Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence

Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence

Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence begins by concluding based on the limited amount of educational resources that our time and money would be better off placed in educational practices that have strong evidence base.   Given the tough economic times that everyone is facing is it time to throw the concept of  intervention of instructions based on learning styles? This effort is in responses to the growing popular belief that we could best serve our students by concentrating our efforts towards implementing learning styles assessments into educational practices. (Pashler, 2009). I am not so sure if we should scrap this concept just yet.  The articles present some very convincing evidence why this path maybe a waste of rare and valuable resources much of which is based on the lack of reproducible evidence.  There may not be enough conclusive evidence to justify reshaping an entire process however there is also not enough evidence to conclude that learning styles has no real merit.  If anything I believe that more evidence is needed. 

The author discusses several popular marketing instruments used to profile student’s learning preference.  Kolb’s is one such instrument, this inventory which categorizes the learning process into two dimensions, the preferred mode of perception and preferred mode of processing (Pashler, 2009).  The article identifies others as well most of which is caters to the overwhelming desire of the school systems to best serve our student.  The ever widening achievement gaps between, poor ethnic groups and the dominant culture are forcing school boards to not omit any possible remedy.  This notion of examining and then presenting instruction based on students learning styles has most of its bases in theory and observation.  Teachers as well as prominent psychologist have noted that student’s reception of information has a link to how the information is presented.  For example, if the learner is a ‘‘visual learner,’’ information should, when possible, be presented visually. We refer to this specific instance of the learning-styles hypothesis as the meshing hypothesis—the claim that presentation should mesh with the learner’s own proclivities. Most proponents of the learning-styles idea subscribe to some form of the meshing hypothesis, and most accounts of how instruction should be optimized assume the meshing hypothesis: p108-109 (Pashler, 2009).  The authors discuss Visualizer–Verbalizer Questionnaire (VVQ, which was a study that indicated evidence that student responded better to information that had visual ques rather than verbal. 

The article address several studies that have no conclusive or repeatable data which would support undeniable need to change current method of interventions based on learning styles of our students.  The article alludes to but does not specifically address a teacher’s particular teaching style.  Maybe the assessments must begin with the teacher to determine which student would benefit from a particular teacher.  There are several schools which give parents/students a personality assessment, prior to placing the students in a teacher’s classroom for the upcoming year.  I am not convinced that we need to abandon the research that support learning styles.  The bottom line is it comes to how do we best serve all of our students and if this proves to help some then we cannot abandon it.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., Bjork, R. (2009). Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science, 9(4), 105-119.

Constructivism

How do we learn? Is knowledge an accumulation of truths which resides outside of the individual?  Constructivist would say absolutely not.  Constructivist understands that it is the individual which produces the knowledge.  The individuals make their own meaning based on belief and experiences.  Therefore if this is correct then there can be no absolute truths as defined by the constructivist.  The knowledge that is constructed comes from the individuals interaction between their existing knowledge or beliefs and the new ideas or situations they encounter.(Airasian, 1997).  What does this mean for teachers?  

What would a constructivist classroom look like?  Do kids just run rampant and whatever they come in contact with so long as it does no harm then is it all up for grabs?  To answer this question we look to the pioneers Piaget and L. S. Vygotsky. 

Piaget believes that the role of the teacher is two-fold, to create useful problems for the child to solve and provide counter examples that compel reflection and reconsideration of overhasty solutions.  The student becomes the researcher (Wadsworth, 1996b).

Piaget first profession was a research biologist, as a result he resolved that biological acts by organism are adaptations to the environment. These biological acts organize the environment.  Piaget did not separate biological development and cognitive development he saw both as the means for how organism adapt to the environment and organize experiences. (Wadsworth, 1996a)

Piaget explains that cognitive development has four distinct states, schema, assimilation, accommodation and equilibrium.  These are the adaptations that all organisms according to Piaget goes through.  The Schema is the primary stage which develops in infants, being able to distinguish what is a source of food and what is not.  As infants grow and are exposed to different stimuli their schemata also expands by assimilation.  New stimulus which has no familiarity causes the organism to create different schemata or new ones are called accommodation. Piaget concludes that the next level of cognitive development takes place due to conflict between accommodation and assimilation.  The organism need for balance or equilibrium precipitates analysis and organization(Wadsworth, 1996a).  Teachers that adhere to Piagetian perspective would function as a facilitator of learning.  They would create an environment in which a child’s schema would have an opportunity to expand.  As time progress the teacher’s role evolves into one that would then create the conflict between accommodation and assimilation necessary to establish balance.  Vygotsky agreed but felt that the teacher’s role should be  much more active.

