learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Entwistle (1998) draws directly on Perry to argue that students’ conceptions of learning are linked to their progress through these stages of thinking about knowledge and evidence. Yet this development takes time and it cannot be assumed, for example, that first-year undergraduates can readily use relativist thinking, even though many curricula and assessment tasks assume that they can. Drawing on Marton and Säljö’s ideas about deep and surface learning (1976), Entwistle argues that if students have a sophisticated conception of learning and a rich understanding of the nature of knowledge and evidence, they adopt a deep approach in order to reach their own understanding of material and ideas. If, on the other hand, they see learning as memorising or acquiring facts, and their intention is merely to meet course requirements or to respond to external injunctions, they are likely to adopt a surface approach. A surface approach relies on identifying those elements within a task that are likely to be assessed and then memorising the details. However, students do not only adopt deep and surface approaches. The structure of a curriculum and the demands of summative assessment exert a strong influence on approaches to learning. Entwistle argues that summative assessment in higher education usually encourages a strategic approach where students combine deep and surface approaches in order to achieve the best possible marks. Students using this approach become adept at organising their study time and methods, attend carefully to cues given by teachers as to what type of work gains good grades or what questions will come up in examinations. If this argument is valid, it is likely that the increased use of explicit, detailed assessment criteria used in many courses will encourage this strategic approach. Students’ approaches to learning emerge in subtle, complex ways from orientations, conceptions of learning and types of knowledge and different motives. All these factors fluctuate over time and between tasks. Entwistle argues that consistency and variation in approaches can therefore be evident simultaneously. However, he maintains that students show sufficient consistency ‘in intention and process across broadly similar academic tasks to justify measuring it as a dimension’ (Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell 1979, 367). Studies, such as those by Pask (1976), demonstrate students’ consistency in experimental situations and normal studying, but qualitative studies by Marton and Säljö (eg 1976) show evidence of variability, where students adapt their approaches according to the demands of a specific task. This evidence leads Entwistle to argue that a focus on process rather than intention affects the degree of consistency or variability of students’ approaches. Entwistle differentiates between a ‘style’ – as a broader characteristic of a student’s preferred way of tackling learning tasks; and ‘strategy’ – as a description of the way that a student chooses to tackle a specific task in the light of its perceived demands. Entwistle draws on Pask’s distinction between holist and serialist strategies to argue that distinct learning styles underlie strategies. These styles are based on relatively fixed predispositions towards comprehension learning and operation learning (see the introduction to Section 7 for explanation). Strategy is defined (Entwistle, Hanley and Hounsell 1979, 368; original emphasis) as the way ‘a student chooses to deal with a specific learning task in the light of its perceived demands’ and style ‘as a broader characterisation of a student’s preferred way of tackling learning tasks generally’. Entwistle argues (1990, 675) that stylistic preferences are often strong: perhaps reflecting cerebral dominance of left (serialist) or right (holist) hemispheres of the brain, combined with firmly established personality characteristics of the individual. Strong stylistic preferences may be rather difficult to modify, implying that choice in both materials and methods of learning is important for allowing students to learn effectively. It is not clear what evidence Entwistle draws upon to link comprehension and operation learning directly to ideas about brain hemispheres or personality. Evidence from studies that explore the effects of personality on studying leads Entwistle to argue that it is possible to identify three distinct personality types in higher education courses: non-committers (cautious, anxious, disinclined to take risks) hustlers (competitive, dynamic, but insensitive) plungers (emotional, impulsive and individualistic). Over time, he argues (1998), these might develop towards an ideal fourth type – the reasonable adventurer who combines curiosity and the ability to be critical and reflective. Entwistle, McCune and Walker (2001, 108) argue that: the intentions to learn in deep or surface ways are mutually exclusive, although the related learning processes may sometimes become mixed in everyday experience. The combination of deep and strategic approaches is commonly found in successful students, but a deep approach on its own is not carried through with sufficient determination and effort to reach deep levels of understanding. Defining features of approaches to learning and studying are represented in Table 32:
LSRC reference Section 7 page 94/95 Table 32 Defining features of approaches to learning and studying Source: Entwistle, McCune and Walker (2001) Deep approach Intention – to understand ideas for yourself Relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience Looking for patterns and underlying principles Checking evidence and relating it to conclusions Examining logic and argument cautiously and critically Being aware of understanding developing while learning Becoming actively interested in the course content Surface approach Intention – to cope with course requirements Treating the course as unrelated bits of knowledge Memorising facts and carrying out procedures routinely Finding difficulty in making sense of new ideas presented Seeing little value or meaning in either courses or tasks set Studying without reflecting on either purpose or strategy Feeling undue pressure and worry about work Strategic approach Intention – to achieve the highest possible grades Putting consistent effort into studying Managing time and effort effectively Finding the right conditions and materials for studying Monitoring the effectiveness of ways of studying Being alert to assessment requirements and criteria Gearing work to the perceived preferences of lecturers Seeking meaning By: Reproducing By: Reflective organising By: As Entwistle’s research has progressed, he and his colleagues have related the degree of variability in students’ approaches to contextual factors such as task demands, perceptions of course organisation, workload, environment and teaching. This has led to the development of in-depth qualitative methods to explore the nuances of individual students’ approaches and conceptions of learning. A conceptual map of the various components of effective studying encompassed by the ASSIST (Figure 12) shows the relationships between holist and serialist modes of thinking. These include students’ strategic awareness of what Entwistle calls the assessment ‘game’ and its rules, and their ability to use relevant aspects of the learning environment such as tutorial support. Entwistle, McCune and Walker (2001) argue that qualitative research into everyday studying is needed to counter the way that psychometric measures oversimplify the complexity of studying in different environments. Description of measure The first of Entwistle’s inventories, the 1981 Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) drew directly upon Biggs’ Study Behaviour Questionnaire (1976), which was developed in Australia. Entwistle and his colleagues emphasise the evolutionary nature of the inventories in relation to development of the model of learning. Following their own and external evaluations of the validity and reliability of the ASI and the Revised ASI in 1995, together with the development of a Course Perception Questionnaire (Ramsden and Entwistle 1981), the ASSIST was developed in 1997. The most recent inventory is the Approaches to Learning and Studying Inventory (ALSI), currently being developed for a project exploring how specific changes in the teaching and learning environment affect approaches to studying. However, because the ALSI is still being developed, this review focuses on the ASSIST. Entwistle has also drawn on related developments by other researchers, including Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS; see Section 7.2). Across the field of research within the learning approaches ‘family’, successive inventories have built on the earlier ones. Entwistle and McCune (2003) argue that development might be done to refine the conceptualisation of original scales, to add new ones in order to keep up with more recent research, or to adapt an inventory to suit a particular project or improve its user-friendliness.
Page 1 and 2:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 3 and 4:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 5 and 6:
LSRC reference Contents 1 9 13 37 4
Page 7 and 8:
LSRC reference Figures and tables L
Page 9 and 10:
LSRC reference Acknowledgements The
Page 11 and 12:
Section 1 A systematic review of le
Page 13 and 14:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
Page 17 and 18:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 6/7 T
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3 Vermunt’s model of learn
Page 21 and 22:
We devised this classificatory syst
Page 23 and 24:
The popular appeal of the notion th
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 5 Gregorc’s four-channel l
Page 27 and 28:
From the evidence available, we con
Page 29 and 30:
Table 1 Gregorc’s Mind Styles Mod
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2 Variables and factors in th
Page 33 and 34:
The measures Over 25 years, Dunn an
Page 35 and 36:
Table 4 Percentages of respondents
Page 37 and 38:
The BES instrument has elements for
Page 39 and 40:
Shwery (1994) also questioned aspec
Page 41 and 42:
However, the notion of ‘gifted’
Page 43 and 44:
Second, the model encourages teache
Page 45 and 46:
Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and
Page 47 and 48:
The most influential member of the
Page 49 and 50:
Table 9 Studies of the interaction
Page 51 and 52: Riding and Rayner (1998) do not def
Page 53 and 54: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 55 and 56: Section 5 Stable personality type L
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 101: LSRC reference Section 7 page 92/93
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 141 and 142: Our recommendation in favour of inc
Page 143 and 144: As for the research evidence in fav
Page 145 and 146: Learning styles in practice: labell
Page 147 and 148: Table 44 13 learning-styles models
Page 149 and 150: It may be argued that it is importa
Page 151 and 152: The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 153 and 154:
LSRC reference page 146/147 Referen
Page 155 and 156:
LSRC reference References page 148/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
LSRC reference page 166/167 Author(
Page 175 and 176:
LSRC reference Appendix 1 page 168/
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 3 Glossary of terms LSRC r
Page 179 and 180:
LSRC reference Appendix 3 page 172/
show all

learning-styles

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?