Justine的異想世界

Derived from http://otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/otisT102.htm

Activists, reflectors, experimenters and theorisers

One of the most widely adopted and adapted classifications of learning styles is based on the four learning modes identified by Kolb (1976) and based on experiential learning theory. It classifies learners as active, reflective, experimental and theorising:

A. Active learners (learning through concrete experience)

These learners learn by trial and error. They tend to be impatient and want to do things for themselves rather than wait and be told how to do them. This leads them to give spontaneous answers and to quickly move on to something new. Slow, methodical work bores them and they often take the lead to push on ahead. ("I want to get on and do things.")

B. Reflective learners (learning through reflective observation)

Reflective learners adopt a "wait and see" approach. These learners try to think things through and do not give the first answer they come across but require more information. They tend to be uncertain about what to do and this leads them to confer with other people to see what their opinions are. ("I want to think about things.")

C. Experimental learners (learning through active experimentation)

Experimental learners seek to find new ways of doing things. Even if they like to be shown how to do something, they need to put their newly acquired knowledge immediately into practice. What is important to them is finding the most effective way of putting into practice what they know. They tend to be energetic and impatient and they do not hesitate to take short cuts in solving problems. New challenges are seen as new possibilities for learning. ("I want to see if there isn't a better way of doing things.")

D. Theorising learners (learning through abstract conceptualisation)

Theorisers try to build an all-encompassing logical system. In thinking problems through step by step, they question assumptions and make rules from different cases. "Concrete" examples are perceived as being too limited to understand the general whole. Their effort goes into making coherent pictures of complex situations. In doing this they try to detach themselves from emotions and personal opinions, often making them less sympathetic to the feelings of others. ("I want to understand things.")

Research using Kolb's inventory of learning styles was reported at the OTiS e-worksbop:

"厀e do measure learning styles against the Kolb inventory. When we did a bit of research to see which type of people preferred asynchronous collaborative learning, it was interesting to find that reflectors did not find it most appealing. Activists got turned onto the idea, but soon became bored if there was not enough activity, and reflectors seemed to want to work more alone, and be less collaborative, despite the advantages of the technology for reflection. The results were not what we expected, I must admit." (McKenzie-D 2000)

Deep and surface learning

The classification of learning styles into deep and surface has particular relevance to online learning since it is based on observations of how students interact with text. The ideas are based on the work of Marton and Saljo (1976) and Svensson (1977):

Deep approach

In deep learning the learner processes a text in a 'holistic' way, looking for structure and meaning. Deep learning involves (Rosie, 2000):

·      employing an effective and efficient strategy or strategies for conceptualisation,

·      being open to different forms of conceptualisation,

·      seeing interconnections between concepts and data rather than merely amassing large amounts of data,

·      showing personal commitment to learning,

·      drawing on higher order cognitive skills,

·      adopting a genuinely reflective approach.

Surface approach

When taking a surface approach the learner focuses on key words and phrases, and processes the text in an 'atomised' way. This may distort the original structure and meaning. Surface learners are more likely to learn things by rote. Adopting a surface approach to a text may lead to a student trying to remember it - and thus not really learning what it is trying to convey.

Commonly, surface learning is taken to include (Rosie, 2000):

·      drawing on lower level cognitive skills,

·      amassing detail rather than establishing a structure into which detail can be placed and indeed rearranged,

·      completing tasks with minimum effort but not necessarily in the most efficient way,

·      using a limited set of conceptualisation,

·      drawing on texts and sources without critical reflection or personal response to such sources.

Gardner, in his theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983), suggests that there are seven different ways of processing information. These seven ways are related to seven different types of intelligence, and give rise to different learning styles (see, for example Edwards, 2001 and Winters, 2001)

Multi-Intelligence

1.     Verbal intelligence - learners have the ability to use words (orally or written) effectively.

2.     Spatial intelligence - learners have the ability to perceive the world accurately.

3.     Musical intelligence - learners have the ability to work with musical forms.

4.     Logical (mathematical) intelligence - learners can use numbers effectively and reason well.

5.     Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence - learners use their body to express ideas and feelings, they are likely to be 'good with their hands'.

6.     Interpersonal intelligence - learners can perceive and make distinctions in the moods, motivations and feelings of others.

7.     Intrapersonal intelligence - learners have a good level of self-knowledge and can act on the basis of that knowledge.

In pactice, simpler versions of this classification are often used in connection with learning styles. Lockitt (1997) suggests three categories of learning style related to the senses:

• auditory - using words and sounds for learning,
• visual - visualising images during the learning process,
• kinesthetic - feeling and doing things in order to learn.

