6411 responses to readings

Posted on by

This week’s topic in Cognition and Learning 6411 is focused on learning styles and multiple intelligences. Here is one response made to one of the article critiques for this week:

First response:

This article critique has me on edge. I’m not sure why we are still talking about learning styles since I thought this whole notion had been debunked years ago. As I’m discovering from this week’s reading and research explorations, it’s obviously still a current trend and hot topic (see Figure 1 tweet image). Brozik and Zanalska (2006) hedge their work in learning styles by summarizing the three strategies, as you’ve outlined, that are representative of universal design for learning (UDL) principles. I’ll agree with your statement, echoing Willingham (2009), that we should save time and money by not considering individual learning styles. Including learning style surveys into online course tasks would not gain any insights into student learning, while wasting valuable student and instructor time (Willingham, 2009).

In my experiences, applying UDL principles (CAST, 2018) into course construction, as well as wayfinding strategies (Siemens, 2012), all learner’s needs can be met. In courses I’ve taught in recent years, both wayfinding and UDL are integrated into the course design, without any consideration for learning styles. While research about the application of wayfinding strategies in online learning spaces is limited Lugli, Ragni, Piccardi, and Nori (2017) examine the effect of different spatial cognitive styles on web interactions to determine how cognitive styles that preference landmarks, routes, and surveying could impact web navigation. Dziuban, Moskal, Cassisi and Fawcett (2016) connect wayfinding to adaptive learning frameworks. Hudson (2015) describes teaching as wayfinding by “supporting students through a process of consuming, creating, and filtering content on the internet in a way that gives them ownership of their learning while also teaching them essential curation and critical thinking skills” (para 10). I’ll stop going down this path since it’s a whole new direction.

Although wayfinding and UDL are not specific to learning styles, as outlined by Kolb (McLeod, 2017), or the styles explored by VARK (2018), these are more productive considerations when designing online learning. For me, wayfinding impacts student experiences, just as it does in physical environments, as we navigate through an unknown city or unfamiliar airport. UDL, when baked into the web environments we create for students, connects to Willingham’s (2009) idea of memories being stored as meaning. Online learning should build meaning of the course content, through sights, sounds, structures, and experiences that enrich, excite, and entertain students throughout the course. In my opinion and experience, a focus on learning styles limits and constrains the possibilities and potential, within both the message and the medium (McLuhan, 1964), in online learning design.

Second Response:

I’ve been struggling with your questions for a few days now, since I wasn’t sure how to answer them. I’m opting to answer them but not really answering them – more like a ‘bubbe psychology‘ type of response.

Based on my experiences and research findings, I think that learning styles are taking up valuable teacher time and focus. Being aware of, and having a general understanding of learning styles is important, but spending more time and resources on investigating or applying this ‘bubbe psychology’, described by Willingham (2009) as “stuff that your grandmother could have told you” (p. 159), should be stopped. Researchers and teachers can agree that there is variability in learners (Rose, 2013; Willingham, 2009) and that each learner has individual learning needs (CAST, 2018). It is common sense that a variety of tools, strategies, resources, and techniques should be applied to any learning event (Willingham, 2009 & 2018). It’s been researched that labelling children can result in a self-fulfilling cycle (Gulevitch, 2013; Marshik, 2015) or result in confirmation bias (Kendrick, et al., 2018).  It should be logical that learning is a human event, requiring human to human interaction (Morris, 2017). Connecting learning to concrete, real-life, meaningful, and engaging activities should be obvious, and a ‘bubbe’ way of teaching and learning.

 

From the findings related by Kaplan (2016), there is evidence that “different learning environments can help students increase their achievement levels in mathematics” (p. 293). Kaplan (2016) concludes “instructional approaches offered should be conducive to student learning styles, students should also make efforts to adapt their learning styles to new learning situations” (p. 293) (strikeout emphasis is added). Take out the word styles, and this sentence rings true as a form of ‘bubbe psychology’. Further to this, Kaplan (2016) states the “importance of using all four learning modes: concrete, reflective, abstract and active” (p. 293). I couldn’t agree more – sounds logical to provide all types of learners with all types of learning opportunities, focused on a variety of modes, styles, preferences, and emotions. In the end, Kaplan (2016) determines that future research can focus on how flexible learning can be applied to a variety of learning situations. Since this sounds a lot like the principles of universal design for learning (UDL), I think we can look toward UDL practices as common teaching strategy. We can thereby collectively move past this cognitive bottle neck and shift away from learning styles in order to break the confirmation bias inherent in this research.

Additional Responses:

  • I was encouraged to see that you “also see that as human beings none of us are truly one dimensional or unimodal in our learning styles” since at any given time or learning event, Kolb’s learning styles could be applied to any learning event. I think the part that is often overlooked is the agency students play in their own learning, given the opportunity, support, and information needed. Willingham (2009) says it best when he states “when differentiating among students, craft knowledge trumps science” (p. 164).
  • You bring up a great point here. Do we give students enough credit to learn more about themselves as learners? If students have the ability to ‘style-flex’ between subjects in order to better learn content, can we educators build agency and choice into learning events in order to give them opportunities to do just that?

    The reason this comes to mind is that I’ve just had a week in my online learning course where I asked students to stop and reflect on what they’ve learned, how the activities and tasks have shifted their thinking, and identify tasks that made the biggest impact on their learning. I think that students can take advantage of learning opportunities where choice and voice is built into the experiences.

References

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Cassisi, J., & Fawcett, A. (2016). Adaptive learning in psychology: Wayfinding in the digital age. Online learning, 20(3), 74-96. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1113343.pdf

Gulevitch, O. (2013). Stereotype threat: A self-fulfilling prophecy in education.  Психологическая наука и образование, Online(2), 15-33. Retrieved from https://doaj.org/article/9221d7f45bec4878be982e279672bfcc

Hudson, E. (2015). Teaching as wayfinding. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved November 16, 2018 from http://hybridpedagogy.org/teaching-as-wayfinding/

Lugli, L., Ragni, M., Piccardi, L., & Nori, R. (2017). Hypermedia navigation: Differences between spatial cognitive styles. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 191–200. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.038

Kendrick, D., Cohen, A., Neuberg, S., & Cialdini, R. (2018). The science of antiscience thinking. Scientific American, 319(1), 36-41.

Marshik, T. (2015). Learning styles & the importance of critical self-reflection. (video) TEDxTalks, UWLaCrosse. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/855Now8h5Rs

McLeod, S. A. (2017). Kolb’s Learning Styles and Experiential Learning Cycle. Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 16, 2018, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Retrieved from http://robynbacken.com/text/nw_research.pdf

Morris, S. (2017, May 1). Critical Digital Pedagogy and Design. Retrieved November 16, 2018 from https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/critical-digital-pedagogy-and-design/

Rose, T. (2013). The myth of average. TEDx Talk. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4

Siemens, G. (2012). Orientation : Sensemaking and wayfinding in complex distributed online information environments. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.lakeheadu.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsble&AN=edsble.558600&site=eds-live&scope=site

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Willingham, D. (2018). Ask the cognitive scientist: Does tailoring instruction to “learning styles” help students learn? American Educator, 28-32.