L. S. Vygotsky “Mind in Society,” also believed that individual constructs meaning from experiences but differs from Piaget.  He presents a different perspective of how this knowledge is obtained. Vygotsky theorizes that there exist zones of development zone of proximal development (ZPD), as well as a zone of actual development. Vygotsky believed that the knowledge that a child acquires comes from their interaction with adults in their surroundings.  Learning takes place when a child is interacting with people in their environment.  The child internalizes these encounters, which become part of the child’s independent development.(Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky’s theory provides a platform for learning and development.  Learning and intellectual development begins long before kids begin school and can be expanded when the child’s learning is facilitated by knowledgeable adults.  Studies have shown that babies that are read to and exposed to stimulus learn and develop certain skills sooner.

He challenges many theories which dominate and to some extent continue to dominate the educational community.  Vygotsky recognize that there is no definitive methodological relationship between development and learning and therefore currents concepts are categorized into three theoretical positions. They are first learning is independent of development, second learning is development. 

This week we explored constructivism and the implication for teachers in our group.  See Caroline’s blog, http://carolinelearning610.blogspot.com/2011/11/piaget-vygotsky-and-implications-for.html.  Here we examined what these experts saw as the foundations for constructivism and where they differed.  We then examined what are the implications for teachers.  Here we examined a video classroom as well.  

What I want to conclude with is Airasian and Walsh article.  They caution us regarding the rush to implement constructivist classroom.  First of all teachers must be conscious of the difference between epistemology and the well thought out and manageable instructional approach.  There are no instruction for constructivist classroom . There are only methods designed to foster the student’s construction of knowledge. Teachers must also understand that this approach is not the only method in which students construct knowledge.  Teachers should understand the time required to implement a constructivist program.  Students as well as teachers must have time to practice  in a constructivist classroom. Teachers are initiators and facilitators, there are no absolute truths in a constructivist classroom. Student are no longer waiting for instruction but become true scientist, traditional Montessori classroom are examples.  Teachers must understand that knowledge  and understanding differs for each student.(Airasian, 1997).  

The evidence says that given the overwhelming gap which exist in the classroom has to be something has to be done. The constructivist model offers hope. Reteaching a society that is so concerned with accountability, and assessment will be interesting. 

Airasian, P., & Walsh. M. (1997). Consturctvist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 444-449.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction Between Learning and Development. In M. Cole (Ed.), Mind in Society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, Mass, London England: Havard University Press.

Wadsworth, B. (1996a). Intellectual Organization and AdaptationPiaget's Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development Foundations of Constructivism (Vol. 5, pp. 13-20): Longman Publishers.

Wadsworth, B. (1996b). Introduction Piaget's Theory of Cognitive and Affective Development (Vol. 5, pp. 1-7): Logman.

Shame and Education

The Shame of American Education by B.F. Skinner’s article addresses the erosion of the quality educational system in this country.  This article addresses the flaws of ritualistic beliefs of human behavior and development.  Dr. Skinner states that our educational foundations are being eroded by a commitment to laymanship and to theories of human behavior which simply do not lead to effective teaching(Skinner, 1984b, 1984c).   The article points to concerns with inadequately prepared teachers, inadequate pay for teachers as well as a lack of respect for the profession. He also included in this list of concerns, the assumption that all students learn at the same pace.  Skinner even addresses a possible cause for our shame could be a result of the American culture. 

