J. Olson -1-
Issue Paper
John Olson
December 6, 2006
Secondary Education 625
Theory and Research in Teaching
Secondary School Science
The Role of Learning Modalities
in Secondary Science Instruction.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the implications of teacher and student awareness of learning styles in the science classroom. “Educators and researchers have been concerned for a long time with identifying how individual students learn,” (Pitts, 2002, p. 3). This topic is being addressed in response to informal conversations with two of my 8th grade middle school physical science students.
Student One asked if she could come in for extra help after then end of the first reporting period. Student One is an A student in all of her classes who is highly motivated and contributes to the classroom and learning environment. Student One was concerned that she did not really understand all the “stuff” about motion and forces she had read and studied in the text. I asked her if she felt that she was more of an auditory learner than a visual learner. Her response was that the homework reading didn’t really make sense to her, but she seemed unsure about just what her learning strengths were.
Student Two, a capable student, was frustrated when taking an open notebook quiz. The quiz was given on a minimum day. No spoken instructions were given during the 30 minute period. The teacher and students communicated by writing questions and instructions on the white boards. The quiz was presented as text on the video monitor. Student Two was completely at a loss by the end of the 10 question quiz. In a conversation with her at the end of the period, she noted that she needed to hear the questions read aloud in order to understand what was being asked. When asked if she thought of herself as an auditory learner, she seemed to be aware that listening was the best way for her to process information. (She was given an alternative option to complete the quiz.)
In response to concerns over these conversations, this paper will address the following objectives.
- A review the most widely accepted models of learning styles, (learning modalities).
- The identification and support of students’ individual learning styles.
- Current research on the multimodal environment of the science classroom.
- Aconsideration of the challenges of “teaching the millennial generation,” (Warlick, 2006) in terms of learning styles.
A review the most widely accepted models of learning styles.
There are several learning style models that researchers have developed for use in identifying a student’s preferred learning style. In one model, learners are categorized as visual, auditory, kinesthetic, or a combination of these three. “Learning styles are… related to physiological factors: visual (seeing/picture), Auditory (hearing), and Kinesthetic (touching/physical)” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p.9).
Visual learners have vivid imaginations, learn by seeing images … and find verbal instructions difficult” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p.10). Some suggested strategies for teaching the visual student include, “using video equipment, providing assignments in writing; and using charts and pictures” (p. 10).
The auditory learner has different needs. “Auditory students prefer the auditory sense. They enjoy talking, have difficulty with written instructions … and must hear to understand” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p. 10). When teaching the auditory learner, teachers “need to provide as much auditory stimuli as possible,” (p. 10). Verbal reinforcement, group activities, class discussions and reading aloud are beneficial strategies for auditory learners(p. 10).
“Kinesthetic or Tactile students prefer the tactile sense,” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p. 11). Vincent and Ross point out that these students are poor listeners, they learn by doing, express their emotions physically, and usually have outgoing personalities (p. 11).
“Teachers of Kinesthetic/Tactile students need to provide many activities to allow students to participate in learning. They need to provide hands-on activities, provide for physical movement within the classroom, and encourage note taking” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p. 11).
Another model looks at learning styles in terms of multiple intelligences. The theory behind multiple intelligences “defines intelligence as the capacity to solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural settings” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p. 4). First introduced in 1983, “Gardner’s multiple intelligencestheory provided a new way of looking at intelligence” (p. 4). The seven original categories are listed below.
Linguistic: the capacity to communicate effectively in writing or orally.
Logical-Mathematical: the capacity to work with numbers and high order thinking.
Visual-Spatial: the capacity to learn through graphic images.
Musical: the capacity to think/express in musical forms.
Body-Kinesthetic: the capacity to use body movement in learning and expression.
Interpersonal: the ability to understand and interact with other people.
Intrapersonal: the ability to understand themselves and pursue their own interests.
(Vincent & Ross, 2001, pp. 4-5)
There are other models which look at learning styles from other perspectives. One of these models is “Jung’s theory of personality type which focuses on the idea of opposite sets of characteristics in human personality” (Vincent & Ross, 2001, p. 7). In this model, Jung theorized that “much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment” (p. 7).
Another model looks at learners as “global or analytical learners” (Whitefield, 2005). According to Whitefield, “The Dunn and Dunn model … identifies five major stimuli to which students respond in learning situations”(Whitefield, 2005). Some of the traits of an analytical learner include a need to complete work, preference for step by step tasks, and a need for sequence in building towards a concept and in getting feedback. Some of the traits of a global learner include a need for concepts before details, an ability to multi-task, a preference for group learning and a desire to be presented with lessons of interest to them (Whitefield, 2005).
The models listed above are only a portion of the literature on learning styles. One of the issues with defining learning styles is that “Different researchers identify learners in different terms” (Pitts, 2002, p. 4). Pitts goes on to speculate that some teachers may be hesitant to try identifying learning styles in their classrooms because of this large body of information (p.4).
