Clark Quinn (cnquinn@knowledgeu.com)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:04:44 -0800
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:04:44 -0800 From: "Clark Quinn" <cnquinn@knowledgeu.com> Subject: Comments on Merrill's paper
I have been looking into this area of learning styles as well. Some
somewhat scattered comments:
I wouldn't use the visual/auditory/haptic as a rationale for adapting
material, as I would prefer that the choice for medium be based upon the
message -
Briefly, there are two dimensions: whether the material is static, like a
photo or graphic or text, or dynamic, like animation, video, or audio; the
other dimension is the substance of content (for lack of a better phrase,
any help?), whether the material is contextual (photo or video), conceptual
(graphic or animation), or linguistic (text or audio).
The other categorizations have a variety of problems. The issue of whether
people are abstract or concrete, field in/dependent, inductive or deductive
seem to have a potential for a lot of overlap. Similarly with global/local
(:-) or serialist versus random. At least for these two I can see what you
might do differently instructionally. Anyone have any suggestions just how
instruction should be adapted on Sensor vs Intuitive, Active (Kinesthetic)
vs Reflective, or Emotional
vs Rational?
A problem with some of these dimensions is that they may not be opposite
ends of the continuum. As with Gardner's multiple intelligences, they may
instead be their own factors, so you could be high or low on each or both
of emotional and rational.
Another problem is that people seem to change their style depending on the
material, time pressure, familiarity, confidence, phase of the moon, etc.
I don't know of any styles that are found to be reliably fixed.
BTW, my short take on strategy versus style is that style is a
predisposition, while strategy is an approach. These may well interact in
surprising ways.
I was quite pleased by the calm reason in David's original paper (not that
I expect anything else from him) but I was pleased to see him provide a
coherent account of how his approach might accomodate learning styles. I
will go so far as to grant that the likelihood of learning happening is
enabled by having specific learning material for particular outcomes.
However, I find ID in general to stop pretty short for complex cognitive
skills, or to effectively be so prescriptive that the volume of content and
activity is overwhelming.
I'd really like to hear a dialogue between ID practitioners (e.g. Merrill)
and empricists like Carroll (minimalist learning) and Schank (Goal-Based
Scenarios - though there is much theory here too). Their viewpoints may be
less irreconcilable than I believe, but I think finding the overlap would
be significant towards achieving some progress in advancing educational
design.
I would agree with David that we are intellectually capable of developing
adaptive and effective learning systems. I would personally add that they
should be engaging and interactive as well. I think the obstacles are
organizational and systemic, not limits to our knowledge. Whether the
changes the education sector address these issues is an unanswered
question, but I point to the third pillar of the US gov'ts educational
technology platform as a guide:
>Pillar III: Educational software will be integral part of the curriculum
>-- and as engaging as the best video game.
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/pillar3.html
We'll see. -- Clark
-- Clark Quinn Knowledge Universe Interactive Studio (510) 768-2408 cnquinn@knowledgeu.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 16 Feb 1999 - 22:23:49 MET