Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Aston University]On: 22 August 2014, At: 04:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20
The student learning process: Learningstyles or learning approaches?Peter F. Cuthberta Manchester Metropolitan University , UKPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.
To cite this article: Peter F. Cuthbert (2005) The student learning process: Learningstyles or learning approaches?, Teaching in Higher Education, 10:2, 235-249, DOI:10.1080/1356251042000337972
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000337972
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The student learning process: Learning
Styles or Learning Approaches?
Peter F. Cuthbert*Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
The Learning Styles school and the Approaches to Learning school represent two rather different
perspectives on the interaction of students with a learning situation. This paper outlines the basic
positions of the two schools, and then considers the extent to which it is possible to reconcile them.
A possible framework for such a task by Riding (1997) is discussed and areas of commonality are
highlighted. Neither school is free from criticism, and a summary of the criticisms of the constructs
and the data collection instruments is provided in each case. Finally, research into the impact of the
two schools on student learning is considered. Overall it is concluded that investigation of students’
Learning Styles or Approaches to Learning are probably of more benefit to the teacher than to the
individual student.
Introduction
For the last 20 years practising teachers in higher education have made use of models
of the student learning process as part of their continuing professional development.
The two main models that have been used are the Learning Styles model and the
Approaches to Learning model, usually attributed to Kolb (1984), and Entwistle and
Ramsden (1983), respectively. A scan of the published literature would seem to
suggest that the Learning Styles model has found favour with mostly US writers and
those involved in management education. The Approaches to Learning model
appears to have been adopted mainly by non-management educators in the UK and
Australia. Given that both schools of thought are concerned with student learning, it
seems surprising that there have been few, if any, attempts to bring together the two
viewpoints. This paper is an attempt to achieve that end.
Understanding the student
The development of the constructivist view of learning (Chalmers & Fuller, 1996)
led to a change of emphasis towards a focus on understanding the individual student.
In particular attention is now paid to the way that students acquire data and relate it
to existing knowledge, the ways in which students process the knowledge to gain
*Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe Green Road, Crewe, CW1 5DU. Email:
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/05/020235-15
# 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1356251042000337972
Teaching in Higher EducationVol. 10, No. 2, April 2005, pp. 235�/249
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
understanding, and finally how the students demonstrate the quality of what they
have learned (e.g. Biggs, 1993; Marton & Saljo, 1976). These developments have
meant that great importance is now placed upon the recognition of individual
differences in learners.
The Learning Styles School
Before considering the idea of Learning Styles it is appropriate to consider first the
associated term Cognitive Style. This term is used to denote an individual’s
consistent preferences for particular ways of gathering, processing and storing
information and experiences (e.g. Riding, 1997; Sadler-Smith, 2001a). It is seen as a
fusion of particular methods of thinking and of personality. In summarising the
origins of the term, Sadler-Smith et al . (2000) suggested that it represents an in-built
and preferred way in which an individual responds to situations and data. In
particular they emphasised that an individual’s Cognitive Style is acquired at a young
age and is both pervasive and fixed. Riding (1997) warned about the possibility of
confusing style with ability. He suggested that style existed independently of ability,
and pointed out that some tasks may seem easier for one individual than another,
simply because the task may be better suited to one individual’s cognitive style.
It is clear from the discussion above that the term Cognitive Style appears to relate
to very similar issues of individual difference that are addressed by the concept of
Learning Style. Sadler-Smith (2001b) suggested that this is due to the common
origins of the two terms. He suggested that they are derived from four areas of
Psychology. These are (1) perception, (2) cognitive controls and cognitive processes,
(3) mental imagery, and (4) personality constructs.
There are a number of instruments designed to measure Cognitive Style, and they
mostly identify two groups of styles (Riding, 1997; Sadler-Smith et al ., 2000). The
first is the ‘wholist-analytical’ (WA) group and the second is the ‘verbaliser-imager’
(VI) group. The WA group are concerned with whether the individual processes and
organises data as a whole or in a piecemeal fashion. This appears to tie in with the
work of Pask (1976) that is discussed later. The VI group are concerned with
whether the individual normally represents information in their memory as pictures
or as words during the process of thinking (see Figure 1).
