Learning stylesis one of the most widely used terms in relation to student learning.
However, the notion of learning styles is problematic. There are several categorisations of ‘styles’; research-based evidence of their existence is sparse (Coffield et al., 2004);
the term is sometimes misused to mean approaches to learning, or the two are conflated.
However, even though learners may have preferences it may be that they should be encouraged to use a range of learning styles, in which case those responsible for organising learning should create opportunities for learning that are sensitive to different styles, and do not simply reflect how they or their students like to learn.
Three categorisations of learning style are mentioned below. Pask (1976) identified serialist and holist learning styles. A serialist is said to prefer a step-by-step approach and a narrow focus while holists prefer to obtain the ‘big picture’ and to work with illustrations and analogies.
Perhaps the best-known categorisation of learning style is that of Honey and Mumford (1982). They offer a fourfold classification of activist, pragmatist, reflector and theorist:
• Activistsrespond most positively to learning situations offering challenge, to include new experiences and problems, excitement and freedom in their learning.
• Reflectorsrespond most positively to structured learning activities where they are provided with time to observe, reflect and think, and allowed to work in a detailed manner.
• Theoristsrespond well to logical, rational structure and clear aims, where they are given time for methodical exploration and opportunities to question and stretch their intellect.
• Pragmatists respond most positively to practically based, immediately relevant learning activities, which allow scope for practice and using theory.
They suggest that the preferred learning style of any individual will include elements from two or more of these categories.
18 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Wolf and Kolb (1984) suggested that learners develop different learning styles that emphasise preference for some modes of learning over others, leading to particular characteristics (see Table 2.1).
Learning and teaching in the disciplines
There are teaching norms that attach to disciplines (see e.g. Neumann 2001). Earlier sections have mentioned disciplinary-specific research around a number of learning theories. How far students are aware of, drawn to, or shaped by disciplinary norms and how far their perception is shared by academics is unclear (see e.g. Breen et al., 2000;
Neumann et al., 2002). The idea that the preferred learning style of an individual may have a relationship to the particular disciplinary framework in which the learning is taking place is one that still warrants further research.
Becher and Trowler (2001) consider the clustering and characteristics of disciplinary knowledge, drawing on the ‘Kolb-Biglan Classification of Academic Knowledge’, and on earlier work by Becher. The classification suggests that the preferred learning style might be attributable to a relationship with a particular disciplinary framework. This may need to be taken into account when planning learning opportunities in different disciplines.
The distribution in the four quadrants shown in Table 2.2 is interesting, in that those studying the disciplines in quadrants 1 and 2 are described as showing some preference for reflective practice. However, we must ask ourselves, noting that some of the disciplines mentioned in quadrants 3 and 4 are now strongly associated with reflective practice, just how useful this classification is. Perhaps the lesson to learn is that there are likely to be disciplinary differences in these characteristics that may be difficult to classify. How far students acquire, are attracted to, or bring with them to a subject any of the associated ways of thinking, or ‘frames of mind’, is a difficult matter (see Gardner’s classic work, (1985)), but not unimportant from a teaching perspective.
These views might lead to the supposition that students in particular disciplines may have considerable difficulty in developing, for example, employability skills that relate Understanding student learning ❘ 19
Table 2.1 Learning styles
Learning style Strengths Dominant learning
ability Convergent
Divergent Assimilation Accommodative
Source: Based on Wolf and Kolb (1984)
Practical application of ideas
Imaginative ability and generation of ideas Creating theoretical models and making sense of disparate observations
Carrying out plans and tasks that involve new experiences
AC and AE CE and RO AC and RO CE and AE
to a different quadrant (e.g. numeracy by humanities students or team working by mathematicians) (academics may also feel disconnection if asked to incorporate ‘alien perspectives’ into their teaching). However, we know of no robust research evidence to support or refute this hypothesis.
Approaches and styles
When encountering the term ‘learning style’, it is important to be clear about exactly which categorisation, if any, is being referred to, and whether or not learning style is being confused with approaches to study (for which the research evidence is more robust). It is also important to remember that a major contrast between styles and approaches, at least in the view of their main proponents, is the degree of immutability of these qualities. The contrast is between approaches to study (which are modifiable) and learning styles (which are usually held to be part of personality characteristics and traits and therefore more fixed). The current state of play dictates that neither approaches nor styles should be regarded as fixed, i.e. both may be modifiable, but that both may be habituated and hard to change. Teachers may wish to encourage their students to employ a range of strategies on different occasions.
Many of those who have worked with learning styles and approaches to learning have developed questionnaire-type taxonomies, or inventories, for identifying the approach (e.g. Marton et al., 1997, originally 1984) or style being used by the learner. These should be used appropriately and interpreted with caution if one regards the underlying concepts or characteristics as in a state of flux. This has not prevented lecturers from using them to ‘diagnose’ student learning. Their use does have the advantage of helping students to think about how they best learn and whether they would benefit from trying to modify their behaviour; and for the teacher to consider if changing the curriculum design, especially the assessment, would change student behaviour.
20 ❘ Teaching, supervising, learning
Table 2.2 Classification of academic knowledge 1. Abstract reflective
AC-RO Hard pure Natural sciences Mathematics 3. Abstract active
AC-AE Hard applied
Science-based professions, engineering Medicine and other healthcare
professions
Source: Based on the Kolb-Biglan Model and subsequent work by Becher and Trowler (2001) 2. Concrete reflective
CE-RO Soft pure Humanities Social sciences 4. Concrete active
CE-AE Soft applied Social professions Education, social work Law
A consideration of learning preferences is important for the lecturer planning a course module, as a variety of strategies to promote learning should be considered. Teachers also need to be aware that changing firmly established patterns of behaviour and views of the world can prove destabilising for the learner who is then engaged in something rather more than cognitive restructuring (Perry, 1979).