ERIC EJ920100: Learning Styles in the Classroom: Educational Benefit or Planning Exercise?

2010·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

Learning styles in the classroom:
Educational benefit or planning exercise?
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
Differentiation of teaching is encouraged to accommodate student diversity. This study investigated whether
using learning styles as a basis for differentiation improved A-level student performance, compared to
differentiation on the basis of academic ability.
Matched classes of A-level psychology students participated. In one class, learning activities were
differentiated by academic ability; in the other class, learning activities were differentiated by learning style
for nine weeks, followed by a further class test. Student understanding of learning styles was also
investigated.
Both classes significantly improved from baseline to final test, but there was no significant difference in
improvement between the two groups, and indeed a slight trend for more improvement following
differentiation by ability. Further research into personalised learning is required, and suggestions are made
for a student-focussed intervention to enable students to better understand and to employ their own learning
styles as a tool for independent study.
Keywords: Differentiation; learning styles; personalised learning; diversity; classroom delivery; multiple
intelligences; approaches to learning.
T
HERE HAS BEENa recent shift towards their preferred learning style in order to
an increasingly ‘personalised’ approach improve performance (QCA, 2009). Some
to teaching and learning; that is, highlight the benefits of such practice for
‘tailoring teaching and learning to indi- students, for example improving retention
vidual need’ (DFES, 2001) where inclusivity (Halstead & Martin, 2002). Others feel the
for learners is key (Rayner, 2007). theoretical basis for learning styles use lacks
Throughout the last 30 years, this approach clarity (Klein, 2003) and the absence of
has incorporated learning styles theory substantial empirical research leaves ques-
which stems from the belief that learners tions about the effectiveness of the approach
differ in personality traits, brain function (Burton, 2007). It has been suggested that a
and preferred environment (Coffield et al., lack of understanding of the theoretical
2004a), leading to varied strengths and weak- underpinning of policy related to learning
nesses in receiving, assimilating and styles, along with a diverse literature
retaining information. The claim is that adopting different theoretical approaches, is
knowing one’s preferences will improve problematic for practitioners in terms of
motivation to learn and/or provide opportu- effectively planning personalised learning
nities to approach learning appropriately opportunities (Coffield et al., 2004a).
(Honey & Mumford, 1992). Due to the pedagogical popularity of
Many educational institutions diagnose learning styles, diverse literature has been
student learning styles with the aim of plan- produced, including variations on the theme
ning lessons to suit a range of methods of in cognitive styles, multiple intelligences,
learning. This approach is supported by approaches to learning and more. Desmedt
professional bodies, for example, the Quali- and Valcke (2004) found recurring themes
fications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and consistency in models but little informa-
state that learners should be made aware of tion on the impact of the concepts they
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No 2 67
© The British Psychological Society 2010
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
reviewed. The complexity of the area creates admits the theory is easy to apply to individ-
difficulty for practitioners in identifying uals but difficult in classroom use which was
which theory or model is appropriate for not his original aim for the theory (Gardner,
their needs (Cassidy, 2004). Coffield et al. 1993). It is not necessary to design every
(2004b) argue that most research in the last lesson in many different ways, just to create
30 years was carried out in higher education experiences that different students can
or workplace settings and does not refer to access (Moran, Kornhaber & Gardner,
further education (FE) colleges. This is a 2006). This means including activities and
problem for FE teachers looking for good entry points that relate to a variety of intelli-
practice. gences throughout a topic.
