Learning Styles

Authentic education is where the parent finds the best pathway to develop a child to the fullest

through a network of people and resources.

The pathway is determined by the core elements in the child

and therefore true development of people must take into account how God has created the person.

In this way the parent or educators work with God to raise up godly people.

~ Martie Du Plessis, Dynamis Institute

Learning styles are the often unconsciously preferred methods that people use to understand and remember information. When we understand our own learning style it helps us see how best to learn something. And when we understand our children's learning styles, we are empowered to support and facilitate their learning experience in ways that are meaningful to them.

It is easy to assume that there is only one way of learning a thing, and to think that that one way is the way that we were taught in school, or the way that we ourselves learn. This restricted view of learning can make life very difficult for home-educating families. For example, if the parent has a particular learning style, and the child has a different learning style but there is a lack of understanding about it, it is easy for the parent to assume that the child is being difficult when they do not learn in the way that makes sense to the parent.

When our children were quite young - I think the oldest was around 12 - we met Martie Du Plessis of Dynamis Institute in South Africa. She was the first to introduce us to the concept of learning styles and we were enthusiastic about having a family assessment with her. Each of us had a questionnaire to complete. For our younger children we completed the assessment from what we had observed about them. The questions were very simple and were based on preferred choices when learning. A few days later we had a consultation with Martie. This was really interesting and a lot of fun, because she had put table mats on a table and on each table mat she had laid out a variety of objects that made it easy to see a particular child's learning style. For example, for my eldest daughter who is very neat and tidy, the placemat had a number of related objects that were carefully and methodically laid out. For my second daughter who is much more random and spontaneous, the placemat was a jumble of random objects. We found that doing these learning style assessments helped us not only with the children's education, but also with family dynamics between ourselves and the children, and amongst the children themselves as they understood each other better. The learning styles assessment that Martie was using at that time was based on Gregorc & Butler's Model. Later, Martie added the much more comprehensive brain profiling approach of the Kobus Neethling Institute to her assessment process.

Learning Styles assessments are very useful springboards for family discussions around group dynamics, relationships, personhood, self-awareness and so on. They are particularly helpful when people are finding it hard to relate to or get along with one another. They increase/enhance understanding of the perspectives of other people and help to explain their actions. This is especially helpful when one member of the family finds the behaviour or actions of another hurtful.

What I liked about developing my awareness of learning styles was that it enhanced my respect for each child’s uniqueness, and made it possible for me to celebrate each child's way of learning and processing rather than be irritated by it. Realizing that some of my children were kinaesthetic and needed to move in order to learn meant that I no longer minded if they were rolling around or doing head stands while I was reading to them - as long as they weren't disturbing anyone else, that is. One of the children was very creative and innovative, and she regularly found multiple possible uses for an object. I was grateful I knew about learning styles the day I found her ‘cooking’ – in water - the jigsaw pieces of the puzzle she was supposed to be building, because I was able to redirect her activity without anger.

Some years later I discovered Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory, and this was the profiling that probably helped us the most as we were able to identify and celebrate some of the strengths of five very different people. It is worth noting that Gardner distinguished between learning styles and multiple intelligence; he defined the intelligences as a person's intellectual abilities, whereas learning style defines their preferences in how they approach educational materials. However, the two concepts are complementary. I have taught on multiple intelligence theory in home-education seminars as I believe that it can make a huge difference, both with regard to celebrating what we are good at, and with managing how we feel about ourselves when we are not successful in achieving societal - or our own - goals.

Another assessment that we really enjoyed when our children were in their teens, and that has subsequently resulted in many interesting family conversations and debates is Thinking in Colors. Dutch social scientists Léon de Caluwé and Hans Vermaak studied change, and how people respond to and deal with change, particularly in organisations. We found overlap with what we were exploring with learning styles and multiple intelligence theory because learning is a major change-initiator. When we are exposed to a new idea and begin to think about it, it introduces the possibility of change, first internally as we assimilate the new information into what we already know, and then externally as we begin to act upon the new information.

