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.
Our recommendation in favour of increased<br />
self-awareness should not, however, be interpreted<br />
as support for more individualised instruction, as<br />
Kolb (1984) has argued. The benefits of individualised<br />
teaching are often greatly exaggerated, although many<br />
teachers will admit that it is extremely difficult to ensure<br />
that learners are benefiting from specially tailored<br />
approaches when there is a large class to manage.<br />
In a synthesis of 630 studies, Hattie (1992) found<br />
an average effect size of only 0.14 for individualised<br />
teaching in schools. This trivial result strongly suggests<br />
that in general, it is not a good use of teacher time<br />
to try to set up, monitor and support individual <strong>learning</strong><br />
programmes where there are large groups to deal with.<br />
It should be noted that the potential of ICT to support<br />
individualised instruction has not been fully evaluated.<br />
However, the key point is that individualised instruction<br />
is not likely to work if it means more unsupported<br />
individual <strong>learning</strong>. Whether or not skilled individual<br />
or small-group teaching support can improve the<br />
situation is an unanswered question, but the near<br />
zero mean effect size for team teaching (also reported<br />
by Hattie) does not provide grounds for optimism.<br />
Within post-16 <strong>learning</strong>, the extent to which tutors can<br />
offer individualised programmes varies considerably.<br />
Individualisation is both more appropriate and easier<br />
to organise, for example, in an evening class on tailoring<br />
than in an A-level history class.<br />
A lexicon of <strong>learning</strong> for dialogue<br />
On the grounds of robustness and ecological validity,<br />
we recommend that the concepts, developed by<br />
Entwistle (Section 7.1) and others, of deep, surface<br />
and strategic approaches to <strong>learning</strong>, and by Vermunt<br />
(Section 7.2) of meaning-directed, application-directed<br />
and reproduction-directed <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>, be adopted<br />
for general use in post-16 <strong>learning</strong> rather than any of the<br />
other competing languages. It needs to be remembered,<br />
however, that the instruments were designed for<br />
university students and need to be redesigned to fit<br />
the extremely wide range of contexts within post-16<br />
<strong>learning</strong>. The potential and pitfalls of creating<br />
a dialogue with students about, say, the implications<br />
of adopting a surface approach to <strong>learning</strong> have<br />
been discussed in detail in Section 8. Here we<br />
simply want to reiterate that the tutors/trainers who<br />
involve their students/staff in dialogue need to be<br />
knowledgeable about the strengths and limitations<br />
of the model they are using; to be aware of the dangers<br />
of labelling and discrimination; and to be prepared<br />
to respect the views of students who may well resist<br />
any attempts to change their preferred <strong>learning</strong> style.<br />
In a project designed to put the concepts of ‘teaching<br />
thinking’ and ‘metacognitive awareness’ into practice,<br />
Leat and Lin (2003) found that having a language<br />
to describe the new pedagogy and specific roles for<br />
teachers to experiment with were critical to success.<br />
If this recommendation is adopted, some formidable<br />
barriers will need to be overcome; for example,<br />
ACE tutors, work-based trainers and college lecturers<br />
will need a different form of initial teacher training<br />
and staff development to enable them to explore<br />
critically the more promising models and instruments.<br />
Similarly, middle and senior managers throughout the<br />
<strong>learning</strong> and skills sector will need a critical<br />
understanding of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> and how dialogue<br />
about <strong>learning</strong> between tutors and students can lead<br />
to wider institutional change. Management skills need<br />
to be expanded from an understandable concentration<br />
on finance and accountability to embrace a critical<br />
understanding of the central role of teaching and<br />
<strong>learning</strong> in the reform of post-16 education and training.<br />
Pedagogy on its own is not enough<br />
Both McCarthy (1990) and Entwistle and Walker (2000)<br />
have spotted the potential of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> to act<br />
as an agent for broader change. Open-ended dialogue<br />
between tutor and students may begin by identifying<br />
forms of support such as courses on study skills<br />
and, with a tutor alive to the possibilities of growth,<br />
it should lead on to a discussion of the curriculum and<br />
assessment. If this in turn encourages tutors to discuss<br />
among themselves how they can improve students’<br />
approaches to <strong>learning</strong>, then the door is open for<br />
course teams, initial teacher trainers and continuing<br />
professional developers to use the topic of <strong>learning</strong><br />
as a springboard for broader cultural change within the<br />
organisation. What may begin as a concern to respond<br />
more appropriately to variation in patterns of students’<br />
<strong>learning</strong> may provoke a re-assessment of the goals<br />
of education or training, the purposes of assessment<br />
and the relevance of certain aspects of the curriculum.<br />
If <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> are to be used to improve practice,<br />
we recommend that they are employed in the hope<br />
that an exploration of pedagogy may well usher<br />
in far-reaching change. As Leat and Lin comment<br />
(2003, 410): ‘as teachers become more confident in<br />
their practice so they are more likely to demand access<br />
to school policies and procedures’.<br />
The positive recommendation we are making is that<br />
a discussion of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> may prove to be the<br />
catalyst for individual, organisational or even systemic<br />
change. We also want, however, to stress the limitations<br />
of an approach which may restrict itself to changes<br />
in teaching techniques; for, as Lave and Wenger<br />
(1991, 100) have argued, the most fundamental<br />
problems of education are not pedagogical:<br />
Above all, they have to do with the ways in which the<br />
community of adults reproduces itself, with the places<br />
that newcomers can or cannot find in such communities,<br />
and with relations that can or cannot be established<br />
between these newcomers and the cultural and political<br />
life of the community.