Learning Styles Can Become Learning Strategies

In the last 30 or 40 years, a number of educators have proposed that teaching would be more effective if faculty members took account of differences in students' learning styles. A number of different conceptions of learning styles have been proposed, each with some plausibility. Probably the most widely accepted and best validated is Marton and Säljö's (1976a,b) "deep processors" vs. "surface processors" based upon the levels of processing theory developed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). Deep processors think about the author's purpose and relate a reading assignment to prior knowledge; surface processors read with little thought. Another well validated style is "field dependent" vs. "field independent" (Witkin and Goodenough, 1981). In addition to these, there are also ten or twelve less well validated attempts to describe differing styles of learning. Probably the most over-generalized and misused has been "right-brain dominant" vs. "left-brain dominant."

Regardless of their validity, any of these methods may have heuristic value for faculty development by drawing attention to the fact that learners differ and that we need to take account of these differences in teaching. Too many teachers think of students as a featureless mass; too many rarely vary their teaching methods, thinking that the method by which they were taught is best for everyone.

A method appropriate for most students may be ineffective for other students who could learn more easily with a different approach. Methods of teaching (e.g., graphic or verbal), ways of representing information, personality characteristics of teachers — all affect learning and affect different learners differently. Thinking about learning styles can lead a teacher to think about different ways of teaching, and that is good. An effective teacher needs to vary techniques and to have an armamentarium of teaching methods and learning activities that can be drawn upon from moment to moment or from week to week to facilitate maximum learning for as many students as possible.

Nonetheless, as in most things, there are potential undesirable side effects from the use of learning style concepts. Probably the most serious is that styles are often taken to be fixed, inherited characteristics that limit students' ability to learn in ways that do not fit their styles. Thus, some teachers draw the implication that they must match their teaching to the student's particular style, and some students who have been labeled as having a particular style feel that they can only learn from a certain kind of teaching. Learning about learning styles may be helpful to teachers who have not previously thought seriously about differences among students. Where they go awry is when teachers become so committed to a particular set of learning style categories that they miss individual differences and changes over time.

Similarly, students who believe they have a particular style that cannot be changed are likely to give up when taught by a teacher whose method doesn't match their style. Having classified the students into particular learning styles, a teacher often feels that the problem of learner differences has been solved. Some teachers become devotees of one or another learning style system. However, the "styles" or "types" identified by learning style inventories are not little boxes, neatly

As in most things, there are potential undesirable side effects from the use of learning style concepts.

Most of the attempts to match students with teachers have proved to have relatively little effect upon learning. It is plausible that, at least initially, trying to fit teaching to a student's learning style may be helpful. But the important thing to remember is that what are called "learning styles" are preferences and habits of learning that have been learned, and that everyone is capable of going beyond the particular "style" preferred at the time. Regardless of their learning "styles," students can learn strategies that enable them to be effective when taught by methods that are not compatible with their preferred "style." To assume that one must teach to a particular learning style misses the fact that a given student may be best taught by one method early in learning and by another after the student has gained some competence. For example, anxious students need a good deal of structure when they first encounter a new instructor and new material. But if they are to overcome their anxiety, they later need challenges that they can successfully overcome.

None of the learning styles makes nearly as much difference as the student's prior knowledge, intelligence, and motivation. All of these characteristics are learnable. My own research and teaching has focused upon teaching students skills and strategies so that they can learn more effectively regardless of differences in instruction. Our research group has developed the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, et al., 1991), which assesses such things as the degree to which students try to relate ideas in a subject to what they already know, and the methods they use for organizing course materials. In my "Learning to Learn" course I also teach motivational strategies. When students learn to learn in more meaningful ways they are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation for learning rather than being solely focused on the tests and grades or credentials. Similarly, when students become interested in a topic they are likely to think more about it. Cognition and motivation are interdependent.

It is important for both teachers and students to realize that learners always encounter many situations that are not adapted to their own preferences. What we teachers need to do is to help students develop the skills and strategies needed for learning effectively from teachers who do not match the students' preferred learning "style." Methods of teaching learning strategies are described in Weinstein and Mayer (1986) and McKeachie, Pintrich and Lin (1985). Good teaching involves more than communicating the content of one's discipline; a good teacher also needs both to motivate students to continue learning and to teach them the skills and strategies needed for continued learning.

(The author gratefully acknowledges helpful suggestions from Paul Pintrich and Barbara Hofer.) References

• Craik, F. M., and Lockhart, R. S. (1972) "Levels of processing: A framework for memory research." Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
• Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1976a) "On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
• ——. (1976b) "On qualitative differences in learning: II. Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127.
• McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., and Lin, Y-G. (1985) "Teaching learning strategies." Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 153-160.
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991) A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan.
• Weinstein, C. E., and Mayer, R. E. (1986) "The Teaching of learning strategies." In M. Wittrock, ed. Handbook of research on teaching, pp. 315-327. New York: Macmillan.
• Witkin, H. A., and Goodenough, D. R. (1981) Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New York: International Universities Press.

Copies of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) are available for $10 each from

Paul Pintrich
School of Education
University of Michigan
2002 SEB
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259
Telephone: (313) 936-2741