One recent phase of my adult life involved taking a multitude of learning style and personality assessments. This phase began a year after I moved to Salt Lake City. The logic was since I now lived alone, it would behoove me to learn if I was living optimally.
My Learning Style Discovery Process
I took several popular assessments such as the DISC, Myers-Briggs, and Enneagram along with several proprietary ones. Before beginning these assessments, I annotated the external and internal conditions to ensure authentic results. Well, that’s one way of interpreting my process. Most people would say I was anal.
The Results
Regardless of interpretation, I found the initial results of these assessments intriguing. All the results seemed to align regarding the high-level group I fell into – analytical and conscientious. Wanting a more complete picture (or being more anal), I decided to take some assessments multiple times under different conditions.
This set of results was not intriguing, but rather confusing and frustrating. They categorized me in the same high-level group but there was more crossover with other groups. In other words, the subsequent results showed me these assessments can only provide so much insight.
This conclusion is an obvious one. Any type of assessment is limited in the results it gives you, especially ones which deal with learning styles and personality traits. There are so many factors to consider, which is probably why there are so many different types of assessments that claim to be the “best” or “most comprehensive”. The one which holds that title to you is the one whose results most align with your presuppositions.
Diving Deeper Into Learning Styles
For this week’s piece, I initially wanted to examine different learning styles: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and reading/writing (VAKR). What I found was, first and foremost, those four styles are not relevant to adult learning. Adults actually have seven different learning styles.
The second thing I found was the former and latter statements were false. There is actually a gamete of learning style models, each with its own categories and sub-categories, none of which are superior. For the sake of time, we’re only going to examine the VAKR and Multiple Intelligences models in depth.
A Brief History of Learning Style Models
Both of these models were developed in the mid-1980’s. Coincidently, the 1980’s was also the decade when a lot of the models composing the aforementioned “learning styles gamete” were introduced. These style models included 4MAT, Kolb’s, Honey and Mumford, and Gregorc. The reason for this explosion is a subject for a future piece.
Multiple Intelligences is a learning style model which categorizes individual strengths into nine (9) categories – verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial-visual, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existential intelligences.
Criticism of Learning Style Models
Although these models appear to be comprehensive, in recent years they have come under scrutiny. In 2006, Harvard Professor Carol Dweck introduced the concept of growth vs. fixed mindset in her book “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success”.
Possessing a growth mindset means an individual believes he or herself can gain the intelligence and skills necessary to succeed at any pursuit. It’s also fair to state these individuals are innately curious, a consistent theme throughout Becoming Polymathic. This concept is vastly differs in principle than both the VAKR and Multiple Intelligence models. These models assume an individual falls into a particular category and there is very little he or she can do to change that categorization. The growth mindset shatters that assumption.
The Limitations of Learning Style Models
There are other problems with not just these models, but any learning style model and personality assessment. As I discovered, there are a multitude of emotional, environmental, physiological, and psychological factors at play when trying to evaluate oneself. That conclusion isn’t novel. The Dunn and Dunn model, introduced in 1978, attempted to make teachers aware of these factors when setting up classrooms.
By far the biggest issue with all these assessments and models is the misinterpretation of them being the final assessment of an individual’s capabilities. In other words, allowing them to brand you. Most individuals accept the brand, let it define him or herself, and mold their lives around these easily understood categories. I’m not saying these assessments and models intend to be devious, nor am I saying they cannot be of use, but they cannot restrict you from working towards improving yourself.
I would like to take a brief instant to revisit the Rise Early. Rise Above. Respect Your Morning piece. In this piece, we discussed the concept of chronotypes and their apparent effect on sleeping regiments. The conclusion was chronotypes are relevant to determine the sleeping regiment you are predisposed to, but it is merely an identification and should not dictate your life’s journey.
Using your predisposed learning styles and personality traits as crutches is no different than using your chronotype. Furthermore, explaining how this predisposition will affect your life’s journey will alienate everybody you respect. To reiterate this theme, curiosity and consistency will trump any result of these formulaic assessments. Let them be what they are – relevant, but not restrictive.
Be More.
Become Polymathic.
Quote of the Week: “We must not allow other people’s limited perceptions to define us.” – Virginia Satir