The term ‘Learning Style’, as it is used by Kolb (1984) and Honey and Mumford
(1986), describes an individual’s preference for understanding his/her experiences
and transforming them into knowledge. This is based on Kolb’s model of experiential
learning which postulates that the learner undergoes four stages in the process
of learning (see Figure 2). The learner’s Learning Style is identified from the
coordinates of the individual’s scores on the two dimensions derived from the
Learning Style Inventory (LSI). It represents the weighting that the learner places on
the four elements of the learning cycle, and is seen as the typical strategy that the
learner will adopt in any learning situation. The Learning Styles Questionnaire
(LSQ) derived by Honey and Mumford (1986) is based on the work of Kolb, but
236 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
uses different items and a different method of scoring. However, it is conceptually
very similar and so will not be discussed separately. The Dunn, Dunn and Price
Learning Styles Inventory (Dunn, 1990) shares much of the same inheritance as
those of Kolb and Honey and Mumford.
The key elements of the Learning Styles School are that, firstly, individual
differences are based upon psychological attributes that determine the strategy the
learner adopts for processing information (Kolb, 1984), and his/her preferences for
ConcreteExperience CE Prehension
Dimension
TransformationDimension
ActiveExperimentation AE
ReflectiveObservation RO
AbstractConceptualisation AC
DivergerReflector
AssimilatorTheorist
ConvergerPragmatist
AccomodatorActivist
KeyBold = Kolb's Learning StylesItalics = Honey & Mumford Learning Styles
Learning Cycle
Figure 2. The Learning Style Model of Kolb and Honey & Mumford (after Sadler-Smith, 2001,
p. 208).
WHOLIST-ANALYTICDIMENSION
VERBAL-IMAGERYDIMENSION
Analytic
Verbaliser Imager
Wholist
Figure 1. A model of the two principal cognitive style dimensions (source: Riding, 1997, p. 30).
The student learning process 237
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
learning situations (Dunn, 1990). Secondly, an important common theme in both
the work of Kolb and of Dunn is that learning styles are seen as stable aspects of the
individual’s personality. By implication, the individual’s learning style is unlikely to
change in the short term.
The Approaches to Learning School
The origins of the ‘Approaches to Learning School’ can probably be traced to the
work of Marton and Saljo (1976) who were the first to use the term in this context.
Their research, carried out under approximately normal higher education learning
conditions, identified that different learning outcomes could be attributed to
students’ different learning intentions. The Deep Approach is the intention to
establishing mastery of the material and integration of it into the learner’s existing
knowledge base. The Surface Approach is the intention to achieve short-term
memorisation of the material so that it may be reproduced, for example, in an
assessment.
At a similar time Pask (1976) reported his work on student problem solving
strategies. He investigated how students thought about their learning tasks, and
identified that they usually appeared to have a preference for one of two learning
strategies. The Serialist strategy involves the student concentrating on details and
using a step-by-step approach, often failing to see the ‘big picture’. By comparison,
the Wholist strategy involves the student attempting to take a broad view of the task,
and then building up an organisational framework in which to place the ideas. These
ideas are similar to those described by Riding (1997) in relation to Cognitive Style,
outlined earlier.
When combined with the work of Marton and Saljo (1976), Pask’s ideas led to a
four part model that combined both the student’s approach and the learning
outcome. Additionally, measurement of the learning outcome could be achieved
using the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982) that identified five different levels
of learning outcome. The resulting model is shown in Table 1.
These ideas were extended by other researchers who also developed questionnaires
that could be used to assess students’ intentions in real classroom situations (e.g.
Schmeck et al ., 1977; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Biggs, 1987). In particular,
Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) developed the idea that students might have a
strategic approach to their learning. In this case the intention would be neither
complete mastery nor short-term memorisation, but maximisation of assessment
grades.
By utilising Pask’s ideas on students’ thinking strategies, it became possible to
account for those students that appeared to use both comprehension learning and
operational learning within a single learning context. These were the students
that appeared to show the deepest level of understanding. The ultimate form of the
model that emerged is shown in Table 2. It was discovered that Approach to
Learning was not generally related to ability, although significant relationships
238 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
with personality variables were identified (Entwistle, 2001). This is similar to
findings mentioned above in relation to Learning Style. In addition it was identified
that learning contexts could also influence students’ approaches to learning (e.g.
Entwistle & Tait, 1990; Laurillard, 1997). Prosser and Trigwell (1999) argued
that students’ prior experiences, especially their experiences of learning and
existing understanding of the subject matter, would influence the approach
adopted in a particular learning context. Laurillard stated that a student’s
approach to learning is not a stable characteristic, but is determined solely by
the student’s perception of the needs of the task. This idea was seen as parti-
cularly important as it underpinned the main thrust of much of the action research
reported from the 1990s onwards. For example Gibbs (1994) suggested that ‘It is
possible to change students’ approach to learning and the quality of their
learning outcome by manipulating those features of the context which research has
identified as crucial’ (p. iii). This clearly implies that it is possible to improve
students’ approaches to learning by manipulating the learning context and
assessment regime.
The three key features of the Approaches to Learning School are, firstly, that
there will be differences in the quality of engagement of the learner. This can be
classified into three main groups; learning for understanding, learning for
reproducing or learning for achievement. Secondly, the learner’s approach to the
learning task will depend upon his/her conscious choices for learning. In addition
the Approaches to Learning school accepts that, although students may have
habitual patterns of study behaviour that are derived from their prior experi-
ences, study practices are situationally specific. Thirdly, as students will have
different intentions for different learning tasks depending upon the nature of the task
and the context, it may be possible to ‘manipulate’ students’ intentions and
achievement by manipulating the task and the context in which learning is to be
carried out (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991; Reynolds, 1997; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999;
Entwistle, 2001).
Table 1. Approaches to learning and learning outcome
Approach to learning Learning outcome description SOLO Level
Deep Active (Wholist) Explains the author’s conclusion and how it
was justified
Extended Abstract
Deep Passive (Serialist) Summarises the main argument accurately,
without considering the evidence
Relational
Surface Active (Wholist) Describes main points without integrating
them into an argument
Multi-structural
Surface Passive (Serialist) Mentions a few isolated points or examples Uni-structural
Source: adapted from Entwistle, 2001, p. 598.
The student learning process 239
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
Table 2. Approaches, processes and outcome of learning
Intention Approach Process Learning outcome
Stage I Stage II
Understanding Deep Approach, versatile All four processes below used in alternation to develop a full
understanding
Deep level of understanding
Comprehension learning a. Building overall description of
content area
b. Reorganising and
relating ideas to prior
knowledge
Incomplete understanding due to
globetrotting
Reproducing Operational learning
Surface Approach
a. Detailed attention to evidence and
to its provenance
b. Relating evidence to
conclusions critically
Incomplete understanding due to
improvidence
Achieving Strategic, well-organised
studying
Any combination of the six processes above considered to be
appropriate for carrying out the task requirements successfully
High grades with or without
understanding
Source: adapted from Entwistle, 2001, p. 600.
240
P.F.
Cuth
bert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
Reconciling Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning
Comments in earlier sections pointed out that the Learning Styles School and the
Approaches to Learning School can be seen to have commonalities, but provide
rather different perspectives on the learning/teaching encounter.
Taking firstly the issue of a conceptual relationship between the two schools,
Sadler-Smith (2001c) suggested that adaptation of Curry’s ‘onion’ model (1983)
might be appropriate for mapping purposes. Essentially the core of the onion is
represented by the various cognitive elements of personality. The next layer
represents the information processing aspects which were defined earlier as
approximating to Cognitive Style. The outer layer could be called learning
preferences or strategies and, according to Sadler-Smith (2001c), this represents
(1) learning activity, (2) learning and educational environments, and (3) individual
intention and motivation to study. Using this terminology, the ‘outer layer’ would
appear to include a definition that accommodates both Learning Styles and
Approaches to Learning.
