Learning Styles
The comment that inspired my ARP was about a students’ learning style. Their expectation was that I, as the teacher, should vary the delivery of my teaching to better suit their learning style, and that if I were to do so, this would help their learning outcomes. My reading of research and literature concerning learning styles theories has led me to a better understanding of what these categories are; visual, auditory, read/write and kinaesthetic. I have discovered that although there are a profusion of models and approaches in this field, supported by research with positive outcomes, systematic reviews have led to a questioning of the validity of some of their conclusions. There are many benefits drawn from these theories which have a basis in more robust evidence. They encourage flexibility in developing alternative teaching techniques and resources as well as assessment formats, an awareness of environment and belief in the potential for everyone to learn. But I have also become aware that some caution must be taken not to use labels to limit students’ learning opportunities or to discriminate against certain groups of students, and not to conflate learning styles with ability or potential.
… labelling is not a disinterested process, even though social differences are made to seem reducible to psychometric technicalities… Perhaps the most troubling implication of applying the learning style approach,… it acts directly by contributing the basic vocabulary of discrimination to the workplace through its incorporation into educational practice’
(Reynolds, 1997)
More recent research indicates effective teaching methods depend on the context or subject being taught and that individuals may not display the same learning style consistently in all situations. I now have more confidence, supported by these findings, that I will be able to knowledgeably address concerns that some students have about their learning style. I have also identified approaches that I can apply which are congruent with inclusive teaching methods, some of which I have been testing in this ARP. These include being aware of all the senses, using as wide a range of supporting materials as possible, incorporating a flexible learning environment, encouraging discussion and analysis within the peer group, introducing appropriate examples so assessment criteria is clear and giving timely feedback.
Methodology
As I wrote about when explaining the rationale for my ARP, I wanted to use it as an opportunity to answer questions I had about my own teaching practice. In mapping my project to the AR cycle, I recognised that I had been applying some of the principles and methodology informally in my work; in the iterative, cyclical nature of examining my practice, testing interventions and seeing if they work, as I try to improve how I teach (Initial Observations). As a non-academic, I have had to teach myself how to teach, mainly by observing, collaborating with colleagues and through doing. From this position as an outsider, the ARP has been a means of legitimising these actions within an academic framework. In researching how to do research, I have achieved a greater understanding of developing appropriate testing strategies, critically analysing data and drawing valid conclusions which I can incorporate into the informal testing that is part of my professional development.
My positionality as a non-academic manifested itself in the design of my ARP through a tendency to value Quantitative over Qualitative data. I have recognised this as an internalised bias towards a historically western belief in Quantitative data as ‘masculine’, ‘hard’ evidence and Qualitative as ‘soft’ or ‘feminine’, which I have struggled to overcome, even as someone who identifies as a feminist.
Feminism added a dualistic critique that noted how the binary of qualitative and quantitative was associated with a dualistic structuring of female/male; soft/hard; intuitive/rational; art/science and so forth
(Hughes & Cohen, 2010)
It also stems from feeling uncertain of the academic value of my technical skills, further reinforced by the scarcity of research I was able to discover in my subject area and by the hierarchical structure at UAL which fails to recognise Technicians as Teachers. In my reading on research methodology, I have come to understand that Quantitative data is no more factual than Qualitative data, but rather depends on well executed methodology, appropriate research tools and un-biased data analysis and interpretation. This, and readings of literature on the principals of Action Research, as well as thought provoking conversations in classes and tutorials, have made me challenge my views and inspired me to interrogate my practice with more confidence. I can now see how valuable the addition of Qualitative questions to the methodology of surveying and thematic analysis is as a means of triangulating data and increasing the validity of my project findings.
My ARP
Examining the responses, I was impressed by how self-aware students were about their own learning and how closely their comments echoed the reasoning behind my intervention.
My analysis of the data that I collected did show my intervention had some positive effects. I found both Quantitative and Qualitative evidence that the previewing of visual material helped with confidence and focus, and students of varying backgrounds were more able to complete the skill independently, expressed as a reduction in the need for additional instruction to complete the learning outcome (data analysis). An unexpected result for Q6 (How much additional instruction did you need to complete a sample of the stitch?) was a reduction of the Standard Deviation for the intervention workshops. More students scored closer to the mean, which I interpreted as overall, students becoming closer to needing the same amount of additional instruction. This attests to the effectiveness of the intervention in encouraging noticing and communicating the skill technique to all students, no matter their background, ability or learning style; a central aim of inclusive teaching practice.
