Learning Styles Teaching Styles CIE ALevel Educational Psychology

Learning Styles & Teaching Styles CIE A-Level- Educational Psychology

CIE Syllabus Components for Teaching & Learning Styles • Bullet 1: Learning Styles and Teaching Styles – Learning styles: • Curry’s (1983) onion model & Grasha’s (1996) six styles of learning. – Teaching styles: • Bennet (1976) formal/informal styles & Fontana (1995) high-initiative /low-initiative styles • Bullet 2: Measuring Learning Styles and Teaching Styles – Learning: • Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle, 1981) & Kolb's (1976) learning styles. – Teaching: • teacher-centred and student-centred styles (Kyriacou & Williams, 1993) • Bullet 3: Improving Learning Effectiveness (study skills) – The 4 -mat system (Mc. Carthy, 1990) – PQRST method: learning from textbooks – Strategies for effective learning and thinking (SPELT) Mulcahy et al. (1986)

CIE Syllabus Components • Bullet 1: Learning Styles and Teaching Styles – Learning styles: • Curry’s (1983) onion model • Grasha’s (1996) six styles of learning. – Teaching styles: • Bennet (1976) formal and informal styles • Fontana (1995) high-initiative and low-initiative styles

What are learning styles? • Learning styles- the process by which students best take-in information, process it, and apply it as needed (which type of instruction or studying technique works best) – Research has changed over the years with the current view- focuses on our senses- visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learner? – It is commonly accepted that learners are different from each other and that these differences affect their performance, thus teachers should take these differences into account, such as: • • Students have different abilities/talents/IQ Students have different interests Students have different background knowledge & experiences Some students have specific learning disabilities (such as dyslexia)

What are learning styles? • Dunn & Dunn (1993) note that in order for learners to capitalize on their natural abilities, they need to be made aware of the following aspects of their ‘learning personality’: – Social setting in which they thrive (alone, with peers, group) – What motivates them – Perceptual strengths (auditory, visual, etc) and time of day that is most productive – Physical learning environment (home, library, etc. ) and surroundings – Details in learning & studying (whole picture or detail orientated)

Support for Learning Styles • Numerous experimental studies found evidence of success of when special education, ELL, and/or low-performing students’ learning-styles are accommodated for in the classroom: – Favre (2007)- very low performing K-6 school in New Orleans increased state test passing rate from 30% 70% within 2 years – Fine (2003)- noted that special education high school students increased their grades, behaviors, and attitudes after changing the classroom lighting, allowing students to complete work as they chose, and introduced more tactile & kinesthetic resources – Wood (2002)- special education students in 3 rd-6 th grade significantly increased their math achievement after being taught with more tactile approaches

Opposition to Learning Styles • Some researchers say that the ‘labeling’ of learning styles has inadvertently harmed the classroom – Often teachers may try too hard to ‘fit-in’ various learning styles into the classroom, unintentionally detracting from the topic – Students may label themselves as ____ learning style and not put forth the effort when content is not taught in that manners • Implications for testing, course selections, activities, etc – Little solid evidence- Paschler et al’s (2010) meta-analysis looked at studies that matched learning styles to teaching practices • Found that majority of studies did not use appropriate designs • Overall, found no support for the meshing hypothesis (that when teachers ‘mesh’ their teaching to student preference, students perform at a higher level)

Learning styles and teacher approach • Most learning styles theories note that these are typically student 'preferences' rather than 'styles‘ – As such, a learner’s preferred form of instruction may not always be most suitable for him/her (pending on topic) – Most well-accepted theories have a variety of options for learning styles/preferences, rather than grouping all students into specific categories

Learning styles and teacher approach Though there is mixed empirical evidence that teaching to learning styles is effective, that doesn't mean that teachers should treat everyone the same, or use only one type of teaching in their lessons Lessons should still have variety in presenting the topic Students should be challenged to go beyond their comfort zone and use a range of different styles and techniques when they learn information Teachers still need to be cognizant of students’ backgrounds, abilities, motivations, and perspectives

Learning Style- Curry’s (1983) Onion Model Contains 4 ‘layers, ’ each characterized by different influences on the learning process & varying in stability 4) Instructional Preference (outer layer) Students preferred way of learning & being taught Highly influenced by the learning environment Teacher & parental expectations, teaching style, physical layout the most unstable of the ‘layers’ 3) Social Interaction (2 nd layer) Student’s preference (or not) for social interaction during learning May be teacher-driven or peer-driven

