Reflective observation coupled with abstract conceptualisation styles of learning produce learners that like solving problems, finding practical solutions to their learning. Technical skills are dominant and social and interpersonal are shied away from.
Abstract conceptualisation when focussed together with active experiments tends to ensure learners are very concise and logical. People issues do not seem important where as abstract ideas are. Logical explanations are used more often than practical ones.
Kolb's model is only one of many. Anthony Gregorc modified Kolb's dimensions by focusing on random and sequential processing of information. This is similar to top-down and bottom up processing. Top-down learners look at the whole task (random) while bottom-up learners proceed one-step-at-a-time (sequentially). (Gregorc, 1984)
Another approach to preferred learning style is David Hunt's notion of cycling through all four of Kolb's dimensions (Entwhistle, 1981). That is, first experience the problem then reflect on it, then analyse it, then act on it. In this approach the learner will recognize that some modes in the cycle come more naturally to them than others and will be able to identify the modes of learning that require further work. Later research conducted by Honey & Mumford (1992) modified Kolb’s cycle and suggested four learning styles corresponding to each of the stages:
- Activists (Concrete experimentation): those who like new experiences and tackling new problems and quickly go on to new tasks to ensure novelty;
- Pragmatists (Active experimentation): those who like to apply new ideas immediately;
- Reflectors (Reflective observation): those who like to consider all the strategies and angles before making a decision;
- Theorists (Abstract conceptualisation): those who integrate their observations into conceptual models.
According to educationalists, this model offers an excellent framework for designing, developing and delivering diverse learning experiences for all (Rowntree, 1992)
No one has a "pure" style. Each of us has a unique combination of natural strengths and abilities. By learning some of the common characteristics of each of the four combinations used by Gregorc, Kolb and Honey and Mumford, (Dunn et al, 1999) teachers can recognize and value how students learn best. Teachers can then help them to improve in facets of the learning styles that they least use and understand.
Understanding students’ learning styles could enable teachers to improve and adapt their teaching styles and strategies to meet student’s needs. When poor results and/or non-attentiveness are evident in the classroom this may be a catalyst for the educator to review the teaching methods used. It is not as important to figure out what style a person is, as it is to recognize how and why a person is learning in such a way and how to encourage their progression. (Adey, 1999)
Research on this topic of learning styles can sometimes seem confusing presenting explanations that are similar, yet quite distinct. A thorough understanding of these terms is essential in order to properly apply them in education and training. One of the clearest pieces of research presented by Curry (1990) defines these terms as:
- learning preference – favouring one method of teaching over another
- learning strategy – adopting a plan action in the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes
- learning style – adopting a habitual and distinct mode of acquiring knowledge
- cognitive strategy – adopting a plan of action in the process of organising and processing information
- cognitive style – a systematic and habitual mode of organising and processing information.
The most prominent feature that differentiates Curry’s terminology from others is the degree to which they can be observed and understood. For example, learning preferences are often expressed, in phases like “I really like working in groups”, “I just can’t come to terms with new concepts unless I discuss them with others”. Similarly, learning and cognitive strategies may be noticed by observing students or by allowing them to think aloud as they study.
Similarly they can often be evidenced through the use of a questionnaire or psychometric test. Various instruments have been developed for this purpose including the Honey and Mumford’s (2000) learning styles questionnaire (LSQ) or Riding’s (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA). Much of the research on this topic has been conducted by psychologists using psychometric tests of personality and intelligence, and the results used to design training in management and educational settings (Allinson & Hayes, 1994) Since the 1970’s there has been an increased focus on the applicability of learning styles research for learners in a range of educational settings, thus broadening the scope of research on individual differences.
In my work as a teaching instructor of Design and Technology, I have found that knowing these differences in learning style help me plan for an effective lesson. It has helped me to use varied strategies of notes and presentations to convince learners to try new styles. In the Secondary school that I work we have adopted a policy for all teachers to spend time on learning styles and studying methods in relation to their own particular subjects.
