"#$%&#' ()' *#+*%),#' -+*%. /01/2 !"#$ $&'()*+ !"#$ ,-./0/1-2/0-,34/345.%&6#' 57 ,6# -4,68*2 $)56 7 86)'59: A'=56 B6)'59:9C5<&: DE?D9F GHH*)>> 30 !H*5> I?=HJ ;<*5>KE<&*E< J $DLD
;<=*6)> #?9@)66 E(?9@)66C:'=56DE?' 2M23 A N?OO59: ;5*E6)J "O*59:B5)6HJ P5>>?&*5 43.01J Q"GD
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
ii
TEACHING AND LEARNING STYLES VARK STRATEGIES
Neil Fleming April 2012
iii
A Brief Overview of VARK and its Development VARK is an acronym made from the initial letters of four means of communicating (Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic). People use these modes when they are taking in or giving out information. They also have preferences for some modes and not for others. For example some prefer to ‘read about it’ others to talk or draw. Some have no strong preferences for any one of the communication modes. They may be indifferent to which method they use to express their learning – they aremultimodal in their preferences. This book is about identifying your preferences and using them to be successful. It will give you strategies that are matched to your preferences and it will encourage you to play to your strengths.
Although we have known for centuries about different communication modes, the VARK package, initially developed in 1987 by Neil Fleming, was the first to systematically present a series of questions with helpsheets for teachers, students, employers, employees and others to use in their own way. It also sought to be advisory rather than diagnostic and predictive. Many researchers had focused on Visual, Aural and Kinesthetic characteristics (V, A and K), but Fleming subdivided the Visual mode into Visual (iconic) and text (symbolic), creating four possibilities for modal preferences. A fifth category was added to cater for the 55% - 65% of respondents who have multiple preferences (multimodal). The VARK materials are widely used in educational institutions around the western world and have received high acclaim from students and teachers for their powerful simplicity, their ability to spark discussion about learning and the fact that VARK makes intuitive good sense. A brief inventory is another advantage because it reduces“survey burnout”! Version 7 was launched in October 2006 with the assistance and insights of Dr. Charles Bonwell, Abby Hassler, Heather Lander, Faye Fleming, and Carol Cadigan. The questionnaire was changed to 16 questions with four options in each question. The examples and wording were brought into the 21st century. There are versions in over 20 languages. There are also specialist versions for those aged 12-18 (Younger), for Athletes and a checklist for those under 12 year of age. The last mentioned uses a quite different format. The website at www.vark-learn.com has a number of additional resources and downloads. Teachers and students benefit from knowing about their individualized ways of learning. Even reflecting on their learning strategies (metacognition) is a useful technique for improved understanding. VARK is a tool for all. It is as helpful in astrophysics as it is in management. One of its side benefits is as a catalyst for conversations about learning and how it can be enhanced. The citation for the initial research paper that launched VARK is: Fleming, N. D. and Mills, C. (1992), Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection, To Improve the Academy, Vol. 11, 1992. Neil D Fleming April 2012
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE:
WHAT IS VARK? ........................................................................................................................................... 1
What are learning styles? ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Why VARK? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 The VARK questionnaire ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Scoring ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 What is the strength of my single preference? ................................................................................................................................... 5 Grids ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 What is normal? ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Male and female differences .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Single preferences .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Proportions for the VARK modes. ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Options chosen ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 What does a void mean? .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Leisure and learning ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Strengths and preferences ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Other VARK questionnaires ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Where to now? ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER TWO:
TEACHERS AND THEIR VARK CHARACTERISTICS .................... ............................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................. ........ 11
Characteristics of teachers................................................................................................................................................................ teachers................................................................................................................................................................ Teachers with a Visual preference ................................................................................................................................................... Teachers with an Aural preference .................................................................................................................................................. Teachers with a Kinesthetic preference ........................................................................................................................................... Teachers with a Read/write preference ............................................................................................................................................ Teachers with Multimodal preferences ............................................................................................................................................ CHAPTER THREE:
11 11 12 13 13 14
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING............................. ....................................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 17
Teaching strategies ............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .. 17 The concept of matching .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Teacher and faculty development .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Should teachers be adaptive or balanced? ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Knowles and lesson variety .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 Bonwell and Eison’s Active Le arning .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Web-based instruction ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............ 23 Examples of matching ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Example one: Curriculum design ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Example two: A student with a visual preference complains. ......................................................................................................... 25 Example three: Lesson planning ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 Example four: From economics ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Example five: From a preschool ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 VARK for Littles .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER FOUR:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARK...................... ................................ ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... ............. ...29
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 The problem ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Hunches ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 The review in 2006 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 The research literature ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Modal preferences ............................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Publication and presentations ........................................................................................................................................................... 31 Allowing for multiple preferences ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Working with teachers ..................................................................................................................................................................... 33 So what? ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Launching VARK in North America and the UK............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............ 33 Statistical validity research .............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Some testimonials ............................................................................................................................................................................ 34 The big questions again! .................................................................................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER FIVE:
THE RESEARCH BASIS .................... .............................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 36
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Contributions to the development of VARK. .................................................................................................................................. 36 Perception and modal preferences ................................................................................................................................................... 36 VARK: a learning style? .................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Why was the Visual channel split into V and R? ............................................................................................................................. 37 Is the inventory reliable? .................................................................................................................................................................. 39
v
Is the inventory valid? ...................................................................................................................................................................... 40 A profile not a category ................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Are there differences between women’s and men’s scores? ............................................................................................................ 42 Norms and patterns .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. 43 Other research findings .................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER SIX:
LINKS TO SOME OTHER SYSTEMS ..................... ............................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 46
Four-part systems ............................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Kolb’s learning cycle ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Neuro-linguistic programming (N. L.P.) and VARK ............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ....... 48 VARK and left-brain/right brain research........................................................................................................................................ research........................................................................................................................................ 48 The Dunn’s ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Multiple intelligences ....................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 CHAPTER SEVEN:
UNDERSTANDING A VISUAL PREFERENCE ..................... ............................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................. ........ 51
About Visual learners ....................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Working with others ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Visual strategies ............................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Some case studies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Some interesting facts and theories .................................................................................................................................................. 57 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER EIGHT: EIGHT:
UNDERSTANDING AN AURAL PREFERENCE ..................... ............................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ................. ...... 60
About Aural learners ........................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Working with others ......................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Some case studies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 61 Some interesting facts and theories .................................................................................................................................................. 62 Culture .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 62 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER NINE:
UNDERSTANDING A READ/WRITE PREFERENCE .................... .............................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 64
About Read/writers as learners ........................................................................................................................................................ 65 Working with others ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Some case studies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 66 Some interesting facts and theories .................................................................................................................................................. 68 Culture .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER TEN:
UNDERSTANDING A KINESTHETIC PREFERENCE .................... .............................. ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 68
About Kinesthetic learners ............................................................................................................................................................... 70 Working with others ......................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Some case studies ............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Some interesting facts and theories .................................................................................................................................................. 72 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 72 CHAPTER ELEVEN:
UNDERSTANDING MULTIMODAL PREFERENCES ..................... ............................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............... .... 73
Multimodal defined .......................................................................................................................................................................... Their characteristics ......................................................................................................................................................................... Working with others ......................................................................................................................................................................... Case studies ...................................................................................................................................................................................... Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... CHAPTER TWELVE:
73 73 74 75 76
ISSUES AND CAUTIONS ..................... ................................ ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ............ 77
Using the questionnaire with others. ................................................................................................................................................ 77 Stretching or matching ..................................................................................................................................................................... 77 The primacy of language .................................................................................................................................................................. 78 Some cautionary tales ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Strengths and preferences ................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Postscript: should students or teachers change?............................................................................................................................... change? ............................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C
Research Questions .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .... 82 Website and Statistical Data .................................................................................................................................... 83 VARK for Littles ..................................................................................................................................................... 84
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................................................. 85
vi
vii
CHAPTER ONE:
WHAT IS VARK?
WHAT ARE LEARNING STYLES? The term learning styles refers to individuals’ characteristics and preferred ways of gathering, organizing, and thinking about information1. Murrell and Claxton2 have categorized learning styles into four groups: models that focus on
1) personality characteristics (e.g., extrovert v. introvert) 2) information processing (e.g., a holistic v. a sequential approach) 3) social interaction, looking at how students behave and interact in the classroom e.g., learning oriented v. grade oriented) 4) instructional preference, the medium in which learning occurs (e.g., graphic representation, listening, reading, or direct experience). VARK is in the category of instructional preference because it deals with perceptual modes. It is focused on the different ways that we take in and give out information. We have a preferred learning style and one part of that learning style is our profile of preferences for the intake and the output of ideas and information. VARK provides you with a profile of your instructional preferences. For taking in our environment we use our senses - sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell. In academic learning we usually use our sight, our speech and our hearing with less importance placed on taste, touch and smell. No student or teacher is restricted to only one mode for communication intake and output. Some like to use all their senses at once by experiencing their learning and we name this a Kinesthetic preference. There are some dominant preferences and some voids (zero scores on a preference) among both students and teachers. Some students and teachers exhibit not only a strong preference for one particular mode but also relative weaknesses in the other modes. The power of VARK is that teachers and students understand it intuitively and it seems to fit practice. It provides a useful way, therefore, to begin a discussion about learning. WHY VARK? The acronym VARK stands for Visual , Aural, Read/write , and Kinesthetic. These are the sensory modalities that are used for learning information. When we are learning, these four modalities reflect our experiences. Although there is some overlap between them, for the purposes of this book, they are defined as follows.
Visual (V): This preference includes the depiction of information in charts, graphs, flow charts, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and other devices that teachers use to represent what might have been presented in words. Layout, whitespace, headings, patterns, designs and color are important in establishing meaning. Those with this as a strong preference are more aware of their immediate environment and their place in space. It does not include pictures, movies, videos and animated websites (simulation) that belong with Kinesthetic below. Aural (A): This perceptual mode describes a preference for information that is spoken or heard. Those with support for this modality report that they learn best from discussion, oral feedback, email, phone chat, discussion boards, oral presentations, classes, tutorials, and talking with others. Read/write (R): This preference is for information displayed as words either read or written. Not surprisingly, many academics and students have a strong preference for this modality. These learners place importance on the precision in language and are keen to use quotes, lists, texts, books and manuals. They have a strong reverence for words. Kinesthetic (K): By definition, this modality refers to the “perceptual preference related to the use of experience and practice (simulated or real).” Although such an experience may invoke other modalities, the key is that the student is connected to reality, “either through experience, example, practice or simulation,” It is often referred to as “learning by doing” but that is an oversimplification especially for learning which is often abstract but can still be made accessible for those students with a Kinesthetic preference. This mode uses many senses (sight, touch, taste and smell) to take in the environment to experience and learn new things. Some theorists believe that movement is important for this mode but it is the reality of a situation that appeals most. Before you read any further you should complete the 16 questions on the next three pages. If you are aged between 12 and 17 you should use the copy of the questionnaire in the appendices and then return with your VARK scores to the page headed“Scoring”. If you prefer to complete the questionnaire online go to http://www.vark-learn.com get your scores and return to the section on Scoring below. 3
1 2 3
Davis, B. G., (1993). Murrell, P.H., and Claxton, C. S., (1987). There is a copy of this questionnaire at the website http://www.vark-learn.com.
1
The VARK questionnaire finds your preferences for the way you work with information. It is not a test, but it will make more sense of what you are about to read when you have completed it. There are some instructions at the top of the questionnaire. Not everybody reads them. The most important instruction is that you may have more than one answer to any of the questions. It may be somewhat more interesting if you later limit yourself to one answer per question or maybe two, but that is your choice. Some respondents say that the questionnaire does not match their view of themselves. That is often because they chose the answers that they thought they should choose or they tried too hard to restrict themselves to one option per question. Instead, choose the answer or answers that describe what you do and circle the letter next to it. The a. b. c. and d responses are muddled on purpose. Leave blank any question that does not apply. Please fill in the questionnaire even if you have filled it in before. Just one more time! THE VARK QUESTIONNAIRE
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 a) b) c) d)
are helping someone who wants to go to your airport, town center or railway station. You would: draw, or give her a map. tell her the directions. write down the directions (without a map). go with her.
2.
You a) b) c) d)
are not sure whether a word should be spelled `dependent' or `dependant'. You would: see the word in your mind and choose by the way they look. think about how each word sounds and choose one. find it online or in a dictionary. write both words on paper and choose one.
3.
You a) b) c) d)
are planning a holiday for a group. You want some feedback from them about the plan. You would: use a map or website to show them the places. phone, text or email them. give them a copy of the printed itinerary. describe some of the highlights.
4.
You a) b) c) d)
are going to cook something as a special treat for your family. You would: look through the cookbook for ideas from the pictures. ask friends for suggestions. use a cookbook where you know there is a good recipe. cook something you know without the need for instructions.
5.
A group of tourists want to learn about the parks or wildlife reserves in your area. You would: a) show them internet pictures, photographs or picture books. b) talk about, or arrange a talk for them about parks or wildlife reserves. c) give them a book or pamphlets about the parks or wildlife reserves. d) take them to a park or wildlife reserve and walk with them.
6.
You are about to purchase a digital camera or mobile phone. Other than price, what would most influence your decision? a) It is a modern design and looks good. b) The salesperson telling me about its features. c) Reading the details about its features. d) Trying or testing it.
7.
Remember a time when you learned how to do something new. Try to avoid choosing a physical skill, e.g. riding a bike. You learned best by: a) diagrams and charts - visual clues. b) listening to somebody explaining it and asking questions. c) written instructions – e.g. a manual or textbook. 2
d)
watching a demonstration.
8.
You a) b) c) d)
have a problem with your knee. You would prefer that the doctor: showed you a diagram of what was wrong. described what was wrong. gave you a web address or something to read about it. used a plastic model of a knee to show what was wrong.
9.
You a) b) c) d)
want to learn a new program, skill or game on a computer. You would: follow the diagrams in the book that came with it. talk with people who know about the program. read the written instructions that came with the program. use the controls or keyboard.
10.
I like websites that have: a) interesting design and visual features. b) audio channels where I can hear music, radio programs or interviews. c) interesting written descriptions, lists and explanations. d) things I can click on, shift or try.
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) A friend talks about it and recommends it. c) Quickly reading parts of 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) diagrams showing the camera and what each part does. b) a chance to ask questions and talk about the camera and its features. c) clear written instructions with lists and bullet points about what to do. 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) diagrams, charts or graphs. b) question and answer, talk, group discussion, or guest speakers. c) handouts, books, or readings. d) demonstrations, models or practical sessions.
14.
You have finished a competition or test and would like some feedback. You would like to have feedback: a) using graphs showing what you had achieved. b) from somebody who talks it through with you. c) using a written description of your results. d) using examples from what you have done.
15.
You a) b) c) d)
are going to choose food at a restaurant or cafe. You would: look at what others are eating or look at pictures of each dish. ask the waiter or friends to recommend choices. choose from the descriptions in the menu. choose something that you have had there before.
16.
You a) b) c) d)
have to make an important speech at a conference or special occasion. You would: make diagrams or get graphs to help explain things. write a few key words and practice saying your speech over and over. write out your speech and learn from reading it over several times. gather many examples and stories to make the talk real and practical. 3
Please fill in these boxes to record your profile of preferences.
a)
b)
c)
d)
V
A
R
K
Total for the questionnaire
You will need the total of your four scores. The total of my four scores is:
SCORING Because you could choose more than one answer for each question, the scoring is not a simple matter of counting. It is like four stepping-stones across water. Enter your scores from highest to lowest on the stones below, with their V, A, R, and K labels.
Your stepping distance comes from this table. The total of my four VARK scores is 14-21 22-27 28-32 More than 32
My stepping distance is 1 2 3 4
Follow these steps to establish your preferences. Step One Your first preference is always your highest score so tick (check) that first stone as one of your preferences. Step Two
Now subtract your second highest score from your highest score. If that figure is larger than your stepping distance go to the paragraph on the next page titled, What is the strength of my single preference? If not, tick this stone as a second preference and continue with Step Three below.
Step Three
Subtract your third highest score from your second highest. If that figure is larger than your stepping distance go to the paragraph titled Bi-modal Preferences. If not, tick this stone as a third preference and continue withStep Four below.
Step Four
Lastly, subtract your fourth highest score from your third highest. If that number is larger than your stepping distance go to the paragraph headed; Tri-Modal Preferences. Otherwise, tick your fourth stone as another preference and read the paragraph titled, All Four are Preferences!
Bi-modal Preferences If you checked two preferences you are bi-modal. You are also part of the large group who are multi-modal – that has more than one preference. Your preferences will be one of the combinations below.
VA An example: Marcelo
Total score = 16 Stepping Distance = 1
VR
VK 3 V
AR 3 A
AK 5 R
RK 5 K
Marcelo has a bi-modal preference for Read/write and Kinesthetic. Now go to the paragraph titled,What is Normal?
4
Tri-Modal Preferences If you checked three preferences you are tri-modal. You are also part of the larger group who are multi-modal – that has more than one preference. Your preferences will be one of the combinations below.
VAR
VAK
VRK
ARK
An example: Adam
Total scores = 22 Stepping Distance = 2
8 V
7 A
1 R
6 K
Adam is multimodal with three preferences (V, A and K). His strongest choice (V) is little different from his others (A and K). Now go to the paragraph titled, What is Normal? All Four are Preferences! You have checked all four modes (V, A, R and K). They are of similar importance among your preferences for information input and output. You are part of the large group who are multimodal – that has more than one preference. Now go to the paragraph titled, What is Normal? WHAT IS THE STRENGTH OF MY SINGLE PREFERENCE? This paragraph is for those who have a single preference. Those who have a single preference have their highest score standing out above the others. How much it stands out decides whether it is a Mild, Strong or Very Strong single preference and the answer depends partly on the total number of responses that you used in the questionnaire. If you have chosen 14 to 21 options in the questionnaire, a score for your highest preference that is six or more ahead of any other score would indicate a very strong preference. A difference of only two points between your top two scores would indicate amild preference. If you have chosen 33 or more responses to the 16 questions a very strong preference would need to be at least nine (9) ahead of your next highest preference. The table below identifies the strength of your single preference. Total number of responses? Up to 21 22-27 28-32 33+
The difference between my highest score and my next highest score? Ties =0 6+ 4 or 5 2 or 3 0 or 1 7+ 5 or 6 3 or 4 Less than 3 8+ 6 or 7 4 or 5 Less than 4 9+ 7 or 8 5 or 6 Less than 5 Very Strong
Strong
Mild
Multimodal.
Preference
Preference
Preference
No single preference
The strength of my single Mild preference is - (check one)
Strong
Very strong
Two Examples
Laura
Total number of responses = 17 Stepping Distance =1
10
3
2
2
V
A
R
K
Laura’s total number of responses (17) can be read in the row of the table above headed “Up to 21” and the difference between her highest score (V=10) and her next highest (A=3) is 7. So she has aVery Strong Visual preference (V). Vicki
Total number of responses = 27 Stepping Distance =2
5
4
6
12
V
A
R
K
Vicki has a Strong Kinesthetic (K) preference because her total score fits the line“22-27” in the table and the difference between her two highest scores is 6.
5
GRIDS To visually represent your scores you could place them on each axis of this grid. ace your
sua score on t s axs.
V
K Place your Kinesthetic score on this axis.
A
Place your Aural score on this axis.
R Place your Read/Write score on this axis.
If you connect the scores from each axis you will have a diagram of your preferences.
A person with a multimodal set of VARK preferences and scores of 4 for each dimension would have a grid like this.
WHAT IS NORMAL? There is nothing normal about preferences for communication modes just as there is nothing normal about your favorite foods, cellphones or movies. Data from our website provides the following information indicating the percentage for each of the 15 different VARK possibilities.4 Remember this data is skewed towards those who used the Internet so it is not necessarily a “normal” distribution.
4
The website will have more up-to-date data in the section titled, What’s New.
6
Multiple preferences VARK 35.1% VRK 2.4% VAK 3.2% VAR 0.6% ARK 6.5% VR 1.1% VA 0.4% VK 2.3% AK 4.6% RK 3.4% AR 3.1% subtotal 62.7%
Single preferences V 2.6% A 6.9% R 15.5% K 12.3% subtotal 37.3%
In a typical group of 31 the website data would indicate that: 19 learners would be multimodal. One would prefer the Visual mode. Two would prefer the Aural mode. Five would prefer the Read/write mode and Four would prefer the Kinesthetic mode. and the teacher or trainer would probably have a Strong Read/write preference! If the same recent data were rearranged to show the percentages of respondents with either a single or multiple components of each of the four VARK modes there are some interesting comparisons. For example, in the graph below, the percentage that are classed as Visual includes all those with a Visual single preference and also those who have Visual as part of theirmultimodal preferences. This is also done for the other modes.
The students have a slightly larger proportion than teachers for Kinesthetic and Aural. The teachers are proportionatelystronger on Read/write and Visual. Notice the high percentage for Read/write in both graphs.These differences will be discussed later but it is interesting that students and teachers may not be similar in their modal preferences. How will this affect teaching and learning? MALE AND FEMALE DIFFERENCES There have always been almost twice as many women as men responding to the VARK questionnaire online. Psychologists say that this is a common occurrence – that women are more likely to fill in questionnaires to learn about themselves.
7
In the August 2011 data 27601 women and 16116 men completed the questionnaire and also provided some demographic data. Note the higher proportion of Read/write choices for women.
SINGLE PREFERENCES In the August 2011 database 37.2% had single preferences. The remainder (62.8%) had multimodal preferences. The graphs below show similar patterns to those above but they show only those teachers (45.1%) and students (36.7%) who had single preferences as defined by the VARK algorithm. Read/write is by far the strongest single preference mode for teachers and for students. Almost half of the teachers with a single preference have Read/write as that preference. For both students and teachers the Visual and Aural preferences are much less prevalent though they are still important in teaching and learning. When a student with a Kinesthetic preference and little preference for Read/write meets a teacher with a strong preference for Read/write mode and little preference for Kinesthetic what might be the result?
PROPORTIONS FOR THE VARK MODES. The distribution of modes for teachers and students is shown below. The proportions for Read/write and All-modes (V, A, R and K) are the main differences between the two graphs. The implications of these differences are explored in the chapter on Teaching.
8
OPTIONS CHOSEN This table summarizes the recent database results. The percentages represent the proportions for each of the four choices in the questionnaire. Each row should sum to 100%. For example, 20.6% of all the options chosen by respondents were for Visual choices. More recent figures are on the website. Options Chosen
n= Total database
V
45826
Sex Age
Level
26.6%
27.8%
27.4%
27.6%
male
16116
20.7%
25.7%
25.3%
28.3%
0to18
13673
21.0%
26.2%
24.0%
28.7%
19 to 25
16058
20.8%
25.0%
25.9%
28.3%
26 to 34
7214
20.2%
24.0%
28.6%
27.2%
35 to 44
4344
19.7%
23.7%
30.1%
26.6%
45 to 54
2519
19.4%
23.8%
31.4%
25.4%
949
19.1%
23.7%
31.8%
25.4%
2914
20.4%
24.9%
27.5%
27.2%
Yes
39959
20.6%
24.9%
26.5%
27.9%
Student
40674
20.5%
25.1%
26.4%
28.0%
Teacher
2192
21.3%
25.0%
26.6%
27.9%
High School
7215
21.0%
26.2%
24.4%
28.4%
2 Year College
14924
20.1%
24.6%
27.4%
27.8%
4 Year college
6142
20.5%
24.9%
26.5%
28.1%
10297
21.1%
24.7%
26.5%
27.8%
Other
4022
19.9%
25.2%
27.5%
27.4%
Africa
411
20.1%
23.4%
29.2%
27.3%
Asia
735
21.2%
26.8%
25.7%
26.3%
Canada
344
21.8%
23.0%
28.4%
26.9%
Europe
335
19.1%
26.8%
26.8%
27.3%
Middle East
121
20.5%
27.8%
24.3%
27.3%
1236
22.5%
23.4%
27.2%
26.9%
South America
293
21.3%
25.2%
24.2%
29.3%
UK
718
21.1%
23.6%
29.0%
26.3%
38167
20.5%
25.0%
26.5%
28.0%
USA
3777
20.9%
24.3%
27.0%
27.8%
st
1 Time User
38809
20.5%
25.0%
26.6%
27.9%
Yes
24645
21.4%
24.0%
26.6%
28.0%
2263
18.4%
26.8%
27.6%
27.2%
14795
19.5%
26.3%
26.5%
27.7%
Repeat user
Matched your expectations?
25.0% 24.5%
Oceania
VARK Again
20.6% 20.5%
University Region
K
27601
No
Student/Teacher
R
female
55or over Education
A
No Don't know
Options Chosen
n=
V
A
R
K
Discipline 1014
20.0%
24.5%
28.0%
27.5%
200
22.1%
24.4%
24.9%
28.6%
Art
1200
22.6%
24.8%
24.0%
28.6%
Business
4646
20.4%
25.4%
26.9%
27.2%
Computing
1063
21.4%
23.3%
27.8%
27.5%
Education
2790
20.1%
25.0%
26.8%
28.1%
Engineering
1557
21.9%
24.7%
24.7%
28.6%
Humanities
781
18.8%
25.8%
28.3%
27.1%
Languages
475
20.5%
26.1%
26.6%
26.8%
2058
19.0%
26.1%
28.2%
26.8%
785
21.7%
25.1%
25.4%
27.8%
12244
20.4%
24.2%
27.4%
28.0%
518
20.2%
27.1%
23.1%
29.1%
Applied Science Architecture
Law Mathematics Medical Performing Arts
9
Options Chosen (continued)
n=
V
A
R
K
Sport
1176
19.7%
27.0%
22.5%
29.6%
Other
6737
20.9%
25.8%
25.7%
28.3%
OTHER DATA The website database contains some other interesting information including the graph for Age from recent data (n=29096). At first glance it would seem that a large number of respondents switch from choosing a Kinesthetic responses to Read/write responses on their 35th birthday. Not true! The graph shows that the older the respondents are, the more likely they are to have Read/write as the largest proportion of their profile and that may be only an artifact of the increased number of teachers in that age group and the fact that they were educated using different modes 25 years ago! This graph has double counting as it includes, for example, all who have some Visual in their VARK profile – single and multimodal preferences. WHAT DOES A VOID MEAN? A void (zero score) or a low score on any mode is an interesting part of your profile. We suggest that you should take some time to think about your attitude to that mode. It may indicate that your least preferred mode is‘disliked’, ‘not used’, ‘a problem’ or just ‘unhelpful’. Some may voice their dislike for that mode by saying, “Why would anyone want to use that…?” It may be worthwhile to read the chapter for that mode to understand why you don’t like it. Remember a low preference score does not mean a low level of skill in that mode. It is possible to dislike something that you are good at. Preferences are not the same as strengths (see diagram below). So don’t be upset if you have a low preference or even two or three. In each of the specialist chapters on V, A, R and K (Chapters 7–11) there is information about having a void score or a low preference for that mode and in the next chapter where the VARK characteristics of teachers are examined there is more on void scores. (Chapter 2). LEISURE AND LEARNING The questionnaire and its results indicate preferences in learning situations so what respondents choose to do in their leisure or relaxation time is not a focus. Some students who have low scores for Read/write say that they really enjoy reading, or some with low Kinesthetic scores say that their hobbies are very practical ones. That may be so, because VARK is indicating how people learn not how they spend their time in leisure activities. STRENGTHS AND PREFERENCES The VARK questionnaire is most helpful to understand your learning preferences. It is not accurate for a description of your strengths, abilities or skills. The questions are framed carefully to reflect the decisions when making decisions involving learning. Whether you have a skill or not, is not the focus. For example, some teachers find that their scores do not match their perception of how they teach. That is to be expected because VARK is about how they learn not how they teach; they show preferences not strengths. The diagram below makes this point. Strengths and abilities I am good at it. I am not good at it. Go to it! Develop it. I like it. s Continue with your Practice it. e c present strategies. Use it. n e r Enhance them. Try it. e f Leave it till later. Discard it. I don’t like it. e r Motivation will void Don’t go there. P it for your learning. OTHER VARK QUESTIONNAIRES Since the development of the first VARK questionnaire more versions have been developed. There is a High School version with questions suited to the experiences of those aged 13-185 and a sports version designed with Juli Dunn at Whitman College, USA. Secondly there are versions in other languages available on the website at www.vark-learn.com and a version for young people under 12 years of age which is an observation sheet as children at those ages are still forming their preferences and are not suited to written questionnaires. THE LANGUAGE OF VARK! Avoid using the term Kinesthetics or Visuals when speaking about VARK. VARK always provides four scores – a profile incorporating all four preferences and it is unhelpful to label people with only one. There may be occasions, however, in what follows in this book where I have erred. WHERE TO NOW? Now that you know your own VARK scores you have several options. You can proceed to the next chapter where the characteristics of teachers are explored or you can find out about students’ characteristics in Chapters 7-11.
5
Debra Jones, Cabrillo College, Aptos, California 95003, Charles C. Bonwell and Neil Fleming designed this version of VARK for High School students.
10
CHAPTER TWO:
TEACHERS AND THEIR VARK CHARACTERISTICS
Your scores from the VARK questionnaire in Chapter One provide a profile of you as a person and can be used to contribute to your profile as a teacher. Teachers who adapt to the styles preferred by their students will facilitate more learning than teachers who use strategies based on their own preferences. Individual students may choose to use new strategies as a result of using the VARK questionnaire but that change affects only that student; a teacher who changes affects thousands of learners. VARK was originally designed for students at the university /college level, but teachers at any level of education can readily use it. That is why this chapter outlines some important considerations that should be borne in mind by curriculum designers, website designers, the creators of learning packages, career advisers, counselors, teachers, faculty developers and others who cater to the learning needs of others. 6 There is no shortage of quotations that indicate there is often a mismatch between students and teachers. Nulty and Barrett state: A mismatch between the learning style of the student and the learning style most appropriate for a given discipline could provide an additional explanation for why some students have difficulties with their studies.
And Rosenthal7 says: “There is a whole body of work in the psychotherapy literature about something called ‘patient matching’ and it is possible we might learn how to do something like that with students and teachers. If the interactional styles of a variety of different types of good teachers were matched up with students especially receptive to those interactional styles, more academic success might well be the result.” What can be done about it? The first step is to understand ones own styles of teaching and then attempt to provide a range of different strategies to meet the diversity in the class whether it is online or in a classroom. This will not be easy for some who are risk averse and who would rather stay with methods that they feel are comfortable even if they believe that they do not work for all of their students. After all, it is possible to blame the students and make any adaptation their problem. “Why can’t they adapt to me?” can be an easy way out of the dilemma. We challenge them to read on. There will be many teachers who already have a varied bag of strategies and are already meeting the needs of the majority of students. For them this chapter is a refresher course. CHARACTERISTICS OF TEACHERS The lists that follow are generalized statements supplied by teachers with particularly strong preferences. They are not intended to stereotype teachers but they do offer some insights into differences attributed to modal preferences. There are some more whimsical statements underneath each preference about subjects taught. In a similar vein there is a description for those who have a void score in that mode. Remember how you learn may not reflect or mimic how you teach. TEACHERS WITH A VISUAL PREFERENCE prefer to:
!
! design, arrange and lay things out. ! use Visual methods to explain things. ! visit web pages that have strong graphics, hot boxes and schemas. ! use diagrams, slides, charts, graphs, arrows, circles and boxes. ! make things look different using different graphics, fonts ... ! show complex ideas in a diagrammatic model. ! place important words and ideas so that they are spatially interesting (scattered) rather than left aligned. ! spend time arranging things spatially. ! use books(texts) that are dense with diagrams, graphics, pictures, color and white space. set written exam questions using these words - illustrate, show, outline, label, link, draw( a distinction between ...
They direct their students to:
6 7
! Visualize. ! see the point. ! hand in assignments that are neat and well set out. ! spend time on formats and styles of presentation. ! see connections. ! observe links. ! spot differences… ! plan on paper (draw) first before writing. ! get an overview.
Nulty, D. D., and Barrett, M. A., (1995). Rhem. J., (1999) .
11
They probably teach economics, physics, logic, art, geography, biology, physiology, geometry, computer systems – any subjects where layout, placement, spatial linkages and graphical analysis are important. For teachers with a strong Visual preference: I can’t understand why other teachers place so much emphasis on the written word and practical experiments when it can all be shown. It would be better to provide an overview or illustrate your main concepts with linked diagrams. Why not show the students the conceptual ideas as diagrams. When they see what you mean they will be able to outline the main ideas. My students see the points I am making. My whiteboard is covered in symbols rather than words. For teachers with a zero for their Visual score. I cannot understand why they spend time making things look better. Who cares? It is the ideas that are important not the way they are presented. It is a waste of time doing fancy diagrams when only the teacher understands them. We all get different ideas from the same drawing so why bother?
TEACHERS WITH AN AURAL PREFERENCE prefer to: use email.8 have a debate. facilitate argument. encourage class discussion. use a monologue to get the point across. use their voice to explain things (lecturing). use tapes, conversations with experts or live phone calls in class. use videos that are strong on spoken dialogue (plays, speeches…) organize online discussion formats both synchronous and asynchronous. set written exam questions using these words - explain, describe, discuss, argue for... use seminars, oral examinations, group presentations, readings (aloud) and dialogue. • • • • • • • • • • •
They direct their students to: contribute in class. read scripts and texts aloud. listen, speak, discuss and generally get involved orally. say the important words and to use spoken words well. interact with the teacher and with other students. use group work involving planning and discussing together. discuss issues among themselves, work together, contribute ideas and plan together. • • • • • • •
They probably teachMusic (performance), drama, speech therapy, philosophy (argument), singing, public speaking, dialectics, counseling, audiology and languages (using the conversational approach). For teachers with a strong Aural preference: I cannot understand why others teachers waste time with practical sessions that are difficult to organize or make lists and draw things on the board when they could easily discuss or talk things through with their students. Just tell them. Make them listen. It is important that they hear what I have to say. I like those students who can use speech cleverly and those who can make a point well. For teachers with a zero for their Aural score. They just drone on and on. I agree with the joke that a professor is someone who talks in other people’s sleep. Why do they insist on telling me everything? I can’t take it all in. I also hate having to talk in public and listen to the ideas of other ill-informed students. Discussions bore me. Why not just learn from the experts.
8
Many consider email to be a written format that should appeal to those with a Read/write preference but there are more similarities between spoken language and email and phone text.
12
TEACHERS WITH A KINESTHETIC PREFERENCE prefer to• • • • • • • • • •
set open book examinations. learn through teaching others. use real life examples to explain things. use things that bring reality to a teaching session. use metaphor, examples and analogy in any written work. bring objects to their sessions that exemplify a point (exhibits). use guest lecturers, case studies, practical work, visits to sites and laboratories. teach with exhibits, samples, newspaper stories, working models, products and people. read books (texts) that are dense with cases, conversations, stories, biographies and examples drawn from life. set written exam questions using these words: give examples, apply, demonstrate, using your, from your experience, make, gather...
They direct their students to: act out situations. use all their senses. bring things to class. get involved physically. build, construct, shape and mold. get involved with role-plays, demonstrations, practical tests, lab tests and lab reports. construct, experience, dissect, apply, develop, work on, demonstrate, grasp the point, get a handle on, grab the ideas, take things on board, get up to speed on... • • • • • • •
They probably teachtheatre, film, biology, surgery, conducting, ethnography, art, keyboarding, nursing, dentistry, experimental physics and chemistry, languages (using a situational approach), signing, aerobics, physical education, athletics, football, computer technology, agriculture, plant science, agronomy, workshop practice, sculpture and management. For teachers with a strong Kinesthetic preference: I cannot understand why other teachers spend so much time on readings and textbooks and diagrams of things. It would be better to experience things first hand. Get into the lab or the field. Find out what people really do. Get practical. Use cases. Your students will get a good grasp of it then. For those with a zero for their Kinesthetic score. I cannot understand why they keep talking about pragmatic things. Not everything in life is practical. There is room for theory and discussion and ideas. Why should I have to rely on experience? Trying to understand everything by doing it is so slow.
TEACHERS WITH A READ/WRITE PREFERENCE prefer to• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
have set texts. give many handouts. read and use summaries and abstracts. make arguments in written form. use written text to explain things. use wordy overheads and handouts. set written examinations and tests. have the class read widely and well. read books(texts) that are dense with text. put words in some order - priorities, categories ... make lists with some internal rationale for the order. write a lot of comments on term papers and assignments. format any lists in vertical and left-aligned arrangements. place important or keywords on the blackboard or overhead. write cryptic comments about student scripts with spelling and grammatical errors. use multichoice questions where the correct answer depends on discriminating between word meanings. use questions using these words - define, develop the case for, justify, write an essay on, analyze . use essay and examination questions that begin with Define, Explain, In your own words, Argue the case for, Examine, Critically review…
They direct their students to: read plays. write essays. use definitions. • • •
13
• • • • • • • • •
read their notes. find new sources. go to wordy websites. plagiarize at their peril. reference all their quotations. use dictionaries, bibliographies, thesauri and references. hunt for quotes but write with originality. comprehend, understand, write, define and use words well. read the set articles or texts and come to sessions having done so.
They probably teachComputer programming, medicine, sociology, psychology (theory), education, music composition, philosophy, theoretical physics, literature, classics, art history, chemistry, English (grammar) ethics or drama. For teachers with a strong Read/write preference: I cannot understand why other teachers have to draw pictures for their classes or use fieldwork and visits and organize discussions. Selecting the appropriate readings should be enough to give students a good understanding. I admire among my students and colleagues the clever use of words. The students who do well in my class are those who can read widely and who write well. What else is there to learning? For others with a zero for their Read/write score. I cannot understand why they place so much emphasis on words, words and more words. They seem to be obsessed with reading and papers and abstracts and research findings. To them a bibliography is like a bible and an apt quotation like a breakthrough. Surely life is more than a text. TEACHERS WITH MULTIMODAL PREFERENCES Those teachers with a multimodal preference make up 55-60% percent of any group. This statistic is different for students, who have 60-65% in the multimodal classification. Teachers with a multimodal set of preferences are not homogeneous. They do not have a single preference, but a mix of the four preferences V, A, R and K. They may be bi-modal or tri-modal or all-modal! As a group, there is diversity among them because they include all eleven of these VARK profiles.
VA
VR
VK
AR
AK
RK
VAR
VAK
VRK
ARK
VARK
There are few generalizations that can be made about these teachers because they encompass such a diverse set of possibilities. And we should recall that VARK is about learning not teaching so it indicates how teachers like to learn. Although for some teachers the way they learn is how they teach, for others that may not be so. They recognize that the students are not learning “their way” and switch to other modes to accommodate those differences. Those teachers who are multimodal learn using combinations of the single preferences covered previously in this chapter. They may all be described as “multimodal” but a different description could be written for the teaching characteristics of each teacher. They have VARK scores where there is little difference between two or more of their scores. Because of the similarities between students and teachers with a multimodal set of preferences some of the chapter onUnderstanding Multimodal Students is repeated here. Those who are multimodal, approach learning and decision making in two different ways. Some act like those people with a single preference except that they have four single preferences. They look at the information that has to be learned or conveyed to another person and choose the mode that they believe is the best one for each situation. For example if they have to learn a physical skill they will use their Kinesthetic strategies to work with it, to try it and to become practical. If they have to learn about and sign an important legal contract they will use their Read/write preference to help them with that task. This group switch from mode to mode and they have the flexibility to adapt to a number of different modes both incoming and outgoing. You will know if this is what you do. From the VARK Questionnaire this group tends to have a low total score –somewhere below 25. The second group within the multimodal category uses a number of their modes in combination to make decisions and to learn and present materials to others. They are uncertain about any learning that comes in only one way and they want to reinforce it by adding other modes of input or output. For example in a college or university setting they may gather some of the ideas from the teacher’s oral explanations, and some from discussing and questioning their colleagues. They may add to this by using the textbook or by thinking about some practical applications of the new idea they have learned. They may also use their Visual preference to draw some form of schematic diagram of the material to be learned. Together these choices use V, A R and K and only then are they satisfied that they really understand something. Some people may criticize them for taking a long time to make a decision. That is because they are being careful and gathering a wider view before acting. This group tends to have total VARK scores above 25. This second group takes longer to become confident about their learning because they have to gather in all of their modes (2, 3 or 4) to really understand something fully. The payback is that, when they do so, their understanding of their new learning is more versatile and surer than those with only a single preference. This is an advantage if they have to express or hand on their learning to others because they will have a deeper or wider understanding of it. The disadvantage that this group has is that they may not be able to gather in the many ways that would be satisfying so they often half-learn new material and it is not fully understood. If 14
their teacher or colleague uses only one mode to explain something – say Read/write (a teacher who use a text book all the time) they may have difficulty doing well in that subject. In one study of students who asked for help from a learning center, a high proportion were all-four, multimodal V, A, R and K. Some complained that they did not get enough variety from the teaching. Here are some examples from the VARK website of teachers who describe their set of preferences as multimodal. V
A
R
K
Total No. of options chosen
1 1 6 5
2 5 1 6
7 5 5 5
7 5 4 7
17 16 16 23
Multimodal because of preferences for:
R and K A, R and K V, R and K V, A, R and K
Although there is this wide diversity within the group called multimodals, those with a bi-modal set of preferences can identify quite closely with each single preference. For example a teacher with R and K preferences whose scores are 1, 2, 7 and 7 is similar in some respects with his/her Read/write preference to a teacher with a single Read/write preference who has scores of 4, 3, 7 and 3. Some people with multimodal preferences may still have a weak preference for one or two modes. For example a teacher with VARK scores of 1, 6, 4 and 6, although defined as multimodal clearly has preferences for using the Aural (A) and Kinesthetic (K) modes but said he was relatively weak at using Visual teaching strategies (V). At the other end of the spectrum are those teachers who share equal preferences among three, or four, VARK modes. With a balanced set of preferences they prefer information arriving in a wide variety of modes. They may opt in and out of alternative strategies; being Visual with Class 1A and Read/write with Class 2B; Visual on Tuesday and Read/write on Monday; Kinesthetic in the classroom and Aural at a conference. About you as a Teacher One distinguishing feature for those who have multimodal preferences is that they may be able to match those with whom they are interacting. Matching is an important skill. Doctors, K-12 teachers, counselors, nurses, lawyers and police may receive training in how to match themselves to their “clients/patients” in speech, body position, language and even breathing so they can be more effective. The theory is that matching somebody’s modes will encourage communication so those who have equal preferences for V, A, R and K can choose to “get on the same wavelength” as others and facilitate communication. Teachers can use this skill to great advantage.
Although those with multimodal preferences have choices in the strategies they can use when teaching, there are some negatives. It is seldom enough for them to teach in only one mode. Teachers with multiple preferences need communication in at least two modes if they are to learn effectively. They may need to have some output (and some input) in at least two modes if they are to feel satisfied. They need more input, whereas those with a single preference can often“get the message” with input in only their single preferred mode. For example, a teacher with preferences for R and K would want to read about some new concept and confirm it by experience, action, trial, demonstration or observation. They also run the risk that they will bore the students who‘got it’ the first time. One group of students once asked a teacher if they could please have the‘short version’ because they knew that this teacher seldom gave a single succinct answer. She preferred to tell, draw and demonstrate her answer to almost any question from her students. Another disadvantage is that a multimodal teacher could switch to the mode of the questioner, say Kinesthetic, and their answer may have little appeal for others in the class.
Working with Colleagues If you have an even set of VARK scores you should be able to select the mode that best suits those with whom you work. However, some teachers have said that they were also capable of being quite annoying by deliberately choosing a mode that was not well represented among their colleagues’ preferences. If a teacher is not feeling accommodating or sensitive to others they have the flexibility to stay “out-of-sync” with their students. This behavior can sometimes be observed in academic meetings where a participant will ask for practical applications (K) from others or will ask for written evidence (R) to prove or disprove something that has been said (A). Conversely, those with astrong preference for Aural input might rely much more heavily on what others have told them and not need such confirmation.
Generally those with preferences for all of V, A, R and K are fortunate to be able to choose among all four preferences when they work with others. Where there is a good match of preferences to the subject matter it is likely that the teaching relationship will be enhanced and there will be fewer misunderstandings. Many teachers believe that their discipline or topics within their disciplines are better taught/learned in one particular mode. Students would disagree that any one mode should be used exclusively for any teaching and there are numerous examples of teachers who can adopt almost any mode to teach any topic. 15
Conclusion This chapter has presented some teaching characteristics for different VARK profiles. They appear‘hard and fast’ but they are meant to be soft and pliable. Remember the intention with VARK is never to ‘box’ or label people. The categories, attributes and choices above are hints. In the next chapter we look at the implications forteaching using your learning preferences.
16
CHAPTER THREE: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING TEACHING STRATEGIES
“It is a sobering thought that children will be affected in some way by whatever is taught and by the way in which it is presented.” Rudolf Steiner In this chapter there is an examination of teaching strategies that arise from knowledge about VARK and modal preferences. For those who already cater for the wide diversity in front of them, this chapter is merely a refresher course. For those who have a single VARK learning preference it is expected that they will broaden their teaching repertoire to include strategies that advantage students who may have various preferences. For those teachers who are bimodal or trimodal there is an opportunity to provide learning tasks in their ‘missing’ modes. In that way they can match the variety of preferences in their classes. This may seem daunting, and there is no suggestion that every mode has to be provided in every teaching session. If in doubt, give your class the VARK questionnaire, collect your own data, and ask the class whether you are appealing to the ways they learn best. As you read this chapter keep in mind this statement by Rod St Hill.9 “Although I am not persuaded that student-centered learning is much better than teacher-centered learning, I do think that teaching is all about partnering with students to help them enter the 'knowledge community' of whatever discipline they have chosen. When both teachers and students are aware of modal preferences and incorporate that awareness into learning and teaching, the partnership will be all the more successful.” A common mistake with some inexperienced teachers is to assume that they can teach in one mode. They may suggest that they should teach this topic using Kinesthetic strategies and this one using only Aural strategies. The modes are always mixed and it would be almost impossible to use only one mode for any teaching segment. In one experiment a swimming coach tried to use only one mode for each of four sessions. She found it impossible because when she was talking (Aural) she was also demonstrating and gesturing – strategies that appeal to those who have a Kinesthetic preference. When she was using diagrams (V) she was also supporting them with speech (A). Modes can be dominant in a teaching session but not exclusive. It is also important to recall that it is possible to use a Read/write exercise that relies heavily on remembered images and Visual experiences or Kinesthetic ones or Aural ones. Similarly there are ways that teachers use Aural strategies that encompass Kinesthetic or Visual experiences. All teaching is multimodal but some modes can be emphasized. The checklist below has often been used to stimulate discussion and reflection about the teaching strategies that might reach more students. It is placed here to identify some of the implications for using VARK. You could work through the quiz to match the V, A, R and K preference(s) most closely aligned with each teaching strategy. Use check marks (ticks) or question marks to indicate your decisions. The ‘Other’ column should be used when factors other than modal preferences are primarily involved, such as motivation, personality, perseverance, culture, background… Students may have different views from you about this exercise. Teaching Strategy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 9
Visual
Aural
Read/ Write
Kinesthetic
Answering orally Audio link to a … Case study Computer simulation Design exercise Email discussion Field trips/tours Field work Film making Flip chart preparation Group discussion Internet search Laboratory report Laboratory exercise Library assignment Literature review Map reading Mind maps Multichoice quiz Oral quiz Oral report back Paired exercise Poster preparation Reading aloud Role play Seminar presentation Silent reading Email correspondence, August 10 2001.
17
Other
Teaching Strategy
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Visual
Aural
Read/ Write
Kinesthetic
Other
Slide show watching Small group project Summarizing discussion Summarizing text Summary on OHP Video watching Wordprocessed essay Written reports
THE CONCEPT OF MATCHING The concept of matching is the most important contribution of VARK to effective strategies for teaching and learning. Initially, VARK was the result of a search for more appropriate study-skills advice for students. The search led to some important ideas about matching between students’ and teachers’ styles. The basic idea behind VARK is therefore not new. In 1970, Bligh10 stated, “Teaching involves people. People differ. Thus different teachers teach best by different methods and different students learn best by different methods.”
And Bligh also said: “If teaching involves a number of different skills, if different teaching methods require the skills in different proportion, and if teachers differ in their possession of these skills, then teachers will differ in the teaching methods to which they are most suited.” These quotes were made at a time when the emphasis was clearly on teachers and teaching. Now that the emphasis has shifted to students and learning we could paraphrase Donald Bligh’s important words as follows: If learning involves a number of different skills, if different learning methods require the skills in different proportion, and if students differ in their possession of these skills, then students will differ in the learning methods to which they are most suited. Rose (1992) said that the matching process between individuals was not limited to merely matching their communication patterns. He extended the matching analogy to synchronizing heart rate, brain wave state and breathing rate as some counselors do in their sessions with clients. In 1980 Rogers11 argued that the process of organized education could act as a barrier to learning. By standardizing curriculum, assessment topics and methods and focusing on lecturing as the dominant information resource there is a risk that those students with learning styles different from the teacher’s will be disadvantaged and gain little from the subject. There are other, and later representations of this point. Dr. John Monroe, Melbourne University talking to the Brisbane Business Education Association Conference in 1995 suggested that if teachers use more strategies, students would too. He advised teachers: “Don’t classify yourself or other learners as just Visual or Kinesthetic learners. Through using all methods we can broaden learning.” Schneider et al., (1981) researched the competencies of outstanding teachers. They concluded that outstanding teachers were continually trying to trigger students into learning (individually and collectively). The‘stars’ believed that all students could learn in the right circumstances and that they had a responsibility to try and create those circumstances. They worked at it empirically, trying first one thing, observing the results and trying another. The control group l(esser stars!) was much more oriented to the content of what they were teaching, believing that some students would get it and some would not regardless of what they did. Assessment As well as applying the matching concept in teaching, there is an obvious advantage to both learning and being tested in the same modality. Farr in her Ph.D. dissertation12 found that students were able to predict successfully the modality in which they would demonstrate superior learning performance. The most desirable condition appears to be that in which learning and testing are both in one’s preferred modalities. That advantage may be reduced when learning and testing both fall in any of an individual’s nonpreferred modalities. She suggested, as early as 1971, that this would have implications for individualized instruction and computer-aided education. Do students know? Several research studies quoted by Dunn and Dunn13 have demonstrated that students could identify their own learning styles. When exposed to a teaching style aligned with the ways they believe they learn, students score higher on tests, fact knowledge, attitude and efficiency than do those taught in a manner dissonant with their style. It is advantageous to teach and test students in their preferred modalities. It has been estimated that 90% of all instruction occurs through the lecture and the question and answer methods, and yet, only between two and four students in each group of ten learn best by listening. •
• •
Rosenthal (1992) stated, “If the interactional styles of a variety of good teachers were matched up with students especially receptive to those interactional styles, more academic success might well be the result.” 10 11 12 13
Bligh, D. A., (1970). Rogers, C., (1980). Farr, B. J., (1971) Dunn, R., and Dunn, K., (1990).
18
Ingham (1992); Le Francois (1991) and Lozanov as quoted by Rose (1985) maintain that; When an individual’s learning style strengths are identified and then accommodated by corresponding instructional strategies, learners’ academic achievement and attitude improve significantly.” Perhaps the most telling and sensitive comment about matching to students’ needs is found in this rather long quote from Sternberg14. The underlining is by this author. I realize that I am neither more nor less talented in learning foreign languages than are other people. But like others, I learn better in some ways and worse in others. Once again, what we attribute to ability is really in part a question of styles of thinking and learning. It has to be. Students in Holland, Belgium and many other countries around the world easily learn one, two, or more foreign languages and no one thinks twice about it. Dutch and Belgian students are no smarter than American or British ones. Rather, they are taught in ways that better suit their styles of thinking and learning, and they are motivated to learn foreign languages in a way that our students almost never are. Consider one final and very different example: the kind of quantitative thinking required to learn statistics. I have taught, from time to time, an advanced statistics course called multivariate analysis. For a number of years, I brought all my advanced training and research on the diversity of abilities to bear upon this class in a thoughtful and sophisticated way. I classified my students into two groups: the smarts and the dumbs! The smarts could do almost nothing wrong. They understood the material quickly, did their homework with little difficulty, and did well in tests. The dumbs could do practically nothing right. They seemed only minimally to understand the material in class. They had great difficulty completing the homework assignments. And their test scores reflected their general lack of understanding of the material. Nothing complicated here, or so I thought. One year, I was reading a book that presented many of the statistical techniques that I had been teaching in a geometric rather than an algebraic fashion. I had always taught the course algebraically, requiring students to derive, understand, and apply formulas, and requiring them to see the relations among the equations that constituted the basic formulas of multivariate data analysis. After reading the book, I decided to try an experiment, namely, to teach a class that I had just taught algebraically one more time, but this time presenting the very same material geometrically. The results were astonishing. Many of the students who were consigned to the garbage heap of the "dumb" classification suddenly understood what I was saying perfectly well. It was as though they had become different people. Simultaneously, many of the students who had quickly and easily followed the algebraic presentations stumbled when I presented the material geometrically. I'm embarrassed to say that it wasn't only students who stumbled. I am not a geometric thinker, and I needed some of the students - some of the "dumber" students, that is - to correct me at various points in the lecture. And I realized that day that over the years, many of the students that I had thought to be dumb were not stupid at all, but rather simply did not learn in a way that was compatible with the way I was teaching. But my teaching the material in just a single way had never even given them a chance. There is a lesson to be learned here, and the lesson is nothing complicated. Many of the students we are consigning to the dust heaps of our classrooms have the abilities to succeed. It is we, not, they, who are failing. We are failing to recognize the variety of thinking and learning styles they bring to the classroom, and teaching them in ways that don't fit them well. … for many years, I labeled as "stupid" students who could have learned statistics well, but in a way that was different from the way I was teaching it. As well as matching to the teacher there is also matching to the disciplines. Nulty and Barrett15 said that students in the first third of their studies adopted learning styles that were similar to each other, irrespective of the main discipline of study while those in their final third of their studies tended to relate to the main discipline of study. Those students whose learning style matched the main discipline of study tended to report better social and educational outcomes than other students. An Example of Matching Rod St Hill (1997) used the VARK principles to try and stem a high dropout rate from his distance classes in Intermediate Macroeconomics. Of the 300 students, 14% withdrew before the final examination and a further 22 percent did not sit the exam. Echoing some of the tenets provided by Tom Angelo,16 St Hill stated in his paper: It seems that there is little that a lecturer can do about the fixed variables in education, such as socio-economic status, language, IQ or sex. Nor can a lecturer do much about some of the alterable variables such as the quantity of time and the quality of effort that students invest in their education. However it is feasible to adjust teaching and assessment to cater for the variety of modal preferences in a class. Students can also adapt their own study methods to accommodate their preferences.
St Hill, described himself as a very strong Read/write teacher , (VARK scores 2, 2, 12 and 0) and he set out to alter his teaching to accommodate the preferences of the students in the following ways: This year I have consciously altered my delivery style in the following ways: 14 15 16
Sternberg, R. J., (1997). Nulty, D. D., and Barrett M. A., (1995) Dr Tom Angelo was HERDSA Fellow to Australia and New Zealand in the late 1990s and developed the main points mentioned in this paragraph by St Hill.
19
I have reduced by around 20 percent the material delivered in lectures. For Visuals. I have carefully constructed key diagrams on the 1 using four different colors. The completed diagram, copied from the textbook, has been placed on the overhead projector for reference while I am drawing. Key terms have been scattered around the diagrams. Assignment feedback included an assessment summary grid. For Aurals . I have encouraged these students to tape lectures. I have been careful to speak slowly and with good diction. I have encouraged questions and discussion in lectures and in tutorials. For Read/writers. I have spoken slowly with good diction and repetition so that the Read/writers can write everything down. Key words have been written on the whiteboard. I have also provided explicit instructions regarding textbook reading and written suggested responses to tutorial questions and for the major assignment. (The Read/writers have also had a ‘good’ final examination paper.) For Kinesthetics. I have hardly done anything for the Ks. This is possibly the most challenging dimension for teachers of theoretical economics. However, as much as possible, I used ‘real world’ examples to illustrate application of theoretical models. The major assignment was built upon a hypothetical but realistic example of a natural disaster that destroyed a significant proportion of the capital stock.
He also collected brief statements from students about his teaching and their learning. Some of these are printed in italics below along with the questions the students were answering: Question 2.
From my perspective as a student, Rod St Hill’s teaching style helps my learning in the following ways (if any):
“As he goes along he is constantly explaining each step.”(Mild A student) “He refers to the sections of the text we are dealing with when explaining concept.” (Mild R student) “Reconstructing the graphs, explaining the symbols.” (Very strong R (and weak V) student) “Explanations given as graphs are drawn.” (Bimodal (V and R) student) “Reproduction of diagrams, explanations, the (written) answers to tutorial exercises which I find are better than attending the tutorials because they explain things better than the tutors.” (Bimodal V and R student (zero on K). Question 3.
From my perspective as a student, Rod St Hill's teaching style hinders my learning in the following ways (if any):
“When important statements are said we are too busy copying down the graphs to take them down. There isn't a Note: This student wanted to write down proper explanation of the graphs.” (Very strong R Student). everything said. Compare with the V and R student above). “'He goes too quickly through the content. Explains things at a level incomprehensible sometimes which after discussions with other students leaves us more confused than when we went in. We are learning, not refreshing our memories of the concepts of macroeconomics!!!.” (Bimodal V and K student (weak on A and void on R).) Question 4.
When I am learning macroeconomics I prefer to go about it in the following way:
“Go to every class and learn through discussion, not through work at home.” (Mild A student) “I get a better understanding of concepts by first reading the text, then working through the examples, and returning to the text if I can't understand it.” (Mild R student. The textbook is mainly R.) “Read the text and underline the important parts. Write up notes based on the underlined areas previously marked.” (Very strong R student.) “Highlight, go through the whole chapter and go through important points again.” (VR student (weak on A and K).) “Go to lecture, take reams of notes, go home and make my own notes and reproduce diagrams... staple all resources for each module together and keep them so I (can) condense them at exam time and write them out endlessly.” (Bimodal R and V student (weak on A, void on K).) Question 5.
These comments might help Rod St Hill to help me learn more effectively:
“Use plenty of real examples when discussing theory.” (Strong K and Mild A student.) 20
“'Direct questions to students in class regarding what has been covered or what is currently being covered.” (Bimodal A and K student.) “Maybe a summary of the important points (preferably printed ones) would help….” (Bimodal V and R student (weak on A and K).) In an email comment (July 2001), St Hill said that dropout rates had improved. “I used to lose about 25% of students who formally dropped macroeconomics. That rate is down to 10-15%. That is a significant impact of what I have done with my design and delivery.” TEACHER AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT There are frequent, almost cyclical moves in higher education to raise the profile of learning. It tends to be calledFrom Teaching to Learning though of course they are interdependent rather than options. Many faculty developers are looking for a framework that will encourage teachers to reflect on the fact that students learn in different ways - and to get them to take action. Exhorting teachers individually or in seminars, to, "vary your teaching to meet the needs of different learners" draws a predictable response similar to a "drive carefully" or a “lose weight” program. VARK offers a more persuasive strategy. It is a short logical step to 17 advise teachers that students are very good at identifying their own preferences and strengths in learning. Rhem added to this with: The metacognitive awareness that VARK generates can help all students achieve learning success whatever teaching style they encounter. Ironically, when faculty use the instruments with their students, they also become more aware of their own preferences and end up broadening and varying teaching style in an effort to engage more of the sensory modalities.
The students’ awareness of the VARK questionnaire and their use of the accompanying helpsheets spreads by word of mouth and some students start discussions with teachers about their learning. There are many examples of teachers who were surprised to see the VARK scores of other teachers. Some could not believe that their colleagues could have such a different range of answers to such ‘straightforward’ questions and they were even more surprised at the diversity of VARK scores among their students. Some teachers argued that ‘maybe these students should be better off somewhere else’ as an excuse for their own single-preference teaching methods. Instead, they were told that students with any array of VARK scores could do well in higher education - they just needed help to identify their preferred ways of learning and the strategies that went with them. Not surprisingly, students who had just completed the questionnaire and ‘discovered’ their preference(s) had little difficulty identifying that their preferences had played a part in other aspects of their lives. It seems a simple strategy, but, asking a student to, “Tell me other parts of your life where you can recognize your strong preference for, say, Read/write input and output,” seldom results in a silence. Once identified, they know how it fits. Teachers can be asked the same question. Teachers can be coerced into ‘believing’ the evidence because it is students (not theory, books, statistics or peers) who are telling them that their students have different learning needs and that some teachers are insensitive to them. They are confronted with their students “claiming their own differences”. A teacher response to this could begin by answering these questions: If students have different learning needs: Am I teaching to accommodate their differences? Should I? Can I? How can I? Who can help? What do I have to do? Do I want to do it? Are others doing it? What will happen if I change? What will happen if I don't change? Is their solid evidence that it will work? At Lincoln University, New Zealand teachers were told in workshops and seminars that each presentation in a different mode would gather in another group of students who might otherwise have missed the point. The workload for the teachers was certainly higher but the research indicates that students’ learning was better. This does not mean that everything has to be comprehensively taught in every mode but it does mean that teachers have to be aware that only some students may understand any single presentation of new material. Clearly, repetition of the concepts and ideas in another mode is a key to their effective learning. This form of amended repetition is not the same as repetition of the same point. An example to illustrate this can be seen when a teacher is faced with a student who has not understood. Some teachers, faced with a learner who does not understand, will merely raise their voice a few decibels and repeat their previous instructions, often more slowly - not realizing that the learner may be asking for a different sequence of words or even a different mode of presentation. Such a strategy convinces many students that they are dumb not different – the opposite message to what they want to hear. The best teachers will realize that another strategy needs to be employed not merely a repetition of the last. Knowledge of VARK does encourage teachers to teach in styles often beyond their own preferred teaching strategies. Many teachers can adapt and do make changes without risk. However, for students, some risk at a critical time in their education is involved. This is why we recommend that there is a bigger impact when teachers change rather than asking students to change. 17
Rhem. J., (1998).
21
SHOULD TEACHERS BE ADAPTIVE OR BALANCED? Some teachers are daunted by VARK. They understand the need to meet the diversity in front of them but have no strategies for adding such a variety of methods to their repertoire. Some of the methods are seen as counter-intuitive to their own preferences and sheer inertia may mean that few of them make changes. As Thompson (1990) says,“a number of individuals find it difficult to credit that others may think in a radically different way from themselves with regard to imagery.” But VARK is meant to be a help rather than a hurdle for teachers.
