Validity and Utility of the Proposed Learning Style Classification Scheme

Several critical points can legitimately be raised regarding the proposed learning style categories. The categories are by no means comprehensive: no finite number of dimensions could ever encompass the totality of individual student differences, and components of other learning style models in the references cited in the introductory section also play important roles in determining how students receive and process information. Moreover, the dimensions have not been shown to be fully independent, and validated instruments to assess individual preferences on all of them do not exist. Finally, the teaching style with which students feel most comfortable may not correspond to the style that enables them to learn most effectively. (The same point could be made with respect to all other learning style models.)

Having said all that, we would add that these disclaimers do not limit the usefulness of this or any other model. Although it can be helpful for an instructor to know the distribution of learning styles in a class, the point is not to place all students into one or another style category and to teach each student exclusively according to his or her preferred style. Even if this formidable goal could be achieved it would not be desirable, for reasons to be discussed. Rather, the goal is a balanced teaching style, in all classes at all levels. Our hypothesis is that language instructors who adapt their instruction to address both poles of each of the five given dimensions should come close to providing an optimal learning environment for most (if not all) students in a class.