Learning Styles and Training?
Don Clark wrote the following as part of a discussion about learning styles and training, and makes an excellent point about the many learning styles one could look at. My reply follows:
> That’s the whole point, the research does not support the VAK
> learning styles, or the other styles for that matter — it points the
> opposite way — towards content and context having their own delivery
> styles. So why would you recognize something that is not there? And if you
> do believe in all the various styles, how do you support 192 different
> styles in the classroom? If you coached one-on-one, then it would be
> possible, however, I do not think there are many of us that have that
> luxury.
One problem here is that “learning styles” have become orthodox
thinking in training, with the attached religiousity associated with that.
Most trainers are not aware of the multitude of “styles” defined and
researched, or the research. As Don indicates there are hundreds of
defined styles, learning or otherwise, some well researched, some not.
The research on matching to styles is all over the block. Some studies have found that learning is better when instructing and learning style are intentionally MISMATCHED.
If people want to look more closely at this, the ERIC database is an ideal starting point. I don’t have the URL but if you do a search on learning styles, you will see the various styles and research findings in abstract form.