Should teaching and learning styles match?
By Claudia Rinaldi and Regan Gurung
Abstract
We assessed the learning styles preference of forty-five students and divided them into groups based on their learning preference. Each group then completed 4 assignments each highlighting one of four learning preferences (auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic). Group scores on each assignment showed that designing assignments to match students' learning styles does not lead to better performance but active learning positively relates to overall learning. Scores on the auditory and tactile assignments were significantly different, but not in the hypothesized direction (i.e., auditory learners did not perform best on the auditory assignment). Nonetheless, students preferred assignments that matched their particular learning styles.
Keywords: learning styles; active learning
Students learn in a variety of ways such as: seeing, hearing, memorizing, rereading, taking notes, visualizing, and reasoning among many others. How do these ways impact learning in a college classroom? This basic question underlies the vast majority of learning style research. A sizable body of empirical research suggests that students learn best when they are taught in ways that match their way of learning (Lovelace, 2005; Mahlios, 2001; Ogden, 2003; Stanberry & Azria, 2001). Does this mean that we should adapt our teaching to fit student learning styles? This study addresses that question.
There is a broad array of models describing learning styles. Stevenson and Dunn (2001) defined learning style as a way each individual prefers to learn. These models have been conceptualized by using external conditions and internal traits (Felder & Henriques, 1995). The most commonly referenced models include the instructional and environmental preferences model, the social interaction model, the information processing model and the personality model. Of particular interest in this study is the Instructional and Environmental Model. The Instructional and Environmental Model is best characterized by the theory of Jung (1976 as cited in Felder and Henriques, 1995) who suggested that individuals perceive the world in two ways: sensory and intuitive. The sensory approach is the way individuals use their senses to observe, collect, and learn information from their environment. Intuition refers to the way individuals access memory, speculate and perceive information. The model recognizes that all individuals use both, but individuals do exhibit preferences.
Reid (1987; 1995) has categorized her learning style types according to the sensory aspect of this model. She has identified 5 types of learning styles: visual, auditory, tactile, group and individual. Vand der Jat, Anzelmo-Skelton, Madison, and Gum (2003) evaluated the Instructional and Environmental Model using Reid's (1995) learning style types and found that graduate students enrolled in graduate courses preferred the auditory-visual and kinesthetic activities. Can instructors use this information to enhance instruction?
Research across college level disciplines generally assesses student learning styles and implements study skills programs to enhance learning strategies using particular styles. The results are mixed. Lenehan, Dunn, Ingham, Murray, and Singer (1994), reported that students with learning preferences that match that of the instructor tended to have higher grades. In fact, Stevenson and Dunn (2001) suggest that many students can master easy information in the "wrong" learning preference for them, but they can learn more efficiently and rapidly when they use their own learning preference. Miller and others (2001; as cited in Brown, 2003) reported that students' learning styles and achievement usually improved when the learning and teaching styles match (Lovelace, 2005; Mahlios, 2001). Conversely, Jensen (1987) assessed the effects of matching instructor and student learning style to enhance learning and found no difference between college students who received learning styles training and those in a control group. Keri (2002) investigated whether congruities between students' learning styles and instructors' teaching styles related to student satisfaction and found no statistical differences in the satisfaction of students whose learning styles were congruent to their instructors' teaching styles as compared to those students whose styles were not. Similarly, Garton, Spain, Lamberson, and Spiers (1999) also found no practical relationship between students' learning styles and teaching style. This finding is also supported by Huxham and Land (2000) who reported no difference between students grouped by learning style preference and those randomly selected for groups for a visual assessment activity at the college level. This suggests that using a preferred learning style results in no specific gains.
Yet, instructors still believe matching teaching to learning style will lead to positive outcomes. Consequently, college professors are faced with the question of how to enhance learning and retention based on learning style information of their students if the literature has found that teaching study skills to enhance their learning strategies and purposeful grouping has mixed effects. Pedagogical research assessing the utility of style matching is imperative, as using different teaching styles may not always work. Huxland and Land (2000) suggest that once instructors know their students learning styles, they can develop approaches, methods, and sequences that are likely to make learning more active and engaging for students. Brown (2003) further suggest that if teaching styles meet all learning styles, the purpose of using learning styles information is to expose learners to a variety of learning activities that may or may not match with their preferred learning style, but that will help them develop adeptness necessary to handle a range of different learning requirements.
