these are physical objects and you need to take a look at them, you might even need to handle them." (Cerbin, 2011, 7:45-8:30)

Pashler and his colleagues agree: "An obvious point is that the optimal instructional method is likely to vary across disciplines" (p. 116). In other words, it makes disciplinary sense to include kinesthetic activities in sculpture and anatomy courses, reading/writing activities in literature and history courses, visual activities in geography and engineering courses, and auditory activities in music, foreign language, and speech courses. Obvious or not, it aligns teaching and learning with the contours of the subject matter, without limiting the potential abilities of the learners.

References

Askell-Williams, H., Lawson, M. & Murray, Harvey, R. (2007). 'What happens in my university classes that helps me to learn?': Teacher education students' instructional metacognitive knowledge. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1. 1-21.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R., (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded Edition). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995) Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245-281.

Cerbin, William. (2011). Understanding learning styles: A conversation with Dr. Bill Cerbin. Interview with Nancy Chick. UW Colleges Virtual Teaching and Learning Center.

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.

Isaacson, R. M. & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 39-55.

Nelson, T.O. & Dunlosky, J. (1991). The delayed-JOL effect: When delaying your judgments of learning can improve the accuracy of your metacognitive monitoring. Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.

Pashler, Harold, McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 9.3 103-119.

Tobias, S., & Everson, H. (2002). Knowing what you know and what you don't: Further research on metacognitive knowledge monitoring. College Board Report No. 2002-3. College Board, NY.

This teaching guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Nancy Chick Print Version Cite this guide: Chick, N. (2010). Learning Styles. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved [todaysdate] from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/learning-styles-preferences/. What are Learning Styles? Caution! Why Are They So Popular? Now What? What are Learning Styles? The term learning styles is widely used to describe how learners gather, sift through, interpret, organize, come to...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.umassd.edu/accessibility/resources/faculty-staff/how-to-teach-and-accommodate/how-to-accommodate-different-learning-styles/

# data[].attributes.body
A very general overview about the auditory learning style

# data[].attributes.body
How do college students like ourselves learn best? Is it auditory or visual? Group work or solo work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many college students see teaching style as a barrier to their success, but which class formats and active learning methods do they prefer?

In a Student Voice Pulse survey of 1,250 undergraduates, conducted in March and released today from Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse, the largest share of students say they typically learn and retain information best in an interactive lecture-somewhere between a traditional lecture and a high-intensity active learning environment. Regarding active learning strategies, students find case studies particularly helpful, followed by small-group discussions and game-based learning.

Class Format

Asked which class format they typically learn and retain information best in, students have mixed responses. Five key takeaways:

1. More than a third of students say they learn best through interactive lectures, in which the professor breaks at least once for students to complete a specific learning task related to the material. This preference for low-to-moderate-intensity active learning is relatively consistent across demographics and subgroups. But arts and humanities students (n=129) are significantly less likely than their peers in the social sciences (n=539) and natural sciences (n=630) to choose interactive lectures (22 percent).

2. A quarter of students prefer traditional lectures, making these the No. 2 choice for class format. This is somewhat surprising, given that students tend to learn more during active learning than during professor-centered lectures. Yet it's unsurprising in light of research showing that students underestimate what they've absorbed via active learning. Traditional lectures are especially popular among men in the survey (n=302), at 32 percent, compared to 22 percent of women (n=839). Arts and humanities students also prefer traditional lectures (32 percent) to interactive lectures. Another finding: Straight students (n=853) are significantly more likely than their LGBTQIA+ peers (n=364) to say they prefer traditional lectures, at 29 percent versus 19 percent, respectively. And students with learning disabilities or related conditions (n=278) are less likely to choose traditional lectures than are students without these conditions, at 22 percent versus 27 percent.

3. Nearly a quarter of students prefer active learning-heavy classes. In this format, which has been found to be especially effective at closing achievement gaps, a professor may lecture briefly but spends most of the class facilitating individual or group activities related to course content. More women prefer this format than men: one in four versus one in five, respectively. Active learning-heavy class format is least popular among natural sciences students, at 20 percent, compared to 27 percent of arts and humanities students and 26 percent of social sciences students. By race, White and Black students are most likely to prefer this format, at about one in four compared to about one in five for Hispanic students and less than one in five for Asian students.

4. Not quite one in 10 students (7 percent) prefers a lab format. This number is slightly elevated (11 percent) among students with learning disabilities and related conditions.

5. One in 20 of students prefers the traditional, discussion-based seminar, though the share is 13 percent for arts and humanities students.

Active Learning Strategies

Students find some common active learning strategies more helpful than others for learning and retaining information.

Case studies. Half of students over all find helpful case studies that connect course content to real-world problems. This is elevated among social sciences students, at 57 percent, and lower among Republican-leaning students (n=133), at 42 percent.

Small-group discussions. More than third of students over all like small-group discussions, as do half of Republican-leaning students, a third of Democratic-leaning students (n=466) and two in five Independents (n=618). Looking at this preference by race, 41 percent of white students prefer small-group discussions, compared to 32 percent of Asian students, 30 percent of Black students and 35 percent of Hispanic students.

Game-based learning. More than one-third of students also like games, including those played on a computer. Examples include economics students competing in a virtual stock-trading competition, "Wheel of Geology" in a geoscience class and role-playing to explore a conflict in a political science class.

Quick polls and surveys. Nearly a third of students approve of this method, which can be aided by clickers.

Partnering up to summarize important concepts. More than a quarter of students appreciate this strategy, sometimes called think-pair-shares.

Minute papers. Eighteen percent of students over all say it's helpful to write briefly about a question or prompt. It's more popular among female students (21 percent) than male students (14 percent), and among arts and humanities students (29 percent) than natural sciences (16 percent) or social sciences students (19 percent).

Taking Notes

The new Student Voice survey also asked students how they take notes in class. A majority of students are still writing notes on a device or by hand. A quarter of students rely on professors to post notes or slides, and one in 10 using Google Docs.

Sixty percent of students take written notes on a computer or device, with this being more popular among students at private institutions (n=279) than public, and among students at four-year institutions than two-year institutions (n=250). Just about half of students with learning disabilities or related conditions say they take notes this way, compared to three in five students without such conditions.

Some 57 percent of students say they take notes by hand, with pen and paper. This option was most popular among two-year college students, at 75 percent.

Twenty-six percent of students say they rely on professors posting class slides or notes.

Eleven percent of students say they use Google Docs to collaborate with classmates, with 15 percent of students with learning disabilities saying they rely on this method versus 9 percent of students without such conditions.

Five percent of students record lectures or notes on their phones.

Three percent of students over all don't take notes at all. Eight percent of students with learning disabilities or related conditions say they don't take notes, compared to 2 percent of students without such conditions.

Just 2 percent of students say they rely on someone else to take notes for them, and this was not elevated for students with learning disabilities.

Share your feedback on this survey Read more about our prior Student Voice survey of undergraduates on academic life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Survey: How college students say they learn best

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a new Student Voice survey, students share their preferences for class format, active learning strategies and note-taking. Interactive lectures and case studies are especially popular. Many college students see teaching style as a barrier to their success, but which class formats and active learning methods do they prefer?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This that moment when you're in flight, before hitting the water. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: Visually learning  how to position your body before hitting the water

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: Visually learning  how to position your body before hitting the water

# data[].attributes.body
https://theartling.com/en/artwork/nata-zaikina-jump-in-the-summer/

# data[].attributes.headline
Learning Styles: A Brief History and Other Tidbits

# data[].attributes.subject
Learning Styles: A Brief History and Other Tidbits

# data[].attributes.body
A history of the discovery of learning styles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kolb said that it was beneficial to know which type of learner you were, in order to "play to your strengths." He also believed that educators and trainers could tailor their teaching methods to different people's learning styles.

2. Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford developed Kolb's model by focusing on how learning is used in practice, particularly at work. They identified four new learning styles: Activist, Pragmatist, Reflector, and Theorist - using terms that we might naturally pick to describe ourselves and our colleagues.

3. Anthony Gregorc's Mind Styles

Anthony Gregorc and Kathleen Butler went into more detail about how we think, and how this might affect the way we learn.

This theory put us all on a spectrum between concrete and abstract thinking, and between sequential and random ordering of our thoughts.

Concrete perceptions happen through the senses, while abstract perceptions deal with ideas.

Sequential thinking arranges information in a logical, linear way, while a random approach is multidirectional and unpredictable.

In Gregorc's model, our strengths and weaknesses in each of these areas determined our individual learning style.

4. 4 Learning Styles (VARK)

Educational psychologist Walter Burke Barbe and his colleagues proposed three "modalities" of learning: Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (movement and touch). These were often referred to simply as VAK.

A variation on the acronym, developed by New Zealand-based teacher Neil D. Fleming, is VARK®, or visual, auditory, reading/writing, and kinesthetic. You can find out more about both VAK and VARK in our article, VAK Learning Styles.

Visual Learning Style

A visually-dominant learner absorbs and retains information better when it is presented in, for example, pictures, diagrams and charts.

Auditory Learning Style

An auditory-dominant learner prefers listening to what is being presented. They respond best to voices, for example, in a lecture or group discussion. Hearing their own voice repeating something back to a tutor or trainer is also helpful.

Reading/Writing Learning Style

People with a dominant reading-and-writing learning style take in new information best when they read it as words and text. They're often good at summarizing information in written notes.

Kinesthetic Learning Style

A kinesthetic-dominant learner prefers a physical experience. They like a "hands-on" approach and respond well to being able to touch or feel an object or learning prop.

Barbe was clear that everyone had strengths, weaknesses and preferences in each of the VAK modalities. The most effective learning, he said, utilized all three in combination. He said that the mix we achieved depended on many factors, and would likely change over time.

The VAK model was popular and widely applied. But, like some of the earlier models, it became associated with a fixed outlook on learning. Many people took it to mean that learners could be classified by a single modality - as a "visual learner," for example - with little room for maneuver. And there was confusion over whether the VAK definition referred to someone's innate abilities, their personal preferences, or both.

5. The Learning Styles Task Force

In the 1980s, American educationalists were still trying to find out as much as they could about learning styles, to help classroom teachers to achieve the best possible results.

They divided learning styles into three categories: Cognitive, Affective and Physiological.

Cognitive: how we think, how we organize and retain information, and how we learn from our experiences.

Affective: our attitudes and motivations, and how they impact our approach to learning.

Physiological: a variety of factors based on our health, well-being, and the environment in which we learn.

6. The Index of Learning Styles™

The questionnaire considered four dimensions: Sensory/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Global. The theory was that we're all somewhere on a "continuum" for each of them. Neither extreme was said to be "good" or "bad." Instead, we'd do best by drawing on both ends of the spectrum.

Questionnaires like this promised to define anyone's learning style, so that they could address any "imbalances," and learn in the ways that would benefit them most.

Criticisms of Learning Styles

These and other theories about learning styles have become extremely popular and widespread. However, a growing body of research has challenged many of their claims.

Let's look at the four key criticisms that have been leveled against them:

1. The Science Isn't Strong Enough

2. Learning Styles Change

3. Strengths and Preferences Are Not the Same

4. Teaching to Particular Learning Styles Doesn't Work

Using Learning Styles to Improve Learning

Despite the criticisms we've outlined, some of the ideas that underpin learning styles theories still have value - especially the emphasis on metacognition: "thinking about thinking."

One influential collection of research cast doubt on specific learning styles models, but was still positive about metacognition. And metacognition has been shown to improve educational outcomes - leading the Education Endowment Foundation to recommend it as a key teaching and learning tool.

Analyzing our thinking can help us to plan learning strategies that work for us. It can support us to become more organized in our studies, to use prior knowledge as the foundation for new learning, and to choose effective methods for different learning tasks.

Plus, by examining our strengths and weaknesses, we can make the most of any aspects of learning that "come naturally" and that we enjoy, while also working on the areas that might be holding us back.

If you're eager to improve your personal approach to learning, here are three key steps to take:

1. See the Big Picture

Do everything you can to gain a rounded picture of your learning. Look at all the different reasons why you tend to tackle learning the way you do.

And, when you're in the process of learning, ask yourself why you're doing it a particular way. Is it because it's the most effective for you, or simply because it's what you've always done?

Be wary of definitive judgments. Instead, consider different scenarios, and try to differentiate between how you like to learn, and how you learn best - in a variety of learning situations.

2. Identify Your Strengths

Highlight the types of learning that work best for you, and the conditions for learning that support them. For instance, you might be more of an active learner, who operates best in groups.

Keep doing the things that give the best results, to keep your learning fast and effective - and look for ways to improve them even more.

But also leave room to practice and strengthen any learning behaviors that you find more difficult.

3. Work on Your Weaknesses

You can often improve areas of your learning that are letting you down simply by using them more.

If you feel that you're not confident learning visually, for example, get into the habit of reading the charts and diagrams in an article before grappling with the ideas in the text.

Or, if you're an independent learner by nature, make a point of involving others in your problem-solving from time to time.

Also, actively look for opportunities to try out new ways to learn. You might be surprised about what works - and about the new elements of learning that you enjoy.

How to Help Other People to Learn

Becoming more aware of your own strengths and preferences helps you to appreciate and cater for the diverse ways in which others learn, too.

For example, when you're giving a presentation, chairing a meeting, or leading a training session, avoid leaning too heavily on the approach that you would enjoy yourself.

Remember that some learners will benefit from visual aids, while others will rely on listening to what you say, or on watching your body language. Back up abstract theories with real-life examples. Spend time discussing small details as well as outlining large-scale ideas.

You can't always cater for everyone, but you can better engage your audience by allowing for different approaches to learning. If nothing else, your varied approach will keep people energized and alert!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the kinesthetic learning style?

A learner with a preference for the kinesthetic learning style prefers a physical experience. They like a "hands-on" approach and respond well to being able to touch or feel an object or learning prop.

Can you have two learning styles?

Yes. Or more than two. Very few people, if any, are completely reliant on one learning style. They may favor, say, visual learning, but still be able to learn by reading and writing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Styles - The Models, Myths and Misconceptions - and What They Mean for Your Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the latest thinking on Learning Styles, to understand the pitfalls and avoid limiting your learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
African teachers dedicated to learning different styles methods of how to better teach children.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.adeanet.org/en/blogs/7-action-steps-4th-african-policymaker-forum-improve-teachers-trainings-delivery-approaches

# data[].attributes.body
What's your learning style? I am a Kinesthetic learner. Meaning, I learn by doing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want to know how you best learn? Take our quick 5-minute learning style quiz to find out!

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Why is it important to understand your learning style? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Why is it important to understand your learning style? 

# data[].attributes.body
According to teach.com,

"Students’ preferred learning modes have significant influence on their behavior and learning.

Students’ preferred learning modes should be matched with appropriate learning strategies.

Information that is accessed through students’ use of their modality preferences shows an increase in their levels of comprehension, motivation, and metacognition."