Learning Style- Curry’s (1983) Onion Model 2) Informational Processing Style (3 rd layer) Focuses on the strategies that students use to process info How we approach studying (in and out of class) Can be influenced by how material is explained More stable than outer layer 1) Cognitive Personality Style (core) Reflects student’s underlying approach to thinking Curry argues that the core of our learning style is shaped by our personality Most stable of the layers

Learning Style- Curry’s (1983) Onion Model What does it all mean? We all possess the ‘onion’ inside to differing degrees and this contributes to our own unique learning style Some students are more able to adapt to varying influences Students can acquire a range of strategies that can improve the effectiveness of the way that we learn (may be easier for some with a less rigid learning core) Measuring the Onion Model layers Outer layer- Learning Preference Inventory (Rezler & Rezmovic, 1981) 2 nd layer- Grasha’s (1974) student learning styles scale 3 rd layer- *Kolb’s (1984) LSI & *Entwistle’s (1981) ASI Core- Meyers-Briggs (1962) Type Indicator (MBTI)

Learning Style- Curry’s (1983) Onion Model Gender differences among the Onion Model Severiens & Dam (1994)- meta-analysis of 13 years of research Inner layer- no statistical difference Middle layer- mixed results Outer layer- Statistical difference found men tend to be more extrinsically motivated whereas females are more intrinsically motivated to do well Mixed empirical data on the application of Curry’s model Sadler-Smith (1999)- stated that there is a link between cognitive styles and learning preferences (and in later studies reversed his claim) Cools & Bellens (2012)- conducted 2 studies with both not finding evidence for Curry’s theory

Grasha’s (1996) Six Styles of Learning Proposed 6 learning styles that students display to a certain degree

Learning Style- Grasha’s (1996) Six Styles of Learning • Grasha noted that students should be able to use all 6 of them – Yet this depends on the task at hand – Students should use all 6 when being taught, yet they must be able to utilize the most appropriate one when needed • Awareness of each style can help maximize one’s learning repertoire • Overall support has been found for theory in correlational studies – Diaz (1999)- found that distance learners are more independent whereas on-campus learners are more dependent – Dincol et al (2011)- found no successful relation when matching teaching style and learning style to pre-service teachers

What are Teaching Styles? • Teaching style- manner in which teachers deliver content to students to best help them understand the new information • No clear-cut perspective of one’s teaching style as it may vary based upon grade level, class size, student makeup, type of class, and other external variables • Teacher may adopt more than one teaching style that would be best utilized for the topic at hand • Personality and teaching experience are major influences • Most teachers utilize the teaching style in which they were accustomed to while in school

Teaching Style- Formal and Informal Teaching Style (Bennet, 1976) • Proposed by Bennet’s (1976) empirical research that created two broad categories of teaching style – Formal style- often referred to as ‘traditional’ approach as it is teacher-centered • – how the class is ran, type of instruction, seating, etc Informal style- often referred to as ‘student-centered’ approach • Students have a say in how learning takes place – Often much more difficult as it takes much more planning & modifications to have the lesson be successful • Bennet suggested that the formal approach is more effective compared to the informal approach (especially for fundamental topics like math & language) – – Has been and still is widely contested topic Recent research suggests that it is topic-dependent

Teaching Style- High initiative- low initiative (Fontana, 1995) • Theory points out that it is not how exactly teaching is accomplished, but more of how the teacher allows teaching to progress • High initiative teachers are more democratic with their students and encourage their students to play an active role in their learning – Components of a high initiative teacher: • Aware of individual needs & abilities of students (learning style, ESE, ELL, • • etc) Willing to learn from the students (asking about the class & how to change it) Allow for various student skills to be displayed in assessments Allow & encourage self-confidence and autonomy in one’s learning Allow students to make informed choices in their education

Teaching Style- High initiative- low initiative (Fontana, 1995) • Low initiative teachers typically display the opposite behaviors as students play a passive role in their learning • Not aware of (or do not make use of) individual needs & abilities of students • Not willing to learn from students (students may complain yet they continue with their own manner of teaching) • Continue to use one (or few) assessment formats that are typically easier & faster to come up with, utilize, and grade • Do not encourage students to think for themselves and to be autonomous n their learning • Though teachers tend to fit one category, they will typically display characteristics of both aspects of the continuum • Teachers at either initiative can use a formal or informal teaching methodology

Teaching Style- High initiative- low initiative (Fontana, 1995)

