Learning Styles

sequential students have strong skills in working with written and verbal symbols. They tend to think abstractly and use conceptual “pictures” as they learn. They are able to grasp concepts and ideas vicariously. They prefer to learn through reading and listening and profit from orderly, rational presentations given by authorities. Abstract random students are tuned to nuances of mood and atmosphere. They tend to associaterandom students are tuned to nuances of mood and atmosphere. They tend to associate the medium with the message and link a speaker’s manner of delivery and personality to the content of what is being related. Thus, they globally evaluate the learning experience. Abstract random students prefer to receive information in an unstructured manner and like group discussions and multisensory experiences free from rules and guidelines. Thus, they prefer movies, group discussion, question-and-answer sessions, and television. Some research has studied institutional effects on dental students’ learning style—whether styles are affected by a school’s educational philosophy, teaching methods, testing proceddures, and arrangements (Hendricson, Berlocher, and Herbert 1987). Gegorc’s Learning Style Delineator was administered four times in a longitudinal, four-year study to 48 students. Results of the study showed that most of the students were concrete sequential, a finding that was consistent with an earlier cross-sectional study. Such students typically prefer concrete sequential learning environments that are highly structured with well-defined learning tasks. They prefer logically sequenced topics and a curriculum with a practical orientation. Thus, it appears that the learning environment did not substantially alter students’ learning styles but that learning styles remain relatively stable over time. Further, students’ learning styles are primarily a by-product of the institution’s selection process rather than caused by the institution. These findings have three important implications. First, the general learning environment at this institution was consistent with students’ learning preferences. Second, while concrete sequential was the dominant learning style, 20 to 30 percent of the students preferred abstract sequential, thus posing a challenge to the dental faculty to develop ways to provide a better learning environment for those students. Third, the marked preference of present students for concrete sequential learning may be at odds with the shift in emphasis in dental education from restoration dentistry to the diagnosis and prevention of periodontal disease. The latter is far more conceptual and may place increased burdens on the present type of students who are comfortable with more concrete learning. Several important findings emerge from this discussion of information-processing models of learning style. All are at least reminiscent of lumpers and splitters, reinforcing Kirby’s view that much of the research on style may be dealing with just two fundamental aspects of the personality and parallels split-brain research (Kolb 1984, pp. 46-51). Schineck’s model brings up a very important issue that has not yet been discussed: the interaction of style and developmental stage. At times the two seem to be the same thing. For example, shallow-reiterative thinking sounds very much like the thinking of students who are at an earlier stage of development, while deep-elaborative processing sounds like the thinking of persons who are at a higher, more complex stage of development. The two concepts are not the same, but their interaction is so close that it is difficult to keep them separate. Schmeck is certainly correct in recommending that faculty provide learning activities and tests that encourage shallow-reiterative students to learn to engage in deep-elaborative ways. But when Schmeck’s model is used to describe persons at different stages, asking students to engage in deep-elaborative thinking with its emphasis on generating personal examples that relate to the issue and seeing the issue from different perspectives is a task students at early developmental stages simply may not be able to do. Nevertheless, if students are at a stage of cognitive development such that they are unable to move beyond their “surface-atomistic” approach, then that is how they see the world (Perry 1986, p. 190). Their view at least deserves faculty members’ respect, for, to state the obvious, they can change only as fast as they can change. “Our success [as faculty members interested in student development] will be in proportion to our respect for the students’ ‘resistance’ (that is, felt integrity)” (p. 193). Thus, faculty need to be as insightful as possible concerning students’ style and developmental stage. If students can focus only on memorization and processing information in somewhat shallow ways, they need to be allowed to do so. At the same time, however, faculty need to provide activities and assignments that stimulate students’ movement to deeper thinking, so long as it is done in a way that respects their integrity. The research on dental students’ learning styles (Hendricson, Berlocher, and Herbert 1987) points out that all institutions need to be aware of their students’ primary learning orientation and how it interacts with curricular emphases and emerging curricular trends. Just as the changing mix of students may call for teaching that is more field sensitive, so too may changing curricular emphases force faculty to be more aware of learning styles generally. The most effective learners are those who have skills both in description building and in procedure building, and all students should have at least some skill in learning when the sequence is reversed. Thus, one of the most significant uses of learning style is for faculty to be aware of students’ strengths and to help them gain insight into their competence so they can use it to full advantage. At the same time, faculty should find ways to help students learn in ways that are not their preferred style. By providing activities that are a mismatch, students are able to become more skilled learners. A cautionary note needs to be added, however. Having students learn in ways that are not consistent with their “natural” approach can be very threatening. In those instances, faculty need to be guided by the view that teaching is, more than anything else, “a caring stance in the moving context of our students’ lives” (Daloz 1986, p. 14). This issue of helping students develop new ways of learning comes into clearer focus with the work of Kolb. Because learning styles and the experiential learning cycle are anchored in human development research, his model enables us to be quite systematic and intentional about designing courses that not only foster development but also enable students to be actively involved in the learning process, a key recommendation of the report of the National Institute of Education on the need for improvement in higher education (1984). Mentkowski and Strait’s longitudinal study indicates that curricular experiences help students move to greater abstraction, an extremely important ability for effective functioning as an adult. It also demonstrates that students’ learning experiences can help them expand their repertoire of learning strategies. This empowering experience—”learning how to learn” (Smith 1982)—is a critical ingredient in a student’s college experience, and it—in addition to solid mastery of content—is the assumption behind the recommendation that courses be designed to engage students in the four modes of the experiential learning cycle (Murrell and Claxton 1987). The finding that use of KoIb’s model in portfolio development courses helped students develop a greater appreciation of their strengths and become more intentional about learning in the future is an important one. It, too, suggests the use of information about learning styles as a means of empowering students. This perspective can be extremely significant for colleges that are serious about helping students take increasing charge of their own learning and of their own lives. Social-Interaction Models Mann’s research The first model discussed in this section grew out of a pioneering study at the University of Michigan that involved four undergraduate classes in psychology (Mann et al. 1970). The classes, made up of 47 women and 49 men, were all lecture discussion sections of an introductory psychology class taught by four instructors who each had had just one semester of prior university teaching experience. The data were gathered through extensive interviews of students and teachers and use of the 16-category, member-leader scoring system (Mann, Gibbard, and Hartman 1967). This system includes impulse areas (hostility and affection), authority relations areas (dominance and dependence), and ego state areas (anxiety, self-esteem, and depression). Trained observers scored each session of the classes. Through factor analysis, the researchers identified eight clusters of students based on their behavior in the classroom: compliant students, anxious-dependent students, discouraged workers, independent students, heroes, snipers, attention seekers, and silent students. While classes vary, students change, and no person fits perfectly into one typology, these clusters can nevertheless help teachers see their students as fully complex individuals rather than as an undifferentiated group. Cluster one, the compliant students, were mostly freshmen. They were the typical “good students” who adapted themselves to the will of authorities and conformed to standards. Seeing the teacher as the dispenser of extrinsic rewards, their main concern was understanding the material. They were very task oriented, nonrebellious, and accepting of what the teacher said. Although they performed reasonably well in class, they were not particularly innovative, creative, or intellectual. Cluster two, the anxious-dependent students, was a larger group than the compliant students. They were angry on the inside and frightened on the outside, dependent on the teacher for knowledge and support, and anxious about being evaluated. Their past lives had not been particularly happy, having experienced a mix of parental affection and high standards as children. They were easily hurt and tried to win love through accepting and following the standards set by persons in authority. Their scores on standardized tests of verbal ability were lower than other clusters, which may account for their low regard for their intellectual competence. They were easily silenced by punitiveness on the part of the teacher and unable to become involved in the material or to look at it from an independent point of view. Cluster three, the discouraged workers, was also a small cluster. These students had a mix of self-esteem and strength as well as guilt and depression. They were dissatisfied with themselves, had a pervasive feeling of guilt, and were generally depressed about human nature and the future in general. They we preoccupied with their inner selves, lacked sensitivity to others, and had fantasies that they might hurt others. Cluster four, the independent students, was made up of older students, mostly sophomores and juniors. They were very intelligent, secure, and comfortable, able to see the class’s activities and material with a certain detachment. They were not interested in intense personal relationships with the teacher. They were capable of thinking critically and had an individualistic perspective. In their relations with other class members, they were rather aloof. Cluster five was the heroes. Their work in the class was tied to rebellion. They felt superior and saw themselves as exceptional persons whose lives were apart from and beyond the common people. They had the highest college board scores of all the eight groups, yet they were underachievers with grade averages of just over “C.” They tended not to be anxious or dependent and had the ability and the willingness to help the teaser when he was uncomfortable. They saw the university as an oppressive system and distrusted authorities. They had the ability to defeat the teacher in an argument and at times insisted on doing so. They desired closeness with others yet were threatened by it at the same time. Cluster six, the snipers, was much like the heroes, but their rebelliousness was more expressive and defensive. Underachievers with low self-esteem, they were likely to