INVESTIGATING LEARNING STYLES



		INVESTIGATING LEARNING STYLES Luciano Mariani

	(Perspectives, a Journal of TESOL-Italy - Vol. XXI, No. 2/Vol. XXII, No. 1, Spring 1996)

1. Introduction In this paper I am going to report the preliminary results of a small-scale project which I started some time ago on learning styles. The project has involved students and teachers discussing their own learning styles on the basis of a questionnaire, and has so far raised many interesting issues. Two main sets of considerations have prompted me to start investigating learning styles. First, in the past few years we have been working quite hard in the area of learning strategies and study skills. One thing that has been worrying me in developing and using materials is the fact that individual students and whole classes respond to tasks in very different ways, so that the same strategy (for example, using inductive questions to become more aware of grammar points) has a different appeal to different students and therefore meets with various degrees of acceptance or rejection in the class. In a way, this means that a student s general approach to learning is perhaps even more important than his or her use of a particular strategy or technique. It also means that it may be interesting and valuable to investigate not just how students go about learning in terms of strategies, but also how students use their more general preferences about learning. A second motivation to investigate learning styles came from the idea that by understanding more about our own learning styles we can probably understand more about our own teaching styles. I believe that a basic component of what we do as teachers and why we do it reflects what we did in the past and would do even now as learners. In this paper I will be discussing three main issues: - what are learning styles? - how can we get information about our student´s learning styles? - how can this information be put to use in the classroom? 2. What are learning styles? Learning styles are one of the many kinds of individual differences which affect learning - age, aptitude, general intelligence, modality preferences (e.g. visual, auditory, kinesthetic), motivation and sociocultural factors being other important variables in this respect (Skehan 1989, 1994). These individual differences are obviously related, but I felt the need to concentrate on one - learning styles - as the focus of my project. I deliberately avoid the term cognitive style because this seems to refer only to mental operations, while we will soon see that the term learning style can also include affective, social and even physiological behaviours. A tentative definition of learning style could be a learner´s overall approach to learning, her or his typical and consistent way of perceiving and responding to learning tasks. How does this definition relate to other important, related concepts like personality or Iearning strategies? One might visualize these complex relationships in this way (Fig. 1): Personality \| Learning style \| Learning strategies \| Techniques/Tactics Fig. 1 At the very top we might place personality - the very general basic individual character structure. Further down the line we meet learning styles - how personality works in a learning context, for example in the classroom; styles reflect the individual s consistent and preferred learning approach, an approach which he or she exhibits time and time again, in a wide range of situations and contexts - and not necessarily in school contexts. A person s style affects the kinds of learning strategies that he or she will use - in other words, if you tend to prefer certain strategies on a rather permanent basis, this means that you are probably using a particular learning style. Finally, a learning strategy consists of a cluster of tactics or techniques, this being the only visible level, what we see when we look at what a learner actually does in the classroom. As we move from the bottom to the top of this line, we move from specific to general, and we also move from less stable, more modifiable personal qualities to more stable, less modifiable features. Let me give you a few examples. It is not very difficult to teach a very specific technique, for instance, how to recognize prefixes and suffixes in a new word. It is certainly less easy to teach a more general strategy like using inference and deduction - in fact, in this case we have to rely on more specific strategies, like brainstorming to activate previous knowledge of a topic, or considering the context to deduce the meaning of an unknown word. But as we go further up the line the going gets even tougher. It is very difficult to change a person s learning style: if, for example, you are very analytical and need to focus on form and accuracy, it may be difficult for you to join me in a roleplay or a game, because that is exactly the kind of learning tasks that do not come easy to you. If we then reach the top of the line - personality - then we are obviously faced with the basic structure of your self , and that is something we can hardly hope to change, unless we venture out into the various forms of psychotherapy. Of course all this has important implications for teaching, and for educational change in general, and we shall get back to it soon. But let s now look more closely at learning styles. How can we identify and describe types of learning styles? Let s start from a simple experiment, which is based on a well known psychological test. Look at Fig. 2 for just a few seconds and immediately write down what you see.

Fig. 2

Now look at the picture again for a few more seconds: if you can now see something different, again write it down immediately.

What exactly can we see in this picture? We can certainly see a vase - but we can also see two faces. We cannot see faces and vase at the same time, because our brain recognizes an item by separating it from its background.

This test has often been used to determine how field-dependent or field-independent a person is. It is usually thought that the harder it is for you to see faces and vase - the more field-dependent you are. In other words, if you are less able to separate a figure from its background, you tend to be field-dependent, i.e. you tend to see the environment as a whole which, for you, is difficult to analyse into separate components. On the other hand, if you can more easily screen out features which are not part of what you are concentrating on, you tend to be field-independent.

