Learning Style Development

Learning Style Development John Cowan and Ray McAleese Centre for Combined Studies Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AS

Introduction In the past we have not seen much in the way of useful outcomes from exercises which leave students with an impression that their learning style has been categorised, other than for interested researchers who wish to relate student performance and behaviour to preferred learning style. Recently, however, we have followed the urging of George Bernard Shaw who , long before the oft-quoted Bobby Kennedy, claimed that: “You see things, and you say ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not?’” Much the same spirit characterised our approach to an occasion we arranged when an i instrument which describes preferred learning styles was completed by students. We enabled them to describe themselves in terms of the learning style which they prefer and – subsequently - to consider possible needs in their approach to personal development, all of which is a focus n the module they are studying with us. We are more concerned for the learner than for research. Furthermore, we prefer to concentrate on the learning behaviours which are absent, or which might usefully and potentially be strengthened, and to prompt learners to ask “Why should I not learn in these ways, too?” It is our credo that there is no stable and unique learning style for an individual, and that learners have the capacity to adapt the parameters that characterise their approach to learning, to compensate at least in part for perceived or real inadequacies. In this brief note, we describe how we have begun to follow this philosophy into practice, in a ten week module on Personal Development Planning, taken mainly by Combined Studies students in the second, or sometimes the third, year of their degree programmes. We invite you, the reader, to consider the possibilities of such an approach – and the issues which it might raise. The Learning Styles Instrument (LSI) and the Context In order to provide a context, we need to describe in some detail the Learning Styles Inventory we have used and the undergraduate module where we have used it. First, the LSI. Kolb’s LSI Learning style is a term commonly used, but to describe a number of somewhat different things. For example, Jonassen & Grabowski ( 1993) report that as learning styles are most

L_STYLE1

Page 1 of 10

often described by a self-report inventory, they are open to "manipulation" - by the individual. However, they conclude that as it is likely that an awareness of cognitive style ( "characteristic self-consistencies in information processing...". Messick, 1984) defines learning style - it is an ii appropriate metric. We will here take a learning style to be " ... a description of a preferred approach to learning tasks - derived from cognitive modalities - some of which may be open to self-regulatory control by the learner". We recognise that a "learning style" detected by an instrument is only open to purposeful development, as and when the learners deliberately and actively take control. The self-regulatory aspect to the process is then deliberate and intentional. In developing study skills, the progression from Study Skills ( e.g. reading) through Learning Strategies ( e.g. browsing) to Learning Approach ( e.g. deep) is often used to characterise training interventions. It is assumed that the later (Approach) is not readily open to change - while the first two (Skills and Strategies) are components in study skills training. We would differ on this point and include Approach to learning as being open to development. David Kolb’s influential book (Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning) is more often cited than read. It repays careful reading, as it explains the rationale for his Inventory and the iii popular "Kolb Cycle" In his book Kolb describes learners’ preferred methods for Processing and Perceiving information. His basis is the experiential learning approach developed by Dewey (1938) and Lewin (1951). He uses four adaptive learning modalities - concrete experience(CE); reflective observation (RO); abstract conceptualisation (AC); and active experimentation (AE) - to describe two orthogonal axes. He argues that learners perceive the world, or grasps reality, with CE & AC representing the poles of this continuum. The second continuum - how a learner transforms information - is characterised on the second continuum, with the two poles being RO & AE. The Kolb Cycle describes the evolving iv response a learner has – perhaps beginning from Experiences (CE) through Reflection (RO), consideration and conceptualisation (AC) ; and then into testing or experimentation (AE). In this cycle, the ability of the learner to turn inward on him/her-self and reflect IN/ ON action is the engine that drives the "cyclic" diagram. ( see, Cowan, 1998; Schön, 1983) The Inventory, which is often used to detect preferred learning style, attempts to characterise learners as having a preferred modality- reflecting; testing, conceptualising or experiencing. The version of the Inventory which we have used was developed and modified vi for delivery in the Heriot-Watt study skills programme CLASS by Cathy Gunn. The instrument or questionnaire – the latter being our preferred term - uses a nine item selfreport question matrix. Learners rank quartets of statements according to their preferences. For example, a learner has to say which of the following four descriptions "..best describes his/ her approach to a task : vii

It em

I like to try things out

I like to analyse things and break them into parts

I am open to new experiences

2

I like to look at all sides of issues

Table 1: Example of Kolb Questionnaire Item ( See Appendix 1 for the complete instrument)