address hostile comments to the teacher. Their investment in the class was low and, combined with the need to rebel, led to a kind of sniping at the teacher. They were pessimistic about relations with authority figures and the future and needed to remain uninvolved with the class and with major substantive issues. They were unhappy as children; their fathers were authoritarian yet weak. Cluster seven, the attention seekers, had a predominantly social orientation and were frequently involved in joking, talking, showing off, and bragging. They tended to enjoy—and needed to be with—other people. Their interest in social interaction rather than in work inhibited their intellectual development. They were preoccupied with the appearance of things, how others perceived them, and the impression they made on the teacher, and they relied heavily on others’ standards in forming their own judgments. Cluster eight, the silent students, was a very large group, characterized not so much by what they did but by what they did not do. They had a tremendous sense of helplessness and vulnerability, were suspicious, almost paranoid, and could be very disconcerting to others. The males were angry and defensive, believing the teacher was a threat to their identity yet yearning for the teacher’s affection and attention. The females acted out the stereotypical feminine sex role— ”good little girls are seen but not heard.” Their parents were emotionally distant or physically absent, giving them so little feedback they had no accurate evaluation of their behavior. Because their self-worth was deeply tied up with the work they did in class, they spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what the teacher wanted. These students wanted attention and to be center stage very badly, but their fear of failure was so great they preferred to remain silent. Grasha and Reichmann Another mode, based on students’ response styles, was developed over a period of two years in interviews with students at the University of Cincinnati (Grasha 1972; Reichmann and Grasha 1974). Three styles emerged during the interviews: avoid-ant participant, competitivecollaborative, and dependent-independent. The response styles were defined around three classroom dimensions: student’s attitudes toward learning, their views of the teacher and/or peers, and their reaction to classroom procedures. Subsequently, Grasha and Reichmann developed the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) by using a “rational” approach to scale construction. The instrument was developed with the assistance of undergraduate students who were asked to sort student behaviors in a typical classroom into the six student response styles. The learning styles thus developed are as follows: 1. Independent students like to think for themselves. They prefer working on their own but will listen to others. They are confident of their ability to learn and will learn what they feel is needed. 2. Dependent students have little intellectual curiosity and learn only what is required. They see the teacher as a source of structure and support and look to authorities to be told what to do. 3. Collaborative students like learning through sharing with others. They are cooperative and enjoy working with others, and they see the classroom as a place for learning and for interaction with others. 4. Competitive students feel they must compete with others for reward, and their motivation to learn is to do better than others. They regard the classroom as strictly a win-lose situation in which they must win. 5. Participant students desire to learn course content and enjoy attending class. They assume responsibility for getting a lot out of class and participate with others when told to do so. They do little that is not required, however. 6. Avoidant students do not participate in the class actively and are not interested in learning course content. Grasha and Reichmann have developed classroom activity preferences for each style. Competitive students, for example, are comfortable with a variety of teaching methods, so long as the focus is teacher centered rather than student centered. They enjoy serving as group leaders in discussions or when working on projects. Collaborative students prefer lectures, with class discussion in small groups and talking with others outside class about issues dealt with in the course. Avoidant students are generally negative about any classroom activities. They would prefer self-evaluation for grading and do not like enthusiastic teachers. Participant students prefer lectures with discussion, enjoy teachers who can analyze and synthesize material well, and like opportunities to discuss material. Dependent students want the teacher to outline for assignments, and to use teacher-centered classroom methods. Independent students enjoy selfpaced instruction, assignments that give them a chance to think for themselves, and a studentcentered rather than a teacher-centered classroom setting. The GRSLSS was used in a study of the interrelationship of teaching methods, preferred learning styles, and learning outcomes (Andrews 1981). Freshmen students in an introductory chemistry course at the University of California at San Diego were randomly assigned to two types of sections taught by teaching assistants. In the instructor-centered sections, the instructor provided minilectures, answered questions for students, worked problems, and questioned students; that is, the instructor played a central role in guiding the class. In the peer-centered section, the instructor served more as a facilitator and a resource, emphasizing students’ responsibility for presentations and student-to-student teaching. In administering the GRSLSS to students, the researcher predicted that students who scored high on the collaborative dimension of the scales would find the peer-centered format more beneficial and that those who scored high on the competitive dimension would benefit more from the instructor-centered format. At the end of the course, students completed a questionnaire asking for their reaction to the section meeting and their rating of the learning benefit they received. Course grades on the mid-term and final were used as a means of judging overall learning