Analysis of a University Subject in Terms of Student Learning Styles

by

Sorrel Penn-Edwards
Faculty of Education
Griffith University

 

The Learning Styles theory of Honey and Mumford (1992) is used as a basis for the examination of a University literature subject. Three academic staff members analysed the subject content and assessment items in terms of correlation to learning styles and predicted the grade levels each of four learning style could be expected to attain. The learning styles of forty-nine students undertaking the subject were identified by questionnaire and their assessment results compared with the predicted levels. This process is validated as a useful framework for analysing a subject's design in terms of learning styles. Where subjects need to accommodate all student learning styles it is recommended that such a procedure be carried out during the planning stages. Findings are mixed, but 79% of students are found to have strengths in areas commensurate with expectations. The subject under study clearly accommodates three of the four learning styles and identifies where further consideration is required.

 

Introduction

A search of recent literature relating to the design and teaching of literature subjects found some general discussion of secondary school subjects but little about tertiary subjects, the latter tending to centre on content. Where choice was considered it was usually from a teacher-centred (Marshall and Smith 1997) or student-interest point of view, with students being treated as an homogeneous group (Sargent 1997; Shilton 1996). There was little information that related to the inclusion of student learning as a decisive element in the decision making process of subject design although the development of student learning was sometimes equated with the inclusion of 'active learning' (Bonwell and Sutherland 1996). In fact, an instruction booklet, with a chapter entitled Keeping the Students Clearly in Mind claiming to be a guideline for the planning of teaching a literature subject, states that the "age and grade level, intelligence level, cultural background, socioeconomic condition, and number of pupils on register and in attendance" must be taken into account (Flickstein 1996, p.6). There was no mention of differing individual student learning approaches or styles. However Prewitt and Butler (1993) found that secondary teachers were "convinced that planning intentionally for learning style differences brought positive results for students" (p.5) and so developed a 'Model Teaching Guide' entitled Learning Styles and Performance Assessment aiming to show "how powerfully a learning-styles, learner-focused approach promotes high-quality learning performance" (p.5). This publication shows a positive integration of learning styles consideration with subject design, but as it is centred around the teaching of a specific novel (The Witch of Blackbird Pond) with grade 5, 6, and 7 children in the United States, it is not of direct interest to this study.

In recent literature there is an emphasis on being aware that students do have differing learning styles and that this should be taken into account by offering a variety of teaching methods and assessment modes. Indeed, for teaching to be considered 'substantive scholarship', Riordan argues that teachers "must study [their] students as well as [their] disciplines", and must take "active measures to elicit from and be attentive to the ways in which [their] own students learn most effectively" (p.2). However, this advice is sometimes offered only in a generalised way by addressing the variety of teaching and assessment methods to include, as suggested by recognised experts in the field, "teaching, learning and assessment strategies which foster a deep approach to learning - and involve students in their learning more" (Wisker 1998). The objective appears to be to include as many of the advised strategies as possible - interactive lectures, small group, student self managed groups, group assessment, portfolios and logs etc. (Ramsden 1992; Thackwray 1997; Wisker 1998). There is no evidence in the published literature of teachers surveying their students or of surveying the existing subject design in terms of learning styles, in order to determine if change is required before implementing through judicious choice from the suggested lists of teaching strategies and assessment activities.

In planning for more flexible ways of presenting and assessing a subject there should be opportunity for students, no matter what learning type, to be able to achieve well. This analysis surveyed students of a specific subject in terms of learning styles and aimed to present a framework for a fundamental re-examination of subject design. The main research question is "To what extent does the subject under study provide for students' different learning styles?"

 

Theoretical Perspective

Like phenomenography and constructivism implicit in this study is a belief that learners are "central in the creation of meaning" and that they "arrive at meaning by actively selecting, and cumulatively constructing, their own knowledge, through both individual and social activity" (Biggs 1996, p.348). A question often posed in discussions of education and learning, and voiced clearly by Honey and Mumford, is "why [do]... two people matched for age, intelligence and need, exposed to the same learning opportunity react so differently ?" (1992, p.1).

