Robotham,David (BU1821@wbs.wlv.ac.uk)
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:58:43 -0000
From: "Robotham,David" <BU1821@wbs.wlv.ac.uk> Subject: Response to David Merrill Paper Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:58:43 -0000
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been reading with much interest both David Merrill's paper, and
the lively discussion that seems to have followed. Based upon the number
and quality of responses I think that David Merrill could be forgiven
for congratulating himself on a job well done.
With regards to the paper and the comments of others I would like to add
the following observations:-
1) Some of the discussion seems to have become bogged down in
disagreements around the issue of definition. Whilst it is clearly
important to be careful to define a particular concept being used, in
some ways such discussions perhaps miss the point some what. Such
arguments have been covered repeatedly in many of the articles on
learning style, many along the lines of whether learning style is part
of cognitive style or cognitive style is part of learning style.
Whichever label one chooses to apply to this construct, as educators the
key question to be addressed is perhaps rather what one can do with such
knowledge rather than what one should call it. Some of the replies also
threw the label "learning strategy" into this argument. In some respects
this could more easily be labelled, i.e. the use of the word strategy
implies a conscious decision (at some level) by the learner to adopt
particular techniques/methods (although not neccessarily in preference
to another).
2) When considering the learning style of an individual the context
within which that learning takes place is often overlooked. In my
opinion this is a significant oversight. An individual may choose to
learn in a particular manner as it is their perception, rightly or
wrongly, that a particualr institution or faculty or school or subject
or course or lecturer requires that such a style is required. For
example, I have interviewed students who have explained they studied in
a particular manner as they felt that was what a course required, even
though they recognised at the same time that as a result they would
experience lower quality learning. This was particularly evident amongst
students with an extrinsic orientation to their learning, i.e. they had
little interest in learning per se, but a far greater interest in
gaining a degree certificate at the end of a course of study as they
believed that would mean a higher salary.
3) As someone who teaches within a system geared towards mass higher
education, I suggest that people should be more concerned with what they
can do with this knowledge about learning style. If one is delivering a
lecture to 120 students, how can knowing about their learning style
help? If one uses one of the well-known classifications of learning
style that only has 4 possible styles, one is still confronted with the
problem of how teach a mass group within which individuals may fall into
one of 4 possible styles. Is one supposed to give the lecture 4 times?
On a final note I would like to add my thanks to David Merrill for being
willing to stand up and be questionned like this, and to all those who
have added to the debate so far. I look forward to being criticised
myself!
Dr. David Robotham
Wolverhampton Business School
University of Wolverhampton
---------------------------------------------------------
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 11 Feb 1999 - 13:00:43 MET