The most widely known and used theory Coffield et al. (2004a) carried out a large-
(Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2007) in scale review for the Learning and Skills
education is Gardner’s Multiple Intelli- Research Council and identified 71 models,
gences (1993, 1997). While not strictly about 13 of which were categorised as major
‘learning styles’, Gardner suggests seven models in education. These 13 models were
intelligences possessed in differing degrees then reviewed on their reliability, validity,
by individuals, implying a multitude of ways evidence and pedagogical implications, in
to introduce a concept to learners. The particular the impact on FE students. Honey
theory rejects traditional educational focus and Mumford’s (2006) approach centred on
on logical-mathematical and linguistic skills developing student focus on learning, and
and suggests that all students are intelligent proposed that learners should use their
in different ways, so should be taught questionnaire to set their own targets for
through an inclusive curriculum. The intelli- improving weaker learning styles and to
gences proposed by Gardner include increase awareness of how to use learning
linguistic intelligence and logical-mathemat- styles effectively. Coffield et al. praised this
ical intelligence, which he identified as the approach and identified development of
conventional ‘academic intelligences’. students’ awareness of their strengths and
Others include bodily-kinaesthetic intelli- weaknesses as a main recommendation for
gence, musical intelligence, naturalistic the use of learning styles – as a way to
intelligence and spatial intelligence, and the explore pedagogy and create open discus-
personal intelligences (interpersonal and sion for study skills. As most research was
intrapersonal intelligence). In educational found to be based outside psychological
application, Gardner suggests that individual concepts or on small samples with an uncrit-
intelligences should be assessed and the ical approach, Coffield et al. ‘advise against
skills needed for learning about a topic iden- pedagogical intervention based solely on any
tified. The educational programme should of the learning styles instruments.’(Coffield
then be made as specific as possible to each et al., 2004a, p.58).
individual (Gardner, 1993). This should be These views are echoed by Hadfield
done by matching teaching to learning style (2006) who found overlap between models
and approaching a new topic in at least five although little agreement on how they
different ways so that all learners can access should be classified, causing difficulty for
the information (Gardner, 1991). This practitioners choosing which models to
theory provides opportunity for personal- adopt. Hadfield states that when choosing a
ising learning, although a practical way of model, practicality for application to
effectively applying this kind of teaching to teaching based on each task and the avail-
an average classroom is not clear (Burton, ability of resources should be considered.
2007); however, many teachers are expected Hadfield identifies three options for imple-
to consider all intelligences in lesson plan- menting learning styles in the classroom:
ning (Reece & Walker, 2007). Gardner matching teaching style and task to learner
68 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Learning styles in the classroom
preference; covering a range of styles over highly on visual or auditory preferences on
the course of a topic so learners sometimes the inventory used and that similar gains
encounter their preferred style; and varying may not be shown for students showing less
teaching strategies with thinking skills to extreme preferences.
help learners adapt to other styles. In contrast to research highlighting the
There is disagreement regarding which advantages of learning styles models, other
strategy is most effective; for example, Denig studies show little or no benefit of teaching
(2004) claims that students learn more effec- based around learning styles. Davis and
tively when teaching matches their primary Franklin (2004) compared student self-
or secondary preferred learning style, and reported learning styles preferences with
Slack and Norwich (2007) found ‘significant performance before and after teaching using
gains’ in performance when teaching style learning styles-based tasks. Little improve-
matched learning style. Honey and ment was found and it was concluded that
Mumford (1992), however, suggest that what students say they prefer may not be what
learners should know how to use their is actually most effective for them. This high-
preferred style but aim to improve their lights a problem with the self-report method
weaker styles in order to become a more of most learning styles inventories as students
rounded learner. It is suggested that all may misunderstand what is asked or report
people can learn in all styles and although tasks they enjoy, rather than those they learn
they may have a preference for one style, the effectively from. Students may be aware of
best learning comes from experiencing a their learning preferences but may not relate
range of styles and strategies (Petty, 2004). these to teaching methods or may give inac-
Mokhtar, Majid and Foo (2008) found that curate or contradicting responses to invento-
students grouped by homogeneity in ries (Prashnig, 2005).
