1

Implementation of learning styles at the teacher level in

higher education

Tine Nielsen

CBS Learning Lab, Copenhagen Business School

tn.ll@cbs.dk

2

Two levels of implementation of learning styles

1. Students aware of and working with own styles

2. Teachers considering diversity in students styles in general, at levels of study, in subjects

4. Teachers consciously interchanging between strategies of matching and mis-matching own styles to students’ styles

3. Enabling teachers to

Teacher level

Student level

3

Teaching practice

Implicit beliefs/knowledge onHuman natureLearningTeaching

Experiences with teaching (as a learner)

Explicit theoretical knowledge onHuman natureLearningTeaching

Teaching styles

Learning styles

Teachers’ learning and teaching styles as part of implicit knowledge and belief system

4

From implicit knowledge and beliefs to explicit knowledge and beliefs

Teaching practice

Implicit beliefs/knowledge onHuman natureLearningTeaching

Experiences with teaching (as a learner)

Explicit theoretical knowledge onHuman natureLearningTeaching

Learning styles

Teaching styles

5

Types of to be engaged

Change in teachers’ implicit beliefs should be based on a model of conceptual change that includes

•Deep processing•Processess engaged in general scientific thinking•Meta-cognitive processess

Adapted from Patrick & Pintrich (2001)

cognition Motivation

Epistemological beliefs

•Goals•Interests & values•Sense of efficacy & control

•Certainty, simplicity, & sources of knowledge

•Ways to justify knowledge

to be challenged

considered in relation to

6

From: A model of conceptual change for student teachers in a teacher training long-term perspective (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001)

To: A strategy of implementation of learning and teaching styles working with active and experienced teachers in a short term workshop setting.

7

Aim of workshops

Explicitation of the teachers’ implicit beliefs about learning and teaching in terms of learning and teaching styles, thereby providing them with opportunities for changing their practice of teaching.

8

Workshop design

Part one• Basic knowledge and reassurance with

regard to the “non-threatening” nature of the test to be taken

• Self-assessment of learning styles

• More detailed knowledge to ponder and discuss for the next workshop day.

9

Between parts one and two

Production of personal learning styles profiles as well as analyses of differences and similarities in styles within the group of participants.

Organization of participants in groups based on similarities and differences in learning styles

10

Part two• The deeper cognitive processes: Activated by

activities, strengths and weaknesses in different contexts, and in general by the motivational factors employed.

• The scientific cognitive processes: Activated by such activities as analyses of student writings for signs of different learning styles and analyses of students behavior in terms of learning styles.

• The meta-cognitive processes: Activated by reflectional activities on the accuracy of the personal learning styles profile and connections between personal learning and teaching styles, inter-personal differences in the value of styles, etc.

11

Particular points of motivation

• Working with participants’ personal learning styles profiles enhance personal interest in the process sense of efficacy and control.

• Environment supporting equal value of styles (acceptance) lower defenses and motivate participants with different styles facilitate balance between learning something new while

being satisfied with the present knowledge and beliefs

• The different activities were designed to accommodate different learning styles motivation/engagement of everybody

The participants’ epistemological beliefs were challenged in individual & paired exercises and group & plenum discussions

12

Participants

Two workshops

• 2004: 22 PhD supervisors within the field of architecture from different universities

• 2005: 15 High school teachers from different fields and same high school

13

Evaluation of effects/benefits

1) At end of workshop - A freely written evaluation of personal benefits– Explicitation of the teachers’ implicit beliefs about

learning and teaching?– Teachers’ ideas of future changes in teaching

practice?

2) After 14 months (high scool teachers only) – seven open-ended questions constructed on the basis of results of 1)– Was short-term explicitation of the teachers’

implicit beliefs a genuine lasting explicitation? – How had the teachers’ actual teaching practice

actually changed as a result of the workshop?

14

Short-term effects

26 teachers gave in their evaluations (13 + 13)

21 teachers:

The major benefit = they had become conscious of, become aware of, and/or had enhanced their awareness of a number of their implicit beliefs and knowledge.

15

(enhanced) awareness of …• The role their own preferences played in connection

with their interaction and communication with students in general

• How their own learning preferences could serve as a starting point of pedagogical and didactical reflections

• Differences in the conceived value of the teachers’/supervisors’ own learning and teaching styles in different contexts and situations

• The diversity in students’ styles and how they can be valued both positively and negatively

• Enhanced awareness of the interplay between teacher and students’ styles

16

Ideas of changes in teaching practice (20)

The workshop would influence their teaching practice in general (6)

The workshop would change teaching practice more specifically (14)

• Accommodation of students with specific learning styles

• Trying out a matching approach in order to enhance the learning of “weak” students.

17

Long-term effects

• 9 teachers gave in their evaluations (8 had done short term evaluation)

• 7 teachers: The explicitation of the implicit knowledge and beliefs about learning and teaching reported 14 months prior was still explicit and being used in their individual teaching practice.

18

Implicit beliefs, which were originally reported as having become more explicit,

had now expanded into new areas of awareness and/or higher degrees of

awareness (5)

Teacher AA: Awareness of own learning styles enhanced awareness and understanding of differences in student styles and differentiation in teaching

Teacher HH: Knowledge on approaches to learning recognition of the importance of utilization of non-preferred styles in order to engage more students

19

Had not had the time and energy to work systematically with learning and teaching

styles in their teaching practice (4)

• used more varied teaching methods and forms of work with the students as a result of the workshop (2)

• used learning styles to define groups for group activities with the students (1)

• become more accommodating towards students who require a specific form of teaching (1)

20

Had worked systematically with learning and teaching styles as an instrument for

differentiation of teaching during the 14 months since the workshop (4)

Teacher DD “Utilization of knowledge on learning and teaching styles in preparation of classes, in the teaching-learning situation, and in talks with colleagues on cross-disciplinary projects”

Teacher HH “... important talks with the students on the subject of learning and how to improve your learning – both at the class level and in individual mentor sessions”

21

Conclusions

• Substantial short-term effect in terms of movement of implicit beliefs and knowledge about learning and teaching to the explicit sphere of thinking

• The explicitation of the teachers’ implicit beliefs about learning and teaching appears to be lasting and in some cases to have been further expanded.

• The teachers’ teaching practice appear to have changed towards a greater degree of differentiation in the 14 months after the workshop.

22

The next step

Fall of 2008: Study with 56 clinical nursing teachers, who participated in two similar workshops in October 2007

Are results similar for this group of teachers?

23

Further studies also needed into…

• The effect of implementions as the present on students learning

• The effect of indirect and direct implementation by teachers/study programmes at the student level

Two studies of direct implementations at CBS