I will be able to integrate these findings into my teaching practice. Although the intervention workshops were micro in length, I can apply the principals into my longer process workshops. I will be able to treat each step as a micro-teach, which I can approach by presenting a visual introduction before demonstrating. This could be a simple as showing the step in it’s completed form so that students are able to observe the subsequent demonstration with more understanding of the outcome.
Although I have reached these conclusions as a result of this research, it has not been a linear process and as I have discussed in my blog on Data Analysis (Link), I have examined the data from a number of directions which I had not anticipated when I designed the project. My data showed a correlation between smaller group sizes and improved outcomes. There was also a correlation between improving outcomes where learning activities took place in enclosed space environments as opposed to open plan spaces, although I have discounted this finding when cross referencing this data with the Control vs. Intervention categories. The group size result is consistent with the systemic review of Peyton’s 4 step method (Giacomino et al., 2020) which informed the design of my intervention, which shows that teaching using this method was more effective in smaller groups.
I enjoyed planning and implementing my ARP. I was excited to see the results as I felt the ARP could prove something I had a ‘feeling’ was right. I was aware of expectation bias from my research into methodology, and that, as my first ARP, there were bound to be unexpected occurrences. The most troubling design flaw in my methodology, which calls into question the results, was the effect of the intervention on myself as the practitioner-researcher. Not only was I encouraging noticing in my students, I observed myself noticing my own practice. My research into learning styles and tacit knowledge had prompted me to think about multiple senses, especially touch and movement; how I could describe and bring these to the awareness of my students when demonstrating (Field Observations). As I noted in my Field Observations, I had not taught this workshop prior to the surveying, and as I delivered the research activities, I noticed slight changes in my delivery of the demonstration. This has led me to question whether the data I was collecting was based on consistent conditions.
As you, the educator-researcher, interacts with participants, you may find it necessary to continue the research with additional data sources to better address the question at the center of your research. When educators are researchers and a participant in their study, it is especially important to keep an open mind to the wide range of research methodologies.
(Spencer Clarke et al, 2020)
To my mind, this last point cannot reliably be addressed without further testing. Additional testing of the activity using the Control workshop, demonstrating the skill using the techniques and descriptions matching those used in the later Interventions workshops, would help to discount this as a variable which might instead be responsible for the positive effect. It is possible that at least some of the improved outcomes of the participants’ learning could be attributable to improvements in my teaching. This is another direction that could be followed through in further AR cycles; identifying what is successful about my teaching, what were the changes I implemented in my teaching and whether these have a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes.
The importance of the skill that one has for teaching, could have links to another of the findings of Giacomino’s review of Peyton’s 4 Step method; that positive outcomes were measurably better when the activity was carried out by a teacher, as opposed to a peer. Very little indication was given of the qualities of these teachers and peers; what their differences were, beyond experience and professional qualifications. In many of the research studies on Learning Styles and Methods, little definition of what makes a ‘good’ teacher is presented. Both groups delivering the teaching clearly understood the activity, but a teacher would have developed ways of communicating their knowledge to students in an effective manner that perhaps a peer would not. So this aspect of the success of the Peyton method could be behind at least some of the positive outcome of my ARP, rather than the introduction of the visual supporting material.
Although I have not been able to reach a definitive conclusion, the principle of Action Research is it’s cyclical nature, where reflection leads to further research cycles. The many things I have learned all feed back into my development towards becoming a better teacher.
References
Giacomino, K. et al. (2020) ‘The effectiveness of the Peyton’s 4-step teaching approach on skill acquisition of procedures in health professions education: A systematic review and meta analysis with integrated meta-regression, PeerJ, 8(10129), pp.1-26. Available at: http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10129
Hughes, C. & Cohen, R. L. (2010) ‘Feminists really do count: the complexity of feminist methodologies’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), pp.189-196.
Reynolds, M. (1997) ‘Learning Styles: A Critique’, Management Learning, 28(2), pp.115-133.
Spencer Clarke et al. (2020) Action Research. Available at: https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/gradactionresearch/ (Accessed: 7 January 2024).