I’ve got a thick skull boss, I don’t grasp these things easily. Ah, if only you could dance all that you’ve just said, then I’d understand. ...Or if you could tell me all that in a story, boss.

—Zorba the Greek

It is generally recognised that learners differ in their preferred learning styles. What is less certain is the degree to which teaching is tailored to cater for the variety in order to produce optimal learning outcomes for the greatest number. It has been suggested that at least some of the complaints about student performance may be attributed as much to mismatch of teaching and learning styles as to student ability.

In the traditional, teacher-centred instruction paradigm, teacher preferences rather than learner needs tend to be foregrounded. Most of us teach in ways that are comfortable to us; many teach as we were taught, which may or may not be our natural style and, to a large extent, ignores what the learners’ styles might be. Such incongruence is obviously not ideal. Studies support the common-sense notion that communication on a common wavelength is likely to be more efficient and effective. Of course, complete congruence may not be feasible, nor is it entirely desirable to cater exclusively to learners’ preferred styles. Reality dictates that our graduates have the ability to adapt to varied challenges and to have the mental agility to function and continue to learn even in inimical modes. In the matter of style, then, perhaps these three points are particularly worth bearing in mind:

1. If a teacher teaches in a style that is antithetical to the learner’s, the disparity would interfere with learning, particularly if the learner has yet to learn to operate in a mode other than his preferred one.

2. Learners need to be helped to acquire the ability to function in both their preferred as well as less preferred modes.

3. A teacher should try to use a variety of teaching styles so as to match at least some of the students’ learning styles some of the time.

This may seem daunting, given the number of learning style models that have been proposed, but considering the common grounds, revisiting some of the more well established and used models may be sufficient to remind of the essentials.

The VAK sensory modal inventory is based on observations that individuals negotiate with the external world through Visual, Aural and Kinesthetic interactions. A variant form adds ‘reading/writing’ to these three ways of orienting to new knowledge.

Multiple Intelligences, as propounded by Howard Gardner¹, recognise that different learners have different strengths in their ways of knowing—verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, musical/rhythmic, naturalist, interpersonal and intrapersonal and capitalising on these strengths promotes learning competence.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is derived from Jungian theories of psychological types² and the way we use sensations, feeling, thinking and intuition to orient ourselves and deal with new knowledge. The MBTI offers these groupings:

• Extrovert (relates to outer world; tries things out) vs. Introvert (looks inward; thinks things through);

• Sensor (attentive to observable phenomenon; fact-driven) vs. Intuitor (imaginative; concept-oriented);

• Judger (methodical; uncomfortable with open-endedness) vs. Perceiver (responsive to and tolerant of change and plurality); and

• Thinker (works through logic and rules) vs. Feeler (persuaded by affective, personal considerations).

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory³ is predicated on ideas of active and experiential learning articulated by John Dewey⁴, Carl Rogers⁵ and others. It distinguishes four types:

• Reflective-Concrete (the ‘Why’ learner; seeks relevance of what is to be learnt);

• Reflective-Abstract (the ‘What’ learner; performs well with information presented in orderly, structured manner);

• Active-Concrete (the ‘How’ learner; learns best working actively on well-defined tasks); and

• Active-Abstract (the ‘What if’ learner; relates what is learnt to real life and problem-solving).

Clearly, no teacher can be all things to all learners all the time. For instance, to cater to the four types of Kolb’s typology would require a manager, expert, coach and even a nonentity so as not to interfere with Type 4’s self-directed learning. Even if one could assume these varied roles, there may be demands of the discipline and possibly other constraints which need to be factored in. Ultimately, decisions will have to be taken about what is the best mix of teaching styles for the audience, the subject and the context. What is important is that there be no unmindful disparity. Studies in the US indicate that the majority of freshmen are concrete-active, sequential and visual learners, and this phenomenon has been noted locally too. These students tend to be sensors and judgers who like well-signposted roadmaps and unambiguous destinations, with frequent feedback to assure them that they are on track, and are averse to venturing beyond the set path. They look for the practical (e.g. what counts for passing examinations), and the concrete (not too philosophical and hypothetical), and IT and interactive multimedia have probably accentuated the preference for the visual, interactive and instant gratification. Teachers, in contrast, share the value system of the reflective-abstract minority of intuitors and feelers: desire/willingness to explore beyond set boundaries, global/holistic, original and independent thinking, learning for intrinsic rather than extrinsic gratification. The natural thing would be to teach to this group with whom one has empathy, but this would be ignoring the bulk of students.

To reach out to the learners, and to familiarise them with the skills for learning in other modes, an integrated approach—one that draws on various approaches—seems logical and too obvious to need repetition. Yet, the occasional reminder to make conscious efforts at transmuting internalised beliefs into action might not be totally redundant. Teachers might ask themselves periodically these and other pertinent questions, for the list is by no means exhaustive:

• Do I adopt/encourage active modes of teaching and learning in my class? Do I involve the learning in the learning process?

• With less sophisticated learners, do I offer concrete experience and tasks before presenting theories and abstractions? Do I use examples and analogies in explaining difficult concepts?

• Do I balance the concrete with the conceptual?

• Do I help learners make connections between different chunks of information (e.g. through good course design, cross-references during class, posing questions to prompt students to formulate their own connections)?

• Do I structure classes/assignments to provide opportunities for both active participation as well as reflection?

• Am I overwhelming my students with too much diversity of viewpoints? Do I equip them with the means to deal with them competently?

• Do I use different medium: not just the aural (typical lecture mode) but also the visual (e.g. diagrams, demonstrations)?

• Do I provide more structure at the beginning and ease off as learners acquire confidence in managing their own learning?

• Do I give sufficient and timely feedback?

• Do I encourage students in metacognitive investigation of their own learning processes so that they can work from a position of understanding to maximise their own learning whether within or outside their preferred learning styles?

Footnotes:

1. Gardner, Howard. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London: Fontana Books. ________. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.

2. Jung, C.C. (1923). Psychological Types or the Psychology of Individuation. Translated by Baynes, H. Godwin. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, Inc.

3. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

4. Schilpp, Paul Arthur. (Ed.). (1951). The Philosophy of John Dewey. New York: Tudor Pub. Co.

5. Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.