learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

LSRC reference Section 3 page 34/35 There are also particular difficulties for non-specialists in evaluating this model. Until a number of studies have been read in the original, the nature of the sources which are repeatedly cited in long lists by the model’s authors and supporters does not become apparent. Academic conventions of referencing mask this problem. For example, Collinson (2000) quotes at length one study by Shaughnessy (1998) to support claims for the LSI, but the original source is a rather glowing interview with Rita Dunn in a teachers’ magazine. It is therefore important to evaluate critically the evidence used to make sweeping claims about transforming education. Fourth, claims made for the model are excessive. In sum, the Dunn and Dunn model has the appearance and status of a total belief system, with the following claims being made. It is relevant to, and successful with, all age groups from children in kindergarten through middle school, secondary school, university or college and on to mature, professional adults. It is successful with students who have strong, moderate and mixed degrees of environmental preference. Using teaching strategies that are congruent with students’ learning styles leads to statistically significant higher scores in academic attainment, attitudes to learning and behaviour. Higher scores in attainment, attitudes and behaviour have been achieved with students at all academic levels from those with learning difficulties or disabilities through low-achieving, to average and gifted students. It has been successfully implemented in urban, suburban and rural schools; in public, private and combined schools. It is effective with all subject areas from those taught in school to those taught in higher education; for example, allied health professions, anatomy, bacteriology, biology, business studies, education, engineering, health information management, law, legal writing, marketing, mathematics, music, nursing, physics, sonography and study skills. In higher education, ‘most students will retain more knowledge … for a longer period of time … enjoy learning more … and college retention rates will increase’ (Mangino and Griggs 2003,185). It is supported by ‘approximately 800 studies conducted by a) researchers at more than 120 institutions of higher education … b) practitioners throughout the United States … and c) The United States government’ (Dunn 2003d, 269). Fifth, the main author of the model and her supporters generalise about the learning of whole groups without supporting evidence. For example, Rita Dunn has argued recently that ‘it is not the content that determines whether students master the curriculum; rather, it is how that content is taught’ (2003d, 270; original emphasis). There are, however, numerous, interacting reasons why students fail to learn and process is only one of them. Similarly, one of Dunn’s successful higher-degree students claimed that ‘Auditory learners remember three quarters of the information they hear by listening to a teacher, a tape or recording, or other students. Visual learners retain three quarters of the information they see’ (Roberts 2003, 93; original emphasis). Such overblown claims only serve to give the research field of learning styles a bad name. It may, however, be argued that such assertions can and should be dismissed, but those who have become champions of the Dunn and Dunn model speak the language of conviction and certainty; for example, ‘it is mandatory that educators provide global … and tactual and kinaesthetic resources’ (Burke 2003,102). Sixth, supporters do not appear to consider the problem of catalytic validity, where the impact of an intervention is affected significantly by the enthusiasm of its implementers. In the light of these problems, independent evaluation is crucial in a UK context, where the DfES is showing an interest in the model as a way to improve teaching and learning. In the face of poor motivation and achievement in further education, there is no evidence that the model is either a desirable basis for learning or the best use of investment, teacher time, initial teacher education and professional development. Finally, the model is promoted by its chief protagonist, Rita Dunn, as though it were incapable of being falsified. For example, she and her co-authors write: ‘It is immoral and it should be illegal for certified teachers to negatively classify children who learn differently, instead of teaching them the way they learn’ (Dunn et al. 1991). It is apparently ‘inconceivable … that communities, parents and the judiciary would permit schools to function conventionally and continue to damage global, tactual, kinaesthetic children who need Mobility (sic) and informal classroom environments to function effectively’ (Dunn 2003d, 269; original emphasis). It is exactly this inability of Rita Dunn to conceive that other professionals have the right to think and act differently from the injunctions of the model that constitutes its most serious weakness. This anti-intellectual flaw makes the Dunn and Dunn model unlike any other evaluated in this review.
Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and instruments of learning styles General Strengths A user-friendly model that includes motivational factors, social interaction, physiological and environmental elements. Weaknesses The model makes simplistic connections between physiological and psychological preferences and brain activity. Design of the model High or low preferences for 22 different factors are identified by learners. Strong preferences form the basis for teachers to adopt specific techniques or make environmental changes to areas such as light, sound, design, time of day or mobility. It is a model of instructional preferences, not learning. It is unsophisticated in its adoption of ideas from other fields, eg modality preference, circadian rhythm, hemispheric dominance. Training courses and manuals simply list large numbers of studies where preferences are either prioritised or connected to others. Practitioners therefore have to take the theoretical support on trust. Reliability Supporters make strong claims for reliability. Critics highlight major problems with the design and reliability of key instruments. Validity Supporters make strong claims for validity There have been external criticisms of evidence of validity. Implications for pedagogy It is claimed that: individual differences in preference can be discerned it is possible to adapt environments and pedagogy to meet these preferences the stronger the preference, the more effect an intervention will have the impact will be even greater if low-achieving learners’ strong preferences are catered for. The implications for pedagogy are so forcefully expressed that no other options are considered. Labelling and generalising about types of student may lead to simplistic injunctions about ‘best practice’. Evidence of pedagogical impact The model has generated an extensive programme of international research. Isolation of individual elements in empirical studies allows for evaluation of the effects of those elements. Effect sizes of individual elements are conflated. There is a serious lack of independent evaluation of the LSI. Overall assessment Key source Despite a large and evolving research programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent research on the model. Concerns raised in our review need to be addressed before further use is made of the model in the UK. Dunn and Griggs 2003
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: Second, the model encourages teache
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 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 95 and 96:
LSRC reference Section 6 page 86/87
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?