This basic opposition has often been criticized by researchers (see a discussion in Skehan 1989), but I think it is still a valuable starting point to identify features of learning styles (Fig. 3).



		field-independent analytical form, accuracy rules planners



			field-dependent synthetic

	meaning, fluency examples correctors


		Fig. 3

For example, field-independent people tend to be analytical people; in language learning they tend to focus on form and accuracy; they look out for rules and patterns; they like to plan what they have to say or write; and they like abstract, impersonal, factual material. On the other hand, field-dependent people tend to be synthetic people; in language learning they tend to focus on meaning and fluency; they collect examples of language use rather than form rules; they like to produce an oral or written text in a straightforward way, and later correct it if necessary; and they like material which is of a more concrete, human, social or artistic nature. I do not want to suggest the idea that all these differences are derived from the field independent/field dependent opposition. In fact you could consider a number of other ways of describing learning styles (Fig. 4).


	sequential random systematic intuitive convergent divergent left-brained right-brained


	Fig. 4

For instance, you may tend to favour a sequential, systematic approach or you may favour a random, intuitive approach - and in this case you would tend to belong to those people who like learning by feel . This may remind you of other classic oppositions, for example the one between convergent and divergent learners, or the one between left-brained and right-brained people.

So far we have described learning styles basically in terms of cognitive features, the favourite ways in which our mind seems to perceive and process information. However, the concept of learning style can be made to include affective and social factors as well, that is, as those broad psychological features which most clearly seem to affect our approach to learning (Fig. 5).

reflective impulsive

cautious risk-taking

within the task

anxious

less tolerant

introverted

rigid

beyond the task

relaxed

more tolerant

extroverted

flexible


	Fig. 5

For example, we as teachers are all familiar with the basic difference between being reflective and being impulsive in language learning. We all know that in language learning you can draw a basic distinction between students who are reflective and cautious, and so tend to remain within the task you set for them, and students who are impulsive and more prepared to take risks, to experiment with language, and so are more likely to go beyond the task; you can identify people who are, or tend to be, rather anxious,and thus are less tolerant of ambiguity, and people who tend to be relaxed,which allows them to tolerate ambiguity better. On one side, you may find people who tend to be inhibited, introverted, and perhaps a bit rigid; on the other side, people who tend to be uninhibited, extroverted, and maybe a bit more flexible.

As regards the social orientation, you could draw a similar distinction (Fig. 6).

individual group

independent dependent

intrinsic motivation

own work plan

extrinsic motivation

external work plan


	Fig. 6

On one hand, you find people who have an individual learning style preference; they are likely to be independent also in terms of self-esteem, personal identity and social role; they tend to be motivated by intrinsic and self-defined awards; they may have a tendency to provide their own work plan. On the other hand, people with a group style preference are likely to be more dependent on a group or an external authority to define their identity and role; they tend to be motivated by extrinsic rewards and punishments; they may benefit from being given a work plan and rely more heavily on the features of the task itself.

So the first, and perhaps easiest, way to identify learning styles is to describe them in terms of polar oppositions, as we have just done (for a more in-depth discussion see Prokop 1989 and Schmeck 1988; see also Note 1). I think it is all right to do so, provided we keep in mind three basic points.

First, these are descriptive andn on-prescriptive labels; that is, terms like analytical and synthetic, cautious and risk-taking, independent and dependent are neutral. In describing styles they do not have positive or negative implications, and, as we shall soon see, they can all be useful and important approaches to learning.

Second, these terms describe tendencies rather than absolute features. Many people can be placed somewhere along a continuum between, e.g., systematic and intuitive - that is to say that many people show a balanced learning style, even if one feature may be more or less predominant. This means that many people are actually rather versatile- they can make use of different learning styles according to different tasks and subject matters to be learned. So, under normal conditions, the differences are more likely to be matters of degree.

Finally, I think it makes sense to bring together the three basic kinds of descriptions, the cognitive, the affective and the social ones, because this reminds us that we are actually talking about a whole person, and not just an artificial collection of pieces. I would like to give you an example of this interaction between cognitive and affective features.

If you tend to be an introverted type of person, this will probably mean that a single stimulus of low intensity will activate your mental processing; you will dislike excessive input. A single picture, a single sentence or a single grammatical point will draw your attention and will be enough to start your mind working. In other words, you will tend to be the analytical and sequential sort of learner. On the other hand, if you tend to be an extroverted type of person, this will probably mean that you need a stimulus of higher intensity to activate your mind; you will like a richer and more varied input. A series of pictures, a longer passage, an overview of a whole grammatical area will be necessary to engage your attention. In other words, you will tend to be the synthetic and non-sequential type of learner.

3. How can we get information about learning styles?

Let s now turn to our second main sub-theme - how can we get information about our students learning styles? Basically, this can be done in two ways - formally and informally. If you take a formal approach, you can devise tests, questionnaires and interviews, or use one of the several ready-made questionnaires and interview formats which are now available (see e.g. Cornoldi et al. 1993; Davis et al. 1994; Ellis and Sinclair 1989; Katan 1994; Willing 1989). Alternatively, you can informally observe students while they are actually doing a task and make notes about the tactics and techniques that they use - these may provide valuable insights into their strategies and, in turn, their preferred learning styles.

In designing the questionnaire which I have used in my project on learning styles