Pedagogy and the intuitive appeal of learning styles in post‐compulsory education in England

Abstract

Despite the rigorous and robust evaluation of learning styles theories, models and inventories, little objective evidence in support of their effectiveness has been found. The lack of unambiguous evidence in support of these models and practices leaves the continued popularity of these models and instruments as a puzzle. Two related accounts of the tenacious appeal are considered in this paper. First, the popularity of these accounts is explored in terms of their intuitive appeal. This notion is explicated in terms of what it is to be gripped by a metaphysical picture. It is argued that the simple and direct appeal of these models, viewed as metaphysical pictures, in part explains their continued popularity. Second, it is argued that when we situate these models in the arena of contemporary pedagogic practice in the Post‐compulsory Education and Training Sector it becomes possible to discern a number of ways in which they can also be recognized to serve specific instrumental ends. The apparent usefulness of these models will be challenged with reference to Dewey.

Notes

1. The authors would like to thank Frank Coffield for his early discussion of the topic and encouragement, also those who attended and commented upon earlier versions of this paper presented at the Philosophy Department at the University of Hull (2006) and Philosophy of Education Society UK Conference, 2006.

2. The description of learning styles models and instruments offered in this paper is drawn from Coffield et al.'s 2004 report. The summary accounts presented are deemed to be adequate given the primary aim of this paper, which is to investigate the continued popularity of these approaches in the English PCET sector given the lack of evidence to support their effectiveness. The decision to choose the learning styles models of Dunn and Dunn and Hermann was guided, first, by the anecdotal evidence that references to Dunn and Dunn's VAK model are widespread in the PCET sector. Second, Herrmann's model is chosen because it receives the most favourable review in Coffield et al.'s 2004 report. This evaluation has encouraged some working in the PCET CPD arena to continue to promote learning styles with reference to Herrmann's work (Petty, 2005).

3. It is interesting to note here that, for the practitioner at least, the relationship between practice, theory and reflection is not that envisaged by Kolb in the experiential Learning cycle (see Harkin, 2005, p. 173). We do not necessarily have to move from experience to reflection and then abstract conceptualization. We simply are presented with a metaphysical picture that seems to chime with and elaborate upon common ways of talking about learners (John Wisdom gives a somewhat enigmatic and enticing consideration of the relationship of everyday speech to metaphysical discussion: Wisdom, 1952, pp. 220–235).