Discussion points in this chapter.
• The lack of significant results - what implications does this have for the study? • The students perception of learning in lectures - were the lectures perceived in
line with the dominant negative image of lectures.
• Rejection of other explanations of lack of significant results - discussion of other possible reasons why the results were not as expected.
The lack of significant difference in the results.
Based on the aims and objectives of this study it was expected that there would be a significant difference between the perception of learning between the
experimental lectures which were attuned to learning styles and those which were not attuned, this was not the case. The overwhelming result of the study was that various groups failed to exhibit a significant difference in their perception of learning within the experimental lectures. The most common result gained is no significant difference in response. This indicates that the perceptions of lectures and the ratings of lectures are fairly uniform between the degree groups and within the individuals. In light of these results the notion of attunement becomes irrelevant as the learning styles failed to rate specific lectures more positively than others, resulting in a situation where the students report that they learnt well in all lectures. The results indicate that attunement would have no benefits for the learning styles.
The lack of significant differences in perception of learning within various lectures radically shifts the studies emphasis but does not reject the study as invalid (evidence that the students perceived the lectures as different is cited above). Implicitly within the attuning of lectures is a focus on the needs of the students and the desire to fulfil those needs by designing an appropriate environment for those learners needs. The results indicate that the students perceive that they are able to positively learn in a variety of situations and their
discussion that these results have two major consequences. Firstly students are
flexible in their approach to learning and are able to shift in their approach in order to accommodate the properties of various learning opportunities. Secondly
it implies that the focus of research should be upon the method and not the
students. This is not an absolute rejection of the needs of the student but rather an indication that due to the students ability to shift their position the most
productive way of approaching improving learning is by optimising the methods used. This is a radical departure from the original objectives of the study and indeed rejects the notion of attunement in favour of well designed lectures which will facilitate learning for all.
Summary of the lack of significant difference.
The lack of significant difference in the perception of learning in lectures implies: • Kolb’s discrete learning styles do not manifest them in students reports of
perceived learning.
• Various types of lectures can be a positive learning experience for students.
Students perception of learning in lectures.
Overwhelmingly the lectures presentation style and control type were rated as enhancing or strongly enhancing learning (rated as above two on the scale). This indicates that the students perceived that they learnt well in the lecture no matter what the actual style of presentation and control was. This once again contradicts the expectations of this study, as it was expected (based on Kolb’s association between approach to learning and learning styles) that students would positively perceive learning in attuned lectures and more negatively perceive lectures in non attuned lectures. If it is accepted that the lectures were significantly different from each other this adds further evidence for the students flexibility, and that they are able to gain from different types of presentation. The argument can be pushed further than this, for not only did the student perceive that they learnt but that the lecture had an enhancing or strongly enhancing effect on their learning. The students could have rated the lecture as having ‘no effect’ on their learning, that is there learning was independent of the lecture. This option was infrequently taken by students and the lecture was more commonly rated as enhancing learning, despite the variety of lectures used.
The implications of these results for lectures.
The students perception of lectures and learning is far more positive than the frequent presentation of the lecture as a weak aid to learning, a mode of delivery that should be reduced or even abandoned in favour of more interactive
approaches to teaching. Frequently the research on lectures has been based on lecturers perceptions of lectures and performance tests (see Dunkin, 1983, for review). It is reasonable to argue that the lecture as perceived by those who delivery them will be different from the perception of lectures by those who experience them. There are a number of areas which can be cited as reasons why the lecturers perception of lectures’ may differ from the students. A major
before the lecture group and hold their attention. Bergman (1983) noted that this “leaves the instructor exposed” (pg 51). without doubt the performance of lecturing places the lecturer in a vulnerable position and open to criticism and even ridicule from the lecture group. This fundamental threat within lecturing could cause the lecturer to establish a negative image of the lecture technique. Added to this is the knowledge that lecturing is not easy, it is a skilled and difficult form of presentation, although it may not be more difficult than preparing good distance learning packages, it does establish an environment where mistakes happen in ‘real time’ and the consequences of mistakes must be faced within the lecture. Fink (1989) highlight some of the demands that are made of a lecturer. He noted that lecturers have to be able to gain eye contact, use humour, present information in a dramatic way, all with the goal of making the students listen in the hope that, ‘the audience feels drawn in’ (pg 19). All this must be done on top of selecting appropriate information for the lecture. In light of this the lecturer is bound to have dramatically different perceptions of the lecture. This is not to say it is purely the difficulty in presenting of lectures which causes the negative images of lectures to dominate the literature. Positive reports of lecturing can be found which contradict the simple argument that lecturing’s implicit difficulty establishes its negative image within the literature (see Valenta,
1974; Murray and Murray, 1992; Habeshaw, 1995). The negative image is not solely established around lecturer perceptions of the lecture, empirical evidence is cited to support the argument that lectures are an educational method with no special abilities. Gibbs (1982), reporting on a plethora of studies which investigated the effectiveness of the lecture in comparison with various other teaching method noted that;
“The overwhelming outcome of all this work is that there is no significant difference between lecturing and a whole host of other teaching methods There are indications that lecturing are less effective, even at imparting information, than certain methods, notably unsupervised reading” (pg 8).
Based on Gibbs’ research the lecture appears to perform no better than many other forms of teaching, when considered in line with the difficulty and vulnerability associated with lecturing the future of lectures is bleak.
The research presented has focused on two main areas, those being lecturers perceptions and reactions to lectures, and assessment of the ‘products’ of lectures. That is the assessment of the effectiveness of lectures focused on products but not the process of learning. The use of an exam or test scores to assess lecturing was criticised by McKeachie (1990).
“The typical use of final course examinations, for which students have crammed, as the primary outcome measure is a major reason for the small effects often found in research on college teaching” (1990, pg 191).
McKeachie is arguing that test performance can only ever possibly assess a small part of what is gained within any lecturing experience, yet this is the dominant mode of assessment of learning in connection with a lecturing method. Hence although the lecture may not perform any better than many other teaching techniques at establishing a measurable knowledge base it may give the students knowledge of the process which is learning. Certainly this is the thesis put forward by Valenta (1974) in “To see a chemist thinking”, here Valenta argues that one of the main benefits of a lecture could be that the students experience a person engaging with a problem and working with it. Valenta (1974) presented the lecture as:
“[An] opportunity for the student to participate, personally and fully in the thinking process of that discipline” (pg 55).
If this is the case then such a benefit would be ignored by the assessment of accumulated knowledge. If students concur with Valenta that a lecture is an opportunity for the “development of curiosity and creativity” (pg 55), then the
perspective. A perspective which will have been ignored by product focused assessment of lectures performance.
Summary of learning in lectures results.
• The students perceive the lecture has having a positive effect on learning. • The students fail to rate the various lecture types as having different effects on
their perception of learning.
• Earlier research may have undervalued the positive effect of lectures. a. Research predominately based on lecturers’ perceptions.
b. Lectures were assessed based on the examinable outcomes alone, this may have ignored insight students gained into ‘the learning process’.
Implications of the results for Kolb.
The experimental lectures were designed to appeal to the strengths of specific learning styles and by omission would fail to facilitate or even inhibit learning styles which they were not attuned to. It would be expected therefore that the rating of the lectures would vary between the learning styles and the associated degree course. This was not the case as there was no significant difference in the rating of lectures between the learning styles (see pg 228). Added to this is the fact that the learning styles rated the lectures as enhancing their learning in all cases and so casts doubt on Kolb’s theoretical position. If the lecture were universally criticised by all four learning styles, this would reflect the poorly on the lectures but need not be perceived as impacting on the learning styles. For as the lecture failed to really engage with learning the learning styles were unable to be expressed. However, the lectures were rated as enhancing or strongly
enhancing students learning, hence the lectures were perceived as a positive learning experience which provided the students with opportunities to express their learning styles. Yet the learning styles failed to rate attuned lectures more
positively or indeed differently from any other lecture, indicating that all four learning styles were able to positively learn from all four lectures. The differences which Kolb presents for the four learning styles did not impact on their perception of learning in lectures, despite the fact that each lecture was attuned to a specific learning style. The lack of significant difference can be centred on one of three major possibilities.
• The lectures were not attuned to the learning styles.
• The learning styles are in some way able to accommodate differences in the learning environment, by flexing or shifting emphasis in some way.
• A combination of the two.
Summary of implications for Kolb.
• Learning styles do not rate attuned lectures more positively than non-attuned lectures.
• All learning styles report that they have learnt well in all lectures.
• It will be argued here that these results are a product of flexibility of learning styles.
Reiection of other explanations of lack of significant difference.
Support for the design of attunement.
The design of the attunement of lectures is based directly on Kolb’s definition of learning styles. These were used to create a thumb nail sketch of the orientation of the learning styles. As the study was limited in contact time available with
students, characteristic features of the learning styles were identified, orientation towards control and orientation towards processing, (see design of experimental lectures - appendix 3). This information had to then be mapped onto features of lectures which could be varied within the study. The resulting attunements were as follows:
Style of lecture Attuned for „
i Student control -
Analytical presentation. Convergent learning style.
Lecturer control - Holistic
presentation. Divergent learning style.
3 Lecturer control -
Analytical presentation. Assimilator learning style.
4 Student control - Holistic
presentation. Accommodator learning style.
Table 6.1 Showing the attunement of lectures to learning styles.
As these attunements come directly from Kolb’s own definitions of learning styles it is felt that the attunements although perhaps not perfectly representing each learning style emphasises the dominant characteristics of that learning style. For example the Accommodator learning styles was attuned based on their ability to ‘solve problems in an intuitive trial and error manner’ which was represented within the holistic presentation style with its focus on real world problems. Accommodators were presented by Kolb as actively engaging with the learning ‘doing things, in carrying out plans and tasks and getting involved in new experiences’ this was facilitated by the student control, which allowed Accommodators to engage directly via questions and group work sessions.
As the attunements of lectures are drawn so closely from the definitions of lectures it seems reasonable to conclude that they represent differences in approaches to lectures based upon the definitions of learning styles presented by Kolb.
Another possible interpretation of the lack of significant results between learning styles is that the situation shaped the response of the students to a greater extent than the learning styles, that is the lecture was dominant over the learning style. Kolb refers to the role of immediate environment in the development of learning styles and notes the importance of these in shaping our approach to learning.
“At the other end of the continuum are those increasingly specific
environmental demands stemming from our career choice, our current job, and the specific tasks that face us. These forces exert a somewhat stronger but more situational specific influence on the learning styles we adopt” (pg
1984, pg 98).
Although the role of immediate environment cannot be ignored it has to be recognised the learning style should in some way shape a students approach even though the specific environment may shift the overall emphasis of the style. That is a lecture format may cause a learner to adopt an assimilative approach but this does not mean that relative to the whole group convergers are no longer
emphasise a convergent approach and so on. If this were not the case learning styles would best be assigned to environments and not learners themselves. As the person would merely reflect the environment and not express anything which characterised the self. Hence the lecture may influence the students learning style but it should not cause the learning styles to be lost completely.
Differences in the lecture were not important within learning.
The differences in the lectures were designed to reflect the learning styles, that is they were not random changes in the lectures but ones which reflected the abilities of Kolb’s learning styles (See Appendix 3 - design of experimental lectures). Hence based on the evidence presented by Kolb, the differences should represent important variations in approach to learning, rather than superficial changes in design aspects which are not important features of the learning styles approach to learning. The differences in the lectures were identified by the students and these differences were designed to reflect the central needs of different learning styles and as such should according to Kolb be important within learning.
The Hawthorne effect.
Dunkin 1983 cites the Hawthorne effect as the source of considerable problems for any research investigating various teaching techniques.
“... the Hawthorne effect, where emotional reactions of staff and students involved with novel methods can cloud the genuine effects of the method” (Pg 65).
The problem of the ‘novel’ lecture was considered within the design of the study, this was mainly due to the ethical issues of using real degree courses and so having to present information in ways which were open and accessible to the students, so not inhibiting their performance on the degree course. This ruled out the use of radical and extreme variations of lecture presentation and focused the research more closely on internal manipulations of the ‘traditional’ lecture. This had the result of not presenting to the students extremely novel lectures, which may be responded to based on the fact they are different rather than how they related the information. There is still a chance of the Hawthorne effect but this is
drastically reduced as the overall format of the lecture remains that which is commonly used within higher education.
Social desirability in responses to lectures.
The positive responses could be cited as being a product of the students wishing to present a positive image of their learning abilities and so the responses reflect the students desire to appear to be good learners. Essentially this implies that the students are presenting socially desirable answers to the questions about the lectures which place them in a good light. Other responses from the
questionnaires cast serious doubt on this argument. Firstly the students were able to correctly identify the different types of lectures indicating that they were
attending to the questions in a thoughtful manner. Secondly not all responses were positive, if responses to handouts and overheads are studied it is apparent these are not all rated as having a beneficial effect (e.g. degree course and ratings of handouts). If the students were concerned with purely presenting a positive self image in the learning environment it would seem reasonable to conclude that they would do this across the board and not selectively for certain items on the
questionnaire. If this argument is accept then the positive responses to the lectures reflect personal opinions about the lecture and not an unthinking responses based on the desire to present a positive self image.
General confounding issues within student responses.
Other possible reasons for the overwhelm positive response to the lectures were presented by Dunkin (1983) who put forward the argument that results gained