Are Educators Ignoring Student's Learning Styles?

Last week in GRAD602, we continued our discussion on how people learn.  We identified 3 prevailing models about how people learn: Bloom's Taxonomy, SOLO Taxonomy, and Shulman Table of Learning.  What got me thinking is something that Jeff said in class...he brought up the rhetorical question about whether research on teaching should inform practice.  Furthermore, he mentioned that the discipline often governs which taxonomy is used in teaching.  I started thinking about this and it brought me to a pretty bold conclusion: I feel that most educators teach the way that they learn rather than how their students learn.  Therefore, the students are suffering in that they do not gain the simple information and knowledge in the class and this subsequently prevents their higher-order of thinking.  Here's how I came to this conclusion...

Early last week, I and a few other fellows in my program went to an undergraduate institution in the surrounding Richmond area to observe the teachers and students in science classes and labs.  The SOLO Taxonomy appeals to my style of learning.

 http://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/

It describes verbatim the process I went through to obtain my Ph.D. in Microbiology and Immunology.  Although this is a huge assumption, I suppose most people who love science and pursue a doctorate in the sciences learn in a similar manner to SOLO.  However, sitting in on these classes last week was an eye-opening experience.  These classes were required for students who were majoring either in nursing or biology.  I felt as if the teachers were conducting their class in a similar manner to the SOLO taxonomy.  For example, the instructors expected students to take their unconnected information (prestructural level) and to hypothesize and theorize about various phenomena (extended abstract).  However, when speaking with individual students, they had no idea how to do such a thing.  They couldn't connect the dots from small picture to big picture.  After studying the various learning styles, this suggested to me that they were not true SOLO learners and that their teachers were structuring their classes in a SOLO fashion which naturally appeals to us scientists.  To help them get from point A to B in an effort to connect the dots for them, I put a larger perspective/understanding on the assignment at hand.  Once they thought about the larger picture, they made the connections with some guided help.  This suggests that the students I spoke with identified with Shulman's Table of Learning.

http://rhetor.blogs.com/learning/2008/01/shulmans-tabl-1.html

They needed the understanding of the big picture first in order to make smaller connections and ultimately lead them to think about higher order hypotheses and theorizing about various phenomena.  What was incredibly eye-opening for me was that each student was capable of making the higher level connections.  However, the manner in which the information was presented was confusing for them and preventing their higher level of thinking.  Now, I am not saying this is how all educators are, but I feel more often than not they teach the way they learn vs. how the student learns. Therefore, as educators we cannot assume that everyone learns the exact same way we do even when talking about specific disciplines.  The goal is to get students to think on a higher level.  Maybe the only way to achieve that goal is to tailor lectures or classes to how individual students learn.  For example, start with the understanding first to help the Shulman learning style students while telling those SOLO learners to "zone out" from the discussion for a second.  Then when the details are presented both the SOLO and Shulman learners can actively engage in the lecture together again.  Additionally, an instructor could flip the class.  I would say it is hard to develop a lecture to appeal to all types of learners, but knowing that there are many types of learning styles in one classroom full of students is a start...  

Pigeon-hole, Combination, or None?

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/earlycareer/teaching/learningstyles.html

Last week in GRAD602, we discussed how different people learn and how that may influence our teaching beliefs and practices.  It seemed that there was an overwhelming consensus that there were various learning styles.  And as a class, we focused on two distinct learning styles, in particular:  the auditory learners vs. the visual learners.  However, upon further research, it appears that we only scratched the surface when discussing the various learning styles...

Howard Gardner doesn't even use the coined phrase "learning styles."  Instead he addresses that intelligence comes in various flavors and uses the "multiple intelligences" phraseology.  Based on his theory, there are 9 different types of intelligences including:

Linguistic

Logical/Mathematical

Bodily

Musical

Spatial

Naturalist

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Existential

On the other hand, Anthony Gregorc believes that how a person learns is based on their type or "style" of mind.  The theory he puts forth suggests that there are 4 different types of mind styles:

Concrete Sequential

Abstract Sequential

Abstract Random

Concrete Random

Then, there is this 4MAT grouping of learning styles.  This system and terminology is based on multiple studies and theories and categorizes people into 4 types based on whether they want to know how, why, what, or what if.

And, I am just scratching the surface here...there are multiple models.

On the contrary, Daniel Willingham believes that the theories of different learning styles is a myth. 

So, here's my thought...

The picture above represents 1 student and brings up a valid point.  Should teachers teach a certain way based on how the students learn?  But, in a class of 20-100+ students, how is that possible?  My mind becomes overwhelmed thinking about how many learning styles might be in a class...so much so that some factorial equation comes to mind when I think about how many different learning styles could be in a class of 20.  I envision this...45645123564+ combinations of learning styles.  With multiple learning styles and intelligences, how can our teaching practices engage all students?  Are there some students that don't fit into the mold and would prove Daniel Willingham correct?  Or can students be a combination such as a type 1, concrete sequential learner with musical intelligence?  Or are students solely one learning style (i.e. type 2 and nothing else)?  Therefore, with all these possibilities it is hard to cater to every student's preference of learning.  Maybe the best idea is to change teaching practices frequently in order to engage more students.  This fits in with what Daniel Willingham recently said in the NPR article (link above)...

Mixing things up is something we know is scientifically supported as something that boosts attention   



Furthermore, the article goes on to state that engaging and maintaing a student's attention will help them learn better.  So in the end, regardless of whether you buy into the different types of learning styles or not...maybe change and mixing it up is truly the best way to teach.

               

What the Craft?

Prior to break, we started discussing the case of Professor Craft.  Even in our individual group discussion prior to the classroom discussion, we started veering off to left field with some of the comments and questions that were brought to the forefront.  Therefore, I am not surprised in the direction the classroom discussion went.

However, I think Teacher Learner brought up an excellent point in his blog post.  He mentions that these philosophies should be mentioned earlier in the course. As a bench research scientist, I often feel like I am ill-equipped to take part in these discussions.  Mainly from the stance that I do not know all of these different philosophies of learning and teaching.  Now put me in a debate on B cells, redox biology, and models for infective endocarditis and I will speak up!  But, these types of discussions are hard for a scientist to engage in especially when context and background information are lacking.  These discussions got me thinking about my future students.  Oftentimes, first-year faculty are forced to teach general biology courses to non-majors.  Therefore, the students often lack context and background information.  It is my responsibility as the course instructor to try to engage all students.  Maybe that takes an overhaul in the way in which the course is designed and taught, much like Craft felt like he had to do for the classes he taught.  It seems that if I can engage more students it is well worth the extra work and effort.