CIE Syllabus Components • Topic 2: Measuring Learning Styles and Teaching Styles – Learning: • Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) (Entwistle, 1981) • Kolb's (1976) learning styles. – Teaching: • teacher-centred and student-centred styles (Kyriacou & Williams, 1993)

Measuring Learning & Teaching Styles • Traditionally accomplished through questionnaires, inventories, or scales and then categorized based on the responses from the teacher and/or student perspective • Reliability and validity are key issues

Entwistle’s (1981) Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) • Questionnaire (Likert-based) that measures student’s ‘learning orientations’ (level of engagement while learning) & is quantifiable • Four main learning orientations: – ‘Deep approach’ (meaning orientation)- focuses on understanding the meaning of the topic- tend to ask many questions, intrinsically motivated, use of facts & logic, interrelating ideas – ‘Surface approach’ (reproducing orientation)- mostly memorization of content to pass the topic, reliant upon teacher tell them what they need to know, and fearing failure – ‘Strategic approach’ (achieving orientation)- focused on the grades rather than learning and time-management to meet expectations – Non-academic orientation- extrinsically motivated to complete work and/or study, disorganized, negative subject/school attitude

Entwistle's (1981) ASI Overview

Entwistle’s (1981) Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) • Research on Entwistle’s ASI – Severiens & Dam (1994)- meta-analysis showed: • women tend to be more intrinsically motivated then men • Women tend to experience more anxiety & are more pessimistic about their academic success • Men tend to be more extrinsically motivated and achievement motivated – Cassidy & Eachus (2000)- academic achievement is: • • positively correlated with a strategic approach negatively correlated with a non-academic orientation unrelated to a deep approach Also found that learning style is significantly correlated to academic self-efficacy and academic locus of control

Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (1976; 1984) Kolb originally devised theory in 1976 and updated it in 1984 with slight modifications The ‘learning cycle’ is a continuous & interactive process that consists of 4 elements of feeling, watching, thinking, and doing The Kolb LSI questionnaire results in 4 scores that reflect for each of the above types The results are graphed in a ‘kite-like’ shape according to: Diverging- feeling & watching (tend to favor humanities) Assimilating- converging & thinking (tend to favor physical sciences) Converging- doing & thinking (science-based professions) Accommodating- doing & feeling (social-based professions)

Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (1976; 1984) • Theory holds that all students go through the 4 learning modes • Kolb noted that though a student may prefer one mode, it is best to incorporate a mix (as relying on one may be disadvantageous)

Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (1976; 1984) • Research on Kolb’s LSI – Severiens & Dam (1994)- meta-analysis showed: • Overall, men are more likely then women to start the learning process with abstract concepts • In a college setting however, women tend to be more abstract then men – Lynch et al. (1998)- found evidence that ‘convergers’ perform better on exams that involve concrete answers – Newstead (1992)- questioned the reliability & validity of the LSI

Measuring Teaching Styles- Kyriacou & Wilkins (1993) • Teaching-centered & student-centered styles (Kyriacou & Wilkins, 1993) – Hired by England’s Dept. of Education to see if national guidelines had an effect on the way teachers taught – Investigated the degree to which teachers employed a teacher or student-focused instructional style – 20 item scale with ‘bipolar’ opposite responses to mark – Study showed that the majority of surveyed teachers had moved to a more student-centered style since the intro of the National Curriculum

Measuring Teaching Styles- Kyriacou & Wilkins (1993)

Critiques of Measuring Teaching and Learning Styles • Labels are sticky- a negative labeling how one learns or teaches may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy • Ethical issues of labeling a student or teacher in a negative manner • Can students and/or teachers simply be categorized? (reductionist view) – As all students are different, measuring and then labeling a student as a ‘diverger’ for example may not extend across all subjects or aspects outside of academics – Labeling a student a ‘non-academic’ could lead to negative thoughts about schooling – As teachers are different with the type of class that they have (say AICE vs ‘reg’), labeling one as ‘teacher-centered’ may not reflect the type of teacher, but instead the type of teacher with that type of class

Critiques of Measuring Teaching and Learning Styles • Research shows that learning styles are not fixed – Styles often change over time and/or is subject-dependent- low predictive validity • Reliability of measuring teaching and learning styles – Many measurements lack test-retest reliability and concurrent validity – For example, if you take Kolb’s test and Entwistle’s test, they should categorize you in similar styles and you should also receive the same category each time that you take the test- rarely happens

CIE Syllabus Components • Topic 3: Improving Learning Effectiveness (study skills) – The 4 -mat system (Mc. Carthy, 1990) – PQRST method (Atkinson, 1993): learning from textbooks – Strategies for effective learning and thinking (SPELT) Mulcahy et al. (1986)

