learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

The fit between theory and empirical findings seems almost too good to be true. In Table 37, exemplars of each learning style are shown, constructed by taking the first item of each sub-scale with high factor loadings on each style factor. These exemplars certainly have a high degree of face validity as representing different approaches to study. It will be seen that there is some degree of overlap between styles, as well as two significant gaps which are consistent with Vermunt’s theory. As application-directed learners are thought to use a mixture of self-regulation and external regulation, it is not surprising that there is no statement based on the sub-scale loadings for regulation for such learners. The second gap is that there is no statement about processing strategies for undirected learners, which is consistent with Vermunt’s qualitative finding that such learners hardly ever engage in study-related cognitive processing. The relevance of the ILS for use in the UK HE context has been established by Boyle, Duffy and Dunleavy (2003). The authors administered the 100-item (short form) version of the ILS to 273 students. They found that three of the four main scales have good internal consistency, while the fourth (learning orientation) had a borderline alpha value of 0.67. However, the reliability of the 20 sub-scales was rather less satisfactory than in Vermunt’s 1998 study, with only 11 sub-scales having alpha values of 0.70 or above. Confirmatory factor analysis supported Vermunt’s model of four learning styles, although the application-directed and undirected style measures showed less integration across components than the other two. Despite its face and factorial validity and multidimensional structure, it has not been confirmed through independent research that the ILS is a good predictor of examination performance. With a sample of 409 psychology undergraduates, Busato et al. (2000) found that only the undirected style predicted academic success (negatively), and even then accounted for less than 4% of the variance over the first academic year. Both the meaning-directed style and openness (between which there was a Pearson r measure of 0.36) had virtually zero correlations with four outcome measures. Achievement motivation and the personality variable of conscientiousness were slightly better predictors in this study, but not nearly as good as performance on the first course examination on a introductory module. In their UK study, Boyle, Duffy and Dunleavy (2003) also found that a factor measure of undirected learning style was a negative predictor of academic outcomes for 273 social science students, but it accounted for a mere 7% of the variance. On this occasion, meaning-directed style was a positive predictor, accounting for 5% of the variance, but neither reproduction-directed nor application-directed style yielded a significant correlation. Evaluation Vermunt’s framework was not designed to apply in all post-16 learning contexts, but specifically to university students. However, he and his students are, at the time of writing, developing a new instrument to assess learning at work and a new version of the ILS for the 16–18-year-old group (Vermunt 2003). The new 16–18 instrument will take account of current teaching practices and will include an affective component. The ILS asks about: how students attempt to master a particular piece of subject matter why they have taken up their present course of study their conceptions of learning, good education and cooperation with others. By limiting his focus to higher education, Vermunt has been able to produce a reliable self-assessment tool, but this means that its relevance is largely unknown in other contexts, such as problem-based learning, vocational education, adult basic skills learning or work-based training. When an instrument modelled on the ILS was applied by Slaats, Lodewijks and Van der Sanden (1999) in secondary vocational education, only the meaning-directed and reproduction-directed patterns were found. Moreover, Vermunt’s framework does not map well onto the categories empirically established in Canadian adult education settings by Kolody, Conti and Lockwood (1997). Cross-cultural differences in the factor structure of the ILS were reported by Ajisuksmo and Vermunt (1999). The structure of the framework consists of Entwistle-like learning styles on the horizontal axis (which represent different levels of understanding) and a mixture of content and process categories on the vertical axis. This is clearly a framework rather than a taxonomy, as the vertical axis cannot be said to represent a dimension.
LSRC reference Section 7 page 106/107 Table 37 Exemplar vignettes of Vermunt’s four learning styles using ILS items Meaning-directed exemplar What I do Why I do it How I see learning How I plan and monitor my learning I try to combine the subjects that are dealt with separately in a course into one whole. I compare my view of a course topic with the views of the authors of the textbook used in that course. I use what I learn from a course in my activities outside my studies. I do these studies out of sheer interest in the topics that are dealt with. To me, learning means trying to approach a problem from many different angles, including aspects that were previously unknown to me. To test my learning progress when I have studied a textbook, I try to formulate the main points in my own words. In addition to the syllabus, I study other literature related to the content of the course. Application-directed exemplar What I do Why I do it How I see learning I use what I learn from a course in my activities outside my studies. I do not do these studies out of sheer interest in the topics that are dealt with. I aim at attaining high levels of study achievement. When I have a choice, I opt for courses that seem useful to me for my present or future profession. The things I learn have to be useful for solving practical problems. How I plan and monitor my learning Reproduction-directed exemplar What I do Why I do it How I see learning How I plan and monitor my learning I repeat the main parts of the subject matter until I know them by heart. I work through a chapter in a textbook item by item and I study each part separately. I aim at attaining high levels of study achievement. I like to be given precise instructions as to how to go about solving a task or doing an assignment. If a textbook contains questions or assignments, I work them out completely as soon as I come across them while studying. I experience the introductions, objectives, instructions, assignments and test items given by the teacher as indispensable guidelines for my studies. Undirected exemplar What I do Why I do it How I see learning How I plan and monitor my learning I doubt whether this is the right subject area for me. I like to be given precise instructions as to how to go about solving a task or doing an assignment. The teacher should motivate and encourage me. When I prepare myself for an examination, I prefer to do so together with other students. I realise that it is not clear to me what I have to remember and what I do not have to remember.
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 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: LSRC reference Section 5 page 54/55
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 113: LSRC reference Section 7 page 104/1
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 165 and 166:
LSRC reference References page 158/
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?