Kinshuk (kinshuk@ieee.org)
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:07:25 +0100
From: "Kinshuk" <kinshuk@ieee.org> Subject: Pre-discussion paper Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:07:25 +0100
Address for sending message to all list members:
ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear colleagues
Please find below the pre-discussion paper for our next discussion on the topic:
"Learning Strategies Then and Now: Same or Different?"
Moderator:
M. David Merrill
Professor of Instructional Technology, Utah State University, USA
Summarizer: Diane Ehrlich
Professor, Human Resource Development, Northeastern Illinois University, USA
Please read the paper and provide your comments to the discussion list at
ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
The summary of the discussion results will appear in the forum journal
'Educational Technology & Society' (ISSN 1436-4522).
Regards.
Kinshuk.
Forum co-ordinator
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pre-discussion paper
"Learning Strategies Then and Now: Same or Different?"
A recent published interview with me (M. David Merrill) included the headline,
"Learning Styles are irrelevant." This statement is so apparently false, why
is such an obviously incorrect claim attributed to me? (Zempke, 1998)
The following is what I actually said: "It's not that I'm not 'in favor' of
learning styles, or that they may not be real variable. So many people talk
about them and believe in them, there might be something there. It is just
that … there is no hard, scientific evidence that if you treat people with
different personality attributes differently in the classroom or via technology,
there will be significantly different outcomes in their learning."
Perhaps I overstated the case. My real concern is that there are those who would
argue that different students learn the same content differently. They would
argue that young people today learn differently than their parents or grandparents.
That we are in the "Nintendo" or "MTV" generation and that these societal
factors change the way our children learn.
I have also been quoted as follows:
"Learners today are not significantly different from those of a decade ago, a
generation ago, or a century ago. The basic learning mechanisms by which
learners acquire knowledge and skill have remained constant amid societal
change." (Merrill et al, 1996)
"… does playing computer games or being at ease with technology make young people
cognitively different or change them cognitively? I don’t think so. … I think that
basically, underneath, at the learning mechanism level, human beings are pretty
much the same. At the deep structure level, we have the same [learning] mechanisms."
(Zemke, 1998)
In this brief paper I attempt to elaborate my position on this issue.
I have also claimed: "There are known instructional strategies. The
acquisition of different types of knowledge and skill require
different conditions for learning (Gagné, 1985). If an instructional
experience or environment does not include the instructional
strategies required for the acquisition of the desired knowledge or
skill, then effective, efficient, and appealing learning of the
desired outcome will not occur." (Merrill, et al, 1996)
Gagné’s position has been called content-by-treatment interaction
(Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) or I would prefer content-by-strategy
interaction. This position suggests that the goals of instruction
are primary in determining an appropriate instructional strategy
for a particular instructional goal. Many research studies have
demonstrated that, regardless of the learning style of the student,
when the goal of the instruction, as measured by tests that are
consistent with this goal, are consistent with the strategies used
to teach this goal, then learning is optimal. When the instructional
strategies used are inconsistent with the goal of the instruction,
then there is a decrement in learning. When considering the essential
requirements for a given kind of instructional strategy, learning
style is irrelevant, it does not make a difference. At this level,
it is not the case that different learning styles require different
instructional strategies. In a recent paper we outlined a few of the
appropriate strategy requirements for some comment different kinds
of instructional goals (Merrill, 1998). An examination of much of
the available training material demonstrates that much of our current
training materials include instructional strategies that are
inconsistent with the goals of the instruction. Inconsistent
instruction is ineffective instruction regardless of learner style.
Wait a minute, I can hear you think, it is obvious that learning
styles make a difference. How? Where? If not in the essential
elements of instructional strategy, where?
Gardner argues for different kinds of intelligence (Gardner, 1983).
He argues that some persons are strong in one kind of intelligence
while another person is stronger in another kind of intelligence.
That if my strength is in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence I might
learn to dance very well while having trouble learning mathematics
or science. Isn’t this a case where learning style (Gardner
intelligence type) makes a difference? Of course it makes a difference,
but, not in the fundamental components of the instructional strategy.
This difference might be characterized as an aptitude-by-content
interaction. A given person might have learning mechanisms and
physical abilities that favor the content of one domain of learning
over another. However, the content types suggested by Gagné and myself
do not refer to subject domains but rather to kinds of outcomes that
are likely to occur within every domain. Each of the different types
of intelligence may still require the learner to acquire a concept,
learn the parts of an entity, learn a procedure, or understand a
process. It is these fundamental types of outcome that determines
different instructional strategies in a content-by-strategy
interaction. Whether a learner’s strength is logico-mathematical or
bodily-kinesthetic when learning a concept within that domain it is
still necessary to have a definition, examples, non-examples, and to
practice identifying previously unencountered examples in order to
acquire the concept.
