Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Successful Transition to Third Level Education:
First Year Induction Week Research
Report prepared by: Brunton. Elizabeth: Lecturer in Health & Leisure + Teaching & Learning Unit Cleary. Joan: Lecturer in Computing & Mathematics + Teaching & Learning Unit Doyle Jenna: Final Year Student in B.Sc. in Physical Education O’Mahony. Lisa: Final Year Student in B.Sc. in Physical Education Trant. Íde: Final Year Student in B.Sc. in Physical Education
Table of Contents
Introduction:............................................................................................. 3
Aim........................................................................................................... 4
Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 4
Literature Review..................................................................................... 5
Results (College profiles,School profiles,Course profiles etc) ......................... 10
Discussion .............................................................................................. 21
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 25
Recommendations.................................................................................. 26
References.............................................................................................. 27
Appendix 1: Learning Styles Information ............................................. 29
Appendix 2 VARK Information – ......................................................... 33
Appendix 3 Multiple Intelligences Information .................................... 37
2
Successful Transition to Third level Education
First Year Induction Week Research
Introduction: Learning styles refer to the consistent way in which a learner responds to or interacts with stimuli in the learning context (Bacon, 2002). The topic of learning styles and the accommodation of these learning styles in the classroom to enhance achievements have become the focus of increasing numbers of studies. Many researchers have taken the task in hand to determine how the delivery of a class can match a diversity of learning styles in the classroom. (Moallem, 2002) has suggested that ‘learners whose learning style matches with teaching or instructional style tend to retain information longer, apply it more effectively, and have more positive attitudes towards the subject of the course than those who were subjected to clashes in teaching/learning styles’. It has been suggested that colleges should be responsible for helping all students discover and develop their strengths. The literature states that the odds for success in the classroom increase when teachers and students understand how people differ in their approaches to learning tasks and then use that understanding to create strategies for learning.
‘Teachers must help students use their combination of intelligences to learn whatever it is they want to learn, as well as what the teachers and society believe they have to learn. (Finvoc, 2003, MI Resource Book for Teachers)’. ‘What teachers know and do in the classroom can have a significant influence on student’s academic thoughts, behaviors, and achievement (Hammon et al., 2000)’.
IBEC states in its Education Policy Document published in July 2004 that it is important to create opportunities for second chance learning for people who have been educationally disadvantaged in the past. The key challenge is to adapt the education system without lowering its inherent high standards, making it more accessible to and inclusive of, all groups within Irish society (IBEC 2004-Education Policy Document) and develop work-related skills as well as subject specific skills, knowledge and understanding. Oral communication, team work, customer service, time management, written communication and the ability to cope with multiple tasks are particularly valued transferable skills. Of the skills employers are less satisfied with, the most important are time management, written communication and the ability to cope with multiple tasks and to a lesser extent, planning and presentation skills. Employers’ suggestions for improving the transferable skills of students include supervised work placements and the use of industry specific workshops. Case studies were also suggested as a valuable teaching tool and the value of group work and presentations in academic courses was affirmed (Transferable Skills in Third-Level Modern Languages Curricula, 2003).
3
Metacognitive knowledge is individual knowledge of one’s own learning process. Moallem (2002) on Dunn commented that learning styles are as ‘individual as a signature’. It is about self-reflection, self-responsibility and initiative, as well as goal setting and time management. During induction week 2006, Elizabeth Brunton and Joan Cleary assisted students to assess their learning style, their preference for processing information by visual, auditory, read/write or kinesthetic means (VARK) and to examine their strengths and weaknesses using an instrument designed to assess multiple intelligences. Three undergraduate researchers from the B.Sc. in Physical Education programme, Jenna Doyle, Lisa O’Mahony and Íde Trant, have processed and analysed the data and examined the literature related to the value of helping students to know their strengths and weaknesses in the educational setting. The following report is a joint venture between the five people named above.
Aim The aim of the study was to establish baseline information on the learning style preferences, cognitive modality preferences and multiple intelligences profiles of the students in the Institute of Technology Tralee, as a whole, in each of the 3 schools and in courses within these schools.
Hypotheses • There is high diversity in learning style preferences, cognitive modality
preferences and multiple intelligences profiles amongst all students at Institute of Technology, Tralee.
• Gender and age influence profiles • Engineering and science schools will have more activist learning style and
kinesthetic cognitive processing learners (VARK) than the Business school based on prior studies.
• Results for verbal linguistic intelligence and read/write cognitive modality will be higher among business students based on prior studies.
• Verbal/ linguistic intelligences will be low. This assumption is based on an OECD (1998) report that 57% of the population of working age is functionally illiterate.
• Mature Students will have higher existential and intra-personal intelligence as they have experienced more of life and are more aware of what motivates them to be here.
• Male students will have higher logical/mathematical intelligence
4
Literature Review The ability to control/self-regulate one’s cognitive processes has been linked to intelligence. Sternberg (1985) refers to these processes as being responsible for ‘figuring out how to do a particular task or set of tasks and then making sure that the task or set of tasks are done correctly’. Researchers acknowledge the importance of metacognition in successful learning and in self-regulation (Biggs, 1988; Flavell, 1976). They have come to the conclusion that the most realistic approach to the accommodation of learning styles in teaching programs should involve empowering students through knowledge of their own learning styles to adjust their learning behaviour to the learning programs they encounter. During the past few years it has been found that only between 20 and 30 percent of school age youngsters are auditory yet approximately 90% of instruction is conducted through lecture or lecture discussion. Approximately 40% are visual, with the remaining 30/40% being either kinesthetic, or some combination of the four senses (Sankey 2003). Educators need to assist students to know how they learn, to operate in a metacognitive fashion, and to make adjustments to their learning behaviours when necessary. Those students that are aware of their most productive mode of learning meet with greater success in both education and in the workforce than those people who attempt to learn and work through a mode with which they are incompatible (Biggs 1988, Flavell 1976). Facilitating a raise in students' awareness of how they learn, through an investigation of learning strategies and the 'critical incidents' in their prior learning, their learning styles, their multiple intelligences strengths, aids students in becoming self-aware. Students who focus on their studies, are adaptable and flexible in a new situation and are self-aware have a higher chance of success in the college environment (Brunton & Jordan 2004). Successful students display high quality self-regulatory skills (McMahon & Brunton 2005). Research carried out by Fleming (1992) found that many students attributed their learning difficulties to the form in which course material was presented. Tanner and Allen (2004) have noted that beginning a course by directing students to tools that can assist them in becoming metacognitive about their own learning processes and preferences can go a long way in helping students to succeed. For example once a student understands that they are more a visual learner, they can work toward translating information into pictures, diagrams, charts etc. This is much more productive than having students reading through pages and pages of notes and not processing the information so that they reach an understanding of it, as most literature caters for those who are read/write learners. By raising students’ awareness of their preferred cognitive modality, you are raising their interest in learning and helping them gain understanding of what method suits them best. It is important that students are aware of their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Understanding where effort needs to be put in is also essential. If a student were to develop the modes related to their weaknesses this could prove very beneficial. The fact that a student may have a preferred, most comfortable mode does not mean he/she cannot function effectively in another. In fact, the student who has the flexibility to move easily
5
from one mode to another to fit the requirements of the situation is at a definite advantage over those who limit themselves to only one style of thinking and learning. The same can be said in the workforce; the employee that is adaptable will do well and be rewarded with success. However, initially it is good practice to allow students to work to their strengths until they become comfortable working on their weaknesses. But students can only work on developing their weaknesses in situations where grades are not an issue. O’Connor & Brunton (2003) investigated the multiple intelligences profiles of one group of students within the institute and found that intrapersonal intelligence scored highest and verbal linguistic ability scored lowest across the nine areas identified by Gardner in his Multiple Intelligences Theory. Brunton & Jordan (2004) found the same results in their study. Brunton & Jordan (2004) also examined learning styles using Honey & Mumford’s learning style questionnaire and found that the group were 52% reflective and 39% activist. However, this study examined the learning strategies used by students and found that 37% used strategies that did not match their strengths. Gardner argues that the big challenge facing the deployment of human resources is how to best take advantage of the uniqueness conferred on us as a species exhibiting several intelligences.
Graphic Demonstration of intelligence Mean / Std. Dev.
0123456789
Intrap
erson
al
Body/K
inaes
thetic
Exiten
sial
Logic
al/Math
emati
cal
Interp
erson
al
Natural
ist
Musica
l
Visual
Spatia
l
Verbal/
Lingu
istic
Mean
Standard Deviation
Figure 1: Multiple Intelligence Profiles of students (2002/2003) prepared by O’Connor & Brunton (2003) using McKenzies (1999) questionnaire indicating that verbal/linguistic intelligences scored lowest and intrapersonal highest. Tierney & Brunton (2005) looked at the learning styles and the cognitive modality of one group of students from each of the schools within the institute and found learning styles within the three schools had significant variance. The significant variance suggested that learning styles may be an influencing factor in course choice. However, it must be noted that only one group from one course within the school was assessed in this study and not a representative sample across all courses in the school.
6
COURSE
Science
Engineering
Buisness
Count
3020100
Dominant Style
activist
reflector
theorist
pragmatist
6
9
18
6
17
10
24
18
Figure 2: Tierney & Brunton (2005) found that students from schools of science were reflectors and activists, engineering students were activists while business students were reflectors
Course Choice
BuisnessEngineeringScience
Cou
nt
30
20
10
0
Dominant strategy
visual
Auditory
read
kine
Mix
8
3
8
6
23
20
15
54
8
67
33
Figure 3: Tierney & Brunton (2005) found that students from schools of science and engineering were kinesthetic learners while business students were predominantly read/write when cognitive modalities were examined (VARK). The cognitive processing modalities also varied from course to course with students from schools of science and engineering preferring to learn actively and scoring low on visual, listening and read/write modes. Business students were predominantly read/write. The main findings from studies carried out at the institute to date are that students across all courses examined are diverse, that profiles are unique and many students learn through strategies that do not match their learning style, their preferred cognitive modality or their strengths as measured by multiple intelligences instruments. In studies to date students rate their self-knowledge high but their verbal/linguistic abilities low.
7
Methodology
Table 1: Totals of students attending induction week study skills/ diagnostic session Attendance at study skills /diagnostic session during
induction week College Total 53% (359 of possible 676) School of Business 37% (110 of possible 295) School of Engineering 52% (81 of possible 156) School of Science 75% (168 of possible 225)
Sample The sample was all first year students of the Institute that attended a timetabled session during induction week and some students who approached the researchers to fill out the questionnaires outside of the timetabled session. 359 of a possible population of 676 (53%) of first year students assessed their profile on learning style, cognitive modality (VARK) and multiple intelligences strengths during induction week at the Institute of Technology Tralee. Students were categorized by course to determine the preferred learning style, cognitive modality and multiple intelligences profile by course. Attendance at the planned sessions may have been affected by the timetable for the week e.g. session on same day as registration versus next day. It may also have been affected by the title of the session ‘Study Skills’. Instruments To determine learning style the revised Honey & Mumford Learning Style Inventory (1986) was used as this was the questionnaire used in pervious research conducted within the Institute of Technology, Tralee by Brunton & Jordan (2004) and Tierney & Brunton (2005) and enabled comparative work to be undertaken. A license was issued to the college for the use of this questionnaire. To determine the preferred learning style, the students either agreed or disagreed with 80 statements. The scores reveal which of the four learning styles is their preferred or dominant learning style. The learning styles are Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist. Descriptions of the learning styles can be accessed in Appendix 1. The second questionnaire was the VARK questionnaire by Neil Fleming of Lincoln University New Zealand (1987). The VARK questionnaire tests the subject for their preferred cognitive strategy. The questionnaire determines whether students prefer to process information by visual, auditory, read/write or kinesthetic means. This was previously used by Tierney & Brunton (2005). Further information on VARK can be found in Appendix 2. The third questionnaire was the Multiple Intelligence Inventory by Walter McKenzie and consisted of 90 statements. This survey was taken from Surfaquarium Consulting. This questionnaire contains ninety statements (nine sections, ten statements in each). Subjects
8
choose which statements they feel accurately describe them. The results give the students a score under each of the nine intelligences as identified by Howard Gardener in “Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century” (1999). The nine intelligences are: naturalist, musical, logical-mathematical, existential, inter-personal, kinesthetic, verbal-linguistic, intra-personal, visual-spatial. This was previously used by O’Connor & Brunton (2003) and Brunton & Jordan (2004). Information on the meanings attributed to each of the intelligences can be found in Appendix 3.
Table 2: Attendance by course at study skills /diagnostic session during induction week indicating the percentages that the results are based upon *Not all groups within HCT were available for this session during induction week Schools Departments Course Percentage attending
and assessed Science CHL/HL Biology 53% Chemistry 33% Health & Leisure 82% Computing C & Games Dev 57% Comp & MM 67% Computing 61% Nursing General 80% Psychiatric 79% Engineering Manufacturing Mechanical 44% Mech & Elect 70% Agricultural 74% Construction plant 88% Civil & Const Civil 46% Construction 45% Business Business Advanced Business 25% Business Studies 21% Business with French 67% OIS 41% E-business 0% Multimedia 7% Applied Social Care 57% Early Childcare Studies 39% Hospitality
89% Tourism 38%
9
Results College Profiles
College Learning Style
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
LS Actrivist Reflector Theorist Prag
College Total
Figure 1: Learning Styles of ITTralee First Year Students 2006/2007 indicating that reflector learning style is dominant. The highest score that can be achieved in learning style is 20. Every student has a mix of all four styles but may be dominant in one or have similar scores across all four. Students in this study scored themselves from 2 to 20. However, an average for all students indicated a preference towards reflector style but all scores are between 10 and 14 on this 20 point scale indicating that students should be able to adjust and use all styles when necessary. However, some students scored themselves very low.
College VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Visual Auditory Read/Write Kinesthetic
College
Figure 2: Cognitive Processing Modality of ITTralee First Year Students 2006/2007 indicating that the majority of students process information by active means. They are kinesthetic learners. However, students score themselves low on all four modalities on a 10 point scale.
10
College MI Profile
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
College
MI NaturalisticMusicalLogistical/mathExistentialInterpersonalKinesthetical/bodyVerbal LinguisticIntrapersonalVisual/Spatial
Figure 3: Multiple Intelligence Profile of ITTralee First Year Students 2006/2007 indicating that students rate their self-knowledge (intrapersonal intelligence 7.03) high but rate their verbal/linguistic ability low 3.64. School Profiles
School Learning Styles
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
Engineering Business Science
Actrivist
Reflector
Theorist
Prag
Figure 4: Preferred Learning Style of students within each school illustrating that reflector style is dominant but all average scores are between 9.8 and 14.2 on a 20 point scale.
11
Schools VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Engineering Business Science
Visual
Auditory
Read/Write
Kinesthetic
Figure 5: Preferred Cognitive Modality of students within each school illustrating that while students rate their abilities low, kinesthetic processing is dominant in engineering and science but auditory and kinesthetic processing are equal in school of business
Schools MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Engineering Business Science
MI NaturalisticMusicalLogistical/mathExistentialInterpersonalKinesthetical/bodyVerbal LinguisticIntrapersonalVisual/Spatial
Figure 6: Dominant Intelligences of students within each school indicating that students in the school of engineering report strengths in kinesthetic/bodily intelligence while students in business and science rate their self-knowledge highest. Note that verbal/linguistic intelligences is the lowest score in all three schools.
12
Course Profiles Eng Learning Styles
0.004.008.00
12.0016.0020.00
AGRIENG
CIVILENG
CONSTENG
CONSTRPLANT
MECH &ELEC
MECHENG
Actrivist
Reflector
Theorist
Prag
Figure 7: Preferred Learning Style of students within the school of engineering
Business Learning Styles
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
Bus S
tudie
s
Bus w
ith Fr
ADV B
us
Multim
ediaOIS
App S
oc C
are
Early
child
care
Tour
ism
Hospit
ality
LS Actrivist
Reflector
Theorist
Prag
Figure 8: Preferred Learning Style of students within the school of Business
Science Learning Styles
0.00
4.00
8.0012.00
16.00
20.00
Biolog
yChe
m
Health
& Leisu
re
CPMULTIMEDIA
CPGDEV
COMP
Nur Gene
ral
Nur Psy
chiat
ric
LS Actrivist
Reflector
Theorist
Prag
Figure 9: Preferred Learning Style of students within the school of science
13
Eng VARK
0.002.004.006.008.00
10.00
AGRIENG
CIVILENG
CONSTENG
CONSTRPLANT
MECH &ELEC
MECHENG
Visual
Auditory
Read/Write
Kinesthetic
Figure 10: VARK determines how students prefer to process information in the school of engineering
Business VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Bus S
tudie
s
Bus w
ith Fr
ADV B
us
Multim
edia
OIS
App
Soc C
are
Early
child
care
Tour
ism
Hospit
ality
Visual
Auditory
Read/Write
Kinesthetic
Figure 11: VARK determines how students prefer to process information in the school of Business
Science VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Biolog
yChe
m
Health
& Leisu
re
CPMULTIMEDIA
CPGDEV
COMP
Nur Gene
ral
Nur Psy
chiat
ric
Visual
Auditory
Read/Write
Kinesthetic
Figure 12: VARK determines how students prefer to process information in the school of science
14
Eng MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
AGRI ENG CIVIL ENG CONST ENG CONSTR PLANT MECH & ELEC MECH ENG
MI NaturalisticMusicalLogistical/mathExistentialInterpersonalKinesthetical/bodyVerbal LinguisticIntrapersonalVisual/Spatial
Figure 13: Multiple Intelligence Profiles of students within the school of engineering
Business MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
BusStudies
Bus with Fr ADV Bus Multimedia OIS App SocCare
Earlychildcare
Tourism Hospitality
MI NaturalisticMusicalLogistical/mathExistentialInterpersonalKinesthetical/bodyVerbal LinguisticIntrapersonalVisual/Spatial
Figure 14: Multiple Intelligence Profiles of students within the school of Business
Science MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
BiologyChem
Health & Leisure
CPMULTIMEDIA
CPGDEVCOMP
Nur General
Nu r Psychiatric
MI NaturalisticMusicalLogistical/mathExistentialInterpersonalKinesthetical/bodyVerbal LinguisticIntrapersonalVisual/Spatial
Figure 15: Multiple Intelligence Profiles of students within the school of science
15
Matures v under 23 age group profiles 78 of possible 144 matures 54% 278of 528 under 23 years of age candidates 53%
Mature v CAO Learning Style
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
LS Actrivist Reflector Theorist Prag
Matures
Under 23
Figure 16: Learning styles profiles for over 23 v under 23 years of age indicates that mature students score higher across reflector, theorist and pragmatist styles but that activist style is more prevalent in students under 23 years of age
Matures v CAO VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Visual Auditory Read/Write Kinesthetic
MaturesUnder 23
Figure 17: Cognitive processing profiles for over 23 v under 23 years of age indicates that mature students rate themselves higher on visual, auditory and read/write processing but students under 23 years of age are slightly more kinesthetic processors.
Matures v CAO MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
MI Natu
ralist
ic
Musica
l
Logis
tical/
math
Existen
tial
Interp
erso
nal
Kinesth
etica
l/bod
y
Verbal
Lingu
istic
Intrap
erso
nal
Visual/
Spatia
l
MaturesUnder 23
Figure 18: Mature students rate their abilities higher across all of the MI scores than under 23’s yet the profiles mirror each other. Intrapersonal is the highest score and verbal/linguistic lowest. Note the difference between matures and under 23’s on existential and intrapersonal intelligences as hypothesized.
16
Gender Profiles Possible 351 females Possible 313 males
Gender learning styles
0.00
4.00
8.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
LS Actrivist Reflector Theorist Prag
FemalesMales
Figure 19: Females are more reflective but the differences are small between males and females on learning styles.
Gender VARK
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Visual Auditory Read/Write Kinesthetic
FemalesMales
Figure 20: Females process information by visual and read/write strategies more than males but males process more kinesthetically. They have equal preference for auditory processing. However, once again note the low averages across all four methods of processing information.
Gender MI Profiles
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
MI Natu
ralist
ic
Musica
l
Logis
tical/
math
Existen
tial
Interp
erso
nal
Kinesth
etica
l/bod
y
Verbal
Lingu
istic
Intrap
erso
nal
Visual/
Spatia
l
FemalesMales
Figure 21: Differences are small between male and female averages. Males score themselves higher on naturalistic and kinesthetic/bodily intelligences. Females score higher on the rest including logical/mathematical.