# data[].attributes.body
Give all the credit to Kolb for his discovery of Learning Styles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kolb’s Learning Styles & Experiential Learning Cycle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kolb’s Learning Styles theory identifies four types of learners: converging, diverging, assimilating, and accommodating. These styles are part of his Experiential Learning Cycle, which involves four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The cycle emphasizes learning through experience, reflection, conceptualization, and testing new ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Here we have some visual learners observing sharks.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: Visual learning about how different sharks live

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: Visual learning about how different sharks live

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2015-05-21/the-best-places-to-go-diving-with-sharks-south-africa-australia-mexico

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Discover your learning style, and how it can benefit you. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Discover your learning style, and how it can benefit you. 

# data[].attributes.body
Discovering your learning style can help you study more efficiently, and become more prepared for school.

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding the different learning styles in depth can really help you identify which one relates the most to how you learn.

# data[].attributes.body
Once you figure out your learning style; learning doesn't have to painful. If you are tactile, remember don't go putting your hands where they don't belong.

# data[].attributes.body
Learning takes discipline. Discovering your learning stlye and using it to develop a disciplined routine ecourages better academic perfomance.

https://ahmedabad.globalindianschool.org/blog-details/importance-of-discipline-in-student-life

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Controversy over the legitimacy of "learning styles" and how they actually make a difference in education. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Controversy over the legitimacy of "learning styles" and how they actually make a difference in education. 

# data[].attributes.body
There is a lot of controversy over whether the different learning styles are "legit" or effective in identifying to help progress ones education. This article explains the different learning styles and how statistically, pertaining to them really does help students to learn better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Front Psychol. 2017; 8: 444.

Abstract

The basic idea behind the use of 'Learning Styles' is that learners can be categorized into one or more 'styles' (e.g., Visual, Auditory, Converger) and that teaching students according to their style will result in improved learning. This idea has been repeatedly tested and there is currently no evidence to support it. Despite this, belief in the use of Learning Styles appears to be widespread amongst schoolteachers and persists in the research literature. This mismatch between evidence and practice has provoked controversy, and some have labeled Learning Styles a 'myth.' In this study, we used a survey of academics in UK Higher Education ( n = 114) to try and go beyond the controversy by quantifying belief and, crucially, actual use of Learning Styles. We also attempted to understand how academics view the potential harms associated with the use of Learning Styles. We found that general belief in the use of Learning Styles was high (58%), but lower than in similar previous studies, continuing an overall downward trend in recent years. Critically the percentage of respondents who reported actually using Learning Styles (33%) was much lower than those who reported believing in their use. Far more reported using a number of techniques that are demonstrably evidence-based. Academics agreed with all the posited weaknesses and harms of Learning Styles theory, agreeing most strongly that the basic theory of Learning Styles is conceptually flawed. However, a substantial number of participants (32%) stated that they would continue to use Learning Styles despite being presented with the lack of an evidence base to support them, suggesting that 'debunking' Learning Styles may not be effective. We argue that the interests of all may be better served by promoting evidence-based approaches to Higher Education.

Keywords: Learning Styles, evidence-based education, VARK, Kolb, neuromyths

Introduction

The use of so-called 'Learning Styles' in education has caused controversy. The basis for the use of Learning Styles is that individual difference between learners can supposedly be captured by diagnostic instruments which classify learners into 'styles' such as 'visual,' 'kinaesthetic,' 'assimilator,' etc. According to many, but not all, interpretations of Learning Styles theory, to teach individuals using methods which are matched to their 'Learning Style' will result in improved learning ( Pashler et al., 2008). This interpretation is fairly straightforward to test, and, although there are over 70 different instruments for classifying Learning Styles ( Coffield et al., 2004) the current status of the literature is that there is no evidence to support the use of Learning Styles in this way ( Pashler et al., 2008; Rohrer and Pashler, 2012). This has lead to Learning Styles being widely classified as a 'myth' ( Geake, 2008; Riener and Willingham, 2010; Lilienfeld et al., 2011; Dekker et al., 2012; Pasquinelli, 2012; Rato et al., 2013; Howard-Jones, 2014).

Despite this lack of evidence, it appears that belief in the use of Learning Styles is common amongst schoolteachers - A 2012 study demonstrated that 93% of schoolteachers in the UK agree with the statement "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred Learning Style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic) ( Dekker et al., 2012)." A 2014 survey reported that 76% of UK schoolteachers 'used Learning Styles' and most stated that to do so benefited their pupils in some way ( Simmonds, 2014). A study of Higher Education faculty in the USA showed that 64% agreed with the statement "Does teaching to a student's learning style enhance learning?" ( Dandy and Bendersky, 2014). A recent study demonstrated that current research papers 'about' Learning Styles, in the higher education research literature, overwhelmingly endorsed their use despite the lack of evidence described above ( Newton, 2015). Most of this endorsement was implicit and most of the research did not actually test Learning Styles, rather proceeded on the assumption that their use was a 'good thing.' For example, researchers would ask a group of students to complete a Learning Styles questionnaire, and then make recommendations for curriculum reform based upon the results.

This mismatch between the empirical evidence and belief in Learning Styles, alongside the persistence of Learning Styles in the wider literature, has lead to tension and controversy. There have been numerous publications in the mainstream media attempting to explain the limitations of Learning Styles (e.g., Singal, 2015; Goldhill, 2016) and rebuttals from practitioners who believe that the theory of Learning Styles continues to offer something useful and/or that criticism of them is invalid (e.g., Black, 2016). Some of the original proponents of the concept have self-published their own defense of Learning Styles, e.g., ( Felder, 2010; Fleming, 2012).

The continued use of Learning Styles is, in theory, associated with a number of harms ( Pashler et al., 2008; Riener and Willingham, 2010; Dekker et al., 2012; Rohrer and Pashler, 2012; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014; Willingham et al., 2015). These include a 'pigeonholing' of learners according to invalid criteria, for example a 'visual learner' may be dissuaded from pursuing subjects which do not appear to match their diagnosed Learning Style (e.g., learning music), and/or may become overconfident in their ability to master subjects perceived as matching their Learning Style. Other proposed harms include wasting resources on an ineffective method, undermining the credibility of education research/practice and the creation of unrealistic expectations of teachers by students.

This study aimed at asking first whether academics in UK Higher Education also believe in Learning Styles. We then attempted to go beyond the controversy and ask whether academics actually use Learning Styles, and how seriously they rate the proposed harms associated with the use of Learning Styles, with the aim of understanding how best to address the persistence of Learning Styles in education. In addition, we compared belief in/use of Learning Styles to some educational techniques whose use is supported by good research evidence, to put the use of, and belief in, Learning Styles into context.

We found that belief in the use of Learning Styles was high (58% of participants), but that actual use of Learning Styles was much lower (33%) and lower than other techniques which are demonstrably effective. The most compelling weakness/harm associated with Learning Styles was a simple theoretical weakness; 90% of participants agreed that Learning Styles are conceptually flawed.

Materials and Methods

Data were collected using an online questionnaire distributed to Higher Education institutions in the UK. Ethical approval for the study was given by the local Research Ethics Committee at Swansea University with informed consent from all subjects.

Participants

The survey was distributed via email. Distribution was undertaken indirectly; emails were sent to individuals at eight different Higher Education institutions across the UK. Those persons were known to the corresponding author as colleagues in Higher Education but not through work related to Learning Styles. Those individuals were asked to send the survey on to internal email distribution lists of academics involved in Higher Education using the following invitation text (approved by the ethics committee) "You are invited to participate in a short anonymous survey about teaching methods in Higher Education. It will take approximately 10-15 min to complete. It is aimed at academics in Higher Education," followed by a link to the survey which was entitled "Teaching Methods in Higher Education." Thus the survey was not directly distributed by the authors and did not contain the phrase 'Learning Styles' anywhere in the title or introductory text. These strategies of indirect distribution, voluntary completion and deliberately not using the term 'Learning Styles' in the title were based upon similar strategies used in similar studies ( Dekker et al., 2012; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014) and were aimed at avoiding biasing and/or polarizing the participant pool, given the aforementioned controversy associated with the literature on Learning Styles. Although this inevitably results in a convenience sample (we do not know how many people the survey as sent to or how many responded), this was preferable to distributing a survey that was expressly about Learning Styles (which may have put off those who are already familiar with the concept). The survey remained open for 2 months (which included the end-of-year holiday period) and was closed once we had over 100 participants who had fully completed the survey, to ensure a sample size equivalent to similar studies ( Dekker et al., 2012; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014).

One hundred sixty-one participants started the survey, with 114 completing the survey up to the final (optional) question about demographics. This meant that 29% of participants did not complete, which is slightly better than the average dropout rate of 30% for online surveys ( Galesic, 2006). Question-by-question analysis revealed that the majority of these non-completers (79%) did not progress beyond the very first ranking question (ranking the effectiveness of teaching methods) and thus did not complete the majority of the survey, including answering those questions about Learning Styles. Participants had been teaching in Higher Education for an average of 11 years ( SD = 9.8). Participants were asked to self-report their academic discipline. Simple coding of these revealed that participants came from a wide variety of disciplines, including Life and Physical Sciences (26%), Arts, humanities and languages (24%), Healthcare professions (medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc.) (16%), Social Sciences (10%), Business and Law (5%).

Materials and Procedure

The lack of an evidence base for Learning Styles has been described numerous times in the literature, and these papers have suggested that there may be harms associated with the use of Learning Styles ( Pashler et al., 2008; Riener and Willingham, 2010; Dekker et al., 2012; Rohrer and Pashler, 2012; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014; Willingham et al., 2015). We reviewed these publications to identify commonly posited harms. We then constructed a questionnaire using LimeSurvey TM. All the survey questions are available via the Supplementary Material. Key aspects of the structure and design are described below. The survey was piloted by five academics from Medical and Life Sciences, all of whom were aware of the lack of evidence regarding Learning Styles. They were asked to comment on general clarity and were specifically asked to comment on the section regarding the evidence for the use of Learning Styles and whether it would disengage participants (see below). Key concepts in the survey were addressed twice, from different approaches, so as to ensure the quality of data obtained.

Participants were first asked to confirm that they were academics in Higher Education. They were then asked about their use of five teaching methods, four of which are supported by research evidence [Worked Examples, Feedback, Microteaching and Peer Teaching ( Hattie, 2009)] and Learning Styles. They were then asked to rank these methods by efficacy.

We then asked participants about their use of Learning Styles, both generally and the use of specific classifications (VARK, Kolb, Felder, Honey and Mumford). For each of these individual Learning Styles classifications we identified, in our question, the individual styles that result (e.g., active/reflective, etc., from Felder). Thus participants were fully oriented to what was meant by 'Learning Styles' before we went on to ask them about the efficacy of Learning Styles. To allow comparisons with existing literature, we used the same question as Dekker et al. (2012) "Rate your agreement with this statement 'Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred Learning Style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic)."'

We then explained to participants about the lack of an evidence base for the use of Learning Styles, including the work of Coffield et al. (2004), Pashler et al. (2008), Rohrer and Pashler (2012), Willingham et al. (2015). We explained the difference between learning preferences and Learning Style, and made it clear that there was specifically no evidence to support the 'matching' of teaching methods to individual Learning Styles. We explained that this fact may be surprising, and that participants would be free to enter any comments they had at the end of the survey. Those academics who piloted the initial survey were specifically asked to comment on this aspect of the survey to ensure that it was neutral and objective.

We then asked participants to rate their agreement with some of the proposed harms associated with the use of Learning Styles. Mixed into the questions about harms were some proposed reasons to use Learning Styles, regardless of the evidence. These questions were interspersed so as to avoid 'acquiescence bias' ( Sax et al., 2003). Agreement was measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

Finally, participants were asked for some basic demographic information and then offered the opportunity to provide free-text comments on the content of the survey.

Quantitative data were analyzed by non-parametric methods; specific tests are described in the results. Percentages of participants agreeing, or disagreeing, with a particular statement were calculated by collapsing the two relevant statements within the Likert scale (e.g., 'Strongly Agree and Agree' were collapsed into a single value). Qualitative data (free-text comments) were analyzed using a simple ground-up thematic analysis ( Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify common themes. Both authors independently read and re-read the comments to identify their own common themes. The authors then met and discussed these, arriving at agreed common themes and quantifying the numbers of participants who had raised comments for each theme. Many participant comments were pertinent to more than one theme.

Results

Belief vs. Use; Do Teachers in Higher Education Actually Use Learning Styles?

We addressed this question from two perspectives. Academics were asked to identify which teaching methods, from a list of 5, they had used in the last 12 months. Results are shown in . Thirty-three percent of participants reported having used Learning Styles in the last 12 months, but this was lower than the evidence-based techniques of formative assessment, worked examples, and peer teaching. Participants were then asked "have you ever administered a Learning Styles questionnaire to your students" and were given four specific examples along with the 'styles' identified by those examples. The examples chosen were those most commonly found in a recent study of the literature on Learning Styles ( Newton, 2015). Participants were also given the option to check 'other' and identify any other types of Learning Styles questionnaire that they might have used. 33.1% of participants had given their students any sort of Learning Styles Questionnaire, with the response for individual classifications being 18.5% (Honey and Mumford), 14.5% (Kolb), 12.9% (VARK), and 1.6% (Felder).

We subsequently asked two, more general, questions about Learning Styles. The first of these was the same as that used by Dekker et al. "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred Learning Style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic)," with which 58% agreed. The second was "I try to organize my teaching to accommodate different student Learning Styles (e.g., visual, kinaesthetic, assimilator/converger)," with which 64% of participants agreed. These data show a contrast between a general belief in the use of Learning Styles, which is much higher than actual use ().

Possible Harms Associated with the Use of Learning Styles

There was significant agreement with all the proposed difficulties associated with the use of Learning Styles, as shown in . However, compared to the other proposed harms, participants showed stronger agreement with the statement "The theory of Learning Styles is conceptually flawed" - it does not account for the complexity of 'understanding.' It is not possible to teach complex concepts such as mathematics or languages by presenting them in only one style. In addition, some information cannot be presented in a single style (e.g., teaching medical students to recognize heart sounds would be impossible using visual methods, whereas teaching them to recognize different skin rashes would be impossible using sounds). In this section of the survey we also included two questions that were not about proposed harms. Forty-six percent of participants agreed with the statement "Even though there is no 'evidence base' to support the use of Learning Styles, it is my experience that their use in my teaching benefits student learning," while 70% agreed that "In my experience, students believe, rightly or wrongly, that they have a particular Learning Style."

Ranking of Proposed Harms

Having asked participants to rate their agreement (or not) with the various harms associated with the use of Learning Styles, we then asked participants to "Rank the aforementioned factors in terms of how compelling they are as reasons not to use Learning Styles" (1, most compelling, 6, least compelling) and to "only rank those factors which you agree with." There is not universal agreement on the analysis of ranking data and so we analyzed these data in two simple, descriptive ways. The first was to determine how frequently each harm appeared as the top ranked reason. The second was to calculate a ranking score, such that the top ranked harm was scored 6, and the lowest ranked scored 1, and then to sum these across the participants. Both are shown in . Results from both methods were similar and agreed with the prior analysis (), with participants most concerned about the basic conceptual flaws associated with the use of Learning Styles, alongside a potential pigeonholing of learners into a particular style.

