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.
7.2<br />
Vermunt’s framework for classifying <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong> and his Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS)<br />
Introduction<br />
Jan Vermunt is an associate professor in the Graduate<br />
School of Education at Leiden University. He also<br />
has a part-time role as professor of educational<br />
innovation in higher education at Limburg University.<br />
His main areas of research and publication have been<br />
higher education, teaching and teacher education.<br />
He began his research on the regulation of <strong>learning</strong><br />
(ie the direction, monitoring and control of <strong>learning</strong>)<br />
and on process-oriented instruction in the psychology<br />
department at Tilburg University in the late 1980s.<br />
Vermunt has published extensively in English and<br />
in Dutch, and his Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS)<br />
is available in both languages.<br />
Definitions, description and scope<br />
For Vermunt, the terms ‘approach to <strong>learning</strong>’ and<br />
‘<strong>learning</strong> style’ are synonymous. He has tried to find<br />
out how far individuals maintain a degree of consistency<br />
across <strong>learning</strong> situations. He defines <strong>learning</strong> style<br />
(1996, 29) as ‘a coherent whole of <strong>learning</strong> activities<br />
that students usually employ, their <strong>learning</strong> orientation<br />
and their mental model of <strong>learning</strong>’. He adds that<br />
‘Learning style is not conceived of as an unchangeable<br />
personality attribute, but as the result of the temporal<br />
interplay between personal and contextual influences’.<br />
This definition of <strong>learning</strong> style seeks to be flexible<br />
and integrative and, in comparison with earlier<br />
approaches, strongly emphasises metacognitive<br />
knowledge and self-regulation. It is concerned with<br />
both declarative and procedural knowledge, including<br />
self-knowledge. It deals not only with cognitive<br />
processing, but also with motivation, effort and feelings<br />
(and their regulation). However its formulation was<br />
not directly influenced by personality theory.<br />
Within Vermunt’s framework, four <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
are defined: meaning-directed, application-directed,<br />
reproduction-directed and undirected. Each is said<br />
(1996) to have distinguishing features in five areas:<br />
the way in which students cognitively process <strong>learning</strong><br />
contents (what students do)<br />
the <strong>learning</strong> orientations of students (why they do it)<br />
the affective processes that occur during studying<br />
(how they feel about it)<br />
the mental <strong>learning</strong> models of students<br />
(how they see <strong>learning</strong>)<br />
the way in which students regulate their <strong>learning</strong><br />
(how they plan and monitor <strong>learning</strong>).<br />
The resulting 4x5 matrix is shown in Table 35 and<br />
suggests linked sets of behavioural, cognitive, affective,<br />
conative and metacognitive characteristics. However,<br />
it should be noted that the framework is conceived<br />
as a flexible one. Vermunt does not claim that his<br />
<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are mutually exclusive, nor that for all<br />
learners, the links between areas are always consistent<br />
with his theory. The case illustrations and quotations<br />
provided by Vermunt (1996) are captured in summary<br />
form as learner characteristics in Table 35. His four<br />
prototypical <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are set out in columns<br />
from left (high) to right (low) in terms of their presumed<br />
value as regards engagement with, and success in,<br />
academic studies.<br />
Origins<br />
Developed through his doctoral research project (1992),<br />
Vermunt’s framework has clearly been influenced<br />
by several lines of research about deep, surface and<br />
strategic approaches to <strong>learning</strong> that date back to<br />
the 1970s, and by Flavell’s ideas about metacognition<br />
(eg Flavell 1979). The work began with the qualitative<br />
analysis of interviews and later added a quantitative<br />
dimension through the development and use of the ILS<br />
(Vermunt 1994).<br />
The Inventory of Learning Styles<br />
Description of the measure<br />
When the ILS was published, the original framework<br />
was simplified in that affective processes did<br />
not appear as a separate area. However, the area<br />
of <strong>learning</strong> orientations remains, encompassing<br />
long-term motivation and goals, and (to a lesser extent)<br />
dimensions of interest and confidence. The ILS is<br />
a 120-item self-rating instrument, using 5-point Likert<br />
scales. Its composition in terms of areas is shown<br />
in Table 36.<br />
Reliability and validity<br />
Statistical evidence to support the grouping of items<br />
into sub-scales has been provided. In two large-scale<br />
studies, Vermunt (1998) found that alpha values<br />
for the sub-scales were generally higher than 0.70.<br />
Confirmatory second-order factor analysis supported<br />
in almost every detail the grouping of sub-scales into<br />
Vermunt’s hypothesised four <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>, although<br />
there was some overlap between <strong>styles</strong>.