McKee's E-Portfolio - Athabasca EdD Home



Learning Styles: Fact or Fiction for Learning and Teaching?Terralyn McKee Student Number 2653678MDDE 621Assignment #1As a long time educator and remedial specialist, understanding how students learn has been of particular interest to me. Theories regarding learning styles, in one form or another, have dotted the pedagogical landscape for as long as I can remember. They seem to be inextricably intertwined with classroom curriculum from elementary years to university practice. In fact, they seem to have taken on a life of their own within mass educational marketing to emerge as an industry in their own right. Surely anything with this much presence and influence across our teaching society must be grounded in empirical research and scientific review. At least I thought so until a chance meeting via You Tube with Dr. Daniel T. Willingham, cognitive psychologist and Professor of Psychology at University of Virginia. At this point, I am left questioning the merit of “learning styles” as a foundational practice to support meaningful cognitive growth for individual learners. A quick review of the evolution and growth of cognition and learning styles can be traced back as far as Aristotle’s treatise on memory in which he addressed varying degrees of learner ability, the role of the senses in determining potential in memory-making and recall, and strategies such as mnemonics and recitation in long term remembering (McKeon, 2001). The profile of cognition studies saw varying degrees of ebb and flow until studies in biology and psychology in the 1900’s catapulted it to prominence with the works of individuals such as John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Alfred Binet, Jean Piaget, and Maria Montessori. These works, among others, helped to lay the ground work for extensive research in psychology and neurobiology, spawning numerous theories of learning - such as behaviourism, cognitivism, social learning theory, social constructivism, multiple intelligences and brain-based learning. Embedded within all of these learning theories are the assumptions, stated or implicit, that learning and teaching behaviours impact on and can enhance or impede learning outcomes. Theorists who seem to have helped shape the current debate on “learning styles” include Jung – with his personality-typologies testing which influenced the development of the Myers-Briggs tool (Boeree, 1997), Piaget –with his biologically-based discrete stages of development (Genovese , 2003), Bloom – with his cognitively-structured taxonomies of types of learning and intentional transition from simple to more complex levels of cognition (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2001), Dunn and Dunn – with their comprehensive diagnostic-prescriptive methodology combining cognitive style and brain lateralization (Burke & Dunn, 1998, 2005), Kolb – the demarcation of learning preferences with a learning styles inventory reflective of the experiential educational movement (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), Gardner – with his broader analysis of intelligence and information processing via multiple intelligences (Willingham, 2010), and Caine and Caine – and their neurological principles of brain function paired with conditions for optimal learning (Caine & Caine, 1990).In a nutshell, learning styles propose that learning preferences are an inherent part of personal intelligence. And because each individual processes information differently, teaching methodologies should strive to accommodate the preferred learning styles for each learner within the learning environment. Sensorial information is the vehicle which transports the information to the brain for processing (comprehension, motivation, etc). From this point forward, learning styles theories and strategies become as varied and complex as their individual advocates (Pashler, et al., 2008). One element they do share in common is the belief that meeting the needs and preferences of learners is paramount for effective and meaningful learning to occur. And thus an industry is born - enter the critics of “learning styles”!According to detractors of learning styles, there is little, if any, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of learning styles as an educational strategy of merit (Stahl, 1999). Based on a landmark literature review by Coffield et al., learning styles are marked by “theoretical incoherence and conceptual confusion” (p. 135) which is a result of differing definitions used across a dizzying array of pedagogical models (over 70 at their last count) which refer to similar attributes, processes, functions, preferences and differences. As well, they assert that their scrutiny of the existing qualitative research is highly suspect in that it relies in large part, on participant self-reports to inventories of questionable validity, in contrast to qualitative research which can be replicated to produce confirmation of the types of educational gains laid at the base of learning styles models.These are not new arguments and have been expressed by a number of well respected cognitive and educational psychologists and researchers. As recently as 2009, in another extensive and rigourous experimental research review, Pashler et al. stated, “We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning styles assessments into general educational practice” (p. 105) and “The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, sticking and disturbing” (p. 117). Dr. Daniel T. Willingham takes exception to theories such as Piaget’s developmental stages (2008) and Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (2004) as being contrary to what neuro-cognitive scientists now know about brain structure and function. While not disputing that individuals certainly do express a preference for certain types of learning and that certain types of knowledge are more easily processed, this should not be confused with the nature, type and presentation of learning in general. He asserts that content is one of the key and vital determining elements in supporting effective learning (Willingham, 2005b). Certain types of information are more appropriately presented in visual format, while others in auditory form or kinesthetically (Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). In fact, the more opportunities to receive the information in a fullness of expression across learner modalities supports better retention and greater cognition, which is why the current learning-styles theories seem to make “intuitive” sense to educators, parents and students. They present a kernel of common-sense wrapped in pseudo-scientific research (Willingham, 2005a; Willingham, 2006). Some critics go so far as to assert that the energy and finances expended on the implementation of learning-styles models in the classroom is counter-productive (dumbing down content areas) and takes away from the real task of teaching by supplanting real knowledge with artifacts and nonsensical activity which are hollow representations of actual knowledge. Learning styles have not only met criticisms within the academic field but have ignited passions on the political agenda by asserting that learning-styles models are discriminatory and will further diminish equity in education through erosion of financial parity (Eberstadt, 1999). Lack of academic rigour, overt commercialization of curriculum content and teaching styles, emerging neuro-biological contradictions, political agendas? So, how does all that I have believed about the importance of learning styles been changed by these critical reflections? Having been an ardent student of Dewey, Piaget, Bloom, and Dunn and Dunn amongst others, I am left struggling to realign my understanding and practice with the emerging sciences of neuro-biologial brain-based functions and the art of cognition, transformation, motivation and growth of the intellect. It is clear that much remains to be understood about neuroscience and the capacity of the brain to learn, grow, and regenerate its own capacity due to injury, illness and age. Motivation and the role of emotions on learning have been well established but how do they translate into a learning theory that can withstand the rigour of empirical review? Sensorial modalities do exist and their abilities to actively process information have been demonstrated but do they support a “meshing hypothesis” with learning styles as posited by Dunn and Dunn (1978)? I am less clear on these points at this juncture of my research than I was when I began this paper. While the ‘lure’ of learning-styles has been diminished for me, there is still much that needs review before I am able to wholly reject the hypothesis of learning-styles-as-irrelevant. One unintended outcome of this review has been my reconfirmation of faith in rigourous and critical peer-review as a process for growth and development across the academic milieu.ReferencesBoeree, C.G. (1997). Carl Jung: Personality theories. Retrieved from Bransford, J.D. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.Burke, K. & Dunn, R. (1998, 2005). Learning style: The clue to you! (LS:CY!) Retrieved from .Caine, R. N., and Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a Brain-Based Approach to Learningand Teaching. Educational Leadership, (48)2: 66-70. Retrieved from , F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Eccleston. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London. Retrieved from , R, & Dunn, K (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.Eberstadt, M. (1999). The schools they deserve: Howard Gardner and the remaking of elite education. Policy Review, 97, 3-17. Retrieved from , J.E. (2003). Piaget, pedagogy, and evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary Psychology, 1: 127-137. Retrieved from , A., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory - Version 3.1 - 2005technical specifications: Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. (HayResources Direct, Boston, MA). Retrieved from , D. R, Anderson, L. W. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational ObjectivesMcKeon, Richard (Ed.). (2001). De memoria et reminiscentia: In memory and reminiscence. In McKeon, Richard (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle (pp. 607-617). New York: The Modern Library.Pashler, H., McDaniel, M, Rohere, D., & Bjork, R. (2008 ). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 106-119. Retrieved from , S.A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles. American Educator, Fall 1999, pp. 27-31. , D. T. (2004). Reframing the Mind. Education Next, 4(3), 18 – 24. Retrieved from , D.T. (2005a). Do visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory, and kinesthetic instruction? American Educator, Summer 2005. Retrieved from , D.T. (2005b). The content’s best modality is key. American Educator, Summer 2005. Retrieved from , D.T. (2008). What is developmentally appropriate practice? American Educator, Summer:34-39. Retrieved from , D.T. & Lloyd, J.W. (2007). How educational theories can use neuroscientific data. Journal compilation for Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3):p. 140-149. Retrieved from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download