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.
Implications for pedagogy<br />
Riding (2002) claims that his model has important<br />
implications for many aspects of human behaviour.<br />
He believes that for less able learners, it is important<br />
to achieve a match between cognitive style, the<br />
way in which resources are structured and the teaching<br />
approach. At the same time, he acknowledges that<br />
many variables (especially working memory) interact<br />
with style to determine performance. He and his<br />
students and colleagues have carried out a large<br />
number of correlational and predictive studies focusing<br />
on <strong>learning</strong> outcomes, but it would be unwise to<br />
accept unreplicated findings in view of the problems<br />
of reliability indicated above. An instrument which is<br />
so inadequate in terms of test–retest reliability cannot<br />
be said to provide robust evidence for adopting<br />
particular strategies in post-16 <strong>learning</strong> and teaching.<br />
This point certainly holds for the CSA’s highly unreliable<br />
verbal-imager measure, but it is possible that<br />
meaningful group differences may exist in relation to<br />
the holist-analytic measure, even though its reliability<br />
is at best modest.<br />
Perhaps the most convincing study of the pedagogical<br />
implications of CSA scores in the post-16 sector is<br />
the one carried out by Sadler-Smith and Riding (1999)<br />
with 240 business studies students. Here it was found<br />
that holists favoured collaborative <strong>learning</strong> and the use<br />
of non-print materials such as overhead transparencies<br />
(OHTs), slides and videos. However, it is a step too<br />
far to move from this finding to the recommendation<br />
that students should be given what they prefer.<br />
Indeed, in a study of 112 GCSE Design and Technology<br />
students in eight schools, Atkinson (1998) found that<br />
holistic students who were taught by teachers using<br />
a collaborative approach obtained poorer grades than<br />
any other group.<br />
A small-scale study of some interest is that by<br />
Littlemore (2001), who found a significant difference<br />
between 28 holistic and 20 analytic language students.<br />
The holists tended to make greater use of analogy<br />
when unable to find the correct word when naming<br />
pictures in a second language, whereas the analysts<br />
more often used analytic strategies, such as naming<br />
parts, uses or the functions of the objects. However,<br />
the differences were not large, and as all students<br />
made use of both types of strategy, there do not seem<br />
to be any instructional implications.<br />
Riding et al. (2003, 167) acknowledge that in the<br />
past, ‘studies of style effects have often not shown<br />
clear results or have shown relatively little effect’.<br />
They suggest that this may be because interactions<br />
between individual difference variables have not<br />
been widely studied. They report on interactions<br />
between cognitive style and working memory in 206<br />
13 year olds, finding four significant effects out<br />
of 11 in the case of the holist-analytic dimension.<br />
Teacher ratings of <strong>learning</strong> behaviour and subject<br />
performance tended to be low for analytics who were<br />
below average on a working memory test, but high<br />
for analytics with above-average working memory<br />
scores. For holists, working memory was less clearly<br />
related to teacher ratings, except in mathematics.<br />
There was no convincing evidence of a similar<br />
interaction effect for the verbaliser-visualiser dimension,<br />
with only one significant result out of 11 ANOVA<br />
(analysis of variance) analyses. This study needs<br />
replication, preferably with more reliable measures<br />
of cognitive style and using a test of working memory<br />
of known reliability and validity.<br />
Positive evidence supporting the ‘matching’<br />
hypothesis as applied to the global-analytic dimension<br />
in a computer-based <strong>learning</strong> environment comes<br />
from two small-scale studies by Ford (1995) and Ford<br />
and Chen (2001). These made use of two very carefully<br />
designed ways of teaching a classification task and<br />
HTML programming, each believed to suit different ways<br />
of <strong>learning</strong>. In the second experiment, it was found that,<br />
as predicted, global learners did significantly better<br />
with ‘breadth first’ and analytic learners did best<br />
with ‘depth first’ instruction. The effect sizes in these<br />
two experiments were large, and together, the findings<br />
should be taken seriously, despite the relatively small<br />
sample sizes (34 and 57 respectively).<br />
With the exception of this last finding by independent<br />
researchers, there is a dearth of well-grounded<br />
empirical evidence to support the extensive range<br />
of pedagogical recommendations made by Riding<br />
(2002). The same is true of the set of profiles<br />
for each cognitive style which Riding (1994) has<br />
offered. These are set out in terms of:<br />
social attitude<br />
response to people<br />
decision making<br />
consistency and reliability<br />
managing and being managed<br />
<strong>learning</strong> and communication<br />
team roles<br />
response to difficulties.<br />
The research basis for these profiles is not explained,<br />
but some relevant correlational studies are summarised<br />
by Riding and Rayner (1998). However, in the case<br />
of team roles, the evidence is very slight, being based<br />
on an unpublished study involving only 10 managers.<br />
Despite these empirical drawbacks, it is possible<br />
to argue that Riding’s model, rather than the CSA,<br />
may have important implications for teaching. Although<br />
not proven by research, it is plausible that teaching<br />
which is biased towards any one of the extreme poles<br />
of the model would disadvantage some learners.<br />
If this is so, the implication is that teachers should<br />
deal both with generalities and particulars; structure<br />
material so that part-whole relationships are clear;<br />
make demands on both deductive and inductive<br />
reasoning; and make use of both visual and verbal<br />
forms of expression.