CC BY
23
INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING THROUGH STUDENTS LEARNING STYLES' IDENTIFICATION
A. Tatarintseva
Introduction. Modern higher schools should provide equal opportunities for students to realize their potential.Changeable needs and expectations of society require new patterns of teaching and learning.Faced with different students’ cognitive abilities, needs, goals, the variety of demands of the Labour Market to the individuals' ability to function well in a knowledge and business society, lecturers experience a strong need for the teaching effectiveness increase. It requires deep knowledge of our students' individual differences, difficulties in acquiring knowledge, their different approaches to learning.The majority of teaching instructions at higher schools are carried out by means of lectures and discussions, accordingly reading and writing - by means of visual materials.The 85% of lecturers are analytics, who teach analytically.Thus, higher schools need the curriculum for the development of students with tactile and kinesthetic intelligences of perception. Students can learn, if their learning needs are appropriately determined, the cognitive development is addressed (Dunn, 1998; Milgram, 2000). The major mission of lecturers is to help students to love learning. Lecturers should recognize different ways by which students acquire knowledge and skills.
The aim of the research is: to analyze the scientific literature on the given
Problem and to work out recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of teaching at higher schools. Students tend to implement their own learning style preferences, but it does not often coinside with lecturers' mode of teaching. Lecturers who are auditorily strong use auditory methods predominantly in their lecture-room; those who are analytics use inductive reasoning in problem solving. The effective teaching approach is based on the individual learning style characteristics of each student. Individual style of learning, if accommodated, results in improved attitudes to learning, the significant increase in creative productivity and achievements.
The Essence of Learning Style. We have a wide variety of learning style's definitions in scientific literature. Learning style is: (a) a person’s typical mode of perceiving, thinking, remembering and problem solving (Messick, 1999); (b) the preferences in use of abilities (Sternberg, 1999); (c) the predisposition of an individual to learn in a particular way (Parrot, 1998); (d) the identifiable individual approach to a learning situation, to a learning task (Spolsky, 1990); (e) the characteristic manner in which an individual chooses an approach to a learning task(Skehan, 1998); (f) the whole, unique, genetically predetermined complex of characteristic conditions under which an individual functions in his/her conscious intellectual activity-concentrates, perceives, processes, retains, and applies new and difficult information-in the unity of progress in learning and acquisition of learning objectives of curriculum with the help of successful interactions with the learning environment and creative use of one’s own potential(capacities) (Tatarintseva, 2005).
170
Some of learning style elements remain stable in individuals, (the time of day preferences, persistence, responsibility), while other elements tend to be changed.
Gadwa&Griggs(1995),Dunn(1998)determine three types of students at higher schools:1.the gifted(and talented),2.traditional students,3.the dropouts.
Teaching the Gifted (and Talented). Educators place high priority on the realization of giftedness. The gifted are those individuals whose attainments in a specific socially valuable domain are extraordinary(Milgram,2000). Efforts should be made to differentate what and how is taught to the gifted in terms of special interests, abilities, their unconventional learning styles. Highly motivated students have a strong drive which propels them towards tasks fulfillment. Correlational studies (Cross, 1992; Griggs &Price, 1990) reveal a positive relationship between a high level of Self-motivation and giftedness of students in comparison to non-gifted ones.Field-dependent students show increased motivation in competitive situations, whereas field-independent students are not motivated by a competition (Bolosofsky, 2010). The author believes, when given a task to complete, students vary in terms of their level of persistence, some students resign when difficulties appear, others work through all obstacles.The gifted and talented tend to be much more persistent than non-gifted students (Griggs&Price,1990). White(2000) found a positive relationship between levels of responsibility and conformity, there was a strong element of conformity in responsibility.Thus,students conformed to higher school's demands were viewed as highly responsible,whereas those who were non-conformists could be perceived as low on responsibility. Hudes&Siegler (2007) found significant relationships among giftedness, achievements, and the Self-concept of students. Students with the high Self-concept tended to be high achievers and gifted, while those with the low Self-concept tended to be low achievers and non-gifted. A lot of researchers investigated perceptual strengths of the gifted. Barbe&Milone (2002) found that gifted students had well-developed perceptual canals, they can learn equally well through auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic canals. Dunn, Carbo &Burton (2001), Keefe (1999) believe, tactile and kinesthetic modalities are developed initially, followed by visual modalities and lastly auditorymodalities.The preference for a high versus low task's structure is another element distinguished among the gifted and non-gifted students (Griggs, 1994). Dunn&Price (1990) found that the gifted preferred a low structure and flexibility in learning. Lune (1999) found a strong relationship between the students' cognitive development and structure. Students at lower stages of the cognitive development preferred a highly structured learning task, while those at higher stages preferred more flexibility and diversity in learning. Griggs&Price (1990) found, the gifted were highly persistent, more Self-motivated,preferred a quiet learning environment,learning alone. Perrin (2004) reported, when grouped with other gifted students,their true peers, the gifted achieved significantly higher scores on rote memory and problem-solving tasks. The research reveals key learning style preferences of the gifted including: the high level of Self- and field-independence,persistence,motivation,perceptivity, nonconformity in terms of thoughts, attitudes, behaviors. The gifted students' learning is highly correlated with innovations, divergent thinking, creativity (Restak, 2009;Ricca,1993). The author believes, the gifted thrive on projects demanded persistence which implies indefatigability,a long attention span, the ability to sustain interest and involvement
171
over a period of time, they welcome challenges and complex tasks. Renzulli (2010) claims, the gifted are highly product oriented, they attack a problem and produce a new imaginative product. The curriculum should be focused on the high level of cognitive processing,reasoning,abstract thinking,creative problem solving (Milgram, 2000). Pederson (2004) identified differences in learning styles of the gifted, dropouts, traditional students.She found that five elements of learning style discriminated among three groups including intake, tactual preferences, authority figures present, learning alone, responsibility, she suggested that learning style preferences of these three groups of students can become a basis for making teaching instructions.
Teaching The Dropouts. The majority of Latvian higher schools have focused on the dropouts, devised interventions for responding to special needs of this kind of students. Dropping out of higher schools is a complex problem related to a number of factors connected with families, personalities, socioeconomic factors. Gadwa &Griggs(1995), Johnson(2004), reported about such factors addressed to learning style needs of the dropouts as a group:
1. High Mobility. In comparison to students remained at higher school, dropouts specify a need for mobility while learning. Fadley&Hosier (2009) believe, such students were often sent to psychologists because of their hyperactivity, lecturers complained these students were unable to sit quietly and pay attention at the lecture. Restak(2009)reported, over 95% of the hyperactives are males, noting that conventional lecture-room environments do not provide male students with sufficient conditions for their movement needs. Milgram (2000), Griggs (1994), the author of this paper (2005) found, students’ academic achievements were improved significantly when such students were involved in movement while learning.The research suggest that dropouts as a group need activities-oriented instructions and tasks such as team learning, brainstorming and case study approaches.
2. Learn in Several Ways. The dropouts indicate a clear preference for a variety of sociological grouping for learning including independent learning, learning in pairs, with peers, sometimes with the lecturer's presence. The research show improved learning achievements when such students were taught in grouping congruent with their expressed preferences(DeBello,1995; Perrin, 2004).
3. Evening Preferences. Dropout students experience extremely low energy levels early in the mornings but become increasingly energetic towards the afternoon. Dunn(1998), the author of this paper(2005) found that higher school underachievers who preferred learning in the afternoon but had been assigned to morning classes , became more motivated, demonstrated improved achievements when they attended the afternoon classes. Lunn(1999), Milgram(2000) found that accomodating time preference was a crucial factor among higher school dropouts.
4. Perceptual Preferences. The dropouts are significantly more visual, tactual, and kinesthetic than traditional students, they learn better through reading, speaking, hands-on learning experiences and activities-oriented approaches.
5. Light. Students who drop out of higher school tend to reject bright light, by preferring either dim or moderate illumination. Light may actually deter learning achievements.
172
6. Motivation. The research found that dropouts were significantly less motivated about learning (Griggs, 1994, Milgram, 2000, Hong, 2008).
The author believes, lecturers are key people in identifying the potential dropouts and should work with students and administration to develop strategies responsive to characteristics and needs of this special kind of students they should have a clear understanding of students' reasons for leaving higher school, thus, lecturers can directly prevent and influence on individual, family's and other factors associated with dropping out.
7. Personal Factors. The lecturer’s early identification of the potential dropouts is crucial, cumulative effects of the student’s low Self-esteem, feelings of alienation, a low aspirational level could be determined in order to provide a supportive system to such students.
8. Family's Factors. The author believes that in the case of high-risk students there is an urgent need for improved connections with their families.The task of a lecturer is to direct the value system of parents to prevent their adult children's apathy towards education.
9. Learning Factors. A lecturer should recognize that students prefer to learn in different ways. The research (Milgram, 2000; Tatarintseva, 2005) indicate, the dropouts are distinguishable as a group on some learning style variables.The students' learning style preferences should be diagnosed (Tatarintseva, 2005) and provisions for such learning preferences should be made at any higher school.The author believes, students’ learning preferences should be congruent with strategies used by a lecturer. The fact that dropout students prefer to learn with peers rather than alone indicates that small group projects with interdependent tasks are preferable to individual homework assigments.The educational system should be responsive to the dropouts. Gadwa&Griggs (2005) believe, almost a half of the high-risk students dropped out of higher school two or more times.Each time they reenrolled with a strong desire to succeed but didn’t know how to resolve the same problems. That is why, the lecturer’s energy should be directed towards developing a more individualized and flexible learning environment by assisting high-risk students with their immediate problems.A high dropouts' rate at higher schools should be reduced through combined efforts of a higher school, family, society.
