Learning styles are an important aspect in the context of education and teaching. Teaching styles help in developing methods of learning for educators. Educators use different methods to ensure that their learners can capture and understand what the educators are teaching. This essay discusses the visual/verbal and tactile/kinesthetic learning styles, which are important in helping learners understand, capture, and acquire knowledge. The main aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between Kolb’s model, Honey, and Mumford’s adaptations. This will help show how important learning styles are in enabling learners to understand and achieve the best results in education.
In comparing tactile/kinesthetic and visual/verbal learning styles, it can be noted that these two styles have distinct characteristics that can be used to teach different groups of learners. The visual/verbal style uses visual aids and spoken explanations, just like the name suggests, in passing knowledge and information to learners. The kinesthetic/tactile style emphasizes physical and hands-on experience methods of passing knowledge to learners. Honey and Mumford’s model learners who do well in a traditional classroom, which involves visual aids, are the learners who prefer verbal/visual models. On the other hand, some learners excel in learning settings that involve experiments and activities because they prefer a physical education setting in the form of a real-world application. These learners prefer kinesthetic/tactile learning styles in order for them to thrive and do well in the educational setting. In considering the impact of these learning styles on the learner’s motivation and engagement, researchers have shown that learners will be more likely to be active and engaged in learning if the learning strategies align with their preferred style (Pekrun& Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012).
The main difference between kinesthetic/tactile and verbal/visual learning styles is in the way of processing information for learners. Visual/verbal learners will be more interested in spoken, written, and imagery concepts or explanations to capture information. The kinesthetic/tactile learners will want to use sensory methods like touch and movements to ensure they understand the concepts being taught. According to research, verbal/visual learners are more challenged in an education setting that only involves lectures and texts, and this can make them struggle to gain knowledge in such an education system. However, suppose this education setting incorporates visual aids. In that case, the verbal/visual learners will feel more comfortable in such an educational setting because their learning process has the support of visual aids. When these differences are recognized in the education setting, both learners and educators are able to accommodate each other in the learning process. Educators need to adapt teaching styles that their learners find easy to understand, and if the learners are mixed, it will be advisable to use a variety of teaching strategies to accommodate all learners (Gay, 2010).
In conclusion, exploring different learning styles, such as visual/verbal and kinesthetic/tactile, sheds more light on the importance of learning styles to educators and shows that incorporating more than one teaching strategy in an education system is very important to learners. This gives learners more diverse ways to absorb and process information and knowledge. When these preferences are understood by educators and accommodated, an inclusive learning environment is created, which enables the best learning environment for learners or students. When educators recognize the differences and similarities in the learning styles, just explained by Kolb’s model and Honey and Mumford’s adaptations, they are able to give learners the best education. The overall learning experience is enhanced when educators optimize the learning styles; when each individual unique learning style is embraced, it foresters a better, more effective, and engaging process of learning, empowering learners to reach their full potential in gaining knowledge and growth.
References
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press. https://www.whitworth.edu/cms/media/whitworth/documents/administration/diversity-equity–inclusion/geneva-gay-pedagogical-potential-of-cultural-responsiveness.pdf
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12
write