Together with preferred learning styles, there are inbuilt definite structures generic to all learners. It has been suggested by Sarasin, (1999) and Brindley (1989) that during learning, learners often carry out a number of activities, including:
- Memorising
- Decoding
- Creating
- Loving
With a learning context in mind an activity could be, for example, remembering by heart (memorising), reading, selecting and organising information to write an assignment (decoding), creative and discovery activities (creating) and working within a group, developing and facilitating group interactions (loving).
Research concerned with identifying the relationship(s) between academic achievement and individual learning style has provided consistent support for the following:
a) Students do learn differently from each other
b) Student performance in different subject areas is related to how individuals apply their learning style.
c) When students are taught with approaches and resources that complement their unique learning styles, their achievement is significantly increased (Lefever, 1998)
Fellow students and I conducted a survey in our respective schools that span three London Boroughs. The research had an audience with ages between 11-16 and also included some teachers. The results have shown that typically each class contains 30% Activists, 25% pragmatists, 25% theorists and 20% reflector styles of learning (see appendix ii). This fair cross section of students and areas implies that educators have similar proportions of learning styles to cater for.
It seems logical therefore, that whatever the aim of the lesson, the various techniques outlined for developing each preferred style require adopting by educators in order for all pupils to obtain a decent standard of learning.
The practice of ‘setting’ is a popular way of grouping pupils depending on their learning style, however, my view, also shared by Whitaker (1995) is that it is sometimes as important for pupils to be learning supporters for each other and to be exposed to the styles of others as this is a powerful way to clarify their own understanding, to explore possibilities and to increase choice.
Teachers can dramatically increase their impact of what they teach by exploring opportunities for their delivery to be visual, auditory and kinaesthetic, covering all the mentioned styles before. They could do this by:
Visual techniques
- peripheral display posters
- keyword displays
- videos
- memory mapping, collage, and flow charts
- creating a lively and engaging place to learn.
Auditory techniques
- Teacher instruction
- Paired and group discussions
- Active listening roles
- Debates and presentations
- Music for relaxing and energising view
- Rhymes, chants, acronyms
- Well balanced groups to promote use of language
Kinesthetic techniques
- Design and make activities
- Physical modelling
- Visits, field trips
- Mime,
- Learned gestures accompanying physical movement
By using these suggested techniques of employing most of the human senses, stimulates all of the preferred learning styles. (Squires, 1981)
Many researchers such as Gregorc, Kolb, Honey and Mumford believe that students’ behaviours of frustration and avoidance can result when learners’ style is consistently mismatched with the delivery of the educator. It is argued that students achieve best when their learning preferences are matched to teaching methods. (Carbo, Dunn & Dunn, 1986)
In general those who advocate to these views recommend that teachers determine through observation or standardizing tests the learning style most predictive of students best performance. Selection of appropriate materials, environment modifications suiting their preference, and adjustment of tasks where possible would then follow. It seems a valid educational practice to identify and accommodate preferred styles and to present content in a way designed to maximise students’ strengths. (Riding & Grimley, 1999)
Critics argue however, that learning style descriptions and their implications require more careful and extensive comparisons of student performance in the classroom. Even if learning styles are accurately and reliably assessed. It is impractical however, to attempt to construct enough adaptations to meet each
possible learning style effectively (Osland et al, 1995). In reality within many educational environments, the pressure of student numbers and lack of suitable
resources often limits the scope of the educator to provide an effective ‘learner- needs’ analysis as a pre-cursor to understand learning styles. That is an individual’s characteristic or aptitude must be matched to a specific treatment or instructional adaptation to result in an outcome more effective than otherwise would have been obtained. (Miller, 1981)
The desirability of matching students’ learning styles with curriculum or methods of teaching has also been challenged. Shipman & Shipman (1985) argue that students need to become proficient in a wide variety of educational environments since different learning outcomes may occur in each. Kirby (1988) believed that the best learning style to acquire is the absence of any particular one. Flexibility to deal effectively with instructional situations of all kinds is most important.
