learning styles vs. prior knowledge
Hannum’s presentation was a bit more controversial this week! His presentation basically argued that when teachers pay attention to learning styles, they’re wasting their time. He said that research gives little indication that students learn more when teachers match instruction to their learning styles students will learn significantly more.
I’d like to see more of the research. One of the main studies cited compared visual and audio learners when using video and audio tapes. I was skeptical of the research immediately, because both video and audio tape relies heavily on audio learning (though the video tape was supposed to be better for visual). It turned out that my concerns didn’t matter because not only did visual and audio learners not do significantly differently with the “preferred” medium, audio and visual learners did about the same with both media.
Though, I did find it interesting that using multimedia was more effective across the board than just using audio or video tape. I think at this point I’d be interested in seeing the difference with a significantly different learning style, such as reading or interacting with the computer, though I suspect the results would be similar.
So, Hannum makes the charge that it’s a waste of time to use learning styles as a variable we consider how we’ll teach. He suggests what seems to be a very “back to the basics” way of looking at teaching: do an audience analysis to learn what the students know. Hannum states that prior knowledge is the vital factor for instructional success and leads the teacher to where to start the instruction and how to design the curriculum. As we’ve discussed when talking about constructivism, learning is most relevant when we help the students create meaning by linking new knowledge to old knowledge.
If we underestimate our students’ knowledge, they will be board; overestimate, and they will be frustrated. Hannum points out what anyone who has been a student knows: either error in planning will result in a waste of the student’s time.
Hannum’s recommended audience analysis includes general characteristics (broad, demographic characteristics, education level, job classification, prior experience, age, rank or level in organization, backgrounds, interests, and potential uses of instructional content) and specific entry behaviors (small, specific capabilities, based on instructional analysis, the student’s ability in an area, collect by pretesting and diagnostic tests). Hannum reminded us that we typically have access to general characteristics in advance, and specific entry behaviors can be learned through pretesting. The main tool that I’ve taken from this presentation is that pretesting is vital. I’ve known that I’d like to do that, as it’s in my personality to want to avoid boredom and frustration (so I’ve worked a bit of this out on my own), but I hadn’t seen an argument—using research—laid out in such an effective way. So, it’s in the plans for me.
(However, I am still interested in seeing the research, not only for the points mentioned about the audio/visual learners before, but the 10-20% folks who are significantly affected by learning styles.)
I’d like to see more of the research. One of the main studies cited compared visual and audio learners when using video and audio tapes. I was skeptical of the research immediately, because both video and audio tape relies heavily on audio learning (though the video tape was supposed to be better for visual). It turned out that my concerns didn’t matter because not only did visual and audio learners not do significantly differently with the “preferred” medium, audio and visual learners did about the same with both media.
Though, I did find it interesting that using multimedia was more effective across the board than just using audio or video tape. I think at this point I’d be interested in seeing the difference with a significantly different learning style, such as reading or interacting with the computer, though I suspect the results would be similar.
So, Hannum makes the charge that it’s a waste of time to use learning styles as a variable we consider how we’ll teach. He suggests what seems to be a very “back to the basics” way of looking at teaching: do an audience analysis to learn what the students know. Hannum states that prior knowledge is the vital factor for instructional success and leads the teacher to where to start the instruction and how to design the curriculum. As we’ve discussed when talking about constructivism, learning is most relevant when we help the students create meaning by linking new knowledge to old knowledge.
If we underestimate our students’ knowledge, they will be board; overestimate, and they will be frustrated. Hannum points out what anyone who has been a student knows: either error in planning will result in a waste of the student’s time.
Hannum’s recommended audience analysis includes general characteristics (broad, demographic characteristics, education level, job classification, prior experience, age, rank or level in organization, backgrounds, interests, and potential uses of instructional content) and specific entry behaviors (small, specific capabilities, based on instructional analysis, the student’s ability in an area, collect by pretesting and diagnostic tests). Hannum reminded us that we typically have access to general characteristics in advance, and specific entry behaviors can be learned through pretesting. The main tool that I’ve taken from this presentation is that pretesting is vital. I’ve known that I’d like to do that, as it’s in my personality to want to avoid boredom and frustration (so I’ve worked a bit of this out on my own), but I hadn’t seen an argument—using research—laid out in such an effective way. So, it’s in the plans for me.
(However, I am still interested in seeing the research, not only for the points mentioned about the audio/visual learners before, but the 10-20% folks who are significantly affected by learning styles.)
posted by Lauren Pressley at 17:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home