Learning styles: An example of some research towards meeting resource based learning needs

This paper describes an investigation carried out during 1986, using TAFE students and University students as subjects. The paper describes the investigation and some of the results. Although the investigation was not focussed only on external students, the investigative method is interesting because of its simple and useful application in resource based education.

This paper is based on research conducted through a 1986 Victorian TAFE Board Research Grant. The original research, by P. Smith and C. Lindner, is entitled "Learning style preferences of Technical and Further Education students, and delivery methods in selected teaching programmes. (With some selected University student comparisons.)".

This paper is an adaptation of part of a very large research project we carried out during 1986. The original report is in four large volumes and, clearly, cannot be reproduced as a Conference paper. In summary, though, the investigation was designed to provide data on:

• the learning styles of selected groups of technical and further education students;
• the differences that exist between the learning styles of these groups;
• the matches and mismatches between learning styles and teaching delivery methods;
• the matches and mismatches between learning styles and teacher perception of student learning preferences.

Learning styles were tested using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory. Student groups tested were chosen to give a spread of programs from the Apprenticeship to the Certificate level, and from the personal services programs to the technology programs. Off campus students were also tested. Additionally, a sample of University students were also tested to allow some reference back to previous research conducted with University and College students at the baccalaureate level.

Teaching delivery methods were measured by interview with program teaching staff. A set of alternative teaching delivery methods were developed, and a number of curriculum objectives were chosen from each program. Program teaching staff were then interviewed and asked to gauge the amount of time each delivery method is used in teaching each curriculum objective.

Teacher perception of student learning preferences were also gauged during interviews with program teaching staff. Using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory scales, staff were asked to assess the relative preference their students would have for each scale.

The Canfield data on learning styles was statistically analysed by:

• Level of course
• Program
• Level of English language competence
• Sex
• Age
• Number of years in program
• Sex by Program
• TAFE or University

There is a wealth of literature on learning styles, and it is not my intention to revisit that here. There was a large literature review in the report. But, some general cautionary remarks on learning styles are pertinent.

Learning styles current status

What is not so clear from the research, and from the literature, is how much practical use the concept of learning style actually is in planning education systems, in planning curriculum, and in developing appropriate teaching strategies. It is unclear how reliable and static any individual's learning style is; it is unclear how situation or content specific any learning strategy is; and it is not clear how we should necessarily translate knowledge of learning style into educational practice (see White, 1983).

Perhaps the state of the learning styles debate is best summed up by the observations of two leading educators:

1. Keefe (1979) wrote:

   "Learning style diagnosis. . .gives the most powerful leverage yet available to educators to analyze, motivate, and assist students in school....it is the foundation of a truly modern approach to education" (p 132).

2. Gagne, in Tyler (1967) observed:

   "Many speculations have been made regarding the existence of differences of 'learning styles', 'learning approaches' and 'learning strategies' among individual learners. Such differences are so evidently and heartily wished for that one almost believes they exist. Yet the fact of the matter seems to be that almost none are verified realities" (p 37).

Method

1. Test Selection

The scales of the CLSI in summary are:

I. Conditions
The first eight scores reflect concerns for the dynamics of the situation in which learning occurs. They cover eight score areas.
P.	Peer: Working in student teams; good relations with other students; having student friends; etc.
O.	Organisation: Course work logically and clearly organised; meaningful assignments and sequence of activities.
G.	Goal Setting: Setting one's own objectives; using feedback to modify goals or procedures; making one's own decisions on objectives.
C.	Competition: Desiring comparison with others; needing to know how one is doing in relation to others.
N.	Instructor: Knowing the instructor personally; having a mutual understanding; liking one another.
D.	Detail: Specific information on assignments, requirements, rules, etc.
I.	Independence: Working alone and independently; determining one's own study plan; doing things for oneself.
A.	Authority: Desiring classroom discipline and maintenance of order; having informed and knowledgeable instructors.
II Content
Major areas of interest.
N.	Numeric: Working with numbers and logic; computing; solving mathematical problems, etc.
Q.	Qualitative: Working with words or language; writing, editing, talking.
I.	Inanimate: Working with things; building, repairing, designing, operating.
P.	People: Working with people; interviewing, counselling, selling, helping.
III Mode
General modality through which learning is preferred.
L.	Listening: Hearing information; lectures, tapes, speeches, etc.
R.	Reading: Examining the written word; reading texts, pamphlets, etc.
I.	Iconic: Viewing illustrations, movies, slides, pictures, graphs, etc.
D.	Direct Experience: Handling or performing; shop, laboratory, field trips, practice exercises, etc.
IV Expectation
The level of performance anticipated.
A.	An outstanding or superior level.
B.	An above average or good level.
C.	An average or satisfactory level.
D.	A below average or unsatisfactory level.
Expectancy Score: The student's predicted level of performance.

For greater detail of the CLSI Scales, see pages 21 to 40 of the Manual (Canfield, 1980)

2. Student Test Groups

2.1 Programs

First, and most important, a selection of TAFE programs was identified to give a broad range of curriculum demand, student 'type', vocational objective, and delivery methods. Chosen were the following programs:

TOP Foundation Year Art
Plumbing Apprenticeship
Sheetmetal Apprenticeship
Certificate of Applied Social Science (Child Care)
Certificate of Business Studies
Certificate of Office and Secretarial Studies
Hairdressing Apprenticeship
Electrical Mechanic Apprenticeship
Certificate of Technology (Electronics)

In addition to the above programs selected from TAFE, a number of University students were also tested. The reason for this testing lies in the fact that the majority of previous research into learning styles at the post secondary level has been done with University students. The testing of a number of such students in the present study would serve to act as a base for comparison with previous research findings, and would indicate any major differences between TAFE students and University Students.

At the University level, a first year undergraduate subject in Introductory Psychology was chosen. Students in that subject are spread across a number of baccalaureate programs; students are enrolled in all available study modes (full time, part time, off campus), and student numbers in the subject are large enough to form a robust sample.

2.2 Study mode

On campus students were administered the CLSI by a research assistant who went to each class, after making an arrangement with the instructor.

The CLSI test and answer sheet, plus instructions, were sent to all off campus students enrolled with the TAFE College chosen for study. No discrimination between programs was made in the selection of off campus students to test, since, to do that, would have resulted in too few data points in a number of sample cells. Instead, the test was sent to all students, but their program was recorded on the answer sheet to allow statistical discrimination to be made where possible. Clearly, this technique resulted in CLSI answer sheets being returned from many off campus students who were not enrolled in the programs listed under 2.1. Because mode of study was viewed by the investigators as such an important variable, this data was retained in the study, but coded as 'other' in the program listing.

At the University level, as stated in 2.1 above, all modes of study were tested by the administration of the CLSI to students in the first year psychology subject.

2.3 Personal student data

3. Curriculum and delivery modes

For the TAFE programs selected for investigation, the curriculum documents were examined and curriculum objectives listed. Teachers in each program were then interviewed to elicit data on the delivery methods used to achieve each curriculum objectives, in the on campus modes of study. The delivery methods given to teachers as a closed set of alternatives were:

• Print - textbooks and other references
• Print - specially prepared study guides/handouts
• Video
• Audio tape
• Slide tape
• Lecture/straight classroom teaching - including OHP and other static aids
• Direct educational experience - including practical/labwork, survey work, practice exercises
• Direct industrial experience - eg. apprentice work
• Group discussion/group assignment work
• Individual assignment work
• Computer based instruction
• Simulated experience.

Teachers were asked to gauge the percentage of time a student would typically spend with each alternative in achieving each curriculum objective. Teachers were advised by the interviewer that the sum of their gauged percentages may exceed 100 percent since more than one method may be used by a student at any time. However, the sum should not be less than 100 percent.