Admittedly, all of these concerns are justifiable problems which have contributed to the current state of education in America.  Therefore what if anything can be done?  Skinner believes that teachers should be certified to teach the subjects they teach (Skinner, 1984c) , considering the responsibilities of our teachers it is a crime what they are paid.  Many find the need to obtain additional jobs to support a family.(Skinner, 1984b).  Once we acquire the certified teacher equip them with the necessary resources to enable their success.  Support teachers with technology additional personnel and training.  The article indicates that a useful tool would be to create and implement program instruction.  This particular concept is usually met with some resistance.  Teaching is a skill, and many believe that programmed instruction has no value, not so states Dr. Skinner. 

Dr. Skinner indicates that the problem stem from negating how students learn and what they learn.  Dr. Skinner effectively addresses that students learn more than isolated facts; they learn how facts are related to each other; students relate that they are learning to what they already know. Success and progress are the very stuff on which programmed instruction feeds. This is the value if programmed instruction.  Students must not only learn but know that they are learning, so teachers must not only teach but know that they are teaching (Skinner, 1984c).   According to Skinner the solutions may lie in the following approach; (Skinner, 1984a)

·         Be clear about what is to be taught. 

·         Teach first things first. It is tempting to move too quickly to final products.  Skinner believe s that there are two useless goals for education "excellence and creativity.”

·         Stop making all students advance at essentially the same rate. Students are still expected to move from kindergarten through high school in 12 years, and we all know what is wrong: Those who could move faster are held back, and those who need more time fall farther and farther behind. We could double the efficiency of education with one change alone—by letting each student move at his or her own pace (Skinner, 1984b).  This maybe a very daunting task given the culture of our current educational system.  This would require a complete overhaul of the educational system that would require enormous resources, not to mention a shift of public understanding and acceptance of this new concept.

·         Program the subject matter. Skinner argues that in a well designed instructional program, students gobble up their assignments.

So how did we get here what caused the shift from believing that we had the greatest educational system to one in which we are now ashamed of? Public and media opinion believes that the cause of the problem is mediocrity.  Skinner challenges whether mediocrity is the problem but a rather a symptom.  Skinner at this point appears to shift in his position regarding education when discussing possible problems. 

Here he seems to abandon his position regarding allowing students to proceed at their own pace.  He seems to negate component which indicates that some students may need more time to learn concepts.  He discusses teaching more, in half the time.  So instead of students having twelve years, if the program is instituted properly then all should finish in less than the twelve years slated.  He lists several possible culprits for failings facing our education such as students, teacher, schools of education and culture.  He then questions how do you punish the culprits? Specifically how do you punish a culture?  Dr. Skinner points to punishment of culture is addressed in his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity, culture that is not willing to accept scientific advances in the understanding of human behavior, together with the technology which emerges from these advances, will eventually be replaced by a culture that is(Skinner, 1984c).   This indictment regarding our resistance to technological change is profound.   I agree with Dr. Skinner that a good program of instruction guarantees a great deal of successful action(Skinner, 1984c). When students move through well-constructed programs at their own pace, the so-called problem of motivation is automatically solved.  Success and progress are the very stuff on which programmed instruction feeds. They should also be the stuff that makes teaching worthwhile as a profession (Skinner, 1984c). I believe that most teachers that enter the profession do so because of their desire to impact lives and society in a positive way.  Unfortunately our current system has constructed within it devices which allows for abuse and often control by those that are not responsible for implementation of the program.  Taxpayer have bought into the hype that kids are not learning and standardized test indicate that we do not compete competitively in the worlds academic arena.  We have created achievement gaps which in my opinion highlight our long neglect of the poor and under privilege kids.  All this has resulted in qualified teacher leaving the profession.  Dr. Skinner discusses burnout being a result of abusive kids.  I don’t believe that the burnout that teachers face is a result of abusive kids. I believe that the burnout teachers now face is due to the constant threat of losing their jobs or increased scrutiny to produce.  Teachers are more and more concerned with producing acceptable data rather than focusing on skills that allow students to progress at their own pace.  We live in society that expects and demands that children at the same age progress at the same pace.  Dr. Skinner discusses a better way.  Teacher must continue to love the profession, kids benefit when they have teacher that are prepared and capable of making a difference.  Society must get back to understanding what is truly important and doing what is best for our kids.

Skinner, B. F. (1984a). The Shame of  American Education. American Psychologist, 39(9), 947-954.

