Learning Styles and their
application to StudyNet
LTI lunchtime seminar series
Janet Webber – Physiotherapy/LTI
Monday 15th June
1
Aims for this session
• To give an overview of learning styles and
definitions from the simple to the more
complex
• Briefly present research results obtained
as part of MA
• Provide some food for thought
2
Overview of Learning Styles
• Origins in the psychology literature in the 1950’s
• Based on theory that the way that people
approach a learning situation affects how much
they benefit/their performance/results etc
– i.e. performance is not just related to intelligence
• Diverse spread of use and therefore literature
– business to education
• across the spectrum of ages and topic areas
– academically and commercially
– many claims and counter claims made
3
Overview of Learning Styles
• Large variety of terminology:
– Cognitive Style
Curry’s Onion
– Learning Style
– Learning Strategies and Learning/Instructional Preferences
• I.e. a blend of personality and application to external
environment
– Similar to nature/nurture debate
• Measured with Learning Style Questionnaires/Inventories
4
Cognitive Style
• This is concerned with the person’s habitual
psychological processes of perception,
thinking, memory and learning
• Relatively fixed in personality
• Inner layer of the Curry’s onion. E.g.
– Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis
• Holist/Analyst and Verbaliser/Imager
– Allinson and Hayes Cognitive Style Index 1996
• Intuition/Analysis
5
Learning Style
• Application of a person’s cognitive style to a learning
situation
• Again quite fixed but can be influenced by external factors
• E.g. Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
– Uses his learning cycle
• Concrete Experience (CE)///Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) [prehension]
• Reflective Observation (RO)///Active Experimentation (AE) [processing]
– And analyses
•
•
•
•
which you prefer,
how well you perform at each level and
how you approach each level
And gives you an orientation
– Accommodator/Diverger/Assimilator/Converger
6
Learning Strategies and
Learning/Instructional Preference
• Used to describe a person’s preferences for one type of
learning environment over another and the way in which
they choose /prefer to interact with different learning
tasks in the environment
– Also considers the social preferences in the context of learning
• This is the Outer layer of the onion! E.g.
– VARK
– Honey and Mumford
• All these can be assessed with questionnaires/inventories
etc
7
CAPITALS – Kolb’s LSI categories ,RED – Kolb’s learning cycle
Italics – Honey and Mumford‘s categories - After Sadler-Smith 2001
CE (feeling/experiencing)
ACCOMMODATOR
Activist
(Hands on)
DIVERGER
Reflector
(Look at problems from different perspectives)
AE (Doing)
CONVERGER
Pragmatist
(Find applications for ideas and theories)
RO (watching and listening)
ASSIMILATOR
Theorist
(Can organise diverse pieces of information
into organised thought)
AC (thinking)
May 09
8
Learning Styles and Education
• Student’s learning style is allied to their performance in
different learning environments
• Perception of the learning materials and format of
presentation is influenced by their style/preference
• Matching the style of teaching to that of the learners
improves student performance
• Mismatching the teaching style to that of the students
assists their ability to adapt to new situations
• Increasing students’ awareness of their learning
style/preference and then providing them with strategies
to learn, in both their favoured and non-favoured
environments, enhances teaching and learning
9
Learning Styles and Education
• Students learning style vs. Educators learning
styles
– Awareness is important
– Matching
– Mismatching
• E.g.
–
–
–
–
Fleming and his VARK
Kolb
Honey and Mumford
All advocates of matching and mismatching
10
Learning Style Questionnaire/Inventory
• Coffield at al 2004
– 71 questionnaires were found and 13 questionnaires/inventories
examined in detail: for internal consistency, test-retest reliability,
construct validity and predictive validity!
• Only one scored four out of four – Allinson and Hayes Cognitive Style Index 1996
Useful overviews:
• Rayner (2007) article counters this quite well, read the two together
and you will have a good picture of all the arguments
ALSO
• Evans & Sadler-Smith (2006) review of the 10th Annual Learning
Styles Information Network Conference gives a good overview of the
current thinking on Learning Styles
11
Onto my study and VARK
• A learning style preference
• Outer layer of the onion
VARK - Neil Fleming
www.vark-learn.com
• Based on NLP, that we receive information via
the visual, aural and kinaesthetic route
• Visual
– Seeing
• Aural
– Listening
• Read/(write)
– The written word
• Kinaesthetic
– Experience and practice
• Multimodal
– A mixture of some or all of the above
13
VARK categories and recommended strategies
adapted from Fleming 2001
• Visual (V):
– like information to be that is presented as charts,
graphs and flow charts.
– especially with arrows, circles etc that depicts facts
that could have been presented in words.
• Draw flow diagrams (mind maps) of information
that you need to understand and learn
14
VARK categories and recommended strategies –
adapted from Fleming 2001
• Aural / Auditory (A):
– like information to be presented in the spoken word,
i.e. that is "heard."
– learn best from lectures, tutorials, tapes, group
discussion, speaking, web chat, talking things
through.
