learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

Other theorists promote the idea of learning styles instruments as a diagnostic assessment tool that encourages a more self-aware reflection about strengths and weaknesses. For supporters of this idea, the notion of learning styles offers a way for teachers and students to talk more productively about learning, using a more focused vocabulary to do so. Finally, those who reject the idea of learning styles might, nevertheless, see value in creating a more precise vocabulary with which to talk about learning, motivation and the idea of metacognition – where better self-awareness may lead to more organised and effective approaches to teaching and learning. A large number of injunctions and claims for pedagogy emerge from the research literature and we provide a full account of these in Section 8, together with an indication of their strengths and weaknesses. However, although many theorists draw logical conclusions about practice from their models of learning styles, there is a dearth of well-conducted experimental studies of alternative approaches derived from particular models. Moreover, most of the empirical studies have been conducted on university students in departments of psychology or business studies; and some would criticise these as studies of captive and perhaps atypical subjects presented with contrived tasks. Aims of the project The Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) commissioned a number of research projects in post-16 learning through a new Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC) supported by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The University of Newcastle upon Tyne carried out two projects: an evaluation of models of learning style inventories and their impact on post-16 pedagogy (this report and Coffield et al. 2004) and an evaluation (with the University of Sunderland) of different thinking skills frameworks (Moseley et al. 2003). Other projects in the LSRC’s programme include an evaluation by the University of Strathclyde of the impact of thinking skills on pedagogy (Livingston, Soden and Kirkwood 2003), a report by the universities of Surrey and Sheffield on the extent and impact of mixed-age learning in further education (McNair and Parry 2003) and a mapping by the University of Leeds of the conceptual terrain in relation to informal learning (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm 2003). The evaluation of learning styles inventories was originally a separate project from the evaluation of the impact of learning styles on post-16 pedagogy. However, the two projects were merged in order to maximise the synergy between the theoretical research on learning styles and its practical implications for pedagogy. The aims of the joint project were to carry out an extensive review of research on post-16 learning styles, to evaluate the main models of learning styles, and to discuss the implications of learning styles for post-16 teaching and learning. These broad aims are addressed through the following research questions and objectives. Research questions We addressed four main questions. 1 What models of learning styles are influential and potentially influential? 2 What empirical evidence is there to support the claims made for these models? 3 What are the broad implications for pedagogy of these models? 4 What empirical evidence is there that models of learning styles have an impact on students’ learning? Research objectives The objectives that arose from our questions enabled us to: identify the range of models that are: available influential or potentially influential in research and practice locate these models within identifiable ‘families’ of ideas about learning styles evaluate the theories, claims and applications of these models, with a particular focus on evaluating the authors’ claims for reliability and validity evaluate the claims made for the pedagogical implications of the selected models of learning styles identify what gaps there are in current knowledge and what future research is needed in this area make recommendations and draw conclusions about the research field as a whole. In Sections 3–7, we report the results of our in-depth reviews, based on these research questions and objectives, of individual models of learning styles. In Section 8, we evaluate the implications of the main learning styles models for pedagogy; Section 9 contains our conclusions and recommendations. The report ends with lists of all the studies included in our review (in the references Section) and all the learning styles instruments identified in the course of the review (Appendix 1). We also provide a list of the search terms used in the review (Appendix 2) and a glossary of terms used in the report (Appendix 3). The second project is presented in Coffield et al. (2004), which places learning styles in the educational and political context of post-16 provision in the UK. The second report discusses the appeal of learning styles as well as offering an overview of ways in which political and institutional contexts in the learning and skills sector affect the ways that learning styles might be put into practice.
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 The team who carried out the research have combined expertise in cognitive psychology, education, professional development of post-16 practitioners, sociology and policy studies. This combination of perspectives and interests has proved useful in understanding the research into learning styles, in providing a strong internal critique which helped to improve the quality of the written reports, and in coming to a considered and balanced judgement on the future of learning styles for a range of different audiences. The project team also sought advice from a local advisory group whose members read our draft reports from a mainly practitioner perspective. The group comprised: Emeritus Professor Tony Edwards Chair Northumberland Lifelong Learning Partnership Lesley Gillespie Head of the Northern Workers’ Education Association Joan Harvey Chartered Psychologist University of Newcastle upon Tyne Simon James Learning and Skills Development Agency Jan Portillo Director of the School of Teaching and Learning Gateshead College Martin Slimmings Head of Teacher Education Hartlepool College of Further Education Isabel Sutcliffe Chief Executive NCFE (an awarding body for qualifications and certificates in further and adult education). We also received advice from a steering group which was set up by the LSDA. Its members were: Professor Charles Desforges University of Exeter Professor Noel Entwistle University of Edinburgh Professor Phil Hodkinson University of Leeds John Vorhaus (Steering Group Chair) Learning and Skills Development Agency. In addition, an important part of our evaluation of each of the 13 models was to send the authors a copy of our report on their model and to ask for comment. Apart from Robert Sternberg who has not yet replied, we have taken account of the responses of the other 12 in our report. Responses varied in terms of length, engagement with issues and constructive criticism. We are also grateful to those who sent us additional materials. The main focus of this review is the impact of learning styles on post-16 learning. But the issue of the role that learning styles should play in pedagogy is of growing interest to a much broader range of constituencies. We therefore list below some of the potential audiences for this report: the DfES Standards Unit the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education (NIACE) post-16 Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) and the Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) the new Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) curriculum and qualification designers at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and in awarding bodies research managers in the local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) staff development managers in colleges staff running initial teacher education and professional development programmes for teachers and managers across the learning and skills sector academics working in post-16 research the Assessment Reform Group the University for Industry (UfI), the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE) the Association of Colleges (AoC), the Association of Learning Providers (ALP) the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy the Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit (ABSSU) unions: including the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE); the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL); the National Association of Head teachers (NAHT); the National Union of Teachers (NUT); the Secondary Heads Association (SHA); the Headmasters Conference (HMC); the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) employers, including the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of Small Businesses the House of Commons Select Committee on Education.
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: LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
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 65 and 66:
LSRC reference Section 5 page 56/57
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
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 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
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?