The identification and support of students’ individual learning styles.
“Anybody that works in or with today’s classrooms knows that teachers are under heavy pressure to cover a lot of material,” (Pitts, 2002, p. 3). Pitts underscores the idea that test scores are expected to rise. Pitts further comments that “teaching to the student’s learning style will improve test scores” (p. 3). In this study, a teacher-friendly learning-styles instrument was evaluated to see if it would prove to be a valuable tool that could “be used quickly and efficiently by classroom teachers” (Pitts, 2002, p. 4).
There are many instruments available for teachers to use to evaluate learning styles. However, Pitts points out that “These inventories, as good as they may be, take up too much of the teachers’ time to be used effectively”(Pitts, 2002, p. 5). This creates a dilemma for teachers. Knowledge of learning styles is beneficial to teacher and student, but identifying learning styles can be a daunting task. This paper suggests that a simple, easy to administer and evaluate instrument would prove to be beneficial.
“The Learning Style Proficiency Inventory,”(Pitts, 2002, p. 6), tested in this research had only 15 items, making it more user friendly (p. 6). This inventory looks at global and analytical learning styles. Based on the Dunn model, it“identifies conditions external to the learner, rather than factors that affect a person’s ability to manipulate information. These factors affect the external instructional conditions rather than learning strategies internal to the learner” (Whitefield, 2005). The implication of the study is that if teachers can present the information in the right context, both analytically and globally, students will benefit from this type of lesson design. Another quick instrument mentioned in the article by Vincent & Ross, (2001, p.9) was an online test to quickly evaluate visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles. Taking the online survey(Wyman, 2006) was quick and simple. The findings were interesting, but the paper does not refer to any research supporting the validity of the test.
One of the innovations in learning styles identification in the literature came from a study concerning learning styles in web-based instruction. One of the challenges with selecting web-based instructional materials is that it still may be biased to visual learners. This study looked at “adaptive hypermedia technology” (Lo & Shu, 2005, p.43), as a way to recognize and adapt to individual learning styles of the student by “observing his/her browsing behavior in a web-based educational system without asking the learner to answer any questions or fill out any forms” (p. 43). This technology would allow the program to adapt to the learning preferences of the user.
By evaluating the information and testing available, classroom teachers can find instruments that will help them with identifying learning styles. Awareness of learning styles allows teachers to “get a better idea of how to group students compatibly…use different instructional techniques…and implement a rewards system based on identified preferences” (Pitts, 2002, p. 9).
Current research on the multimodal environment of the science classroom.
A study that “evaluated how twins learn,” (Mascazine, 2000, p.4), gave some interesting perspectives that can easily cross over into a general population where multiple learning styles are represented. In this study, Mascazine looked at “four pairs of identical twins who had pursued studies preparing them for science related professions (p.4). The study revealed “subtle but significant differences in how they learn” (p. 4).
What proved most interesting was the fact that although their “study strategies were consistent with their learning styles… twin siblings seldom shared the same learning style strengths” (Mascazine, 2000, p.9). The twins in the study were able to cite “specifics of their personal learning styles that were often different from their twin sibling” (p.9). One twin in the study preferred “a more formal or traditionally quiet desk and table arrangement in which to study,” while his sibling “was usually in his dorm room in a comfortable chair” (p.9). Another set of twins actually found that their auditory preferences could interfere with their communication with one another (p.9). These differences between identical twins should make us reflect on the standardized rows, desks and chairs we line our students up in each day, as well as consider how we group students and present material to them.
A second study looked at a classroom where the students were engaged in what the researchers described as a multimodal approach to learning. The study “tentatively concludes that a multimodal perspective offers some new messages for the practice of science teaching” (Jewitt, Kress & Ogborn, J, 2001, p. 5). The research is based on observations in a science classroom. The students are engaged in an activity where they are observing the cells of an onion under a microscope. After receiving instruction and direction from the teacher, they prepare slides, make drawings of their observations, and record what they’ve done.
The study was observing “learning as a process in which pupils are involved in actively ‘remaking’ the information and messages… which the teachers communicate in the classroom” (Jewitt, Kress & Ogborn, J, 2001, p. 6). Rather than just looking at what the teacher presents to the students, the researchers point out that it is necessary for teachers to follow through with the whole process by which students collect, reflect upon, disseminate, and give meaning to information they have been presented. Providing instruction and practice in multiple modalities is crucial for effectively instructing students (p. 7).
The study suggests that “a multimodal approach expands notions of ‘work’ (text and data) beyond speech and writing” (Jewitt, Kress & Ogborn, J, 2001, p. 17). It is well worth considering that a student with a preferred learning style may also have a preferred mode of response. The study further “highlights the need to attend consciously to all modes of communication, both in terms of the resources available for teacher and those made available to pupils”( p. 17). The research also “points to the need to develop an awareness of how these modes are used in the science classroom (in the same way as education research on language has made us more conscious of the use of language, pace and voice, as a resource for teaching)” (Jewitt, Kress & Ogborn, J, 2001, p. 17).
