Learning Styles and Generational
Differences: Do They Matter?
Evaluating the Impact and Variability
of Learning/Cognitive Styles and Generational Differences
Jolly Holden, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
American InterContinental University
Philip Westfall, Ph.D.
Director, Air Technology Network
Air University
Goals

Inform--What are learning styles, cognitive styles,
aptitude treatment interactions, learning modalities, and
generational distinctions?


Educate--What does the research indicate?
Enlighten—So what? What can teachers do to facilitate the
transfer of learning?
Caution:
You are Entering the
“No Spin Zone”
Presentation Menu









What are Learning/Cognitive Styles?
What are Learning Modalities?
What’s the Difference?
What are Aptitude Treatment Interactions?
Review of the Research
Generational Distinctions
Bottom Line: How to Improve Performance
Appendix—Cognitive Learning Strategies
Learning /Cognitive Style Resources
So What…
•
A recent article (Dec, 2009) in the Chronicle of Higher
Education entitled Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style
May Not Help Students, challenged the prevailing concept of
learning styles and their affect on student performance.
•
The investigators found “no evidence…for validating the
educational applications of learning styles into general
educational practice.” and concluded “the instructional
method that proves most effective for students with one
learning style is not the most effective method for students
with a different learning style.”
So What…
•
This is not a new debate but a continuing investigation into
the efficacy of learning styles that has spanned 60 years.
•
To that end, there is a strong intuitive appeal to the notion
there are individual preferences and styles of learning.
•
That said, we’re not going to solve the problem today, but…
at the end of this presentation, you will better understand:
The concept of learning styles and assess their variability
and impact on learning
What are Learning Styles?


Basically, learning styles refers to the concept that individuals
differ in regard to what mode of instruction or study is most
effective for them.
Most often learning styles are characterized as
multidimensional and usually not “either-or” extremes and
categorized by how information is preferentially perceived
(sensory or intuitive), organized (inductive or deductive),
processed (active or reflective), and modality preference
(visual, aural, or kinesthetic).
•
The most commonly used [and least understood] model of
learning styles are the visual, aural, and kinesthetic (VAK)
models
What are Cognitive Styles?


Cognitive styles are viewed as a bipolar dimension
representing a person's typical or habitual mode of problem
solving, thinking, perceiving and remembering; are
considered stable over time, and related to theoretical or
academic research.
Cognitive styles primarily focus on cognition and how
information is processed in the brain.
So…what’s the difference? A learning style or modality describes
how information enters the brain: visually, aurally, or tactically,
whereas cognitive style refers to how the information is processed
once the information gets to the brain.
What are Learning Modalities?



