learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LSRC reference Section 1<br />
page 6/7<br />
The criteria used to reject other contenders were<br />
as follows.<br />
The approach was highly derivative and added little<br />
that was new; for example, the names of the individual<br />
<strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>, but little else, had been changed.<br />
The research’s primary focus was on an allied topic<br />
rather than on <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> directly; for example,<br />
it was a study of creativity or of teaching <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
The publication was a review of the literature rather<br />
than an original contribution to the field, such as<br />
Curry’s (1983) highly influential ‘onion’ model which<br />
groups different approaches into three main types.<br />
Such reviews informed our general thinking, but<br />
were not selected for in-depth evaluation as models<br />
of <strong>learning</strong> style.<br />
The study was a standard application of an instrument<br />
to a small sample of students, whose findings added<br />
nothing original or interesting to theory or practice.<br />
The methodology of the study was flawed.<br />
It was not necessary for all five inclusion criteria to<br />
be met for a particular theorist to be included, nor<br />
for all five rejection criteria to be fulfilled to be excluded.<br />
In fact, it did not prove very difficult or contentious<br />
to decide which models were most influential.<br />
We outline the main models reviewed for the<br />
report, together with a rationale for their selection,<br />
in Section 2, which forms an introduction to<br />
Sections 3–7 below.