Improving Learning Effectiveness • Study skills- techniques that are used to maximize learning effectiveness – Can be teacher-driven, student-driven, or a combination • AICE looks at 3 theories in doing so: – 4 MAT system (Mc. Carthy, 1990) aimed at teachers for designing and planning lessons – PQRST method (Atkinson, 1993) is for students to implement themselves – SPELT technique (Mulcahy, 1986) requires a combination of both teacher and student

Improving Learning Effectiveness: 4 -MAT System (Mc. Carthy, 1990) • 4 MAT system is related to lesson planning that include active student participation – It is designed to ensure that every student is exposed to their preferred learning style at some point in the study of a topic – Model is based on the idea that some learners are 'right-brained' and some are 'left-brained' and that people with different dominant sides of the brain will learn differently The system allows for the teacher to design activities that focus on the learning of a topic while the students play a large role in preparing portions of the lessons • The design consists of 4 ‘stages’ where students play a role (on next page) – motivation, concept development, practice, and application – Each student ‘stage’ is meant to be suited to different learning styles – In theory, the full cycling of the lesson allows for students to experience their preferred style and gain experience in others

Improving Learning Effectiveness: 4 -MAT System (Mc. Carthy, 1990) 4 ‘stages’ of the 4 -MAT system 1 st- motivation- students are to create their own lesson plan Involves ‘creating the experience’ and ‘reflecting on the experience’ by sharing ideas in small groups 2 nd- concept development- students’ lesson plans are discussed so that the teacher can direct the students to appropriate ways to carry out the learning (such as through PPT, case studies, etc. ) 3 rd - practice- student complete practical activities to develop a deeper understanding of the topic areas 4 th - application- students apply their gained knowledge from the 3 others stages to a new situation that is given to them Applying knowledge and skills to new topics

4 -Application 1 -Motivation 3 - Practice 2 - Concept Development

Improving Learning Effectiveness: 4 -MAT System (Mc. Carthy, 1990)

Improving Learning Effectiveness: 4 -MAT System (Mc. Carthy, 1990) • Evaluating the 4 MAT Approach – Positives • The model gives students a chance to use their preferred learning style as well as giving them the opportunity to use other styles • It is simple to use and can be used by all ages and ability levels- thus could have some face validity – Negatives • The model assumes that there a number of distinct learning styles, with children possessing one 'dominant' style • It is also based on the idea of right brain/left brain hemispheric dominance - having one dominant brain hemisphere which does different things to the other one- lacks scientific support

Improving Learning Effectiveness: PQRST Method (Atkinson, 1993) • PQRST method (Atkinson et al. , 1993) – Intended to improve a student’s ability to study & remember content from the textbook – Can be used with most learning styles • In particular for collaborative, participant, and independent – Consists of 5 steps in learning from the text • Preview- skim chapter • Question- read headings/sub-headings and making questions • Read- read sections & answer self-made questions • Self-recitation- recall review of what you read • Test- recall review of main points and relations made

Improving Learning Effectiveness: PQRST Method (Atkinson, 1993)

Improving Learning Effectiveness: SPELT (Mulcahy, 1986) • Strategies for Effective Learning and Thinking (SPELT) (Mulcahy et al. , 1986) – Based upon the concept of metacognition – SPELT is a metacognitive learning & thinking instructional program – Aim is to have students think about what and how they are learning best and to understand how they learn effectively (and how they can improve upon it) – Promotes autonomy in learners

Improving Learning Effectiveness: SPELT (Mulcahy, 1986) • SPELT has three stages: – 1 - Explicit teaching of metacognitive skills and strategies – 2 -Students practice the strategies and evaluate their effectiveness • Teacher helps but the student must evaluate the strategies for themselves – 3 -Students develop new cognitive strategies that are most effective for them as individuals. They are encouraged to continually evaluate & modify as needed • The teacher can now adopt a more informal approach as the student is more in charge of their own learning

Improving Learning Effectiveness: SPELT (Mulcahy, 1986) • Research has demonstrated its usefulness for: – Overall improved awareness for one’s learning styles – Improved cognitive strategies for all groups at all grade levels – Advantageous for students with learning difficulties • Lefrancois (1997) found that SPELT produced "very positive" improvements in learning. This was particularly noticeable for students with learning difficulties, but improvements also occurred in a range of other students. This was in a project involving 900 children, so it was a large and varied sample.