The above report documents work from a project funded by the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) to carry out an extensive review of research on post-16 learning styles, to evaluate the main models of learning styles, and to discuss the implications of learning styles for post-16 teaching and learning. The authors identified 71 different theories of learning styles, while criticizing many instruments used to identify an individual's learning style. Coffield and his colleagues chose 13 of the models they regarded as most for closer scrutiny.
The models were classified on a continuum from theorists believing in strong genetic influences and inherited traits of interaction of personality and cognition (styles should be worked with not changed) to middle ground, models that work with an interplay of self and experience (experience and personality), and the other end of the continuum including personal and environmental factors (student choice in environment). These are models that are constitutionally based, reflecting cognitive structure, stable personality types, flexibly stable learning preferences, and learning approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning:
The report presents the origins and terms of each of the 13 models, and the instrument that was used to assess the learning styles defined by the model. They reviewed claims made by authors of each of the models' authors, research on the model, and evidence of the relationship between the 'learning style' identified by the instrument and students' actual learning. Coffield et al reported that none of the 13 models they assessed had been validated by independent research. they concluded that the concept of learning cycle, the consistency of visual, auditory and kinesthetic preferences and the value of matching teaching and learning styles were all "highly questionable."(Coffield 2004)
The Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Inventory (LSI)is widely used in United States elementary schools, and Kolb's (LSI) and Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire are widely used in the United Kingdom.
Falling under the classification of constituionally based (the stongest belief in genetic determination for learning style), the learning styles model of Dunn and Dunn, a VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic) model, was assessed by the team. This model has widespread acceptance in the United States, and 177 articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals referring to this model. The conclusion of Coffield et al. was as follows:
Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model
David Kolb's model of learning styles, developed in the 1970's, was one of the most influential. Kolb was not satisfied with traditional teaching. When he experimented with teaching techniques, he observed student preferences for certain activities. His model defines a
'differential preference for learning, which changes slightly from situation to situation. At the same time, there is some long-term stability in learning style.' (Kolb 2000)
Kolb claims that the scored on the LSI are stable throughout a person's lifetime, a claim which has yet to be proved by longitudinal research. Kolb's publication, Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development, in 1984, credited him with launching the modern learning styles movement. In 2000, a bibliography of research since 1971 on Kolb's LSI, containing 1004 entries, was produced by David Kolb and his wife Alice. The Dunn and Dunn website LSQ has a bibliography with 1140 entries. Articles about the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) between 1985 and 1995 are estimated to number about 2000. (Coffield 2004)
Anthony Gregorc built his learning styles model on Kolb's, differing in not representing the learning cycle derived from experiential learning. He described learning style as the manner in which the learner orders the concrete and abstract perceptions of her or his environment. Gregorc defines four distinct learning styles: Concrete Sequential (CS), Abstract Random (AR), Abstract Sequential (AS), and Concrete Random (CR). Grogorc claims that each style is associated with specific learning dispositions. A former educator himself, Gregorc argues that understanding learning styles is especially important for teachers. Gregorx believed that a misalignment of their own styles and the teaching methods will negatively impact students. (Greogr 2002) Coffield's team assessment of another constitutionally based model, Gregorc's Style Delineator (GSD), a 10-item self-report questionnaire requiring ranking of descriptors to the self, was that the model was
"theoretically and psychometrically flawed ...not suitable for the assessment of individuals." (Coffield 2004)
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was designed by by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers. They began to apply Jung's theory of human personality to an assessment instrument in the 1940's. They published the first MBTI manuel in 1962, and then in 1985 and 1998. (Myers and McCaulley 1985, 1998) The MBTI is the most popular personality testing instrument in the US and the UK, as it uses the factors of extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness. The 1998 version is a 93-item test which has a series of forced-choice questions.
The face validity of the MBTI is generally accepted
as fairly sound by researchers from personality theory
backgrounds, with the caveat (not accepted by MBTI
researchers, see quote from Quenck 2003 above) that
the omission of neuroticism is a theoretical weakness
(Eysenck and Eysenck 1985).(Coffield 2004, p 133)
The forced-choice format of the MBTI has been criticized as yielding 'negative intercorrelations that are difficult to interpret'. The research is inconclusive, according to Coffield and his team in 2004.
In 1999, David Kolb claimed that concrete experience and abstract conceptualism are reflections of right and left brain thinking. Kolb adopted the Piagetian concepts of accomodation and assimilation and called them prehension and transformation.
