Learning Styles: Is it a myth?

Two pairs of women sit at a table with paper and pens. One of the pair looks to be explaining something to the other.The idea of learning styles is something many of us have encountered. But is there evidence to support the application of learning styles? Perhaps in the past it was helpful, but looking forward and using the principles of universal design in learning (UDL), perhaps not. Whether you are doing a webinar, an e-learning program or a scientific seminar it’s worth taking a moment to consider the differences in your audience. A paper from Andrea Antoniuk discusses many aspects of learning and how we can move forward with UDL and away from the traditional learning styles concept.

The title of the article is Learning Styles: Moving Forward from the Myth. In the conclusions Antoniuk says that there is no valid reliable tool to support learning styles. “Despite being debunked, learning styles remain a thriving industry throughout the world, as many books, research studies, education courses, and assessments maintain the concept of learning styles. As a growing number of teachers utilize evidence-based practices, learning styles are being replaced by universal approaches, community building, cognitive science, and motivational practices.”

 

Universal Design Engineering for Learners

A blueprint of three interlocking cog wheels.We need a diversity blueprint to help students learn whether it’s a webinar, lecture, or e-learning course. According to Keith Edyburn that means taking an engineering approach to universal design for learning (UDL). He reports on nine case studies and introduces the Design for More Types model. The aim is to turn design concepts into practical “active ingredients that can be carefully defined, measured and evaluated”. Edyburn claims personal commitment to the principles of UDL is not sufficient to enhance student engagement. The table below is from the paper, where Edyburn looks at both targeted learners and others who also benefit. 

Table shows the design feature, the Primary Beneficiary and the Secondary Beneficiary.

The thrust of this paper Universal Design Engineering, is that theory is all very well but doesn’t actually make it happen. If you take a practical engineering approach, you are more likely to engage students and increase their success rate. There is more detail about turning information into digital text, testing designs, and determining cost-benefit.

The paper is from the proceedings of the UDHEIT 2018 conference held in Dublin, Ireland, an open access publication. 

Accessibility Toolbar