17
Table 3: Scores for learning styles by college, school and course (max 20) LEARNING STYLES
Activist
Reflector
Theorist
Pragmatist
College 10.01 13.99 10.3 10.98 Engineering 10.63 12.96 9.81 11.30 Business 9.81 14.24 10.04 10.51 Science 9.85 14.31 10.71 11.13 Biology 9.75 15.63 11.63 10.25 Chemistry 9.00 10.00 4.00 9.00 Health & Leisure 10.83 13.59 10.26 10.70 Computing Multimedia 11.67 13.83 11.33 11.83 Computing Games Dev 9.38 15.25 11.25 10.50 Computing 11.09 13.18 11.82 11.55 Nursing General 8.06 15.12 10.90 11.45 Nursing Psychiatric 9.88 15.06 10.81 12.38 Business Studies 10.23 16.08 12.69 12.23 Business with French 6.00 17.50 11.50 11.00 Advanced Business 5.00 14.00 16.00 10.00 Multimedia 9.50 14.50 13.00 11.00 Office Information Systems 9.76 14.67 11.14 11.29 Applied Social Care 10.06 14.19 8.97 10.35 Early childcare studies 10.00 13.82 7.27 7.18 Tourism 9.08 12.92 9.38 10.23 Hospitality 10.56 13.33 9.72 10.83 Agricultural Engineering 10.64 15.29 11.07 12.29 Civil Engineering 9.62 12.81 9.88 11.81 Construction Engineering 11.11 12.05 8.95 10.11 Construction Plant 9.71 14.43 10.57 12.00 Mechanical & Electrical Eng 13.14 10.29 8.29 11.29 Mechanical Engineering 11.38 12.63 10.13 10.13
18
Table 4: Scores for VARK by college, schools and courses (max 10) VARK
Visual
Auditory
Read/write
Kinesthetic
College 2.62 3.99 3.41 4.80 Engineering 2.61 3.58 2.61 5.24 Business 2.69 4.33 3.81 4.36 Science 2.57 3.96 3.51 4.89 Biology 2.88 3.75 3.25 4.75 Chemistry 1.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 Health & Leisure 2.23 3.87 3.31 4.79 Computing Multimedia 2.33 4.50 3.67 5.00 Computing Games Dev 2.50 3.50 4.50 4.75 Computing 2.82 3.36 2.36 5.55 Nursing General 2.96 3.91 3.68 4.98 Nursing Psychiatric 2.87 5.07 4.20 4.60 Business Studies 3.15 4.31 3.77 4.38 Business with French 4.00 2.50 3.50 4.00 Advanced Business 3.50 3.50 2.50 4.50 Multimedia 2.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 Office Information Systems 2.90 4.05 3.57 3.95 Applied Social Care 2.16 4.48 4.35 4.32 Early childcare studies 3.09 5.27 3.64 4.45 Tourism 3.31 4.08 3.77 4.77 Hospitality 2.17 4.44 3.39 4.61 Agricultural Engineering 3.31 2.92 3.69 5.46 Civil Engineering 2.46 3.77 2.46 5.38 Construction Engineering 2.72 3.56 2.78 4.67 Construction Plant 3.29 2.86 1.29 6.00 Mechanical & Electrical Eng 2.00 4.86 1.71 5.14 Mechanical Engineering 1.63 3.63 2.88 5.13
19
Table 5: Scores for Multiple Intelligence by college, schools and courses (max 10) Multiple Intelligences
Nat
Music
Log/ maths
Exist
Inter per
Kine Body
Verbal Ling
Intra Per
Visual Spatial
College 4.75 5.21 5.32 4.77 5.72 6.25 3.64 7.03 4.62 Engineering 4.73 4.76 4.86 3.90 5.27 6.76 2.82 6.14 4.42 Business 4.32 5.28 5.47 5.04 5.71 5.63 4.16 7.21 4.50 Science 5.05 5.37 5.44 5.02 5.96 6.42 3.69 7.34 4.80 Biology 6.33 6.00 5.00 5.50 5.50 6.33 3.83 6.83 3.83 Chemistry 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 Health & Leisure 4.75 5.33 4.84 3.96 6.16 6.64 3.19 6.70 4.21 Computing Multimedia 5.50 6.33 6.17 6.83 6.33 6.00 4.00 7.33 7.67 Computing Games Dev 4.13 5.75 6.63 6.50 3.75 5.63 4.50 7.63 7.38 Computing 5.00 4.91 6.27 5.45 5.36 5.55 4.82 7.91 5.91 Nursing General 5.28 5.48 5.78 5.65 5.98 6.57 3.52 7.98 4.67 Nursing Psychiatric 5.63 4.94 5.81 5.81 6.63 6.44 4.94 8.00 5.00 Business Studies 4.23 4.69 6.85 6.31 6.69 5.62 4.23 8.23 5.38 Business with French 3.00 5.50 5.50 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.50 8.50 3.50 Advanced Business 3.50 5.00 7.50 5.00 1.50 3.50 3.00 9.00 4.00 Multimedia 3.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 3.50 1.50 4.50 4.50 6.00 Office Inform Systems 3.76 4.62 5.14 3.86 4.52 5.19 3.71 6.33 3.81 Applied Social Care 4.97 5.97 5.58 5.06 5.90 5.87 4.29 7.68 4.94 Early childcare studies 5.45 6.09 5.18 6.27 6.91 6.73 4.64 7.73 5.45 Tourism 3.42 4.92 5.25 4.17 6.33 5.08 4.17 6.42 3.42 Hospitality 4.24 4.88 4.65 5.12 5.59 6.35 4.18 6.82 4.00 Agricultural Engineering 5.58 5.67 5.08 3.83 4.92 6.67 2.42 6.33 4.58 Civil Engineering 4.31 4.58 4.85 3.85 5.38 6.85 2.92 6.62 4.35 Construction Engineering 5.21 4.89 4.79 3.95 5.58 7.00 3.21 5.63 5.05 Construction Plant 3.71 3.00 3.86 2.14 3.43 6.57 1.43 4.43 2.86 Mechanical & Electrical Eng 5.43 5.00 4.86 5.43 5.14 6.86 3.00 6.86 5.29 Mechanical Engineering 4.00 5.00 5.63 4.25 6.38 6.13 3.25 6.38 3.50 Nat = Naturalistic Music = Musical Log/math = Logical/mathematical Exist = Existential Inter per = Interpersonal Kine body = Kinesthetic/bodily Verbal ling = Verbal/linguistic Intra per = Intrapersonal Visual/sp= Visual/Spatial
20
Discussion Learning Style: The most interesting finding to note on learning style is that there is very little difference in the averages across all the students in the college. Therefore, all four learning styles need to be accommodated in delivery, assessment and learning methods. There are some interesting profiles by course that may have implications for the delivery of that course and some that may indicate why students choose the course. However, the most common learning style for the students at the Institute of Technology, Tralee 2006/2007 is reflector (Figure 1, page 8). Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think about it thoroughly before coming to a conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others' observations as well as their own (Honey & Mumford 2006). All scores are between 10 and 14 on this 20 point scale indicating that students should be able to adjust and use all styles when necessary. As stated earlier the student who has the flexibility to move easily from one mode to another to fit the requirements of the situation is at a definite advantage over those who limit themselves to only one style of thinking and learning. The same can be said in the workforce; the employee that is adaptable will do well and be rewarded with success. The results across the three schools mirror the college averages (Figure 4, page 9). These concur with the results from Brunton & Jordan (2004) but differ from those found by Tierney and Brunton (2005). In the groups examined in that study there was very little difference between reflector and activist style in students in the school of science, reflector was dominant in the school of business but activist style was very strong in the school of engineering. When one looks at the results by course (Figures 7,8,9, page 11), five of the six course groups within engineering are reflector style and only the mectronic group are activist. Most of the profiles in engineering are flat so students should be equally comfortable/uncomfortable adopting any of the four styles. Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now, and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is: "I'll try anything once". They tend to act first and consider the
21
consequences afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves with others but, in doing so, they seek to centre all activities around themselves. Within the school of business the advanced business students differ considerably in profile from the other courses. Theorist is the preferred learning style of the group with reflector the second highest. They score low on activist style as do the ‘Business with French’ group. Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyze and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximize certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgments, lateral thinking and anything flippant (Honey & Mumford 2006). All other groups within the school of business rate reflector style high. It may be worth noting that the early childcare group score low on theoretical and pragmatic styles. As this course has a high theoretical content and a work placement component, extra support may be needed for these components. The preferred learning style of all groups within the school of science is reflector. Health & Leisure, computing and computing with multimedia students have flat profiles with very little difference between all four styles. This indicates that they should be comfortable employing any of the four styles should circumstances and learning tasks require it. Reflective practice is important in the area of nursing therefore the high reflector learning style of the groups should suit the course. VARK: visual, auditory, read/write and kinesthetic All students have a mix of all four cognitive processing modalities but the scores across the four are low with kinesthetic processing rated highest (Figure 2, page 8). In a study conducted by (Sankey 2003) it was found that there were twice as many visual learners to auditory learners. The reverse was found in this study with almost twice as many auditory learners to visual learners.