Table 1

Ranking score

# Times top ranked

Continued Use of Learning Styles?

Toward the end of the questionnaire, we asked participants two question to determine whether the completion of the questionnaire had made any difference to their understanding of the evidence base for the use of Learning Styles. Participants were first asked to rate their agreement with the statement "Completing this questionnaire has helped me understand the lack of any evidence base to support the use of Learning Styles." The 64% agreed while 9% disagreed and 27% neither agreed or disagreed.

Participants were then asked "In light of the information presented, rate your agreement with the following statement - 'I plan to try and account for individual student Learning Styles in my teaching."' 31.6% agreed, 43.9% disagreed, and 23.6% neither agreed or disagreed. The results from this question were compared to those obtained before the evidence was presented, when participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with this statement "I try to organize my teaching to accommodate different student Learning Styles (e.g., visual, kinaesthetic, assimilator/converger)." The results, shown in , show a statistically significant difference in the two sets of responses suggesting that completion of the questionnaire improved participants understanding of the lack of an evidence base for the use of Learning Styles and thus they were unlikely to continue using them. However, almost one-third of participants still agreed with the statement; they intended to continue using Learning Styles.

This then raised a series of interesting questions about why participants would persist in using Learning Styles despite having been presented with all the evidence showing that they are not effective (although participants were not specifically asked whether they would persist in the matching of instructional design to student Learning Style). The sample size here, although equivalent to previous studies, is modest and obviously the 32% are only a portion of that. Thus we were reluctant to undertake extensive post hoc analysis to identify relationships within the sample. However, in response to a reviewer's suggestion we undertook a simple descriptive analysis of the profile of the 31.6% of participants who indicated that they would continue to account for Learning Styles and compare them to the 43.9% who said that they would not. When splitting the data into these two groups, we observed that almost all (94.4%) of those who said they would still use Learning Styles at the end of the survey had originally agreed with the question "I try to organize my teaching to accommodate different student Learning Styles (e.g., visual, kinaesthetic, assimilator/converger)," and no participants from that group had disagreed. In contrast, agreement was only 40% for the group that eventually said they would not use Learning Styles, while disagreement was 46%. A similar split was found for the question "Even though there is no 'evidence base' to support the use of Learning Styles, it is my experience that their use in my teaching benefits student learning"; for the group that would go on to say that they will still use Learning Styles, 89% agreed, while agreement was only 18% from the group that would go on to say they will not continue to use Learning Styles.

Educational Research Literature

Finally we asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement "my educational practice is informed by the education research literature." Forty-eight percent of participants agreed with the statement. A Spearman Rank Correlation test revealed no correlation between responses on that question and on the 'Dekker' question "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred Learning Style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinaesthetic)" r = 0.07508, P = 0.4.

Qualitative Comments

Forty-eight participants left free-text comments. The dominant common theme, raised by 23 participants was the need to use a variety of teaching methods in order to (for example) keep students engaged or to promote reflection. This theme was often stated in the context of 'despite the evidence again showing a lack of effectiveness of Learning Styles.' A related theme (13 participants) was that participants had a looser interpretation of 'Learning Styles,' for example that they referred simply to 'styles of learning,' while a second related theme from nine participants was they would still, despite the evidence, use Learning Styles and/or found them useful. Eight participants commented that they were aware of the lack of evidence base for the use of Learning Styles and eight participants also gave their own examples of why Learning Styles were conceptually flawed. Despite the careful piloting described above, a small number of participants (four) commented that the survey was biased against Learning Styles, while eight participants perceived some of the questions to be 'leading.' No specific 'leading' questions were identified but there was a substantial overlap between these two themes, with three of the comments about the survey being 'biased against Learning Styles' coming alongside, or as part of, a comment about questions being 'leading,' with an implied relationship between the two. An additional theme, from five participants, was thanks; for raising the issue and/or interesting content.

Discussion

The first aim of this study was to determine how widespread belief in, and use of, Learning Styles is by academics in UK Higher Education. In a 2012 study, 93% of a sample of 137 UK school teachers agreed with the statement "Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (e.g., auditory, visual, kinesthetic)." In our sample of academics in UK Higher Education, 58% agreed with that same statement while 64% agreed with the similar, subsequent statement "I try to organize my teaching to accommodate different Learning Styles." Thus a majority of academics in UK HE 'believe' in the use of Learning Styles although the figures are lower than in the 2012 study of schoolteachers. However, prior to asking these questions we asked some more direct questions about the actual use of Learning Styles instruments. Here the figures were much lower, with 33% of participants answering 'yes' to the statement "Have you ever administered a Learning Styles questionnaire to your students" and the same number stating that they had used 'Learning Styles' as a method in the last 12 months, where the method was defined as "matching teaching to individual student Learning Styles." This value was lower than for a number of teaching methods that are evidence-based. Interestingly the most commonly used Learning Styles instrument was the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory; this is the Learning Styles classification that has been most frequently tested for evidence of such a 'matching effect' and where no evidence has been found ( Pashler et al., 2008).

The empirical evidence is clear that there is currently no evidence to support the use of Learning Styles instruments in this way ( Coffield et al., 2004; Pashler et al., 2008) and thus the fact that actual use of Learning Styles is lower than the use of demonstrably evidence-based methods could be considered reassuring, as could our finding that actual use is lower than 'belief' in the efficacy of Learning Styles. In addition, although we find that a majority of UK academics in Higher Education believe in the use of Learning Styles, the actual numbers observed are the lowest of any similar study. Studies examining belief in the use of Learning Styles have been carried out over the last few years in a number of different populations, and the overall trend is down, from 93% of UK schoolteachers in 2012 (Dekker), to 76% of UK schoolteachers in 2014 (Simmonds), 64% of HE academics in the US in 2014 (Dandy and Bendersky) to 58% here. There are obviously a number of caveats to consider before concluding that belief in the use of Learning Styles is declining; these studies have been conducted in different countries (US and UK), using teachers in different disciplines (school teachers and higher education). A follow-up, longitudinal study across different populations/contexts would be informative to address whether belief in the use of Learning Styles is truly declining, and to further understand whether actual use of Learning Styles is lower than 'belief,' as we have found here.

However, a more pessimistic interpretation of the data would be to focus on our finding that one-third of academics in UK higher education have, in the last year, used a method that was shown to be ineffective more than a decade earlier. The free-text comments give us some insight into the broader issue and perhaps a further hypothesis as to why the 'myth' of Learning Styles persists. The dominant theme was a stated need to use a diverse range of teaching methods. This is a separate issue to the use of Learning Styles and there was no suggestion in the survey that to not use Learning Styles was to advocate for all students to be taught the same way, and/or to use only one method of teaching. Neither of these approaches are advocated by the wider literature which seeks to 'debunk' Learning Styles, but it is clear from the abundance of comments on this theme that these two issues were related in the view of many of the participants. This is supported by the emergence of the related theme of 'styles of learning rather than Learning Styles'; many participants had a looser definition of 'Learning Styles' than those introduced early in the survey. This finding leads us to urge caution and clarity in the continued 'debunking' of the 'myth' of Learning Styles. Learners obviously have preferences for how they learn. In addition, there is an obvious appeal to using a variety of teaching methods and in asking students to reflect on the ways in which they learn. However, these three concepts are unrelated to the (unsupported) idea that there is a benefit to learners from diagnosing their 'Learning Style' using one of the specific classifications ( Coffield et al., 2004) and attempting to match teaching to those styles. However, these concepts were clearly linked in the mind of many of our participants.

Participants agreed with many of the statements describing proposed harms or weaknesses of Learning Styles. Part of our intention here was to understand which are the most compelling of these; all have, at least, a face validity if not empirical evidence to support them. As we attempt to 'spread the word' about Learning Styles and promote alternate, evidence-based approaches, it is useful to know where perceived weaknesses are with Learning Styles. Thus our aim was not so much to observe absolute rates of agreement with individual harms/weaknesses (we would expect to see agreement, given that participants had just been told of the lack of evidence for Learning Styles), but to identify any differences in rates of agreement between the individual statements. There was strongest agreement with the conceptual weaknesses associated with Learning Style theory; that it is not possible to teach 'understanding' using a particular style, or to capture certain types of learning in all styles. Weakest agreement was with the statement that "The continued promotion of Learning Styles as a product is exploiting students and their teachers, for the financial gain of those companies which sell access to, and training in, the various Learning Style questionnaires." The difference between the 'conceptual weakness' and other weaknesses/harms was statistically significant, suggesting that, where efforts are being made to 'debunk' the 'myth' of Learning Styles, then an appeal to the simple conceptual problems may be the most compelling approach. This would also seem to fit with the data described above re: 'belief vs. use'; although it is tempting to believe that individual students have a Learning Style than can be utilized to benefit their education, the conceptual flaws inherent in the theory mean that actually putting them into practice may prove challenging.

Completion of the questionnaire, which highlighted all of the problems associated with the use of Learning Styles, was clearly associated with a group-shift in the stated likelihood that the participant group would use Learning Styles, although we must also consider that, having been presented with all the evidence that Learning Styles are not effective, it seems reasonable to assume that some participants may succumb to some form of social desirability bias, wherein participants respond in the way that they perceive the researchers desire or expect ( Nederhof, 1985). However, despite being presented with all the aforementioned evidence, approximately one-third of participants still agreed with the statement "In light of the information presented......'I plan to try and account for individual student Learning Styles in my teaching.'" As described in the section "Introduction" there is an ongoing controversy, often played out via blogs and social media, about the use of Learning Styles, with some continuing to advocate for their use despite presentation of all the aforementioned evidence. It is even possible that to persist with a 'myth debunking' approach to Learning Styles may be counter-productive; the so-called 'backfire effect' describes a phenomenon wherein attempts to counter myths and misconceptions can result in a strengthening of belief in those myths. For example, 43% of the US population believe that the flu vaccine causes flu, and amongst that group are some who are very worried about the side effects of vaccines. Correcting the misconception that the vaccine causes flu is effective in reducing belief in the myth, yet reduces the likelihood that those who are concerned about vaccines will get vaccinated ( Nyhan and Reifler, 2015). We observed that almost all those who said they would still use Learning Styles after completing the survey had originally said that they try to account for Learning Styles in their teaching. An interesting question for further study may be to ask, of those who are currently using Learning Styles, whether being presented with the (lack of) evidence regarding their use makes it more likely that those academics will continue to use them? In addition, it may be informative to use an in-depth qualitative approach that would allow us to understand, in detail, what it is about Learning Styles that continues to appeal.

Instead of focusing on Learning Styles, it may be more productive for all, most importantly for students, to focus on the use of teaching and development activities which are demonstrably effective. For example, the use of microteaching, a simple, multi-peer review activity, the effectiveness of which has been repeatedly demonstrated in teacher-training settings ( Yeany and Padilla, 1986). Only 12% of survey participants here stated that they had used microteaching within the last 12 months, yet to do so would be relatively straightforward; it is little more than the application of a few more peers to an episode of peer-observation; something that is routinely undertaken by academics in UK Higher Education. This finding may be confounded by participants simply not being aware that 'microteaching' means, basically, 'multi-peer observation and feedback,' although this was explained twice in the survey itself.

Further support for an approach focused on raising awareness comes from our finding ( Figure ​Figure1 1 ) that, as a group, participants stated use of different teaching methods mapped directly on to their perceived usefulness (e.g., the most commonly used technique was formative assessment which was also perceived as the most effective). It seems reasonable to infer a causative relationship between these two observations, i.e., that participants use techniques which they consider to be effective, and thus if we can raise awareness of techniques which are demonstrably effective, then their use will increase.

There are some limitations to our study. A review of factors associated with dropouts from online surveys ( Galesic, 2006) observed that the average dropout rate amongst general-invitation online surveys (such as this one) is ∼30%, and so our dropout rate is entirely within expectations, although upon reflection we could perhaps have designed the instrument in a way that reduced dropout. A number of factors are associated with higher dropout rates, including the participant's level of interest in the topic and the presence of 'matrix questions.' As described in the methods, we deliberately avoid entitling the survey as being about 'Learning Styles' to avoid biasing the responses, and a detailed analysis of the participation rate for each question revealed that the majority of dropouts occurred very early in the survey, after being asked to rank the effectiveness of the five teaching methods; a question potentially requiring higher effort than the others. An additional point reviewed by Galesic (2006) is the evidence that the quality of responses tails off for the items preceding the actual dropout point, thus the fact that participation rate remained steady after this early dropout is reassuring. It would also have been helpful to have a larger sample size. Although ours was equivalent to that in similar studies ( Dekker et al., 2012; Dandy and Bendersky, 2014) we may have been able to tease out more detail from the responses with a larger sample size, for example to determine whether 'belief' in Learning Styles was associated with any of the demographics factors (e.g., subject discipline, or age) to get a deeper understanding of why and where Learning Styles persist.

In summary, we found that 58% of academics in UK Higher Education believe that Learning Styles are effective, but only about a third actually use them, a lower percentage than use other, demonstrably evidence-based techniques. Ninety percent of academics agreed that there is a basic conceptual flaw with Learning Styles Theory. These data suggest that, although there is an ongoing controversy about Learning Styles, their actual use may be low, and further attempts to educate colleagues about this limitation might best focus on the fundamental conceptual limitations of Learning Styles theory. However, approximately one-third of academics stated that they would continue to use Learning Styles despite being presented with all the evidence. Thus it may be better still to focus on the promotion of techniques that are demonstrably effective.

Author Contributions

PN conceived the study, PN and MM designed the questionnaire, PN piloted and distributed the questionnaire, PN and MM analyzed the data, PN wrote the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank those colleagues who distributed the survey at their institutions, and Helen Davies from the Swansea Academy of Learning and Teaching for support with Limesurvey TM.

References

Dandy K., Bendersky K. (2014). Student and faculty beliefs about learning in higher education: implications for teaching. [Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 26 358-380.Google Scholar]

Dekker S., Lee N. C., Howard-Jones P., Jolles J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. [[Front. Psychol. 3:429 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429PubMed] [CrossRef] PMC free article] [Google Scholar]

Galesic M. (2006). Dropouts on the web: effects of interest and burden experienced during an online survey. [J. Off. Stat. 22 313-328.Google Scholar]

Hattie J. A. C. (2009). [Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar]

Lilienfeld S. O., Lynn S. J., Ruscio J., Beyerstein B. L. (2011). [50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar]

Newton P. M. (2015). The learning styles myth is thriving in higher education. [[Educ. Psychol. 6:1908 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01908PubMed] [CrossRef] PMC free article] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Psychology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evidence-Based Higher Education - Is the Learning Styles 'Myth' Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The basic idea behind the use of 'Learning Styles' is that learners can be categorized into one or more 'styles' (e.g., Visual, Auditory, Converger) and that teaching students according to their style will result in improved ...

# data[].attributes.body
Did you know there is a condition called Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM) that allows people to recall past events in detail. Superpower? Nope, just amazing visual learning skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory | UCI CNLM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Original article written by Linda Rodriguez McRobbie in The Guardian. Click here to read.

