learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

LSRC reference Section 9 page 144/145 We still do not know, as Grasha pointed out (1984, 51) ‘the costs and benefits of designing classroom methods and procedures based on learning styles versus continuing to do what is already done’. That type of knowledge is essential before any large-scale reforms of pedagogy on the basis of learning styles are contemplated. Grasha’s question, however, prompts another, more fundamental one: should research into learning styles be discontinued, as Reynolds has argued? In his own words: ‘Even using learning style instruments as a convenient way of introducing the subject [of learning] generally is hazardous because of the superficial attractions of labelling and categorizing in a world suffused with uncertainties’ (1997, 128). Our view is that a policy of using learning styles instruments to introduce the topic of learning is too undiscriminating and our review of the leading models (Sections 3–7) counsels the need to be highly selective. The suggestions made here for further research would necessitate the investment of considerable financial and human resources over a long period of time in order to make learning styles relevant to a diverse post-16 sector. But would such investment pay real dividends and is it the highest priority for research funding in the sector? Final comments This report has sought to sift the wheat from the chaff among the leading models and inventories of learning styles and among their implications for pedagogy: we have based our conclusions on the evidence, on reasoned argument and on healthy scepticism. For 16 months, we immersed ourselves in the world of learning styles and learned to respect the enthusiasm and the dedication of those theorists, test developers and practitioners who are working to improve the quality of teaching and learning. We ourselves have been reminded yet again how complex and varied that simple-sounding task is and we have learned that we are still some considerable way from an overarching and agreed theory of pedagogy. In the meantime, we agree with Curry’s summation (1990, 54) of the state of play of research into learning styles: ‘researchers and users alike will continue groping like the five blind men in the fable about the elephant, each with a part of the whole but none with full understanding’. Our penultimate question is: what are the prospects for the future of learning styles? From within the discipline, commentators like Cassidy (2003) are calling for rationalisation, consolidation and integration of the more psychometrically robust instruments and models. Is such integration a likely outcome, however? We wish it were, but some internal characteristics of the field militate against rationalisation. First, learning styles models and instruments are being simultaneously developed in the relatively autonomous university departments of business studies, education, law, medicine and psychology. No one person or organisation has the responsibility to overview these sprawling fields of endeavour and to recommend changes; in the UK, the academic panels for the RAE are subject-based and the area of learning styles straddles three, if not more, of the existing units of assessment. Second, fortunes are being made as instruments, manuals, videotapes, in-service packages, overhead transparencies, publications and workshops are all commercially advertised and promoted vigorously by some of the leading figures in the field. In short, the financial incentives are more likely to encourage further proliferation than sensible integration. It also needs to be said that there are other, distinguished contributors to research on learning styles who work in order to enhance the learning capabilities of individuals and firms and not in order to make money. Third, now that most of the instruments can be administered, completed and scored online, it has become a relatively simple matter to give one’s favourite learning styles inventory (no matter how invalid or unreliable) to a few hundred university students who complete the forms as part of their course; in this way, some trivial hypothesis can be quickly confirmed or refuted. The danger here is of mindless and atheoretical empiricism. We conclude that some order will, sooner or later, have to be imposed on the learning styles field from outside. Finally, we want to ask: why should politicians, policy-makers, senior managers and practitioners in post-16 learning concern themselves with learning styles, when the really big issues concern the large percentages of students within the sector who either drop out or end up without any qualifications? Should not the focus of our collective attention be on asking and answering the following questions? Are the institutions in further, adult and community education in reality centres of learning for all their staff and students? Do some institutions constitute in themselves barriers to learning for certain groups of staff and students?
LSRC reference page 146/147 References Abramson N, Lane H, Nagai H and Takagi H (1993). A comparison of Canadian and Japanese cognitive styles – implications for management interaction. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3), 575–587. Adey P, Fairbrother R and Wiliam D (1999). Learning styles and strategies: a review of research. Report for Ofsted. London: King’s College, School of Education. Ajisuksmo CRP and Vermunt JD (1999). Learning styles and self-regulation of learning at university: an Indonesian study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 19(2), 45–49. Alexander R (2000). Culture and pedagogy: international comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell. Allinson CW, Armstrong SJ and Hayes J (2001). The effect of cognitive style on leader-member exchange: a study of manager-subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 201–220. Allinson CW, Chell E and Hayes J (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 31–43. Allinson CW and Hayes J (1988). The Learning Styles Questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb’s Inventory. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 269–281 Allinson CW and Hayes J (1990). Validity of the Learning Styles Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 67, 859–866. Allinson C and Hayes J (1996). The Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119–135. Allinson CW and Hayes CJ (2000). Cross-national differences in cognitive style: implications for management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 161–170. Antonietti A (1999). Can students predict when imagery will allow them to discover the problem solution? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11(3), 407–428. Apter MJ (1976). Some data inconsistent with the optimal arousal theory of motivation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1209–1210. Apter MJ (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Apter MJ and Heskin K (2001). Basic research on reversal theory. In MJ Apter (ed.) Motivational styles in everyday life: a guide to reversal theory. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Apter M, Mallows R and Williams S (1998). The development of the Motivational Style Profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 7–18. Archer SN, Robilliard DL, Skene DJ, Smits M, Williams A, Arendt J and von Schantz M (2003). A length polymorphism in the Circadian clock gene Per3 is linked to delayed sleep phase syndrome and extreme diurnal preference. Sleep, 26(4), 413–415. Armstrong SJ (2000). The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 323–339. Armstrong SJ (2002). Effects of cognitive style on the quality of research supervision. In M Valcke and D Gombeir (eds) Learning styles: reliability and validity, 431–440. Proceedings of the 7th Annual European Learning Styles Information Network Conference, 26–28 June, Ghent. Ghent: University of Ghent. Armstrong SJ, Allinson CW and Hayes C (2002). Formal mentoring systems: an examination of the effects of mentor/protégé cognitive styles on the mentoring process. Journal of Management Studies, 39(8), 1111–1137. Atkinson S (1998). Cognitive style in the context of design and technology project work. Educational Psychology, 18(2), 183–192. Ball AL (1982). The secrets of learning styles: your child’s and your own. Redbook, 160(1), 73–76. Ball SJ (1994). Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Ball SJ, Reay D and David M (2002). Ethnic choosing: minority ethnic students, social class and higher education choice. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 5(4), 333–357. Baron-Cohen S (2003). Essential difference: men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane. Bates M and Keirsey D (1978). Please understand me: character and temperament types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis. Bayne R (1994). The ‘Big Five’ versus the Myers-Briggs. The Psychologist, 7(1), 1. Beishuizen J, Stoutjesdijk E and Van Putten K (1994). Studying textbooks: effects of learning styles, study task and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151–174. Bernstein B (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London: Taylor & Francis.
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 and 14:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
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 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
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: LSRC reference Section 7 page 92/93
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
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: The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 155 and 156: LSRC reference References page 148/
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?