Mark K. Smith criqued Kolb’s model of learning styles in his article, “David A. Kolb on Experiential Learning”. Smith identifies six key issues regarding the model: 1) the model doesn’t adequately address the process of reflection; 2) extravagant claims about the four learning styles; 3) different cultural conditions and experiences not addressed; 4) the idea of stages/steps doesn’t necessarily match reality; 5) only weak empirical evidence; 6) the relationship between learning processes and knowledge is more simplified in Kolb's model. (Smith 2001)
Kolb's work was the theoretical base for the 4MAT system, 'teach around the learning cycle' is an eight-step instructional sequence created by McCarthy in 1990. (www.aboutlearning.com)
Some comments made by Coffield et al on learning styles:
For some learning style developers, there is no
special category of students with learning difficulties,
only teachers who have not learned that their
teaching style is appropriate for perhaps a quarter
of their students and seriously inappropriate for the
remainder. Those teachers who have incorporated
the Dunn and Dunn model into their practice speak
movingly at conferences of how this re-categorisation
of the problem (where students’ failure to learn
is reformulated as teachers’ failure to teach
appropriately) has transformed their attitude to
students they previously dismissed as stupid, slow,
unmotivated, lazy or ineducable. This is not an
inconsiderable achievement.
The theorists warn of the dangers of labelling,
whereby teachers come to view their students as
being a certain type of learner, but despite this warning,
many practitioners who use their instruments think
in stereotypes and treat, for instance, vocational
students as if they were all non-reflective activists.
The literature is full of examples of practitioners
and some theorists themselves referring to ‘globals
and analytics’ (Brunner and Majewski 1990, 22),
or ‘Quadrant Four learners’ (Kelley 1990, 38),
or ‘integrated hemisphere thinkers’ (Toth and Farmer
2000, 6). In a similar vein, Rita Dunn writes as
follows: ‘It is fascinating that analytic and global
youngsters appear to have different environmental
and physiological needs’ (1990c, 226). Similarly,
students begin to label themselves; for example,
at a conference attended by one of the reviewers, an
able student reflected – perhaps somewhat ironically –
on using the Dunn and Dunn Productivity Environmental
Preference Survey (PEPS): ‘I learned that I was a low
auditory, kinaesthetic learner. So there’s no point
in me reading a book or listening to anyone for more
than a few minutes’. The temptation to classify,
label and stereotype is clearly difficult to resist.
Entwistle has repeatedly warned against describing
students as ‘deep’ or ‘surface’ learners, but these
warnings tend to be ignored when instruments move
into mainstream use.
This table matches the 13 learning style model against psychometric criteria:
Table 44 presents our psychometric findings
diagrammatically. It can be seen that only Allinson
and Hayes met all four of the minimal criteria and
that Riding and Sternberg failed to meet any of them.
Jackson’s model has still to be evaluated. In more
detail, the 13 instruments can be grouped as follows.
Those meeting none of the four criteria: Jackson;
Riding; Sternberg.
Those meeting one criterion: Dunn and Dunn; Gregorc;
Honey and Mumford; Kolb.
Those meeting two criteria: Entwistle; Herrmann;
Myers-Briggs.
Those meeting three criteria: Apter, Vermunt.
Those meeting all four criteria: Allinson and Hayes.
One of the final report comments:
This report has sought to sift the wheat from the chaff
among the leading models and inventories of learning
styles and among their implications for pedagogy:
we have based our conclusions on the evidence,
on reasoned argument and on healthy scepticism.
For 16 months, we immersed ourselves in the world
of learning styles and learned to respect the
enthusiasm and the dedication of those theorists,
test developers and practitioners who are working
to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
We ourselves have been reminded yet again how
complex and varied that simple-sounding task is and
we have learned that we are still some considerable way
from an overarching and agreed theory of pedagogy.
In the meantime, we agree with Curry’s summation
(1990, 54) of the state of play of research into learning
styles: ‘researchers and users alike will continue
groping like the five blind men in the fable about the
elephant, each with a part of the whole but none with
full understanding’.
References
•Coffield, F, Moseley, D, Hall, E & Ecclestone, K 2004, Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review, LSRC reference, Learning & Skills Research Centre, London.
•Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1984). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS, USA: Price Systems.
•Dunn, R, & Dunn, K (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.
•Willingham, Daniel. Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/-my-guest-today-is.html
•Massa, L. J.; Mayer, R. E. (2006). "Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style?". Learning and Individual Differences 16: 321–336. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001.
•Glenn, David. Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/
•Holden, Constance. Learning with Style. Retrieved on February 24, 2010, from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol327/issue5962/r-samples.dtl
•Smith, M. K. (2001). David A. Kolb on experiential learning. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm
•Gevins, A., Smith, M.E., McEvoy, L.K., & Ilan, A. (2003). EEG and ERP signals of working memory. International Society for Brain Electromagnetic Topography, November, Santa Fe, NM.
•Hargreaves, D., et al. (2005). About learning: Report of the Learning Working Group. Demos.
•Atherton J S (2011) Doceo; Learning styles don't matter [On-line: UK] retrieved 27 March 2012 from http://www.doceo.co.uk/heterodoxy/styles.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment