Research on learning styles and achievement has shown that teaching learners how to learn and how to monitor and manage their own learning styles is crucial and essential to their academic success (Moallem, 2009, citing Atkinson, 1998; Biggs & Moore, 1993; Matthews, 1991, Moodley, 2009). Kazu (2009) concurs when he claims that research has suggested that learners who have experienced learning through their styles are more successful. Klein (2003), further posits that learning style theorists as Barbe and Milone (1980, 1981), Jenkins (1988), Dunn and Dunn (1993), Carbo (1997b), Leaver (1997) and Sarasin (1999) all claim that learners learn best when taught through their preferred modalities. This has great impact for learning.
79 Thus when teachers deliver content in ways that better match learner‘ strengths, Lovelace (2005, cited by Dunn et al, 2008) attests it leads to increased academic performance and improved attitudes toward school.
Kazu (2009) agrees that this brings about improvement. Studying with knowledge of the learning style helps an individual reach his/her goals quickly. Matching teaching with the preferred learning style of a learner is an effective form of teaching and learning (Grosser & de Waal, 2008). It is necessary for educators to recognise, acknowledge and cater for the diverse needs of learners in order to promote learner performance and competency (Grosse & de Waal, 2008). The goal, according to Kazu (2009) is to realise learning and to encourage learners to revise outside of school and at home. In this way, learners will transfer their learning into real life (Moodley, 2009). Success is achieved through recognition of individual learning styles as a responsibility toward independent life-long learning is adopted.
Critically, the value and positive influence of a learning styles approach to teaching may be seen through evidence gathered from numerous research studies done across the world (Moodley, 2009). Through a small-scale, experimental study aimed to test the reliability and validity of a learning styles approach to teaching spelling among nineteen children, aged 7–10 years in the UK, Slack and Norwich (2007), using Smith‘s (1998) visual, auditory and kinesthetic styles inventory found that the visual and auditory scales, but not the kinesthetic scale (not provided for), were reliable (internally and re-test). The three groups of pupils with different learning styles—visual only, auditory only and mixed visual and auditory—showed different gains to teaching that matched these styles (visual and auditory teaching approaches). Retention of word spelling was higher one week after the teaching when the teaching matched the learning style (Moodley, 2009).
Similarly, Peacock (2001) working with Chinese English Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Hong Kong, tested Reid‘s hypothesis that all learners have their own learning styles and strengths and weaknesses and found it to be generally true for these learners (Moodley, 2009). Based on results from his study, according to Moodley (2009) though having validity and transferability limitations because of the context and constraints of the study, he was able to establish positively identifiable learning styles that differed among learners and teachers. On testing Reid‘s hypothesis that a mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning failure and frustration, the study found this to be generally true also for his sample.
Peacock‘s arguments that matching learning and teaching styles promotes more efficient second language
80 acquisition, more learner confidence and trust in EFL teachers and a more positive attitude to English, has tremendous implications for both learners and teachers. Of further importance to research conducted on the Dunn and Dunn (1978) learning style strategies compared with traditional teaching for at-risk learners in America, the overall data reported significantly higher test scores using the approach (Dunn et al, 2008;
Moodley, 2009).
Furthermore, in South Africa, very little attention has been given to differences among learners (Grosser &
de Waal, 2008) and even less research done in this area. However, in one of the few studies conducted in this field in South Africa, a pilot study by Grosser & de Waal investigating pedagogical needs and fundamental rights at school through the use of diverse learning styles among learners and teachers in the Gauteng Department of Education employing Kolb‘s Learning Style Inventory, concluded that teachers needed to adapt their teaching to accommodate learning styles. In a quantitative questionnaire completed by the teachers, the authors found it ‗disconcerting that the pedagogical needs of the learners, namely protecting the best interest of the child, safeguarding the interests of the learner and upholding the fundamental rights of the learner‘ were not ranked as important. They caution that the danger to teach in one way could result in classroom situations where some learners will enjoy lessons and do well while others will struggle and feel uncomfortable (Moodley, 2009).
The above may be further verified through several impact studies done on the work of Dunn and Dunn (1978; Dunn, et al, 2008; Moodley, 2009). Dunn and Dunn (1978) claim that learning styles, as a dimension of diversity, encourages everyone to respect and accept a variety of appropriate behaviours in the teaching and learning process. Teachers become self-motivated, internally reflect on their philosophy of education and its impact for everyday interactions with learners and colleagues. They believe that the concept makes the delivery of subject matter value driven and personal and promotes a sense of social justice and equity reducing bias (Moodley, 2009).
