This topic comes up often in the L&D world: learning styles.
In a new article in the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest there is discussion of a new study from Indiana University School of Medicine that, once again, busts the learning style myth.
One thing that is new about this study is that information was gather not only on the learning style used in formal learning space (e.g. the classroom) but information was gather on learning styles used by students away from the classroom.
First of all, the students were asked to establish their preferred style using a the VARK questionnaire.
In a world where we now doubt learning styles are even a thing the research, unsurprisingly, shows away from the classroom that most students did not study in a way that was consistent with their style (despite being asked to) and that those that did study in a way consistent with their style did not score better grades.
Interestingly what the study does show is that it was the type of activity that influenced performance irrespective of the supposed style. Activities that promote competence and deeper understanding enhanced performance more than activities which relied on rote learning.
Does this then bolster the case for the well know Bloom’s taxonomy?
Next time a student says to you that they can’t learn from your intervention because it doesn’t conform to their learning style - will you be telling them that there is no such thing?
Comments