Learning Styles

Curry (1983: 3) states that a learning style is a ‘general area of interest concerning ‘individual differences in cognitive approach and process of learning’. Quoting Riding and Cheema (1991), Cassidy’s (2004) definition perhaps offers more clarity: the term learning styles is adapted to reflect a concern with the application of ‘cognitive style in a learning situation encompassing a number of components which are not mentally exclusive’ (Cassidy, 2004: 422). This theory might also be relevant to this study because in both art-viewing and art-making looking and seeing deeply are important practices and the Felder-Silverman Learning Styles theory

incorporates learning through the visual mode. That I am researching children’s cognitive, emotional and social development through development in aesthetics presents a ‘learning situation encompassing a number of components which are not

mentally exclusive’(Cassidy, 2004: 422). It serves me well to remember that each child has his or her own way of seeing the world and processing incoming

information.

The Felder-Silverman Learning Styles Model (FSLSM) (Felder and Silverman, 1988) is possibly the best known and most widely used. It proposes four dimensions, each with distinct preferences, to which the learning styles of individuals are attached. The first dimension distinguishes between an active and a reflective way of

processing information. These learners at the former end of this first scale are said to prefer an active, communicative approach to learning. In contrast, reflective learners at the opposite end of this scale prefer to absorb information and to work alone or with one other. The second dimension distinguishes between sensing and intuitive learners. Sensing learners are said to like facts, concrete materials and solving problems, while intuitive learners favour abstract theories and discovering relationships. The third dimension is the visual/verbal dimension, distinguishing between learners who learn from what they have seen from learners who prefer text, written and/or spoken. The fourth dimension acknowledges differences between global learners, who use a holistic approach, and sequential learners who favour small, sequential steps.

It seems that categorising in this way could be misleading though, because although individuals may favour one sense or mode of communication, as holistic individuals, human beings in responding to different stimuli, questions, problems or issues bring multi-sensory factors and complex thought processes to bear. Felder and Spurlin (2005) claim that effective instruction should be designed once a teacher has gained insight to the preferred styles of learners in his/her class. However, casting doubt on their own system, Felder and Spurlin (2005: 105) now qualify the

application, reliability and validity of the FSLSM with a list of supporting statements that include avoiding the labelling of individuals with associated learning styles or the use of preferential learning styles as indicators of learning strengths and weaknesses. This might suggest that they themselves are beginning to doubt the efficacy of FSLSM, but nevertheless they conclude that the most favourable teaching approach is one comprised of varied styles to meet the preferences of individuals and also to nurture skills associated with non-preferred styles that might otherwise lie dormant. This shift on their part could be in response to time and knowledge fields having moved on to other more relevant or more fashionable theories. With ‘the child’ having been returned to the centre of the learning,

teaching and learning have become more personalised, experiential, holistic and forward-looking. Whatever may be the reason, their own lack of clarity could have fomented wider-ranging doubt on the value of learning styles theory. A relatively recent open letter to The Guardian newspaper under the title ‘Teachers must ditch the ‘neuro-myth’ of learning styles’ (17 February 2017) submitted by thirty eminent academics from the worlds of neuroscience, education and psychology seriously discredited the theory. The contributors included Steven Pinker, Johnstone family professor at Harvard University, Dorothy Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford; and leading neuroscientist Professor Uta Frith of University College London.

On the other hand, according to McCarthy, (2010), Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory of Experiential Learning Theory (ELT), a comprehensive theory of learning and development, is still favoured by some educators. It differed from the Felder- Silverman style model insofar as it drew on the work of prominent twentieth century scholars who gave experience a central role in their models and whose theories remain popular in the field of education, notably Dewey (1910), Piaget (1969/2000), Freire (1974), Rogers (1951) among others. Kolb’s aim was to develop a holistic model of the experiential learning process and a multi-linear model of adult development (Baker, Jensen, & Kolb, 2002, p51). He also proposed that people assimilate and process incoming sense and intellectual data in

systematically different ways. His system poses four different styles of learner. However, he does admit that any individual is likely to use a range of strategies and behaviours in his or her learning - depending on the task and learning situation. Kolb allows that human beings are more complex and could not simply be put in one exclusive learning-style box. Francis, et al. (1995) presented these learning style preferences in formal learning situations in a table entitled ‘Instructional Method in a Formal Learning Environment’ as follows:

• divergers like working in groups, listening with an open mind, and receiving personal feedback.

• accomodators prefer working with others to get assignments done, setting goals, performing field work, and testing different approaches to completing a project. They tend to solve problems in an intuitive trial and error method relying on other people for information.

• assimilators like readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and thinking things through.

• convergers

prefer experimenting with new ideas, simulations, laboratory assignments an d practical applications. Tend to do well on conventional intelligence tests where there is a single correct answer. (Francis, et al., (1995) cited in McCarthy, (2010: 136)).

As a teacher I recognise these various approaches to learning but know of no neuro- typical student who could be labelled only a diverger, accomodator, assimilator or converger. In working with the young people in this study - whatever their learning- style should such an entity exist - I was encouraging them all to look intently firstly at the artworks in the museum and secondly while creating their own art.

On a different but related personal note, I would add that I know of no effective teacher who would consider presenting lessons that lacked a range of visual,

aural/oral, kinaesthetic and cognitive elements - whether styles, or modes. My own parents were teachers half a century ago and used a variety of means of presenting material well before the ideas of Gardner, Felder, Spurlin or Silverman came into being or vogue (McColl, 1979). I cannot make such claims about teachers in other parts of the world but I can say from experience of having come through the education system here that teachers in Scotland today still consider that it is good practice in teaching and learning to employ a wide range of methodology and approaches - whatever the age of their student or whatever their subject. It is how we are and have been educated as teachers for at least the last fifty years and probably the reason why I incorporate looking, talking and listening, and doing and making, working individually and in pairs and groups into this research project.