Almost 17 years ago, in June of 2000, Dr. James McGaugh met the woman that would inspire a new area of research in his laboratory and expose a novel mystery of the mind. Can you imagine remembering every detail of every event that happened in your life?
"If you ask Jill Price to remember any day of her life, she can come up with the answer in a heartbeat" Dr. McGaugh was intrigued. He had "spent his professional career studying strongly formed memories, and Price seemed to have the strongest memories he had ever encountered."
With his team of researchers that included neuropsychologist Dr. Elizabeth Parker as well as neurobiologist and CNLM Faculty Fellow Dr. Larry Cahill, Dr. McGaugh aimed to "determine the depth and breadth of [Price's] memory."
"Over time, it became clear that Price's autobiographical memory was potentially unprecedented. But when it came to remembering details that did not relate to her personally, Price was no better than average."
A few years after their first meeting, the team published their first findings "A Case of Unusual Autobiographical Remembering," which was published in the neuropsychology journal Nerocase in February 2006. Very soon after describing hyperthymesia, or Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM) to the world, Dr. McGaugh began receiving many contacts from individuals who thought they also had superior memory abilities. "It is a measure of just how rare HSAM is that by 2011, even after millions of people had heard about it, researchers had identified only 22 people with the condition."

Twelve years after the initial meeting between Price and Dr. McGaugh, neurobiologist Dr. Craig Stark and then graduate student Aurora LePort published a follow-up paper in the journal Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. This paper, "the second published on the subject, established that Price and the 10 others in the study were not just high achievers on a spectrum of 'good' to 'bad' memory, they were in a separate outlying class by themselves. The HSAM subjects turned out to be far better than people with average memories at recalling long-past autobiographical data; in memories that coulee be verified, they were correct 87% of the time. And the paper was able to offer some clues as to why they could do what they do."

Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory Faculty Fellows Drs. McGaugh, Stark and Yassa currently all have active research projects aimed to understand Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory.
Click here to read article in The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Article in The Guardian explains Dr. James McGaugh's work on Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM)

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: More in depth into how knowing your learning style can supercharge your studies.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: More in depth into how knowing your learning style can supercharge your studies.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes more into detail on how identifying your learning style can help you learn better. There are many extensive studies behind how students have taken their learning styles into consideration when learning and studying, and how it dramatically boosted their academic success and grades in school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learning styles are something every teacher introduced to us at one point or another - a buzz word in revision sessions, and an excuse to take a quiz during lesson time! But what are learning styles and how can we benefit from knowing our own? There are three different types of learning styles: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (or tactile, movement-orientated) learning. Knowing which group you fit within, and tailoring your studies to best cater for your strengths and weaknesses, can massively impact your overall educational experience.
Which group do you fall within?
Read the descriptions below and choose which best describes you:
Why are learning styles important?

Visual learners absorb knowledge best through visual formats - through diagrams and pictures, or by using bright colours and flashcards which capture their attention.

Auditory learners process information best by hearing about different concepts, by repeating phrases, or reading new material out loud.

Kinaesthetic learners understand best by engaging in demonstrations of the task at hand, whether that be through movement-orientated tasks or by acting out the task.

One of the most valuable things gained from knowing your learning style is the ability to improve your learning experience, knowledge and skillset. It can give you an advantage compared to other students as you are more aware of your strengths and limitations. Learning styles are considered an important part of students' curriculum and variations in learning style are often incorporated into lesson plans, to ensure all students are included, and can learn equally.

A tool for visual learners

I am a visual learner. One result of this is that I find it useful to see the bigger picture before I start researching a given topic, so the Topic Finder tool in Gale Primary Sources is particularly helpful to me. Through its visual layout, the tool allows words and subjects associated with the topic to be examined in a more creative way. To create the visualisation below, I used this tool within the Daily Mail Historical Archive, typing in the term 'social media'. Then, using this visualisation, I was able to focus on key words which appeared throughout the newspaper, such as 'terror' and 'teens', and also form connections of my own. I found, as a visual learner, I was far less intimidated to start delving deeper into the content of the Daily Mail Historical Archive after using this Topic Finder tool.

Tips and tricks for visual learners

As a visual learner myself, I am now going to share some of my tips and tricks for the visual learners reading this to ace their exams!

Mind Maps

When I first started writing my dissertation, one of my most useful resources was a large mind map, created during a brainstorming session. I cannot stress enough the usefulness of mind maps to me as a visual learner, as they clearly illustrate the different connections between ideas. Plus, mind maps can be as creative as the individual wants them to be, whether that means using different colours to represent different points or arguments, or using different areas of the mind map for certain periods of time. The possibilities with mind maps are endless and they're a great starting point for any project or assignment, especially if you're struggling to come up with ideas.

Diagrams

Another useful tool for visual learners are diagrams, like that made in the Topic Finder tool I demonstrated above. Diagrams are an easy way to provide individuals with an alternative way of understanding information, especially if they are finding it hard to conceptualise the information. Diagrams can provide students with a convenient way of condensing large sections of information and are especially useful to place on flashcards or in notes.

Physical Placement of Revision Aids

An easy way for visual learners to digest more information in your day-to-day life is by placing diagrams or other revision notes in easy-to-see locations, such as on a mirror or the fridge. Visual learners are often interested in their surroundings, thus a simple action like sticking a diagram on a mirror can lead to a more consistent interest in the information at hand.

The Benefits of Trying Different Learning Styles

Despite the benefits of knowing your learning style, there are problems associated with this approach to learning which are also important to acknowledge. It has been noted by several psychologists that this system can result in individuals being too strictly categorised into different groups - and that, as a result, they never experiment with other learning styles, even if they may benefit from doing so. This criticism is a valid concern, and draws attention to the importance of being open-minded about new ways in which you can study. Although I am a visual learner, if I'm feeling stressed or unmotivated I may turn to alternative ways of understanding information. For example, I may adopt auditory learning practices by reading an essay I have written out loud to check for mistakes.

Knowing how and when to consider different learning styles can drastically improve your revision. If you are struggling with a certain topic, trying a new learning style can be enormously beneficial, and can provide you with the motivation you need to focus. A well-rounded student recognises the importance of developing a range of learning techniques to ensure that they are adaptable as well as skilled and knowledgeable.

Research Your Own Learning Style to Supercharge Your Studies!

Learning styles provide you with a unique opportunity to encounter information and revise in the ways which best engage and motivate you. At the same time, knowing when to try a new approach can be just as beneficial. I hope that I have illustrated some helpful ways in which visual learners in particular can approach revision, such as creating mind maps and diagrams (including highlighting and colour-coding information within them), and by incorporating visual aids into your everyday life. Whether you're a kinaesthetic, auditory or visual learner, I encourage you to see what the Gale archives have to offer in terms of the platform tools - and the advice contained within the sources. There are countless articles elaborating on the subject of learning styles which may help you better understand your own.

If you enjoyed reading about how knowing your learning style can improve your revision, click on the links below for some more helpful advice:

Or check out our For Students category for more tips and tricks!

Blog post cover image citation: "Writing on window", image by @Kvalifik, available on Unsplash.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Knowing Your Learning Style Can Supercharge Your Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why knowing your learning style - visual, auditory and kinaesthetic - can help you tailor your learning and excel in your studies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: This article talks about the conditions in which African American children had to learn.

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: This article talks about the conditions in which African American children had to learn.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.abhmuseum.org/education-for-blacks-in-the-jim-crow-south/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copy Editors: Adekola Adedapo and Fran Kaplan, EdD

Photo Editor: Fran Kaplan, EdD

Education is the key to economic success. It is true now, and it was true in the South. Southern education was not very good - even for white children. But education for blacks in the South in the early 1900s was worse in many ways.
Why Education for African American Children Was Inferior

Southern schools were racially segregated. Blacks and whites had to attend different schools. The separate school systems were not equal. Schools for white children received more public money.

Fewer African Americans were enrolled in school. Black children were often pulled out school because they were needed on the farm. Many of their parents were sharecroppers. To plant and harvest enough crops, sharecroppers' children had to work alongside their parents.

Even if they weren't needed on the farm, the white owner of their farm might pull black children out if he decided they were needed for work. Or he might simply believe that African American children did not deserve an education.

There were not as many public schools available for blacks. If a town did not have enough money for two separate schools, they built only one school - for white children. This was especially true in the rural towns, because most rural towns had little money.

City school systems had more money than rural ones. However, at that time in the South, most African Americans lived in rural areas, on farms. On the other hand, many white children lived in cities and could attend well-funded city schools. In rural areas, schools for both black and white children were scheduled around the cotton growing season. These schools were open fewer days than city schools. As a result, many black children went to school only two or three months out of the year.

Among the African Americans who did attend school, most were in the fourth grade or lower. Many left school after fourth grade. Therefore it would be a long time before there would be a large number of blacks going to college.

The Conditions in the Schools Where Black Children Studied

Many school buildings for African Americans had leaking roofs, sagging floors, and windows without glass. They ranged from untidy to positively filthy, according to a study issued in 1917.

If black children had any books at all, they were hand-me-downs from white schools.

Black schools were overcrowded, with too many students per teacher. More black schools than white had only one teacher to handle students from toddlers to 8th graders. Black schools were more likely to have all grades together in one room.

There were not enough desks for the over-crowded classrooms.

Black teachers did not receive as much training as white teachers. On top of that, the salary for black teachers was so low that it was hard to find fully qualified ones.

There were limits on what blacks could be taught in school. White school leaders did not want black children to be exposed to ideas like equality and freedom. Carter G. Woodson told how some black children in Southern schools were not allowed to use books that included the Declaration of Independence or the U. S. Constitution. These documents state that government should get its power from the consent of the governed. Reading them would confirm for African Americans that they were being denied the rights due to all citizens of the United States.

The One Bright Light
Fortunately, some schools for black children were built with money sent by Northern foundations. The Rosenwald Foundation was most important of these. It gave over four million dollars to help build nearly 5,000 black schools throughout the South. These schools were built with the health and comfort of the children and teachers in mind. Thousands of African American children received a good education in the Rosenwald Schools. (Visit the Rosenwald Schools exhibit .)
Russell G. Brooker, PhD, is Professor of Political Science at Alverno College, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He teaches courses in political science, and research methodology. He has taught courses in African American history, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement since 1981. He is currently writing a book on the civil rights movement before 1954.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Education of Black Children in the Jim Crow South - America's Black Holocaust Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education is the key to economic success. It is true now, and it was true in the Jim Crow South. Southern education was not very good - even for white children. But education for blacks in the South in the early 1900s was worse in many ways.

# data[].attributes.body
You may have a learning disability but that doesn't mean you cannot learn, you just need a strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Misconceptions About Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Getty illustration by Zigy Kaluzny In the classroom, it starts simply -- sometimes with a struggle to sound out simple words; sometimes with trouble telling time, memorizing the times tables or learning left from right. It often ends simply, too: with a troubling statistic. One in five of the Americ…

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Funko Official Store, This is the home page for all of your Funko Pop needs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest: The learning style here is learning which Funko pops will eventually become future grails. Popularity and rarity play a huge part.

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest: The learning style here is learning which Funko pops will eventually become future grails. Popularity and rarity play a huge part.

# data[].attributes.body
https://funko.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This is the official home page for the Los Angeles Lakers, here is where you can keep up with scores, tickets and NBA rankings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T Players learn the visual style of playing the game of basketball.

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T Players learn the visual style of playing the game of basketball.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=lakers&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
View the latest in Los Angeles Lakers, NBA team news here. Trending news, game recaps, highlights, player information, rumors, videos and more from FOX…

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: Parent taught Drivers Ed Course. Learning how to drive online 

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: Parent taught Drivers Ed Course. Learning how to drive online 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aceable.com/drivers-ed/texas-parent-taught/?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=paid&utm_campaign=1626898989&ag=67586805291&utm_term=teen%20driving&loc_i=&loc_p=9028074&network=g&dvc=c&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAmNeqBhD4ARIsADsYfTcV-SoBVmsdvwBjgLUangkc-QyRHePy6WuBC6yaDJWtp0Tjad2Dvi8aAt7HEALw_wcB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start Aceable’s state-certified, evidence-based parent-taught drivers ed course to ace the test & build your driving confidence, on your schedule.

# data[].attributes.body
When considering the learner, we must look at his or her abilities and present appropriate levels of challenges in a particular area of study, the learner’s interest in the topic and ways in which we can enhance his or her interests or help him or her develop new interests, and the preferred styles of learning that will improve the learner’s motivation to pursue the material being studied.
Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, edited by Robert J. Sternberg, and Li-fang Zhang, Taylor & Francis Group, 2001. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nelakeview/detail.action?docID=425409 from nelakeview on 2023-11-17 04:31:18.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rick G: What type of learning style does Forrest Gump Have?

# data[].attributes.subject
Rick G: What type of learning style does Forrest Gump Have?

# data[].attributes.body
Forrest Gump was born "different." Burdened (or blessed) with a crooked back, he was forced to wear leg braces from an early age. This, along with the fact that he was mentally different, didn't seem to bother him though. You see, while Forrest may not have been gifted with a lot of book smarts, he had a tight grip on many - if not all - of what Howard Gardner identified as Multiple Intelligences. Forrest also seemed to have a knack of taking everything in stride https://prezi.com/_m29tfwasqyf/the-multiple-intelligences-of-forrest-gump/

# data[].attributes.headline
Rick G: I'm the finger man, example of kinesthetic learning.

# data[].attributes.subject
Rick G: I'm the finger man, example of kinesthetic learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
i was today’s year old when i learned this from mr. escalante #standanddeliver #teacherappreciation  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
@warnerbrosmovies
i was today’s year old when i learned this from mr. escalante #standanddeliver #teacherappreciation
♬ original sound - Warner Bros. Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
“When wisdom enters into your heart and knowledge itself becomes pleasant to your very soul,” says Solomon

# data[].attributes.headline
Rick G:“Knowledge Itself Becomes Pleasant”

# data[].attributes.subject
Rick G:“Knowledge Itself Becomes Pleasant”

# data[].attributes.body
To make personal study an enjoyable experience requires consistent effort. The benefits, though, are great. “When wisdom enters into your heart and knowledge itself becomes pleasant to your very soul,” says Solomon, “thinking ability itself will keep guard over you, discernment itself will safeguard you.”​—Proverbs 2:10, 11.

# data[].attributes.body
Visual learners can utilize graphs, charts, maps, diagrams, and other forms of visual stimulation to effectively interpret information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_learning

# data[].attributes.headline
Rick G: Penny has an auditory learning style. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Rick G: Penny has an auditory learning style. 

# data[].attributes.body
Penny learns why Sheldon has to sit in a certain spot through a very descriptive explanation.

# data[].attributes.body
People learn in different ways depending on their learning style. Listen to the conversation in this video to hear more about the types of learners.

