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 9<br />
page 134/135<br />
Professional choice – which intervention<br />
to choose?<br />
Before making any change in practice, professionals<br />
are duty-bound to consider two possibilities: first,<br />
that the proposed change may make matters worse;<br />
and second, that some alternative change may be<br />
more beneficial than their preferred option. Moreover,<br />
professionals need to operate with an explicit and<br />
tested model of change before they introduce any<br />
innovation. We have discussed at length the potential<br />
for the allocation of a <strong>learning</strong> style to turn into<br />
a <strong>learning</strong> handicap. We also wish to discuss the range<br />
of options currently open to tutors and trainers in the<br />
post-compulsory sector because these professionals<br />
are not faced with the simple choice of accepting<br />
or rejecting <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>. On the contrary, they are<br />
faced with a panoply of possible interventions, all with<br />
their supporters and attendant evidence.<br />
As Hattie (1999) has argued, most innovations have<br />
positive effects on students’ achievement, so we<br />
need estimates of the magnitude of the impact –<br />
namely, effect sizes as well as statistical significance.<br />
Post-16 <strong>learning</strong> is currently subjected to a series<br />
of pressures from policy initiatives, financial directives,<br />
institutional change strategies, qualifications and<br />
awarding bodies, the inspectorate, CPD, and student<br />
demands. Into this highly stressful environment, the<br />
case for responding to the different <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
of students is already being pushed by managers<br />
in further education under the need for ‘differentiation’.<br />
According to one FE lecturer, the new buzzword<br />
of ‘differentiation’ is being used ‘to maintain pressure<br />
and perpetuate the feeling that things are not<br />
being done properly: that teachers are inadequate’<br />
(Everest 2003, 49).<br />
The meta-analysis of educational interventions<br />
conducted by Hattie (1999) can help us form<br />
a judgement on what to do next. His painstaking<br />
research indicates that the effect sizes for different<br />
types of intervention are as shown in Table 43<br />
(extracted from Hattie 1999).<br />
It seems sensible to concentrate limited resources<br />
and staff efforts on those interventions that have the<br />
largest effect sizes.<br />
The case for <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> will also have to compete<br />
with arguments in favour of, say, thinking skills,<br />
or peer tutoring, or <strong>learning</strong> identities, or formative<br />
assessment, or critical intelligence or any one<br />
of a host of options. We willl explore briefly the claims<br />
which could be made for two approaches which are<br />
competing with <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> for research funds –<br />
namely, metacognition and formative assessment.<br />
With regard to the first competitor, we refer in<br />
Section 8 to Bruner’s (1996) advice to introduce<br />
tutors, trainers and students to different conceptions<br />
of learners’ minds. His advice could perhaps be<br />
accommodated by including it in the standard definition<br />
of metacognition – that is, the ability to set explicit,<br />
challenging goals; to identify strategies to reach<br />
those goals; and to monitor progress towards them.<br />
Table 43<br />
Effect sizes for different<br />
types of intervention<br />
Intervention<br />
Reinforcement<br />
Student’s prior cognitive ability<br />
Instructional quality<br />
Direct instruction<br />
Student’s disposition to learn<br />
Class environment<br />
Peer tutoring<br />
Parental involvement<br />
Teacher style<br />
Affective attributes of students<br />
Individualisation<br />
Behavioural objectives<br />
Team teaching<br />
Effect size<br />
1.13<br />
1.00<br />
1.04<br />
0.82<br />
0.61<br />
0.56<br />
0.50<br />
0.46<br />
0.42<br />
0.24<br />
0.14<br />
0.12<br />
0.06