Results

Level of program	Generally speaking, the results showed that TAFE Certificate students and University students have similar learning styles. Apprentices, on the other hand, are quite different. This result has significant implications for cross sectoral integration. The main differences between students are within TAFE, not between TAFE and University.
Level of English	No learning style differences were found between people of differing levels of English competence.
Sex	Females were generally, less competitive, more inclined to qualitative rather than numeric content, more people oriented, and had lower expectations of their performance.
Age	Generally speaking, the older students are, the more they prefer well organised curricular and classes, more traditional teaching methods and the more they expect to perform well.
Years in program	This variable doesn't seem very important, although student expectations of there own performance tends to increase. That finding is, though, confounded with the finding for age, and we have not teased out the data yet to avoid the confounding.
Program	Generally speaking, students seem to have learning styles reasonably well suited to their program. Those in people oriented courses tend to have more interest in that area, while those in technical areas tend to be included to that sort of subject matter. That can give us confidence in students' ability to choose well, and in careers advising. An interesting finding, with too little data to make it reliable, was that female/girls in non traditional trade areas possess the same sorts of learning styles as the males, but with a vengeance. They tend to be further out on the CLSI scales than do their male counterparts.
Institution	Most of the differences here, between the groups in general, are consistent with the choice of program. There were less students of technical programs in the University sample, and more in the Humanities and social sciences. However, TAFE students had higher expectations of their own performance, a greater liking for independence in curriculum choice, and placed greater importance on peer learning.

Delivery styles

The next thing we did was to look at delivery methods in conjunction with learning styles. To do that, we used the set of delivery method alternatives noted in the 'Method' section of this paper.

From the histograms of the C.O.T. (Electronics), as an example, the following sorts of conclusions can be drawn:

(a) Conditions	A number of mismatches between the two measures on each scale are worthy of comment. The Competition scale was ranked lowest by students on the CLSI, but staff perceive this to be of moderately high importance to the students. Similarly, Peer affiliation is of less importance to students than staff perceive it to be. On the other hand, students attach greater importance to both Goal setting and knowing the Instructor than staff expect them to.
(b) Content	Good congruence is shown between the two measures on each scale of this category.
(c) Mode	Several very important mismatches occur among the scales of this category. First, the Reading scale is least preferred by the students, as shown by the CLSI scores. At the same time it is the most heavily used delivery mode; and staff perceive it to be of relatively high preference to students. Second, although Direct Experience is a preferred learning mode to students, and is seen as such by staff, it is not a preferred delivery mode. Staff perceptions of student preference differ from the actual student preference on the Listening scale, with staff ranking the scale low and students high. The delivery mode measure is consistent with the student preference.
(d) Expectations	Student expectation of their own performance, as measured in the CLSI Expectations category, is reasonable and realistic. Staff, on the other hand, perceive that their students expect to achieve less than the students expect.

In conclusion, this particular research paradigm would be particularly useful in resource based learning generally, and in distance education. To analyse the sorts of materials being developed for off campus use and their congruency with student learning needs would appear to be a very useful thing to do. I believe that our research indicates that it is not a very difficult thing to do, and I would advocate more of it.

References

Canfield, A. (1980). Learning Styles Inventory Manual. Humanics Media, Ann Arbor.

Gagne, R. M., Tyler, R. W. and Scrien, M. (1967). Perspectives of Curriculum Education. American Educational Research Assoc. Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation. Rand McNally and Co., Chicago.

Keefe, J. (1979). School Applications of the Learning Style Concept: Student Learning Styles. NASSP, Reston, 123-132.

White, C. S. (1983). Learning styles end reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 36(8), 842-845.

Please cite as: Smith, P. J. (1988). Learning styles: An example of some research towards meeting resource based learning needs. In J. Steele and J. G. Hedberg (Eds), Designing for Learning in Industry and Education, 83-89. Proceedings of EdTech'88. Canberra: AJET Publications. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech88/smith.html