L_STYLE1

Page 2 of 10

From this activity the students derive four direct and two dependent "scores" for their preferred approach to learning. The direct scores are for CE,RO,AC & AE – taken directly from the instrument. The two additional scores, indicating their position on the two orthogonal scales Processing and Perceiving, are then calculated from (AC-CE) and (RO-AE). Different descriptions of learners can be assigned to the resultant scores from the instrument. For example, assimilators tend to be prefer abstract conceptualisation (AC) whereas, accommodators tend transform experiences through active experimentation (AE). viii The instrument is widely used and abused, but is accepted to have a reasonable validity. Kolb ( 1981) found that Business Studies students in the USA tended to have accommodative approaches to learning; Sociology undergraduates tended to be more assimilative; while Physics "majors" were more abstract and tended towards assimilative learning styles. Other studies similarly report reasonable validity and reliability scores ( see Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) The importance of the inventory - to us - is that it provides a detailed "syntax and grammar" for describing and reflectively reviewing learning activity. Much of our module (which we describe below), uses reflection to characterise a means for achieving personal development. The students need to have some theoretical framework upon which to base the practical and pragmatic tasks that are provided in the course. These include both analytical (Kolbian) and evaluative (Schönian) In order to have such a "language" the teachers articulate their rationale for activities in terms of the Kolb "syntax and grammar". To give the ix students an insight to their own Kolbian characteristics the LSI is scored by the students. So what is the learning context in which this instrument is used? The Context: PERSONAL AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING The Heriot-Watt module 30.2PD2 offers an essentially active learning experience, in which there are short inputs and detailed workshop activities focusing on planning, on the questioning which is a vital component of learner-directed learning, and on the experiential learning Cycle which is the basis for the development of abilities. Students prepare plans for identification of some of their general learning needs - the development of particular abilities which they themselves choose, and learning which they deem relevant but not covered elsewhere in their studies. They then take charge of the development which they desire, reviewing progress every three weeks, revising their plan accordingly. All of this occurs with x the support of reflective learning journals in which they undertake the reflection and planning for active experimentation which are features of the Kolb Cycle. The journals are compiled, submitted, and commented upon electronically. xi

At the end of the module, their final assignment is one in which they summarise what they have learnt about planning and the development of their ability to plan; they report and review progress; and they submit a comprehensive forward plan for the next 4-9 months. The last of these demands now moves from the mini-plans of the module, concentrating on particular goals, to a more general self-appraisal and comprehensive plan, To assist with this, we offer the activity which we will now describe.

Scope for development in learning style

L_STYLE1

Page 3 of 10

We open our last workshop by reminding the students that their personal development should be about the whole pattern of their abilities, and should not merely concentrate on specific items, such as improving their learning from lectures, or learning how to use xii unfamiliar computer software. We then ask them to record, in their workbooks, their development suggestions for the next few months, and then to prioritise them. We remind them of the argument that we have presented in the module, namely that developing abilities happens according to the Kolb Cycle. This we have been following implicitly if not always explicitly for most of the module and so they should by now be familiar with it, through having engaged with all its components in so many workshop activities. We have not talked directly about the Cycle to any great extent - rather the Cycle has been modelled in our activities and discussion, and in the students’ experiences. For we have preferred to structure the module so that the students will learn by doing, and reflecting, and actively experimenting, rather than by being told what to do and how to do it. We suggest that the time has come for a useful review of how well equipped they each are to engage with the four parts of that cycle, in pursuing their further personal development, without the facilitation provided by workshop activities, structured tasks for assignments, and the comments made by tutors on their work and reflective journals. And so we introduce and explain the questionnaire. We ask them to complete it, and show them how to score it. We simplify the vocabulary from the highly denotative and abstract terms used by Kolb, and then devote a little time to the usual analysis in which the scores for being what we term Practical (P) and Theoretical (T) are compared, and a predominance in one direction or the other is identified. Then, similarly, we get them to xiii compare the scores for Activity (A) and Reflection (R). All of this leads, in the usual way, to categorisation of each student as a converger, diverger, assimilator or accommodator (see above). We do not dwell on our reaction to use of the instrument which leads to this categorisation. For us, at least, that type of approach usually fails to pose constructively the “So What?” question about the need for and direction of further learning, and in particular, further development. At this stage we discard the "instrument" and use the vocabulary of the Cycle and the dimensions, to talk about preferred learning styles - and the development of approaches to learning tasks. We ask each learner, privately, to look for any messages for desirable – and feasible personal development that can be found from the scores, and in the first case from the differences between T and P, and A and R. For, we argue, development according to the Kolb Cycle is going to demand of them that they employ all of these components of style if they are to progress effectively and successfully through each of the four stages in the cycle. xiv We argue that it is from developing the weaker elements that progress is likely to ensue. We provide four separate sheets on which we have described from the literature the xv characteristics of Active and Reflective learners, and of Theoretical and Practical learners. First we take the comparison of T and P, or rather we ask each individual to do that. We suggest that they take the descriptive sheet corresponding to the lower score, and circle what is “not me”. We instance the right footed footballer who would certainly be ill advised to take alternate penalty kicks with right and left feet, but whose training could surely usefully feature the left foot as well as the right foot, since there will be occasions when a situation will call for