learning style, using an inventory based on Reviews of research into learning styles
McKenzie (1999) and Bohmer (2004, in reveal little support for the theory in educa-
Mokhtar et al. 2008), made the most tion. Kavale and Forness (1987) found that
improvement in performance on a project overall there was no positive or negative
using information literacy. They also found, impact of tasks based on matching teaching
however, that all students given specific style to learning style. Muse (2001) reviewed
information literacy training made signifi- results of several learning styles studies in
cant improvement in performance in terms of their methodology and vested
comparison to those given no training, interest of the researchers. He concluded
regardless of grouping. Halstead and Martin there were too many extraneous factors to
(2002) also found that students grouped by assume that it was the use of learning styles
homogeneity of learning style (using Honey that increased scores. For example, sample
and Mumford’s learning styles question- sizes tended to be small, outcomes were based
naire, 1982) performed at a higher level on on short-term improvement and validity of
a group task than those who self-selected inventories used was not investigated. Muse
their groups. This could be simply a result of also reports no real connection between
students taking a task more seriously if learning styles identified and the teaching
grouped by a teacher. Slack and Norwich approaches suggested as appropriate for use
(2007) report significant gains in key stage with those styles. The approaches suggested
two spelling when teaching style was were no different to techniques that are
matched to learning style based on outcome commonly used in teaching in general, for
of an inventory by Smith (1998, in Slack & example, teacher led discussion or visual aids.
Norwich, 2007). Slack and Norwich acknowl- Muse found no explanation of how these
edge that the experimental group consisted techniques were meant to specifically access
of students who had scored particularly certain learning styles.
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 69
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
The lack of connection between teaching can be misused resulting in limitation of
approach and learning style is a common learners. She advises, therefore, that the
theme in much of the research because, as quality of use depends on the quality of diag-
Hall (2006) points out, learning styles theory nosis and feedback on styles.
is not explicit to teaching and few models There are positive aspects of using
give practical suggestions for use within learning styles theory in education which are
teaching. It would be a disservice to students agreed by a number of researchers, for
to present them with teaching and learning example, identifying and addressing indi-
exercises based on a theory hailed as good vidual learning needs and creating ‘self-
practice (O’Neill, 2003) when the teacher awareness’ of learners, along with informing
has no real framework to ensure these exer- a range of learning and teaching methods
cises are a valid tool. Some attempts have (Coffield et al., 2004a). Halstead and Martin
been made; for example, Honey and (2002) suggest creating a culture of engaging
Mumford (2006) give a range of task styles teachers and learners in the learning process
that may be preferred by and that would not to shift the focus from teaching methods to
complement each learning style, and Korn- the methods of learning (Honey & Mumford,
haber, Fierros and Veenema (2004) present 2006) and to allow students to understand
a number of examples of ‘ways in’ to a topic they are intelligent in more than one way
to appeal to a selection of learners. Even as (Moran et al., 2006). It is questionable,
advocates of multiple intelligences theory, however, whether there needs to be such a
however, Kornhaber et al. state that it is not focus on applying learning styles theory in
always possible to reach all intelligences. the formal sense. As Rayner (2007) states,
In order to reduce misunderstandings good teachers ‘intuitively’ respond to indi-
and ‘oversimplification’ of use in education, vidual learner needs by finding the way
Hall (2006) suggests that anyone applying students respond best and challenging them
learning styles should seriously engage with to adapt in different ways. His suggestion is
the theory, contrary to the current application that learning theory should be inclusive
where the ideas have become so mainstream through adopting diverse strategies.
they are often adopted without question Klein (2003) challenges the idea that
(Coffield et al., 2004a). It is understandable approaching a task through various activities
that the time-pressured classroom teacher will is successful due only to differences in
use a tool recommended by their institution learning style. He proposes instead that it in
and OFSTED, making the need for rigorous fact fulfils ‘different curricular goals’ as
study of recommendations essential. different activities provide cognitive skills
Teachers are generally discouraged from not available through a single approach.
