Australasian Journal of Economics EducationVol. 5. Numbers12, 2008

LEARNING STYLES AND INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS: A MATTER OF TRANSLATION

Mary R. Hedges

Department of Economics

The University of Auckland

E-mail:

ABSTRACT

Many students struggle with first year economics. Students with no previous experience of economics often find it overwhelming. Even those with previous experience often find the university focus on the mathematical expression difficult. They then interpret these difficulties as an inability to do economics and leave their first year programme with a negative perception of economics as a 'hard' subject.

This paper argues that often it is not that students find the economics difficult but have difficulty translating ideas when they are expressed in different languages - in economics these languages are English (words), pictures (graphs) and numbers (algebraic expression). Therefore their difficulty is one of translation, not of understanding. This paper explores this idea and uses two case studies to illustrate the positive changes that can be brought about through considering these problems as a language acquisition problem instead of an economics problem. For students who are unilingual in this context some strategies for improvement are then suggested. Finally it concludes by identifying further avenues for work in this area.

Keywords:

JEL Classification:

1. INTRODUCTION

Many of us who are in the business of teaching, are concerned about the performance level of the students in our classes. We continually ask ourselves, "what can I do to improve their performance, understanding and enjoyment of the discipline I am teaching?" This is particularly true when teaching large first year classes (400-600 per class), many of whom have no personal interest in economics but are taking the course because it is a compulsory component of their business degree.

The question of how we can improve performance becomes central when dealing with students who appear to understand the material in class, actively participate in any discursive activities and utilise opportunities to ask questions directly of the lecturer, then perform well below expectations in assessments. After having several students like this, I began to think there was another application of learning styles.

For a number of years I have explicitly talked about learning styles with students who come to see me with difficulties. In going over a mid-semester test with two students it became very obvious that their difficulty did not lie in their understanding of the material but in their ability to express that understanding in a variety of ways. This highlighted that the issue was one of translation between the 'languages' in which we teach economics eg. words, graphs and algebraic expression. These 'languages' also relate to learning style preferences. Thus the issue became one of translation - when delivering the material and when the students then need to respond to that material. This paper then explores this issue of translation in the context of first year economics classes.

The paper starts with a brief summary of key theories of learning and how learning styles fit within those theories. It then briefly explains the VARK framework of learning styles to be used in this paper and relates that to the standard delivery methods in large first year courses. The paper considers possible ways that maths may be fitted into this VARK framework and when it is likely to lie outside of its boundaries. Second, language acquisition theory is outlined and that theory related to a student's learning and response to non-preferred learning styles. The paper concludes with two case studies of students with specific 'language' difficulties and how, by treating their difficulties as language problems, they were able to overcome these difficulties and succeed in their first year course, leaving it with a positive attitude to learning new things, not only economics.

2. THEORIES OF LEARNING

“Learning is a complex set of processes that may vary according to the developmental level of the learner, the nature of the task and the context in which the learning is to occur” (Gredler, 1992, p10). There are a significant number of factors that determine how an individual learns and thus there are a large number of theories relating to the subject of learning. Each seeks to develop a set of principles that is consistent with predetermined assumptions about the nature of learning. Three such theories are shown in the top part of Figure 1.

Figure 1: Theories of Learning

Behaviourism is based on the assumption that the environment is the key factor responsible for how well an individual learns. Behaviourist theories explain how an individual is likely to learn in different environments and how the environment can influence an individual’s behaviour. An example is of a cat running for food when it hears a tin being opened (Foxall, 1999).

Cognitive theories seek to explain how the brain processes and stores information. These theories assume that the individual’s mental processes are the key factors in determining how well an individual learns. (Lightbown & Spada, 1993)

Interactionist theory assumes that the environment and mental processes are both involved in an individual’s learning. The two processes interact.

All three theories make different contributions to the literature on learning styles. However, the most important of these in terms of learning styles and preferred sensory modes would appear to be the cognitive theories. This relationship will be explained in more detail below.

2.1 What is a Learning Style?[1]

A learning style is the way in which a student begins to concentrate on, process and retain new and difficult information. An individual’s skill preferences and biological make-up will determine his/her learning style and affect learning behaviour. The learning style affects how the individual acts in a group, learns, participates in activities, relates to others, solves problems, teaches and works.

