This article begins with a light sketch of learning styles, drawing mostly on Kolb and Gee. Also some useful material on selecting a learning style instrument (which was posted yesterday on DEOS). I've never really been happy with traditional accounts of learning styles. Why, for example, would we say that people express a preference for either concrete experience or abstract analysis when learning? That's silly - neither is particularly useful on its own; both are vitally important. And what about the relation between personal experience and, say, accounts of others' experiences? Or storytelling and fiction and fables? I think each aspect of learning should be measured on its own, not as opposed to some other aspect, and that many aspects - probably hundreds - should be measured. The essay continues with a a description of some research, the results of which (of course) are useful only when viewed as part of an aggregate. The authors conclude that there is a difference in learning styles in students who study traditionally and students who study by distance. People shouldn't draw conclusions from single studies (this is a flaw in the template research students are taught): just report the results and move on. PDF file.
Today: 2 Total: 126 [Direct link] [Share]
