Group items tagged

Learning-style theory begins with Carl Jung (1927), who noted major differences in the way people perceived (sensation versus intuition), the way they made decisions (logical thinking versus imaginative feelings), and how active or reflective they were while interacting (extroversion versus introversion)

Most learning-style theorists have settled on four basic styles. Our own model, for instance, describes the following four styles: The Mastery style learner absorbs information concretely; processes information sequentially, in a step-by-step manner; and judges the value of learning in terms of its clarity and practicality. The Understanding style learner focuses more on ideas and abstractions; learns through a process of questioning, reasoning, and testing; and evaluates learning by standards of logic and the use of evidence. The Self-Expressive style learner looks for images implied in learning; uses feelings and emotions to construct new ideas and products; and judges the learning process according to its originality, aesthetics, and capacity to surprise or delight. The Interpersonal style learner,1  like the Mastery learner, focuses on concrete, palpable information; prefers to learn socially; and judges learning in terms of its potential use in helping others.

Student Choice: Assessment Products by Intelligence and Style

This becomes a problem in education if you have a policy, as my school, of no electronic devices on during school hours. I think this subject can be a huge debate among educators, but encourage for an online course.  

it just can’t be reading and discussions, so there needs to be virtual activities and videos to help them visualize the concept that we are learning about.

I kept falling off the second floor of the  building and running into walls,

The focus of this paper is teaching presence, which has been defined as “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile outcomes” (Garrison et al., 2000).

Instructor teaching presence is hypothesized to be an indicator of online instructional quality.  Empirical research has supported this view with evidence indicating strong correlations between the quality of teaching presence and student satisfaction and learning (Bangert, 2008; Picciano, 2002; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003)

First, there is a need to revisit two of the original three teaching presence elements.

Most colleges do not have the resources to build their own mobile applications from scratch. The environment is changing quickly, and developing new products for each new major device—iPhones, BlackBerrys, Android phones, iPads—can be prohibitively expensive.

One key to these projects is recognizing the mobility of mobile devices, and not treating them as if they were small desktop computers. Among colleges, even the leading mobile applications and Web sites still function like add-ons; students and others can get much the same information on a personal computer, although perhaps not as quickly.

Creating a cohesive mobile platform does not mean that colleges should try to move everything from their Web sites to a smaller screen. It can be impossible to know in advance what people want to do on a smartphone, and what they would prefer to leave to a full-size computer.

Despite this, (and this is my personal view, not the view of the 'anti-Learning Styles lobby'), many teachers and educators continue to find value and benefit by using Learning Styles theory in one way or another, and as often applies in such situations, there is likely to be usage which is appropriate, and other usage which is not.

Education is big business. Much is at stake commercially and reputationally, and so it is not surprising that debate can become quite fierce as to which methods work and which don't. So try to temper what you read with what you know and feel and experience. Personal local situations can be quite different to highly generalised averages, or national 'statistics'. Often your own experiences are likely to be more useful to you than much of the remote 'research' that you encounter through life. You must be careful how you use systems and methods with others, and be careful how you assess research and what it actually means to you for your own purposes.

A note about Learning Styles in young people's education: Towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s a lobby seems to have grown among certain educationalists and educational researchers, which I summarise very briefly as follows: that in terms of substantial large-scale scientific research into young people's education, 'Learning Styles' theories, models, instruments, etc., remain largely unproven methodologies. Moreover Learning Styles objectors and opponents assert that heavy relience upon Learning Styles theory in developing and conducting young people's education, is of questionable benefit, and may in some cases be counter-productive. Despite this, (and this is my personal view, not the view of the 'anti-Learning Styles lobby'), many teachers and educators continue to find value and benefit by using Learning Styles theory in one way or another, and as often applies in such situations, there is likely to be usage which is appropriate, and other usage which is not.

Cooperation (1): the simplest collaborative model (Dillenbourg, 1999; Schneider et. al, 2003) and the basis for all the other models.   In this model, most of the work is performed individually. Every student creates a Wiki page, writing and editing only his/her page and share his/her product with his peers.

Collaboration and Cooperation (2): in this model, the degree of collaboration is higher than in the previous model, because all students are required to work together on the same content, in groups or as one group, and to edit and improve it together (Dillenbourg, 1999; Schneider et. al, 2003).

Cooperation, Collaboration and  Peer-Assessment (3): in the final model,  the most complex of all, collaboration is implemented with respect to all dimensions: product, process and assessment. Students work in groups or alone, upload information to Wiki, edit each other’s products and provide peer feedback about the parts that they did not write (Dominick, Reilly & McGourty, 1997; Morgan & O’reilly, 1999).

Learning is closely connected to the world beyond the walls of the classroom.

Students produce a product that can be shared with an audience outside the classroom.

The Enrichment Triad Model was designed to encourage creative productivity on the part of young people by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and fields of study, and to further train them to apply advanced content, process-training skills, and methodology training to self-selected areas of interest. Accordingly, three types of enrichment are included in the Triad Model (see Fig. 2). Type I enrichment is designed to expose students to a wide variety of disciplines, topics, occupations, hobbies, persons, places, and events that would not ordinarily be covered in the regular curriculum. In schools - that use this model, an enrichment team consisting of parents, teachers, and students often organizes and plans Type I experiences by contacting speakers, arranging minicourses, demonstrations, or performances, or by ordering and distributing films, slides, videotapes, or other print or non-print media. Figure 2. The enrichment triad model. [Click on the figure to see it as a PDF file.] Type II enrichment consists of materials and methods designed to promote the development of thinking and feeling processes. Some Type II training is general, and is usually carried out both in classrooms and in enrichment programs. Training activities include the development of. (1) creative thinking and problem solving, critical thinking, and affective processes; (2) a wide variety of specific learning how-to-learn skills; (3) skills in the appropriate use of advanced-level reference materials; and (4) written, oral, and visual communication skills. Other Type II enrichment is specific, as it cannot be planned in advance and usually involves advanced methodological instruction in an interest area selected by the student. For example, students who become interested in botany after a Type I experience might pursue additional training in this area by doing advanced reading in botany; compiling, planning and carrying out plant experiments; and seeking more advanced methods training if they want to go further. Type III enrichment involves students who become interested in pursuing a self-selected area and are willing to commit the time necessary for advanced content acquisition and process training in which they assume the role of a first-hand inquirer. The goals of Type III enrichment include: providing opportunities for applying interests, knowledge, creative ideas and task commitment to a self-selected problem or area of study, acquiring advanced level understanding of the knowledge (content) and methodology (process) that are used within particular disciplines, artistic areas of expression and interdisciplinary studies, developing authentic products that are primarily directed toward bringing about a desired impact upon a specified audience, developing self-directed learning skills in the areas of planning, organization, resource utilization, time management, decision making and self-evaluation, developing task commitment, self-confidence, and feelings of creative accomplishment.