Learning, or perceptual modalities, are sensory based and
refer to the primary way our bodies take in information
though our senses: visual (seeing), auditory (hearing),
kinesthetic (moving), and tactile (touching).
Humans are multi-sensory in that the brain can perform
several activities at once when processing information (e.g.,
tasting and smelling, hearing and seeing) .
While the brain processes wholes and part simultaneously,
learning engages the whole body
What’s the Difference?
•
•
•
Not surprisingly, there is substantial confusion between
learning styles and learning modalities where the terms are
often used interchangeably.
One of the reasons is the complexity of how the human brain
functions as it relates to one’s modalities in receiving
information (visual, aural, kinesthetic) and how the brain
processes that information (cognition).
Continued research into neuroscience is discovering how
the brain processes information acquired through our
primary learning modalities: visual, aural, and tactile.
Note: Neuroscience has estimated 85% of the human brain is wired to
process visual information, and that 90% of what the brain processes
is visual information, so one’s primary learning modality is visual.
What’s the Difference?
•
•
•
An important finding from that research is that memory is
usually stored independent of any modality.
You typically store memories in terms of meaning—not in
terms of whether you saw (visual), heard (aural), or physically
(tactile/kinesthetic) interacted with the information.
To that end, our brain is constantly searching its memory for
context based on prior knowledge/experience.
•
Note: In the absence of visual cues, our brains create “mental
pictures” based upon our schema to add context to what is
printed/spoken. Click here for an example.
The so what: retention is improved through words and
pictures (visual media) rather than through words alone.
What are Aptitude
Treatment Interactions?
•
•
•
•
Any discussion concerning individual differences in
learning cannot be complete without addressing the
research on aptitude treatment interaction (ATI).
ATI is the concept that some instructional strategies
(treatments) are more or less effective for particular
individuals depending upon their specific abilities.
As a theoretical framework, ATI suggests optimal learning
results when the instruction is exactly matched to the
aptitudes of the learner.
The goal of ATI research is to predict educational outcomes
from combinations of aptitudes and treatments.
Aptitude Treatment Interactions
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
The lack of attention to the social aspects of learning is a
serious deficiency of ATI research.
Design treatments should not focus on the individual but
groups of students with particular aptitude patterns.
An understanding of cognitive abilities alone would not be
sufficient to explain individual differences in learning when
incorporating aptitude treatment interactions.
ATI critics argued that student performance was too
dynamic to be supported by the permanence and
pervasiveness of primarily cognitive ATI .
Click here for more on ATI
What Does the Research Indicate?
•
•
•
•
Simply stated, the research has not revealed a compelling
argument as to the impact of learning styles and their effect
on predicting learning outcomes
Postulates learning/cognitive styles have <5% effect on the
variability in learning.
The majority of research does not support a significant
statistical relationship between learning/ cognitive styles and
learning outcomes.
Low validity and reliability scores of the instruments used to
identify specific learning styles raise serious doubts about
their psychometric properties, particularly the VAK learning
style tests
Given the Research,
Why all the Confusion?
•
It’ s not surprising the reference to learning styles is one of
the most misunderstood and overused issues confronting
educational and training communities.
•
•
•
Part of the reason is the wide disparity in the definition of
learning styles and their relationship to cognitive styles.
Furthermore, there is continued debate as to whether learning
styles even exist, with the only current evidence of their
existence being the tests used to identify them.
Confusion is further exacerbated in that the research has
identified over 71 different types of learning styles (Table 1),
summarized into the 13 most influential models (Table 2),
and families (Table 3)
Generational Distinctions—
What are They?

Chronicle of Higher Education’s The Millennial Muddle,
October 2009:
• “The brightest bunch of do-gooders in modern history” or
“self-involved knuckleheads”?
• “To accept generational thinking, one must find a way to
swallow two large assumptions. That tens of millions of
people, born over about 20 years, are fundamentally
different from people of other age groups—and that those
tens of millions of people are similar to each other in
meaningful ways.” (Palmer H Muntz director of admissions
Lincoln Christian Univ.)
Generational Distinctions—
What are They?


Cooperative Institutional Research Program at UCLA
(annual surveys since 1966. American Freshman: Forty Years
of Trends) show small, gradual changes; differences are not
significant between generations but only over multiple
generations.
Some disturbing trends over multiple generations:
increasing sense of entitlement, decreasing literacy and
general factual knowledge.
Generational Distinctions—
What are They?
Myth: “The Digital Generation takes to e-learning like
ducks to water”
Reality:
 Greatest disappointment of our time: Huge investments
made in technology (beginning with Telecommunications
Act of 1996) in public schools with negative results. Leisuretime tech skills don’t translate to educational & training use
of technology. Fast scanning doesn’t translate into academic
reading. Reading proficiency dropped from 40% to 35%
from 1992 to 2005. Intellectual habits such as deep reflection
decrease with increase time spent on browsing, blogging,
IMing, Twittering, and Facebook
Online Literacy Is a Lesser Kind, Mark Bauerlein, Chronicle of Higher
Education, Sep., 2008)
Generational Distinctions—
What are They?

“Not quite …students do want to be connected, but
principally to one another; they want to be entertained,
principally by games, music, and movies; and they want to
present themselves and their work. E-learning at its best is
seen as a convenience and at its worst as a distraction.
Thwarted Innovation What Happened to e-learning and Why,
Robert Zemsky and William F. Massy, 2004 . The Learning
Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania)
Generational Distinctions—
What are They?