Riding (1997) proposed a development of the ‘onion’ model in the form of a
‘Cognitive Control’ model (see Figure 3). At the centre, or base, of the model are the
core elements of the individual that Riding labels as Primary Sources. These include
the individual’s gender, various personality sources, and existing knowledge and
cognitive history (experiences). These Primary Sources are moderated by the
Cognitive Control level that relates to the individual’s Cognitive Style attributes
and provide the interface between the internal individual and the external world. The
next layer comprises Cognitive input and output. Input will include perceptual
processes and working memory processes and these will determine the individual’s
External World
Cognitive input & output
Cognitive control
Primary sources
Experiences
Perception and working memory
(Intelligence)
Wholist-analytic and verbal- imagery style
Knowledge andcognitive history
(memory of positiveand negative past
experiences)
Observed behaviours
Learning Strategies
Personality Sources
(eg. anxiety, activation)
Gender
Figure 3. Riding’s Cognitive Control Model (source: Riding, 1997, p. 43)
The student learning process 241
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
scores on intelligence tests. The output element represents the individual’s learning
strategies, some of which could be seen as Learning Styles since these preferences
will be moderated by the individual’s Cognitive Style. In addition the output
elements will include the individual’s Approaches to Learning as these will represent
the way the individual deals with different learning activities, different educational
environments and different motivational contexts. The final level or layer of the
model represents the ‘real world’ that the individual experiences and in which s/he
demonstrates particular behaviours.
In his discussion of the Learning Strategies node in the model, Riding (1997)
identified that the individual’s cognitive style will result in him/her having certain
learning preferences based on those ways of handling data that s/he finds easiest.
This is the moderating impact of the Cognitive Control level. He also pointed out
that the Cognitive Control level will moderate behaviour on the basis of the
individual’s perception of the learning context and task demands. This appears to
imply that the individual is likely to adopt different Approaches to Learning in
different contexts. Interestingly, Sadler-Smith (2001c) suggests that ‘learning
preferences represent the most easily accessible, but least stable of the constructs
and are at the interface between the internal world and external learning
environment’ (p. 294). This would seem to support the view that the individual’s
Approaches to Learning are contextually determined, and even the individual’s
Learning Style may depend upon the personal context of past experiences.
Overall, Riding’s model appears to provide a suitable theoretical framework that
can accommodate both Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning. It also helps to
show that both constructs appear to be affected by past experience, personality
variables, gender and context.
Criticisms of the two schools
The two perspectives on the learning process have been subject to a range of
criticisms. These criticisms fall into roughly two groups. On the one hand there are
those who argue that the proposed constructs are not measured by the various
instruments that are currently in use. On the other hand there are those who argue
that the constructs themselves are either inappropriate or unsupportable.
Criticisms of the Learning Styles constructs
The fullest evaluation appears to be that by Reynolds (1997) who pointed out that
Learning Styles had been extensively criticised in the Psychological literature. He
suggested the problem with the use of styles was that they encouraged a positivistic
and individualistic perspective on learning. This, he suggested, encourages labelling
and stereotyping whilst ignoring the personal historical contexts that led up to the
learning, and the context in which the learning will take place. It also tended to
encourage a division into those who fit the models and those who ‘deviate’ from
242 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
them. The latter are deemed to be in need of ‘remedial’ action and are effectively
discriminated against. Interestingly, Reynolds (1997) argued for a move away from
the perspective of stable personality characteristics, and in favour of a more flexible
motivational perspective, such as that of the Approaches to Learning School.