(D 2000b) prefers four classes:

• visually oriented learner,
• auditory oriented learners,
• tactile oriented learners,
• kinaesthetic oriented learners.

Labour (D 2000b) cites sources that suggest that visual learners make up 65% of the population, auditory learners 30%, and kinaesthetic learners 5% (McLuhan, 1964; Labour 1998). Tactile learners are those who need to be in 'direct' contact with elements of the object of knowledge, and kinaesthetic learners prefer learning according to how they perceive physical performance; their learning involves nonlinear perceptual processes.

Evaluating learning style

The question 'How do we determine the preferred learning styles of our students?' was posed by Higgison (D 2000a) at the OTiS e-workshop. In attempting an answer workshop participants also identified problems with the whole concept of learning styles. The limitations of learning styles classifications have long been recognised in the literature:

"The idea of pigeonholing students may seem like a convenient simplification of the vast diversity of those idiosyncratic individuals we are faced with, and I see no objection in theory to attempting to describe people in this way. It is always salutary, however, to try to pigeonhole oneself in one of these categories?.applying it to oneself illuminates the crudity of the classification." (Laurillard, 1994)

The main problem seems to be that an individual's learning style is not fixed:

"It is possible to accept that there can be both consistency and variability in students' approaches to learning. The tendency to adopt a certain approach, or to prefer a certain style of learning, may be a useful way of describing differences between students. But a more complete explanation would also involve a recognition of the way an individual student's strategy may vary from task to task." (Entwistle, 1981 cited in Laurillard, 1994)

OTiS participants echo these views:

"It has been noticed that different student groups respond differently to the same environment for example, HND students generate much discussion in the introductory week, but once 'serious' learning is expected through the conference tasks they tend to become less enthusiastic. The BSc Mathematical Science students operated in the opposite way; preferring the more structured tasks and seeming less likely to interact in an exploratory session." (Street)

"My problem with "learning styles" is threefold: 1. Does is refer to self-perceived learning styles by learners via self-evaluation questionnaires? 2. Does it refer to the results based on observation by a third party while the learner was actually at work? 3. Does it refer to a combination of both points 1 and 2." (Labour-D 2000a).

Kolb (1984, cited in Lockitt, 1997) recognised that the learning experience is unique for everyone and that identification of preferred learning styles should not be used to 'typecast' learners, but rather to develop potential and extend the choice available to the learner. Thus, an understanding of preferred learning styles may assist the development of appropriate learning opportunities:

"If we believe that engaging learning styles has an impact, then, surely we should attempt to engage them all, having decided on the most appropriate typology, as we do in the live training room. There is an on-line University based in Canada that does precisely this - there are different versions of learning materials and support which learners choose after completing a learning styles inventory. Clearly there are development cost issues here, but it would be interesting to find out how successfully that University has sustained or increased its completion rates." (Mackie, 2000)

To assist the evaluation of a learner's preferred style a number of techniques are available. Rosie (D 2000b) suggests that the first step is to ask the student:

"We'd probably agree there are many different learning styles for all of us and some work better for some things than others. Evans and Abbott (1998) (I think) found that the great majority of students on a range of courses used a set of surface learning styles and this proved effective but quite stressful. So maybe a start point is to ask the student and to work through some alternatives to a question to see which ones strike chords and which don't. I think learning styles and question setting go together. If you want to use a surface learning style you will turn the question in such a way that this will happen, or conversely you will seek out styles of question that will support your favoured learning approach." (Rosie-D 2000b)

One of the many more formal approaches is suggested by Labour :

"Giving the learners power to decide how and what to learn according to their learning styles and objectives is the cornerstone of a lifelong learning project. Learners need to learn where to get help and how to negotiate for it with the various forms of learning partnerships that can be developed. This does not mean that tutors need be passive facilitators. Their role is to co-ordinate activities such as group surveys about the online learning and techniques in learning from computer mediated texts. One example is that of the five-step technique proposed by the International Tandem Network http://www.slf.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/email/." (Labour)

Gilbert-Hunt and McLaine used students' exploration of their own learning styles as an exercise in the first module of their course:

"Module 1: Learning Techniques provides an environment in which students explore their own learning styles and approaches to client education, whilst at the same time develop the necessary technical skills of Internet searching, using email, and participating in the threaded discussion." (Gilbert-Hunt and McLaine)

In an assignment, students were given an introduction to learning and learning styles, then:

". . . asked to chose three learning style models from the readings or web sites (which are linked to the study guides). They were asked to apply the rating scale in each model to themselves and compare the results with each other and their own knowledge of self. They were then asked to repeat this process on a friend or relative, looking for consistencies, etc. The students then discussed their findings with each other through the threaded discussion and shared any new resources." (Gilbert-Hunt and McLaine)