The brain and its processes are fascinating. Why do we think like we do? Why do we behave like we do? Why do we share and communicate like we do? Why are there so many different ways of thinking in the members of a family even though their context is similar? Why are even identical twins so different? Scientists and researchers have invested thousands of hours into trying to understand the human mind. Dr Kobus Neethling is one such scientist, and his research has culminated in the development of his NBI system of thinking preference assessments, which evaluates the natural preferences or dominances we have with regards to thinking.

Every child has a very unique brain profile

that determines how they listen, learn and view the world.

Understanding this individual brain profile

will give parents the ability to raise confident, future-ready kids.

~ The Kobus Neethling Institute

The foundational premise of all learning styles theorists is that when we try to learn (or are made to learn) in ways that do not suit our learning style we will find the process much harder. It will be much more difficult to retain information, and we might lose interest in a subject that would fascinate us if it was presented in a different way. For example, a big picture thinker will be bored with a list of details, while the more detailed person might find too much ‘big thinker’ thinking stressful and overwhelming. Maths approaches that major on logic will not inspire a relational person, whereas problem-solving approaches with real-life contexts might. Successful learning is hugely affected by the person's unique learning style (a combination of kinaesthetic, auditory and visual components) and their personality (a combination of extrovert/introvert and logic/feeling elements).

It is very important to understand that your children’s thinking preferences determine how they make decisions, learn, communicate and socialize (and the same is true for their parents). While behaviour changes over time, thinking preferences, like personality, tend to remain constant. However, when a person suffers severe trauma, their learning style may be negatively affected. And when a person is constantly denigrated, punished or criticised for their learning style, they may become stunted in their expression, sometimes to the extent that they don't even know who they are anymore.

Based on observations interviews and experimental studies conducted since 1967

it has become apparent that, regardless of their age, ability, socioeconomic status, or achievement level,

individuals respond uniquely to their immediate environment.

~ Rita S. Dunn & Kenneth J. Dunn

The idea of individualized learning styles became popular in the 1970s, and many different theories, models and assessments of learning styles have been developed. I have included some of the most well known models below. It is interesting to see the similarities and the differences in these models. There is ongoing debate over how many types of learning styles exist and/or how useful learning styles tests actually are. Ultimately, all efforts to put people into neat little boxes and categories will fail because each person is unique. However, the concept of learning styles does well in celebrating that uniqueness by presenting the idea that people think, process, and organise information differently to one another; and there isn't a wrong or a right way of engaging with the world. In this way they enlarge tolerance and empathy for individual learning styles and preferences. Learning Styles tests, like personality tests, offer parameters that are useful in helping people understand themselves better, although I certainly don't think there is one perfect test that will give all the answers. It should also be noted that more recent research into the incredible neuroplasticity of the brain challenges the notion that people primarily or only learn in their particular learning style.

Gregorc & Butler's Model

This model is based on 2 intersecting continuums:

The Perceptual continuum: How people acquire information
The Ordering continuum: How people process and organise information

The intersecting continuums create 4 quadrants:

Concrete Sequential
Concrete Random
Abstract Sequential
Abstract Random

In this model, there are two perceptual qualities: concrete and abstract, and two ordering abilities: random and sequential.

Concrete perceptions involve registering information through the five senses, while abstract perceptions are to do with the ability to understand ideas, qualities, and concepts.
Sequential ordering involves the organization of information in a linear, logical way, and random ordering involves the organization of information in chunks and in no specific order.

While every person has all these abilities, it is the unique mix that determines the dominant learning style. Different combinations learn in different ways, and have different strengths and weaknesses. This means that some things are easier and some things are more difficult for them to learn, and they ask different questions throughout the learning process. It thus goes without saying that understanding a person’s dominant learning style makes it easier to facilitate their learning experience without becoming frustrated or annoyed when they struggle.

It was this model that we were introduced to by Martie Du Plessis, and as I said earlier, we found it very helpful at the time, for the reasons I have explained above.

The NASSP Model

This model was the result of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) efforts to study learning styles.

3 broad categories of style were identified:

Cognitive: ways of perception, organization and retention.
Affective: motivation (reasons for doing)
Physiological: body states or predispositions, gender, health, reactions to physical surroundings (eg preferences for levels of light, sound, and temperature.)