In a response to Reynolds’s criticisms, Sadler-Smith (2001c) agreed that the term
Learning Style was used too readily to describe a variety of individual difference
constructs. However, he took issue with the criticism of decontextualisation on the
grounds that Reynolds was, perhaps, treating learning style and learning strategy as
mutually exclusive terms. Instead, he argued that, using Riding’s model (1997)
outlined above, it was clear that (a) learning strategy and cognitive style are linked,
(b) learning style is based upon internal cognitive aspects of the individual, and (c)
the learning strategy used by the individual is the individual’s response to the learning
context. Thus the use of the Learning Styles concept does not necessarily
decontextualise individual differences in learning, nor does it preclude the Approach
to Learning view.
In his response to Reynolds, Sadler-Smith (2001c) agreed with the criticism that
there appeared to be too many conceptual frameworks and little agreement on how
to assess styles. He also pointed out that practitioners had generally avoided this issue
by using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, 1976) or Honey and
Mumford’s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey & Mumford, 1986). He
went on to point out that Kolb’s LSI had been criticised on the conceptual grounds
that it put together the unrelated elements of cognitive process, cognitive style and
cognitive level. He also pointed out that the experiential model on which the
instrument is based ‘is unrelated to style but rather is a ‘‘map’’ of the learning
process’ (Sadler-Smith, 2001c, p. 293).
Garner (2000) examined Kolb’s learning styles from a psychological perspective,
and argued that the concept contained theoretical weaknesses and contradictions. In
particular he raised the issue of the misunderstanding over whether the learning
styles represent stable traits or flexible states. He suggested that Kolb’s own writing
provided contradictory answers because the idea of assigning learning styles to
learners and associating particular styles with particular disciplines appears to imply
that styles are stable. However, at the same time Kolb argued that his theory had a
contextual basis which thus implies that the styles must be flexible.
Criticisms of the Learning Styles measurement instruments
Besides the conceptual problems with the Kolb Learning Style, Sadler-Smith
(2001c) and Garner (2000) pointed out that the LSI has been extensively tested
for reliability and validity. Both authors, citing different references, suggested that
overall the LSI has been found unsatisfactory in this respect. Not all authors are in
agreement with this view. For example Heffler (2001) reported good test-retest
reliability, and also suggested that Kolb’s latest version of the instrument had
improved reliability. In contrast, Boyle et al . (2003) found that Vermunt’s Inventory
The student learning process 243
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
of Learning Styles (ILS) was not a good predictor of students’ performance and
suggested caution in its use. However, they reported that other measures of the
learning process correlated well with student performance.
The Honey and Mumford LSQ has similar origins to Kolb’s LSI, and has also
been criticised for the same sort of problems. For example Swailes and Senior (1999)
used factor and cluster analysis to assess the validity of the questionnaire. They
suggested that construct validity of the instrument was unsatisfactory as more than
one third of the scale items did not sufficiently discriminate between learning styles.
This work was followed up by Sadler-Smith (2001b) who argued that the LSQ does
yield four factors, but suggested that it might be measuring learning processes rather
than learning style.
A contrary view was proposed by Duff (2001) who tested the LSQ with
undergraduates and reported that construct validity was not supported by his data.
A more positive note was sounded by Pickworth and Schoeman (2001) who tested
both instruments with South African undergraduates in science and humanities.
Their results suggested that both the LSI and the LSQ produced four factor
solutions and high internal reliability.
The overall conclusion from this brief examination of the literature evaluating the
construct of learning styles, and the associated questionnaires, is that there have been
serious problems of definition and implementation. In addition there is evidence to
suggest that the two learning styles instruments most widely used in the UK appear
to be unsatisfactory. Riding’s model appears to suggest that Learning Styles should
not be seen as fixed traits that are isolated from the context of the student and the
learning activity. Instead, it appears that Learning Style is more a habitual approach
to learning that is influenced by the ‘personal context’ of cognitive issues, gender,
and past experiences. Thus, it represents part of the ‘baggage’ that the learner brings
to the learning situation.
Criticisms of the Approaches to Learning constructs
In reviewing the work of the early contributors to the Approaches to Learning
School, Tickle (2001) pointed out that the work of Schmeck, Marton, Biggs and
Entwistle all used slightly different approaches but came up with basically the same
Deep/Surface distinction in students’ learning intentions. However, Tickle pointed
out that this crude division was a simplification that could only provide a starting
point for further research.