• Use discussion with other students to
consolidate learning
• Make tapes of summarised notes (Podcasting?)
15
VARK categories and recommended strategies –
adapted from Fleming 2001
• Read/write (R):
– like to read about new information in all the various
forms, lecture notes, books, articles , web pages etc.
• Make lecture notes into lists
• Use the lecture notes
• Use the Discussion sites on line ask questions,
discuss topics with other students
16
VARK categories and recommended strategies –
adapted from Fleming 2001
• Kinesthetic (K):
– learn best by doing the task – whether it is simulated
or real
• Maximise the use of clinical/practical experience
• Use case studies/remember real life scenarios to
make learning real
• Practice techniques to consolidate the theory.
• Use role play
17
From VARK website
My study
• The aims of the study were:
– to investigate students’ frequency of access
(‘Use’) and ‘Perception of usefulness’ of a
Managed Learning Environment (StudyNet)
– to observe for a potential relationship between
these and both the students’ learning style
and their computer confidence.
19
Method
• Self reporting questionnaire on the
student’s
– use and perception of usefulness of various
tools on StudyNet at the time
– VARK category
– some open questions
– computer confidence analysis
• 70% - (62% actual) return rate
20
Sample
Age and gender distribution
35
29
30
25
20
No. of males
No. of females
15
10
10
7
5
5
2
1
0
19-22yrs
23-30yrs
31yrs+above
VARK categories
VARK categories by percentage of the
sample group
4% 4%
11%
V=Visual
A=Aural
R=Read/write
55%
26%
K=Kinaesthetic
MM=MultiModal
Results –significance (with care!)
• Visual learners (who prefer diagrammatic
representation of information) using
StudyNet the most
• Aural learners (who prefer the spoken
word) using StudyNet the least
• The Kinaesthetic learners were the second
highest ‘Users’
23
Other results
• Of the tools analysed
– the Lecture Notes were the most frequently accessed,
– the active use of the Discussion sites, he least used.
• Discussion sites were ‘Viewed’ more frequently than they
were actively used and
– are the most preferred tool of the Aural learners.
• More Kinaesthetic learners in the sample than the
general population (to be expected?)
• Computer Confidence score went down with increasing
age
24
Computer confidence and gender
Females ‘Used’ StudyNet more, and ‘Perceived’ it to be more
useful than their male colleagues but had a lower selfreported Computer Confidence
Comparison of StudyNet Use, Perception and
Computer Confidence by gender
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
100
91
75
72
71
64
Mean Use score
Mean Perception score
Mean Computer Confidence score
Female
Male
Computer confidence and age
Mean Computer Confidence score by age band
69
59
49
Mean Computer Confidenc e sc ore
39
29
19
19-22yrs
23-30yrs
31yrs+over
From open questions:
• They liked StudyNet but:
– felt it was replacing the personal contact with
lecturers
• There were to be expected technical
difficulties reported
• Slowness of staff to respond/upload material
was reported
– ? Perceived/actual
27
Future
• Your thoughts
• Others experience of other learning styles?
• Your VARK category and consider?
– Is it true for you
– Can you use it
• Personally
• Relevance to your learning and teaching practice
28
Positives
• There is some evidence for many of the
claims
• Usefulness of peoples awareness of:
– Their own learning style
– Others learning preferences and hence why
some staff/students appear not to respond
well to certain teaching methods
– Strategies to be used
29
Aims for this session
• To give an overview of learning styles and
definitions from the simple to the more complex
• Briefly present research results obtained as
part of MA
• Provide some food for thought
30
References
Allinson, C.W. & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of
intuition-analysis of organizational research. Journal of Management Studies.
33 (1), 119-135.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning theory: an overview of styles, models and measures.
Educational Psychology 24 (4), 419-444.
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E and Ecclestone (2004a). ‘Learning Styles and
pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review’. Learning and
skills research centre. www.LSRC.ac.uk. Accessed 6/01/05
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E and Ecclestone (2004b). ‘Should we be using
learning styles? What research has to say about practice’. Learning and skills
research centre. www.LSRC.ac.uk. Accessed 6/01/05
Evans C, & Sadler-Smith E. (2006) ‘Learning styles in education and training:
problems, politicisation and potential’ Education and training. 48 2/3. 77-83
Rayner S. (2007). ‘A teaching elixir, learning chimera or just fool’s gold? Do
leaning styles matter?’ Support for Learning. 22 1, 24-30
31
Percentage of each ‘User’ group
per VARK category (p<0.043)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
V
A
R
K
MM
% of VARK students in High usage group
% of VARK students in Medium-high usage group
% of VARK students in Low-medium usage group
Some trends
Comparison of StudyNet Use, Perception and
Computer Confidence by age
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
97
76
68
73
98 100
67
66
60
Mean Use score Mean Perception Mean Computer
score
Confidence score
19-22yrs
23-30yrs
31yrs and above