Honey & Mumford All styles no substance?

If VAK became a well-marketed, viral success in education, Honey & Mumford was the viral success in adult education and training. Once again, a derivative model, this time from Kolb, rather than NLP, took an experiential model and applied to general management skills

Four learning styles

Their learning styles were then labelled:

1. Activist – dive in and learn by doing

2. Reflector – stand- back, observe, think and then act

3. Theorist – require theory, models, and concepts and analysis

4. Pragmatist – experimenters who like to apply things in the real world

The learner is asked to complete an expensive, copyrighted questionnaire that diagnoses their learning style by asking what the learner does in the real workplace. Their learning style is then used to identify weaknesses that need building. To be fair, unlike the VAK evangelists, they did not fall into the trap of labelling learners, then teaching them in that styles alone. The idea was not to see these qualities as fixed but to recognise your learning style but also tackle your weaknesses.

All styles no substance

Honey and Mumford’s model, although marketed heavily, and used widely in adult education and training, seems to have no serious academic validity. As a theory it does attempt to widen the trainers’ view of learning, and trainees’ view of themselves as learners. However, beyond this intuitive appeal to difference, the theory is crude, crudely applied and even when the learning styles questionnaire is applied, rarely carried through to different types of learning experience for the supposed different types of learners.

This issue has been addressed in several commissioned reports. A review of learning styles commissioned by the Association of Psychological Science examined the evidence and found it wanting. "We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all.”

Frank Coffield, through Learning and Skills Development Agency research, found a ‘bedlam of contradictory claims’ with a ‘proliferation of concepts, instruments and strategies’. In total they uncovered 71 competing theories. All were found ‘seriously wanting’ with ‘serious deficiencies’. Many were downright dangerous as they ‘over-simplify, label and stereotype’.

Conclusion

Learning styles theories, in general, have been diagnosed as being flaky and faddish. They have an intuitive appeal but, given the proliferation of these theories, with success based more on marketing than evidence, it is a largely discredited field. In practice, it tends to be a dodgy diagnosis without any real carry through to treatment. Trainers rarely provide learning experiences that respond in any real way to the four-way schema. No sooner is the questionnaire complete than the PowerPoint is out. Given the stereotyping of learners and dangers exposed by recent research, it would seem that these theories should no longer be applied in real learning.

Bibliography

Honey P, Mumford A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles 3rd Ed. Maidenhead, Peter Honey.

Honey, P & Mumford, A (2006). The Learning Styles Questionnaire, 80-item version. Maidenhead, UK, Peter Honey Publications

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.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.

Kolb - Experience & learning: a 4 stage cycle, also learning styles (doomed to succeed!)

David Kolb is best known for his work on experiential learning. Heavily influenced by Dewey, and Piaget, he preferred an experiential model for learning, as opposed to purely cognitive models. We obviously learn much from experience, either formally in terms of structured exposure in training or in work and life itself through informal learning. Kolb and others since have tried to examine how we learn experientially and how this can be used to guide instructional strategies.

Four stage learning cycle

Kolb (with Roger Fry) created his famous four stage learning cycle.

He claims that we can enter the cycle at any point and that learning is really a process of looping round and round, seeing improvement on each loop. We may, for example, be able to do something but not express it in abstract terms. In the end, however, learning is formed through real experience, where one’s ideas are put to the test. Feedback then shapes the learning so that performance improves.

Learning styles

In Experiential Learning Kolb presents a learning styles theory:

Convergers like to take abstract ideas and reason then apply them to solve problems

Divergers use concrete experience and reflective observation to come up with imaginative solutions

Assimilators take abstract ideas and reason and combine it with reflective observation

Accommodators use concrete experience and active experimentation and like to get on with doing things

This schema gave rise to a learning styles assessment that could be used to determine the most appropriate form of learning for that individual.

Critique

Models such as Kolb’s four stage, experiential, cycle model can be over-simplistic. They rarely match the reality of the learning process and one can argue that stages can be skipped or performed in parallel. Subsequent tests of the model by Jarvis (1987, 1995) have indeed shown that things are more complex. The model is less of a cycle and more of a causal web. Others have argued that it pays too little attention to theory, information tasks, memorisation and reflection. Research into skills acquisition and the use of simulators has taken us well beyond the Kolb model into far more sophisticated analyses of learning and practice through experience.