L_STYLE1

Page 4 of 10

left-footed kicking We point out that the weaker features of learning style which they have identified are aspects which they might well wish to consider developing for similar reasons. We then get them to carry out a similar review of the weaker of the pairing of A and R. We next point out that the mere fact that one aspect of their style is stronger than the opposed one does not necessarily mean that it is yet fully developed. And so we get them to look over the two remaining characteristic sheets, and consider whether or not there are aspects within them for which development is still feasible – and desirable. In our view, it is important that the students take ownership for deciding what is desirable for them. We cannot determine for any student what abilities they should develop. The imperative is one derived from personal reflection by the student - not one which is imposed by the pedagogic facilitators. The students now summarise in their workbooks the suggestions which have emerged xvi from that, and prioritise them. We prompt comparison of that list with what they wrote a couple of hours previously. We comment that they are now in a more considered position to determine what they will select as priorities for personal development in their plans for the next 4-9 months, and to plan how these goals can be realised. We leave them to make that choice for reasons which seem good to them.

Outcomes We have not quantified the differences between the cohorts of 1998 and 1999, following the change to the activity we have described. We cannot quite see how two groups of less than 20 students could be used to generate meaningful comparative data. However, there are two qualitative changes which we can confidently claim. There are in 1999 more forward plans which feature personal and professional abilities of a generic type – as compared to the abilities immediately demanded in ongoing studies, which figured in 1998. And the reflective journals submitted in the week following the review activity featured an encouraging number of reflections upon possible developments in learning style. ** [we might be able to do some comparisons i few look at the plans from 98 & 99??]

Issues for Discussion We feel it may be useful, as well as frank, if we table here some of the questions which are in our minds at this tentative stage in our development of this approach.

Q1: What is an appropriate "syntax and grammar" for describing a learner's approach to learning? How readily, for example, did the learners grapple with the concepts we have been using here, in this paper and which we used in an input to the workshop? We have described the KOLB LSI in terms of "syntax" and "grammar" with regard to the development of learning style. We believe that learners are often disabled from making changes to the way they approach learning tasks - because they do not have the rules and vocabulary to do so. Without a way of talking about or understanding how a learner is classified, the learner is unable to make any change. Classification or description comes before change. Language allows communication. The KOLB LSI gives the learner who completes it a mechanism by which they can reflect on how they have described themselves in terms of learning activities. Of course the KOLB LSI is only one of a number of different

L_STYLE1

Page 5 of 10

ways of describing "preferred approach to learning activities". Others such as the Entwistle xvii inventory might be appropriate (see, for example, Entwistle, 1988). However we feel that the Kolb LSI is most appropriate for the 30.2PD2 module for three reasons. First it is based on the approach to (experiential) learning which we adopt in teaching the module. We practice what we preach. Second, the inventory or questionnaire is easy to administer. The time taken is less than 15 minutes from introduction to the derivation of the scores and an initial indication of the parameters of the descriptions. Third, while there are criticisms of the LSI ( referred to above) - the questionnaire provides a vocabulary that is readily understood by Heriot-Watt students. Q2: Does such a vocabulary enable learners to take more thoughtful control of their own personal development? In some ways the question cannot be answered - easily. We might suggest that the "jury is out" and that we should wait on evidence from the way the learners behave in further modules. In practice this is impractical. We do not have ready access to the students in subsequent modules and many of them are approaching the end of a three year degree - so they will graduate soon after they complete the module. The only evidence we can offer here is to report that the students are able to use the language of the KOLB questionnaire in discussion on personal development. We see this in the final assignment the students write at the end of the module. Q3: By looking at weaknesses, is it possible to see paths for the development of abilities? The clear answer is “Yes”. Within the setting described, we have detected changes that students say they wish to make in their personal development planning, as noted above Q4: To what extent is the development of abilities moderated by reflection? Really the question is about the stance we take on reflection. To reflect a learner must reflect ON something, and will find it difficult indeed to do so without an adequate vocabulary – even for talking to himself or herself. The point is not about the nature of the reflective process described by Schön and Cowan and others - rather that the act of turning inward and considering options requires options to be named and labelled. The KOLB questionnaire and the ideas of being Practical , Theoretical , Reflective or Active - give the learner a means by which they can reflect. The classification gives the learner the materials to operate on - using reflection. To reflect there must be something to reflect in/on or for. Q5: Can relatively unsophisticated learners reflect in and on their personal development? We have seen comments in assignments from the students, and especially in examples quoted in reflective journals, which suggest they do reflect on their development. It is an other matter to see if they reflect in developing. It will need some more investigation - perhaps with a version of Kagan's Interpersonal Process Recall ( see Cowan, 1998 - for details of how this might be used; Kagan, et al 1963 ) Q6: Can learners reflect for personal development?

