learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Entwistle (1998) draws directly on Perry to argue<br />
that students’ conceptions of <strong>learning</strong> are linked to<br />
their progress through these stages of thinking about<br />
knowledge and evidence. Yet this development takes<br />
time and it cannot be assumed, for example, that<br />
first-year undergraduates can readily use relativist<br />
thinking, even though many curricula and assessment<br />
tasks assume that they can. Drawing on Marton and<br />
Säljö’s ideas about deep and surface <strong>learning</strong> (1976),<br />
Entwistle argues that if students have a sophisticated<br />
conception of <strong>learning</strong> and a rich understanding of the<br />
nature of knowledge and evidence, they adopt a deep<br />
approach in order to reach their own understanding<br />
of material and ideas. If, on the other hand, they see<br />
<strong>learning</strong> as memorising or acquiring facts, and their<br />
intention is merely to meet course requirements<br />
or to respond to external injunctions, they are likely to<br />
adopt a surface approach. A surface approach relies<br />
on identifying those elements within a task that are<br />
likely to be assessed and then memorising the details.<br />
However, students do not only adopt deep and surface<br />
approaches. The structure of a curriculum and the<br />
demands of summative assessment exert a strong<br />
influence on approaches to <strong>learning</strong>. Entwistle argues<br />
that summative assessment in higher education<br />
usually encourages a strategic approach where students<br />
combine deep and surface approaches in order to<br />
achieve the best possible marks. Students using this<br />
approach become adept at organising their study time<br />
and methods, attend carefully to cues given by teachers<br />
as to what type of work gains good grades or what<br />
questions will come up in examinations. If this argument<br />
is valid, it is likely that the increased use of explicit,<br />
detailed assessment criteria used in many courses<br />
will encourage this strategic approach.<br />
Students’ approaches to <strong>learning</strong> emerge in subtle,<br />
complex ways from orientations, conceptions<br />
of <strong>learning</strong> and types of knowledge and different<br />
motives. All these factors fluctuate over time and<br />
between tasks. Entwistle argues that consistency<br />
and variation in approaches can therefore be<br />
evident simultaneously. However, he maintains that<br />
students show sufficient consistency ‘in intention<br />
and process across broadly similar academic tasks<br />
to justify measuring it as a dimension’ (Entwistle,<br />
Hanley and Hounsell 1979, 367). Studies, such<br />
as those by Pask (1976), demonstrate students’<br />
consistency in experimental situations and normal<br />
studying, but qualitative studies by Marton and Säljö<br />
(eg 1976) show evidence of variability, where students<br />
adapt their approaches according to the demands<br />
of a specific task.<br />
This evidence leads Entwistle to argue that a focus<br />
on process rather than intention affects the degree<br />
of consistency or variability of students’ approaches.<br />
Entwistle differentiates between a ‘style’ – as a broader<br />
characteristic of a student’s preferred way of tackling<br />
<strong>learning</strong> tasks; and ‘strategy’ – as a description of the<br />
way that a student chooses to tackle a specific task<br />
in the light of its perceived demands. Entwistle draws<br />
on Pask’s distinction between holist and serialist<br />
strategies to argue that distinct <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> underlie<br />
strategies. These <strong>styles</strong> are based on relatively fixed<br />
predispositions towards comprehension <strong>learning</strong> and<br />
operation <strong>learning</strong> (see the introduction to Section 7<br />
for explanation).<br />
Strategy is defined (Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell<br />
1979, 368; original emphasis) as the way ‘a student<br />
chooses to deal with a specific <strong>learning</strong> task in the<br />
light of its perceived demands’ and style ‘as a broader<br />
characterisation of a student’s preferred way of tackling<br />
<strong>learning</strong> tasks generally’.<br />
Entwistle argues (1990, 675) that stylistic preferences<br />
are often strong:<br />
perhaps reflecting cerebral dominance of left (serialist)<br />
or right (holist) hemispheres of the brain, combined<br />
with firmly established personality characteristics of the<br />
individual. Strong stylistic preferences may be rather<br />
difficult to modify, implying that choice in both materials<br />
and methods of <strong>learning</strong> is important for allowing<br />
students to learn effectively.<br />
It is not clear what evidence Entwistle draws upon<br />
to link comprehension and operation <strong>learning</strong> directly<br />
to ideas about brain hemispheres or personality.<br />
Evidence from studies that explore the effects<br />
of personality on studying leads Entwistle to argue<br />
that it is possible to identify three distinct personality<br />
types in higher education courses:<br />
non-committers (cautious, anxious, disinclined<br />
to take risks)<br />
hustlers (competitive, dynamic, but insensitive)<br />
plungers (emotional, impulsive and individualistic).<br />
Over time, he argues (1998), these might develop<br />
towards an ideal fourth type – the reasonable<br />
adventurer who combines curiosity and the ability<br />
to be critical and reflective. Entwistle, McCune and<br />
Walker (2001, 108) argue that:<br />
the intentions to learn in deep or surface ways are<br />
mutually exclusive, although the related <strong>learning</strong><br />
processes may sometimes become mixed in everyday<br />
experience. The combination of deep and strategic<br />
approaches is commonly found in successful students,<br />
but a deep approach on its own is not carried through<br />
with sufficient determination and effort to reach<br />
deep levels of understanding.<br />
Defining features of approaches to <strong>learning</strong> and<br />
studying are represented in Table 32: