JOHN HOPKINS
New Horizons
for Learning
for Learning
Diversity, Learning Style and Culture
by Pat Burke Guild
Teachers know that students learn in different ways; the experience in the classroom confirms this every day. In addition, well-accepted theories and extensive research illustrate and document learning differences. Most educators can talk about learning differences, whether by the name of learning styles, cognitive styles, psychological type, or multiple intelligences. Learners bring their own individual approach, talents and interests to the learning situation.
We also know that an individual learner's culture, family back?ground, and socioeconomic level affect his or her learning. The context in which someone grows and develops has an important impact on learning.
These beliefs, principles and theories have an important impact on the opportunities for success for every student in our schools.
Is this kind of sameness always wrong? Surely, given the task of educating large numbers of people, efficiency justifies some consistency and uniformity in the process. Even more valid is the argument for general standards and equality across schools, districts, and states. This is a realistic perspective, but to better match beliefs about diversity with practice, we must address the imbalance between uniformity and diversity.
At present, schools are heavily biased toward uniformity over diversity. An appropriate balance must be determined thoughtfully with attention to beliefs, theories, and research rather than efficiency. We need to decide intentionally what should be uniform for all students and what should be diverse and strive toward putting into practice what we say we believe.
In one sense, the current imbalance is easily understood. Sameness is always easier to accommodate than difference, and education practices often have been developed to consciously promote the same education for all students. We have few teaching models that appropriately accommodate both consistent educational values and human diversity.
A clarification is needed here. Attention to diversity does not mean "anything goes." Honoring diversity does not imply a lack of clear beliefs and strong values. There are indeed some absolutes in education. Every learner benefits from an outstanding teacher and an engaging learning experience. Every student and teacher deserves to be treated with respect. Every student should have an opportunity to reach his or her individual potential. Every student should master specific basic skills. The challenge is to identify what should be the same in schools and what should be different. We need appropriate uniform standards but not standardization. It's important to decide:
? What outcomes should be expected for all students?
? What experiences should every student have?
? What curriculum should be uniform?
? How can educators work toward a common mission while honoring diversity?
These questions do not have simple answers, but we must explore them to accommodate individual differences in the classroom and to give all students the best opportunities for success.
Attending to Diversity
The need to address the balance between uniformity and diversity is urgent because the current imbalance is consistently damaging to many learners and teachers.
The emphasis on uniformity is a serious disadvantage for students whose culture has taught them behaviors and beliefs that are different from the norms of the majority culture most often emphasized in schools. Students whose families value collaboration are told to be independent. Students whose culture values spontaneity are told to exercise self- control. Students who are rewarded in their families for being social are told to work quietly and alone. Hale- Benson (1986) points out: "A duality of socialization is required of Black people. Black children have to be prepared to imitate the "hip," "cool," behavior of the culture in which they live and at the same time to take on those behaviors that are necessary to be upwardly mobile" (p. 62). This cultural clash often causes students to struggle in school, and yet their individual strengths, if valued, respected, and promoted, would bring them success and increase their self- confidence.
A limited acknowledgment of individual learning differences also encourages a continual search for the one "best" way for students to learn, teachers to teach, and the curriculum to be studied. There is ample proof over the years- in reading, mathematics, writing, and foreign language instruction, for example, that it is futile to search for the single best way to achieve a broad educational outcome, in large part because learners do not fit a single mold.
Students who do not learn through whatever the current "best approach" happens to be are too often labeled "disabled" because their way of learning does not respond to that particular method. To further complicate the situation, the method becomes the identified deficit and the target for remediation. For example, in reading, remediation in phonics, which is a strategy, often becomes the target for learning. In a typical situation, a young learner who initially was not successful learning to read with a phonic approach receives additional instruction in phonics. The overarching goal, in this case the ability to read, is lost as the instruction emphasizes the specific practice of the deficit technique. Remediating a deficit technique rather than teaching the desired skill through the student's strength is the norm in too many schools.
The same pattern is evident in behavioral areas where, for example, an active, hands- on learner who does not have the opportunity to use that approach in a positive way in the classroom is described as lacking self-control and labeled disruptive or hyperactive. It disturbs many educators to see the tremendous increase in the number of students medicated for attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) without an examination of their learning styles. Thomas Armstrong, a former special education teacher and a proponent of the multiple intelligences theories, addressed this issue.
The traits that are associated with ADD- hyperactivity, distractibility, and impulsiveness- can result from a number of causes. For example, a child may be hyperactive or inattentive because of being bored with a lesson, anxious about a bully, upset about a divorce, allergic to milk, temperamental by nature, or a hundred other things. Research suggests, though, that once adults have labeled and medicated the child- and the medication works- these more complex questions are all too often forgot?ten. By rushing to drugs and labels, we may be leaving more difficult problems to fester under the surface. (1995, p. 42)
Teachers, too, suffer from the imbalance between uniformity and diversity, especially when they are evaluated with uniform processes. Numerous educators,including John Goodlad, Roland Barth, and Ted Sizer, have written eloquently about the value of diversity of teaching styles. We do not have evidence of one best way to teach, just as we don't know of one best way to learn.
An emphasis on uniformity creates competition rather than collaboration among teachers. While identification of specific teaching skills can be uniform, diversity of teaching styles can and should be a school's strength. For example, all teachers can be held account?able for thoughtful planning, but that planning could be linear and sequential for one teacher and holistic and conceptual for another. The plan books of these teachers would look very different, and they should be evaluated differently, too.
Distinct approaches to teaching methods, content instruction, curriculum organization, and special education programming come and go over the years. It is unrealistic to expect that a particular approach will be successful for all learners. This expectation only leads to disappointment and another swing of the education pendulum. Instead of an either-or mentality, many experienced teachers know that using the best of a variety of approaches benefits many learners. Instructional tools must be carefully and intentionally adapted to accommodate individual learners. Only in this way will all students have an opportunity for success.
The Drum
daddy says the world is
a drum tight and hard
and i told him
i'm gonna beat
out my own rhythm
--Nikki Giovanni
To understand people's behaviors, we need to look at the roots of their actions. One way to do this is to consider several basic ways in which we all interact with a situation, a person, information, or ideas. First we take in the occurrence; then we think about it; react to it; and ultimately act upon it. These basic functions imply four categories of style differences.
? Style is concerned with cognition: People perceive and gain knowledge differently.
? Style is concerned with conceptualization: People form ideas and think differently.
? Style is concerned with affect: People's emotional responses and values differ.
? Style is concerned with behavior: People act differently.
These categories help organize the diverse aspects of style, but they are not meant to be rigid. The complexity and subtlety of human behavior makes any organization of individual differences accurate in one instance but arbitrary in the next. To understand styles and their implications for education, it is best to view these categories in conjunction with all the characteristics that are integrated in the total personality of each human being.
Cognition: How Do I Know?
Perception, the initial stage of cognition, involves receiving, obtaining, taking possession of, and discerning information, ideas, and concepts. Some of us best perceive what is real; others clearly see possibilities with their imaginations. Some people see parts of a whole, separating ideas from their context, while others see the whole, not unlike the difference between seeing the forest or the trees.
These perceptual differences affect what and how something is received. My best intentions and extensive efforts to convince another to see exactly as I see will not eliminate these personal differences. A gifted artist can describe the gestalt of a painting, but some viewers will be struck by, and confined to, a single image in the work. The artist can plead, cajole, and discuss the entire painting in detail, but to little avail if the viewer's perception governs a certain view.
Consider how it would be if you hiked through the woods with a friend who suddenly became fascinated with a mushroom. At first, you might not even see the mushroom; your friend must point it out. Then, even when you physically see it, it doesn't mean the same thing to the two of you. You never eat mushrooms, and besides, you're on the hike mainly to enjoy your friend's company. But your friend is an accomplished gourmet chef who is looking to a new challenge: learning to cook with wild mushrooms he himself gathers. He'll soon be taking a class to learn to distinguish between edible and poisonous varieties. Your perceptions about the mushroom, obviously, are different.
Two people listening to the same music respond differently to the nuances of the sound, reflecting the depth of their musical experiences and their personal perceptions. Perhaps one is tuned to certain subtleties, while the other listens more generally. Two people sitting next to each other at a movie will recall different things when they discuss the film later. Students in a class often hear the teacher's directions in very different ways.
Gaining knowledge is another part of cognition. People get information in different ways. Some people use abstract sources, reading about things and listening to others' descriptions. Others need concrete experiences. The concrete person often will depend directly on the senses for information: "I see it; now I know what it is." The abstract person is more receptive to secondhand sources of knowledge. Some people have to touch something or see it operate before they accept it as real, while others can imagine a vivid reality with?out needing to experience it. There are also sensory specialists, those people who rely on one sense more than another to gather information. Again, these different ways of getting information and gaining knowledge reflect distinct personal styles.
Conceptualization: How Do I Think?
People also exhibit differences in what they do with the knowledge they gain: how they process information and how they think. Some people are always looking for connections and ways to tie things together. Others are more divergent: One thought, idea, or fact triggers a multitude of new directions. Some people order ideas, information, and experiences in a linear, sequential way, while others organize their thoughts in clusters and random patterns. Some people think aloud; they verbalize ideas as a way of understanding them. Others concentrate on understanding concepts and experiences privately in their own minds. Some people think quickly, spontaneously, and impulsively; others are deliberate and reflective.
We see these and other examples every day. You may have had the experience of asking someone, "Whatever made you say that?" Then you realize the person was thinking about something in a very different way than you were. The important point is that these differences form patterns for each person and affect their total behavior.
Affect: How Do I Decide?
Differences in motivation, judgments, values, and emotional responses also characterize individual style. Some people are motivated internally; others seek external rewards. Some people actively seek to please others: children to please their parents and teachers, adults to please bosses and spouses. Some people simply are not attuned to others' expectations, and still others will rebel against any such demands. Some people make decisions logically, rationally, objectively, and coolly. Others decide things subjectively, focusing on their own and others' perceptions and emotions. Some people seek frequent feedback on their ideas and work; some are crushed by slight criticism. Others welcome analytical comments, and still others would never ask an outsider for a critique.
For some people, the medium is the message; others focus directly on the content. Some people are emotionally involved in everything they do, and others are neutral. The emotional learner prefers a classroom with a high emotional energy while another learner works best in a low-key environment. These affective differences are also stylistic and interrelated with the conceptual and cognitive characteristics discussed above.
The discussion of differences in affective style does not contradict basic humanistic beliefs in education. Everyone does best in a supportive atmosphere free from excessive criticism. But an awareness of stylistic differences can help administrators and teachers recognize that every person does not seek the same affective response and understand the kinds of support students, parents, and coworkers want.
Behavior: How Do I Act?
Cognitive, conceptual, and affective patterns are the roots of behavior, and pervasive and consistent stylistic characteristics will be reflected in a person's actions. The reflective thinker, for example, can be expected to act in a reflective way in a variety of situations from decision making to relating to people. Some people scan a situation to get the overall gist before tackling a problem; others focus on, a certain part of the problem immediately and start with it. Some people approach a task randomly; others are very systematic. Some people need explicit structure; others prefer and perform best in a more open- ended situation. Some people prefer to work alone, and others like groups. Many people prefer working in certain kinds of physical environments.
In education, we recognize a variety of differences in how people learn and how these basic styles affect the individual learner's behavior. Reflective students are slow to respond to questions and need to think through a response carefully. Impulsive learners respond quickly and blurt out their thoughts. The step-by-step person learns best when each stage is clear and the transitions are spelled out. Another kind of learner makes intuitive leaps. After several weeks of struggling with division of fractions, this student may suddenly announce, "I've got it!" This same intuitive learner also will be impatient with sounding out parts of a word and doing phonetic worksheets when she has already grasped the essence of a story.
In sum, people differ in the ways they perceive, think, feel, and behave. Researchers have identified many specific examples of these differences, as summarized in the chart which follows. Equally important, the personal and professional experiences of educators provide constant evidence that style differences exist and that they affect many aspects of learning and teaching each day.
To provide an equal opportunity for all students to be successful in school, educators must first develop a deep understanding of individual differences in learning. The research and theories on culture and learning style adequately document learning differences among individuals. While these theories are familiar to many educators, and generally accepted, their application is relatively shallow. For example, many teachers know that it is important to provide a "visual" learner with visual information. But if the visual is words on an overhead projector mimicking the words spoken orally, this is a superficial accommodation of the learner's style. Far more significant would be an image, symbol, or visual representation of the information so that the visual learner could learn through his or her strengths.
Many teachers know that the active, kinesthetic learner needs hands-on experiences. A deeper understanding of these learners tells us that the experiences should come early in the process while the initial understanding of the concepts and skills are being developed, not just during practice time. Yet many times these learners are asked to "understand" first, then "do" later. The kinesthetic learner needs to manipulate the science equipment to understand the concepts, and she will learn abstract math concepts while doing the measurement project or even after it's completed. The kinesthetic learners' impatience to get started sometimes causes teachers to demand that they explain what they will do before they start. This is difficult for these students, since the doing leads to the understanding and the explaining.
Learning styles research and resources are rich with examples to help develop appropriate activities for different learners. But if the activities are not guided by a consistent and deep understanding of the significance of learning differences, the activities will be a cursory attempt to implement these concepts. Learning styles labels are simply a tool; the diverse behaviors we see in the classroom are reflections of much deeper cognitive processes.
Not all learners who share a certain label are alike. A "visual" learner who is also "concrete sequential" seeks visual order and would benefit from a linear diagram of material. A "visual" learner who is also "abstract random" responds to design and would be drawn to a mind- map format for organizing information. A careful study of the major concepts of learning styles is necessary for the practical application of these theories in schools.
Without an understanding of the unique meanings existing for the individual,
the problems of helping him effectively are almost insurmountable. --Arthur Combs
Educators do not believe that all learners are the same. Yet visits to schools throughout the world might convince us otherwise. Too often, educators continue to treat all learners alike while paying lip service to the principle of diversity. the problems of helping him effectively are almost insurmountable. --Arthur Combs
Teachers know that students learn in different ways; the experience in the classroom confirms this every day. In addition, well-accepted theories and extensive research illustrate and document learning differences. Most educators can talk about learning differences, whether by the name of learning styles, cognitive styles, psychological type, or multiple intelligences. Learners bring their own individual approach, talents and interests to the learning situation.
We also know that an individual learner's culture, family back?ground, and socioeconomic level affect his or her learning. The context in which someone grows and develops has an important impact on learning.
These beliefs, principles and theories have an important impact on the opportunities for success for every student in our schools.
Diversity, Uniformity and School Practices
Despite acknowledgment of important differences among learners, uniformity continues to dominate school practices. More than 50 years ago, Nathaniel Cantor observed that "the public elementary and high schools, and colleges, generally project what they consider to be the proper way of learning which is uniform for all students" (1946/1972, p. 102). In 50 years, too little has changed. Most schools still function as if all students were the same. Students use the same textbooks and the same materials for learning. They work at the same pace on the same quantity of material. They study the same content and work through the same curriculum on the same schedule. Teachers talk with whole groups of students, delivering the same information at the same time to everyone. And, of course, schools use the same tests for all to measure the success of the learning.Is this kind of sameness always wrong? Surely, given the task of educating large numbers of people, efficiency justifies some consistency and uniformity in the process. Even more valid is the argument for general standards and equality across schools, districts, and states. This is a realistic perspective, but to better match beliefs about diversity with practice, we must address the imbalance between uniformity and diversity.
At present, schools are heavily biased toward uniformity over diversity. An appropriate balance must be determined thoughtfully with attention to beliefs, theories, and research rather than efficiency. We need to decide intentionally what should be uniform for all students and what should be diverse and strive toward putting into practice what we say we believe.
In one sense, the current imbalance is easily understood. Sameness is always easier to accommodate than difference, and education practices often have been developed to consciously promote the same education for all students. We have few teaching models that appropriately accommodate both consistent educational values and human diversity.
A clarification is needed here. Attention to diversity does not mean "anything goes." Honoring diversity does not imply a lack of clear beliefs and strong values. There are indeed some absolutes in education. Every learner benefits from an outstanding teacher and an engaging learning experience. Every student and teacher deserves to be treated with respect. Every student should have an opportunity to reach his or her individual potential. Every student should master specific basic skills. The challenge is to identify what should be the same in schools and what should be different. We need appropriate uniform standards but not standardization. It's important to decide:
? What outcomes should be expected for all students?
? What experiences should every student have?
? What curriculum should be uniform?
? How can educators work toward a common mission while honoring diversity?
These questions do not have simple answers, but we must explore them to accommodate individual differences in the classroom and to give all students the best opportunities for success.
Attending to Diversity
The need to address the balance between uniformity and diversity is urgent because the current imbalance is consistently damaging to many learners and teachers.
The emphasis on uniformity is a serious disadvantage for students whose culture has taught them behaviors and beliefs that are different from the norms of the majority culture most often emphasized in schools. Students whose families value collaboration are told to be independent. Students whose culture values spontaneity are told to exercise self- control. Students who are rewarded in their families for being social are told to work quietly and alone. Hale- Benson (1986) points out: "A duality of socialization is required of Black people. Black children have to be prepared to imitate the "hip," "cool," behavior of the culture in which they live and at the same time to take on those behaviors that are necessary to be upwardly mobile" (p. 62). This cultural clash often causes students to struggle in school, and yet their individual strengths, if valued, respected, and promoted, would bring them success and increase their self- confidence.
A limited acknowledgment of individual learning differences also encourages a continual search for the one "best" way for students to learn, teachers to teach, and the curriculum to be studied. There is ample proof over the years- in reading, mathematics, writing, and foreign language instruction, for example, that it is futile to search for the single best way to achieve a broad educational outcome, in large part because learners do not fit a single mold.
Students who do not learn through whatever the current "best approach" happens to be are too often labeled "disabled" because their way of learning does not respond to that particular method. To further complicate the situation, the method becomes the identified deficit and the target for remediation. For example, in reading, remediation in phonics, which is a strategy, often becomes the target for learning. In a typical situation, a young learner who initially was not successful learning to read with a phonic approach receives additional instruction in phonics. The overarching goal, in this case the ability to read, is lost as the instruction emphasizes the specific practice of the deficit technique. Remediating a deficit technique rather than teaching the desired skill through the student's strength is the norm in too many schools.
The same pattern is evident in behavioral areas where, for example, an active, hands- on learner who does not have the opportunity to use that approach in a positive way in the classroom is described as lacking self-control and labeled disruptive or hyperactive. It disturbs many educators to see the tremendous increase in the number of students medicated for attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) without an examination of their learning styles. Thomas Armstrong, a former special education teacher and a proponent of the multiple intelligences theories, addressed this issue.
The traits that are associated with ADD- hyperactivity, distractibility, and impulsiveness- can result from a number of causes. For example, a child may be hyperactive or inattentive because of being bored with a lesson, anxious about a bully, upset about a divorce, allergic to milk, temperamental by nature, or a hundred other things. Research suggests, though, that once adults have labeled and medicated the child- and the medication works- these more complex questions are all too often forgot?ten. By rushing to drugs and labels, we may be leaving more difficult problems to fester under the surface. (1995, p. 42)
Teachers, too, suffer from the imbalance between uniformity and diversity, especially when they are evaluated with uniform processes. Numerous educators,including John Goodlad, Roland Barth, and Ted Sizer, have written eloquently about the value of diversity of teaching styles. We do not have evidence of one best way to teach, just as we don't know of one best way to learn.
An emphasis on uniformity creates competition rather than collaboration among teachers. While identification of specific teaching skills can be uniform, diversity of teaching styles can and should be a school's strength. For example, all teachers can be held account?able for thoughtful planning, but that planning could be linear and sequential for one teacher and holistic and conceptual for another. The plan books of these teachers would look very different, and they should be evaluated differently, too.
Distinct approaches to teaching methods, content instruction, curriculum organization, and special education programming come and go over the years. It is unrealistic to expect that a particular approach will be successful for all learners. This expectation only leads to disappointment and another swing of the education pendulum. Instead of an either-or mentality, many experienced teachers know that using the best of a variety of approaches benefits many learners. Instructional tools must be carefully and intentionally adapted to accommodate individual learners. Only in this way will all students have an opportunity for success.
Defining Learning Style
daddy says the world is
a drum tight and hard
and i told him
i'm gonna beat
out my own rhythm
--Nikki Giovanni
To understand people's behaviors, we need to look at the roots of their actions. One way to do this is to consider several basic ways in which we all interact with a situation, a person, information, or ideas. First we take in the occurrence; then we think about it; react to it; and ultimately act upon it. These basic functions imply four categories of style differences.
? Style is concerned with cognition: People perceive and gain knowledge differently.
? Style is concerned with conceptualization: People form ideas and think differently.
? Style is concerned with affect: People's emotional responses and values differ.
? Style is concerned with behavior: People act differently.
These categories help organize the diverse aspects of style, but they are not meant to be rigid. The complexity and subtlety of human behavior makes any organization of individual differences accurate in one instance but arbitrary in the next. To understand styles and their implications for education, it is best to view these categories in conjunction with all the characteristics that are integrated in the total personality of each human being.
Cognition: How Do I Know?
Perception, the initial stage of cognition, involves receiving, obtaining, taking possession of, and discerning information, ideas, and concepts. Some of us best perceive what is real; others clearly see possibilities with their imaginations. Some people see parts of a whole, separating ideas from their context, while others see the whole, not unlike the difference between seeing the forest or the trees.
These perceptual differences affect what and how something is received. My best intentions and extensive efforts to convince another to see exactly as I see will not eliminate these personal differences. A gifted artist can describe the gestalt of a painting, but some viewers will be struck by, and confined to, a single image in the work. The artist can plead, cajole, and discuss the entire painting in detail, but to little avail if the viewer's perception governs a certain view.
Consider how it would be if you hiked through the woods with a friend who suddenly became fascinated with a mushroom. At first, you might not even see the mushroom; your friend must point it out. Then, even when you physically see it, it doesn't mean the same thing to the two of you. You never eat mushrooms, and besides, you're on the hike mainly to enjoy your friend's company. But your friend is an accomplished gourmet chef who is looking to a new challenge: learning to cook with wild mushrooms he himself gathers. He'll soon be taking a class to learn to distinguish between edible and poisonous varieties. Your perceptions about the mushroom, obviously, are different.
Two people listening to the same music respond differently to the nuances of the sound, reflecting the depth of their musical experiences and their personal perceptions. Perhaps one is tuned to certain subtleties, while the other listens more generally. Two people sitting next to each other at a movie will recall different things when they discuss the film later. Students in a class often hear the teacher's directions in very different ways.
Gaining knowledge is another part of cognition. People get information in different ways. Some people use abstract sources, reading about things and listening to others' descriptions. Others need concrete experiences. The concrete person often will depend directly on the senses for information: "I see it; now I know what it is." The abstract person is more receptive to secondhand sources of knowledge. Some people have to touch something or see it operate before they accept it as real, while others can imagine a vivid reality with?out needing to experience it. There are also sensory specialists, those people who rely on one sense more than another to gather information. Again, these different ways of getting information and gaining knowledge reflect distinct personal styles.
Conceptualization: How Do I Think?
People also exhibit differences in what they do with the knowledge they gain: how they process information and how they think. Some people are always looking for connections and ways to tie things together. Others are more divergent: One thought, idea, or fact triggers a multitude of new directions. Some people order ideas, information, and experiences in a linear, sequential way, while others organize their thoughts in clusters and random patterns. Some people think aloud; they verbalize ideas as a way of understanding them. Others concentrate on understanding concepts and experiences privately in their own minds. Some people think quickly, spontaneously, and impulsively; others are deliberate and reflective.
We see these and other examples every day. You may have had the experience of asking someone, "Whatever made you say that?" Then you realize the person was thinking about something in a very different way than you were. The important point is that these differences form patterns for each person and affect their total behavior.
Affect: How Do I Decide?
Differences in motivation, judgments, values, and emotional responses also characterize individual style. Some people are motivated internally; others seek external rewards. Some people actively seek to please others: children to please their parents and teachers, adults to please bosses and spouses. Some people simply are not attuned to others' expectations, and still others will rebel against any such demands. Some people make decisions logically, rationally, objectively, and coolly. Others decide things subjectively, focusing on their own and others' perceptions and emotions. Some people seek frequent feedback on their ideas and work; some are crushed by slight criticism. Others welcome analytical comments, and still others would never ask an outsider for a critique.
For some people, the medium is the message; others focus directly on the content. Some people are emotionally involved in everything they do, and others are neutral. The emotional learner prefers a classroom with a high emotional energy while another learner works best in a low-key environment. These affective differences are also stylistic and interrelated with the conceptual and cognitive characteristics discussed above.
The discussion of differences in affective style does not contradict basic humanistic beliefs in education. Everyone does best in a supportive atmosphere free from excessive criticism. But an awareness of stylistic differences can help administrators and teachers recognize that every person does not seek the same affective response and understand the kinds of support students, parents, and coworkers want.
Behavior: How Do I Act?
Cognitive, conceptual, and affective patterns are the roots of behavior, and pervasive and consistent stylistic characteristics will be reflected in a person's actions. The reflective thinker, for example, can be expected to act in a reflective way in a variety of situations from decision making to relating to people. Some people scan a situation to get the overall gist before tackling a problem; others focus on, a certain part of the problem immediately and start with it. Some people approach a task randomly; others are very systematic. Some people need explicit structure; others prefer and perform best in a more open- ended situation. Some people prefer to work alone, and others like groups. Many people prefer working in certain kinds of physical environments.
In education, we recognize a variety of differences in how people learn and how these basic styles affect the individual learner's behavior. Reflective students are slow to respond to questions and need to think through a response carefully. Impulsive learners respond quickly and blurt out their thoughts. The step-by-step person learns best when each stage is clear and the transitions are spelled out. Another kind of learner makes intuitive leaps. After several weeks of struggling with division of fractions, this student may suddenly announce, "I've got it!" This same intuitive learner also will be impatient with sounding out parts of a word and doing phonetic worksheets when she has already grasped the essence of a story.
In sum, people differ in the ways they perceive, think, feel, and behave. Researchers have identified many specific examples of these differences, as summarized in the chart which follows. Equally important, the personal and professional experiences of educators provide constant evidence that style differences exist and that they affect many aspects of learning and teaching each day.
To provide an equal opportunity for all students to be successful in school, educators must first develop a deep understanding of individual differences in learning. The research and theories on culture and learning style adequately document learning differences among individuals. While these theories are familiar to many educators, and generally accepted, their application is relatively shallow. For example, many teachers know that it is important to provide a "visual" learner with visual information. But if the visual is words on an overhead projector mimicking the words spoken orally, this is a superficial accommodation of the learner's style. Far more significant would be an image, symbol, or visual representation of the information so that the visual learner could learn through his or her strengths.
Many teachers know that the active, kinesthetic learner needs hands-on experiences. A deeper understanding of these learners tells us that the experiences should come early in the process while the initial understanding of the concepts and skills are being developed, not just during practice time. Yet many times these learners are asked to "understand" first, then "do" later. The kinesthetic learner needs to manipulate the science equipment to understand the concepts, and she will learn abstract math concepts while doing the measurement project or even after it's completed. The kinesthetic learners' impatience to get started sometimes causes teachers to demand that they explain what they will do before they start. This is difficult for these students, since the doing leads to the understanding and the explaining.
Learning styles research and resources are rich with examples to help develop appropriate activities for different learners. But if the activities are not guided by a consistent and deep understanding of the significance of learning differences, the activities will be a cursory attempt to implement these concepts. Learning styles labels are simply a tool; the diverse behaviors we see in the classroom are reflections of much deeper cognitive processes.
Not all learners who share a certain label are alike. A "visual" learner who is also "concrete sequential" seeks visual order and would benefit from a linear diagram of material. A "visual" learner who is also "abstract random" responds to design and would be drawn to a mind- map format for organizing information. A careful study of the major concepts of learning styles is necessary for the practical application of these theories in schools.
Wow thank you for all the useful information, I really enjoyed reading this. I agree that our schools nor push for uniformity from learning to dressing. When people stand out, others get scared and disagree. We should all be our own individuals and enjoy praising each other. We often jump to judgements when something is not what we are use to so instead of that, we should ask questions and learn.
ReplyDeleteRobin Engel
robin.engel2@waldenu.edu