Significantly, the findings in Slack and Norwich‘s (2007) exploratory study suggest the importance of learning styles for classroom-based teaching (Moodley, 2009). According to the authors, this study has shown that it is possible to evaluate systematically the reliability of a learning styles inventory and to examine differential responses to teaching. It makes a sharp contribution in the claims for a learning styles approach to teaching.
However, essential for academic success is the need for improved perceptions of personal abilities and encouragement to strive beyond what has been previously accomplished. According to Geiser (1998, cited
81 by Dunn et al, 2008), when learners understand how they learn best, they adjust conditions and devise strategies for facilitating their progress. They become able to study more effectively and realize that it is not what, but how they study that really counts. Peacock (2001) strongly advises that learners take more responsibility for their own learning. Since they know their own needs and learning preferences best, they should try to meet those needs through their own efforts both in and outside the classroom. However, he contends that pedagogical changes should also be made, informed by teacher beliefs about good teaching practices (Moodley, 2009).
Kazu (2009) along with Weeden, Winter and Broadfoot (2002) and Moodley (2009) contend that the learner‘s gender, intelligence and personal characteristics influence the learning style as well. According to Weeden, Winter and Broadfoot (2002), research findings reveal that learning styles appear to have a different impact on the performance of girls to boys (Moodley, 2009). Citing Murphy they say that girls use learning styles that engage dialogue and collaborative approaches that validate their understanding of knowledge. Boys tend not to use these approaches. This implies that teachers need to also be aware of gender differences.
In direct opposition to the above, Hall (2005) has found several significant problems in the research on learning styles. She claims that there is an emphasis away from learning on to learner characteristics which underplays the importance of both acquiring subject knowledge and skills and obscures the differences between the learning cultures of different academic subjects (Moodley, 2009). In a review of 13 models, Hall (2005) attests that none passed on reliability and validity criteria (Moodley, 2009). This results in the fact that no one can be sure that all the items on the learning styles instrument measure what they intend to or that the results will be the same if the test is repeated. Most importantly, is her finding of ‗little good evidence‘ to suggest that using a learning styles pedagogy will significantly affect achievement or motivation. Likewise, Muse (2001, p.5) cited in Moodley (2009) strongly argues that the term ‗learning styles‘ implies the promise of increased learner learning in those whose learning style is identified and taught being a ‗warm, fuzzy‘
term that one may easily adopt and remember. He declares that because it seems to be intuitively correct, it elicits little discussion regarding its merits.
Hall (2005) further believes that learning style theory is complex and demanding and the desire to provide categories and groups inevitably leads to dangerous simplifications in practice. Her views are similar to Moallem (2007), whose review of research on learning style theory for online learning environments do not
82 point to a list of conclusive results. He says for each research study supporting the principle of matching instructional style and learning style there seems to be a study rejecting the matching hypothesis. He further contends that designing and developing instructional materials that address multiple learning styles are costly, time consuming and require careful design, development, implementation and evaluation. He claims that the results of his study do not completely equate to the time and effort needed (Moodley, 2009)
Tomlinson (2009) soundly cautions that while research supports the use of learning style and intelligence preference theories in the classroom and points to the importance of addressing gender- and culture-based approaches to learning, respected protagonists say at least some of these approaches are misguided. She guides that the use of learning styles to improve learner achievement is only one kind of differentiation in the classroom. While potentially beneficial it should not be a replacement for attending to readiness needs. She believes that it should serve as a comfortable beginning point and not be the end. Awareness that learner‘s learning preferences are more fluid than fixed means that a learner may prefer one approach to learning in one area and another in another subject. Offering learners options for learning, helping learners attend to which approaches work best for them at a given time, guiding learners to be attuned to whether they are learning effectively and to develop alternative ways of approaching content when learning, she claims, is not proceeding productively (Moodley, 2009).
While potentially useful in supporting learner learning, Tomlinson (2009) strongly argues that developing a learning profile should not be viewed as a way to bypass important elements of quality teaching, such as building learner-teacher relations, establishing a positive learning environment, developing and/or teaching high-quality curricular, using assessment to inform teaching and learning, and helping learners be partners in their own learning. When the application of a learning profile in the classroom enhances these elements, then it is worthwhile. She concludes that teachers teach more responsively when they consistently seek to understand what's working for individual learners and what's not, when they can design and engage learners in multiple tasks simultaneously to ensure learner academic growth and when they can help learners be more knowledgeable about and responsible for their own success. Under those conditions, she attests that more learners will perform better (Moodley, 2009).
In order to understand and critiques the claims made by learning styles proponents, it is thus imperative to understand what the literature states about how learning styles theory unfolds in practice. The following
83 section delves in depth into the implementation of a learning styles approach to teaching especially that of the Dunn and Dunn (1978) model employed by the participants of this study.