L_STYLE1

Page 6 of 10

We regret the relative disregard of reflecting for action – that reflection in which – probably suitably facilitated – the learner identifies needs and aspirations, and even the standard to be reached if learning and development are to be effective. The net result, as those who have facilitated learning for action in schemes of self-assessment have testified (e.g. Boyd and Cowan, 1986) is that the learner is then focused on aims and standards while learning and developing, and adjusts and redirects the learning while it is happening – often through reflection in action which is keenly aware of what is eventually needed. The history of the more adventurous innovations in self-assessment surely confirms that this hope can readily become a reality. Conclusions It seems to us that there is a tyranny created by an unthinking application of learning styles inventories. While there is ample evidence that numeric values derived from such "inventories" are important when describing groups of learners and the way individuals might vary from group norms - the personal use of data derived from inventories has been largely mishandled. A set of scores derived from any instrument should not be seen to determine what a learner is since we are all capable of development, or regression, throughout our adult lives. Rather it suggests how a learner might see his or her scope for development. From static information comes dynamic development. From a way of describing approaches and styles of learning can come development which can be operated to the satisfaction of the learner. If an aim of higher education is to actualise learners so as to allow them to make the most of opportunities offered - then the approach we have described here is appropriate. That, at least, is what we think.

What do you think? References Ausubel, D.P. et al. B:(1978)Educational psychology: a cognitive view. 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Boyd, H.R. and Cowan, J (1986) A Case for Self-Assessment Based on Recent Studies of Student Learning, Assessment in Higher Education, 10,3,225-235. Cowan, J (1998) On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher; reflection in Action, SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham, United Kingdom. Dewey, J (1938) Logic: the theory of Enquiry Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, London. Entwistle, N. (1988) Styles of learning and teaching. An integrated outline of educational psychology David Fulton Publishers, London. Entwistle, N. J. (1988) Styles of learning and teaching. An integrated outline of educational psychology, David Fulton Publishers, London. Gardiner, P & McAleese, R (1998) Competence and the Autonomous Learner – The Role of Self-regulation, (in press) Honey, P & Mumford, A (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead. Jonassen, DH & Grabowski, B L (1993) Handbook of Individual Differences: Learning and Instruction, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ and Hove and London. Kagan, N, Krathwohl, D & Miller, R (1963) Stimulated Recall in Therapy Using Videotape: a case study, Journal of Counselling Therapy, 24, 150-152.

L_STYLE1

Page 7 of 10

Kolb, D A (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Lewin, K (1951) Field Theory in the Social Sciences, Harper & Row, New York. McAleese, R & Gunn, C (1995) Support for Learning, Computer Assisted and Open Access Education, XXIX, Kogan Page, London. McAleese, R (1998)(19998) The Knowledge Arena - an extension to the concept map, in publication) McAleese, R; Grabinger, S & Fisher, K ( 1999) The Knowledge Arena - a learning environment that underpins concept mapping, AERA Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada (April 18-24) McAleese, R; Granum, G & Gunn, C (1994) Computer Based Support for Study Skills, Designing for Learning XXVIII, Kogan Page, London. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner Basic Books, New York. Sewell, T J (1986) The measurement of learning style: a critique of four assessment tools Research Report ERIC ED 267 247.

