Learning Styles and K12 Digital Content

Recently I had a very interesting conversation with some senior executives of a learning company. Though they already have a substantial presence in the digital learning sphere, this time around they wanted to introduce something different, something out of the box, which would enable them to create a more forceful impact in the K12 market.

They informed me that a highly revered theory on learning styles advocates that there are primarily four types of learners. And to cater to the needs of each type of learner, they wanted the digital content to be developed in a manner wherein each lesson would be structured in four different ways to efficiently fit in with all types of learners.

“But why you want to do that?” I could not help asking.

They gave back a questioning look and I was instantly reminded of the famous quote that speak only when words are better than your silence. The Michael Holding bouncer I reckon was about to be hurled in my direction somewhat seemed to attest to the sagacity and veracity of this wise saying.  

To salvage the situation, before it spiraled out of my control like Government’s fiscal deficit, I quickly added’ “Are you referring to Neil Fleming’s VARK Model or LeFever’s Learning Styles?”

To my relief, they seemed somewhat invigorated by my question. “Oh yes, we are talking about LeFever’s learning styles only but of course, within each quadrant you need to consider sensory modalities to a great extent. So VARK model will also be very much in use, within each style.” they added. 

Now before we proceed further, for your better understanding, I think it is imperative on my part to explain what Learning Styles they were referring to.

Well, we all know that every brain is unique so much so that it is singular in structure than DNA. Having said that, every individual has his own preferences for how he/she perceives information and then use that knowledge. In order to better comprehend this idea of Individualized learning and how people’s behavior are often tied to their learning styles, many theories have been propagated over the years. In the same context, Marlene LeFever writes about four learning styles.

She defines that, “A learning style is the style in which we see or perceive things best, and the way in which we process what we have seen. We acquire our learning style by heredity, by our past experiences, and by our current working environment. Learning styles vary with age and by sex. Men tend to become more affable and mellow with age, while women tend to become more assertive and less flexible.”

The four distinct learning styles she referred to are- Imaginative, Analytic, Common Sense and Dynamic. Let us delve a bit deeper to get a better grasp on each one of them.

Imaginative Learners- Imaginative learners are very social and they find it easy to discuss their feelings and also listen to other people’s perspectives. They approach every lesson with an invariable “Why”. Why study this subject? Why do I need to know this? They try to look at the bigger picture rather than focusing on the smaller things. 

Analytic Learners- They prefer to watch and listen and do well in the conventional classroom style learning environment. They are wise, focus more on facts, take lots of notes, dig deep into the data and like the bottom line. Since they focus more on the ‘Content’, their fundamental question is ‘What do I need to know?’ They want all the records before making a decision and yes they love doing it alone and generally loathe group discussions.

Common Sense Learners- They approach the subject with ‘How does it work?’ question. So naturally we can say that they like playing with ideas to fathom if they are rational and workable. They want to test theories in the real world and to apply what has been learned. They are practical, solution finder and love to get the job done.

Dynamic Learners- These types of learners believe in the practical application of an idea. ‘What can this become?’ is their approach and that’s why they find real joy in starting something new or putting a personal stamp of originality on an idea.

Well, in my opinion it is nice to know how different people perceive things best , but still it is not be forgotten that it is only a THEORY (I am no one to question its efficacy). Most of the educators have already included a bit of it in their lesson plans and curriculum development. In modern context, blended learning -where you combine the classroom learning with e-learning (if structured effectively) can address the needs of each type of learner to a larger extent.

But here (with this company), the situation was a bit different and convoluted (I must admit). By developing a separate set of content for each type of learner, you are creating a divide, a chasm which is hard to fill and grossly unfair as well.  By confining children to realms of just one of these four learning styles, you are placing some serious restrictions on their ability to learn and comprehend things.  Even if a student prefers one way of learning, it in no way implies that he/she is completely averse to inculcate a minor or maybe a major chunk of other learning styles. Also, restricting their learning by just offering a particular type to a set of students does not exactly serve the cause of assisting diversity.

Also another question of major importance that was constantly troubling me was as to how they intended to identify the so called types. They said that they have developed an assessment theory (which every student will undergo) before they divert him or her to a particular type of learning style. I did not say anything further despite harboring serious doubts about the effectiveness or efficiency of so called ‘assessment theory’ in accurately measuring a kid’s learning style. My apprehension gathered further force after I came across a study which found that a minimum of three different exams are needed to measure a student’s propensity to absorb and learn things which could then be ‘vaguely’ applied to fit a particular style. I am using the term’ vaguely’ because I still believe that even the results produced from three different tests cannot be an accurate pointer to facts, meriting a strict and inflexible categorisation.

I would say that it would be wrong to assume that I am unequivocally rejecting value, merit or practicality of Learning Styles’ theory or the VARK model. My skepticism only stems from the fact that when you come to the most complex known object—the human brain—the idea that one test can satisfactorily predict a child’s learning proneness seems something of an anomaly.