Hagan Lawson: Theory Review - Learning Styles

Theory Review: Learning Styles

Name:	Commented On:
Hagan Lawson	Luther Prater

As an educator, it is incredibly important to understand the learning styles of each individual student. There is a plethora of facilitators that are ill informed and confide in their own learning style and push that style onto their students. However, there are many different theories that are associated with the development and attainment of knowledge. Personally, I believe that these models are often too rigid and do not adequately inform learners that learning should be placed on a spectrum. Many theories push students into a box, and makes students believe that the other learning styles will reflect poorly. In reality, students can glide across a spectrum and find an integrated learning style. The term learning style refers to the most effective and efficient mode of attaining and retaining knowledge. There are many tests that can be taken to provide insight to students on their preferred learning style. The purpose of this paper is to present the major theories associated with learning styles and reflect upon them.

            Tony Grasha and Sheryl Hruska-Reichmann developed the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scale (GRSLSS), which assists in the designation of student learning behaviors. They categorized students as 1) avoidant, 2) dependent, 3) participant, 4) independent, 5) competitive and 6) collaborative. Students being placed in the avoidant category characterizes the student as unenthusiastic. Resultingly, these students do not participate in classroom activities and often express a lack of interest in the material. Dependent students learn the required information and typically avert from asking questions. Students in the participant category are active in the learning process and activities associated with the course. Participant students are enthusiastic and will do more than what is required. Independent students think freely and learn the pertinent information. These students would rather work alone on a course project than work with others. Those who would be considered competitive strive for a better than average performance, when compared to the class. These students often appreciate and desire recognition for their classroom accomplishments. Lastly, collaborative students attempt to cooperate with classmates and facilitators to share ideas, opinions and expertise (Ritchie, 2006). 

            The various behaviors associated with these learning styles fall under subsections. Competitive and collaborative students fall under the social category; avoidant and participatory students are considered to be under the emotional category; dependent and independent students reside under the structure category (MacKeracher, 2010). The main concern when considering this theory is that students often fluctuate across these categories based on their mental well-being. A given day may be good or bad, which may result in a student being more participatory one day, while the next day may be avoidant. The lack of consistency that can arise when discussing a student’s mental state may result in an incorrect categorization. Appropriate categorizations may occur over time; however, the amount of time a facilitator may have an adult learner may be too little to be able to distinguish an accurate reading. 

            The Gregorc Style Delineator is a tool used to assess the perceptual (concrete and abstract) and organizational (sequential and random) learning strategies. Students are then modeled as concrete sequential (CS), abstract sequential (AS), abstract random (AR) and concrete random (CR). Students that are determined to be concrete and sequential (CS) are described as structured, deliberate and methodical. Learners that are said to be abstract sequential are considered intelligent, logical, analytical and rational. Students that are considered to be abstract random (AR) are determined to be emotional, psychic, perceptive and critical. Lastly, learners who are considered concrete random (CR) are thought to be intuitive, instinctive, impulsive, and independent (Reinecke, 2001). By properly understanding the behaviors and thought processes of students, it is much easier to provide the information to them in a way in which they will gather the most information. Furthermore, it provides key insight with classroom management. 

            As seen with the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scale, many characterizations revolve around the idea of emotions. The mental state of an individual can impact their social and structure. Again, this results in students that may fluctuate between multiple characterizations. Therefore, it is important to make appropriate connections with students in order for the student to feel comfortable and at ease in the classroom. This will allow students to act as themselves; furthermore, if there are issues with their mental well-being, some students may feel comfortable enough to discuss these issues with their facilitator. This results in a respectful relationship, which is a positive symbiotic relationship in a classroom setting.

            Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory is widely popular in the field of adult education. The model is created with fluctuation in mind. The model represents a continuous process between four-stages which are: 1) Concrete experiences (CE), 2) reflective observations (RO), 3) abstract concepts (AC), 4) active experimentation (AE) (Kolb, 1984). As previously seen, these can be subdivided into small categories, to provide a deeper insight for each student. A concrete experiencer emphasizes emotion over logic and enjoys being involved in new experiences and deals with issues in a personal fashion. A reflective observer attempts to understand the meaning of ideas and situations cautiously, in order to act and describe them in the future. These students appreciate reflection on material. An abstract conceptualizer appreciates logic over emotion and emphasizes thinking rather than feeling. These individuals are more scientific than artistic. Lastly, an active experimenter attempts to influence and change individuals. Rather than being reflective, these learners are practical and focus on doing (Kolb, 1984). 

            The main areas of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory are unlikely to fluctuate a large amount, as these characteristics are more concrete. The characteristics of each learning style are more likely to fluctuate. The characteristics include convergent, divergent, assimilative and accommodative learning styles. Those with characteristics that align with being convergent exhibit signs of enhanced problem-solving, decision-making and application of knowledge to real problems. This style works best when there is a single correct answer to a problem. Divergent students are the opposite of convergent students. These students attempt to see a solution to a problem from several perspectives and are adaptable. These students show signs of enhanced brainstorming skills to develop new ideas. Assimilative students exhibit signs of enhanced reasoning skills and are able to create theoretical models to provide explanations. Accommodative students are more hands on and appreciate carrying out a plan and being heavily involved. These students are considered risk takers and are best in situations that they must adapt quickly for immediate action (Kolb, 1984). 

            Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory explicitly mentions that the model is not concrete, but rather, a continuous process that can be entered at any step. The other models lacked this statement, which makes this Kolb’s model more appreciable. Kolb avoided placing students into boxes and allowed for fluctuation amongst the different characterizations and subdivisions. Facilitators can easily instruct students to complete the Kolb Learning Style Inventory to better understand their students’ learning habits. In a study to measure the reliability of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, 221 graduate and undergraduate business students were questioned. The study supported Kolb’s model upon experimentation (Kayes, 1999). 

            The main issues associated with each of these theories is that students may not be aware of their learning habits prior to the questionnaire. Students should be discouraged from allowing others to influence their answers for the Kolb questionnaire, for example. Facilitators should also express the importance of accurate answers. If students provide skewed answers, their designated learning style will not match their true learning style. Universities can easily require a questionnaire to be completed for admittance; upon admittance and enrollment, their results can be associated with their educational account. Their instructors would be able to easily view this and base their lessons off of this information. Overall, many of these models overlap; however, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory was the only observed model that allows for fluctuations amongst individual students. 

Main Theoretical Ideas	Summary: Practicality of Application
#1 – Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scale	Social, Emotional, and Structured categories can fluctuate amongst students from day-to-day
#2 – Gregore’s Style Delineator	Results in the formation of mind styles, which is helpful for classroom management and learning styles
#3 – Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory	Places students onto a X and Y plot; takes into account the fluctuation in students; the model is a continuous process

References

Kayes, C. (1999). Internal validity and reliability of Kolb’s learning style inventory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2). George Washington University. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-8262-4.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Laurie, R. (2006). Blueprint for Learning: Constructing College Course to Facilitate, Assess and Document Learning. Sterling, Virginia.

MacKeracher, D. (2010). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Reinecke, C. (2001). The alignment of mind style with four categories of registration in South African psychology.Stellenbosch University.