There were also 31 variables, which included perceptual strengths and preferences as well as things like a need for structure, types of motivation, and time of day preferences. This made their model rather complex.

They saw that a learning style was a composite of internal and external operations based in neurobiology, personality, and human development and that it was reflected in the behaviour of learners. While they agreed that one could therefore recognize the learning style of an individual though observation of their behaviour, they pointed out that a learning style was a hypothetical construct. Learning style assessment was however useful for explaining the learning (and teaching) process.

Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK Model

Neil Fleming’s learning styles assessment is based on sensory modalities. It is built on earlier notions of sensory processing, such the VAK model.

He identified 4 learning styles but later added Multi-Modality to describe people who appeared to use more than one learning style:

Visual: a preference for learning by seeing (visual aids that represent ideas using methods other than words, eg pictures, symbols, graphs, charts, and diagrams)
Auditory: a preference for learning through listening (lectures, discussions, music, rhythm, lyrics & jingles, etc.)
Kinaesthetic: a preference for learning through activity and experience (activities, movement, touch, projects, experiments, etc.)
Reading/Writing: a preference for learning by reading and writing
Multi-Modality: a mixture of the above learning modalities

Kolb’s Model

David A. Kolb’s model identified 4 elements of an experiential learning model. He proposed that all four stages of the learning cycle would be engaged in a complete learning process:

Concrete Experience: A new experience, or a reinterpretation of an existing experience, is encountered.
Reflective Observation: The experience is observed, reviewed or reflected upon, with the goal of achieving a consistent understanding.
Abstract Conceptualization: A new idea or concept arises from the reflection.
Active Experimentation: The new idea is tested by application or action and the results are observed.

These four elements are repeated again and again in an upward spiral of learning that can begin anywhere, but that most typically begins with a concrete experience.

The experiential learning model laid the foundation for Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI). He recognised 4 learning styles in line with where a person preferred to begin a learning spiral:

The Converger begins with Abstract Conceptualization (Stage 3 of the learning cycle) and/or Active Experimentation (Stage 4 of the learning cycle): These learners like doing and thinking. Practical, “hands-on” solutions appeal to them. They enjoy problem solving. They like to experiment with new ideas and finding practical applications. This allows for great technical and specialist abilities. They excel at technical work and at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. They are less interested in relationships.
The Accommodator begins with Concrete Experience (Stage 1 of the learning cycle) and/or Active Experimentation (Stage 4 of the learning cycle). This learning style involves doing and feeling. Accomodators are also “hands on”, but they rely on intuition and ‘gut instinct’ rather than logic, and their strength lies in imaginative ability and discussion. They have high interpersonal skills and value the input of others. New challenges and experiences excite them.
The Assimilator begins with Reflective Observation (Stage 2 of the learning cycle) and/or Abstract Conceptualization Stage 3 of the learning cycle). Learning involves watching and thinking. They have a concise, logical approach to processing and organising information. Ideas and concepts are primary, while people and practical applications are secondary. They tend to prefer reading non-fiction, like lectures, and enjoy analyzing concepts.
The Diverger begins with Concrete Experience (Stage 1 of the learning cycle) and/or Reflective Observation (Stage 2 of the learning cycle). Learning involves watching and feeling. People who are oriented towards diverging are able to see things from many different perspectives. They gather information by watching rather than doing and use their imagination to solve problems. They are good generating ideas, tend to be open-minded and have many interests. They are imaginative, sensitive to emotion and creative.

Kolb’s studies are ongoing and Version 4 of the Learning Style Inventory replaces the four learning styles with nine new learning styles: Initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing.

Felder & Silverman’s Model

In this model a person’s learning style is a score based on balance points between 4 pairs of extremes:

Active – Reflective
Sensing – Intuitive
Verbal – Visual
Sequential - Global.

Honey & Mumford’s Model

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford considered two drivers of learning style:

Doing versus Observing: Does the person like to learn by trying an activity or through reflection and observation?
Thinking versus Feeling: Is the person more comfortable with logical, structured solutions or with mystery, complexity and ambiguity?