Learning styles, like the theories of learning, are complex. A range of different theories on learning style are listed in the bottom half of Figure 1. To provide a complete picture of an individual, it would be necessary to develop a learning profile. The profile would include the student’s preferences with regard to personality type (Myers-Briggs), social interaction (Grasha-Reichmann), left brain versus right brain thinking (Brain dominance inventory), sensory modes, environment, chronopsychology, thinking versus feeling, competitive versus collaborative, reflectivist versus activist, theorist versus pragmatist, and so on. The first four are explained in more detail below.

Personality types are often assessed by using a Myers-Briggs test to determine how people take in information, make decisions and relate to other people. Following the test, an individual is classified in terms of the following opposing preference pairs: introvert-extrovert, sensing-intuitive, thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving.

Social interaction addresses how students interact with teachers and fellow students in the classroom. Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Reichmann developed the Grasha-Reichmann inventory to assess students involved in tertiary education. Like Myers-Briggs, the inventory categorises students around bi-polar pairs: competitive-collaborative, avoidant-participant, and dependent-independent.

Brain dominance considers which side of the brain is used to process different kinds of information. Students can be classified as left-brain dominant, right-brain dominant or bilateral dominant. A student who is left-side dominant is more likely to prefer information to be conveyed verbally. On the other hand, a student who is right-side dominant is more likely to prefer non-verbal information and is more artistic.

The focus in this paper is on sensory modes of learning. There are three senses used to process new information: hearing (auditory), seeing (visual) and feeling (kinesthetic). These sensory modes will be discussed in more detail below. It is important that we emphasise that this is just one variant of learning style determination as outlined in Figure 1.

2.2 Diagnosing Learning Styles

Learning style inventories (generally questionnaires) are used to help a student determine different aspects of his/her learning style. By using a number of different learning style inventories it is possible to create a full learning profile of a student. 'VARK' is one such example of a learning style inventory tool. It is the main focus of this paper and is discussed in more detail below.

2.3 Why are learning styles important?

Students absorb and process information in different ways. A student, for example, could be visual or auditory, logical or intuitive in his/her reasoning; competitive or collaborative; work steadily or in fits and starts. Similarly teaching methods vary with the learning preferences of the lecturer. One lecturer may prefer structured teacher-centred sessions, while another allows students to discover principles for themselves; one lecturer may talk non-stop while another prefers visual methods; one may focus on theories while another continually refers to real life applications.[2]

Students therefore learn best when their learning style is consistent with the modes of teaching used by their lecturers. In the case where there is a mismatch between the style of the learner and the teaching method of the lecturer, a student can become discouraged with the course and achieve below his/her potential, or in extreme cases withdraw totally from the course. Thus it becomes useful for a student to know his/her learning style preference to help plan the learning tasks necessary for academic achievement.

3. SENSORY PREFERENCES (VARK)

As stated above, one of the ways in which learning styles can be addressed is in terms of sensory intake of information. The preferred sensory mode of babies could be considered gustatory and tactile, in that they like to become familiar with new objects by putting them into their mouths. As we get older however, our preferred sensory modes develop.[3]

The literature search has shown that the majority of Sensory Preferences Inventories report on an individual’s learning style in terms of the three primary senses used to process information: visual, auditory and kinesthetic (or tactile). The first two are self explanatory and the third is like the preferred sensory mode for babies, that is the use of hands to touch, to handle, or to do things.[4]

Neil Fleming and Colleen Mills (1992) have taken the Stirling's (1987) VAK sensory preferences inventory and developed it in two ways. Firstly, the visual sense (V) has been disaggregated so that a distinction is made between visual information presented as text (R to indicate read/write) and that presented as pictures, such as diagrams and videos (V has been used for this second category but it should not be confused with the V from VAK style questionnaires which represent all information sensed visually - rather it is a subset of this categorisation). This is to recognise the fact that while both modes rely on visual presentation, some students work more easily with text, whereas others prefer diagrams. This is one way in which VARK differs from other sensory inventory systems that have been developed.

Fleming and Mills have also made VARK more than just another learning style inventory which simply categorises a student according to his/her preferred learning mode. Rather, VARK can be thought of as a self-help kit for student and lecturer alike. It includes a straight forward diagnostic questionnaire[5] (that takes approximately 10 minutes to complete), tips for students divided according to their preferred learning mode, as well as useful information for lecturers wanting to cater for the diversity in their classrooms.