# data[].attributes.body
Diffent types of learning styles explained to the visual learner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tips and Tricks for the fourth learning style: Writing/Reading

# data[].attributes.subject
Tips and Tricks for the fourth learning style: Writing/Reading

# data[].attributes.body
Reading and Writing learners benefit greatly from note taking!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Bay Atlantic University - Washington, D.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read and Write Learners: Techniques & Tips

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you interested in knowing more about read and write learners? Read this article about read and write learners, their characteristics, techniques, and tips.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Video about Read/Write Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Video about Read/Write Learners

# data[].attributes.body
Some amazing tricks to help efficient note taking and explain the Read/Write style in depth a little bit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language Learning Styles - Tips for the READING/WRITING learner #4

# data[].attributes.headline
An extensive list of helpful ways to learn

# data[].attributes.subject
An extensive list of helpful ways to learn

# data[].attributes.body
From supplying a link to a quiz to find out what kind of learner you are to giving assistance in putting your style to practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Lassonde Entrepreneur Institute | University of Utah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resources for Learning Styles | Lassonde Entrepreneur Institute | University of Utah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take the Learning Style Quiz Take this quiz to determine your learning

# data[].attributes.headline
An interesting article about the research done on learning styles

# data[].attributes.subject
An interesting article about the research done on learning styles

# data[].attributes.body
This really goes into detail about the different ways to learn and some of the fascinating research done about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea of learning styles began in the 1970s, where a growing literature and industry posited that learners have specific, individualized ways of learning that work best for them. This Teaching Tip discusses the distinction between learning styles and learning preferences, and summarizes the Solomon-Felder index of learning styles.

The research on learning styles

There are many different theories of learning styles, including ones that classify people as visual, auditory, or tactile learners, or ones that outline different cognitive approaches people take in their learning.

However, there is virtually no evidence that supports that individuals have learning styles, nor that when taught in a way that "meshes" with their learning style that there is greater learning. A group of psychologists reviewed the literature and in their report: Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. They state that while there have been studies done on how individuals can have preferences for learning, almost none of the studies employed rigorous research designs that would demonstrate that people benefit if they are instructed in a way that matches their learning style (Pashler, et al., 2008).

In the study, Matching Learning Style to Instruction Method: Effects on Comprehension, Rogowsky and colleagues (2015) conducted an experimental test of the meshing hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that providing instruction based on individuals' preferred learning styles improves learning. They found that matching the type of instruction to learning style did not make a difference on students' comprehension of material. Furthermore, certain teaching strategies are best suited for all learners depending on the material that is being taught. For example, learning how to make dilutions in a chemistry course requires a hands-on experiential approach, even if you have a preference to learn from reflection.

Important considerations when using learning styles

Learning style preferences refer to the "characteristic strengths and preferences in the ways [people] take in and process information" (Felder, 1996). Felder (2020) stresses the following when understanding and applying learning styles:

Learning styles are not pairs of strict either-or categories. People can shift between preferences depending on the context and how strong their preference is.

Learning styles are not fixed and can change over time alongside lived and professional experiences.

All learning style preferences are likely represented in your classroom. Instruction should routinely address all categories of the learning style model rather than focus on only one.

Learning styles should not be used to determine a students' major or profession. Learning style preferences provide no indication of what students are or are not capable of.

According to Felder (2020), the optimal balance of instruction " depends on the subject, the level of the course, the prior knowledge of the students, and the familiarity of the instructor with alternative teaching strategies...When that balance is achieved, all students are taught sometimes in their preferred categories, so they are not too uncomfortable to learn, and sometimes in their less preferred categories, so they can build critically important skills they might never acquire from matched instruction." (Felder, 2020)

Soloman-Felder Model

The Soloman-Felder model of learning styles incorporates most of the major approaches to understanding learning preferences and is designed for use with college and university students to self-test their learning preferences. " A learning style model is a small set of learning style dimensions selected to provide instructors with a useful- but not all-encompassing-collection of guidelines for designing instruction" (Felder, 2020). Each of the four scales of the Soloman-Felder index of learning styles has two opposite preferences. Everyone uses all preferences at different times, but not usually with equal levels of confidence.

The active/reflective scale: How do you prefer to process information?

The sensing/intuitive scale: How do you prefer to take in information?

The visual/verbal scale: How do you prefer information to be presented?

The sequential/global scale: How do you prefer to organize information?

Adapted from: Felder, R. (1996). Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, December, pp. 18-23. See also : Felder, R. & Soloman, B. (2002) Index of Learning Styles Page.

Learning strategies for your students

Active

Compensate for lack of discussion by scheduling regular meetings with advising faculty member or seek out other students interested in same or similar topics and organise discussion groups

When developing your work to assess, find creative ways to use the material learned

Talk about material learned with family and friends

Reflective

Schedule time to reflect on material

Don't just read - stop periodically to review the material and think of possible questions or applications

Write short summaries of materials read

Use reflective writing tasks (i.e., journals)

Sensing

Make connections to the real world

Seek out specific examples of concepts and procedures

Brainstorm about real world connections with your advising faculty member, other students, family, or friends

Intuitive

Seek out interpretation and theory to link together facts

Try to find theoretical connections to material learned

Discuss theories and interpretations with your advising faculty member

Take care not to miss the details when producing work to assess

Visual

Seek out diagrams, graphs, sketches, schematics, photographs, flow charts, or other visual representations of material

Review videos and animations of material

Organize material into a concept map (or flow chart)

Colour code your notes

Verbal

Write summaries and outlines of material

Convert diagrams, graphs, etc., into written descriptions

Meet with advising faculty member regularly to discuss material

Organise discussion groups with other students

Explain material to family and friend

Sequential

Learn material in steps

Ask advising faculty member to fill in any skipped steps when explaining information

Take time to organize material in a logical order: themes, chronological, steps, etc.

Try to strengthen global skills by relating new topics to material already learned

Global

Generate the big picture before trying to master details

Seek out general review articles that summarize literature before reading individual research papers

Skim through headings/subheadings before you read material carefully

Instead of spending a little time on a subject daily, try to schedule larger blocks of time less often to immerse yourself in the subject

Find connections to material already learned

Support

If you would like support applying these tips to your own teaching, CTE staff members are here to help. View the CTE Support page to find the most relevant staff member to contact.

References

Felder, R. (1996). Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, December, pp. 18-23

Felder, R. & Soloman, B. (2002).Learning Styles and Strategies.

Felder, R. (2020). "Opinion: Uses, Misuses, and Validity of Learning Styles." Advances in Engineering Education, 8(1). https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1tKCP5oEAV5VV4Yb97j-IG_geuBxCQqB6/2020-AEE%20Learning%20Styles%20Opinion%20Piece.pdf

Massa, L. & Mayer, R. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style?. Learning and Individual Differences - LEARN INDIVID DIFFER. 16. 321-335. 10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest Report, 9(3).

Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64-78.

Weale, S. (2017, March 13). Teachers must ditch 'neuromyth' of learning styles, say scientists. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/13/teachers-neuromyth-learning-styles-scientists-neuroscience-education

Resources

CTE teaching tips

University resources

This Creative Commons license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit us and indicate if changes were made. Use this citation format: Understanding Your Learning Style. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Learning Styles | Centre for Teaching Excellence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea of learning styles began in the 1970s, where a growing literature and industry posited that learners have specific, individualized ways of learning that work best for them

# data[].attributes.headline
A few variations on the traditional styles we know

# data[].attributes.subject
A few variations on the traditional styles we know

# data[].attributes.body
This adds a few more specific labels to the group, helping to narrow down some of the ways to learn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a trainer, you have to take into account what is learning style and its different types to deliver your training effectively. The goal of training programs is to develop the members of your team through multiple ways of learning.

Adapting different learning styles makes it easy for learners to absorb information compared to general training. There are three learning styles trainers are familiar with but, we'll take it a step further and explore up to 7 different types of learning styles.

Why is it important to identify students learning styles?

Identifying learning styles is important because it allows trainers to tailor their teaching methods to individual needs, making learning more effective and engaging.

By recognizing whether a learner is visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or a combination of these, you can provide materials and activities that align with their preferred learning modalities. This customization enhances comprehension, retention, and overall success.

Plus, understanding learning styles fosters a sense of inclusivity in the classroom. This means accommodating diverse ways of absorbing information and fostering a more equitable educational environment.

Check out EdApp's best courses on learning to know more about how your learners can thrive whether in a digital or practical environment. There's a course on the Future of Learning and Helping Others Develop.

1. Visual Learning

One common type of learning style we encounter is visual learning. Some people learn more through visual or spatial representations such as graphic designs, charts, diagrams, images, and anything that illustrates ideas. Visual learning style characteristics include visual-spatial intelligence. Visual learners can recall knowledge and details when pictured in their heads. Similarly, visual learners retain information better when they visualize the connections between data as they process the lessons.

Gamified lessons are best used for this type of learning since there is a use of game-like elements that are big on interactive and visually appealing slides. EdApp supports visual learning techniques through gamified learning and they have multiple engaging gamification templates that could help you when training your employees that are visual learners. Some gamification templates that you can use include memory, image/word match, and more.

2. Auditory Learning

Another type of language learning style is auditory learning where employees learn best when hearing information rather than seeing them. This type of learning is also called "aural learning" and employees who fall under this category process the course lessons when presented to them vocally. Duditory learners definition and examples include music, lectures, podcasts, and talks. Auditory learners prefer vocal collaboration and communication where they read out loud lessons to absorb the information in their head.

3. Logical Learning

Logical learning is not really common compared to other learning styles. This type of learning involves the use of logical reasoning when processing data and solving problems. Compared to the auditory visual learner, a logical learner looks into the different patterns to create a connection between information that makes sense to them, even if the association is not obvious to other people. Highly logical employees are adept at recognizing relationships and retaining ideas through critical thinking exercises, statistics, facts, sequential ordered lists, problem-solving tasks, and more.

4. Verbal Learning

Verbal learning is the process of learning about linguistic cues and responses. We associate auditory and visual learning with how children learn but there are actually different ways children learn. This is linguistic learner definition. Verbal learning really is one of them. Compared to other types of learning styles, verbal learners recall details better through reading, speaking, and writing. This is to say that they process information better when presented in words, may it be in speech or text form. Those who have this learning style tend to create study materials such as reviewers or flashcards that help them understand and memorize ideas.

EdApp's microlearning approach suits learners that fall under this category as it makes use of the optimal presentation of textual materials. Microlearning is an ideal way to make learning more engaging and effective. It's an approach where bulks of overwhelming information are transformed into bite-sized modules that focus only on key elements of any subject. This form of training allows you to embed information into the long-term memory of your employees while also empowering them to have control over their learning process.

You can browse EdApp's fully-editable course library for a vast collection of microlearning courses on any topic that uses the 4 ways of learning we've already learned.

5. Kinesthetic Learning

Aside from audio visual learning styles, we have kinesthetic learning, which involves the use of the different senses to take in information. It is also referred to as experiential learning, which is the process of learning by doing. This is different from the previous four types of learning because it's used in fields that require hands-on lessons to better explain the topic at hand. By involving the learners in the process of creating, planning, and solving, they absorb the lessons more by experiencing them firsthand. Some examples of kinesthetic learning include laboratory sessions, immersions, and hands-on workshops.

Blended learning is ideal for this setup as employees must learn the key concepts first before proceeding to the hands-on activities. With EdApp microlearning, employees can take the microlessons anywhere using their mobile devices which is perfect for those with busy schedules.

6. Interpersonal Learning

After learning styles visual, auditory, kinesthetic, we have social or interpersonal learning. Interpersonal learners are designed to function best when they engage in group study activities like quizzing one another or forming study groups. These individuals learn best when interacting with others in vocal or nonverbal ways. Social learners enjoy interacting with others, working in teams and groups, and generally thriving through social interactions.

7. Intrapersonal Learning

Intrapersonal learning is the opposite of interpersonal learning. Here, an individual loves learning alone and is referred to as an intrapersonal learner or a solitary learner. The intrapersonal learner is self-driven, independent, and easily self-taught. In intrapersonal learning, they get to spend a lot of time reflecting on themselves and appreciate improving themselves.

Learn more about learning strategies and even 4 types of learning environments, through EdApp's learning resources that includes lists, learning styles charts, and more materials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Types of Learning Styles: Which One Are You? | EdApp Microlearning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To give you an idea of the different types of learners, here are 7 types of learning styles.

# data[].attributes.headline
This is a mans research on learning styles and his discoveries

# data[].attributes.subject
This is a mans research on learning styles and his discoveries

# data[].attributes.body
He also adds a few alternative ways to look at learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The learning style theory is widely used to train teachers to accommodate different learning styles in their classroom. However, recent research suggests that this model may not be as impactful as previously thought.

# data[].attributes.headline
From the NLC Library: Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning 

# data[].attributes.subject
From the NLC Library: Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning 

# data[].attributes.body
An interesting book about ways to learn and strategies to make it easier in unforgiving environments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: Common Characteristics found in               ‘Auditory Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: Common Characteristics found in               ‘Auditory Learners

# data[].attributes.body
https://learningstyles101com.wordpress.com/auditory-learner/

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Visual learning strategy helps high-schoolers to learn better

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Visual learning strategy helps high-schoolers to learn better

# data[].attributes.body
A new visual learning strategy helps high school students to learn better. This new strategy is based on problem-based learning. Many studies have shown that students learn more from courses who provide information in a visual format.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
 Testing to see if your child is an auditory learner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earnest T: Testing to see if you're an auditory learner

# data[].attributes.subject
Earnest T: Testing to see if you're an auditory learner

# data[].attributes.body
https://allroundclub.com/blog/auditory-learning-style/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One thing we all know and find quite interesting is that when compared to an adult, kids have a very different way of grasping information and analyzing it.

There are four different styles of learning, but for the purpose of this study piece, we will turn our attention and focus on auditory learners.

Auditory learning is a type of learning where the kid learns the information by simply hearing it. If you notice that your kid asks plenty of questions, then she or he is almost certainly an auditory learner. This technique of learning is easier and far more comfortable for kids and is a better way to gather knowledge than most other forms. Kids who listen carefully during their class and can understand most concepts properly are good auditory learners. In this study, we will go through a whole bunch of things about auditory learning and how you can make your kid an auditory learner. In addition, we will also discuss strategies for auditory learning.

Who is an Auditory Learner?

Any person who can easily grasp information simply by hearing is the one we can describe as an auditory learner. Now the question to ask yourself is, "Is my kid an auditory learner?" If your kid is able to learn quickly just by hearing a piece of information, you can assume that in fact, they are auditory learners. Further, kids who can retain and later repeat the verbal information provided by their instructors are what we would consider being good auditory learners. These kids love to participate in class discussions and have appropriate social skills. Moreover, these youngsters ask plenty of questions and may often ask the same question in different ways to double check if they got certain concepts correctly.

Strengths of Auditory Learning

Auditory learners have plenty of skills. These kids are good listeners, which often makes them good debaters and speakers as well. Let us look at some other strengths of kids with auditory learning skills.

Auditory learning can help your kid to become a multitasker. Proponents of this method of learning claim that learning by ear helps a child be more versatile. They claim that these youngsters can accomplish multiple tasks at one time. Auditory learning makes the learning style different and more exciting, it makes the subject easier to understand and digest. Parents must give particular and clear cut instructions verbally to their kids so that they can develop such a set of learning skills. These skills will help your kid during their whole life. Kids with poor auditory skills lag behind in their lives.