L_STYLE1

Page 8 of 10

Appendix 1 Your Aapproach to Learning ??? This questionnaire is designed to provide you with feedback on the way you prefer to approach learning - in general. It is there for relevant to what you bring to Personal Development Planning in terms of learning activities. Look at the four statements in each row and decide how they relate yourself. Score each statement relative to the others. There are no right or wrong answers. Scoring methods : Score every statement in the box as follows. 4 marks = most like me 2 marks = less like me

3 marks = more like me 1 mark = least like me

1

I like to get involved

I like to take my time before acting

2

I like to try things out

I like to analyse things and break them into parts I like to follow my feelings I like to be aware of what is around me

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I like to watch situations I accept people and situations the way they are I have gut feelings and hunches I like tangible things I prefer learning in the here and now I have to try things out for myself I am quiet and reserved

L_STYLE1

I ask a lot of questions about new things I like to be active I like to consider and reflect on things I rely on my own ideas I am energetic and enthusiastic

Page 9 of 10

I am particular about what I like I am open to new experiences

I like things to be useful

I like to be doing things

I like to think about things I am prepared to take risks

I like to evaluate things

I like to look at all sides of issues

I think and act logically

I am hard working and get things done

I like to observe situations I like to think about the future

I like ideas and theories

I rely on my own observations I tend to reason things out

I rely on my own feelings I am responsible about things

I like to see the results of my work

ENDNOTES ii

We deliberately use term - preferred learning style - to suggest that learning style may be a fluid concept. Learners can and often change their "style" or approach to learning depending on the task, the context or the perceived approach required by the situation. ii A number of well known learning styles inventories have been developed and used. For example, Entwistle (1988) and Honey & Mumford (1992). Our choice of Kolb, is in part the elegance and validity of the "cyclic" diagram and in part the simplicity of scoring. Parsimony IS important in self- report research and development. iii See Cowan, (1998) for an detailed explanation of the cycle and what Cowan has called the "loopy diagram" iv But note that it is equally viable to begin, for example, from generalisation, and especially so when someone provides a thoughtful input with which the learner can then experiment actively. vi

CLASS - Courseware for Learning and Study Skills was a collaborative programme between Strathclyde University and Heriot-Watt under the UK, TLTP programme. The software developed in this programme contains a number of instruments that allow learners to evaluate their approach to learning and their operation in groups. Catherine Gunn and Ray McAleese developed the LSI inventory used here as part of the project. See, McAleese & Gunn (1994); McAleese, Granum and Gunn (1995); and the CLASS Home page ( URL: http://www.ltc.hw.ac.uk/%7Ewilliam/class/) and Ray McAleese’s Home Page [ section on CLASS: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~ray/] vii In this item ( 2) the following "scores" or assumptions are made: 2a=A; 2b=T; 2c=P and 2d=R viii See, Sewell (1986) for an analysis of reliability and validity scores using the 36 item LSI described above. ix There is considerable judgement and instructional design judgement in when to apply the instrument. In one module at Heriot-Watt - Study and IT ( 301CS1), the students complete the inventory at the start of the module. Providing a scaffolding ( c.f. Ausubel, 1978); where as in this module, the students complete it towards the end. We have no output measure that would suggest which approach is best. It rather depends on the degree to which the students reflect on their approach to learning and development and the degree to which the teachers make use of the Kolbian "language". x Reflection journals play a very import part in this module. The journals are weekly accounts of significant learning events in which the learner records their thinking ON action and their thinking IN action. The course tutors play a role in helping the students reflect by commentating on the journals. Journals are submitted electronically for comment - but are not graded in Heriot-Watt ( see Gardiner & 1998; and Cowan (1998) for more details of reflection journals) xi Students complete three assignments in the module. xii Two examples of "abilities" the students choose to develop from the 1998-99 module are "Taking notes from course books in order to write essays" and " Being able to create and maintain a Home Page on an Internet server". xiii P=CE; T=AC; A=AE and R=RO. xiv The argument that is important for our approach is to emphasise the use of ALL of the components. xv See Appendix 1 for the LSI used. xvi Workbooks are an important element in this course. Each class students write notes and complete exercises in books that they come to associate with an active arenas where they can think out their approach to personal development planning. In this sense the workbooks are extensions to the learner’s capacity to think - they are knowledge arenas ( see McAleese, 1998 and McAleese, Grabinger and Fisher, 1999) xvii Some 15 years ago - one of us (RMcA) used the Entwistle inventory in a similar way. With first year Medical undergraduate students and students studying on an M Ed degree in Higher Education, in the University of Aberdeen, a matrix was used to describe students’ approach to learning. Two scores were derived from the Entwistle inventory (1984 version). Achieving (A) and Meaning (D) were plotted on a matrix and the four quadrants (High Achieving/ Low Meaning to Low Achieving to High Meaning) were used to describe individual "preferences". Students, in a pyramid session were encouraged to look at their own scores and to compare theses with partners and to look for significant areas for development in the study skills. Small groups recorded areas of common agreement and disagreement. This work has not been reported in print.

L_STYLE1

Page 10 of 10