Familiarity with, understanding of, and dexterity with
technology varies greatly within the 18-23 age group a few
with amazing skills, a large number who can’t deal with
computers
Playing games doesn’t translate to improving educational
outcomes
Generational Myth, report of research on literacy and technology
Chronicle of Higher Education, Sept., 2008)
Focusing too much on
the Digital Generation

Chronicle of Higher Education’s Generational Myth report
of research on literacy and technology, Sept 2008:
• “Today’s young people—including college students—
are just more complicated than any analysis of
imaginary generations can ever reveal.”
• Must consider vast range of skills, knowledge &
experience of many segments of society—avoid
focusing more on needs of socially or financially
privileged and overestimate the digital skills of young
people in general
• Thinking in generations too simplistic—keeps us from
examining ethnic, gender, and class distinctions too
closely.
Focusing too much on
the Digital Generation
•
“Once we assume that all young people love certain
forms of interaction and hate others, we forge policies
and design systems and devices that match those
predispositions. By doing so, we either pander to some
marketing cliché or force otherwise diverse group of
potential users into a one size-fits-all system that might
not meet their needs.”
Focusing too much on
the Digital Generation

A comprehensive literature review in 2006 conducted by
Professor Thomas Reeves , Univ. of Georgia: Do
Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design?
• Although generational differences are evident in
workplace, not salient enough to warrant different
instructional designs or learning technologies.
• Research on generational differences suffers from many
same weaknesses found in learning styles research—
throws grave doubt on validity of using learning styles as
basis for accommodating students of any generation.
Focusing too much on
the Digital Generation
•
Instead of worrying about whether Boomers, GenXers or
Millennials will learn more from direct instruction or
virtual reality games, instructional design should begin
by identifying needs of learners, design best possible
prototype learning environments in situ, then conduct
evaluation to optimize solution
Bottom Line-How to Improve Performance



Cognitive science has revealed learners differ in their
abilities with different modalities, but teaching to a learner’s
best modality doesn't affect their educational achievement.
What does matter is whether the learner is taught in the
content's best modality…people learn more when content
drives the choice of modality.
Given a typical heterogeneous class that encompass a wide
range of learning/cognitive styles…
what can you do about it?
Improving Performance-Adapting the Learning Environment
•
Considerations when adapting learning environments to meet
a diverse classroom.








Existing knowledge and skills
Motivation
Cognitive abilities
Cognitive load (working memory capacity)
Personality traits
Interests
Exploratory behavior
Impulsivity
Note: Research has indicated prior knowledge and intrinsic
motivation account for ~70% of the variability in learning.
Improving Performance--Integrating
Cognitive Learning Strategies

Cognitive learning strategies are methods used to help
learners link new information to prior knowledge in
facilitating the transfer of learning through the systematic
design of instruction
•
•
•
•
Focuses on how the learner processes the knowledge
Provides a structure for learning when a task cannot be
completed through a series of steps (scaffolding)
Supports the learner as s/he develops internal procedures that
enable him/her to perform tasks that are complex, and can
increase the efficiency with which the learner approaches a
learning task.
Tailoring instruction for different levels of prior knowledge
Improving Performance—
Integrating Visual Components