The term 'learning styles' is as Honey and Mumford defined it, "a description of the attitudes and behaviours which determine an individual's preferred way of learning" (1992, p.1). Practitioners emphasise that identifying a learner's style of learning is not a means of labelling them but a tool that learners and teachers can use to promote learning. A learning style is "just one of the several personal preferences or characteristics that results from our being different. Different does not equal bad, less good, or even better. It just means different" states Barron (1997, p.48).

Various forms of learning styles have been advanced, for example Kolb (1984) suggests a continuing cyclic progression through the four categories of Accommodators, Divergers, Convergers and Assimilators whilst Gregorc (1982) prefers the descriptors of Concrete Sequential, Abstract Random, Abstract Sequential, and Concrete Random. The many theories of learning styles and their attendent models have fundamental similarities but differ in their expression and application. The model developed by Honey and Mumford (1992) was chosen for this study as it is primarily directed at making the understanding and application of the theory as simple as possible. Their astute approach is demonstrated by the labelling of the learner categories in short but comprehensive terms - Activists, Reflectors, Theorists and Pragmatists. In addition, the process of identifying the learners through the Learning Styles Questionnaire was found by them to have a "greater face validity [than Kolb's] with learners mainly because, unlike Kolb, we refrain from asking direct questions about how people learn" (p.4), instead it is based upon what the learners do. Another approach suggests that learning is a hierarchal progression through the stages of surface learning, strategic learning to deep learning (Ramsden 1992; Biggs 1991 and Marton 1988).

In any case there is agreement that learning styles "are helpful when agreeing training and development agendas with stakeholders ... and deciding on methodology and timing or reporting the results of evaluation" (Thackwray 1997, p.87), that is, they should be of consideration when a subject is designed or modified.

A student's learning style is just one of many influences that affect an individual's learning and development. Others include such diverse items as the impact of shocks/mistakes, past experience of learning, impact of trainer or facilitator, culture and climate as suggested by Honey and Mumford (1992), or as proposed in a contextual module by Bereiter (1990) as procedural knowledge or skills, declarative knowledge, persona and self-concept, code of conduct etc. Cerny (1998) suggests that learners can be identified as visual, auditory or tactile learners. The reason that learning styles are targeted in this study is that it is one of the few techniques that teachers can use directly to form more effective teaching and learning strategies.

The four learning styles proposed by Honey and Mumford are seen as being able to be linked with the mutually supportive stages of the learning cycle. Stage 1 - 'having an experience' links to Activist (concrete experience); Stage 2 - 'receiving the experience' links to Reflector (reflective observation); Stage 3 - 'concluding from the experience' links to Theorist (abstract conceptualisation); and Stage 4 - 'planning the next steps' links to Pragmatist (active experimentation). Although no one stage "is fully effective as a learning procedure on its own ... people ... develop preferences which give them a liking for certain stages over others" (1992, p.4). They are also in agreement with Kolb (1984) that "the combination of all four ... produces the highest level of learning, emphasising and developing" (p.66). Each stage is seen as feeding into the next and a learner is able to start anywhere on the cycle.

The Manual of Learning Styles by Honey and Mumford (1982, 1986, 1992) emphasises that "learning activities can be designed to encompass the full cycle" and that "people can be helped to be more effective learners if they are aware of their learning style preferences" (1992, p.7).

 

Summary of Research

Background

This study was centred around a tertiary literature subject taken by student secondary English teachers. It had recently undergone redesign without conscious consideration of student learning styles. As the redesigned subject was being run for the first time the study was seen as a way of providing feedback regarding the design and identifying areas of concern for further consideration.

The literature subject was redesigned so that the assessment items were closely integrated with the content and were a formative part of the learning process. A fundamental element of the design was the re-iterative nature of 60% of the assessment items. Weekly responses and two novel critiques allowed the students to take note of detailed feedback before submitting further work. The seminar 10% was based on the first novel critique and was held before the second critique was due thus allowing newly acquired and relevant material to be used later.

Methodology

This study comprised two parts. Part (A), undertaken by three staff members, was an analysis of the subject design (content and assessment methods) and its provision for the various learning styles. Part (B) was centred on the preferred learning styles of forty-nine students obtained from analysing questionnaire data and a comparative analysis of the students' subject results with the predicted results for those learning styles. The four learning styles (Honey and Mumford, 1992) can be briefly summarised as:

 

Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards. They tackle problems by brainstorming. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer term consolidation.

Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points.

Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step by step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They like to analyse and synthesise. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their approach to problems is consistently logical.

Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They respond to problems and opportunities 'as a challenge'.

 

 

Part (A) - Subject Data: Analysis of Subject Content and Assessment Methods

The subject content and assessment methods were analysed using the same simple framework. Each teacher was asked to rate (weak [Fail] / moderate [Credit] / strong [Distinction] / very strong [High Distinction]) and comment upon the content and the assessment items in terms of how they addressed the four learning styles. The first teacher was the subject convenor who had designed and taught the subject for several years and so was familiar with the students and the subject; the second teacher was a sessional staff member who had marked the first assessment item and so was familiar with the basic subject layout and with the work of the students during this semester; the third teacher, although teaching other literature subjects within the same course had not been involved in this subject in any way.

Analysis of the subject components by the three teachers indicates that all four learning types could be expected, with a probability of 70-90%, to achieve a Distinction or High Distinction in this subject. There is slightly more emphasis placed on theorist (HD-90%, D-90%, C-10%) than reflectors (HD-90%, D-70%, C-10%) and on pragmatists (HD-70%, D-90%, C-10%) than activists (HD-40%, D-70%, C-70%).

 

Part (B) - Student Data: Learning Styles of Forty-Nine Students Identified and Compared to Subject Data.

The forty-nine students each completed the Honey and Mumford (1992) Learning Styles Questionnaire of 80 questions - 20 for each of the four styles. Their preferred learning styles were identified as presenting a strong (Band A) to low (Band D) preference using the general norms given by Honey and Mumford. Those students gaining scores in Band A identify more strongly with that style than those in Band B and so on. The band in which the student scored the highest was used to classify their learning style. Thirty-two out of forty-nine (65%) students were identified with one strong learning style and were termed as single-style (s).

Thirteen students were identified with two equally strong styles and four identified with three equally strong styles - these students are termed multi-styled. As these seventeen students could be considered equally as two or three learning styles they added another 39 styles to the total. The greatest number of multi-styled students ( 15 out of 17; 88%) were identified as Activists combined with one or two other styles.

The single-style students were found to be comprised of 63% activists; 28% reflectors; 6% theorists and 3% pragmatists. The multi-style students were found to be comprised of 38% activists; 26% reflectors; 18% theorists and 18% pragmatists. Combined they comprised 49% activists; 27% reflectors; 13% theorists and 11% pragmatists.

Comment from students indicated that although it was easy to determine which styles definitely were or were not applicable, each of the other styles had some descriptive terms which were relevant and some which were not relevant. It appears, therefore, that the questionnaire may be the only way to determine second and third preferences.

Student data (learning style preferences and grades) and subject data (predicted grades for each learning style) were then compared.

Grades of all students (single & multi-styled)
Where students were identified as having more than one equally strong learning style, their dominant style used was identified from matching assessment results with the predicted results for each of their learning styles.

From the staff analysis of the subject it was predicted that students who were activists were predicted to have a reasonable (70%) chance of attaining a C or D grade - this study showed that 37% of the 35 students did achieve these grades. That no activist students achieved a HD grade (even though they were 49% of the total number of students) is also in line with the estimated lower 40% chance.

Students who were identified as reflectors, theorists or pragmatists were predicted to have a reasonable (70-90%) chance of attaining a D or HD grade - this study showed that 31% of the 19 students identified as reflectors and 44% of the 9 students identified as theorists did achieve these grades. None of the 8 students identified as pragmatists achieved these grades.

Grades of students (single styled only)
Analysis of only those students identified by a single style of learning showed that 35% of the 20 students who were activists achieved the predicted C or D grade. Again that no activist students achieved a HD grade (even though they were 62.5% of the total number of single styled students) is also in line with the estimated lower 40% chance.

In addition, 33% of the 9 students who were reflectors and 100% of the 2 students who were theorists, achieved the predicted D or HD grade. However the 1 student identified as a single-style pragmatist did not achieve these grades.