Many authors suggest that lecturers should adjust delivery methods to accommodate the different sensory modes of students in their classes, or provide a variety of delivery methods to cover the visual, auditory, read/write and kinesthetic styles of students. Fleming and Mills take a different (and what we consider more realistic) approach, to empower the students. “[I]t is simply not realistic to expect teachers to provide programs that accommodate the learning style diversity present in their classes, even if they can establish the nature and extent of that diversity” (Fleming and Mills 1992, p 138). The lecturer can assist students by encouraging them to fill out the questionnaires and giving them time to reflect on the meaning of their preferred learning styles. It would also be useful to discuss with students, how they can adjust their learning behaviour in line with their preferred sensory mode. This latter method has been used successfully and reported on by a team at Auckland University of Technology (see (Dabb et al., 1998)

4. LARGE CLASS DELIVERY METHODS

In teaching large classes and multiple streams of a course, at times with different lecturers, the ability for lecturers to adjust their teaching to accommodate the different modes of their students is obviously severely limited. What tends to happen is that concepts and ideas are conveyed in a variety of methods. These do tend to focus on visual (V), aural (A) and Read/Write (R) with little opportunity provided for Kinaesthetic (K) methods[6]. The presumption by the teaching staff, myself included, is that by going over the same idea in words (A), on graphs (V), by lecture notes (R) and in algebra (possibly R but see next section) is that we are reinforcing the idea through repetition. For traditional university students who tend to be strong in A and R this is probably true. However, with the rapid growth in the tertiary sector over the last twenty years, there are an increasing number of students for whom the traditional delivery methods are not preferred learning styles.

There is now a large group of students, often considered non-traditional students, who are stronger in visual (V) and/or kinaesthetic (K) learning styles so the shift to large lectures often presents them with multiple problems. At the same time, changes in the school curricula have tended to provide far wider acceptance and encouragement of V and K styles than was present even twenty years ago. This means these students may well have been very successful students at school where strong V and K preferences are more accepted and also often mitigated by small classes, close contact and study with peers, closer student/teacher relationships and a more interactive environment generally. First year university study does not provide these mitigating factors. This can result in these students floundering - not due to lack of ability but due to a lack of skills to manage 'foreign' learning styles.

4.1 Maths skills and VARK

When considering how maths skills fit in with VARK there are two levels that appear to be relevant. These relate directly to the degree of maths inability and fear or aversion

If a student has an extreme aversion to maths they see this as an entirely different language. Students may even say we are talking Greek to them. In this situation they lack the 'language' skills to even recognise the language being used and respond to this by tuning out. The problem that this causes is that when we change back to English or any other style they are more comfortable with, they do not immediately pay attention, and so there will usually be a delay. If this happens multiple times within a lecture it compounds their difficulties. For these students they view anything that has a graph or an equation or numbers as "maths - therefore I can't do it". In identifying maths simply as a language they need to learn, in the same way they have learnt the jargon of the major subjects, steps can then be made toward acquiring maths skills in a preference order that matches their learning preferences - the 'easy' parts first. However, this paper is not about conquering a maths aversion.[7]

The second group of students are those who have limited maths skills and/or confidence. For this group it often comes down to what they define as maths. For example a strongly visual person who also has some maths skills may feel reasonably comfortable with graphical representations yet feel threatened by the algebraic expression of the same idea. Similarly someone with very strong Read/Write skills and maths skills may be comfortable with algebra but not with graphs. A student who is more kinaesthetic with maths skills will prefer examples that are realistic and use real numbers rather than algebraic expression or sketch graphs. This is then similar to being able to recognise a language and maybe, pick up key words. The student in this position will tend to remain more focussed on the material even though it is in a foreign language - they pick up sufficient to get the idea that it is saying the same thing as the words they have already heard. Clearly, for both of these groups some understanding of language acquisition will be useful.

5. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY

The focus on this paper is in second language acquisition (SLA) - that is a language acquired after early childhood (including what may be third or subsequent languages learned). SLA tends to be viewed in two ways: as a part of applied linguistics where the focus is on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom; or as a part of the language system and learning processes themselves. The latter is particularly important when considering language acquisition with little or no formal training (termed naturalistic acquisition) (Canale & Swain, 1980). It is often this type of language acquisition that students develop their learning style preferences through.