Since neuroscience has revealed 90% of what the brain
processes is visual information, one’s primary learning
modality is visual.
Therefore, compliment text-based presentations with visual
components/aids.
• This adds context to the written/spoken word
• Provides a structure for learning when a task cannot be
completed through a series of steps
Bottom line: Different ways of knowing and understanding
demand different ways of learning and teaching
The End
Intentionally Left Blank
Click this button to return to the prior slide
What are Aptitude
Treatment Interactions?
Return to
ATI Slide
Background: Beginning in the early 60’s, Lee Cronbach and
Richard Snow searched “fruitlessly for interactions of abilities”
by looking for aptitudes (characteristics that affects responses
to the treatment) that explained how to instruct students one
way and not another, i.e., evidence that showed regression
slopes that differed from treatment to treatment. Continuing
through the 70’s and mid 80’s, Cronbach and Snow continued
their research by advocating a closer scrutiny of cognitive
processes by focusing on Aptitude Treatment Interactions
(ATIs) (Learning Orientation Research, 2004).
What are Aptitude
Treatment Interactions?
Return to
ATI Slide
Findings: Cronbach’s (1975) research emphasized the
important relationship between cognitive aptitudes and
treatment interactions. However, he was continually thwarted
by inconsistent findings coming from roughly similar inquiries.
Successive studies employing the same treatment variable
found different outcome-on-aptitude slopes. Cronbach
concluded the inconsistency came from unidentified interactions
and that "an understanding of cognitive abilities considered
alone would not be sufficient to explain learning, individual
differences in learning, and aptitude treatment interactions
(Learning Orientation Research, 2004).
What are Aptitude
Treatment Interactions?
Return to
ATI Slide
Findings (con’t): In the early eighties, the cognitive process
analysis of aptitudes processes continued with variations
focusing on individual differences in learning and cognition
(Snow, 1980). Although Cronbach and Snow (1977) were
looking for a "whole-person view" of learning, they believed it
was primarily the cognitive processes that should be
considered in the design and development of adaptive
instructional systems. Eventually the new aptitudes evolved
into cognitive styles to represent the predominant modes of
information processing, although can very within individuals as
a function of task and situation variables (Snow, 1989).
What are Aptitude
Treatment Interactions?
Return to
ATI Slide
Conclusion: ATI critics argued that student performance was
too dynamic to be supported by the permanence and
pervasiveness of primarily cognitive ATI and that students,
e.g., without learner control, would become system dependent
on prescribed solutions. However, based upon Cronbach and
Snow’s pioneering research, they concluded that ultimately
design treatments should not focus on the individual but
groups of students with particular aptitude patterns.
Intentionally Left Blank
Click this button to return to the prior slide
Describing and “Seeing” the
Constellation Orion
•
•
Return to main
presentation
•
•
•
The constellations are totally imaginary things that have been made
up over the past 6,000 years . So how would you describe something
imaginary to your students?
You may begin by describing the three bright stars in a row that
form Orion’s belt and the other stars that form his sword.
But your students have trouble “visualizing” how the stars shape the
figure of Orion. To assist them in creating a mental picture, you show
them a star chart of Orion to help them “visualize” this imaginary
figure.
But they still can’t quite get it, so to further enhance their mental
image, you show them another detailed chart depicting Orion.
The aha moment…they got it because they now can “see” Orion, so
they conclude they must be visual learners.
But…are they really visual learners or did you create the
visual image for them by adding context to the description?
Orion Star Chart
Return to
prior slide
Orion Figure Outlined
in a Star Chart
Return to
prior slide
The Constellation Orion
Return to
prior slide
Intentionally Left Blank
Click this button to return to the prior slide
Table 1: Types of
Learning/Cognitive Styles
Return to main
presentation
 convergers vs. divergers
 verbalisers vs. imagers
 holists vs. serialists
 deep vs. surface learning
 activists vs. reflectors
 pragmatists vs. theorists
 adaptors vs. innovators
 assimilators vs. explorers
 field dependent vs. field
independent
 globalists vs. analysts
 assimilators vs.
accommodators
 imaginative vs. analytic
learners
 intuitionists vs. analysts
 extroverts vs. introverts
 seeing vs. hearing
 sensing vs. intuition
 thinking vs. feeling
 non-committers vs.
plungers
 common-sense vs.
dynamic learners
 concrete vs. abstract
learners
 random vs. sequential
learners
 initiators vs. reasoners
 judging vs. perceiving
 left brainers vs. right
brainers
 meaning-directed vs.
undirected
 theorists vs. humanitarians
 activists vs. theorists
 pragmatists vs. reflectors
 organizers vs. innovators
 analytics/inductives/succe
ssive processors vs.
globals/deductivess/simul
taneous processors
 executive, hierarchic,
conservative vs.
legislative, anarchic,
liberal
Table 2: Most Influential Models of
Learning/Cognitive Styles
Return to main
presentation