From these drivers they then identified 4 distinct learning styles:

Activists thrive on new experiences and challenges. They are hands-on learners like the Pragmatists, but like the Reflectors, they’re less concerned with logical rigour, and are able to embrace nuance and complexity. They aren’t deterred by a lack of formal guidance or detailed instructions. Activists are at an advantage when it comes to highly practice-based learning where there’s no shortcut other than doing it. They're enthusiastic about new ideas, but need encouragement to pause and reflect.
Reflectors excel in observing and reflecting on experiences – their own and others. Like Theorists, they prefer to start learning in ‘research mode’, but they’re more comfortable with messy qualitative data, stories, and other disparate sources of information, drawing out tacit connections themselves. They are less in a rush to ‘work out the perfect answer’ than Theorists, sometimes to a fault – they can be hesitant to draw firm conclusions. They thrive when they can take their time to think things through and work independently or in small groups. They are stressed if they have to make quick decisions or work under pressure.
Theorists: Logical learners who seek to understand the underlying principles and theories behind new ideas. They enjoy models, concepts, and systems thinking and excel at analyzing complex information, spotting patterns, and creating coherent explanations. They struggle with ambiguity or situations that require a more intuitive approach. They don’t like to be thrown in the deep end, and like to gain a global perspective before beginning.
Pragmatists: Practical learners who enjoy applying new knowledge to real-world situations. Like Theorists, they take a logical approach, but they are much more keen to put things into practice. Pragmatists are attracted to problem-solving tasks, mastering skills methodically, and seeking out structured knowledge that has a clear, tangible benefit. They don’t enjoy abstract concepts that don’t have an immediate application, or when there isn’t a clear rule or way to do a thing.

Honey & Mumford pointed out that no style was better than another although they all had strengths and weaknesses, depending on what it was that needed to be learned. They also commented that while people had a default learning style, which was usually visible when they began a new learning experience, as they became more educated in a topic, they deepened their understanding in a variety of ways, potentially moving outside of their default learning style and adapting to the style that was best for progressing their knowledge. As a result learning styles, in their view, were more fluid than previously supposed.

Martie Du Plessis proposed that while recognition of a learning style was a useful springboard for teaching, the goal of an educator should be to encourage learners become 'whole-brained' so that they would be flexible and able to adapt to any learning style depending on the context and topic.

Some Limitations of Learning Styles Theory

Learning styles are difficult to measure as there isn’t a standardised way of measuring and most tests are based on subjective input from the learners themselves.
No one fits precisely into a box, and efforts to make them do so create a simplistic view that is inaccurate. Efforts to address this issue mean that more and more learning styles and categories are identified/created in an attempt to put everyone somewhere.
Learning style labelling, like all labelling, is a mixed bag. While it can be helpful in understanding and addressing a person’s strengths and weaknesses, it can also be inaccurate, ineffective, limiting and/or restrictive. Psychologist Kris Vasquez expressed a serious concern that the use of learning styles in the classroom could lead students to develop self-limiting implicit theories about themselves that could become self-fulfilling prophecies that were harmful rather than beneficial.
Majoring on a preferred learning style would not stretch or challenge students to become more whole-brained in their approach to life and learning.
Learning styles along with personality theories do not make space for change. Recent studies in neuroplasticity challenge the assumption that these qualities are fixed and enduring through a person’s life.
There are questions about and criticisms of the tools used to identify an individual's learning style. In 2004 Frank Coffield and colleagues examined 13 learning style models and found that none of the most popular learning style theories had been adequately validated through independent research.
Some argue that the lack of evidence means that learning styles don’t exist. Many agree that they do exist, but are simply difficult to measure.

Like personality theories, learning style models clarify, emphasise, and illustrate that people are different and that there is therefore no right or wrong way to learn. To me this is their greatest value. They make space for different kinds of learning, and they help facilitators understand and support chosen learning behaviours.

Links:

Dr Cynthia Tobias interview: Learning Styles
Dr Kobus Neethling explaining why brain profiling matters (the image on the right is his NBI assessment)
Dr Cynthia Tobias's Video Page
Thinking in Colors: The organisational change theory of Léon de Caluwé and Hans Vermaak

Articles:

Books:

Learning Styles

Join our mailing list for updates about webinars, seminars, resources and courses.

Join our mailing list for updates about
webinars, seminars, resources and courses.