This is quite obvious that auditory learning helps the child in increasing their information retention power which simply means that anything they hear tends to stay in their brains for longer as compared to the other children of their age, what is more important is that the kids are able to access that information later with absolute clarity. This is the prime reason parents need to focus more to develop better auditory learning skills in their kids. For example, parents can play specific audio recordings while traveling to a place. Later they can ask their kids about what was said in that very recording. This technique will help them to improve their auditory learning skills.

Moreover, some kids are social butterflies, and if they have extraordinary retaining skills, they can make friends easily and have more confidence. Also, kids with superior auditory learning skills are always more enthusiastic and fun to be with.

Auditory learning has many educational benefits. Auditory learning helps your kids enhance their critical listening, thinking and comprehension skills. Thus, auditory learning also helps them brainstorm better. It helps them to improve focus, pay better attention, and have better comprehension and memory. In addition, according to some reports, learning with visual and auditory learning helps kids in improving their overall understanding of new concepts.

Listening is a significant factor in learning any new language. We learn what we listen to. Kids learn at a faster pace at an early age. In their childhood, they develop their pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary almost entirely by listening. Thus, auditory learning can help kids in reading with accuracy and better literacy overall. Therefore parents must work to develop auditory learning skills in children.

Strategies to Develop Auditory Learning Skills

Given below are some strategies by which you can develop auditory learning skills in your child.

Rather than practicing the old learning style of writing everything down, kids should learn how to store the information in their minds. Tell your child to retain a piece of information in their minds by listening to it rather than writing it. When it comes to taking notes of any subject, auditory learning can provide advantages. Parents can help their children in developing auditory learning skills by recording the audio of their written notes. For example, as a parent you can read any concept of any topic that your kid finds hard to understand and explain it verbally, you can also read a passage of a storybook and explain it to them and record your explanation. Later tell your kid to listen to this audio when they wish to revise the concept. This is probably the best way to develop auditory learning skills.

Filling notebooks and spending time typing on computers has now become a method of the past. Today kids need better and innovative ideas to learn and audio clips are the best form of learning.

If and when you explain concepts to them in your own voice, never use difficult terms as your kid might find it complex to understand. Instead, properly organize the whole data and present it to them as an entire package. You can also take half a chapter of a lesson and make one audio recording of it. This will help your child to quickly find which audio recording they need to listen to next. Moreover, organizing notes physically is more complicated than organizing audio recordings.

Another technique to develop better auditory skills and increase retaining power in your kid is to ask them to listen first and then make notes a little bit later. Tell your kid to make notes of their sessions, presentations or even small conversations but once the session is over. Making notes requires a lot of attention and focus, and if your kid knows that they will be needed to make notes of what was taught then they will tend to attend the sessions even more carefully, it will be a huge plus point in enhancing their listening and writing skills.

To convert your child into an effective auditory learner, you need to strengthen their retaining power. In addition, it is the most prominent strategy to develop focus and concentration in the classroom.

If your kids have lesser auditory skills, you can tell them to write notes straight after the session. Some kids face difficulty in developing auditory skills. Don't pressurize your kid to be the best auditory listener. Instead, tell them to move slowly. It might not train your child thoroughly and instantly, but it will generate the ability to recall information. Slowly, you can increase the timings, and they will become good auditory listeners.

Participating in group conversations or talking with friends will help your kid to get social. When a kid has good social skills, they automatically develop great auditory learning skills. Auditory learners are more comfortable participating in debates or group discussions. These kids are social butterflies and have a high level of understanding. When a kid tries to get social, they also gain knowledge.

Ask your kid about their whole day at school and encourage them to participate in various conversations or classroom discussions. This will help kids to formulate their thoughts and articulate them in a better way. Moreover, engaging in different conversations will also improve their hearing abilities and speaking skills. Especially the ones who are shy in talking to their mates will gain great benefits when they develop auditory listening skills. Finally, as a parent, you must encourage and motivate your kid at every step for their brighter future.

These are some of the strategies by which you can make your kid a better auditory learner.

Conclusion

There are plenty of methods and techniques that help a kid to learn effectively by using auditory learning. With all the technology and tools we have today, making your kid an auditory learner is easier. All in all, kids' minds can easily grasp and catch any information within a few seconds but what they need is the proper guidance in order to retain it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Auditory Learning Style - Strengths of an Auditory Learner

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Auditory learning helps your kid gain confidence, enhances their retention power, social skills, learning power and so much more. Thus, you can transform your kid into an auditory listener and pave a way for their brighter future.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.educomics.org/how-to-teach-visual-learners/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the modern world, we're now well-aware that there are different types of learners and that their method of absorbing information differs quite vastly from each other. Despite this, most schools still follow the old, slightly outdated readings/lecture style of teaching, something that has been, time and again, proven to be ineffective in a class with students of differing learning styles.

Which isn't to say that lectures are ineffective on their own, it's just that most schools employ this strategy alone. However, it's important to understand how each student processes data in order to create a teaching strategy that benefits all.

Different Types of Learners

The idea that different students learn differently started in the 1970's, with David Kolb's Experiential Model theory that broke down learning styles into 4 categories: Accommodator, Converger, Diverger, Assimilator. Over time, other educational theorists -like Peter Honey, Neil Fleming, Alan Mumford, et al -contributed to the idea of different learning styles and came up with competing, but complementary, theories. The most commonly accepted model of learning styles today breaks it down into 7 categories:

Visual: focuses on spatial understanding

Aural: focuses on sounds, music

Verbal: focuses on words, speech, and writing

Physical: focuses on kinetic movement, textures

Logical: focuses on logical reasoning

Social: focuses on learning in groups

Solitary: focuses on self-study

Each category has specific teaching strategies that go with it. For this article, we focus on the visual learner.

Why Visual Learners Struggle

In many schools, the primary way of teaching is still heavily dependent on completing readings and sitting through lectures. Again, this is not an ineffective or inefficient way to teach per se, but for visual learners, it is a struggle to get through a class that focuses entirely on learning via speech.

Visual learners are at their best when they're given an illustration or visual stimuli from which their brains can start creating stories and narratives. For a visual learner, auditory cues and instructions aren't processed as fast as with other learners. Lectures can be the bane of visual learners, as the lack of visual stimuli for them means that they're not going to be interpreting data as much as if there were some kind of visual aid.

When it comes to learning styles, visual learners tend to process data step by step via an analytical process. This means that, theoretically, they can do very well with reading, as the language organization skills of visual learners are better than most.

Although reading does have a visual aspect to it, the repetitiveness of symbols (letters) and the forced memorization of their correct sequence can dishearten a visual learner. Learning in this way can hold back a student whose brain is wired differently, and craves creativity and more dynamic visual stimuli.

Different Ways to Stimulate Visual Learners

Visual learners in the classroom thrive when there are various types of visual stimuli integrated into the lesson. By integrating visuals with a student's memorization of symbols, we can tap into their visual cortex and engage visual learners without alienating aural and verbal learners. Visuals with symbols (or, in layman's terms, pictures with words) help visual learners retain information by creating a mental photo for them to remember. When choosing classroom activities, whether it's for visual learners or other learning styles, try to incorporate as many stimuli as possible so that it reaches and engages as many students as possible. Other strategies can include:

Sight Words

As visual learners rely heavily on their eyes to receive and process data, sight words are one of the most effective activities for visual learners. Sight words are commonly used words that young children are usually taught to memorize as a whole by sight. Broken down into learning the alphabet, educators can use visuals to represent different letters (i.e., the word MOUNTAIN can be drawn as actual mountains in order to provide the student with a visual shape to remember) while still teaching them how each word is sounded out.

Sight words help visual learners and other types of learners because it incorporates multiple learning styles (i.e. visual, verbal, aural, physical, and logical) that ensure no one is left behind.

Alphabet Teaching Cards

Alphabet teaching cards are a great visual guide for educators to engage visual learners along with the rest of the class. Teaching cards like these have colorful pictures that can be used to tell stories. By telling a story using visual aids, speech, audio guides, and even kinetic movement (like dancing or role-playing), you engage visual learners to memorize words and whole sentences by creating a mental "movie" that they can replay in their heads. Using all 4 learning styles at the same time engages the student's cerebellum more intensely, thereby maximizing their ability to retain the information you're teaching them.

Again, this type of teaching tool allows students of different learning styles to pick up on the lesson because it engages different senses: visual learners are engaged because it's visual stimuli, verbal learners learn through the audio guide, physical learners get a feel of the cards which help them remember the lesson, social learners are able to enjoy the lesson because of the interaction the cards have, and even self-learners are able to self-study the lesson if they're allowed to take home the cards.

Fingermapping

Fingermapping involves using your fingers to represent individual sounds or letters in a word. This technique helps young students, particularly those in pre-school or kindergarten, learn how to correctly sequence specific sounds in a word that they are writing. For visual learners, this is a crucial element for them to literally see the sound of each letter and aiding them in correctly writing down that word. Think of it as giving a map to somebody who has a hard time following verbal instructions: it engages both their visual skills, their auditory skills, their need for speech, their kinetic intelligence, as well as engaging their logical processes.

As a classroom activity, visual learners are able to learn because it gives them a visual aid on how a word works, while physical and social learners are able to be engaged because of the interactive portion of fingermapping. Meanwhile, logical learners are able to learn because fingermapping requires a lot of logical processing.

Markers and Whiteboards

Particularly for young students, these tools can be very helpful in aiding them with their reading skills. Although there's nothing wrong with the use of pencils and paper, it can be a little difficult for some children who are still developing fine motor skills. By using mini whiteboards and markers, you're able to include all manner of learning styles: the tactile element of holding a whiteboard and a marker gives kinetic learners a great feel of words you'll be spelling out, while visual and auditory learners are able to see and hear the words they're writing down. Using oversized markers can also help students develop their fine motor skills. You can reduce the size of these markers over time while still incorporating a visual and kinetic aspect to your lessons.

When using markers and whiteboards for your lessons, make sure you're able to incorporate visual aids, auditory directions, kinetic motion, logical requirements, social interaction, verbally reading out what they write, and allow them an opportunity to study what they've just learned in solitude.

Teaching Patterns in Words

The human brain is predisposed to seeing patterns; it's our way of making sense of an otherwise chaotic world. For young students, learning the pattern of a particular language's vocabulary and lexicon are important tools in becoming fluent. When teaching sounds or spelling, it is best to include more than one example of a particular word. In this way, you show students that language has a pattern, and once they see this pattern, it becomes a part of their cognitive process. For visual learners, this is a crucial element to their learning system, and will be invaluable for them in the future.

Again, language organization is one of the strengths of visual learners because it engages their logical process through visual stimuli, allowing them to 'see' how words are constructed and how each word logically follows or precedes another. This helps them map out complete patterns in their head.

Keep Your Teaching Style (and Your Teaching Tools) Flexible

In as much as students need to be flexible when learning, educators must also learn how to be flexible with their teaching. As much as possible, create a teaching style that incorporates various types of learning styles so as not to exclude anyone. If possible, remain flexible with how you teach, especially if you are teaching different grades.

As much as possible, use teaching tools that are holistic and meets the diverse needs of you students. In this way, teachers are able to teach students of different learning styles without having to prepare different materials every time. By using teaching tools that require different logical and physical processes from the child, teachers can ensure that every student benefits from the lesson.

Incorporating different teaching styles for different learning styles can be an exciting and fulfilling strategy, especially when you see students retaining information and actually enjoying their lessons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Visual Learners: How to Teach Them | Educomics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the modern world, we're now well-aware that there are different types of learners and that their method of absorbing information differs quite vastly from each other. Despite this, most schools still follow the old, slightly outdated readings/lecture style of teaching, something that has been, time and again, proven to be ineffective in a class ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: More in depth into what an auditory learner is and how they learn. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: More in depth into what an auditory learner is and how they learn. 

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes into detail of what the benefits of knowing your child's learning style and how to help your auditory learning child succeed. This article also points out the importance of not recognizing a specific learning style as a child having a learning disability, but is just a way that that child learns better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about auditory learning and see if your child exhibits this learning style.

# data[].attributes.body
This article dives into the question of what a kinesthetic learner is, and how do they learn? The easiest way to describe kinesthetic learning, is to learn things physically. These learners learn better by doing things actively and trying them out in order to best master them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Bay Atlantic University - Washington, D.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever seen someone doodling while listening to a lecture in class? What if we tell you that that can help some people learn better? In fact, this type of learning has long-term benefits as well. Through kinesthetic learning, mind and body are combined to achieve the best learning results. If you are now wondering, "What is kinesthetic learning?" or, "What is a kinesthetic learner"? - this article is for you. Read on to learn more about kinesthetic learning and its characteristics, benefits, and strategies to implement when teaching such learners.

What Is Kinesthetic Learning?

Before we try and define what kinesthetic learning is, let's first check a definition of the word 'kinesthesia'. The Cambridge Dictionary defines kinesthesia as 'the ability to know where the parts of your body are and how they are moving.' So, kinesthetic learning links the process of learning to physical activity. It is a learning style during which the learner has to feel or move in order to learn more effectively. Also referred to as 'tactile', 'hands-on', or 'physical' learning, kinesthetic learning is part of the VARK model. The latter consists of three other main learning styles: visual, auditory, and read and write.

How Do Kinesthetic Learners Learn?

After establishing kinesthetic learning, let's move on to a kinesthetic learner definition. Kinesthetic learners use body movement and interact with their environments when learning. To better understand something, they need to touch or feel it; hence practical information is usually preferred over theoretical concepts. A kinesthetic learning experience can be that of learning how to skate. You can read about it, listen to instructions, or watch videos of how to skate-but deep learning occurs when you're physically involved and start 'doing' it.

A kinesthetic learner would rather perform physical activity to learn something, as an active participant, instead of passively listening to a lecture or watching a demonstration. That is why the best way of learning something new is by having your hands-on those things you are trying to learn. For example, when learning about wind energy, while a visual learner might learn how wind turbines function by watching a video, a kinesthetic learner would prefer to build a pinwheel and make connections between the pinwheel and wind turbines to learn more about how wind energy works.

Therefore, kinesthetic learners may learn easier in classes that incorporate practical examples into the curriculum rather than through lectures.

Characteristics of Kinesthetic Learners

Kinesthetic learners retain information by doing, rather than (only) by seeing or listening. When they engage in some physical activity during learning, that's when you can expect the best learning outcome. From an early age, they will show interest in building sets; and they will often tear things apart in order to learn more about them. When a child wants to touch and hold something they are interested in rather than look at it, most probably they are kinesthetic learners.

Some typical kinesthetic learner characteristics include:

Understand more when learning through hands-on experience

Tend to get bored in a traditional classroom

Learn through movement

Enjoy sports and physical activity

Enjoy being outside the classroom when learning (field trips, expeditions)

Like to build things and work with their hands

Love experimenting and testing things

Tend to use their hands when talking

Enjoy working with tools or instruments

Love trying new things

Tend to trust what they can experience or perform

Remember spelling words better when they write them several times

Tend to gesture while speaking

Tend to be killed at solving puzzles and completing mazes.