Allinson and Hayes’ Cognitive Styles Index (CSI)
Apter’s Motivational Style Profile (MSP)
Dunn and Dunn model and instruments of learning styles
Entwistle’s Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for
Students (ASSIST)
Gregorc’s Mind Styles Model and Style Delineator (GSD)
Herrmann’s Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)
Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)
Jackson’s Learning Styles Profiler (LSP)
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA)
Sternberg’s Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI)
Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles (ILS)
Table 3: Families of
Learning/Cognitive Styles
Return to main
presentation
Learning styles are
largely sensory based
Learning styles reflect
deep-seated cognitive
structure
Learning styles reflect
relatively stable
personality type
Learning styles are
flexibly stable learning
preferences
Betts (1909) Betts
Inventory
Bartlett (1932)
Gordon (1949) Scale of
Imagery Control
Scheehan (1967)
Shortened Betts Inventory
Paivio (1971) Individual
Difference Questionnaire
(IDQ)
Marks (1973) Marks
Vividness of Visual
Imagery Questionnaire
Dunn and Dunn (1975,
1979, 1992, 2003) VAK
Learning Style Theory;
Learning Style
Inventory(LSI); Building
Excellence Survey (BES)
Torrance (1990) Style of
Learning and Thinking
Riding (1991) Cognitive
Style Analysis (CSA)
Guilford (1950)
Convergent/divergent
thinking
Prettigrew (1958)
Scale of Cognitive Style
Gardner et al. (1959)
Tolerant/ intolerant
Broverman (1960)
Kagen (1967) Matching
Familiar Figures Test
Messick (1976)
Analytic / non-analytic
conceptualizing
Hunt (1978) Paragraph
Completion Method
Cooper (1997)
Learning Styles ID
Weinstein,
Zimmerman, Palmer
(1988) Learning and
Study Strategies
Inventory
Witkin (1962) Group
Embedded Figure Test
(GEFT)
Myers – Briggs (1962)
Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI)
Apter (1998) Motivation
Style Profile (MSP)
Epstein-Meier (1989)
Constructive Thinking
Inventory (CTI)
Miller (1991)
Personality typology:
cognitive, affective,
conative
Harrison- Branson
(1998) revised Inquiry
Mode Questionnaire
Jackson (2002)
Learning Style Profiles
(LSP)
Kolb (1976, 1985, 1999)
Learning Style
Inventory (LSI);
Revised Learning Style
Inventory (R-LSI); LSI
Version 3
Schmeck (1977)
Inventory of Learning
Processes
Honey and Mumford
(1982) Learning Style
Questionnaire (LSQ)
Felder and Silverman
(1989) Index of
Learning Styles (ILS)
Kaufmann (1989) The
A-E Inventory
Allinson and Hayes
(1996) Cognitive Style
Index (CSI)
Herrmann (1995) Brain
Dominance Instrument
(BDI)
Intentionally Left Blank
Click this button to return to the prior slide
Appendix—
Cognitive Learning Strategies
Table of Contents
• What is Schema?
• Types of Cognitive Learning Strategies
• Organizing Strategies
• Spatial Strategies
• Bridging Strategies
What are Cognitive
Learning Strategies?

Cognitive learning strategies are mental strategies
which occur in the minds of people.
• Learning these strategies are aided by their
incorporation into instruction.
• The utility of cognitive learning strategies can be
employed by faculty to facilitate the activation and
retention of prior knowledge by integrating active
and exploratory learning techniques into the design
process.
What are Cognitive
Learning Strategies?

The utility of cognitive learning strategies can be
employed by faculty to facilitate the activation and
retention of prior knowledge by focusing on knowledge
construction.
•
Knowledge construction is a methodological approach that
assumes knowledge needs to be constructed
– Involves the opportunity to critically analyze information, dialogue
with others about its meaning, reflect how the information fits within
one’s belief and value systems (schema), and arrive at a meaningful
understanding of that information
– In this process, information becomes transformed into knowledge
What is Schema?
•
•
•
•
The contents of long term memory are sophisticated
structures that permit us to perceive, think, and solve
problems, rather than a group of rote learned facts.
These structures are known as schemas (a mental
framework for understanding and remembering
information) and permit us to treat multiple elements as a
single element.
Schemas are the cognitive structures that make up our
knowledge base and assist us in knowledge construction.
Schemas can be “activated” through the use of cognitive
learning strategies
What is Schema Activation?
•
•
•
Schema activation refers to an array of activities designed to
activate relevant knowledge in students’ memory prior to
encountering new, to be learned information.
Schema activation is the process of engaging prior knowledge,
which is organized in the brain in schemata .
Schema activation is an important scaffolding tool where learning
depends upon the activation of old knowledge to provide an
appropriate schema into which new knowledge can be
incorporated .
Schema
Activation
Prior knowledge: Schema activation
engages prior knowledge
New knowledge: Schema
activation links prior knowledge
to new knowledge
Comprehension: Schema
activation creates connections
which increase comprehension
Types of Cognitive
Learning Strategies