A third article looks at the instructor’s role in a multimodal classroom. The article points out that “there is more to teaching than a sharing of information and a testing for recall” (Bellanca, 1998, p. 1). The article looked at the best practices of two science teachers from the same high school with different perspectives on teaching. The first teacher said of his work, “my job is to cover the content” (p.1). He used lecture, films and the structured approach of a lab book in his lab sessions (p.1). The second teacher responded with, “my job is to interest students in the value of this science” (p.1). His style of teaching included: getting the big picture, getting students excited about biology, and the use of class and group discussions beyond the traditional lecture (p.1).
Working in a climate where the attitude was, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” (Bellanca, 1998, p. 1), the second teacher had elected to “teach for intelligence” (p. 2). The study points out that, “To change one’s practices as this teacher did, one muststart with some basic assumptions” (p. 2). These basic assumptions state that, “The traditional method is not wrong … teaching is a strategic act of engagement … changing how a teacher teaches takes more than conveying theoretical information …” (p. 2), and most compelling, “Learning to change one’s teaching style is as difficult as learning to change one’s learning style” (p. 3).
Data collected in the article demonstrates “how beliefs about learning affect teaching practices.” It further suggests that teaching for intelligences “is a never ending challenge as well as an infinite opportunity to help all children become active, engaged and successful learners”
(Jewitt, Kress & Ogborn, J, 2001, p. 5).
A consideration of the challenges of “teaching the millennial generation” (Warlick, 2006).
Students are coming to our classrooms with technologies and a comfort with those technologies far beyond what was available even a few years ago. David Warlick in his presentation at the CLMS technology conference in Montereyreferred to these students as the “millennial generation” (Warlick, 2006). During his presentation, Warlick presented these students as a new breed of learner. He referred to them as aliens, with a phone in one tentacle, a computer in the next, and a video game in the third (p. 16) They are fluent with text messaging, video games, computers, and are in constant communication with their peers on their cell phones. (Warlick, 2006).
Warlick pointed out that the children of this millennial generation were “born after the Persian Gulf War and the breakup of the Soviet Union … have never owned or heard of a Walkman … have never played Pac Man or Pong … or seen a TV with less than 100 channels” (Warlick, 2006, p. 17). They have developed a language in their text messaging that is both a corruption of standard English and a brilliant new language that can befuddle older generations (Warlick, 2006). He also pointed out that “very few of them have any conscious connections with the 20th century, except when they attend public schools” (Warlick, 2006, p. 17). This last comment caused a shudder to run through the auditorium as the audience realized the implications of this statement.
In his presentation, he also raised an idea worth our consideration as we strive to teach this current generation of elementary, middle and high school students. Warlick suggested that “For the first time in history, our job as educators is to prepare our students for a future that we cannot clearly describe” (Warlick, 2006, p. 3).
In conclusion, we need to now, more than ever before, teach to intelligence, and not to a set of facts. Vinod Khosla, the founding CEO of Sun Microsystems, said “There is no longer a need to teach kids the facts” (Warlick, 2006, p. 22), the implication being we need to teach them how to determine which facts to use. The future of our students is unpredictable, but it is also full of opportunities. In order to rise to those opportunities, students will have to be able to think, problem solve and imagine in new and creative ways, and by addressing all the ways students can learn, we can give them a better chance to be successful.
References
Bellanca, J. (1998). Teaching for intelligence: In search of best practices. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(9), 658-660. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from ERIC database.
Jewitt, C., Kress, G., Ogborn, J., & Charalampos, T. (2001). Exploring learning through visual, actional and linguistic communication: The multimodal environment of a science classroom. Educational Review, 53(1), 5-18. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from ERIC database.
Lo, J., & Shu, P. (2005). Identification of learning styles online by observing learners browsing behaviour through a neural network. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 43-55. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from ERIC database.
Mascazine, J. R. (2000). Gleanings from identical twins studying science. U.S.; Ohio: November 11, 2006, from ERIC database.
Pitts, J. I. (2002). A teacher-friendly instrument in identifying learning styles in the classroom. U.S.; South Carolina: November 25, 2006, from ERIC database.
Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, personality types and multiple intelligences online. Learning Organization, 8(1), 36-43. Retrieved November 25, 2006, from ERIC database.
Warlick, David. (2006). Landmarks for Schools: Montery Tech 2006, retrieved from
Whitefield, Despina. (2005). 4th Annual Teaching Learning Forum: Learning styles - great minds don't think alike! retrieved from
Wyman, Pat. (2006). Instant Learning: Where the world comes to learn, retrieved from