labelling students (e.g. on the grounds of Klein gives the example of creating owner-
ability), and yet are encouraged to label ship through students transforming informa-
students as ‘visual’ or ‘kinaesthetic’ learners tion from one format to another to present it
(Burton, 2007). Students may interpret their in their own way. This supports Craik and
diagnosis as meaning they can only learn in Lockhart (1972) who suggest that elabora-
one way so have an excuse to not engage tive rehearsal involving deep analysis of a
with tasks relating to other learning styles. stimulus may lead to improved long-term
Another risk is that it may be (unintention- memory. This may explain why some
ally) implied that one style is less desirable students perform better when taught against
than another, particularly if one style is their preferred learning style. Other
underrepresented in a class. Hall (2006) methods of differentiation, such as differen-
argues that learning style theories can be tiating material by ability (academic achieve-
useful and beneficial to provide important ment) are well used by teachers and are
ideas about learning although instruments advocated in teacher training as essential
70 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Learning styles in the classroom
practice (DfES SEN Code of Practice, 2001). All lessons were planned prior to the
These more traditional methods may experimental period to ensure that all
become overlooked in favour of learning learning styles/intelligences were equally
styles but may be equally of value to teachers represented and that tasks related to each
and students (Gregory & Kuzmich, 2004). preference based on suggestions given in
Empirical comparison of outcomes using previous research. The scheme of work was
learning styles or other methods to inform structured so that Honey and Mumford’s
teaching and learning is, therefore, essential. learning styles and Gardner’s multiple intel-
If learning styles are no more (or less) effec- ligences were represented in alternate
tive than other methods it would suggest that lessons, or where a task continued beyond
educational policies need to be reviewed. one lesson, in alternate tasks. This was to
Further research is essential for continued ensure that lessons were varied and stimu-
discussion and questioning of pedagogical lating.
techniques to inform good practice (Rayner, The questions and mark scheme used in
2007). the pre- and post-tests were based on the
The current study empirically tested A-level specification mark scheme and were
performance of A-level psychology students approved by professional peers. Both groups
before and after intervention of lessons were taught by the same teacher and
differentiated either by learning style or by received the same tests, inventories and
ability. The learning styles models used were initial questionnaires. The final question-
Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Ques- naire differed in that the main focus was on
tionnaire (2006) and Gardner’s Multiple the type of differentiation received (by
Intelligences (1993). These models are suffi- learning styles or ability). Students were
ciently contrasting to facilitate accommoda- asked not to discuss content of materials or
tion of diverse student needs within the lessons with students outside of their own
classroom from different perspectives, and teaching group.
are also commonly used within UK class-
rooms. It was expected that students who Participants
were taught using differentiated teaching Thirty-three A-level psychology students
methods informed by learning styles theory from two classes at a Further Education
would differ in test performance relative to college in the north-west of England initially
students who were taught using differenti- consented to participation in the study;
ated teaching methods informed by prior however, due to absence from class for
academic ability. It was also considered testing, five students were omitted from the
important to investigate how students actu- final sample. No students declined to parti-
ally understand and utilise the information cipate or withheld consent. Students were
they are given as a routine part of their taught by their usual teacher (the same for
course of study. both groups) according to their normal
timetable in their usual classes over the
Method experimental period of three weeks (nine
Design lessons, 13.5 hours in total). The A level
A 2x2 mixed design was employed to specification was followed as normal as
measure the effects on test scores before and students prepared for their A level exams.
after teaching through differentiation by Students were 17- to 19-years-old, 12 males
learning style, or differentiation by ability. and 21 females (10 males and 18 females in
Lesson plans and materials were created for the final sample) with a range of minimum
each lesson, checking that tasks were of a target grades from A to C. Performance
similar level of challenge and that similar grades prior to the study ranged from A to D.
skills were accessed for each condition. Achievement and gender split were similar
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 71
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
across both classes. Classes were allocated to period, their understanding of learning
intervention condition (differentiation by styles theory and their future study inten-
ability vs differentiation by learning style) at tions relating to their learning styles.
random by the toss of a coin. The differentia-
tion by learning style group contained 16 Procedure
students and the differentiation by ability Participants were briefed on the aims and
group contained 17 students. intentions of the study with particular focus
given to the positive implications for lesson
Materials planning after the study; that all students
Students were given a consent form would benefit from the inclusion in future
outlining the purpose and ethical considera- lessons of methods found to be effective.
