ABSTRACT

The concept of learning styles is popular among educators and the general public; however, many have highlighted the lack of empirical evidence supporting its relevance. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify the scope of empirical studies on learning styles applied to counseling and counseling education. Only 17 empirical studies were identified, indicating a relative lack of research. Four studies reported on the application of learning styles in treatments (of either the client, the counselor, and/or the treatment), suggesting that matching learning styles of intervention and client might be beneficial. Thirteen studies reported on learning styles in training settings (of students and their supervisor/teacher or field instructor). Although students’ learning styles appeared flexible, social work students frequently reported an active experiential learning style and counseling students as well as more experienced clinicians appeared more abstract and reflective. The majority of studies were cross-sectional survey studies and many reported minimal psychometric data on the used self-report measures of learning styles, which appeared to conflate the concepts of learning preference and learning ability. At present, there is no adequate evidence to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into counseling practice or training.

摘要

学习方式的概念在教育工作者和公众中很流行；然而，许多人强调缺乏支持其相关性的经验证据。我们进行了系统的文献检索，以确定适用于咨询和咨询教育的学习方式的实证研究范围。仅确定了 17 项实证研究，表明相对缺乏研究。四项研究报告了学习风格在治疗中的应用（无论是客户、咨询师和/或治疗），这表明干预和客户的匹配学习风格可能是有益的。十三项研究报告了培训环境中的学习方式（学生及其主管/教师或现场教师）。虽然学生的学习方式显得灵活，社会工作学生经常报告积极的体验式学习方式，辅导学生以及更有经验的临床医生显得更抽象和反思。大多数研究是横断面调查研究，许多研究报告了关于学习风格的自我报告测量的最小心理测量数据，这似乎将学习偏好和学习能力的概念混为一谈。目前，没有足够的证据证明将学习风格评估纳入咨询实践或培训是合理的。这似乎将学习偏好和学习能力的概念混为一谈。目前，没有足够的证据证明将学习风格评估纳入咨询实践或培训是合理的。这似乎将学习偏好和学习能力的概念混为一谈。目前，没有足够的证据证明将学习风格评估纳入咨询实践或培训是合理的。