learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
8<br />
There is little or no serious research to show the<br />
usefulness of the <strong>styles</strong>. In Sternberg’s own words<br />
(1999, 155): ‘Theories and research on <strong>styles</strong> are<br />
at the fringes of the psychological world’. In this area<br />
of psychology, ‘there is a high ratio of theory to data –<br />
in everyday terms, that means “big talk, no show” …<br />
Many schools are buying into systems for assessing<br />
students’ <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> and for teaching the students<br />
that have no solid research base at all’ (1999, 155).<br />
(This is our central criticism of Sternberg’s own work.)<br />
9<br />
The theories do not seem to be theories of <strong>styles</strong> at all,<br />
but rather of the variables that affect <strong>styles</strong>. Sternberg<br />
is right to claim that this criticism applies most clearly<br />
to the theory of Dunn and Dunn, who concentrate<br />
on environmental variables which may affect <strong>learning</strong><br />
<strong>styles</strong>.<br />
10<br />
The <strong>styles</strong> specified by the theories do not satisfy<br />
some or even most of the 15 principles listed above.<br />
Measurement by the author<br />
Description<br />
Sternberg has administered his inventory<br />
of thinking/<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> in schools and elsewhere.<br />
In all, four measures have been used and these<br />
are described briefly below.<br />
1<br />
The Thinking Styles Inventory: 13 inventories with<br />
eight statements rated on a 1–7 scale.<br />
2<br />
The Thinking Styles Tasks for Students which, Sternberg<br />
claims, measure <strong>styles</strong> via performance rather than via<br />
an inventory; for example, ‘When I’m studying literature,<br />
I prefer…’. The student chooses from a legislative,<br />
executive or judicial response or some other response.<br />
(The response, however, does not comprise observed<br />
performance, but self-reports of likely performance.)<br />
3<br />
The Thinking Styles Questionnaire for Teachers which<br />
assesses ‘the <strong>styles</strong> teachers use when they teach’<br />
(1999, 124) or rather the <strong>styles</strong> which teachers report<br />
that they use.<br />
4<br />
Students’ Thinking Styles Evaluated by Teachers.<br />
Ver y little information is provided on the second, third<br />
or fourth of these instruments and yet Sternberg claims<br />
that these four measures ‘meet the criteria for being<br />
good tests’ (1999, 125).<br />
Reliability and validity<br />
There are few details given about the reliability<br />
and validity of these inventories. What data is provided<br />
is summarised below. In The MSG Thinking Styles<br />
Inventory by Sternberg and Wagner (1991), which<br />
is unpublished; the learner completes each of the<br />
13 inventories on a 7-point scale from the statement<br />
‘…fits me not at all well’ to ‘fits me extremely well’.<br />
Each style may vary‘ across tasks, situations and your<br />
time of life’ (1999, 30).<br />
With regard to the TSI, Sternberg (1999, 125) claims<br />
that the 13 scales had ‘internal-consistency reliabilities<br />
ranging from .57 to .88 with a median of .82’. Factor<br />
analysis was employed and identified five factors,<br />
three of which were predicted and consistent with the<br />
theory; one was not predicted, but was consistent;<br />
while the last was neither predicted nor consistent.<br />
Sternberg concludes: ‘Thus the statistical analysis<br />
generally supported the theory, although the second<br />
factor remains unexplained’ (1999, 126).<br />
Sternberg also claims that his scales correlate<br />
with scores on other tests, thus demonstrating good<br />
external validity. With the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,<br />
for example, 30 out of 128 correlations were<br />
statistically significant; and 22 correlations out<br />
of 52 were significant with the Gregorc Style Delineator<br />
(see Zhang and Sternberg 2001 for further details).<br />
In general, the position of Sternberg and his associates<br />
is that ‘The TSI has been shown to be reliable and<br />
valid for US samples’ (Zhang and Sternberg 2001, 204).<br />
External evaluation<br />
Reliability and validity<br />
Porter (2003) tested the reliability and validity<br />
of the TSI in a study of 150 first-year psychology<br />
undergraduates at Westminster University. According<br />
to Porter, the theory of mental self-government (MSG)<br />
and the TSI instrument ‘have been presented in<br />
the literature as potentially powerful tools for use<br />
in higher education’ (2002, 296) and so need to be<br />
independently evaluated. Porter describes other<br />
studies (eg Zhang and Sternberg 2001), which<br />
concluded that thinking <strong>styles</strong> contribute to academic<br />
achievement and that this contribution is differentially<br />
related to culture and gender. Porter’s study, however,<br />
offers ‘only limited support for the theory of MSG<br />
and the reliability and validity of the TSI’ (2002, 301);<br />
he argues, therefore, that both will have to be improved<br />
before the TSI can be used in educational practice.<br />
Porter’s students found the MSG theory both<br />
plausible and interesting, but they considered the<br />
13 inventories to be both too long and boring. Porter<br />
also questioned whether first-year students understand<br />
their own <strong>learning</strong> well enough to complete the<br />
inventories satisfactorily.