Think more clearly when able to move

Tend to need frequent study breaks to keep focus

Prefer making posters or charts for group projects rather than gathering information

Benefits Of Kinesthetic Learning

Kinesthetic learning is a style of learning through which students are physically interacting with the material. Therefore, this style shares many beneficial elements frequently observed in active learning. Some of the many benefits of kinesthetic learning include the development of various skills, knowledge, and critical thinking.

Cognitive development

Research conducted on the brain reveals that thinking and movement are connected. This connection between cognitive and motor processes happens due to the fact that movement increases the amount of oxygen present in your blood which then helps fuel the brain. So, physical activity helps the brain positively affect your cognitive performance.

Increased comprehension through physical activities

Generally, lectures are delivered in a teacher-centered format, causing students, especially those who utilize kinesthetic learning, to reach only basic levels of comprehension because they do not interact with the material physically. So, to support the cognitive development of such students, the inclusion of kinesthetic strategies and techniques is necessary and highly beneficial.

Social skills development

When you participate in creative kinesthetic activities, one of the skills you will further develop is that of communication. Being around other people while engaging in kinesthetic activities, like group roleplaying, will help promote positive social interactions that teach you about teamwork and cooperation.

Stronger creative thinking

Creativity is closely linked to the kinesthetic type of learning. While participating in different learning activities, you usually need creative thinking to be able to grasp more from that particular activity. Furthermore, learners often explore their creativity by approaching learning from different perspectives when learning using the kinesthetic style, which in return contributes to an overall more robust creative thinking.

Better problem solving

Kinesthetic learning helps critical and analytical thinking skills, which may improve through experimentation with various techniques and strategies in interacting with studies. The kinesthetic learning style encourages students to be active in the study process and find new ways of solving problems instead of being passive and simply observing demonstrations or listening to theories.

✅ Request information on BAU's programs TODAY!

Better observation

Lastly, having a hands-on approach to your studies will help you skillfully engage with your surroundings and materials, making you a better observer of any change and easing the process of noticing unique features. Generally, ways to improve observation skills include being concentrated, engaged, and interactive with the information-all of which you can achieve through kinesthetic learning if it is your style.

Teaching Methods For Kinesthetic Learners

For teachers, understanding the ways in which students retain information is crucial for effective teaching. With kinesthetic learners preferring physical engagement when learning something, various strategies can be implemented by the teacher in order to help them learn. Below you can find some teaching methods to ensure effective learning for kinesthetic learners.

Include a variety of kinesthetic-friendly activities in your lessons. Since kinesthetic learners tend to get bored and can't focus long on a traditional lecture, try keeping your lectures as short as possible. Instead, try to include different activities such as surveys, roleplays, demonstrations, dances, projects, experiments, and more. You can ask learners to work in pairs or make small groups moving their chairs to work together on a particular assignment. Introducing various activities in the class keeps kinesthetic learners from getting bored while also helping them learn.

Allow them to move. Some teachers find standing during lectures unacceptable, but did you know that it is beneficial for some students? Allowing kinesthetic learners to move in class helps them learn more efficiently. Standing, doodling, tapping the leg, and more - are all the types of movements that would help a physical learner focus and learn more quickly. In addition, if you see that the kinesthetic learners in your class are not able to focus during lectures, pause and have the class switch places, jump, stretch, or do something similar to get some energy.

Motivate them to create their notes. Creating their own notes using pen and paper, highlighting parts in a book or notebook, underlining different parts - helps kinesthetic learners remember information more. Choosing between colored pencils and highlighters is a mini activity that requires motion and encourages kinesthetic learners who may be tired of sitting all day in class.

Teach outside. Whenever possible, or whenever you can make a connection to the lesson - teach outside of the classroom. Since learners understand best with real-life examples, you can take them outdoors, to a park or, the school backyard to learn plants. This way, they can touch the plants and feel them, instead of just reading about them and seeing pictures. Take the students outside to play different games or just observe. As a benefit, they will be actively learning.

Try to provide a practical component to the lessons. Since kinesthetic learners learn best by touch, whenever you can, offer your students things they can interact with physically. These include puzzles, blocks, and cubes, wooden numbers and letters, modeling clay, globes, maps, drawing materials, and more.

Knowing your primary learning style is crucial for successful learning. This article went through one of the four main learning types - kinesthetic learning. By including the kinesthetic learning definition, its characteristics, and benefits, we provided a general understanding of this learning style in order to help you identify whether you are a kinesthetic learner or not.

If you are a teacher, this article can help you understand your students, identify your kinesthetic learners in your class and use the strategy list we provided, consisting of various teaching methods for kinesthetic learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read this article to learn more about the kinesthetic learning style, its benefits, and kinesthetic learner characteristics.

# data[].attributes.body
Learning braille seems impossible but there is certainly a science to it. Kinetic learning is the key style for some who may be blind.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you know sign language? This is an example of someone who may learn visually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do you sign the alphabet in ASL? Sign Language Online Learning Tips

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Start learning sign language online with the ASL ABCs! In this helpful article you’ll learn the ASL alphabet, plus other phrases that are perfect for sign language beginners.

# data[].attributes.body
Stubborn may definitely be the word. I find it interesting to see what the other side may have to say about learning styles.

Furey, W. (2023, April 19). The stubborn myth of “Learning styles.” Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/stubborn-myth-learning-styles-state-teacher-license-prep-materials-debunked-theory/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reasonable people may disagree about whether teachers should have to pass licensing tests of instructional knowledge before getting a job in a classroom. But it's hard to dispute the idea that, if there is going to be such a test, then the questions should be based on the best evidence we have about how children learn. Right?

Actually, my research shows that in 29 states, government-distributed test-preparation materials on high-stakes certification exams include the debunked theory of "learning styles," which holds that matching instruction to students' preferred mode of learning-seeing, listening, or physically engaging in content-aligned activities, for example-is beneficial. My work builds on earlier research showing the prevalence of the idea in textbooks and teacher trainings across the United States. The presence of such content promotes an incorrect theory.

There is no evidence that designing lessons that appeal to different learning styles accelerates student learning. Yet teacher candidates are consistently directed to keep these pseudoscientific style categories in mind. The idea of "learning styles" is persistent and popular in the field, in part because many teachers don't know the science that disproves it. Education and teacher preparation are better when they are informed by empirical evidence than when they operate in disregard of it. It is important to ensure that educators are prepared with accurate insights into learning, instead of with myths.
No Proof for Learning Styles Boost
Has anyone ever told you "I'm a visual learner?" It's a common statement, based on a belief in learning styles. The most frequently referenced styles are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic, which assume that some individuals learn best by looking at pictures, others learn best by listening, and still others learn best through hands-on activities. The assumption that students have distinct learning styles and learn best through these channels has influenced teacher practice for decades-despite a lack of evidence that such styles even exist (see " Unlocking the Science of How Kids Think," features, Summer 2018).

Like many misconceptions about learning and the brain, the belief in learning styles stems from an incorrect interpretation of valid research findings and scientifically established facts. For example, it is true that different types of information are processed in different parts of the brain. It is also true that individuals have differences in abilities and preferences. Since the 1970s, however, systematic research reviews and meta-analyses examining the validity of learning styles and their application to education have come to the same conclusion: despite the intuitive appeal, there is little to no empirical evidence that learning styles are real. The fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience consider them a "neuromyth" and disavow the practice of matching instruction to individuals' preferred learning styles to promote learning. In these fields, believing in learning styles has been compared to believing in fortunetelling.

Then there's the education community, where students' learning styles remains a popular idea and pedagogical priority. Research scientists continue to examine the theory in response to the thriving industry marketing learning-styles assessments and interventions to educators, despite the dearth of evidence suggesting an impact. Year after year, the proof eludes us-even with the cheeky promise of a $5,000 cash prize for anyone who can demonstrate a positive effect of incorporating learning styles into an educational intervention. As cognitive psychologists Doug Rohrer and Hal Pashler wrote in their 2012 research review, "it does indeed make sense to speak of students who, in comparison with their peers, have poor visual-spatial ability and strong verbal ability, but this does not imply that such students will learn anatomy better if their textbook has few diagrams."

Nonetheless, starting with their training, teachers are steeped in the lore of learning styles. A 2016 study by the National Council on Teacher Quality found that 67 percent of teacher-preparation programs required students to incorporate learning styles into lesson-planning assignments, and 59 percent of textbooks advised taking students' learning styles into account. Those lessons appear to stick: a 2017 study examining the prevalence of neuromyths found that, of the 598 educators surveyed, 76 percent agreed that "individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style," and 71 percent agreed that "children have learning styles that are dominated by particular senses."

Even when teachers do encounter sound science, those messages are blurred by the importance assigned to learning styles in coursework and licensure exams. As Joshua Cuevas found, when teachers study educational psychology, those textbooks-unlike general education materials-approach the topic with skepticism, pointing out the lack of evidence and cautioning against the use of unsupported instructional practices. But textbooks also align their content with standard licensure exams, leading to incongruent mentions of learning styles. For example, a passage in the margins of the widely used Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice textbook written by Robert E. Slavin and published by Pearson reads: "Teacher certification tests may ask you to design a lesson that would accommodate students' various learning styles." Yet in 2019, an issue of Slavin's newsletter published by the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University stated: "There is no practical utility in knowing students' learning styles."

What are teachers to believe? It should come as no surprise that most think learning styles are important. In more than half of U.S. states, teachers are required to study up on learning-styles theory as they prepare for high-stakes licensure exams.
The Link to Licensure
To reveal the extent of this problem, I, with the help of undergraduate students studying to become certified teachers, first reviewed the requirements for licensure and certification to work as an elementary-school teacher in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We then focused our analysis on only those states that require aspiring teachers to pass computer-based standardized exams that test knowledge of instructional methods. That limited our sample to 34 states and the District of Columbia. We did not include the 16 states that only require tests that are performance-based or measure content knowledge, as those tests likely would not include learning styles since they do not directly test pedagogical knowledge.

We then reviewed free, publicly available test-preparation materials to find mentions of "learning styles" and determine whether or not the information advocated for modifying lessons based on that theory. In all, 29 states and the District of Columbia currently require licensing exams for elementary certification that have official study materials that reference learning styles (see Figure 1).

Nearly all of those materials advocate for modifying instruction to accommodate learning styles. Only one state, Massachusetts, has study materials that refer to learning styles but do not clearly advocate for their relevance or application in the classroom. In this case, the term "learning styles" is used in an example of a weak response to a composition exercise.

Because several states partner with major testing companies to administer the exams, there is quite a bit of overlap in licensure test requirements. For example, 21 states and the District of Columbia require one or more tests of instructional knowledge from Educational Testing Service's Praxis Series, which study materials say may ask questions pertaining to learning styles. In addition, nine states require state-specific examinations testing instructional knowledge, seven of which have preparation materials available for free that advocate for accommodating learning styles during instruction.

The publicly available preparation materials place varying degrees of emphasis on learning styles. Several list learning styles alongside prerequisite knowledge, skill levels, and interests as suggestions as to how one might differentiate and individualize instruction. Others provide specific questions regarding visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning and the instructional methods that might best match students with different learning styles.

For example, study companions for the various Praxis licensure tests ask aspiring teachers to "describe some activities that might help students with varying learning styles best learn key concepts" and to "give a specific example from your own classroom experience of the effects of differences in learning styles on how people understand and express what they know." In Oklahoma, the study guide for the state's Professional Teaching Examination goes so far as to provide results from a "learning-styles inventory" that the test taker is expected to analyze, interpret, and cite within a constructed response.
Misplaced Priorities
So what should be done when supposedly "correct" answers on teacher-licensure tests are actually wrong? Sound professional judgment requires that the best available knowledge gained through empirical research be integrated into practice. Teachers are professionals whose influence on human lives cannot be overstated. It's critical that they make instructional decisions informed by evidence. To promote such practice, several changes will be needed.

First, teacher-preparation programs could function more like schools of medicine. Under such a model, programs would take responsibility for providing students with the best available knowledge while emphasizing the importance of staying up-to-date with scientific findings that can influence decision-making. Medical schools no longer teach and test medical students on bloodletting, for example, because it has been debunked. Similarly, board-certification exams do not include questions about bloodletting, which could legitimate a practice that is not only ineffective, but also harmful. Requiring that teacher-preparation programs and licensing exams meet medical-exam standards for scientific accuracy would help aspiring teachers to focus on proven methods of instructional success.

Preparation programs also have the responsibility of teaching aspiring teachers to be critical consumers of research. We do not want our future teachers to accept blindly what publishing companies market to them to inform instructional decisions any more than we want doctors to blindly accept what pharmaceutical representatives market to them to inform treatment decisions.

Failing to take these steps may have steep costs to the teaching profession and to kids across the country. Consider a similar mismatch between research and practice: reading instruction at U.S. schools. Because the vast majority of teachers did not learn the science of reading in their preparation programs, they rely on common practices and word of mouth to teach reading once they reach the classroom. As a result, "whole language"-style instruction masquerading under the name "balanced literacy" remains popular, despite ample research pointing the way toward a more systematic, effective method of instruction. Meanwhile, one in three American 4th graders cannot read at a basic level.

It seems reasonable to ask how learning styles theory could harm students. Would-be teachers need to recognize and respect individual differences and understand the importance of differentiated instruction, right? Doesn't incorporating learning-styles theory into instruction align with these core principles?

It seems harmless enough, but when teachers work to accommodate learning styles, which have no empirical support, they divert attention and effort away from instructional strategies that are supported by a substantial body of research. There are principles of instruction and strategies for effective learning that are supported by converging empirical evidence from multiple fields-practical knowledge teachers ought to have upon entering their first classroom. When training programs spend time discussing learning styles, that's time not spent discussing proven practices to enhance student learning. For example, the National Council on Teacher Quality's textbook study found 59 percent of textbooks did not even mention the six highest-impact teaching methods identified by the Institute of Education Sciences more than a decade ago, and just 15 percent spent a full page on those practices. Even then, it was only two books, and they discussed just two of the six strategies. Meanwhile, more than half of textbooks included details about learning styles. Rather than learning to assess, group, and plan instruction for visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, teachers can learn to assess and differentiate instruction based on individuals' level of mastery with prerequisite skills and knowledge-important factors that do influence student learning.

In addition to the misallocation of teachers' time and effort, there are other potentially detrimental effects of learning-styles-based instruction, detailed memorably by Daniel Willingham. Students may act on their label. If a student believes she or he has a particular dominant learning style, the student may avoid effective learning strategies or even entire subjects they believe are a better fit for a learning style they don't think suits them. Moreover, since individuals are able to control the type of mental processing they use, students who are taught they have a dominant learning style may attempt to process information in their preferred style, even when the method does not fit the task. And teachers who attempt to accommodate multiple learning styles in a lesson, rather than focusing on the most effective methods to present the specific material, can negatively influence student learning by causing cognitive overload.
Coursework Corrections
Teacher educators and preparation-program administrators should not want to propagate a myth that has negative effects on student achievement and motivation. However, if they want to keep certification rates high and see students' dreams of having their own classrooms come to fruition, they'll need to prepare candidates fully for licensure exams. So, until the content of licensure exams more accurately reflects evidence-informed practice and principles from learning science, teacher educators are left with a less-than-ideal strategy to minimize the damage.