Some cognitive learning strategies can be represented
based on the information presented, and are used as tools
to construct knowledge in new concepts
Representative models include:
• Organizing
• Spatial
• Bridging
Organizing Strategies
Organizing strategies are not memorable strategies in that
they must be supplemented by more powerful strategies, such
as framing or concept mapping. However, chunking
strategies are good preparation for other strategies.
Chunking




Organization of information into meaningful units
Makes it easier to use, store, and recall information
Multiple chunks of information can be linked together
Helps in overcoming working memory limitations
I need to
create a
project.
What must
I do?
Spatial Strategies
Spatial strategies are an array of information organized by
location in space and time. They assist in the recall of
concrete arrays of information by using visual displays (grids,
matrix, framework) of substantial amounts of information, and
provides a big picture by which learners can use to assimilate
information.
Frames








Visual display of substantial amounts of information
Framework for representing knowledge
Allows text easier to understand
Knowledge organized around the representation in frames
• Allows a uniform representation of knowledge
• Main ideas are represented as slots of some concept that
describes properties of that concept
Matrices or grids allow for organizing large numbers of
facts, concepts or ideas
Driven by a general principle or statement
Elicits personal knowledge from memory
Relationships are recognized and understood by logical
inference
Frames






Improves comprehension
Allows for deeper levels of processing
Powerful beginning by providing the big picture or spatial
learning strategy
Helps students infer and recall prior learning
Appropriate combinations include imagery, rehearsal and
mnemonics
Does not require as much supplementation as other cognitive
strategies
Concept Maps



Concept mapping is a way of graphically displaying
concepts and relationships between or among concepts
Concept mapping allows a visual aid in which to view
thoughts and ideas
Concept mapping can aid a student in tying ideas together
or relationships between ideas.
•
Consists of extracting concepts and their relationships from text
or other content
Uses for Concept Maps







Develop an understanding of a body of knowledge
Explore new information and relationships
Access prior knowledge
Gather new knowledge and information
Share knowledge and information generated
Design structures or processes such as written documents,
constructions, web sites, web search, multimedia
presentations
Problem solve options
Click here for an example
Bridging Strategies
•
•
Helps learners to recall what they know and to transfer
knowledge to new topics. It should be brief, abstract, and
introduction of the new material and a restatement of prior
knowledge.
Providing learners with a structure of new information and
encourage transfer and application.
Advance Organizer
Old
Knowledge
New
Knowledge
A [bridging] strategy for metacognition in that it provides
a “bridge” for students to transfer pre-existing knowledge
to a new topic
Advance Organizer
can be used as…
•
•
•
•
•
•
A brief, abstract prose passage
A bridge, a linking of information with something already
know
An introduction of a new lesson, unit or course
An abstract outline of new information and re-statement of
prior knowledge
A structure for students of the new information
An encouragement for students to transfer or apply what
they know
Metaphor


A figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to
something that it does not literally denote in order to
suggest a similarity
Types
•
•
•
•
Comparative: An implicit statement that two apparently
dissimilar objects do have in common features
Interactive: Similarities in the mind of the student between the
vehicle and topic.
Relational: Based on abstract connections of a logical or natural
character
Attribute: Based on physical or perceptual similarities
Analogy

Involves taking into consideration resemblances between
objects, situations or ideas which are similar
•
Intent is to transfer prior knowledge from a familiar situation to a
new situation, per se, use of a familiar idea or concept to
introduce or define a new idea or concept
Simile
Simile is a figure of speech in which two unlike things are
compared and share one common factor
 This form of a cognitive strategy is essential because its
ability to influence learning and memory
 When using a simile the relationship is expressed using “is
like” or “is similar to” or “as”
Use of the simile will allow the learner to…
 Use imagery as a bridge connecting the concept and the
understanding
 Display better memory performance
 Evaluate their learning preference from the different formats
the information is introduced
 Imagine the concept, store and recall the image, and relate it
to the subject