A curriculum designed to maximize student’s strengths may not be what they need. For example, recommending the use of whole language approaches with students who have difficulty reading may harm students who require, in particular, more opportunity to practice decoding skills. In some cases only one way of responding to an assignment will lead to success and to attempt to provide a substitute based on change in learning style can do the student a disservice. (Garcia, 1991)
Conclusion
It appears that focusing on the differences in learning styles, be it their preferential or habitual way of responding to learning, would appear desirable in many cases. Insofar this approach employs additional ways of presenting content or structuring the task in the classroom. Making decisions however, based on learning style information alone may be unwise if the selected approach restricts students in some way. Forms of learning through workshops, practical activities or through informal methods may suit some students more than others. Sometimes, students display a feeling of not being good at learning when it may be just that they don't know their own learning styles and need to be coached into recognising it.
What is desirable is to create a learning environment for all which optimises opportunity, respects the need to be private and alone with one’s work, encourages the sharing of ideas and activities, and which builds on the assumption that all pupils are learning supporters for each other.
Appendix I
STAGES OF THE LEARNING CYCLE ACCORDING TO KOLB, 1984
Honey & Mumford’s adaptation of Kolb’s cycle
Honey, p. & Mumford, A. (1992)
Appendix ii
Example of questionnaire circulated in schools
Learning Styles Survey-
Please tick appropriate box
GENDER MALE FEMALE AGE RANGE 11-13 14-16 18-25 25 +
(Please circle)
REFERENCES
Adey, P. (1999) Learning styles and strategies, A review of research. Kings College London, School of Education
Allinson, C.W. & Hayes, J (1994) The learning styles questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb's inventory? Journal of Management Studies, 25, 269-281.
Brindley, G. (1989). Language assessment in action. London. NCELTR publications.
Carbo, M. Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1986) Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. New York. Prentice Hall.
Curry, L. (1990) A Critique of the Research on Learning Styles. Educational Leadership, 48(20), 50-56.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1999). The Complete Guide to the Learning Strategies Inservice System. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Entwhistle, N. & Entwhistle, A., (1991) Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22: pp. 205-227.
Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. New York: John Wiley
Garcia, R. (1991). Teaching in a Pluralistic Society Concepts, Models and strategies. New York. HarperCollins.
Gregorc, A. (1984). Learning is a Matter of Style. Vocational Education, 4, 27-29.
Honey and Mumford’s (2000). Learning style Questionnaire. Pub. Peter Honey, Berkshire
Honey, p. & Mumford, A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles. Pub. Peter Honey, Berkshire.
Kirby, J. R. (1988). Style, strategy and skills in reading. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed)., Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 229-274). New York. Plenum Press.
Kolb. D A. (1986) The User's Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory: A Manual for Teachers and Trainers. McBer & Company. Boston, MA.
Lefever,M. (1998). Learning style. London. Kingsway Pubns.
Miller, A. (1981). Conceptual matching models and interactional research in education. Review of Educational Research. 51, 33-84.
Osland, J. S., & Rubin, I.W. (1995). Organisational Behaviour: An experiential approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Riding, R. (1991). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297-307.
Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43-59.
Rowntree, D. (1992). Exploring open and distance learning materials. London: Kogan page.
Sarasin, L. C. (1999) Learning style perspective: impact in the classroom. Kansas. USA. Pub Atwood.
Shipman, S. & Shipman, V. A (1985) Cognitive styles: Some conceptual, methodological and applied issues. In E.W. Gordon (Ed), Review of research in education. Washington. DC. American Educational Research Association.
Squires, G, (1981) Cognitive styles and adult learning.
Univ. Nottingham, Dept. of Adult Educ.
Whitaker, P. (1995) Managing to Learn. London. Pub. Cassell.
