Here is a simple view of one of the most famous Learning Styles theories.
Take a look at the diagram below and see which speech bubble comes in to your head when you are trying to learn something new.
Do you think you fit in to one of these boxes or do you flex your approach depending on the situation?
Let us know in the comments below.
It is important to acknowledge that whilst Learning Styles are widely accepted & integrated in to the Learning & Development field there is little scientific research that actually supports that designing learning interventions to meet different 'Learning Styles' makes a difference to the learning outcome.
So where does this leave us?
Take a look at this article on learning styles
The key thing is to be aware and to find what works for you in terms of style and technique.
Do we all have ONE learning style? Do we have this same learning style ALL THE TIME? Do we change over time or is this a constant do you think?
And I guess most importantly, what does all this mean to the way that we design and facilitate learning in our organisations?
Would be interested to hear your views.
Comments
Hi. I am currently midway through my level 3 L&D course. At work, for the last two years, I have made all new starters do a VAK test consisting of thirty questions on day one of their induction training. With groups of ten or more, it's no suprise that all three learning styles came up for one or more of the trainees.
The learning styles of each indivdual are passed onto all colleagues who help with the training (e.g. 'x'% of trainees are auditory etc). The idea was that, my colleagues who are doing training could alter their content towards the groups learning style(s) however, due to the fact that all learning styles were present, this meant that content wasn't changed; it was just checked to make sure that it had an equal amount of activities for each learning style.
Even though there isn't a lot of evidence to prove that people do have learning styles, I do still find the theory useful. My colleagues who help and build classroom based training modules are not qualified trainers. Understanding this theory is useful for them as it gives them a guide on how to build a piece of training. Without it, training might turn into a meeting as that might be my colleagues prefered style to give information.
From my own experience; I think that I am/have been all three different learning styles at some point during my life. It depended on what I was doing and how old I am/was. I believe your learning style changes quite often.
I think that the key to this piece of theory is not to see 'what learning style you/they are'; it's more to understand that an array of different activities are needed so that all trainees understand your content. It just so happens that these 'different activities' fit nicely into the bands visual, auditory and kenthestic.
Hi, in just starting this section in Level 3 L&D, it resonates to when i trained as a life coach and we covered the H&M learning style amonsgt some others. In my experience and what I continue to observe today just in general life at work and with friends and peers in my personal life and journey of personal develoment, I feel different learning styles are interesting and helpful to know about and be aware of as it can help try and connect better with an individual to maximise their learning, but I always want to look at the person themselves first and then use the resources and library of styles to reach out to. As i think I ahve been all four at separate times in life and all 4 together LOL
In my own exprience of life so far, i think I have adapted and changed over the years and I never feel like just one label of a 'type' i feel this itself can maybe limit a person as maybe for example, a manager may think an employee learns a certain way just based on their exprience with the employee but not knowing fully what they care about and what it is about the content of what they want/need to learn is. Style can be effective but I believe the connection between the indiviudal and the content of what they want to know is what holds the answer to their key to success. Interesting article to read and very helpful ,thank you :-)
I always believed my dominant learnng style was activist. I just like to get on and have a go at wht I am learning.
However, through completing the H&M questionaire recently, I've discovered I have a very high theorist learning style. Which makes perfect sense at the moment as Im in the middle of my course. It appears that my learning style changes depending on the situation.
when I try to learn new things I want to understand underlying reasons. concepts and relationship. So for a long time I think I'm definitely a theorists leaner. But recently years I do feel my learning style changes.
For example: My learning style is theorists , this is related to the eastern education I got.Eastern school believe discipline is the key for performance.so personally I'm not good at discussing in classroom. I prefer lecturing style and I like sitting in a classroom and making notes to learn. But since I came to the UK all the workshop I attended or delivered they are all not like the traditional way I’m used to . It involves a lot of activities and brainstorming. At the beginning I feel difficult to adapt to but now it seems ok. And I enjoy more invovling in workshop , this happy feeling starts to have a positive impact on my learning.
I have recently been watching some golfing tutorial videos on YouTube created by a guy called Shawn Clement.
Over the years I have tried to adopt and improve my game with one one one lessons, reading books and articles, gadgets, tweaking on the range and the course myself and never until watching Shawns videos have I see such instant results in improvement in my game.
What Shawn does brilliantly (whether he is aware of this or not i’m not sure) is he demonstrates and explains things in the most simple of terms (can I think about this) and repeats this a couple of times and then gives the theory/science in more detail (why does this work) and then shows you evidence of it working (I want to do this/how does it work in the real world)
He relates the mechanics of a golf swing to simple natural tasks such as throwing a stone or horseshoe, chopping a tree, cutting the head off a dandelion and cutting grass. It is the only form of learning in terms of golf i’ve been able to go and apply instantly and not had to think about 10 things “I should be doing” at once and it’s unbelievable how well it has worked for me.
So I do believe it is possible when the subject suits, in this case golf, that learning that covers all four of Honey and Mumfords learning styles/preferences in a blended learning approach can infact be incredibly impactful because when ever I have tried them individually I have had limited or no results.
this said to learners will invariably have varied levels of experience, enthusiasm, motivation and understanding so to create a dream piece of learning that will suit all is pretty much impossible and that the scale and depth of the learning will always be most important to the medium in which it is delivered.
I always liked the idea of learning styles, whether be it Kolb, H&M, VARK, and I have always felt a strong pull towards some of these when thinking about my own style (activist/reflector as a style, kinaesthetic/visual as preference).
This said, many articles I have read recently seem to dispute the validity of learning styles theories, and some of these doubts are raised in the wired.com articled linked above.
So, what I have been wondering over the last year or so is:
Would love to hear some views on this.
I’m quite conscious of having different learning styles dependant on how much I know the subject, my confidence in being able to pick this up easily, what’s the consequences of me needing to understand this in depth, is this a long knowledge I need to understand, for example will I need this again or is the knowledge I require deeper. When creating learning programmes.... there is a need to be absolutely aware of this but not forgetting that we have adult learners, but these are new skills that they require, with nassive implications for our patients.
I always thought I was a reflector, however as my career and indeed confidence has grown I find I have a prefernce for each one depending on the situation.
If it's a flat pack piece of furniture I'll look at the instructions, yet if it's a piece of new technology I just want to get on and do - the danger there is I may not be using all of it's functions.
Ultimately I think it's great to be aware of your own preferences in certain situations to make sure you get the most out of each learning opportunity - and that your delegates do too!
I think I'm multimodal when it comes to learning styles / preferences. The dominant mode I operate in depends very much on the context for me. I like to think that each 'style' is part of a reflective cycle which I aim to follow 1. do 2. review 3. learn 4. apply (Honey & Mumford / Kolb hybrid). Each stage of this cycle is necessary and corresponds with H&M's 1. activist 2. reflector 3. theorist 4. pragmatist.
A key point for training / learning activities is surely variety - a buffet/smorgasbord - but not just for it's own sake, it has to be relevant, valid & coherent - and always supporting and consolidating the intended learning outcomes.
I believe i am a blend of all...depends of the situation. I would say primarly pragmatist as I mostly go for the usseful and practicals... ideeas...
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 24 Next