On learning styles, it is hard to believe that people fall into these categories or that learning styles do, as many learning styles theorists claim, usually fall neatly into four categories. One negative influence on learning theory, although Kolb cannot be held responsible, is that the model had a direct influence on Honey and Mumford’s learning styles theory leading to a simplistic, four-category description of types of learning and learners. Neither Kolb nor Honey & Mumford’s learning styles theory were in any real sense, empirically researched. In fact recent research as doubted their usefulness and thrown doubt on their very existence.

Conclusion

Kolb is a refreshing alternative to the overemphasis on academic, knowledge-based learning and the idea of cyclical learning informed by experience is sound, as is the importance of formative experiences themselves in learning. However we must be careful in reducing experiential learning or learning by doing to such a simple schema. Although this model is a useful guide, in practice, the design of experiential learning is more complex.

Bibliography

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1976) The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, Boston, Ma.: McBer.

Kolb, D. A. (with J. Osland and I. Rubin) (1995a) Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach to Human Behavior in Organizations 6e, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb. D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) 'Toward an applied theory of experiential learning;, in C. Cooper (ed.) Theories of Group Process, London: John Wiley.

Jarvis, P. (1987) Adult Learning in the Social Context, London: Croom Helm. 220 pages.

Jarvis P. (1995) Adult and Continuing Education. Theory and practice 2e, London: Routledge.

7 reasons why teachers believe, wrongly, in ‘Learning Styles’

Now I don’t want to do another piece on the evidence that learning styles do NOT exist but I do want to expose the reasons for their widespread belief. Surveys consistently show that the vast majority of teachers, trainers and lecturers believe in learning styles. Despite decades of research showing that the theories are bogus, the belief persists. It is so ubiquitous that it’s hard to attend an educational conference without hearing the phrase being repeatedly parroted. Seasoned campaigners shake their heads in disbelief every time they hear the term but it is so deep-rooted it seems to be impossible to shift. This is a real conundrum.

1. Villain is intuition

One could argue that these professions are in a pre-Copernican state, believing that the sun moves around the earth. Their only appeal is the same as the pre-Copernicans - look the sun moves across the sky, it feels right to me. Another analogy would be flat-earthers – everywhere they look they see that the land is flat, so the entire planet must be flat. There is always a villain and in this case it is intuition. In both cases ‘intuition’ trumps reality, where limited personal intuition fools the mind.

2. Category mistake

Puzzlingly, even when the evidence is presented, that the truth is the opposite of what one thinks, it is ignored. I get this. It feels as though learners are different. They are. But the non sequitur is to think that they should learn differently. The differences are in ‘personality’, which are real. These are then translated into the fiction of learning styles. It is a category mistake. There are many complex issues at play here but the simple fact that people differ in terms of well–researched  personality traits, is mistaken for ‘learning styles’. There is one complication here, in that some learners have conditions that can inhibit and distort learning; learning difficulties, disabilities, dyslexia, autism and so on. But these should not be confused with generalised learning styles.

3. Simple models

Learning styles is a set of theories. Coffield found 71 of them, surely a sign that something is amiss? But the appeal of some of the more common theories seems to come down to two things. First, they are represented as researched, evidenced and science, when they are not. Second, they are simple models, such as VAK or Honey and Mumford’s 4 categories, which are simplistic, easy to learn, easy to put on a training PoewerPoint slide and all too easy to explain. The danger here is that their categories are treated as fixed entities with no statistical distribution or overlap. The data gathering to decide what style a person has is also woeful. This promotes a lack of critical thinking.

4. Anti-intellectualism

Other forces are also at work here. Teaching, as practised by teachers, trainers and lecturers, is not, like ‘medicine’ or ‘engineering’ - evidence or even research-based. In fact, the research is treated with great suspicion. Many who teach, especially in higher education, in research institutions where they should know better, have no real knowledge of what good teaching entails or how people learn. The defence you often hear is that teaching is a ‘practice’ and not the application of theory, evidence-based or otherwise. The problem with this defence, is that it simple begs the question ‘What practice?’ We still need some way to distinguish good from bad practice. This anti-intellectualism allows those who teach to literally do what they want even down to believing and applying false and damaging theories.

5. Professional bodies

Professional bodies are also to blame, having blindly regurgitated old theory in courses (which they sell), for decades. One really does have to ask what teacher training has been up to for all these years, when their student-teachers come out as flat-earthers? Why don’t they come out and say what needs to be said? For many years professional bodies, such as the CIPD and ASTD, who survive on running courses, promoted these practices. In practice, they tended to reinforce these faddish theories, as they made money from them, and it was left to researchers and bloggers to do the hard work. To be fair some have moved on, especially the CIPD.

