Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Learnig styles

I have always found it interesting how tests are made to determine the learning styles of people. I found this test in particular was unique in the way it didn’t just have you pick one answer and label the participant as having a single learning style, but rather gave a score corresponding to each style and then made a determination of the learning styles that would best fit. In my case, for example, it said I was a multimodal learner with high scores in aural, read/write and kinestetic styles. . While my score in visual learning was lower than I expected, I think this isn’t a reflection of my difficulty in learning visually, which I feel is fairly easy for me, but is rather a indication that I don't rely on visual displays to learn materials. One of the things I believe we need to keep in mind with tests of this nature is that they are tools which can help us find ways in which we to enhance our learning and that they should not make us feel we have only one way in which to learn.

What I found most refreshing about this test was the way in which it explained the multimodal classification. In a footnote and link to a review of multimodal learners written by Neil D. Fleming it talked about the differences between those who scored between 6 and 25 points compared with those who scored 30 or above with the former being context specific and the later being whole sense approach learners. The author goes on to reference a study by Swedish theorists Marton and Saljo where they divided it into three types of multimodal learners; 1) those who want a full understanding, 2) those who want a surface understanding and 3) those who learned with a specific goal in mind such as a minimum grade. To me this is a more holistic view of the learning process and although I felt it didn't explain exactly the way in which I learn it was closer than other tests I have taken. The idea of wanting to understand a subject fully seems to describe most accurately my approach to learning as I find myself often reading footnotes and wanting to access other sources of information on a particular subject when studying it. The one thing I feel is limiting in this type of test is that it is written and solicits responses from participants and their perceptions of themselves rather than presenting material to them in a variety of ways and then testing for retention of knowledge. Having said this I felt it gave a fairly accurate picture none the less.

Follow the link below for the article

Link to review

1 comment:

  1. Wow, great analysis of the tests, its results and its accuracy. The quality of wanting to go deeper, of following one source to the next to the next, is what makes a good researcher and leads to original new insights that contribute something meaningful to the field.

    ReplyDelete