Learning Styles and Student's Preference

A learning style is a student’s consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the context of learning. Rita and Kenneth Dunn said that “Learning style is a biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make the identical instruction effective for some students and ineffective for others” (Dunn and Dunn, 1993). Keefe(1979) defines learning style as the “composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with and responds to the learning environment”. Stewart and Felicetti (1992) define learning styles as those “educational conditions under which a student is most likely to learn”. Thus learning styles are not really concerned with “what” learners learn but rather “how” they prefer to learn. Reid (1995) defined learning style as “an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred ways(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (p.viii). In other words, learning style are individuals’ stable ways to process their own learning in certain contexts. How do we know what learning styles each student has or prefers?
There are a number of different ways to determine an individual student's learning style. Guild and Garger (1986) identify five different approaches to assessing learning styles. These include the use of: (1) self-report inventories, (2) tests, (3) structured interviews, (4) observations of students during learning situations, and (5) an analysis of products produced by students. The Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) and the Reading Styles Inventory (Dunn, Dunn & Price; Carbo & Dunn) are the assessment instruments recommended by the model developers. However, the Learning Styles Profile (Keefe & Monk, 1986) is also used extensively with learning style programs that are primarily based on the development work of the Dunns.
Learning styles are points along a scale that help us to discover the different forms of mental representations, however, they are not like, we would not divide the population into a set of categories (i.e. visual and auditory learners. what the various instruments attempt to do is allocate a person on some point on a continuum (similar to measuring height or weight). In other words do not pigeonhole people as we are all capable of learning under almost any style, no matter how our preference is.
Individuals have their own learning preferences, and most of time, they use their preferences to make learning easier. The concept of learning style is widely known and accepted, but in Cassidy’s overview (2004), he mentioned learning style, like many human psychological characteristics were with the “state-or-trait” debate.
Therefore, he proposed that the probably appropriate explanation was that learning styles are the stable existence over time (trait) but to some slightly degree, the learning styles may “allow change and enable adaptive behaviour” depending on “responsive to experiences and demands of the situation” (p. 421).
The literature basically indicates that there is wide acceptance of the concept of learning styles; however, there is disagreement on how best measure learning style Coffield, et al (2004) while the learning profession has long recognized the need for innovative instructional activities that relate to the diverse learning styles of learners, there is some question as to just how meaningful they are to the learning environment.
That is, most researcher agree that we do have various learning styles and preferences, however, the research tends to agree that it is relative unimportant as it is for more important it match the presentation with the nature of the subject, such as providing correct learning methods, strategies and context than matching individual preferences Coffield, (2004). For example in a meta-study Marizano (1998) found that graphic and tactile representations of the subject matter had noticeable effects on learning outcomes, regardless of any attempt to match them with learner modalities. Perhaps, David Merrill (2000) has the best philosophy for using learning styles, instructional strategies should first be taught or the goals of the instruction (the content by-strategy interactions) and secondly, learning styles and preferences are then used to adjust or fine-tune these fundamental learning strategies.
Merrill continued with the argument that most students are unaware of their learning styles and if left to their own means, they are unlikely to start learning in new ways. Thus knowledge of one’s learning styles can be used to increase self-awareness about their strength and weaknesses as learners. In other words, all the advantages claimed for meta- cognition (being aware of one’s thought by encouraging learners to become knowledgeable about their own learning and that of others Coffield, (2004).
There is no good understanding of learning styles as it stands. But it certainly does not follow that we all learn the same way- the sense that make well work in concert, but (as someone with thick glasses, I can affect) some senses work more or less well, meaning that each individual may combine the senses differently, Downes (2001). It seems at this point in time learning style are not really “styles” but rather preferences; in that we do not learn best by using our style of learning. That is, we prefer one or more learning styles over others.
The learning centered approach can be identified as a distinct stream of style based research that differs from the psychological orientation of cognitive-perceptual research. This approach has, according to Riding & Rayner (1998), been motivated by educationists addressing the diversity of the environment in which learning takes place, and driven by process-based concerns relating to meeting individual differences and learning needs. The focus has shifted from concentrating on the constructs of intelligence and processing of information to an increased interest in learners' active response to the learning task and to the learning environment.
This stream of research on learning style shows that learners are dynamic and open to adaptation according to the particular context of learning. Criticism has been voiced about the learning-centered tradition of research on learning styles, on the basis that it represents an uncertain relationship between learning style and cognition and that concepts are poorly defined and used loosely (Riding & Rayner, 1998). However, the strength of the learning-centered tradition is that it attempts to contextualize and operationalise the construct of 'learning styles' and to apply the insights gained to improving pedagogical practice. It has therefore grown in ascendancy in recent years. To further differentiate the learner-centered research approach, much of it has been carried out in Europe and has focused on approaches to studying (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1979; Trigwell & Prosser, 1999; Watkins 1982). How the learner performs in the learning context remains the prime focus and characterizes much recent research carried out on learning approaches among tertiary students (Busato, Prins et al, 1998; Cleminson et al 1994; Ellis, 1996; Evans & Honour 1997; Watkins, 1998).
What has been most productive in the learning-centered tradition has been the additional insight gained about individual differences and strategies that emerge while learners are engaged in the process of learning. Individuals tend to develop learning strategies in order to deal with learning materials and therefore learning strategies can be regarded as cognitive tools, which enable learners to complete tasks and solve problems. By relating the research on learning strategies to the design of learning environments it is possible to investigate how learners approach their learning, how they perceive of themselves as learners and what they value in the learning experience (eg., Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).
Learning styles research is of enormous significance with respect to establishing the learners' contexts of application and learning, so that these understandings can be brought into the design process. Rowntree (1992) argues persuasively that developers need to take into account the research on learning styles, and to design materials for flexibility, diversity and balance. In a comprehensive review of literature, Richardson (1994) also concludes that higher education requires students to comprehend, and not merely to reproduce ideas and that acknowledging different approaches to learning enables authentic tasks to be created which are responsive to learner needs. In designing a learning task there is also an increased emphasis on productive as opposed to reproductive learning activities. For example, learners are required to solve problems, produce arguments and evaluate their own work and that of others. These productive and creative activities have signaled a shift in emphasis in higher education from reproductive to higher order learning activities and an emphasis on meaning-directed and investigative styles of learning (Trigwell & Prosser, 1999). Such an approach necessitates taking into account differences in prior knowledge and a greater understanding of learning processes in which learners are participants in knowledge creation, not mere receptors of inert knowledge. Salomon & Globerson (1987) maintain that mindfulness in learning involves intentional purposeful employment of non-automatic cognitive processes addressed to the task at hand. By enabling learners to have access to resources tailored to their own learning styles and instructional procedures, tutors can foster such higher order learning outcomes.
In the United Kingdom, the Dearing report Higher Education in the Learning
Society has endorsed learner-centered approaches and emphasizes that learners should come to know their own learning styles. For learning tasks, they state that: an effective strategy is to guide and enable learners to be effective learners to understand their own learning styles and to manage their own learning. (Dearing, 1997: 24) Jonassen & Wang (1993) concluded that merely providing content and information and showing learners structural relationships is not sufficient for higher cognitive performance. They conclude that "what matters most is the construction of personally relevant knowledge structures" (p. 7). This means that learners must be able to engage with the learning materials at varying levels and depths and be capable of accessing resources, which match or accommodate their learning preferences. This review of literature presents substantial evidence in favour of considering learning styles research when developing instructional materials.
Despite this evidence, the research is divided in its application of learning styles research to the development and design of instructional materials. On the one hand, some maintain that learning improves when learning styles are taken into account (eg., Riding & Rayner, 1995; Riding & Douglas, 1993). For example, Claxton & Murrell (1987: 2) remark that "consideration of styles is one way to help faculty and administrators think more deeply about their roles and the organizational culture in which they carry out their work". Others favor extending or changing learners' cognitive systems or approaches to learning through adaptive, intelligent use of computer courseware and learning materials (Jonassen, 1988). In either case, it can be argued that both strands of learning styles research provide a wealth of insight into individual differences and orientations to learning that can be translated into instructional design.