Presentation Transcript

1. Please join us on Twitter EducationDay #educday13 Follow without tweeting by searching for CVM Education Day Tweet comments and questions using #educday13

2. Go 41 Go

3. Learning Styles: Research andPractical Implications forVeterinary Educators

   Jared Danielson University of Minnesota 5-31-2013
4. Everybody Needs Respect for the inherent limitations of human cognitive processing Opportunities for meaningful practice Effective feedback
5. But students are all different
6. And our teaching should reflect and respect those differences (?)
7. One way to think about learners - learning styles convergers versus divergers verbalisers versus imagers holists versus serialists deep versus surface learning activists versus reflectors pragmatists versus theorists adaptors versus innovators Etc. . .
8. Instruction should account for learning styles. Completely Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Completely Disagree
9. Blood Types - Assumptions Well-defined and identifiable blood types exist We can measure blood type reliably. Measured blood type actually reflects what is found in the donor/patient. Matching donor and recipient blood type has practical importance.
10. A belief in the importance of learning styles requires the following similar assumptions:
11. 1. Well defined and identifiable learning styles exist Kinesthetic Visual Diverger/serialist/analytic/ field dependent Auditory Converger/wholist/holist/ field independent
12. 2. We can measure learning styles reliably Kinesthetic!
13. 3. Learning style preference reflects actual ability. I like listening! I learn well by listening!
14. 4. Matching learning style with instructional strategy will improve learning. I read to them because they are auditory learners!
15. Assumption 1: Well defined and identifiable learning styles exist Kinesthetic Visual Diverger/serialist/analytic/ field dependent Auditory Converger/wholist/holist/ field independent
16. 71+ Learning Styles Inventories30 dichotomies of Learning Styles convergers versus divergers verbalisers versus imagers holists versus serialists deep versus surface learning activists versus reflectors pragmatists versus theorists adaptors versus innovators assimilators versus explorers field dependent versus field independent globalists versus analysts assimilators versus accommodators imaginative versus analytic learners non-committers versus plungers common-sense versus dynamic learners concrete versus abstract learners random versus sequential learners initiators versus reasoners intuitionists versus analysts extroverts versus introverts sensing versus intuition thinking versus feeling judging versus perceiving left brainers versus right brainers meaning-directed versus undirected theorists versus humanitarians activists versus theorists pragmatists versus reflectors organisers versus innovators lefts/analytics/inductives/successive processors versus rights/globals/deductives/simultaneous processors executive, hierarchic, conservative versus legislative, anarchic, liberal. - (p. 136) CoffieldF, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. LSRC reference. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004.
17. Vs. .
18. Question 2: Can we measure learning styles reliably? Kinesthetic!
19. Of 13 popular learning styles models reviewed by Coffield et al. . . Five consistently demonstrated internal consistency. (8 didn’t) Seven consistently demonstrated test-retest reliability. (6 didn’t) Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. LSRC reference. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004.
20. Question 3: Does learning style preference reflect actual ability? I like listening! I learn well by listening! I.e. Do people know their strengths?
21. Let’s Suppose I give you all a learning styles inventory (visualizers versus verbalizers) I give you all a test that indicates whether you are skilled at perceiving/manipulating visual information (high spatial ability), or not. apple
22. What will happen? High spatial ability = visualizer Low spatial ability = verbalizer High spatial ability = verbalizer Low spatial ability = visualizer No relationship
23. Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences 16:321-335, 2006. 3 related experiments: A computer based lesson about electronics Experiment 3 - Students chose either: Help Screens with Illustrations Help Screens with Text Or Apple Dependent Measures: General achievement Spatial ability (card rotations, paper folding, and verbal-spatial ability tests) Learning preference (Visualizer vs. verbalizer) Cognitive style (The process they chose to use to learn.)
24. Results People who reported themselves as visualizers relied more on pictorial than verbal help. People who reported themselves as verbalizers tended to rely more on verbal than pictorial help. There was no significant relationship between spatial ability and the process used to learn (cognitive style). Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences 16:321-335, 2006.
25. Question 4. Does matching learning style with instructional strategy improve learning? I read to them because they are auditory learners!
26. Let’s suppose We measure a group’s learning style in terms of whether they are visualizers or verbalizers. We randomly assign half of the group to receive instruction primarily through visual means, and the other half to receive the same instruction verbally. Group 1: Help Screens with Illustrations Group 2: Help Screens with Text Apple We test to see how well the learners remember what they learned.
27. What will happen? Verbalizers = verbal stimuli; visualizers = visual stimuli. Verbalizers = visual stimuli; visualizers = verbal stimuli. Everyone = visual stimuli. Everyone = verbal stimuli. It won’t make any difference.
28. Result The group receiving visual help screens always outperformed the group using verbal help screens. Group 2: Didn’t learn as well Group 1: Learned Better Apple (In other words, both visualizers and verbalizers benefitted more from pictorial than verbal help.)
29. Another Study - Learning lists of objects Intervention 1 - Line Drawings Intervention 2 - Line Drawings plus audio Intervention 3 - Just Audio Pencil. Lamp. . . . Pencil. Lamp. . . . Preference/Strength was measured using the VVQ (Kirby’s Visualizer-Verbalizer Questionnaire).
30. Outcome The visual or visual plus auditory instruction produced the best learning gains for all groups, including those who were identified as being verbalizers. Those scoring higher on the verbal scale did better with the visual condition. Performance on the visualizer scale did not correlate with any of the experimental tasks. = > Pencil Lamp Pencil Lamp Constantinidou F, Baker S. Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language 82:296-311, 2002.
31. Another Study - Different Learning Styles Inventory
32. Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) Honey and Mumford’s Typology of learners: Activist (prefers doing and experiencing) Reflector (observes and reflects) Theorist (wants to understand underlying ideas, reasons, concepts, etc.) Pragmatist (likes to try things out and see if they work.) http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm
33. Let’s Suppose In an entire curricular program, content is taught in a number of ways: Will those who score high on a given learning style also remember content better when it is taught in a way that matches that style? Reflection/Observation (Reflector) Abstract Concept - visualization (Theorist) Concrete experience (Activist) Active Experimentation (Pragmatist)
34. What will happen? Better scores with matching Better scores without matching It won’t make any difference
35. Ninety-nine students in a Human Resource Management Program. Students took the LSQ once at the end of their first year, and once at the end of their third year. Kappe FR, Boekholt L, den Rooyen C, Van der Flier H. A predictive validity study of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) using multiple, specific learning criteria. Learning and Individual Differences 19:464-467, 2009.
36. Researchers Hypothesized Scores were obtained for each student for 1. classroom lectures, 2. skills training, 3. group projects, 4. on-the-job training, and 5. a written thesis. Reflection/Observation (Reflector) = High on the job and practical skills training scores = High scores on measures showing attentiveness to lecture material None of the correlations between learning styles and criterion measures were significant. Concrete experience (Activist) Active Experimentation (Pragmatist) = High on measures of how well students worked in groups to develop programs meeting practical business needs
37. How about Serialist/Holist (Field Dependent Vs. Field Independent)? - Learn one thing at a time before linking them Diverger/serialist/analytic/ field dependent - Get the big picture first, then learn the details Converger/wholist/holist/ field independent
38. One example of a measure of field dependence/field indepence. (The Goup Embedded Figures Test - Otman, Raskin and Witkin)
39. 73 Post Graduate Students Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) was used to measure the wholistic/analytic dimension. (Wholistic/Analytic dimensions were considered by the authors to be similar to field dependence/independence.)
40. Two Instructional Interventions for teaching HTML Depth First (Good for analytic/field independent learners?) Breadth First (Good for wholistic/field dependent learners?)
41. What will happen? Students will do better when the learning presentation matches their cognitive style. Students will do better when the learning presentation doesn’t match the cognitive style. It won’t make any difference.
42. The researchers found that those who learned the most were also those for whom the learning style was matched to the instructional strategy. Ford N, Chen SY. Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology 32(1):5-22, 2001.
43. The Bottom Line . . . “. . . the difficulty in substantiating the validity of the styles, as well as the apparent free-wheeling generation and application of these styles to any and all situations, leads us to recommend viewing learning styles with extreme caution. While information about an individual’s learning style may be helpful to that individual in regulating his own learning within a learning situation, typically this information is not sufficiently prescriptive to aid instructional designers in making design decisions.”Smith and Ragan, p. 63
44. Similarly . . . “In the current state of research-based knowledge about learning styles, there are real dangers in commending detailed strategies to practitioners, because the theories and instruments are not equally useful and because there is no consensus about the recommendations for practice . . . In sum, clear, simple, but unfounded messages for practitioners and managers have too often been distilled from a highly contested field of research.” (Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone p. 118)
45. In Medical Education “. . . Of 65 analyses reported in 48 studies, only 9 analyses (14%) showed significant interactions between CLS and instructional approach. It seems that aptitude–treatment interactions with CLSs are at best infrequent and small in magnitude. . .” Cook DA. Revisiting cognitive and learning styles in computer-assisted instruction: not so useful after all. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 87(6):778-784, 2012
46. Finally . . . The contrast between the enormous popularity of the learning-styles approach within education and the lack of credible evidence for its utility is, in our opinion, striking and disturbing. If classification of students’ learning styles has practical utility, it remains to be demonstrated.” (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork - p. 117)
47. What to do?
48. 1. Read the Label This is an area in which insufficiently informed application could result in lost time and effort.
49. 2. Focus on Proven Strategies There is a lot published about strategies. A good fit between strategy and learning task is more important than a fit between learning task and learner characteristics. Haptic Cow (Kinnison and Baillie (accessed 2012), Lifelong Independent Veterinary Education) http://www.live.ac.uk/html/projects_haptic_01.html
50. There are Many Proven Strategies Feedback Testing A positive classroom environment Providing for meaningful deliberate practice Various forms of group interaction Curricular alignment (vertical and horizontal) etc . . .
51. In veterinary medical education, I suggest focusing learner analysis on: Prior Knowledge Prior Knowledge Prior Knowledge
52. In Summary Read the Label Focus on Proven Teaching Strategies Consider focusing on other more easily measured and practical learner characteristics, such as prior knowledge.
53. References Smith PL, Ragan TJ. Instructional Design. 3rd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. WitkinHA, Moore CA, Goodenough DR, Cox PW. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research 47:1-64, 1977. Klein GS. Perception, motives and personality. New York: Knopf, 1970. SantostephanoSG. A biodevelopmental approach to clinical child psychology. New York: Wiley, 1978. KaganJ. Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 71:17-24, 1966. LowenfeldV, Brittain WL. Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan, 1970. PashlerH, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3):105-119, 2009. CoffieldF, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. LSRC reference. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004. Ford N, Chen SY. Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology 32(1):5-22, 2001. Massa LJ, Mayer RE. Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences 16:321-335, 2006. ConstantinidouF, Baker S. Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language 82:296-311, 2002. KappeFR, Boekholt L, den Rooyen C, Van der Flier H. A predictive validity study of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) using multiple, specific learning criteria. Learning and Individual Differences 19:464-467, 2009. Cook DA. Revisiting cognitive and learning styles in computer-assisted instruction: not so useful after all. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 87(6):778-784, 2012.
54. Jared Danielsonjadaniel@iastate.edu