 

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles can be used as a basis for analysing a subject and its assessment items. It is therefore possible to evaluate whether the design of a subject incorporates equal opportunity for all students to achieve good grades regardless of their preferred learning style. The methodology used in this study would appear to offer a useful framework for adoption by others aiming to undertake a similar analysis of student and subject design.

The specific literature subject under examination was shown to comprise assessment items which in total were predicted to allow each learning style to be successfully used. Comparison of students' achieved grades with predicted grades showed that 37% of all and 46% of strong single-style activists succeeded; 31% of all and 50% of strong single-style reflectors succeeded; and 44% of all and 100% of strong single-style theorists succeeded.

In each case however pragmatists did not perform as predicted achieving much lower grades than expected. This result would indicate that the identification of subject elements by the staff, in terms of suitability for pragmatist learning styles, was not correct and may have been further compounded by the teaching methods used in conducting the subject throughout the semester. The pragmatist learning style was also identified as being part of 39% of the multi-styles which would explain why the foregoing comparisons for the other three learning styles became greater when multi-style students were not included in the analysis. Particular consideration must therefore be given by staff involved in this subject to achieving a better understanding of the learning strategies used by the pragmatist. As well, teaching materials and methods need to be adapted in order to integrate this style and achieve equity with the other three styles which more intrinsically align with the theoretical basis of such a university subject.

External events possibly affecting student learning, although not noted in this study, must also be considered. These may include the demands of part-time or even full-time work; debilitating illness and emotional trauma; lack of academic motivation; and even work overload because of conflict in the timing of assessment item due dates with regard to other subjects and so on.

 

References

Barron, Daniel D. (1997). Doing it with Style or Different Strokes for Different Folks: Learning Styles for School Library Media Specialists. School Media Activities Monthly. 14.2:48-50.

Biggs, J.B. (1991). Teaching: Design for Learning. Teaching for Effective Learning. Research and Development in Higher Education, Volume 13. Sydney: Herdsa.

Bonwell, Charles C. and Sutherland, Tracey E. (1996). The Active Learning Continuum: Choosing Activities to Engage Students in the Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 67:3-16.

Cerny, Jerry. (24th September 1998). Learning Styles Inventory.

Flickstein, Dan. (1996). Teaching Macbeth (and More). CA: Corwin Press.

Gregorc, Anthony F. (1982). An Adult's Guide to Style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.

Honey, Peter and Mumford, Alan. (1992). 3rd Edition. The Manual of Learning Styles. Berkshire, UK:

Peter Honey. Honey, Peter and Mumford, Alan. (1986). 2nd Edition. Using Your Learning Styles. Berkshire, UK:

Peter Honey. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall.

Marshall, James and Smith, Janet. (1997). Teaching as We're Taught: The University's Role in the Education of English Teachers. English Education, 29.4:246-267.

Marton, Ference. Describing and Improving Learning. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. Edited by R.R. Schmeck. New York: Plenum.

Prewitt, Bobby Ward and Butler, Kathleen A. (1993) Learning Styles and Performance Assessment : A Model Teaching Guide. Victoria, Australia: Hawker Brownlow Education.

Ramsden, Paul. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Riordan, T. (1993). Nature of Teaching. Milwaukee, Wis.: Alverno College Institute.

Sargent, M.Elizabeth. (1997). Mapping the Required Introductory Course for Nonmajors or Not-Yet Majors. ADE Bulletin, 116:8-18.

Shilton, Wendy P. (1996). Redeeming Journalism Study for the Teaching of Literature: A Complement to Literary Studies to Test Theory through Practice. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator. 51.2:85-89.

Thackwray, Bob. (1997). Effective Evaluation of Training and Development in Higher Education.

Wisker, Gina and Alistair. (1998). Using Research into Student Learning to Underpin Teaching Strategies. Unpublished workshop material. Griffith University.

 

 

Teaching and Educational Development Institute,
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Queensland 4072 Australia
    Phone: +61 (7) 3365 2788
Authorised by: ACE Group, Teaching and Educational Development Institute
Modified: 8 March 2002
© 2002 The University of Queensland