22
Kinesthetic learners need to write things down or to manipulate materials. They like to incorporate fine motor skills so they learn best through hands on approaches, and actively exploring their environment. A tactile need is very often connected to a need for oral stimulation (chewing, biting nails, pens, smoking). Kinesthetic learners need to use their bodies in the learning process. They need to be active, not just to watch or listen to gain understanding. These learners often enjoy projects, videos, or computer software that allows them to be directly involved in the lesson, or they just need to move while thinking. They learn best when they are totally involved in activities that allow them to explore. Acting, drama, the use of manipulative, playing, designing, and building are excellent examples of kinesthetic learners (Fleming 2006). When one examines the VARK profiles by school (Figure 5, page 10) it is evident that students in engineering and science prefer processing information kinesthetically but students in business have equal preference for auditory and kinesthetic learning. In Figures 10,11 and 12, page 12 students score their preferences low across all course groups with no score above 6 on a 10 point scale. Six courses score read/write modality lowest. Multimedia score visual learning low when one would expect that their course requires a large amount of visual learning. Advanced business had a theorist learning style yet score read/write cognitive modality lowest. One would have expected a read/write preference with a theorist style. The low score given to visual learning in many course might indicate that the use of power-point presentations as a teaching tool may not be the most efficient method within these courses. However, the low scores given to all cognitive processing modalities may mean that students at the Institute of Technology Tralee, need coaching in learning strategies related to all modalities to strengthen their ability to process information. Multiple Intelligences: It must be highlighted that all students have a mix of all nine intelligences. The 2006/2007 cohort of students at the Institute rate their intrapersonal intelligence highest and their verbal/linguistic abilities lowest (Figure 3, page 9). Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner's view it involves having an effective working model of oneself, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives. Intrapersonal - children who are especially in touch with their own feelings, values and ideas. They may tend to be more reserved, but they are actually quite intuitive about what they learn and how it relates to them. This mirrors findings by O’Connor and Brunton (2003) and Brunton & Jordan (2004). When one examines the profiles by school verbal/linguistic abilities score lowest across all three. Intrapersonal scores are highest in business and science and that matches with the reflector learning style. Kinesthetic/bodily intelligence scores highest in engineering and this matches the kinesthetic preference for processing information in VARK. The low scores for verbal/linguistic intelligence need to be examined, especially in light of the
23
IBEC report which states that employers are looking for workers with good written and oral communication skills. In a system that relies heavily on written means of expression in teaching, learning and assessment strategies such low scores may indicate a need for additional support for all students. How can initiatives be embedded within all courses to develop further the verbal/linguistic skills of Institute of Technology students? Verbal/Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence. Linguistic/Verbal - children who demonstrate strength in the language arts: speaking, writing, reading, and listening. These students have always been successful in traditional classrooms because their intelligence lends itself to traditional teaching. On examining the profiles by course (Figures 13, 14 and 15, page 13) one finds that every course has a unique profile. However, note the low score in interpersonal intelligence within the advanced business group which may indicate a low tolerance for group work and a preference for individual endeavour. This same group has the highest score for logical/mathematical intelligence. The high scores in interpersonal intelligences among the early childcare and tourism students may be beneficial in the workplace. The high scores in visual/spatial intelligence in the computing/multimedia and the computing/games development course groups would seem to match the skills needed for that course. The matched scores in kinesthetic/bodily intelligence and in intrapersonal intelligence within health and leisure students matched previous results for this group. Health & Leisure students tend to be equally activist and reflector learning style but with a negative correlation between the two groups. The low score for multimedia students in kinesthetic/bodily intelligence would seem to be a mismatch with the skills needed for design, film work and hands-on components of that course. Age The data was examined to see if the learning style preferences of students over the age of 23 differed from those under 23 years of age. 23 years of age on the first of January of the year of entry is the definition used for mature students. Mature students had higher scores in reflector, theorist and pragmatist learning styles but younger students scored higher on activist. Younger students also scored higher in kinesthetic processing of information. Activist learning style and kinesthetic processing of information would seem to match. Mature students had a higher preference for processing information visually, by listening and by read/write modalities. When the multiple intelligences profiles are compared mature students scored themselves higher on all factors. The greatest differences were found in existential and intrapersonal as hypothesized. The greater life experience of mature students may contribute to these differences.
24
Gender The gender differences in learning styles are small with females scoring higher on reflector style. Females process information by visual and read/write methods more than males but males process more kinesthetically. It was expected that males would have a higher score on logical/mathematical intelligence but this was not the case. Males scored higher kinesthetic/bodily intelligence and on naturalistic only.
Conclusion The aim of the study was to establish baseline information on the learning style preferences, cognitive modality preferences and multiple intelligences profiles of the students in the Institute of Technology, Tralee, as a whole, in each of the 3 schools and in courses within these schools. There is high diversity in learning style preferences, cognitive modality preferences and multiple intelligences profiles amongst all students at Institute of Technology, Tralee. It must be emphasized that all students possess unique profiles across all three components. The consequences of this are that accommodation of such individual differences among learners must be accommodated by diversity of delivery, assessment and learning strategies. Gender and age influence profiles but differences are not great. Mature Students have higher existential and intra-personal intelligence which may be connected to greater life experience and a heightened awareness of what motivates them to be in college. It was hypothesised that male students would have higher logical/mathematical intelligence but this was not the case. The significance of the differences in gender and age will be investigated in the second part of the study which will be carried out by the three undergraduate researchers from the B.Sc. in Physical Education programme, Jenna Doyle, Lisa O’Mahony and Íde Trant. A larger sample was used for this study than for previous ones and the results differed from results found previously. The importance of this is that students should be assessed each year by course group to see how strengths and weaknesses change from year to year and how staff could make changes in order to accommodate individual differences and group differences. It was also hypothesised that verbal/ linguistic intelligence would be low, as in previous years. Results for verbal linguistic intelligence were low across all courses, schools and the college as a whole. This will be further investigated in part two of the project. Strategies for the improvement of verbal/linguistic skills will also be explored. The follow-up work will involve researchers attempting to answer the ‘so-what’ question. Why is this base-line knowledge important and how can individual differences be accommodated in the teaching and learning environment?
25
Recommendations Place diagnostic instruments on-line by September 2007 so that students can complete them as part of their first week of college and have results analyzed centrally and made available to staff earlier in the year. Produce reports for each of the three components of learning styles, cognitive processing modalities and multiple intelligences outlining how each could be strengthened within courses at third level through teaching strategies, learning strategies and assessment strategies.
26
References Bacon, D. (2002) An examination of two learning style measures and their association with business learning. Journal for Educator for Business. Vol 79, pages 205-209 Biggs, J. (1988) Approaches to Essay Writing, Chapter 8 in Schmeck, R.R.(Ed) (1988)
Learning Strategies and Learning Styles: Perspectives on Individual Differences. New York: Phelum Press.
Brunton & Jordan (2004) Learning Strategies, Metacognition and College Success. A project for the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of M.A. in Management in Education, Institute of Technology, Waterford
Finvoc (2003) MI Resource Book for Teachers compiled by Anne Jordan Waterford Institute of Technology Flavell (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B.Resnick, (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp231 -235). Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Fleming, N. & Mills, C. (1992) Not Another Inventory rather a catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy. Vol.11 page 137 Gardner, Howard (1999) Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st
Century. New York. Basic Books. Hammon, D., Berthelot, J., Saia, J., & Crowley, E: (2000) Teachers Coaching of
Learning and its relation to students strategic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol 92: 342-348
Honey, P and Mumford, A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey: Maidenhead.