tions of the study. Although students were Students were reminded that they took part
above 16 years, as they were in full-time voluntarily and that withdrawal would have
education, a similar letter was given to no negative effect on their learning experi-
parents/guardians requesting negative ence.
consent. In the lesson prior to the start of the
A test of comprehension, description and study, participants completed the 50-minute
analysis of a recently taught topic was given pre-test in test conditions. They then
prior to the start of the intervention completed the pre-intervention question-
teaching. This contained questions struc- naire on learning styles knowledge and pref-
tured in a similar manner to an A-level exam. erences. Each inventory was explained in
An unfamiliar question was included to test terms of theory and intentions then
critical evaluation skills. Participants outcomes were recorded for each student.
completed a questionnaire relating to their Explanations were given of the implication
understanding of learning styles theory and of those outcomes for how students prefer to
preferred activities experienced in lessons. learn in a practical context. Each class was
Participants were also given two learning then informed which condition they would
styles questionnaires; Honey and Mumford’s be in and what the structure of the experi-
Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey, mental period would be.
2006); and a questionnaire created for this Over the next nine consecutive
study designed to diagnose strengths of timetabled lessons, students were taught
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. This ques- topics according to the scheme of work
tionnaire was written according to Gardner’s through lessons differentiated by learning
(1993) descriptions of preferences including style or ability. In the differentiation by
statements relating to extra-curricular activi- learning style condition, individual students
ties. Test-retest reliability for this sample was were given tasks appropriate to their
found to be high (90.88 per cent). The two strongest styles or were grouped by style. In
questionnaires were chosen to represent two the differentiation by ability condition,
opposing approaches to learning styles; students were given ability-appropriate tasks
Honey and Mumford believe learning styles or were grouped according to their strengths
are learnt, so flexible and changeable, while on specific skills. Both classes covered the
Gardner believes learning styles are fixed, same topics in their respective lessons and
based on biological traits. After the teaching spent the same amount of time on each
intervention, participants were given a test activity; only the methods of delivery and
on one topic taught during the intervention learning tasks were varied. Students were
period which followed the same structure as informed at the start of the study which topic
the pre-intervention test. Participants also the post-test would relate to. Independent
completed a questionnaire relating to their study was set according to departmental
experiences during the experimental policy, again with variations on tasks set
72 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Learning styles in the classroom
according to condition. The 50-minute post- tion. It can be seen that the total average
test was administered in the same conditions increase in scores was nearly 3.5 marks – one
as the pre-test, in the lesson immediately after grade – between pre- and post-testing;
the experimental period. The post-interven- however, the standard deviation of each
tion questionnaire was also completed. A full condition increased on the post-test scores
debrief was given to each group detailing the indicating more variation in individual
aims and expected outcomes of the study achievement.
along with the opportunity for questions. The data were subjected to a two-way
Advice was given on how to use their experi- mixed analysis of variance to determine
ences to improve independent study tech- whether there were any significant differ-
niques. Participants were fully debriefed and ences reflecting the effects of time and differ-
given an opportunity to ask questions. entiation method on improvement in scores
and the interaction between differentiation
Results methods on differences between scores.
The initial assessment of learning styles Figure 1 (overleaf) shows the profile plot for
across the two groups revealed that in both differences in scores for each condition.
groups, the dominant intelligence (Gardner,
1993) was musical intelligence, with logical- Within-participant effects:
mathematical intelligence also being promi- A significant main effect was shown for
nent. Activists, reflectors and theorists difference in scores over time; F(1,26)=7.83,
(Honey, 2006) were all found in both p=0.01, however, no significant interaction
groups, with pragmatists being the dominant was shown for method of differentiation on
learning style. Chi square analysis (results differences between scores; F(1,26)=0.10,
not presented) revealed no significant differ- p=0.76, η2=0.004.
ence on either measure across the two condi-
tions (p>.05). Between-participant effects:
Means were calculated for performance There was no significant effect shown for
on the pre- and post-intervention tests for method of differentiation on improvement
both conditions. Table 1 shows the means in performance; F(1,26)=3.02, p=0.09,
and standard deviations for each condition. η2=0.10.
