 |
Teaching at UK
Vol. 3, No. 2 (Spring 1997)
| Table of Contents | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning Styles and Teaching Practices | Multiple Intelligences | Kolb's Learning Cycle | TLC Grants Awarded |
|
| Table of Contents | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Learning Styles and Teaching Practices | Multiple Intelligences | Kolb's Learning Cycle | TLC Grants Awarded |
The discussion surrounding learning styles runs the gamut from those "who feel that their approach to learning styles is a virtual panacea for the current ills of education" to those who claim that learning styles "do not exist, that the varied approaches students adopt to learning are purely random responses to their environment" (Jensen, 181). In this issue of the Teaching and Learning Center Newsletter Professors Geri Maschio (Theatre) and Bill Burke (TLC, Biology) take a practical look at these issues as they discuss how they integrate the research on learning styles into their classroom praxis in order to create an optimal learning experience for their students.
For more information on the various learning-style theories and their practical implementation, check the holdings of the TLC's library or talk with one of the consultants. The TLC also maintains extensive collections of articles on learning and teaching styles. Contact the Center by e-mail at tlc@pop.uky.edu or by phone (7-2918).
Non-majors seem more interested in theatre once they have "entered" it through their dominant intelligence. For example, I ask accounting majors in my large U.S.P. Theatre History classes to research and write reports on the financial records of a specific theatre. For these majors, learning unfamiliar material through the "comfort zone" of their dominant (mathematical) intelligence helps to lessen their anxieties. As a result, these students see connections between the disciplines and their appreciation of theatre increases.
Students (presumably majors) already gifted in the intelligence needed to master a specific subject area benefit by learning the material through a different intelligence. It doesn't come easily and they have to work at it. Theatre majors generally have fairly well-developed bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and verbal/linguistic intelligences, but are often less mathematically able. Learning about theatre through statistical analyses of theatrical seasons may challenge these students, but such challenges are important if they are to fully understand theatre. More importantly, students with a range of developed intelligences are better able to meet the challenges not only of other subject areas, but of our increasingly complex world.
I also use MI in designing group projects. Each group assignment requires all the intelligences and the students must pool their collective intelligence resources to complete it. This approach to group work helps students to respect and to appreciate what others can bring to the group process. To me, this is essential for all students, regardless of their majors or future career choices.
In my experience, using MI to teach college students results in more engaged students. Students seem to develop a sense of "ownership" in their learning and develop an appreciation for their own intelligences and those of others.
Campbell, B., Campbell, L., & Dickinson, D. (1992). Teaching and learning multiple intelligences. Seattle: New Horizons for Learning.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
What if I were to show you a video in which students comment on how they prefer to learn and then asked you to reflect on what you just experienced? What if I also asked you to construct a model of learning styles based on your observations and try out various teaching strategies in your classroom addressing the different styles? The results of testing the model would provide a new basis for reflection. New models might emerge which could then be applied and tested. You might prefer some aspects of this project more than others, but overall you would have used a variety of intellectual skills and learned the subject matter; in this case, learning styles. You would also have learned about Kolb's "learning cycle" because you would have experienced it.
A number of instruments exist to assess learning-style preferences. These include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Schmeck's Inventory of Learning Processes, and Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. Each of these provides results which indicate cognitive preferences. The Kolb model (Kolb 1984, 1994) examines preferences along two axes representing dominant learning abilities -- concrete experience/abstract conceptualization and reflective observation/active experimentation. Each of the resulting gradients indicates a preference for one of four possible learning styles. Thus, while some, which Kolb calls "convergers" (strengths in abstract conceptualization and active experimentation), are most comfortable at finding practical uses for ideas and theories, others, the "divergers" (with preferences in concrete experience and reflective observation), might prefer observing a situation from different perspectives and brainstorming a wide range of ideas. Issues and Answers
Personally, the question of learning-style preferences makes sense to me in light of both the research literature and personal classroom experiences with biology students. However, I recognize the valid concerns regarding using these instruments in an instructional environment. Should one attempt to assess the individual learning styles of all students -- a formidable logistical task in a large class? How would one deal with the perhaps daunting diversity which is sure to appear? The risk of pigeon holing students and creating self-fulfilling prophesies when informing students of their supposed preferences is real. We might limit their educational experiences if we teach only to their preferred modalities. And finally, does teaching to a student's specific learning style even make a difference in student achievement or satisfaction?
The Kolb model resolves some of my concerns from both a theoretical and practical perspective. The model is grounded in a theoretical construct which draws upon many lines of overlapping research on cognitive development and style. It also provides a practical, pedagogically appealing heuristic for framing classroom activities. The model is based on a theory which conceives of learning as occurring in a cycle of four stages -- concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The cyclical nature is evident in that concrete experience provides the basis for observation and reflection. Reflection, in turn, leads to the formation of theories and paradigms whose implications and consequences can be deduced and tested. Perhaps this model appeals to me because it mirrors what some might consider a scientific problem-solving model. Applied in a classroom setting, however, the model works with any discipline.
The instructor creates an opportunity for concrete experience by, for example, showing a video, organizing a field trip, taking a survey, or providing concrete lecture examples. The instructor can then ask students to reflect on these observations perhaps through questions posed in lecture, a brainstorming session in class, or in a student's journal or lab book. Students can generate or at least consider abstract conceptualizations by discussing analogies in lecture, seeking out and critiquing models in texts or articles, or actively generating hypotheses and models to be tested. A chance for active experimentation in which the theories can be applied is the final stage of the cycle. Active experimentation can run the gamut from using case studies or simulations in lecture to conducting an experiment in a laboratory or in the field (see Figure 1). The cycle can be repeated based on the new concrete experiences gained in the final step.
Kolb, D. A. (1994). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In K. A. Feldman & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the college classroom (pp. 151-163). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Ginn.
Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb modified for classroom activities. College Teaching, 35 (4), 141-146.
The following faculty were awarded grants under the Faculty Associates Program competition co-sponsored with the FACTS Center:
 Back to Main Menu |  TLC Newsletters |  UK Reports |
