I have been thinking about this a lot lately….and done some thinking around the usefulness of knowing learning styles.

Generally, they are taught because it’s good to know there are differences in the way people learn…for example (and, rightly or wrongly, these are compliments of Wikipedia):

NLP gives us:

• Visual
• Auditory
• Kinaesthetic

Honey & Mumford give us:

• Activist
• Reflector
• Theorist
• Pragmatist

McCarthy gives us

• Why
• What
• How
• What if

Kolb gives us

• Converger
• Diverger
• Assimilator
• Accommodator

All of these are valid and well proven in the research and literature….my question is “when I am designing and delivery training, how do these add value to my process?”…. or in simple terms “so what?”

Most of you would answer that you need to design training that suits all of the styles so that you hit them all. And I would agree with you.

What I will add, is that I think there needs to be more emphasis on the order in which things are done, which will then appeal to the bulk of learning styles. I used to think it was using the 4-Mat model….in order… Why, then What, then How, then What if….but I think there might be more.

So, I think I have something to add to the thinking about this:

First, as a trainer, you need to create a connection between you and then group, and your content and the group. McCarthy’s “why” frame has always focused on getting people to be motivated about your content. The piece that is missing is the connection between the trainer and the participant. So, I think CONNECT is the first piece.

The second piece is CLARIFY. Making sure that the theory is taught and understood. In the PEP factor model, any of these without some Passion or Energy for the topic, makes it a dry and boring lecture. So, in CLARIFY we are providing the information in a way that makes sense to the group.

Then, we need to CREATE an opportunity for the group to experience the theory. Get them into an exercise where they are able to play, make mistakes, change and experiment with the material. The distinction here is not just use the theory, but a space to really pull it apart and be creative in their use of the material.

Finally, CONFIRM (or this may be contextualise…not sure yet) where we make the appropriate links back to the ‘real world’ and reflect on what else is possible.

I agree with any of you who are saying there is some familiarity with other models. In my mind there is a subtlety here about the order they are done in, and what that means for the learners, and the take up of the material.