Sports Media - physical education for everyone - Considering Learning Styles and Coaching

Home

News

The New Dimension in P.E.

Considering Learning Styles and Coaching

Written by Dr. Chris Cushion

Sunday, 11 October 2009

by Dr. Chris Cushion, Loughborough University, UK

Dr. Chris Cushion In the coaching literature there is often a reference to the relevance of learning styles to coaches (e.g. Potrac & Cassidy, 2006; Cassidy et al., 2009; Wikely & Bullock, 2006). More broadly, in considering themes that impact learning, ‘learning styles’ is one that frequently appears in a number of practice domains, for example, business and management (e.g. Sadler-Smith et al., 2000), education (Hadfield, 2006; Heffler, 2001; Isemonger & Shepperd, 2003; Klein 2003), social work and criminal justice (Annison, 2006).

However, in coaching the literature frequently considers learning styles and the implications that flow from these uncritically and as a ‘given’. Similarly, learning styles theory (e.g. Myers-Briggs, Kolb, Honey & Mumford) appears and, in some cases, plays an active part within coach education courses. However, as far as the coach learning literature is concerned, learning styles is largely missing from research, review or debate. It is beyond the scope of this article to present a detailed critique of specific theories. However, specific reviews of learning styles have been undertaken (Coffield et al., 2004a, 2004b; Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), and it is from the evidence in this work and recent domain-specific studies that this paper draws.

In educational terms, learning styles have been described as “qualitative differences among individual students’ habits, preferences or orientation toward learning and studying” (Klein, 2003, p. 46). However, as Presland (1994, p.179) points out, there are a “bewildering variety of definitions and conceptualisations of learning styles” leading Sadler-Smith et al. (2000) to suggest that “one of the key difficulties for the field is the over-extension of the notion of learning style and the associated semantic confusion generated through the haphazard expansion and dilution of the concept” (p.243). Indeed, Coffield et al.’s review identified 71 models of learning styles, with 13 as ‘major models’. It is perhaps unsurprising that Coffield et al. go on to suggest that learning styles is a field marked by “debate and constructive critiques as well as disunity, dissension and conceptual confusion” (p.2).

As Hadfield (2006) suggests it is difficult to find a way through this huge number of theories. Despite this she attempted to identify a learning style theory for Teacher Education, noting that a large number of the theories take a similar approach in constructing a two-dimensional model along bipolar axes. The axes could be set up to produce opposites like, for example, concrete-abstract and sequential-random, introvert-extravert (Hadfield, 2006). But these could be any characteristic or dimension. The combination of the two axes gives rise to four basic ‘types’. These types are then described within the given approach in terms of a set of attributes.

The problematic nature of the field is highlighted when not all theories agree on the polarities and ‘type’ and how these should be combined (Hadfield, 2006). In addition, there is some overlap and intersection of theories with similar oppositions found in some e.g. introvert-extrovert, as well as perspectives and oppositions not found in others. Moreover, as well as a range of terminology (Hadfield, 2006), the meaning used for some words are different according to different models. These issues have lead to a number of authors from different domains questioning the overall trustworthiness of ‘style’ categorisations (Duff & Duffy, 2002; Garner, 2000, Henson & Hwang, 2002; Swailes & Senior, 1999).

In business and management, Reynolds (1997) presented a critique of learning styles where he lamented the uncritical way that human resources, CPD and business embraced “claims to be able to measure human attributes” (Reynolds, 1997, p.128). While acknowledging the intuitive appeal of learning styles, he questions the theoretical and empirical validity of learning style. This critique extends to the reductionist and positivistic, scientific-technical philosophies of psychology and its approach to social existence and human development (Sadler-Smith, 2001). It is a perspective shared by Annison (2006), whose research considers the use of learning styles in probation and social work, and Hadfield (2006) who is critical of the “pizza cutting approach to personality” (p.369). Sadler-Smith (2001) while admonishing the uncritical acceptance and lack of reflection upon learning style theory in management, argues that learning style is a term that is too broad and used too often as a ‘catch-all’ term. Instead, he proposes a separation of the concept into personality, learning preference, learning strategy, cognitive or thinking style and their interaction with the particular context (Sadler-Smith, 2001). An approach that may have some merit in the coaching domain.

In trying to bring some clarity to the field, Coffield et al. (2004a) importantly identified a continuum of learning style theory. At one end there were those theories that considered learning styles to be fixed (a trait). At the other end, were those theories that considered learning styles to be mutable (a state). Those authors advocating the latter position would argue that learners are able to move between learning styles. This is a crucial distinction since the implications for practice hang on the question of whether learning styles are considered fixed or mutable. How far can teaching and learning tasks be matched to learning style, and can learning be truly individualized (Hadfield, 2006)? The complexity of this is highlighted by Coffield et al (2004a) who propose 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” (p. 2).

From the original seventy-one theories Coffield and colleagues reviewed, they examined thirteen in-depth, and from this review they found research supporting the reliability and validity of seven models, from which they recommended six. These models were: Jackson’s learning style profile (Jackson, 2002); Apter’s reversal theory and motivational styles profiler (Apter, 2001); Allinson and Hayes cognitive style index (Allinson & Hayes, 1996); Herrmann’s whole brain model (Herrmann, 1989); Entwhistle’s approaches and study skills inventory for students (Entwhistle et al., 1979); and Vermunt’s inventory of learning styles (Vermunt, 1994). The seventh but not recommended by Coffield et al. was the Myers-Briggs type indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). This model had equal reliability and validity to the other six but Coffield et al. could not directly relate the sixteen personality types (four bipolar scales) to informing teaching practice.

Basing usage on evidence of reliability and validity would seem a sensible starting point, but with the definitional confusion and perspectives presented by the models’ authors, selecting one model is subscribing to the creator’s world-view and may neglect other insights afforded by other models (Hadfield, 2006). Moreover, there is also a lack of clarity surrounding the efficacy of matching learning style and teaching technique. Coffield et al. (2004a) for example, found nine studies in favour of matching and nine against. Indeed, there is no evidence that matching learning style and teaching improves academic performance in further education (Coffield et al., 2004b). In addition, the decision to match or not would seem to depend on whether the educational approach can shift to accommodate learning style, i.e. is learning style a state or a trait.

Some Conclusions: Implications for Coach Learning

From the existing large scale reviews, and research in a number of domains the evidence base for learning styles can be considered fragile and often contested (Annison, 2006). There seems a need to evaluate the theoretical robustness of the research findings and the applicability of these to a coach learning agenda. As Coffield et al. (2004b) suggest there is a need for ‘independent, critical longitudinal studies’ (p.13), and this would seem a legitimate and worthwhile area of research for coach learning. Indeed, it is important that the assumptions about learning styles should not become axiomatic, but rather an element of learning to be scrutinized as social constructions in an area of developing work (Annison, 2006). The evidence suggests that coaching should not blindly and uncritically adopt a single approach, but a perspective of balance and variety seems warranted, with learning styles a tool to open up a dialogue about personal development, rather than one of pedagogical impact (Coffield et al, 2004b).

Acknowledgment: This paper is part a larger study funded and first published by Sports Coach UK: Cushion, Nelson, Armour et al., (2009) Coach learning and development: A review of literature. Sports Coach UK, Leeds, UK.

Questions for discussion: if you want to answer the questions, please use the hereunder comment system !

1. Are learning styles fixed or mutable?

2. Should coaching align with a ‘learning style’ or challenge the learner with an alternative way of learning?

3. How useful are learning styles to the coaching/teaching process?

4. If you subscribe to a learning style theory, why that approach and theorist?

References

Allinson, C. & Hayes, J. (1996) The cognitive style index, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-135.

Allinson, C. & Hayes, J. (2000) Cross-national differences in cognitive style: implications for management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 161-170.

Annison, J.(2006) Style over substance? A review of the evidence base for the use of learning styles in probation, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(2) 239-257.

Apter, M.J. (2001) Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory (Washington DC, American Psychological Association).

Cassidy, T., Jones, R., and Potrac, P.(2009) Understanding Sports Coaching: The social, cultural and pedagogical foundations of sports practice, 2nd edition (London, Routledge).

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004a) Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice (London, Learning and Skills Research Centre).

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004b) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning (London, Learning and Skills Research Centre).

Duff, A. & Duffy, T. (2002) Psychometric properties of Honey & Mumford‘s Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ), Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 147-163.

Entwhistle, N., Hanley, M. & Housell, D. (1979) Identifying distinctive approaches to studying, Higher Education, 8, 365-380.

Garner, I. (2000) Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb’s learning styles, Educational Psychology, 20(3), 341-348.

Hadfield, J. (2006) Teacher education and trainee learning style, Regional Language Centre Journal, 37(3) 367-386.

Heffler, B. (2001). Individual learning style and the learning style inventory, Educational Studies, 27 (3), 307–316.

Henson, R.K. & Hwang, D. (2002) Variability and prediction of measurement error in Kolb's Learning Style Inventory scores: a reliability generalization study, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62 (4),712–727.

Herrmann, N. (1989) The creative brain (North Carolina, Brain Books).

Isemonger, I. & Sheppard, C. (2003) Learning Styles, Regional Language Centre Journal, 34(2) 195-222.

Jackson, C. (2002) Manual of the learning styles profiler. www.psi-press.co.uk.

Klein, P.D. (2003) Rethinking the multiplicity of cognitive resources and curricular representations: alternative to ‘learning styles’ and ‘multiple intelligences’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1) 45-81.

Learning and Skills Research Centre (2004) Learning styles for post-16 learners: what do we know? (London, Learning and Skills Research Centre).

Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985) Manual: a guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists’ Press).

Potrac P, & Cassidy, T. (2006) The coach as ‘more capable other’, in: R.L. Jones (Ed) The sports coach as educator re-conceptualising sports coaching (London, Routledge) pp.39-50.

Presland, J. (1994) Learning styles and CPD, Educational Psychology in Practice, 10(3) 179-184.

Reynolds, M. (1997) Learning styles: a critique, Management Learning, 28(2) 115-134.

Sadler-Smith, E., Allinson, C. & Hayes, C. (2000) Learning preferences and cognitive style: some implications for continuing professional development, Management Learning, 31(2) 239-256.

Sadler-Smith, E. (2001) A reply to Reynolds’s critique of learning style, Management Learning, 32(3) 291-304.

Swailes, S. & Senior, B. (1999) The dimensionality of Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 1-11.

Vermunt, J.D. (1994) Inventory of learning styles (ILS) in higher education (Tilburg, University of Tilburg).

Wikeley, F. & Bullock, K. (2006) Coaching as an educational relationship, in: R. L. Jones (Ed) The sports coach as educator: reconceptualising sports coaching (Abingdon, Routledge).

Readers have left 2 comments.