Skinner, B. F. (1984b). The Shame of American Education. American Psychologist, Vol. 39(No. 9), 947-954.

Skinner, B. F. (1984c). The Shame of American Education. American Psychologist, 39(9), 947-954.

The Rewards of Learning

The Rewards of Learning by Paul Chance calls for a paradigm shift in teaching and learning philosophy.   Is it possible for learning to be exciting and fun?  What good can come from constant positive reinforcement?  What will the public think if teachers suddenly began encouraging the students instead of highly structured classrooms?  Would we be adequately preparing our students for the real world by only incorporating positive reinforcement?

Paul Chance encourages teachers to make instructional time fun and rewarding.  In reading this article I am reminded of growing up in time when there was no reward system , and punishment was a teacher’s best friend.  This article seems to imply that we have swung the pendulum too far to the other side, instead of punishments we now have rewards. The goal is the same reinforce desired behavior.   

The Rewards of Learning article discusses in depth two forms of rewards intrinsic and extrinsic.  Of course the article favors the intrinsic reward system for education and advocates that teachers should minimize the extrinsic.  My question however relates to the real world.  I agree that self-motivation and gratification is by far the most sustainable and desirable model for rewards.  But teacher have to overcome deeply entrenched traditions.  Parents have been telling their kids for years that you need to be good if you want presents from Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.  But my concerns stems from how students are motivated to do well on school work and projects for the purpose of getting good grades, which translate into going to a good college and ultimately obtaining a good job.  All of these are extrinsic rewards.  We begin telling our kids that this is what happens when we do our best.  Do students then do their best for the sake of having done a good job?  Chance believes that this form of rewards is indeed helps motivates positive and repeatable behavior.  Chance warns that too much of a good thing is quite harmful.  In fact there is substantial research that supports this claim.  Chance lays out a plan of how to implement an effective reward system; use the weakest reward to strengthen desired behavior; avoid using rewards when possible; the quantity and frequency of rewards should be great when students are in the beginning stages of learning; then reduce the rate as students’ progress and then reward only the behavior you want repeated; know your students what works for one may not work for another; reward success  (Chance, 1992).  People in general enjoy receiving some recognition for their efforts, some may be in the form of intrinsic as well as extrinsic.  Neither if properly administered is bad.  Pats on the back usually serve to strengthen most people character. 

Most new teachers are encouraged to create incentives for students, which behave or complete assignments on time.  They are even told to have a “treasure box” for these students.  I have shared some of the incentives that I have used with my students with pre-service teacher.  I never considered that rewards as were controlling.  Why are we not encouraging teachers to manage without manipulation.  I do believe that it is a good idea to give rewards, however that should not be the primary method for reinforcing desired behavior.  Kids are of the mindset that you owe me something.  The reward should be what they get to learn.  Teachers and students could possibly come up with the reward system collectively.  Ultimately rewards have been a part of our culture for quite some time.  We as teachers need to make the reward more concrete, the joy of learning and investigation has to become its own reward.

Chance, P. (1992). The Rewards of Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(23), 116-128.

Automaticity of Being

 The Unbearable Automaticity of being by John Bargh and Tanya Chartrand advocates that most of what we do and who we are is completed without a conscious effort.  The article claims that we are designed to perform the majority of our behaviors without ever consciously deliberating the need, desire or time to perform these acts.  The article further claims that these automatic behaviors extend to our goals as well. 

Bargh and Chartrand examine the connection between a person’s experiences and their behavior.  The article addresses how easily humans are manipulated into preforming acts based on their experiences.  They primed subjects for participation in controlled experiments.  The results indicated that manner in which individuals will respond is based on their subconscious exposures.  The experiment concluded that our reactions and thinking is a result of our subconscious experiences. 

 It appears that free will plays a very small part into who we are and what we do.  This assertion that man is truly not defined by his goals is an interesting and perplexing concept.  Much of this article dealt with the theory that the body and mind is uniquely designed to complete task, set goals and to some extent heal itself has nothing to do with free will. (Bargh, 1999)

Bargh, J., Chartrand, T. (1999). The Unbearable Automaticity of Being American Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479.