To date limited research has looked at other ways of evaluating the use and effectiveness of learning styles interventions through the use of a variety of instructional activities Using the categorization of learning styles by Reid (1987;1995) we developed 4 instructional activities that focused on a particular learning style type (i.e. visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic). The focus of this study was to describe the learning outcomes of homogeneous groups of students and their interaction with four different learning style type instructional activities.
Designing active learning assignments that promote the use of diverse learning styles may enhance learning, student satisfaction, and retention of information (Rubin, & Hebert, 1998, Regan (2003). For example, Ogden (2003) modified the traditional lecture to engage students with differing learning styles and found that it enabled students to learn by their own strengths while providing opportunity for developing related strengths in other areas. This study extended this research and evaluated the use of a four active learning instructional activities that focused on diverse learning styles. Specifically, we tested if students performed better on and preferred, assignments that matched their particular learning styles. Conversely, would students perform worse on the instructional activities that did not match their learning style preference?
Method
Participants
Forty-five educational psychology students from a mid-size midwestern university participated voluntarily in this study. The majority of the students were second-semester sophomores (85%). The remaining were second semester freshmen (5%), first semester sophomores (9%), and third year students (1%). The sample consisted of 41 females and 7 males.
Materials
The Barsch Learning Style Inventory (BLSI, Barsch, 1996) consists of 32 statements that elicit self-diagnostic responses using a 3-point Likert-type scale, 1 (seldom) to 3 (often). Participants first read a brief statement and then rated the extent to which it best described their skills and typical academic habits (e.g., I remember best when writing things down several times, I would rather listen to a good lecture or speech than read the same material in a textbook.). The questionnaire took about 10 minutes to complete. Results indicate a learning style preference in one of four areas: visual preference, auditory preference, tactile preference, and kinesthetic preference. Students may have equal strengths in two or more groups which means they can use any of the senses for learning tasks and are therefore identified as exhibiting a multimodal learning preference (Barsch, 1996). This measure was selected because the questions related directly to the type of academic prerequisites and instructional activities typically assigned in classes where active learning takes place. For example the following statement "I require explanations of diagrams, graphs, or visual directions" allows for a direct connection with their ability to visualize or use visual organizers like concept maps. This tool was selected as an instructional tool for purposeful grouping of students but all students were exposed to the same instructional activities.
Procedure
All students were administered the BLSI at the beginning of the semester. After identifying learning styles, the students were assigned to groups composed of 3-6 people with the same learning style preference. Students remained in these groups throughout the semester and completed 4 group assignments, each targeting a different learning style preference plus a combined type. Assignments were selected based on best-practice research in teaching and learning (Novak, 1998; Nicaise, 1996). The first assignment, a classroom debate, focused on the auditory learning preference. We provided students with legal cases in special education legislation and individuals with disabilities, and students were instructed on how to prepare and interact for a rebate for 20 minutes. The second assignment, concept mapping, focused on the visual learning preference. Concept maps are diagrams indicating interrelationship among concepts. (Novak, 1998; Van Boxel, Van Der Linden, Roelofs, & Erkens, 2002). Students were provided direct instruction for 20 minutes on how to develop a concept map using class content materials and were provided with instruction on how to create their own. Students were exposed to this type of learning since the beginning of the semester. The third assignment, a Physical Analysis of Environment Accessibility on campus, focused on the tactile learning preference. We provided instruction on the accessibility to building and public places as required by law for 20 minutes and provided measuring tapes and assigned a building to rate for accessibility with specific guidelines for what is accepted by the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. The last assignment, a multimedia learning module that included auditory, visual, and written parts, focused on a kinesthetic learning style. We provided students with access to a campus technology lab and instruction on how to navigate the module for 20 minutes. At the end of the semester students evaluated each assignment and answered an informal open-ended survey (see Appendix 2). We provided sample definitions provided by the inventory of the four learning styles and asked students to identify the style that best represented how they approached class assignments. We then provided students with their learning preference score and strategies other suggested strategies to help them develop their area of learning strength and weakness.
Results
Fifty-six percent of the students were primarily visual learners, 19% were primarily auditory learners, 7% were predominantly tactile learners, 13% were kinesthetic learners, and 5% were a combined type. Means and standard deviation for learning style by assignment are provided in Appendix 1.