A key weakness of the literature, according to Tickle, is that the identification of a
particular orientation in a student provides no data about the extent to which the
student is competent in its use. Thus a student with a high orientation towards a
deep approach, but who is not particularly competent, may perform less well than a
student with a ‘highly polished’ surface approach. This issue appears to be hinted at
in the identification by Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) of the third, Strategic,
244 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
orientation. However, the Strategic orientation is still a self-report intention and not
based upon performance.
A key assumption of the Approaches to Learning School is that the students’
approach is dependent on the current learning context. This view is supported by a
variety of authors, but with a number of caveats. For example Eley (1992)
investigated whether there were individual differences between units for the same
students. The research showed that there were differences between units for the same
student, but these differences were small in comparison with the differences between
individuals within the cohort. Ely also reported a serious conceptual problem in that
around one fifth of the cohort exhibited differences that were counter to those that
were hypothesised. He speculated that changing the students’ perceptions of the
course might have as large an impact on students’ approaches as changing the
teaching approach used.
Meyer and Parsons (1989) sought to investigate this relationship between course
perceptions and approaches to studying. They found that, at the level of the
individual student, there was no relationship between study approach and perception
of the course context. In a response, Entwistle (1989) argued that Meyer and Parsons
were looking for the wrong relationship. He argued that the relationship should hold
at the course level, but not necessarily at the student level because of the impact of
the individual student context.
Criticisms of the Approaches to Learning instruments
Investigations of the reliability and validity of Entwistle and Ramsden’s Approaches
to Studying Inventory (ASI) and Biggs’ Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) have
been fairly extensive. Burnett and Dart (2000) provided a useful summary of the
investigations of the reliability and validity of the SPQ. They reported mixed findings
in the literature that ranged from low support to high support. In their own study
they produced a revised version of the instrument using a subset of the original items.
Using this subset of items the Alpha values were in excess of 0.7 and the three factor
structure of Deep, Surface and Achieving was supported. Biggs et al . (2001)
reported yet another reliable version of the SPQ that used a subset of the original
items and was based on a two factor structure limited to Deep and Surface.
Richardson (1990) conducted a similar investigation of the psychometric proper-
ties of the ASI and proposed a shortened version of the ASI that provided a
satisfactory level of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. However, in this
instance the Strategic factor was abandoned. Newstead (1992) conducted a
comparative investigation using the short form of the ASI and compared it with
Kolb’s LSI. He found, like other researchers, that the LSI was unreliable and the
predicted factor structure did not emerge. However, Newstead reported that the
shorter ASI, proposed by Richardson, proved to be satisfactory.
Tait et al . (1998) argued that the original ASI had never been intended as anything
more than a research instrument, and that many of the investigations of the reliability
The student learning process 245
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
and factor structure failed to take this into account. They also commented that many
such investigations were based on limited samples and failed to acknowledge the
likely influence of different learning contexts.
Other investigations have considered the deep-surface constructs and attempted to
relate them to other models, but with variable success. For example Evans et al .
(2003) investigated the relationship between students’ approaches to studying, self-
regulated learning and need for cognition. This work failed to produce the factor
structures that were anticipated from the theory.
Overall, this brief review of the criticisms of the constructs and instruments of the
Approaches to Learning school suggests that the two constructs of Deep and Surface
approaches appear to be generally supported, but that there is still some doubt about
the ‘Strategic’ approach. However, the main areas of criticism relate to the validity
and reliability of the instruments. The most recent investigations suggest that some
reasonably sound instruments now exist. Nevertheless, the Approaches to Learning
school is open to the criticism that students’ measured approaches are much less
amenable to change than some of the proponents might wish.
Clearly the Approaches to Learning School have paid too much attention to the
learning context and too little attention to the importance of the ‘student context’,
thus providing a mirror image of the views of the Learning Styles School. In
measuring approaches to learning there is also the problem that the approach is open
to the criticisms levelled at the proponents of Learning Styles of a positivistic
approach that encourages students to think of themselves in stereotyped terms,
having a particular ‘fixed’ Approach.
