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.
Conclusions<br />
Entwistle and his colleagues have spent almost<br />
30 years refining the validity and reliability of their<br />
inventories to arrive at items that have reasonable<br />
predictive validity. They acknowledge the tendency<br />
for detailed, continuous refinements to make technical<br />
constructs less credible and less easy to use by<br />
researchers outside educational psychology. They have<br />
therefore supplemented their analysis of approaches<br />
to <strong>learning</strong> with data from qualitative studies to explore<br />
the consistency and variability of <strong>learning</strong> approaches<br />
within specific contexts (see McCune and Entwistle<br />
2000; Entwistle and Walker 2000). In this respect,<br />
their methodology and the data their studies have<br />
produced offer a rich, authentic account of <strong>learning</strong><br />
in higher education.<br />
However, one feature of a positivist methodology,<br />
which aims for precise measures of psychometric<br />
traits, is that items proliferate in order to try to capture<br />
the nuances of approaches to <strong>learning</strong>. There are other<br />
limitations to quantitative measures of approaches<br />
to <strong>learning</strong>. For example, apparently robust<br />
classifications of meaning and reproduction<br />
orientations in a questionnaire are shown to be less<br />
valid when interviews are used with the same students.<br />
Richardson (1997) argued that interviews by Marton<br />
and Säljö show deep and surface approaches as<br />
different categories or forms of understanding, or as<br />
a single bipolar dimension along which individuals<br />
may vary. In contrast, questionnaires operationalise<br />
these approaches as separate scales that turn out<br />
to be essentially orthogonal to each other; a student<br />
may therefore score high or low on both. According<br />
to Richardson, this difference highlights the need for<br />
researchers to differentiate between methods that<br />
aim to reveal average and general dispositions within<br />
a group and those that aim to explain the subtlety<br />
of individuals’ actions and motives.<br />
Despite attempts to reflect the complexity<br />
of environmental factors affecting students’ approaches<br />
to <strong>learning</strong> and studying, the model does not discuss<br />
the impact of broader factors such as class, race<br />
and gender. Although the model takes some account<br />
of intensifying political and institutional pressures<br />
in higher education, such as quality assurance<br />
and funding, sociological influences on participation<br />
and attitudes to <strong>learning</strong> are not encompassed<br />
by Entwistle’s model.<br />
There is also confusion over the theoretical basis<br />
for constructs in the ASI and ASSIST and subsequent<br />
interpretation of them in external evaluations.<br />
Two contrasting research traditions create these<br />
constructs: information processing in cognitive<br />
psychology; and qualitative interpretation of students’<br />
approaches to <strong>learning</strong>. Outside the work of Entwistle<br />
and his colleagues, a proliferation of instruments<br />
and scales, based on the original measure (the ASI),<br />
has led to the merging of constructs from both research<br />
traditions. Unless there is discussion of the original<br />
traditions from which the constructs came, the result<br />
is a growing lack of theoretical clarity in the field<br />
as a whole (Biggs 1993). Entwistle and his colleagues<br />
have themselves warned of this problem and provided<br />
an overview of the conceptions of <strong>learning</strong>, their<br />
history within the ‘approaches to <strong>learning</strong>’ model<br />
and how different inventories such as those of<br />
Entwistle and Vermunt relate to each other (Entwistle<br />
and McCune 2003).<br />
There are a number of strengths in Entwistle’s work.<br />
For example, he has shown that ecological validity is<br />
essential to prevent a tendency to label and stereotype<br />
students when psychological theory is translated into<br />
the practice of non-specialists. The issue of ecological<br />
validity illuminates an important point for our review<br />
as a whole, namely that the expertise and knowledge<br />
of non-specialists are both context-specific and<br />
idiosyncratic and this affects their ability to evaluate<br />
claims and ideas about a particular model of <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong>. High ecological validity makes a model<br />
or instrument much more accessible to non-specialists.<br />
Entwistle’s work has also aimed to simplify the diverse<br />
and sometimes contradictory factors in students’<br />
approaches to studying and <strong>learning</strong>, and to offer<br />
a theoretical rationale for them. He has attempted<br />
to reconcile ideas about the stability of <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong> with the idea that approaches are idiosyncratic<br />
and fluctuating and affected by complex <strong>learning</strong><br />
environments. His work highlights the need for<br />
researchers to relate analysis and theoretical<br />
constructs to the everyday experience of teachers<br />
and students, and to make their constructs accessible<br />
(see also Laurillard 1979).