Test scores were consistently higher for This is a medium effect size according to
the differentiation by ability condition than Cohen (1988), and suggests that with a
the differentiation by learning style condi- slightly larger sample size (16 per group), an
tion and the former increased their average effect of differentiation method may be
score by slightly more on the post-test observed, with improvement highest when
although there was greater deviation in these differentiation is by ability (Clark-Carter,
scores compared to the experimental condi- 2003).
Table 1: Mean test scores and (standard deviations) for conditions
pre- and post-intervention.
Method of Pre-test Post-test Change in
differentiation (Maximum score 28) (Maximum score 28) Mean score
Ability N=13 16.85 (5.47) 20.69 (6.85) +3.84
Learning style N=15 13.93 (5.65) 17.00 (5.92) +3.07
Total 15.29 (5.66) 18.71 (6.52) +3.42
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 73
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
Figure 1: Profile plot of mean scores for differentiation by ability and differentiation
by learning style conditions pre- and post-test.
22.00
Category
Ability
● Learning style
20.00
18.00
es
or
n Sc ● ●
a
e
M
16.00
14.00 ●
12.00
Pre-test Post-test
Time
Student information and attitudes without explanation of how they fit in to
Understanding and use of learning styles prior learning styles.
to intervention: Fifteen students in total reported that
Prior to the intervention, 11 students in the they think about their learning style in inde-
differentiation by ability group and seven pendent study although it is questionable
students in the differentiation by learning whether this was using a preferred learning
style group were able to report their learning style or simply activities they found successful
styles, all based on Gardner’s (1993) in the past.
multiple intelligences. Only four students
across the cohort could name Gardner’s Understanding of learning styles after the
multiple intelligences as one of the tools intervention:
used and only two students could name one After the intervention, the differentiation by
other method. learning style group showed a more devel-
There were consistent explanations of oped understanding of the purpose of
why learning styles were used by teachers but learning styles in education – one student in
all were simple, relating to students having this group said they were used ‘To support
different preferences; for example, ‘because all people learning as different people may
different people learn differently’. When have different attitudes towards learning or
asked what kind of tasks were known to meet different methods of understanding and this
different learning styles, some students theory enables differentiation between
attempted to assign a learning style to an groups of people’. The differentiation by
activity (for example, ‘mind maps for visual ability group remained general in their
learners’) while others cited a range of explanations. Each group, however,
different teaching and learning activities explained more about ‘learning’ rather than
74 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2
Learning styles in the classroom
‘teaching’ in the post-intervention question- These ratings show students in each
naire suggesting that students had consid- group felt learning styles had a place in the
ered their own responsibility in their classroom but did not feel they were appro-
learning as well as that of the teacher. All but priate as the main tool. There was no signifi-
one student was able to report their learning cant difference in reported usefulness of
style (on both inventories used). learning activities between the two groups
(U=89, p>0.05).
Enjoyment and usefulness of activities:
When asked about the activities experi- Discussion
enced, both groups reported enjoying the Students showed a significant increase in test
variety of activities used. Students in the scores on the post-intervention test regard-
differentiation by learning styles group were less of method of differentiation, therefore
critical of always matching the activities to suggesting that teaching itself had an effect
their strongest learning styles; one student on performance over time. The method of
commented that regardless of their differentiation did not produce any differ-
preferred style, some tasks need different ence in improvement, although there may
approaches. The most positive student have been a slight trend for students differ-
comments from the differentiation by entiated by ability to improve more. This
learning styles group were received for a supports the research of Kavale and Forness
group presentation task requiring them to (1987) who found no positive or negative
consider a variety of learning styles for their impact of tasks based on preferred learning
audience (six out of 15 students reported style. This suggests that as long as teachers
this as the most enjoyed task). plan good quality, varied lessons with ways
Each group rated the usefulness of for all students to access the information,
teaching activities used in their intervention students can achieve without one method
lessons (where one was not at all useful and being superior to another. These findings
five was very useful) and were asked to rate support those of Muse (2001) in that
how learning styles should be used in lessons increase in scores in this case was not due to
(where one was completely disagree and five learning styles but the process of teaching in
was completely agree). Table 2 shows the general.
mean ratings given by each group.