Honey & Mumford at www.peterhoney.comIBEC 2004-Education Policy Document Education for Life – the Challenge of the Third Millennium McKenzie, W. (1999) M ltiple Intelligences Survey, Surfaquarium Consulting, u
http://surfaquarium.com/Miinvent.htm or Surfaquarium ConsultingMcMahon & Brunton 2005) Self-Regulated Learning: Gender and College Success
B.Sc. Project in Health & Leisure, Institute of Technology, Tralee. Moallem, M. (2002) The implications of research literature on learning styles for the
design and development of a web-based course. Proceedings of the International Conference on computers in Education. Uni of North Carolina, Wilmington, USA
O’Connor, J. & Brunton, E. (2003) An Investigation into Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences and the possible relationship with academic results. B.Sc. Project in Health & Leisure, Institute of Technology, Tralee.
OECD (1998) Actions for a learning society – A report from the joint committee on lifelong learning.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tanner, K. and Allen, D. (2004) Approaches to Biology Teaching & Learning: Learning Styles and the Problem of Instructional Selection – Engaging all Students in Science Courses. Cell Biology Education, Vol3, 197-201 Tierney & Brunton (2005) Learning Styles: A factor in course choice. B.Sc. Project in
Health & Leisure, Institute of Technology, Tralee.
27
Transferable Skills in Third-Level Modern Languages Curricula (2003) Prepared by Collins, A., Curry, P. and Sherry, R.
28
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Learning Styles Information Honey and Mumford’s learning styles originated from Kolb’s theory. It has four learning
styles Activists, Reflectors, Theorists, Pragmatists.
Figure: Simple learning cycle Figure: Learning cycle incorporating further
research, abstract conceptualisation and decision making
Honey and Mumford Learning Styles
www.peterhoney.com Richard Mobbs, December, 2003
Learning Styles were developed by Peter Honey and Alan Mumford, based upon the work of Kolb, and they identified four distinct learning styles or preferences: Activist, Theorist; Pragmatist and Reflector. These are the learning approaches that individuals naturally prefer and they recommend that in order to maximise one's own personal learning each learner ought to understand their learning style and seek out opportunities to learn using that style. To understand your particular learning style Honey and Mumford have developed a Learning Style Questionnaire and with this information you will be in a far better position to do three really useful things [quoting P. Honey]:
1. Become smarter at getting a better fit between learning opportunities and the way you
learn best. This makes your learning easier, more effective and more enjoyable. It saves
you tackling your learning on a hit-and-miss basis. Equipped with information about your
learning preferences, you'll have many more hits and fewer misses.
29
2. Expand the 'band width' of experiences from which you derive benefit. Becoming an all-
round learner, increases your versatility and helps you learn from a wide variety of different
experiences - some formal, some informal, some planned and some spontaneous.
3. Improve your learning skills and processes. Increased awareness of how you learn, opens
up the whole process to self-scrutiny and improvement. Learning to learn is your most
important capability since it provides the gateway to everything else you want to develop
Note: However, to be an effective learner you should also develop the ability to learn in other styles.
The characteristics of the four Learning Styles are summarised in the following table:
Learning style
Attributes Activities VLE Opportunities
Activist Activists are those people who learn by doing. Activists need to get their hands dirty, to dive in with both feet first. Have an open-minded approach to learning, involving themselves fully and without bias in new experiences
• brainstorming
• problem solving
• group discussion
• puzzles
• competitions
• role-play
• Interactive learning
• Group work
opportunities
• Communication and
virtual classroom
(Chat)
Theorist These learners like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to engage in the learning process. Prefer to analyse and synthesise, drawing new information into a systematic and logical 'theory'
• models
• statistics
• stories
• quotes
• background
information
• applying theories
• Concentrate on
concepts and theories
presented in a variety
of ways
• Discussion groups
could facilitate more
thorough debate
around theories than
in a time-limited
seminar
Pragmatist These people need to be able to see how to put the learning into practice in the real world. Abstract concepts and games are of limited use unless they can see a way to put the ideas into action in their lives. Experimenters,
• time to think
about how to
apply learning in
reality
• case studies
• problem solving
• Interactive learning
• Problem-based
learning
30
trying out new ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work
• discussion
Reflector These people learn by observing and thinking about what happened. They may avoid leaping in and prefer to watch from the sidelines. Prefer to stand back and view experiences from a number of different perspectives, collecting data and taking the time to work towards an appropriate conclusion
• paired
discussions
• self analysis
questionnaires
• personality
questionnaires
• time out
• observing
activities
• feedback from
others
• coaching
• interviews
• Problem-based
learning
• Presentation of content
from a variety of
perspectives
• Discussion groups
allow asynchronous
communication - time
to reflect before
contributing
Honey and Mumford's original definitions are as follows:
Learning style
Honey and Mumford Definition
Activist
Activists involve themselves fully and without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now, and are happy to be dominated by immediate experiences. They are open-minded, not sceptical, and this tends to make them enthusiastic about anything new. Their philosophy is: "I'll try anything once". They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards. Their days are filled with activity. They tackle problems by brainstorming. As soon as the excitement from one activity has died down they are busy looking for the next. They tend to thrive on the challenge of new experiences but are bored with implementation and longer term consolidation. They are gregarious people constantly involving themselves with others but, in doing so, they seek to centre all activities around themselves.
Theorist Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They think problems through in a vertical, step-by-step logical way. They assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories. They tend to be perfectionists who won't rest easy until things are tidy and fit into a rational scheme. They like to analyse and synthesize. They are keen on basic assumptions, principles, theories models and systems thinking. Their philosophy prizes rationality and logic. "If its logical its good." Questions they frequently ask are: "Does it make sense?" "How does this fit with that?" "What are the basic assumptions?" They tend to be detached, analytical and dedicated to rational objectivity rather than anything
31
subjective or ambiguous. Their approach to problems is consistently logical. This is their 'mental set' and they rigidly reject anything that doesn't fit with it. They prefer to maximise certainty and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements, lateral thinking and anything flippant.
Pragmatist Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. They positively search out new ideas and take the first opportunity to experiment with applications. They are the sort of people who return from courses brimming with new ideas that they want to try out in practice. They like to get on with things and act quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them. They tend to be impatient with ruminating and open-ended discussions. They are essentially practical, down to earth people who like making practical decisions and solving problems. They respond to problems and opportunities 'as a challenge'. Their philosophy is "There is always a better way" and "If it works it's good". Reflectors like to stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer to think about it thoroughly before coming to a conclusion. The thorough collection and analysis of data about experiences and events is what counts so they tend to postpone reaching definitive conclusions for as long as possible. Their philosophy is to be cautious. They are thoughtful people who like to consider all possible angles and implications before making a move. They prefer to take a back seat in meetings and discussions. They enjoy observing other people in action. They listen to others and get the drift of the discussion before making their own points. They tend to adopt a low profile and have a slightly distant, tolerant unruffled air about them. When they act it is part of a wide picture which includes the past as well as the present and others' observations as well as their own.
Reflector
A recent survey by Peter Honey failed to reveal particular 'learning styles', although as a result of his research he speculated that 'Activists' (those with an open-minded approach to learning and wish to involve themselves fully in the experience) would want the pace to be faster and the chunks of time to be shorter than 'reflectors' (those that prefer to stand back and view experiences from an number of different perspectives first). He also suggests that Activists might find it more difficult to motivate themselves and find time to complete the tasks than 'Theorists' (who like to analyse and synthesise, drawing new information into a systematic and logical theory) and 'Pragmatists' (experimenters, who try out new ideas and techniques to see if they will work) who are likely to be more disciplined and better at planning it into their schedules. Time management skills are particularly important for effective on-line study. Web-based approaches can of course offer something for each Learning Style but it would be very challenging to ensure that any individual course delivered on-line offered something for all.
