Elliot Richmond (elliot@mail.utexas.edu)
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:09:14 -0600
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:09:14 -0600 From: Elliot Richmond <elliot@mail.utexas.edu> Subject: Re: Pre-discussion paper
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think David Merrill's pre discussion paper offered some challenging
ideas. I would certainly agree that there is little evidence to suggest
that any interaction between learning style and learning strategy has any
strong effect on learning once all other variables are controlled.
However, I would like to offer a couple of alternative interpretations.
1. The only variable that can be shown in case after case, across
disciplines, across learning styles, and so on, to strongly correlate to
learning is contiguity. That is, the more time the student is engaged with
the material, the more likely the student is to learn the material. The
basis of much of my design work has therefore been to engage and hold the
student's attention. It may be that this "secondary" effect would show
some correlation to learning style. That is, matching the learning
strategy to learning style might have the effect of extending the time the
student was actively engaged. This should be measureable.
2. I also agree with Dr. Merrill that it is unlikely that any significant
change in our cognitive abilities or underlying structure would occur over
decades.
"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)
On the other hand, I feel something has changed. As evidence, I suggest the
following. My Christian denomination originated in the latter part of the
19th century along what was then considered the frontier. At the time,
there were several well known circuit-riding preachers who would speak for,
literally, hours. People would journey great distances to hear these
preachers and think nothing of, even look forward to, sitting through a
three hour sermon. Public speakers of all types held forth for much longer
times than anybody would tolerate today. No one that I know of today would
stand (or sit) for this. So if "basically, underneath, at the learning
mechanism level, humans are pretty much the same" then what has changed?
Perhaps it is not a fundamental change but rather that we have become
habituated to a different presentation style that in turn alters our
ability to learn. Again, it would be a secondary effect but should still be
measureable.
Elliot Richmond
PhD candidate in Science education
University of Texas at Austin
elliot@mail.utexas.edu
www.geocities.com/Athens/4758
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri 05 Feb 1999 - 19:01:02 MET