While emphasizing evidence-informed instruction through a careful selection of journal articles and textbooks, teacher educators can teach candidates that accommodating student learning styles is not supported by research. However, for the purposes of licensure exams, they can tell their aspiring teachers to disregard empirical findings so that they can get the "correct" answer. This appears to be the route already taken by some educational-psychology textbooks, which can leave students questioning the overall legitimacy of the licensure exams.

Indeed, reviewing the content of those exams appears pressing. Instead of testing students on material with no empirical backing, state departments of education could provide a useful service by scouring the required licensing exams that test knowledge of instructional methods and removing content without a sufficient evidence base. Learning-styles theory is not the only content fitting this description-Praxis tests also include Maslow's hierarchy of needs, for example, which is not supported by empirical evidence.

Both test developers and teacher educators have a responsibility to stay up-to-date on research regarding learning and instruction. What they choose to include in course syllabi and on licensure tests is more than a statement about what the field of education believes future teachers ought to learn. It is also a statement about how much the field values empirical knowledge.
William Furey is assistant professor at Manhattan College.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
State teacher-license prep materials peddle a debunked theory

# data[].attributes.body
Have you ever wondered if your dog watches TV?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yale researchers recently devised an ingenious way to try to solve the question - are humans the only species that experiences the world consciously?

When humans look out at a visual landscape like a sunset or a beautiful overlook, we experience something - we have a conscious awareness of what that scene looks like. This awareness of the visual world around us is central to our everyday existence, but are humans the only species that experiences the world consciously? Or do other non-human animals have the same sort of conscious experience we do?

Scientists and philosophers have asked versions of this question for millennia, yet finding answers - or even appropriate ways to ask the question - has proved elusive. But a team of Yale researchers recently devised an ingenious way to try to solve this riddle.

Writing on March 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they make the case that one non-human species - the rhesus macaque - also has a conscious awareness of the world around it.

"People have wondered for a long time whether animals experience the world the way we do, but it's been difficult to figure out a good way to test this question empirically," said Moshe Shay Ben-Haim, a postdoctoral fellow at Yale and first author of the paper.

Researchers have known for a long time that people can be influenced by unconscious subliminal cues - visual stimuli presented just outside of our threshold for conscious awareness, said Laurie Santos, a professor of psychology at Yale who is co-senior author of the study along with her colleague Steve Chang, associate professor of psychology and of neuroscience, and Ran Hassin of Hebrew University.

"We tend to show different patterns of learning when presented with subliminal stimuli than we do for consciously experienced, or supraliminal stimuli," she said.

If monkeys show the same "double dissociation" pattern that humans do, it would mean that monkeys probably experience the supraliminally presented stimuli in the same way as people do - as a conscious visual experience.

Ben-Haim, Santos, and their team thought of a novel way to explore whether macaques also exhibit a difference in learning when stimuli are experienced consciously versus non-consciously.

In a series of experiments, they had monkeys and humans guess whether a target image would appear on the left or right side of a screen. Before the target appeared, participants received a visual cue - a small star- on the side opposite of where the target would subsequently appear. The researchers varied whether the cue was presented supraliminally or subliminally. When the cue was presented for a few seconds, human participants successfully learned that the target would appear in the opposite location from the cue. But when the cue was presented subliminally - quickly enough that it escaped people's conscious perception - participants showed a different pattern of performance; they continued to choose the side that was subliminally cued, failing to learn the rule that the cue predicted the opposite side.

Surprisingly, the researchers found that monkeys showed exactly the same response patterns as the people did: like humans, macaques were able to successfully look to the target location when the cues were presented consciously, but showed the reverse pattern for subliminal cues. This striking result suggests that monkeys have two levels of processing just as humans do, one of which must be conscious.

"These results show that at least one non-human animal exhibits both non-conscious perception as well as human-like conscious visual awareness." said Ben-Haim. "We now have a new non-verbal method for assessing whether other non-human creatures experience visual awareness in the same way as humans."

Other authors of the paper are Yarrow Dunham, Olga Dal-monte, and Nicholas Fagan of Yale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Monkeys experience the visual world the same way people do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yale researchers recently devised an ingenious way to try to solve the question - are humans the only species that experiences the world consciously?

# data[].attributes.body
Let's learn a language!! Would you prefer flashcards or audio bits?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With lessons, games, podcasts, and even live classes, Babbel has something for everyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: What is reading and writing learning style? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: What is reading and writing learning style? 

# data[].attributes.body
Read and writing learners rely on reading and writing to understand and learn information. Read and write learners typically choose textbooks, handouts, and notes as their source of learning information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Bay Atlantic University - Washington, D.C.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read and Write Learners: Techniques & Tips

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you interested in knowing more about read and write learners? Read this article about read and write learners, their characteristics, techniques, and tips.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Reading/Writing learners and more about the VAK/VARK model.

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Reading/Writing learners and more about the VAK/VARK model.

# data[].attributes.body
Watch this video to learn more about the VARK model and how its learning styles differ from another, especially reading and writing learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read/Write Learning - Studying Techniques

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: What is the VARK model, and what does it mean? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: What is the VARK model, and what does it mean? 

# data[].attributes.body
Learning styles are put into four categories: visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic, thus creating the VARK model. Flemming and Mills (1992) suggested these four modalities that seem to reflect the experiences of students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The acronym VARK stands for the four VARK modalities - Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic - sensory modalities that are used for learning information. Fleming and Mills (1992) suggested these four modalities that seem to reflect the experiences of students and teachers. Although there is some overlap between them they are defined as follows.

The Visual preference includes the depiction of information in maps, diagrams, charts, graphs, flow charts, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies, and other devices, that people use to represent what could have been presented in words. This mode could have been called Graphic (G) as that better explains what it covers!

It does NOT include still pictures or photographs of reality, movies, videos, or PowerPoint. It does include designs, white space, patterns, shapes, and the different formats that are used to highlight and convey information. When a whiteboard is used to draw a diagram with meaningful symbols for the relationship between different things that will be helpful for those with a Visual preference. It must be more than mere words in boxes - that would be helpful to those who have a Read/write preference.

The Aural mode describes a preference for information that is "heard or spoken. " Learners who have this as their main preference report that they learn best from lectures, group discussions, radio, email, using mobile phones, speaking and talking things through. Email is included here because; although it is text and could be included in the Read/write category (below), it is often chat-style with abbreviations, colloquial terms, slang, and non-formal language. The Aural preference includes talking out loud as well as talking to oneself. Often people with this preference want to sort things out by speaking first, rather than sorting out their ideas and then speaking. They may say again what has already been said or ask an obvious and previously answered question. They have a need to say it themselves and they learn by saying it - their way.

The Read/write preference is for information displayed as words. Not surprisingly, many teachers and students have a strong preference for this mode. Being able to write well and read widely are attributes sought by employers of graduates. This preference emphasizes text-based input and output - reading and writing in all its forms but especially manuals, reports, essays, and assignments. People who prefer this modality are often addicted to PowerPoint, the Internet, lists, diaries, dictionaries, thesauri, quotations and words, words, words...

Note that most PowerPoint presentations and a lot of information on the Internet on sites such as Wikipedia are suited to those with this preference as there is seldom an auditory channel or a presentation that uses Visual symbols.

By definition, the Kinesthetic modality refers to the "perceptual preference related to the use of experience and practice (simulated or real)." Although such an experience may invoke other modalities, the key is that people who prefer this mode are connected to reality, "either through concrete personal experiences, examples, practice or simulation" [See Fleming & Mills, 1992, pp. 140-141].

It includes demonstrations, simulations, and videos of "real" things, as well as case studies, practice, and applications. The key is the reality or concrete nature of the example. If it can be grasped, held, tasted, or felt it will probably be included. People with this preference learn from the experience of doing something and they value their own experiences and less so, the experiences of others. It is possible to write or speak Kinesthetically if the topic is strongly based on reality. An assignment that requires the details of who will do what and when, is suited to those with this preference, as is a case study or a working example of what is intended or proposed.

What about Mixtures? Multimodality (MM):

Life is multimodal. There are seldom instances where one mode is used or is sufficient, so that is why there is a four-part VARK profile. That is why the VARK questionnaire provides four scores and also why there are mixtures of those four modes. Those who do not have a standout mode with one preference score well above other scores are defined as multimodal.

The two types of Multimodality:

VARK Type One:

There are those who are flexible in their communication preferences and who switch from mode to mode depending on what they are working with. They are context specific. They choose a single mode to suit the occasion or situation. If they have to deal with legalities they will apply their Read/write preference. If they are to watch the demonstration of a technique they will be expressing their Kinesthetic preference. They are described as VARK Type One and they may have two, three, or four almost-equal preferences in their VARK scores.

VARK Type Two:

There are others who are not satisfied until they have had input (or output) in all of their preferred modes. They take longer to gather information from each mode and, as a result, they often have a deeper and broader understanding. These people may be seen as procrastinators or slow deliverers but some may be merely gathering all the information before acting - and their decision-making and learning may be better because of that breadth of understanding. They are described as VARK Type Two.

VARK Transition

VARK Transition is the term we use to describe those who fall somewhere between these two categories.
Remember life (and work) are multimodal so there are no hard and fast boundaries.
More Information

For a detailed description of the initial construction and limitations of VARK, and for other works on learning styles, see the Articles and particularly the seminal article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The VARK Modalities: Visual, Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The four VARK modalities are: Visual (diagrams, maps, drawings), Aural (listening, discussing), Read-write & Kinesthetic (related to experience).

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: What is Multimodality, and what does it have to do with the VARK learning styles? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: What is Multimodality, and what does it have to do with the VARK learning styles? 

# data[].attributes.body
In instances where one is able to use more than one or many different learning styles to succeed it is called a multimodality. There are two main types of multimodality relating to the VARK learning styles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The acronym VARK stands for the four VARK modalities - Visual, Aural, Read/write, and Kinesthetic - sensory modalities that are used for learning information. Fleming and Mills (1992) suggested these four modalities that seem to reflect the experiences of students and teachers. Although there is some overlap between them they are defined as follows.

The Visual preference includes the depiction of information in maps, diagrams, charts, graphs, flow charts, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies, and other devices, that people use to represent what could have been presented in words. This mode could have been called Graphic (G) as that better explains what it covers!

It does NOT include still pictures or photographs of reality, movies, videos, or PowerPoint. It does include designs, white space, patterns, shapes, and the different formats that are used to highlight and convey information. When a whiteboard is used to draw a diagram with meaningful symbols for the relationship between different things that will be helpful for those with a Visual preference. It must be more than mere words in boxes - that would be helpful to those who have a Read/write preference.

The Aural mode describes a preference for information that is "heard or spoken. " Learners who have this as their main preference report that they learn best from lectures, group discussions, radio, email, using mobile phones, speaking and talking things through. Email is included here because; although it is text and could be included in the Read/write category (below), it is often chat-style with abbreviations, colloquial terms, slang, and non-formal language. The Aural preference includes talking out loud as well as talking to oneself. Often people with this preference want to sort things out by speaking first, rather than sorting out their ideas and then speaking. They may say again what has already been said or ask an obvious and previously answered question. They have a need to say it themselves and they learn by saying it - their way.

The Read/write preference is for information displayed as words. Not surprisingly, many teachers and students have a strong preference for this mode. Being able to write well and read widely are attributes sought by employers of graduates. This preference emphasizes text-based input and output - reading and writing in all its forms but especially manuals, reports, essays, and assignments. People who prefer this modality are often addicted to PowerPoint, the Internet, lists, diaries, dictionaries, thesauri, quotations and words, words, words...

Note that most PowerPoint presentations and a lot of information on the Internet on sites such as Wikipedia are suited to those with this preference as there is seldom an auditory channel or a presentation that uses Visual symbols.

By definition, the Kinesthetic modality refers to the "perceptual preference related to the use of experience and practice (simulated or real)." Although such an experience may invoke other modalities, the key is that people who prefer this mode are connected to reality, "either through concrete personal experiences, examples, practice or simulation" [See Fleming & Mills, 1992, pp. 140-141].

It includes demonstrations, simulations, and videos of "real" things, as well as case studies, practice, and applications. The key is the reality or concrete nature of the example. If it can be grasped, held, tasted, or felt it will probably be included. People with this preference learn from the experience of doing something and they value their own experiences and less so, the experiences of others. It is possible to write or speak Kinesthetically if the topic is strongly based on reality. An assignment that requires the details of who will do what and when, is suited to those with this preference, as is a case study or a working example of what is intended or proposed.

What about Mixtures? Multimodality (MM):

Life is multimodal. There are seldom instances where one mode is used or is sufficient, so that is why there is a four-part VARK profile. That is why the VARK questionnaire provides four scores and also why there are mixtures of those four modes. Those who do not have a standout mode with one preference score well above other scores are defined as multimodal.

The two types of Multimodality:

VARK Type One:

There are those who are flexible in their communication preferences and who switch from mode to mode depending on what they are working with. They are context specific. They choose a single mode to suit the occasion or situation. If they have to deal with legalities they will apply their Read/write preference. If they are to watch the demonstration of a technique they will be expressing their Kinesthetic preference. They are described as VARK Type One and they may have two, three, or four almost-equal preferences in their VARK scores.

VARK Type Two:

There are others who are not satisfied until they have had input (or output) in all of their preferred modes. They take longer to gather information from each mode and, as a result, they often have a deeper and broader understanding. These people may be seen as procrastinators or slow deliverers but some may be merely gathering all the information before acting - and their decision-making and learning may be better because of that breadth of understanding. They are described as VARK Type Two.

VARK Transition

VARK Transition is the term we use to describe those who fall somewhere between these two categories.
Remember life (and work) are multimodal so there are no hard and fast boundaries.
More Information

For a detailed description of the initial construction and limitations of VARK, and for other works on learning styles, see the Articles and particularly the seminal article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The VARK Modalities: Visual, Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The four VARK modalities are: Visual (diagrams, maps, drawings), Aural (listening, discussing), Read-write & Kinesthetic (related to experience).

# data[].attributes.headline
Gabby: Informing teachers of the importance of learning styles

# data[].attributes.subject
Gabby: Informing teachers of the importance of learning styles

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains how important it is for teachers be aware of the different learning styles and to try and differentiate their teaching styles to cater to them.

Source from NLC Online Library:

“Bloomsbury Education and Childhood Studies Platform - Home.” Bloomsbury Education and Childhood Studies Platform - Home, www.becs-bloomsbury.com/. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ACES is a secure portal that provides students, staff, and faculty with access to various applications using a single sign-on. As an ACES user, you will have access to register for classes, financial aid information, email, library resources, and online courses. ACES will also provide you with the latest information of events and important news taking place within your college.