‘The missing link’ by Carolyn May and Andy Radka, Training Journal, March 2011

Though this article is mainly aimed more at those who teach one to one, it has implications for all those who have incorporated thinking about learning styles into their programme designs. The Kolb Learning Cycle, and the Honey Mumford questionnaire that applies it so engagingly, have become part of the dialogue of course design and have shown that we are thinking about learning styles when we prepare sessions and courses. ‘Our people are activist learners so we must build in engaging, interactive exercises throughout’ is a typical dialogue during a design meeting.

But this article questions the idea that you should tailor sessions to the learning styles of individuals or groups. It quotes recent research in the USA and a report published in 2004, both of which say that there is no evidence that individuals have distinct learning styles. The counter argument is that people learn in many ways and we should be building on these differences rather than narrowing methods down. We should design learning programmes that contain a mix of learning methods for each individual and group. The simplistic allocation of learning style labels to individuals can be counter-productive, a handicap rather than an advantage to learners.

The second challenge to common assumptions is the view that learning has to be enjoyable to be effective. It is a commonly heard view that if course members are enjoying the business simulation or leadership exercise, this will create effective learning. Here the article’s research evidence is not so strong and it only quotes Peter Honey as justification for challenging this view. Honey argues that enjoyable learning can be too easy and that ‘no pain, no gain’ applies. This not only questions the choice of method but also the typical reliance on happy sheets. Though the challenge to conventional thinking is interesting here, I was not convinced of its application in practice; commercial organisations like MTP believe that those who have suffered pain on our programmes tend not to come back for more!

The authors go on to suggest that, though matching learning styles to individuals or groups may be counter-productive, there is benefit from dialogue with learners before methods are agreed. Here we have to remember that the focus of the article is individual learning and again this would be less practical in a course or workshop context. However it makes a strong case for explaining up front why particular learning methods have been chosen, which is more practical and appealing in a larger group context. It also makes it more feasible to use ‘painful’ methods while still receiving the right level of acceptance.

The article closes by arguing for a particular questionnaire to form the basis of these discussions – the Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument – though I was not convinced that this would lead to any better discussions than, say, Honey Mumford. It may merely be an example of the authors arguing for the instrument that they know and love.

It is difficult to know how much weight to give to the views of two learning consultants who might be challenging existing thinking as a way of gaining attention. But the article is thought provoking and a wake-up call for those who are unquestioning in their reliance on the language and concepts of Kolb and Honey Mumford.

Click here to read the article in full:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/search/?searchType=&q_author=Carolyn+May+and+Andy+Radka&q_time-period=Past+year