32
Appendix 2 VARK Information – VARK is an acronym made from the initial letters of four sensory modal preferences: (Janet Tausjø, Norwegian Foreign Service Institute). The VARK theory proposed by Neil Fleming of Lincoln University, New Zealand in 1987 suggests that individuals have four major modalities (cognitive strategies) for taking in information, visual, auditory, read-write and kinesthetic with preferences towards one or more of these cognitive strategies. Although Fleming has stated that most people are "Multi-modal” learners and use all of the preferences to some extent (Fleming, 2001).
Visual Read/write
Auditory Kinesthetic
Visual learners learn through seeing. As their primary perceptual preference is visual they can typically recall images of what they read or observe. They prefer to look at illustrations or observe others doing something, rather than listen. They learn best from visual displays including pictures, charts, graphs, diagrams, overhead transparencies, videos, flip charts, and hand-outs. Auditory learners prefer to listen or talk. They memorise what they hear and tend to be attentive when information is presented in this way. Written information may have little attraction for these learners. They interpret and listen for meaning in lectures or speeches by listening to tone of voice, pitch, speech, and other auditory signals. Some auditory learners prefer to talk with others or themselves, ask questions and use internal dialogues. They learn best through presentations, discussions, talking things through, and simply listening to what others have to say. Read-Write learners have a preference for the written word and acquire meaning from activities involving language. They learn best through reading books and notes, and are happiest when they are writing, making lists, taking lecture notes or writing accounts. Some research shows that teachers as a group have a preference for this style.
33
Kinesthetic learners need to write things down or to manipulate materials. They like to incorporate fine motor skills so they learn best through hands on approaches, and actively exploring their environment. A tactile need is very often connected to a need for oral stimulation (chewing, biting nails, pens, smoking). Kinesthetic learners need to use their bodies in the learning process. They need to be active, not just to watch or listen to gain understanding. These learners often enjoy projects, videos, or computer software that allows them to be directly involved in the lesson, or they just need to move while thinking. They learn best when they are totally involved in activities that allow them to explore. Acting, drama, the use of manipulative, playing, designing, and building are excellent examples of kinesthetic learners.
The VARK Questionnnaire (Version 7.0) How Do I Learn Best? Choose the answer which best explains your preference and circle the letter(s) next to it. Please circle more than one if a single answer does not match your perception. Leave blank any question that does not apply. 1. You are helping someone who wants to go to your airport, town centre or railway station. You
would: a. go with her. b. tell her the directions. c. write down the directions (without a map). d. draw, or give her a map.
2. You are not sure whether a word should be spelled `dependent' or `dependant'. You would: a. see the words in your mind and choose by the way they look. b. think about how each word sounds and choose one. c. find it in a dictionary. d. write both words on paper and choose one.
3. You are planning a holiday for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would:
a. describe some of the highlights. b. use a map or website to show them the places. c. give them a copy of the printed itinerary. d. phone, text or email them.
4. You are going to cook something as a special treat for your family. You would: a. cook something you know without the need for instructions. b. ask friends for suggestions. c. look through the cookbook for ideas from the pictures. d. use a cookbook where you know there is a good recipe.
5. A group of tourists want to learn about the parks or wildlife reserves in your area. You would: a. talk about, or arrange a talk for them about parks or wildlife reserves. b. show them internet pictures, photographs or picture books. c. take them to a park or wildlife reserve and walk with them. d. give them a book or pamphlets about the parks or wildlife reserves.
34
6. You are about to purchase a digital camera or mobile phone. Other than price, what would most influence your decision?
a. Trying or testing it. b. Reading the details about its features. c. It is a modern design and looks good. d. The salesperson telling me about its features.
7. Remember a time when you learned how to do something new. Try to avoid choosing a physical skill, eg. riding a bike. You learned best by:
a. watching a demonstration. b. listening to somebody explaining it and asking questions. c. diagrams and charts - visual clues. d. written instructions – e.g. a manual or textbook.
8. You have a problem with your knee. You would prefer that the doctor: a. gave you a web address or something to read about it. b. used a plastic model of a knee to show what was wrong. c. described what was wrong. d. showed you a diagram of what was wrong.
9. You want to learn a new program, skill or game on a computer. You would: a. read the written instructions that came with the program. b. talk with people who know about the program. c. use the controls or keyboard. d. follow the diagrams in the book that came with it.
10. I like websites that have: a. things I can click on, shift or try. b. interesting design and visual features. c. interesting written descriptions, lists and explanations. d. audio channels where I can hear music, radio programs or interviews.
11. Other than price, what would most influence your decision to buy a new non-fiction book? a. The way it looks is appealing. b. Quickly reading parts of it. c. A friend talks about it and recommends it. d. It has real-life stories, experiences and examples.
12. You are using a book, CD or website to learn how to take photos with your new digital camera. You would like to have:
a. a chance to ask questions and talk about the camera and its features. b. clear written instructions with lists and bullet points about what to do. c. diagrams showing the camera and what each part does. d. many examples of good and poor photos and how to improve them.
13. Do you prefer a teacher or a presenter who uses: a. demonstrations, models or practical sessions. b. question and answer, talk, group discussion, or guest speakers. c. handouts, books, or readings. d. diagrams, charts or graphs.
14. You have finished a competition or test and would like some feedback. You would like to have feedback:
a. using examples from what you have done. b. using a written description of your results. c. from somebody who talks it through with you. d. using graphs showing what you had achieved.
35
15. You are going to choose food at a restaurant or cafe. You would:
a. choose something that you have had there before. b. listen to the waiter or ask friends to recommend choices. c. choose from the descriptions in the menu. d. look at what others are eating or look at pictures of each dish.
16. You have to make an important speech at a conference or special occasion. You would: a. make diagrams or get graphs to help explain things. b. write a few key words and practice saying your speech over and over. c. write out your speech and learn from reading it over several times. d. gather many examples and stories to make the talk real and practical.
The VARK Questionnaire Scoring Chart Use the following scoring chart to find the VARK category that each of your answers corresponds to. Circle the letters that correspond to your answers e.g. If you answered b and c for question 3, circle V and R in the question 3 row. Scoring Chart Question a category b category c category d category 1 K A R V 2 V A R K 3 K V R A 4 K A V R 5 A V K R 6 K R V A 7 K A V R 8 R K A V 9 R A K V 10 K V R A 11 V R A K 12 A R V K 13 K A R V 14 K R A V 15 K A R V 16 R V K A Calculating your scores Count the number of each of the VARK letters you have circled to get your score for each VARK category. Total number of Vs circled = Total number of As circled = Total number of Rs circled = Total number of Ks circled = Calculating your preferences Use the online VARK spreadsheet (available from the www.vark-learn.com web site) to work out your VARK learning preferences.
36
Appendix 3 Multiple Intelligences Information
Descriptions of Multiple Intelligences 1. Verbal/Linguistic intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and written language,
the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that Howard Gardner sees as having high linguistic intelligence. Linguistic/Verbal - children who demonstrate strength in the language arts: speaking, writing, reading, and listening. These students have always been successful in traditional classrooms because their intelligence lends itself to traditional teaching.
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner's words, in entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking. Logical/Mathematical - children who display an aptitude for numbers, reasoning and problem solving. This is the other half of the children who typically do well in traditional classrooms where teaching is logically sequenced and students are asked to conform.
3. Musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and
appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. According to Howard Gardner musical intelligence runs in an almost structural parallel to linguistic intelligence. Musical - children who learn well through songs, patterns, rhythms, instruments and musical expression. It is easy to overlook children with this intelligence in traditional education.
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entails the potential of using one's whole body or
parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. Howard Gardner sees mental and physical activity as related. Bodily/Kinesthetic - children who experience learning best through activity: games, movement, hands-on tasks, and building. These children were often labeled "overly active" in traditional classrooms where they were told to sit and be still!
5. Spatial/Visual intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns
of wide space and more confined areas. Spatial/Visual - children who learn best visually and organizing things spatially. They like to see what you are talking about in order to understand. They enjoy charts, graphs, maps, tables, illustrations, art, puzzles, and costumes - anything eye catching.
37
6. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the
intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence. Interpersonal - children who are noticeably people-oriented and outgoing, and do their learning cooperatively in groups or with a partner. These children may have typically been identified as "talkative" or " too concerned about being social" in a traditional setting.
7. Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate
one's feelings, fears and motivations. In Howard Gardner's view it involves having an effective working model of oneself, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives. Intrapersonal - children who are especially in touch with their own feelings, values and ideas. They may tend to be more reserved, but they are actually quite intuitive about what they learn and how it relates to them.
8. Naturalist intelligence enables human beings to recognize, categorize and draw
upon certain features of the environment. It 'combines a description of the core ability with a characterization of the role that many cultures value' Naturalist - children who love the outdoors, animals, field trips. More than this, though, these students love to pick up on subtle differences in meanings. The traditional classroom has not been accommodating to these children.
9. Existential intelligence, a concern with 'ultimate issues', is, thus, the next
possibility that Howard Gardner considers - and he argues that it 'scores reasonably well on the criteria' . Existentialist - children who learn in the context of where humankind stands in the "big picture" of existence. They ask "Why are we here?" and "What is our role in the world?" This intelligence is seen in the discipline of philosophy.
Synopsis from Smith (2002) and McKenzie (1999).
38
Multiple Intelligences Survey © 1999 Walter McKenzie, Surfaquarium Consulting
Part I Complete each section by placing a “1” next to each statement you feel accurately describes you. If you do not identify with a statement, leave the space provided blank. Then total the column in each section.
Section 1 _____ I enjoy categorizing things by common traits
_____ Ecological issues are important to me
_____ Hiking and camping are enjoyable activities
_____ I enjoy working on a garden
_____ I believe preserving our National Parks is important
_____ Puting things in hierarchies makes sense to me
_____ Animals are important in my life
_____ My home has a recycling system in place
_____ I enjoy studying biology, botany and/or zoology
_____ I spend a great deal of time outdoors
_____ TOTAL for Section 1
Section 2 _____ I easily pick up on patterns
_____ I focus in on noise and sounds
_____ Moving to a beat is easy for me
_____ I’ve always been interested in playing an instrument
_____ The cadence of poetry intrigues me
_____ I remember things by putting them in a rhyme
_____ Concentration is difficult while listening to a radio or television
_____ I enjoy many kinds of music
_____ Musicals are more interesting than dramatic plays
_____ Remembering song lyrics is easy for me
_____ TOTAL for Section
39
Section 3
_____ I keep my things neat and orderly
_____ Step-by-step directions are a big help
_____ Solving problems comes easily to me
_____ I get easily frustrated with disorganized people
_____ I can complete calculations quickly in my head
_____ Puzzles requiring reasoning are fun
_____ I can’t begin an assignment until all my questions are answered
_____ Structure helps me be successful
_____ I find working on a computer spreadsheet or database rewarding
_____ Things have to make sense to me or I am dissatisfied
_____ TOTAL for Section 3
Section 4
_____ It is important to see my role in the “big picture” of things
_____ I enjoy discussing questions about life
_____ Religion is important to me
_____ I enjoy viewing art masterpieces
_____ Relaxation and meditation exercises are rewarding
_____ I like visiting breathtaking sites in nature
_____ I enjoy reading ancient and modern philosophers
_____ Learning new things is easier when I understand their value
_____ I wonder if there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe
_____ Studying history and ancient culture helps give me perspective
_____ TOTAL for Section 4
Section 5 _____ I learn best interacting with others
_____ The more the merrier
_____ Study groups are very productive for me
_____ I enjoy chat rooms
_____ Participating in politics is important
_____ Television and radio talk shows are enjoyable
_____ I am a “team player”
_____ I dislike working alone
40
_____ Clubs and extracurricular activities are fun
_____ I pay attention to social issues and causes
_____ TOTAL for Section 5
Section 6 _____ I enjoy making things with my hands
_____ Sitting still for long periods of time is difficult for me
_____ I enjoy outdoor games and sports
_____ I value non-verbal communication such as sign language
_____ A fit body is important for a fit mind
_____ Arts and crafts are enjoyable pastimes
_____ Expression through dance is beautiful
_____ I like working with tools
_____ I live an active lifestyle
_____ I learn by doing
_____ TOTAL for Section 6
Section 7 _____ I enjoy reading all kinds of materials
_____ Taking notes helps me remember and understand
_____ I faithfully contact friends through letters and/or e-mail
_____ It is easy for me to explain my ideas to others
_____ I keep a journal
_____ Word puzzles like crosswords and jumbles are fun
_____ I write for pleasure
_____ I enjoy playing with words like puns, anagrams and spoonerisms
_____ Foreign languages interest me
_____ Debates and public speaking are activities I like to participate in
_____ TOTAL for Section 7
Section 8 _____ I am keenly aware of my moral beliefs
_____ I learn best when I have an emotional attachment to the subject
_____ Fairness is important to me
_____ My attitude effects how I learn
_____ Social justice issues concern me
41
_____ Working alone can be just as productive as working in a group
_____ I need to know why I should do something before I agree to do it
_____ When I believe in something I will give 100% effort to it
_____ I like to be involved in causes that help others
_____ I am willing to protest or sign a petition to right a wrong
_____ TOTAL for Section 8
Section 9 _____ I can imagine ideas in my mind
_____ Rearranging a room is fun for me
_____ I enjoy creating art using varied media
_____ I remember well using graphic organizers
_____ Performance art can be very gratifying
_____ Spreadsheets are great for making charts, graphs and tables
_____ Three dimensional puzzles bring me much enjoyment
_____ Music videos are very stimulating
_____ I can recall things in mental pictures
_____ I am good at reading maps and blueprints
_____ TOTAL for Section 9
Now carry forward your total from each section and multiply by 10 below:
Section Total Forward Multiply Score
1 X10
2 X10
3 X10
4 X10
5 X10
6 X10
7 X10
8 X10
9 X10
42
Key:
Section 1 – This reflects your Naturalist strength
Section 2 – This suggests your Musical strength
Section 3 – This indicates your Logical strength
Section 4 – This illustrates your Existential strength
Section 5 – This shows your Interpersonal strength
Section 6 – This tells your Kinesthetic strength
Section 7 – This indicates your Verbal strength
Section 8 – This reflects your Intrapersonal strength
Section 9 – This suggests your Visual strength
Remember:
Everyone has all the intelligences! You can strengthen an intelligence! This inventory is meant as a snapshot in time – it can change! M.I. is meant to empower, not label people!
© 1999 Walter McKenzie, Surfaquarium Consulting
http://surfaquarium.com/MIinvent.htm Thank you for your co-operation!
43
