learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

LSRC reference Section 4 page 44/45 Table 10 Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) General Strengths Learning strategies may be learned and improved. Weaknesses ‘Default’ learning styles are assumed to be fixed. Design of the model Two dimensions which are independent of intelligence: holist-analytic (ways of organising information) and verbaliser-imager (ways of representing information). Two very specific tasks bear the weight of broad and loosely defined constructs. Deals with cognitive, not affective or conative aspects of thinking and learning. Reliability No evidence provided by the author. Others have shown that internal consistency and test–retest reliability is very poor, especially for the verbaliser-imager ratio score. Validity Both dimensions have reasonable face validity. The holist-analytic measure may be useful for assessing group rather than individual differences. Performance is sampled over a very limited range of task difficulty. As the reliability of the CSA is so poor, studies of validity should not be accepted unless they have been replicated. Implications for pedagogy There is evidence of links between cognitive styles and instructional preferences. There is evidence that in computerised instruction, ‘holist’ learners do better with ‘breadth first’ and ‘analytic’ learners with ‘depth first’. Riding claims that teachers need to take account of individual differences in working memory as well as style. Most teachers use a variety of instructional approaches anyway (eg verbal and visual). A large number of recommendations are made without adequate empirical evidence. Evidence of pedagogical impact Inconclusive. Overall assessment Key source The simplicity and potential value of Riding’s model are not well served by an unreliable instrument, the CSA. Riding and Rayner 1998 Empirical evidence of pedagogical impact Although there are many published studies in which significant differences in learning outcomes have been found between groups with different CSA scores, we do not consider that these studies provide more than interesting suggestions for pedagogical practice. We are not aware of any lasting changes in instructional practice which have been brought about as a result of using the CSA on a regular basis.
Section 5 Stable personality type LSRC reference page 46/47 Introduction The instruments and models grouped in this family have a common focus upon learning style as one part of the observable expression of a relatively stable personality type, a theory primarily influenced by the work of Jung (1968). The most prominent theorists who operate ‘at the interface of intelligence and personality’ (Grigorenko and Sternberg 1995) are Myers-Briggs (Myers and McCaulley 1985) and Jackson (2002), although they share certain key characteristics with measures developed by Bates and Keirsey (1978), Harrison and Bramson, (1982, 1988) and Miller (1991). While debates continue within psychology about the appropriate descriptors for personality traits and, indeed, how many factors underpin individual differences (see eg Furnham 1995; Jackson et al. 2000), the theorists in this family are concerned with constructing instruments which embed learning styles within an understanding of the personality traits that shape all aspects of an individual’s interaction with the world. The descriptors of personality are, in taxonomic terms, polythetic – that is, grouping together observed phenomena with shared features, but not excluding from groups phenomena which share some, but not all, of the relevant features (Eysenck 1997). This approach is both a strength, since it allows for reasonable variation, and a weakness, since ‘numerical solutions are essentially indeterminate in the absence of causal relations’ (Eysenck 1997, 23). Eysenck makes the argument for a distinction between the reliability of personality factors, such as those in the ‘big five’ (see Section 5.1 below), which is relatively consistent and their validity, which is dependent upon a theoretical construction which allows for the causal nature of personality factors to be experimentally tested. An alternative approach – to explore genetic markers for specific, observable personality traits – has proved, as yet, elusive (Stevenson 1997) and it is therefore more difficult to trace the heritability of personality compared, for example, to measures of IQ, though there are some indications that strong traits towards extraversion overcome environmental effects in adoption and twin studies (Loehlin 1992). 5.1 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) ®8 Introduction The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was designed by Katherine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. They began to develop their instrument in the early 1940s with the avowed aim of making Jung’s theory of human personality understandable and useful in everyday life: ‘Jung saw his theory as an aid to self-understanding, but the application of the theory (like the theory itself) extends beyond the point where Jung was content to stop.’ (Myers, quoted by Mosley 2001, 8). This resulted in the publication of the first MBTI manual in 1962, the subsequent versions of which (Myers and McCaulley 1985, 1998) are most frequently referred to in studies drawn on for this review. The MBTI focuses more upon the description of normally observed types, rather than idealised theoretical types which, as Jung himself argued, would rarely be met in everyday life (Jung, quoted by Mosley 2001, 3). In terms of academic heritage, the MBTI has often been strongly linked to personality instruments using the ‘big five’ personality factors (extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism – the last of which is not included in the MBTI), exemplified by the most popular instrument in personality testing in the UK and the US, the NEO-Personality Inventory (McCrae and Costa 1987). However, the MBTI differs strongly from the NEO-PI and other instruments in that it is, according to Quenck (2003): a theory-based instrument grounded in Jung’s typology rather than an empirically derived trait instrument … neuroticism is not part of the MBTI because Jung did not include such a dimension in his typology, which was meant to reflect normal, non-pathological personality differences. It is for that reason that the opposite poles of each of the dichotomies are conceptualized as qualitatively distinct and opposite to each other, with each pole defined as legitimate in its own right. One pole is never described as indicating a ‘deficit’ in the opposite pole, or [as being] more valued than the other pole, as is the case in the NEO-PI and other trait conceptions of personality. 8 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are registered trademarks of CPP Inc, Palo Alto, California.
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: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 105 and 106:
LSRC reference Section 7 page 96/97
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?