learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

3 Judicial people ‘like activities such as writing critiques, giving opinions, judging people and their work, and evaluating programs’ (1999, 21). They like to evaluate rules and procedures; they prefer ‘problems in which they can analyse and evaluate things and ideas’ (1999, 39). Sternberg makes three general points about this style. ‘every organisation needs judicial people as well as legislative and executive ones’ (1999, 40). ‘the same person can and typically will perform all three of these functions in greater or lesser degree. But people often feel more comfortable in one role or another’ (1999, 40). ‘Any number of people who might be legislative in school might be executive in their choice of clothing or vice-versa. We thus need to understand styles in the contexts in which they are expressed’ (1999, 43). The significance of context is explicitly acknowledged, but not explored in any detail. 4 Monarchic people are single-minded and driven by whatever they are single-minded about, and do not let anything get in the way of them solving a problem. They tend to be ‘motivated by a single goal or need at a time’ (1999, 46). 5 Hierarchic people recognise the need to set priorities, accept complexity and ‘tend to fit well into organisations because they recognise the need for priorities’ (1999, 23). ‘They tend to be systematic and organised in their solutions to problems and in their decision making’ (1999, 51). 6 Oligarchic people ‘tend to be motivated by several, often competing goals of equal perceived importance’ (1999, 23). ‘The oligarchic person is a cross between a monarchic person and a hierarchic one’ (1999, 54). 7 Anarchic people seem to be motivated by ‘a potpourri of needs and goals that can be difficult for them, as well as for others, to sort out’ (1999, 23). ‘They are at risk for anti-social behaviour … they are the students who challenge teachers, not necessarily on principled grounds, but rather for the sake of challenging the teachers or any other authority figures’ (1999, 58). They can challenge the system and have a potential for creativity. Sternberg argues appropriately that these ‘styles are not in and of themselves good or bad’ (1999, 51), but it is important to point out that the titles (eg monarchic, anarchic) he employs are evaluative and normative. 8 Global individuals ‘prefer to deal with relatively large and abstract issues. They ignore or don’t like details, and prefer to see the forest rather than the trees’ (1999, 24). 9 Local individuals ‘like concrete problems requiring working with details. The danger is they may lose the forest for the trees’ (1999, 24). Sternberg argues that: ‘Most people tend to be either more global or more local: they focus more on the big picture or more on the small details. But some people are both: they are equally attentive to the big picture and to the little details’ (1999, 64). 10 Internal individuals ‘tend to be introverted, task-oriented, aloof and sometimes socially less aware. They like to work alone’ (1999, 25). 11 External individuals ‘tend to be extroverted, outgoing and people-oriented. Often, they are socially sensitive and … like working with other people wherever possible’ (1999, 25). According to Sternberg, ‘In management, a distinction is sometimes made between task-oriented and people-oriented managers. This distinction is roughly comparable to that between internalists and externalists’ (1999, 70). 12 Liberal individuals ‘like to go beyond existing rules and procedures, to maximise change, and to seek situations that are somewhat ambiguous’ (1999, 26). 13 Conservative individuals ‘like to adhere to existing rules and procedures, minimise change, avoid ambiguous situations where possible, and stick with familiar situations in work and professional life’ (1999, 26). In general, Sternberg wishes ‘to distinguish between stylistic leanings and political ones’ (1999, 75). Sternberg argues that the two are probably only weakly correlated, if at all, and he gives the example of the US politician, Newt Gingrich, who has a conservative political philosophy, but a decidedly liberal personal style.
LSRC reference Section 7 page 112/113 The 15 principles of thinking styles Sternberg makes 15 general points about this theory which he feels are essential to its understanding and these are listed briefly below. 1 Styles are preferences in the use of abilities, not abilities themselves. 2 A match between styles and abilities creates a synergy that is more than the sum of its parts. 3 Life choices need to fit styles as well as abilities; for example, careers and choice of spouse. 4 People have profiles (or patterns) of styles, not just a single style. 5 Styles are variable across tasks and situations; for example, influence of weather, company, etc. 6 People differ in the strength of their preferences. 7 People differ in their stylistic flexibility. 8 Styles are socialised – that is, they are learned; for instance, by children observing role models. 9 Styles can vary across the lifespan – that is, styles, like abilities, are fluid rather than fixed, and dynamic rather than static entities; for example, the style needed by a new recruit is very different from that needed by a senior partner in a law firm. 10 Styles are measurable. 11 Styles are teachable. 12 Styles valued at one time may not be valued at another. (His claim is that different styles are required for different levels or kinds of responsibility in an organisation, which seems remarkably similar to the ninth principle.) 13 Styles valued in one place may not be valued in another. 14 Styles are not, on average, good or bad – it is a question of fit. A style may fit well in one context, but poorly or not at all in another. 15 We confuse stylistic fit with levels of ability. The consequence is that people and institutions tend to value other people and institutions that are like themselves. (But the question needs to be asked: do we not at times also value people precisely because their style is very different from our own?) Origins and influence One of the attractions of Sternberg’s approach is that he ends his book (1999) by raising 10 of the most frequently mentioned problems with theories of learning styles and claims to deal with them all satisfactorily. As will become clear, however, some of the problems are just as applicable to Sternberg’s own work as they are to the research of those he criticises. He begins by asking: Why do we need another theory? What are the problems with theories of learning styles? The 10 problems he tackles are listed below, together with a brief account of his response, plus some comment from this research team (material in brackets), where appropriate. 1 There is no unifying model or metaphor that integrates the various styles, not only between theories, but even within theories. Sternberg’s contention is that his theory of mental self-government provides a clear organising metaphor, namely that of government. 2 Some of the styles seem too much like abilities; for example, the field dependence/independence theory of Witkin. 3 Some of the learning styles seem too much like personality traits; for example, Myers-Briggs. Sternberg argues that styles differ from personality traits in being more cognitive. 4 There is no compelling demonstration of the relevance of the styles in ‘real world’ settings. (This is so, but it is also true of Sternberg’s own theory.) 5 There is insufficient connection between the theories of styles and psychological theory in general. Sternberg argues that styles cannot be considered independently of the environment in which they occur. People actively respond in varied ways to the environment, depending in large part upon their styles of responding. 6 The styles specified by the theories are sometimes simply not compelling. Sternberg lists five criteria for a successful theory – is it elegant, reasonably parsimonious, internally coherent, empirically valid and heuristically useful? He then claims that his theory meets all five criteria. (We would argue that there are serious questions to be asked about the validity and reliability of his theory.) 7 There is insufficient use of converging operations or multiple methods of measurement.
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:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 71 and 72: LSRC reference Section 6 page 62/63
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 119: LSRC reference Section 7 page 110/1
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 171 and 172:
LSRC reference References page 164/
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?