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.
LSRC reference Section 7<br />
page 116/117<br />
Empirical evidence for impact on pedagogy<br />
Sternberg and his associates (eg Grigorenko and Zhang)<br />
have carried out many studies exploring particular<br />
aspects of the theory of mental self-government and<br />
the TSI: for instance, the ability of thinking <strong>styles</strong> to<br />
predict academic achievement over and above ability;<br />
the relationships between thinking <strong>styles</strong> and <strong>learning</strong><br />
approaches, student characteristics (such as age,<br />
gender and socio-economic status) and self-esteem.<br />
The significance for pedagogy of the findings of these<br />
studies tends to be inferred by the authors rather than<br />
directly studied. The results most relevant to pedagogy<br />
include the findings from a study of four US schools that<br />
‘students performed better when they were more like<br />
their teachers stylistically, independent of actual level<br />
of achievement’ and that ‘different school[s] rewarded<br />
different <strong>styles</strong>’ (Sternberg 1999, 130). In general,<br />
it can be said that the earlier studies with Grigorenko<br />
were carried out with relatively small samples<br />
(eg 124 students from four schools), but the later<br />
cross-cultural studies with Zhang involve substantial<br />
numbers of participants (eg 646 students from<br />
Hong Kong, 215 from China and 67 from the US):<br />
see Zhang and Sternberg (2001) for more details.<br />
Conclusions<br />
Sternberg has produced an original theory of mental<br />
self-government (MSG) and has derived his TSI from it;<br />
this is beginning to be used and tested, particularly<br />
in China. It is important to realise that this new theory<br />
has not been developed from the thinking or empirical<br />
studies of other researchers, so it may be better to<br />
consider it not as a theory of <strong>learning</strong> or thinking <strong>styles</strong>,<br />
but as an intriguing metaphor which may or may not<br />
prove to be productive in stimulating research and<br />
in changing practice. It is, at present, too early to offer<br />
a comprehensive evaluation.<br />
A series of research projects in universities and<br />
secondary schools in the US, Hong Kong and mainland<br />
China are now enhancing our understanding of thinking<br />
<strong>styles</strong>. The claims made for the implications of the<br />
theory for pedagogy are extensive, but the number<br />
of empirical studies which have tested these claims<br />
remains low. Moreover, the implications for pedagogy<br />
that Sternberg lists are of a very general nature<br />
and some of them have only a tenuous connection<br />
with his research.<br />
One possible (but highly unrealistic) outcome from<br />
this theory, which describes no less than 13 different<br />
thinking <strong>styles</strong>, is that teachers and tutors could be<br />
invited to produce lessons which cater for all 13 <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
Sternberg avoids such difficulties by couching his advice<br />
in very general terms; for example, that teachers should<br />
use a variety of teaching and assessment methods and<br />
should provide their students with an understanding<br />
of different <strong>styles</strong>. In other words, the implications<br />
for pedagogy are based on common-sense inferences<br />
from the theory rather than on the findings of any<br />
experimental studies.<br />
Grigorenko and Sternberg (1995) have suggested<br />
two main reasons for the sudden flowering of research<br />
interest in <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> in the late 1960s and early<br />
1970s. First, the notion was attractive to many theorists<br />
‘because of their disappointment with intelligence<br />
tests and the need for new measures of individual<br />
differences’ (1995, 218). Second, researchers from<br />
psychology and business studies began to explore<br />
the concept of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> because it was so flexible<br />
and ill defined.<br />
More recently, Sternberg has assessed the<br />
<strong>learning</strong>/thinking/cognitive <strong>styles</strong> field and addressed<br />
the mystery of why such research, ‘so active and unified<br />
under the cognitive <strong>styles</strong> banner in the middle of the<br />
[20th] century, seems to be so much less unified<br />
and active by the end of the century’ (2001, 249).<br />
He attributed the current lack of unity and activity<br />
to four main reasons: the early theories were not<br />
distinguishable from abilities or personality traits;<br />
the main theorists remained isolated from each other<br />
and from the psychological literature more generally;<br />
the quality of early empirical research was poor;<br />
and no common conceptual framework or language<br />
has emerged – in its place, different languages<br />
and labels have proliferated. Sternberg concluded<br />
(2001, 250) as follows: ‘The result is a kind<br />
of balkanisation of research groups, and balkanisation<br />
has always led to division and, arguably, death by<br />
a thousand cuts’. It is also arguable that Sternberg<br />
has himself contributed to such balkanisation and that<br />
the answer to his own question – do we need another<br />
theory of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>? – is probably best answered<br />
in the negative.