2.1 Learning
2.1.4 Learning styles and inventories
Messick (as cited in Haywood, 2000, p.225-226) claims that “styles are stable and persistent characteristics of the individual”, whereas approaches can change, but “Ramsden argues that both styles and strategies (approaches) ‘need to be seen as consistent and context dependent’”.
There are several ways in which learning styles can and do get classified. Wikepedia (2007) breaks them down into VARK and others. Coffield et al. (2004a), in their report reviewing learning styles, breaks them down into five families along a continuum, briefly discussed in 2.1.4.2.
2.1.4.1The VARK model
One of the more popular styles refers to a “sensory modality as a learning style dimension”
(Fleming and Mills, 1992, p.137). Fleming, in Fleming and Baume (2006, p.4), gave his modalities the acronym VARK, described in more detail below.
The origins of this style date back to the 1920's, but it has gained popularity in recent times
“because its principles and benefits extend to all types of learning and development, far beyond its early applications” (Chislett & Chapman, 2005, para.7). The principles are easily adaptable into learning inventories, discussed later. The “learning style is also a reflection of the type of person you are — how you perceive things and the way that you relate to the world” (Chislett &
Chapman, 2005, para.16).
The term “VARK is an acronym for Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic” (Fleming and Baume, 2006, p.2). There are several variations on this basic theme including VAK (visual, auditory and kinaesthetic, the read/write aspect being an action and thus absorbed by the kinaesthetic aspect) (Wikepedia, 2007, para.4) and “VACT (Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic-
16 Tactile)” (Chapman, 1995, para.6). These stand for the four basic learning styles, or “perceptual modes”, as Fleming and Mills (1992, p.137) term them. These perceptual modes are now briefly discussed.
Visual learners “remember best what they see – pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time lines, films and demonstrations” (Felder & Soloman, 2005). They may also rely on a lecturer’s expressions and gestures.
Some people have “a strong preference for verbal processing” (Coffield, Moseley, Hall &
Ecclestone, 2004a, p.14), whilst others cannot concentrate on verbal stimulus for very long.
They would tend to prefer discussing, debating and so on.
Read/write is probably the most common mode adopted by lecturers. Learners opting for this mode would tend to prefer learning by using writing and reading type formats, which, whilst also visual, differs in the style of presentation (Fleming & Mills, 1992, p.137).
Fleming (2005) suggests that “kinaesthetic learners think in terms of actions and bodily movement”. They tend to prefer action and movement type stimulation, and perceive “through an awareness of body movements” (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.178).
Tactile learners tend to make use of their hands in the process of learning such as underlining and note taking. They also perceive “through the sense of touch” (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.179).
Some students may have developed multiple styles (termed “Dual coding theory” in Tan, Parsons, Hinson, & Sardo-Brown, (2003, p.250). Others are able to adapt to a style suitable to the task at hand. Pask, (as cited in Entwistle, 1988, p.94), described such students as ‘versatile’.
These students are more likely to succeed in most situations because they can adapt to new situations.
Other researchers believe that the four basic VARK modes are limiting, one notable researcher being Howard Gardener, whose multiple intelligence theory model incorporates seven
intelligence types (HEP 1, 2004). Most people would incorporate two or three of these types in their being (Chapman, 1995, para.22). Gardener also accepts that these seven are not necessarily the limit and has suggested three additional types with the proviso that these additional types
17 may incorporate other factors besides an intelligence aspect (Chapman, 1995, para.9-11), possibly making them subjective. There is also a lack of coherency in the research and findings involving cognitive styles of learning (Entwistle, 1988, p.216; Atherton, 2002a, para.1;
Fleming, 2005, para.1).
2.1.4.2 Coffield et al. reports’ continuum
Coffield et al. (2004a, p.i) produced a report titled ‘Learning styles and pedagogy in Post-16 Learning’ that, in their opinion, “critically reviews the literature on learning styles”. From an original resource set of 3800 references obtained from various media sources, they used a set of predefined criteria for acceptance and rejection (Coffield et al., 2004a, pp.5-6), narrowing them down to a final listing of 71 (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.1), all listed in Appendix 1 of the report (ibid, pp.165-168). From these they chose 13 learning styles that they believed were “the most influential and potentially influential models and instruments of learning styles and their accompanying literatures with a particular focus on validity, reliability and practical application” (ibid, p.8).
The report, using a “simple way of organising the different models according to some overarching ideas” (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.10), also identified five different family groups which it presented as a continuum (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.11; Coffield et al., 2004b, p.26).
These five families, each discussed separately in Coffield et al’s (2004a) chapter’s three to seven, are respectively: 1) constitutionally based, 2) cognitive structure, 3) stable personality type, 4) flexibly stable learning preferences and 5) learning approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning.
This report, as with many other authors and writers on learning styles, warns against
categorising students into a box, or labelling them (Coffield et al., 2004a, pp.100, 102,122). It also indicates that students shouldn’t label themselves (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.128), since there is no clear evidence that students cannot adapt or change their styles.
One learning style, which first influenced the Researcher, was The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) situated in Coffield et al’s (2004a) fourth family, proposed by Felder and Soloman (2005) in 1987. It has four groups of opposing styles of learners. To determine the individual’s
preferences for the four groups either a written or internet based multiple choice type test would
18 be undertaken. This model has been revised and updated over the years and has been used quite extensively on science and engineering students (Felder & Brent, 2005, p.58), the Researchers main interest group.
2.1.4.3 Inventories
Closely associated with the various learning styles are inventories which have been developed to assist in the classification of learning styles. These inventories are typically multiple choice type questions often answered using Likert scales. A degree of lack of validity (in various forms), together with reliability problems, often goes along with these inventories, all of which were taken into consideration in some detail in Coffield et al. (2004a).
The tests can usually be performed over the Internet or may be completed in paper form. Some of them are free and some are run on a commercial basis. It is important to bear in mind that, once completed, one has again to be careful of labelling a person according to a particular style because none of them are absolutes. Of the learning styles mentioned only the inventories of Entwistle and Vermunt “attempt to develop a model of learning within the specific context of higher education” (Coffield et al., 2004a, p.92).