6. Poor CPD

Few read much in the field and CPD is scarce and often faddish. Courses often contain the standard memes such as Maslow and Learning Styles, as there is no real intellectual rigour in their design. Those that pass for experts have actually cobbled together their courses from previous courses. Paschler is right in identifying a vast industry of conferences, workshops, courses, books and CPD around learning styles, that perpetuate the myths.

7. Groupthink

Lastly, we have groupthink. People hear the terms so often that they believe them to be true. They become memes in a community, uncritically used and deeply embedded in a culture, a culture prone to taking things at face value. Questioning these sacred cows becomes an act of betrayal. Teachers feel good in themselves because they feel as though they are treating learners as unique individuals, when what they are actually doing is the very opposite – stereotyping and destroying learning.

Stereotyping

Finally, and this is the killer argument for me, even if learning styles were true, stereotyping learners is dangerous, if not counterproductive. Let’s suppose I do have a disposition towards not ‘reading’. This could be because I come from a background (like me) where there is no culture of reading, a household that has no books. This disposition should not be used to focus on visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learning. What a good teacher should do is teach that child to read, perhaps put even more effort into that practice. The learners that lose out here are the poor and disadvantaged who are stereotyped into low achieving channels. It is easy to feel as though learners are different (they are) but to categorise them as VAK, or some equally as vakous schema, is a big mistake. At the University of Illinois, they found that students who had been fed the myth of Learning Styles at school, were held back by this at University. It was regularly quoted by students as a reason for their poor grades, used as an excuse for failure.

Conclusion

For me, this is a touchstone issue. The fact that it has persisted for so long is a damning indictment on our professions, practices and professional bodies. Learning styles do not exist - let me repeat – learning styles do not exist. To believe in learning styles is to believe that the sun goes round the earth or that the earth is flat. It’s an intuition gone bad – a fail. Worse still, is to apply this theory in practice. If you categorise children as VAK or adults to Honey and Mumford or any of the other dozens of learning styles theories, and yes there are dozens, you’re doing learners a disservice. You may even be ruining their education.

Evidence

We have 35 years of evidence against learning styles. This includes individual studies, systematic reviews and books. People like Pedro de Bruyckere, Wil Thalheimer and I have been talking about this for decades. Chapter 1 of Pedro de Bruyckere’s book ‘Urban Myths’ is an excellent summary of the research. A critique of Fleming’s VAK can be found here and a critique of Honey and Mumford’s theory can be found here.

To get specific for a moment. Kratzig and Arbuthnott’s took learning styles as identified using self-report and a questionnaire. Less than 50% of the participants identified the same learning style using both assessments, raising serious questions about their validity. 40% of participants self-identified as visual learners, and 60% were identified as visual learners through the questionnaire, but only 23% performed best on the visual test. The percentages were 16% and 8% for kinesthetic, yet 52% performed best with the tactile test. This research show no significant correlation between learning style and objective memory performance.

Systematic reviews

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.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.

Beere, Jackie; Swindells, Maggie; Wise, Derek; Desforges, Charles; Goswami, Usha; Wood, David; Horne, Matthew; Lownsbrough, Hannah; Hargreaves, David (2005). About learning: report of the Learning Working Group

Research papers

Clark R. E. (1982) Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies. Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92-101.

Cuevas, Joshua (November 2015). "Is learning styles-based instruction effective?: a comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles". Theory and Research in Education. 13 (3): 308–333

Husmann, P (2018) Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education
Kratzig and Arbuthnott (2016) Perceptual Learning Style and Learning Proficiency: A Test of the Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006, Vol. 98, No. 1, 238–246

Rayner, Stephen G. (July 2013). "Problematising style differences theory and professional learning in educational psychology". The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist. 30 (Special Issue 1): 13–35. doi:10.1017/edp.2013.2.

Ritter, Leonora (October 2007). "Unfulfilled promises: how inventories, instruments and institutions subvert discourses of diversity and promote commonality". Teaching in Higher Education. 12 (5-6): 569–579.

Scott, Catherine (April 2010). "The enduring appeal of 'learning styles'" (PDF). Australian Journal of Education. 54 (1): 5–17

Stahl, S. A. (2002). Different strokes for different folks? In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 98-107). Guilford, CT, USA: McGraw-Hill.

Riener, Cedar; Willingham, Daniel T. (August 2010). "The myth of learning styles" (PDF). Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 42 (5): 32–35.