Teaching Traditional Students. Methods of teaching traditional students were investigated by many researchers, that is why recommendations for teaching such students are in a brief outline here. Higher school students are predominantly at the fifth stage of the development - adolescence. This stage is characterized by the heightened sensitivity to the peer approval. A student is among needs to be a conformist, to behave, think like peers, and a need to develop own individuality and uniqueness. Such a student begins to think about the world in new ways which have profound implications for teaching and learning.The student's intellectual development results in the ability to conceptualize,be engaged in inductive and deductive reasoning, evaluate Self, people, things, solve problems, be aware of own learning style and the positive relationship among learning style and achievements in learning.Lecturers should help students to determine their learning style preferences through the Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (Tatarintseva, 2005), know their perceptual strengths and reinforce new information through these strengths (Pavio, 1986).
Conclusion. The proposed research provides lecturers with information how to diagnose individual learning style preferences and accomodate them
173
accordingly. Adjusting students' learning approaches to teaching involves: assessing a learning style of each student; identifying students’ needs for grouping according to sociological preferences, perceptual strengths, and structure preferences. Implementing the learning style approach in teaching and learning results in: (a) improved academic achievements of students, because they have the possibility to perceive new information through their primary sensory canal and deliberately reinforce it through the secondary sensory canal; (b) more positive attitudes towards learning, a subject, a higher school; (c) increased motivation (Tatarintseva, 2005). The learning style approach places more responsibility on students as well as on lecturers who can use students' individual strengths to adapt them to teaching and learning techniques. This approach increases the possibility for students' successful Self-direct learning included a choice of different materials, methods, variative learning tasks and a way of information perception according to individual students' learning style.
References
1. Barbe W. & Milone M. 1992. Modality Characteristics of the Gifted. Gifted Student Teacher. Mobile, AL:G/T Publishing.
2. Bolocofsky D. 2010. Motivational Effects of Learning Competition as a Function of Field Dependence. Journal of Educational Research. - 73. 111-115.
3. Cross J. A. 1992. Prevalence of Internal Control in Talented Students.The USA: Reston.
4. DeBello T.C. 1995. Comparison of Eleven Major Learning Style Models.UK:Kappan.
5. Dunn R., Carbo M. & Burton E. 2001. Break-Through: How to Improve Reading Instruction. Kappan, 62,281.
6. Dunn R. 1998.Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: Reston, VA:Reston.
7. Fadley J.& Hosier V. 2009. Understanding Students. Sprinfield: ILCharles C. Thomas.
8. Gadwa J.& Griggs S. 2005. The School Dropout:Implications for Counselors.The Counselor. 33,9
9. Griggs S. 1994. Counceling Different Learning Styles.Educational Leadership, 39,30.
10. Hudes S & Siegler D. 2007. Learning Style Sub-Scale and Self-Concept Among High Achieving Graders.The Journal, 7,7-10.
11. Jonson C. 2004. Identifying Potential School Dropouts. Educational Leadership, 41,13.
12. Keefe J.W. 1999. Learning Style: An Overview. Reston, VA Reston
13. Lunn N. 1999. The Relationship Between Adult Students’ Level of Cognitive Development and their Preference for Learning. London: London University.
14. Milgram R. 2000. Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents. London: Praeger.
15. Pederson J. 1994. The Comparison of Learning Style Preferences of Disabled Students and Gifted Students. Texas Technical University, Lubbock, TX.
16. Perrin J. 2004. Dealing With The Dropouts. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
17. Price G.E. 1990. Identifying the Learning Style Characteristics of the Gifted. Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development.
18. Renzulli J.S. 2010. What We Don’t Know About Programming for the Gifted and Talented. Phi Delta Kappan, 61,601-602.
19. Restak T. 2009. The Brain: The Last Frontier.Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
20. Ricca J. 1993. Curricular Implications of Learning Style Differences Between Gifted and Nongifted Students. State University of New York, Buffalo.
21. Schmeck R. 1993. Learning Styles of College Students.New York:Academic Press.
22. Spolsky B. 1990. Conditions for Learning. Oxford University Press.
23. Sternberg R, J. 1999. Thinking Style. Cambridge University Press.
24. Tatarintseva A. 2005. The Relationship Among A Student’s Learning Style and Achievements in Foreign Language Learning. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Latvia.
25. White R. 1990. An Investigation of Responsible vs Less Responsible Students. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 191, P. 18-25.
174