Table 2: Student ratings of activities and learning styles use by condition.
Group Average rating Average rating of how learning styles
of usefulness should be used in lessons
of techniques (max. 5)
(max. 5)
As the As a variation Not necessary
main tool with other
techniques
Differentiation by
3.75 2.73 4.27 1.67
ability
Differentiation by
3.30 2.80 4.20 2.07
learning styles
Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2 75
Sarah J. Allcock & Julie A. Hulme
Results suggested that learning styles As differentiating by learning style did
inventories were used but students did not lead to some improvement in achievement
understand why learning styles theory in by students, there is some support for
particular was implemented to address indi- research reporting the positive outcomes of
vidual differences in learning. Students also teaching by learning style. Mokhtar et al.
misunderstood how teaching and learning (2008), Halstead and Martin (2002) and
activities correspond to addressing prefer- Denig (2004) all found that students
ences in relation to learning. This may repre- performed at a higher level when taught in
sent learning styles being misunderstood homogenous groups according to learning
from teachers’ points of view and may lead to style. The current findings are consistent
students being misguided in the activities with this approach being accepted as appro-
they choose in their independent study. priate as one teaching and learning strategy.
Responses from students suggest that they This is in contrast to the claim that teaching
understood there are individual differences according to primary learning style cannot
in ability and preference in A-level classes facilitate learning of the curriculum
and that differentiation in teaching style and (Burton, 2007). These results, however,
materials is necessary to ensure all students cannot be compared to those of research
can achieve. Students reported that they where students were taught against modality
preferred a variety of teaching methods to be as only one task given to the group differen-
used and they responded best to lessons that tiated by learning style required them to
were varied in teaching and learning activi- consider other learning styles. This was,
ties and challenges. This reflects the limita- however, the task that received the most posi-
tions of learning styles application (Burton, tive student comments relating to enjoyment
2007). The lack of variety of groupings and and usefulness, consistent with allowing
approaches was an issue for students differ- learners to engage with their less preferred
entiated by learning style as all their lessons styles in order to become more rounded
were based around these diagnoses. This learners (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Davis &
supports conclusions reached by Davis and Franklin, 2004). There is a need for more
Franklin (2004), in that it is difficult to research into teaching against learning style
restrict the use of learning styles in a class- preference as this may improve aspects of
room environment. As they state, there are a learning such as developing the range of
multitude of factors which interact to create learners (Coffield et al., 2004a) and
learning; stimulation and enjoyment of tasks increasing motivation and enjoyment.
must be a factor. Students’ feelings of restric- Matching teaching to learning styles can
tion to one approach may have contributed be difficult due to the lack of guidance avail-
to the lack of effect of learning styles-based able in the literature. Some tasks may have
differentiation. Students differentiated by lacked connection to the intended learning
ability experienced more variety as they were style due to unintended influence from the
grouped according to aptitude for specific teacher’s own style. This could have been
skills, which differed by task. Previous rectified by contributions towards planning
research shows consistency with this situa- from other staff with different learning style
tion, for example, Smith (2002) states that preferences. This issue would be particularly
students are reluctant to change their prominent in tasks based around Gardner’s
methods of learning simply due to the Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1993) as
outcome of a questionnaire. The differentia- there were no clear guidelines given for
tion by ability group was more familiar appropriate types of tasks, unlike for Honey
with the methods used so reported more and Mumford’s Learning Styles Question-
satisfaction. naire (Honey, 2006). Issues with the invento-
ries themselves would have carried through
76 Psychology Teaching Review Vol. 16 No. 2