We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance to test for group differences in across assignments. The multivariate test was significant for Hotelling's Trace F= 3.21, p¸.001, eta2+ .25. Univariate test showed that groups differed in scores on the auditory, F (4,42) = 12.439, p = .000, and tactile assignments, F (4,42) = 4.243, p= .006. Although planned contrasts significant group differences (see Table 1), the groups for whom the assignment was targeted did not do the best at it. Furthermore, there was little group variance on many of the assignments.
On the open-ended survey (see Appendix 2), the students felt the four diverse instructional activities were beneficial in helping them learn the information presented. Ninety percent of the students who identified themselves as auditory learners identified the auditory assignment as the easiest. Ninety-two percent of visual learners reported the concept mapping assignment as the easiest. Thirty-three percent of the tactile learners reported the auditory (accessibility) activity to be the easiest. Ninety-eight percent of the kinesthetic and combined type learners selected the visual activity and the kinesthetic activity, multimedia technology module, as the easiest. No statistically significant differences were found for final grades among the groups. Overall, most of the students reported that all the assignments were engaging and helped them learn. Class satisfaction was higher than other semesters (where different instructional activities were used) even though students reported spending more time on the activities than expected on the assignments.
Discussion
Our results suggest that instructors need not feel pressured to match teaching styles to learning styles but may enhance learning by using diverse styles. Instead our results suggest that designing instructional activities that allow learners of every learning style to engage in active learning sometime during the semester (4 instructional activities) can have positive effects on learning outcomes and satisfaction. Having different activities that focus on different learning styles did not significantly affect learning or efficiency in learning the material of any specific group. However, the results support previous findings (Rubin & Hebert, 1998) that suggest that designing active learning assignments that promote the use of diverse learning styles may enhance learning, student satisfaction, and retention of information. Although there were no significant differences in grades by learning style preference or instructional activity, all students received high grades in the course.
Students with different learning styles clearly preferred activities that matched their learning styles but the match did not influence how they performed on the assignments. Students identified activities that matched their primary learning modality as the easiest. This finding further supports Ogden (2003) who suggested that modifying the traditional lecture to engage students with differing learning styles in different instructional activities enabled students to learn by their own strengths while providing opportunity for developing related strengths in other areas.
Our results do not imply that using different teaching styles is unimportant, but instead suggest that revising your teaching style is not necessary. Designing curriculum that incorporates active instructional activities during the semester can increase educational outcomes and satisfaction for all students.
This study provides preliminary information to set the stage for more extensive investigations of this nature. Future studies should evaluate the use of the four instructional activities in a variety of teaching styles and in a variety of disciplines to evaluate active learning and satisfaction. There are a number of limitations to this study that may account for the lack of a relationship between grades and groups. We acknowledge that we had a small number of students and very unequal group sizes that lowered the power of the planned contrasts. Furthermore, some of the assignments had aspects (e.g. writing as part of the tactile assignment) of other learning modalities making it difficult to analyze whether the students responded to the questions appropriately. This confounding of learning styles is perhaps the biggest problem in designing studies of this nature. Nonetheless, student ratings of satisfaction with the assignments and previous research recommend that instructors continue to incorporate assignments that meet diverse learning styles in order to create active learning in the classroom. This should result in higher student satisfaction and less passive learning from students in large lecture-style classrooms.
References
Brown, B. L. (2003). Teaching style vs. learning style. Center on Education and Training for Employment, EIC Document. No. 26.
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning styles: State of the science. Theory into practice, 23, 10-19.
Gardner, H (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Garton, B.L., Spain, J.N., Lamberson, W. R., & Spiers, D. E. (1999). Learning styles, teaching performance, and student achievement: A relational study. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(3), 11-20.
Grasha, A. (1996). Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.
Gurung, R. A. R. (2003). Comparing cultural and individual learning tendencies. American Psychologist, 58(2): 145-146.
Huxland, M, & Land, R.(2000). Assigning students in group projects. Can we do better than random. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(1), 17-22.
Jensen, G.H. (1987). Learning styles. In Provost, J.A. & Anchors, S. (Eds.), Application of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicators in higher education (pp. 181-205). Palo Alto, GA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Keri, G. (2002). Degrees of congruence between instructor and student styles regarding satisfaction. Radical Pedagogy, 4(1), 32.