For example, a student will imagine the concept and be able
to store and recall the image of a rubber band and relate it to
the flexibility and durability of human skin.
Human Skin is as flexible
as a rubber band
Simile
Imagery/memory
Skin can be bended and
stretched like a rubber band
Metacognition
Examples of Concept Maps
Return to
prior slide
Examples of Concept Maps
Distance
Learning
Synchronous
Traditional
Classroom
Learning
Environment
Component
Instructional
Objectives
Asynchronous
Instructional
Component
Collaborative
Tools
Content
Instructional
Strategies
Media
Component
Complexity
Rapidity
of Change
Multimedia
(aural/visual)
Synchronicity
Interactivity
Symmetry
Asynchronous
Instructional
Media
Asymmetrical
Media
Symmetrical
Media
Synchronous
Instructional
Media
Asynchronous
Collaboration
(P2P)
Didactic
Synchronous
Collaboration
(P2P)
Dialectic
Intentionally Left Blank
Click this button to return to the prior slide
Resources






Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using
learning styles: What research has to say to practice. Learning Skills and
Research Centre, London. Retrieved from
http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/attachments/c455e462-95c4-4b0d-8308bbc5ed1053a7.pdf
Cognitive/Learning Styles (n.d.). Theory Into Practice, Retrieved from
http://tip.psychology.org/styles.html
Cronbach, L. (1975). Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology.
"American Psychologist," 116-127.
Cronbach, L. & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A
Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Curry, L. (1990). A critique of research on learning styles. Educational
Leadership, 56(2), 50-56.
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive Style and Self-Efficacy: Predicting Success in Online
Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21-38
Resources




Dumbo, Myron H., & Howard, K. (2007). Advice about the Use of Learning
Styles: A Major Myth in Education. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
v37 n2 p101-109 Spr 2007. Retrieved from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&
_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ767768&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0
=no&accno=EJ767768
Howles, S. (n.d.). Learning styles: What the Research Says and How to Apply it
to Designing E-Learning. Session TH101, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Retrieved from
http://isg.urv.es/library/papers/learning%20styles_overview.pdf
Learning Orientation Research: Individual Differences in Learning (2004).
Retrieved from
http://www.trainingplace.com/source/research/cronbach.htm
Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical
review. (2008). Learning and Skills Research Centre, Department for
Education and Skills, UK (2004). Retrieved from
http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/edskas/learning%20styles.pdf
Resources




Mayer R.E. & Moreno R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. In Web-Based Learning: What Do We Know? Where Do
We Go? (eds R. Bruning, C.A. Horn & L.M. PytlikZillig), pp. 23–44.
Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Student. (Dec 15,
2009). Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Matching-Teaching-Style-to/49497/
Multimodal Learning Through Media:What the Research Says. (2008). Metiri
Group--Commissioned by Cisco. Retrieved from
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-LearningThrough-Media.pdf
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles:
Concepts and Evidence, Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
Retrieved from
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf
Resources






Reeves, T. (2006), Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design?
Retrieved from
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper104/ReevesITForumJan08.pdf
Sharp, J. G., Byrne, J., & Bowker, R. (2008). The Trouble with VAK.
Educational Futures Vol.1(1) August 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.educationstudies.org.uk/materials/sharp_et_al_2.pdf
Snow, R. (1980). Aptitude Processes .In R. Snow, P. Frederico, & W.
Montague (eds.), Aptitude, Learning and Instruction, Conative and Affective
Process Analyses (Vol. 1, pp. 27-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, R. (1989). Aptitude-Treatment Interaction as a framework on individual
differences in learning. In P. Ackermann, R.J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (eds.),
Learning and Individual Differences. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Stahl, Steven A. (1999). Different Strokes for Different Folks: A Critique of
Learning Styles. The American Educator, Fall, 1999.
Willingham, D. (2005). Do Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learners Need
Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Instruction? American Educator, Summer 2005