Peter Arashiro (arashiro@student.lansing.cc.mi.us)
Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:27:36 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:27:36 -0500 From: Peter Arashiro <arashiro@student.lansing.cc.mi.us> Subject: Re: "Learning Strategies Then and Now: Same or Different?"
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Van Melle wrote:
>The point however has been made a number of
> times but is worth repeating - there does not appear to be one single
> definition or construct of "learning style". Lynn Curry provides a good
> overview of what happens when the complexity of the concept is not
> considered. Basically you end up discussing apples and oranges. This brings
> me to my second point.
>
> Given this level of complexity why is it necessary to isolate pieces
> thereby pitting instructional strategy versus learning style?
I believe part of the reason for pitting these two ideas against one
another has to do with people's ideas about who is, or should be,
responsible for the learner's acquisition of skills/knowledge. A quote
from Thomas Armstrong's book "Mulitple Intelligences in the Classroom"
says:
"Recent research in cognitive psychology applied to education has
supported the notion that children benefit from instructional approaches
that help them reflect upon their own learning processes (see Marzano
1988). When children engage in this kind of metacognitive activity,
they can select appropriate strategies for problem solving. They can
also serve as advocates for themselves when placed in new learning
environments."
This would imply that children (or learners) are quite capable of taking
responsibility for their own learning if they know what their learning
styles (or preference based on "multiple intelligences") are. This
seems to be a pretty huge responsibility to place on learners,
especially those who are "novice learners" or those who are learning
something quite new.
On the other hand, those in the instructional strategy "camp" rely on
sound instructional principles (based on science) to determine "what is
best" for
students; responsibility is placed on the instructional strategies to
ensure acquisition of skills/knowledge. Of course the only way for this
to work in the classroom would be for the teacher to APPLY and TRUST in
these instructional strategies.
It seems to me that teachers who design their instruction primarily
around ideas of learning style/multiple intelligence exert a lot of
energy trying to meet these individual differences and not know for sure
whether or not concepts, principles, procedures, identification of
parts, and information are being learned.
-- Peter Arashiro Instructional Designer Lansing Community College peter_arashiro@lansing.cc.mi.us--------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 15:32:51 MET