Isn’t it necessary to modify an instructional strategy for a student
learning a concept from a subject domain that is not his or her
strength? Yes. It may be necessary to increase the number of examples,
to make the representation of these examples more manipulative rather
than symbolic, or to increase the amount and kind of attention-focusing
learner guidance. However, these modifications are all elaboration of
the fundamental components of an instructional strategy appropriate for,
and consistent with, the teaching of a concept. The modification of the
strategy to accommodate for a students domain preference is secondary
to the fundamental content-by-strategy consistency required for effective
instruction.
Ruth Clark (1998) suggests four different instructional architectures
(receptive, directive, guided discovery, and exploratory) that I would
call instructional style. She suggests that there is an interaction among
student characteristics and instructional architecture. For example she
suggests that a directive instructional style is more appropriate for
novice learners while a guided-discovery instructional style may be more
appropriate for more experienced learners, and an exploratory instructional
style is best for expert learners. Consistent with learning style,
Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) cite studies that show that cognitive-constricted
learners do better with a directive style while cognitive-flexible learners
do better with a guided discovery or exploratory style. Surely this suggests
that learner style requires adjustment in instructional strategy? The answer
is yes and no. Like different domains each of these instructional styles
include all of the types of learning outcomes, that is, each of these styles
can be used to teach concepts, procedures, and processes. Within each style
the essential components of a consistent strategy must be present. A concept
requires a definition, examples, non-examples, and practice in identifying
unencountered instances. In a receptive style the definition and contrasted
examples and non-examples must be present or the learner will not effectively
and efficiently acquire the concept. The receptive style is often an
incomplete, and therefore inconsistent, style since it often does not include
appropriate practice. In the directive instructional style the definition,
examples, and non-examples are presented directly to the student and the then
the student is given appropriate practice. In a guided-discovery instructional
style the learner may have more freedom in exploring a situation to find the
appropriate examples and non-examples. However, in a guided-discovery
instructional product if there are not contrasted non-examples available, or
if the student does not have the opportunity to practice identifying instances
of the concept, there will be a decrement in learning. In exploratory
situations learning is often not effective since many students are not
skilled in finding the necessary components of the appropriate instructional
strategy. They may fail to find appropriate examples or they may fail to
engage in appropriate practice, thereby causing a decrement in their learning.
When a given instructional architecture results in ineffective learning it
is not the architecture that is inappropriate for the learning style of an
individual student, but rather that the particular implementation of that
architecture failed to include all of the instructional strategy components
required to teach a given instructional outcome.
Each of these architectures may be set in individual or collaborative learning
environments. Field-dependent learners do better in group-oriented or
collaborative situations. Field-independent learners do much better in
individualized learning situations than do field-dependent learners. However,
whether a student is field-independent or field-dependent or whether the
learning environment is individual or collaborative, a given instructional goal
still requires all of the strategy components that are consistent with this
goal for the learning to be effective.
The design of an instructional strategy includes a number of important
instructional decisions including selecting content segments, sequencing
these segments, selecting appropriate instructional transactions, sequencing
these individual transactions, and configuring a given transaction for a
given architecture and for a given student. As a student engages each of the
instructional transactions in an instructional environment these transactions
can be arranged so as to adapt in real time, during the instruction, to the
individual learning needs of each student. Each of these various
instructional decisions are subject to aptitude (learning style)-by-treatment
(strategy) interactions.
Hold it you are thinking, aren’t you now saying that learning style does make
a difference? And I confess that I am now admitting that there are
learning-style-by-strategy interactions. However, within each of these
decisions the content-by-strategy interaction is primary and the
learning-style-by-strategy interaction is secondary. In other words, the
adjustment in strategy necessitated by different learning styles takes place
within the framework of the fundamental requirements of an instructional
strategy that is appropriate for and consistent with a given instructional
outcome.
Let me very briefly illustrate some of these learning-style-by-strategy
interactions. These are representative interactions are not complete by any
means. (See Jonassen and Grabowski, 1993 for a more complete elaboration of
these and other aptitude-by-strategy and aptitude-by-content interactions).
Content sequence. Cognitive-restricted and serialist learners learn better
from content arranged in a logical sequence and prefer to learn each topic
in order. Cognitive-flexible or holist learners learn better when they are
able to select which topic to study next and to review each topic to get a
whole picture before studying each topic in detail. Note however, that when
the detail study comes each type of learner must engage in the instructional
strategy that is appropriate for and consistent with the instructional goal.