The impact on student learning
In conducting this brief review of the literature on Learning Styles and Approaches to
Learning only limited evidence of studies that have measured the impact of either
School on student learning was found. In the case of the Learning Styles School, it
appears that for any individual student, knowledge of his/her own learning style is
unlikely to make much difference. It is only when this knowledge is used by the
teacher to encourage the learner to consider the nature of learning, understanding,
and how s/he personally deals with the process, that an impact may appear. However,
knowledge of the students’ Learning Styles could be important to the teacher since it
allows him/her to adjust his/her pedagogic strategies.
In the case of the Approaches to Learning School there appears to be a limited
literature reporting upon either the improvements in the learning outcome or
changes in the Approaches to Learning that have arisen from manipulating the
learning context. Meyer and Parsons (1989), Eley (1994) and Cuthbert (1994)
showed that changing the learning context, or ensuring that the context was
‘favourable’ did not necessarily result in the changes in students’ approaches that
proponents have suggested.
246 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
What appears to emerge from the literature, which is made quite explicit by
Prosser and Trigwell (1999), is that the research into Approaches to Learning has
had the greatest impact on teachers rather than learners. Thus a better under-
standing of the factors that affect students’ approaches, their conceptions of the
learning process and the possible impact of particular pedagogic strategies has helped
many teachers improve their practice.
Finally, it appears that, as in the case of the Learning Styles School, the teacher can
sensitise the student to the issues of learning by using knowledge of his/her approach
in a particular context. Thus the Approach to Learning profile, used as an aid to
reflection, may result in improved learning at a later date.
Conclusions
The conclusion from this brief examination of some of the literature from
the Learning Styles and Approaches to Learning Schools is that the two
models can be shown to represent views of the same complex process but from
rather different standpoints. This review has also shown that the constructs are still
under debate, and that the measurement instruments suffer from a number of
problems.
However, it would seem likely that, for a practising teacher who becomes involved
with either school, the greatest impact is likely to be on his/her own practice than
upon the students’ learning behaviours. The teacher who is concerned to investigate
the learning/teaching encounter, following either school, is clearly concerned with
improving his/her teaching practices. In the case of the students, however, exposure
to their Style or Approach ‘results’ may improve their learning effectiveness if they go
on to reflect upon the process of learning. Without such reflection, the results or
‘score’ are probably of little use.
References
Biggs, J. B. (1987) Student approaches to learning and studying (Hawthorn, Victoria, Australian
Council for Educational Research).
Biggs, J. B. (1993) From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach, Higher Education
Research and Development, 12(1), 73�85.
Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982) Evaluating the quality of learning*/the SOLO Taxonomy (London,
Academic Press).
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001) The revised two-factor Study Process
Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133�149.
Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T. & Dunleavy, K. (2003) Learning styles and academic outcome: the validity
and utility of Vermunt’s Inventory of Learning Styles in a British higher education setting,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 267�290.
Burnett, P. C & Dart, B. C. (2000) The Study Process Questionnaire: a construct validation study,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 93�99.
Chalmers, D. & Fuller, R. (1996) Teaching for learning at university (London, Kogan Page).
Curry, L. (1983) Learning Styles in continuing medical education (Ottawa, Canadian Medical
Association).
The student learning process 247
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
Cuthbert, K. (1994) Student project work in relation to a meaning oriented approach to learning,
in: G. Gibbs (Ed.) Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation (Oxford,
Oxford Centre for Staff Development).
Duff, A. (2001) A note on the psychometric properties of the Learning Styles Questionaire (LSQ),
Accounting Education, 10(2), 185�197.
Dunn, R. (1990) Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for
individual diagnosis and prescription, Journal of Reading, Writing, & Learning Disabilities,
6(3), 223�247.
Eley, M. G. (1992) Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students, Higher
Education, 23, 231�254.
Entwistle, N. J. (1989) Approaches to studying and course perceptions: the case of the
disappearing relationship, Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 155�156.