Lenehan, M.C., Dunn R. S. & Ingham, J. (1994). Effects of learning-style intervention on college students' achievement, anxiety, anger, and curiosity. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 461-467.
Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn model. The Journal of Education Research, 98(3), 176-183.
Mahlios, M. C. (2001). Matching teaching methods to learning styles. In B. H. Stanford & K. Yamamoto (Eds.), Children and stress: Understanding and helping. (pp. 65-73). Olney, MD, US: Association for Childhood Education International.
Nicaise, M. & Brown, J. (1997).Evaluating student learning with mock debates. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 131-135.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ogden, W. R. (2003). Reaching all the students: The feedback lecture. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(1), 22-27.
Reid, J (1987). The learning styles preference of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-11.
Reid, J. (1995). The learning styles of ESLEFL classroom. (Report Heinle and Heinle Publishers, Florence, KY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396587.
Rubin, L. & Hebert, C. (1998). Model for active learning. College Teaching, 46(1), 25-31.
Stanberry, A. M., & Azria, E. M. (2001). Perspectives in teaching gerontology: Matching strategies with purpose and context. Educational Gerontology, 27(8), 639-656.
Stevenson, J & Dunn, R. (2001). Knowledge management and learning styles: Prescriptions for future teachers. College Student Journal, 35(4), 483-490.
van Boxtel, C. van der Linden, J. Roelofs, E., & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 40-47.
Van der Jagt, J. W., Anzelmo-Skelton, N., Madison, M., & Gum, L. (2003). Graduate student learning styles and the environmental factor of noise: A pilot study. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.
Appendix
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviation for Learning Style by Assignment ___________________________________________________________________________
| LEARNING STYLE | ASSIGNMENTS | |||
| Concept Map M (SD) | Debate M (SD) | Accessibility Analysis M (SD) | Multimedia Module M(SD) | |
| Visual (n=26) | 14.04 (.96) | 14.44a (.71) | 14.96ac (2.0) | 14.92 (.27) |
| Auditory (n=9) | 13.89(.93) | 14.33b (1.0) | 14.56b (.53) | 14.55 (1.33) |
| Tactile (n=4) | 14.25 (.96) | 15.00b (0.00) | 15.00ac (0.00) | 14.66 (1.33) |
| Kinesthetic (n=6) | 14.33 (.82) | 12.16bc (.41) | 15.00ac (0.00 | 14.33 (1.63) |
| Multimodal (n=3) | 13.66 (1.5) | 13.67ac (.58) | 15.00ac (0.00) | 15.00 (0.00) |
___________________________________________________________________________ Different superscripts indicate significantly different group means, p < .05..
End of the Semester Survey
1. In comparison to other times you have worked in groups did you feel people interacted
a. the same as other times you have had groups assignments
b. better than other group assignments that you have participated in
c. worse than in other group assignments you have participated in
Explain your answer:
2. In comparison to people you have worked with in groups did you feel that most of the members of your groups were:
a. More like you than usual when doing these types of assignments
b. Less like you than usual when doing these types of assignments
c. Same as other people in other groups you have participated in
Explain your answer:
3. If I were to tell you that there are four types of learning styles:
a. Primary Visual Learners: tend to get the impact of material by seeing the information.
b. Primary Auditory: tend to prefer material to which they can listen.
c. Primary Tactile Learner: you feel you have to trace or write down information to learn it in addition to hearing or seeing it.
d. Primary Kinesthetic learner: tend to prefer involving you body in the process of learning. Which would you say is more like you when you are in your classes? Which one would you say is more like me (your instructor)?
4. Which of the following assignment was the easiest and the hardest
a. Debate- (legal cases) Why?
b. Concept Map (midterm) Why?
c. Physical Analysis of Environment Accessibility (building analysis) Why?
d. Technology Module- i. Why? 5. What is your major? _______________ Minor? _________________
6. What is one intervention or strategy that you remember from this class that you can possibly use in the future?
Claudia Rinaldi is Associate Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Boston College and Regan A.R. Gurung is Associate Professor of Human Development at UW Green Bay. The scholarship of teaching described in this article was partially funded by the University of Wisconsin System Teaching Fellows Program and the Office of Professional and Instructional Development (OPID). Send correspondence to Claudia Rinaldi, Department of Teacher Education, Special Education and Curriculum and Instruction, Boston College, Commonwealth Ave, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, rinaldic@bc.edu.