Transaction Sequence. Holist learners prefer an inductive-sequence where they
are presented examples and demonstrations first prior to figuring out a
definition or seeing the steps listed. Serialist learners prefer a
deductive-sequence where they see the definition or list of steps first prior
to seeing examples or a demonstration. Nevertheless, research has shown that
both the inductive and deductive sequence of transaction components must
still contain all the components of the appropriate and consistent strategy
or there will be a decrement in learning.
Transaction Configuration. Instruction is characterized by the representation
of the content information included and by the addition of information,
directions, and learner guidance that enhances the students ability to acquire
the information presented. It is in the area of learner guidance where
learning-style-by-strategy interactions may also play a significant role.
Visual learners learn best when information is presented in graphic form.
Verbal learners prefer textual presentations or lectures. Haptic learners
prefer information they can manipulate. Nevertheless research has shown that
visual, verbal or haptic learners must still have all the components of an
appropriate and consistent instructional strategy even though these components
may have different forms of representation.
In learning a concept all learners need to see examples and non-examples.
However, holist learners tend to have a problem with undergeneralization,
they need to see more divergent examples to promote generalization. Serialist
learners tend to have a problem with overgeneralization, they need to see
more matched example non-example pairs to facilitate their ability to
discriminate among examples and non-examples. Both of these types of learners
need examples and non-examples as these are essential components of a concept
instruction strategy. However, each type of learner requires a different
emphasis in the relationships among these instances.
Why then my strong statements in the press? There are those who argue a
relativistic philosophy that as society changes so do our learning mechanisms.
They argue that different cultures acquire knowledge and skill via different
learning mechanisms. They argue that learners with different styles require
fundamentally different instructional strategies. They often suggest that
instructional style is of fundamental importance. This argument undermines
the basic fundamental content-by-strategy relationships that have been shown
to be so important in learning.
We subscribe to the premise that principles of instruction are like other
scientific principles. We have previously stated that: "Instructional Science
is concerned with the discovery of the natural principles involved in
instructional strategies; instructional design is the use of these scientific
principles to invent instructional design procedures and tools." To assume
that learning mechanisms evolve in decades is contrary to all we know about
human evolution and change.
We have argued that learning style does make a difference, but not in the
fundamental components required by a given instructional strategy appropriate
for and consistent with a particular instructional outcome. Learning style may
require a fine tuning in the implementation of the fundamental components of
instructional strategy, but learning styles are irrelevant for the selection
of the strategy components appropriate for and consistent with a given learning
outcome.
All of these arguments for content-strategy-interactions and those for
aptitude-strategy-interactions all would suggest that learners have not changed
very much over time. While what is learned is very different, while the tools
for promoting learning are very different nevertheless the learning mechanisms
are very much the same.
We conclude with the following more accurate statement:
Learning style is irrelevant in selecting the fundamental components of
instructional strategy appropriate for and consistent with a given learning
outcome. However, learning style should be considered in selecting instructional
style and implementing the components a given instructional strategy.
Finally, let me pose an important additional question: If learning styles
(individual differences) do make a difference in learning efficiency,
effectiveness and appeal, how do we want to adapt our implementation of
instructional strategies? Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) suggest four models:
(1) preferential-match, capitalizing on learner strengths or preferences;
(2) remediation-match, eliminating deficiencies in learner traits;
(3) compensatory-match, supplanting skills or learner traits; and
(4) challenging-skills. The first plays to a student's strengths but preserves
their learning weaknesses. The second attempts to strengthen a learner's
weaknesses but results in less efficient instruction. The third models a
deficient learning skill that may help the learner acquire this skill or it
may make learning easy and thus preserve learning weakness. The fourth requires
the learner to adapt to the instruction rather than having the instruction adapt
to the learner. Strong arguments can be made for each of these models of
adaptation, but then this is another paper.
I look forward to your comments.
References
Clark, Ruth (1998). Building Expertise: Cognitive Methods for Training and
Performance Improvement. Washington D.C.: International Society for Performance
Improvement.
Gagné, Robert M. (1985). The Conditions of Learning: and Theory of Instruction.
4th Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Jonassen, David H. & Grabowski, Barbara L. (1993). Handbook of Individual
Difference, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Merrill, M. David, Drake, Leston, Lacy, Mark J., Pratt, Jean A. & ID2 Research
Group (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
Merrill, M. David (1998). Instructional strategies that teach. CBT Solutions,
November/December, 1-11.
Zempke, Ron (1998). Wake Up! (And Reclaim Instructional Design). Training,
35(6), 36-42.
---------
End
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 04 Feb 1999 - 15:26:23 MET