Entwistle, N. J. (2001) Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education,
Kybernetes, 30(5/6), 593�602.
Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding student learning (Beckenham, Croom Helm).
Entwistle, N. J & Tait, H. (1990) Approaches to learning, evaluation of teaching, and preferences
for contrasting academic environments, Higher Education, 19, 169�194.
Evans, C. J., Kirby, J. R. & Fabrigar, L. R. (2003) Approaches to learning, need for cognition, and
strategic flexibility among university students, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
73(4), 507�528.
Garner, I. (2000) Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb’s Learning Styles, Educational
Psychology, 20(3), 341�348.
Gibbs, G. (1994) Improving student learning: theory and practice, in Proceedings of the First
International Improving Student Learning Symposium (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff
Development).
Heffler, B. (2001) Individual learning style and the learning style inventory, Educational Studies,
27(3), 307�316.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1986) The manual of learning styles (Maidenhead, Peter Honey).
Kolb, D. A. (1976) Learning style inventory: technical manual (Boston, MA, McBer).
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experimental learning (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall).
Laurillard, D. (1997) Styles and approaches to problem solving, in: F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N.
Entwistle (Eds) The experience of learning (Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press).
MacLellan, E. (1998) Student strategies when reading expository text, in: C. Rust (Ed.) Improving
students as learners, Proceedings of the Fifth Improving Student Learning Symposium (Oxford,
Oxford Centre for Staff Development), 216�232.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976) On qualitative differences in learning: I*/outcome and process,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4�11.
Meyer, J. H. F. & Parsons, P. (1989) Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the
Lancaster inventory*/a comparative study, Studies in Higher Education, 14(2), 137�153.
Newstead, S. E. (1992) A study of two ‘quick and easy’ methods of assessing individual differences
in student learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299�312.
Pask, G. (1976) Styles and strategies of learning, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,
128�148.
Pickworth, G. E. & Schoeman, W. J. (2000) The psychometric properties of the learning styles
inventory and learning styles questionnaire: two normative measures of learning styles, South
African Journal of Psychology, 30(2), 44�52.
Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher
education (Buckingham, Society for Research in Higher Education/Open University).
Reynolds, M. (1997) Learning Styles: a critique, Management Learning, 28(2), 115�133.
Richardson, J. T. E (1990) Reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying
Questionnaire, Studies in Higher Education, 15(2), 155�167.
Riding, R. J. (1997) On the nature of cognitive style, Educational Psychology, 17(1 & 2), 29�49.
248 P. F. Cuthbert
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001a) The relationship between learning style and cognitive style, Personality
and Individual Differences, 30, 609�616.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001b) Does the Learning Styles Questionnaire measure style or process? A
reply to Swailes & Senior (1999), International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3),
207�214.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001c) A reply to Reynolds’s critique of Learning Styles, Management Learning,
32(3), 291�304.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D. P. & Tsang, F. (2000) Validity of the Cognitive Style Index: replication
and extension, British Journal of Management, 11, 175�181.
Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F. & Ramanaiah, N. (1977) Development of a self-report inventory for
assessing individual differences in learning processes, Applied Psychological Measurement,
1(3), 413�431.
Swailes, S. & Senior, B. (1999) The dimensionality of Honey and Mumford’s learning styles
questionnaire, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 1�11.
Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J. & McCune, V. (1998) ASSIST: a reconcepualisation of the Approaches to
Studying Inventory, in: C. Rust (Ed.) Improving student learning*/ improving students as
learners (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development).
Tickle, S. (2001) What have we learnt about student learning? A review of the research on study
approach and style, Kybernetes, 30(7 & 8), 955�969.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991) Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of
learning context and student learning on learning outcomes, Higher Education, 22, 251�266.
Veenman, M. V. J., Prins, F. J. & Verheij, J. (2003) Learning styles: self-reports versus thinking-
aloud measures, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 357�372.
The student learning process 249
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Ast
on U
nive
rsity
] at
04:
14 2
2 A
ugus
t 201
4
