Competing ideas about learning

Conflicting assumptions about learning underpin mainstream ideas about learning and the best-known models of learning styles. For example, some theories discussed in this report derive from research into brain functioning, where claims are made that specific neural activity related to learning can be identified in different areas of the brain. Other influential ideas derive from established psychological theories, such as personality traits, intellectual abilities and fixed traits which are said to form learning styles. From this latter perspective, it is claimed that learning styles can be defined accurately and then measured reliably and validly through psychological tests in order to predict behaviour and achievement. Claims about learning styles from the perspective of fixed traits lead to labels and descriptors of styles as the basis for strong claims about the generalisability of learning styles. These can take on unexpected predictive or controversial characteristics. For example, the belief that styles are fixed has led to propositions that marriage partners should have compatible learning styles, that people from socially disadvantaged groups tend to have a particular style or, as Gregorc (1985) believes, that styles are God-given and that to work against one’s personal style will lead to ill-health (see Section 3.1 for evaluation of his Style Delineator). 

Even if we dismiss these extreme examples, the notion of styles tends to imply something fixed and stable over time. However, different theorists make different claims for the degree of stability within their model of styles. Some theories represent learning styles as ‘flexibly stable’, arguing that previous learning experiences and other environmental factors may create preferences, approaches or strategies rather than styles, or that styles may vary from context to context or even from task to task. Nevertheless, supporters of this view still argue that it is possible to create valid and reasonably reliable measures and for these to have diagnostic and predictive use for enhancing students’ learning. By contrast, other theorists eschew all notions of individual traits and argue that it is more productive to look at the context-specific and situated nature of learning and

the idea of learning biographies rather than styles or approaches.

Competing ideas about learning have led to a proliferation of terms and concepts, many of which are used interchangeably in learning styles research. For example, terms used in this introduction include ‘learning styles’, ‘learning strategies’ and ‘approaches to learning’. In addition, we have referred to ‘models’, ‘instruments’ and ‘inventories’. Our investigation has revealed other terms in constant use: ‘cognitive styles’, ‘conative styles’, and ‘cognitive structures’; ‘thinking styles’, ‘teaching styles’, ‘motivational styles’, ‘learning orientations’ and ‘learning conditions’. Sometimes these terms are used precisely, in order to maintain distinctions between theories; at other times, they are used very loosely and interchangeably. Some theorists offer clear definitions of their key concepts at the outset, but forget to maintain the limitations they have placed on their language in later papers. Rather than attempting to offer yet another set of definitions of each concept, this report aims to define these terms as clearly as possible within particular families of ideas about learning in order to show how they are used by different learning styles theorists.

It is possible to explain the main dimensions that underpin different approaches to learning styles and this report does so in later sections. Nevertheless, the competing theories and techniques of measuring them, and the effectiveness of such measures are so varied and contested that simple choices about the most suitable are difficult to substantiate. Different ideas about learning styles create distinct approaches to identifying the specific attitudes and skills that characterize styles and different measures designed to generalize between learning contexts and types of learner. Evaluating the claims for various models requires an understanding of the psychometric vocabulary that underpins particular constructs and measures of reliability and validity. For example, there are various dimensions to validity: including whether the various test items appear to capture what they set out to measure (face validity) and whether the range of behavior can be seen to have an impact on task performance (predictive validity). In addition, a number of other types of validity are important, including ecological validity, catalytic validity and construct validity. In addition, there is the frequently overlooked issue of effect size.

The notion of reliability is also important because some of the most popular models extrapolate from evidence of reliability to strong assertions of generalizability, namely that learners can transfer their styles to other contexts or that measures will produce similar results with other types of student. Finally, the technical vocabulary needed to understand and interpret the various claims about learning styles also requires an appreciation that for some researchers, a reliable and valid measure of learning styles has not yet been developed; and for some, that the perfect learning style instrument is a fantasy. From the latter perspective, observation and interviews may be more likely than instruments to capture some of the broad learning strategies that learners adopt. Those who reject the idea of measurable learning styles consider it more useful to focus on learners’ previous experiences and motivation.