Profiling a learner
Not all learners learn the same way. Not all teachers teach the same way. That's not rocket science. It can be informative to recognise how a particular student prefers to learn, but how practical is it to attempt to teach all, say, 25 students in your class in a different style (should each student have a different preference)?
Perhaps more valuable is to be aware of a difference in preference in learning style as a possible explanation as to why a particular student may not be engaging or learning as quickly as a cohort and, moreover, to enable additional help to be given to that student in a learning style that might better suit them. How might a teacher determine and keep a record of learners' preferred learning style?
In his book Frames of Mind (1983), Howard Gardner, rather than being in favour of the notion of "single intelligence", espoused that people exhibit their various intelligences in a variety of ways. Depending on the age of the learners, simple "Multiple Intelligence Checklists" may provide a litmus test of some value, illustrating such learning preferences as Group Smart, Self Smart, Word Smart, Math/Logic Smart or Picture Smart. The results of the class' "Discovering your SMARTS Checklists", for example, could be kept as a simple overview or aide memoire for a teacher (see below).
Perhaps the most compelling reason to recognise the wide range of learning styles is to remind teachers to vary the teaching styles they adopt. Not all learners learn the same way. Not all teachers teach the same way and the same teacher should not teach all learners, or indeed all lessons in the same way.
Felder and Solomon's Index of Learning Styles
Felder and Solomon have created The Index of Learning Styles, to help assess one's natural learning style preference. The four dimensions their questionnaire assesses are active vs reflective, sensing vs intuitive, visual vs verbal, and sequential vs global learning styles.
They acknowledge that "everybody is active sometimes and reflective sometimes", that "everybody is sensing sometimes and intuitive sometimes", and that "good learners are capable of processing information presented either visually or verbally".
I guess that the fact that I'm volunteering to study yet another course might indicate that I am a "good learner", although the proof of the pudding will no doubt be in my course results. My results from the Felder and Solomon questionnaire are as follows:-
ACT X REF
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
SEN X INT
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
VIS X VRB
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
SEQ X GLO
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
...where a score of 1-3, is fairly well balanced, 5-7, shows a moderate preference for one over the other, indicating that learning will be easier in a teaching environment favouring that style, and where 9-11, indicates a very strong preference for one dimension or learning style. Such a strong preference may make learning difficult in an teaching environment not supporting that preferred style.Considering my learning styles
I wasn't surprised that my results were fairly well balanced, but I didn't expect to be demonstrably more 'visual' than 'verbal'. Much of my formal learning has been as a lawyer, hence the vast majority of what I've had to learn was written down. I guess the practical industries of tourism (watersports instructor, SCUBA Dive Master) and hospitality (managing bars, restaurants and hotels) have widened my exposure to more visual and practical (kinesthetic) learning and teaching styles, but isn't this more the point? That some areas of knowledge and skills are better suited to a particular teaching style regardless of a learner's preference?
Simply learning the theory of how to kite-surf, for example, will not necessarily enable one to actually be able to kite-surf. There has to be some practical learning, whether you let students "have a go" before or after theory is taught.
I also expected to evidence a stronger preference to sequential than global learning in the Felder and Solomon questionnaire, again, due to the logical mind necessary to become a successful lawyer (is it nurture or nature? Was I a successful lawyer because I was logical (and argumentative!), or did I become more logical (and argumentative) after I'd been trained as a lawyer? I guess you'd have to ask my parents).
I can envisage a situation where a "strong preference" result in any one dimension, would be helpful in flagging a need for caution for a particular student (or for myself), but that aside, I'm unsure that this classification system does much more than remind teachers that everyone is different and that our teaching styles should be varied and interesting and, over and above that, should also suit the type of knowledge being imparted or skills being learnt.
The use of ICTs in supporting varied learning preferences
My current knowledge of ICTs is rather limited. The old fashioned "talk and chalk" lessons required all students to focus on one teacher. Those who's natural preference was not visual and sequential would be disadvantaged. Modern technological alternatives would no doubt offer support for a wider range of learning styles, would allow students to progress at different paces and in more creative learning environments not requiring sole focus on the one teacher per 25 students. A technological teaching environment where multiple styles of learning can be achieved at once, for multiple students but with only one teacher would be bound to illicit more productive learning, simply by being offering a variety of learning experiences, rather than the out-dated "one size fits all" methods of old.
Taking it to the next level
Gardner would like to take the differences in learning styles and the multiple intelligences of learners much further. For him "the educational power of multiple intelligences is exhibited when these faculties are drawn on to help students master consequential disciplinary materials" ("Neuropsychological research: a review". 2008. Peter Mariën and Jubin Abutalebi). Imagine how engaged a class would be in successfully negotiating, say, an over-arching teaching theme covering multiple curriculum areas, utilising all of a learner's various "smarts" in the process. Baby steps Mr Wright, baby steps.
No comments:
Post a Comment