One solution is to match the learners’ preferences. Another is to teach each concept in several different ways so that if a student does not understand it in one way they may ‘catch on’ with a second or later presentations. Sadler-Smith in an insightful article18 about the effects of learning style and cognitive style stated that student diversity could be accommodated using a variety of instructional strategies in adaptive or non-adaptive contexts. He described each approach as follows: Adaptive approaches An adaptive learning system is one that attempts to customize the presentation of information and the instructional strategy to the individual learner. For example, an adaptive approach (delivered by means of a computer-based medium) would identify the cognitive style of an individual and present information in a manner congruent with her/ his style. Non-adaptive approaches A non-adaptive learning system may be defined… as one that attempts t o cater for cognitive style differences by: •
•
multiple teaching modes within the same ‘package’. This 'balanced design' would effectively be a “cognitive belt and braces approach”. Students who did not understand it in one mode would be able to find an alternative mode(s) that suited their preference(s); contrasting teaching modes, each in separate packages.
Rhem19 in his article on VARK had this comment on the need to challenge students to use their preferences rather than expect teachers to adopt new strategies. “Working in New Zealand, observing the great variety of learning styles exhibited by students, Fleming came to the same conclusion many faculty have reached: namely, that it seems unrealistic to hope to provide programs that can meet the needs of all these learning styles, to ask the teacher to forgo strengths and become a presentational pretzel. Instead, Fleming thought, why not empower students by helping them identify their learning preferences, and offer them advice on how to utilize those in response to the different teaching styles they might encounter?” Clearly, a little of both approaches would be helpful. We need teachers who are aware of, and cater for, all four modes at some stage in their presentation of information and who provide an opportunity for individual students to have their needs met through the provision of alternatives. Students are advantaged when they know what suits them best and have been taught how to use their preferences in a range of learning situations. KNOWLES AND LESSON VARIETY Many researchers have compiled lists of teaching strategies that might assist teachers to meet the challenges of matching to modal preferences. Dr. Malcolm Knowles'20 cone of experience compares different formats by level of abstraction. Though dated, it indicates some of the teaching strategies that might be used by a teacher who is aware that students may not share their preferences for information input and output. Interestingly the cone moves fromConcrete to Abstract but some students would argue that, for them, the strategies at the top of the cone are more realistic than are those at the base. BONWELL AND EISON’S ACTIVE LEARNIN G 21 These authors set out both the rationale and the strategies to get learning into the active arena needed. They wanted to“actively involve and engage students in the process of learning” and the book is packed with activities that would achieve that end. By using a number of their approaches for each topic it is likely that students diverse learning styles would be accommodated better than using a single teaching strategy, like lectures. They list these five general characteristics for promoting active learning: Students are involved in more than listening. Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on developing students’ skills. Students are involved in higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis and evaluation). Students are engaged in activities (e.g. reading, discussing and writing). Greater emphasis is placed on students’ exploration of their own attitudes and values. • • • • •
They examined the following strategies and suggested ways of moving them towards active-learning outcomes. If used, they would see most students receiving something matched to their preferences during each teaching session. •
• •
18 19 20 21
the lecture modified by the use of pauses, tests and quizzes, demonstrations, student-generated questions and alternative formats. questioning and discussion. visual-based instruction.
Sadler-Smith, E., (1996). Rhem. J., (1999). Knowles, M.S, (1970). Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J. E., (1991).
22
• • • • • • • •
writing in class. problem solving . computer-based instruction. cooperative learning. debates. drama. role-playing, simulations and games. peer teaching.
Though not written with VARK in mind, the range of these teacher actions endorses the multimodal teaching strategies recommended in this book.
WEB-BASED INSTRUCTION There are voluminous texts being written on the design of web-based instruction and on other distance education techniques. The point being made in this section is that VARK has a role in the design of web and computer-based materials because not all learners facing the screen, the mailbox, video-link, conference call or the phone are likely to learn in the same way. Too often, only Read/write materials or video or conference links have been used often with a high dropout rate. As one would expect, the dominance of the Read/write mode among educators in higher education meant that most of the early packages and screen-based programs were dense with text.
In general, designers of self-instructional materials appear to assume that learners are by and large uniform and hence may be offering something that is not congruent with the way in which at least some of their …students will learn effectively. 22 The high dropout rates in such courses are therefore not surprising. Indeed the variety of modal preferences among learners and teachers means that even more care must be taken to help students who are a long way from classrooms and face-to-face or one-toone help. To sift out the knowledge from the overload of information that they can now access, they need additional assistance not less. Distance instruction has been plagued with poor design probably because it is expensive and time-consuming to cater for the diverse range of off-campus learners. The same principles that apply to well-designed materials based on VARK concepts apply to effective web-based instruction. In an exercise at Lincoln University (1990) a web-based program was designed for students that allowed most of them to get the correct answers on the screen but when quizzed about the principles learned they were vague and 22
From Sadler-Smith, M. (1996), quoting Rowntree (1992) and Honey and Mumford (1986).
23
unknowing. A rush for teachers to “get their notes on the web” followed this early attempt. These notes consisted of everything from well-designed stimuli to dog-eared copies of the teacher’s ten-year-old lecture notes. Often the design task fell to technicians rather than those with specialist knowledge in how learning occurs. Ironically, this trend occurred in the late 20th Century when excellent work was being done on the role of metacognition and reflection. Yet students were often exhorted to plough through the screens of pages without lifting their heads to reflect on what was to be learned or to think about how they learned. There is a lot of activity researching screen-based learning but there is not much conclusive evidence or links to modality preferences. Web-based curriculum design needs to provide Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic experiences for learners. It will be challenging and costly but the principles are straightforward. If the screens consist of scrollable pages of dense left-aligned text it will suit only one mode and very few students. If it is designed with an overdose of animations, video, sound and diagrams it will repel others. One would expect that students who have a preference for Read/write strategies would appreciate the novelty and the ease of access to text on the screen, but, many teachers, faced with using the new technology merely placed their teaching notes on the web unaltered! Students with strong Aural preferences may appreciate the audio or video clips of teachers and hearing from experts that they might not otherwise hear. They also like taking part in web discussion groups. For those with a Visual preference, most web pages do not offer much, although diagrams and charts should be as easily used as pages of dense text. Certainly there is much more flexibility to use color and a range of fonts and styles but many attempts appear to be using them for decoration rather than for enhancing learning. And overviews can be presented easily so those students with Visual preferences know where they are when deep in a topic. The World Wide web is also a good source for the concrete reality required by those who have a preference for Kinesthetic input. They should be able to go to the source and gather the examples and experiences that might be denied them in their own environment. They should be able to watch live demonstrations on YouTube or the web. But a screen is not yet particularly interactive and its potential has not yet been realized for those learners. The potential is there. We wait for the next generation of web-based designers to provide a richer and more varied diet for learners. EXAMPLES OF MATCHING There are five examples below. Two are taken from an Australian Intermediate Macroeconomics course but the subject matter is immaterial to the points being made. The original course was based on print materials mailed to students in rural and urban areas but the same principles could be applied to web-based packages or video-conferencing or live capture of lectures. The designers of this distance course were keen to try different ideas because of the high dropout factor; something common to many distance education packages. They are written as correspondence to a course designer from two imaginary disgruntled students – one who had a Kinesthetic (K) preference and one who had a Visual (V) preference. The other three examples need no introduction. EXAMPLE ONE: CURRICULUM DESIGN Dear Course Designer I have a preference for learning using Kinesthetic (K) information. I found the introductory course booklet rather impersonal. In general, I looked for more examples to help me. Here are some specifics for you to consider when next you offer this course to students like me.
1
2
3 4 5 6
I looked for first names of the examiner and the others involved in the course. That is an important link for me. I want to know that there are real people behind the scenes not administrators or lecturers or designers or moderators. They may not want to, but it would be good to have their phone numbers or email addresses in case I want to contact them. I will respect their privacy. What is the faculty receptionist’s name? You said that we could contact him/her but there was no name? In the opening blurb about the course it would be helpful to have some real life examples for the following terms: “The rationale for the Macro-economic context…” “Contemporary macroeconomic events.” “Mainstream theory.” “Skills needed for this subject.” “Directed study and private study.” Could you include some ideas about how I might use this Intermediate Macro-Economics unit in my work or job. Are there examples of careers that might come from a study of this subject? Are there examples of what I could do if I pass really well? It would be helpful for me to read some comments from last year’s students – the successful ones? I would prefer real words not abbreviations like LM, BP and IS. I found it difficult to understand what happens if I don’t pass the assignments or the exam but I do pass the other bits. Could you please rewrite this section on Assessment from a student’s point of view rather than the official paragraphs you have. For example you could begin by saying: I must pass the assignment work and the exam (or whatever) with… I must mail to you my attempt at Assignment One by … and Assignment Two by… To get an extension of time I need to… I will lose 20% per day for lateness if/when etc…
7 8 9
Could you indicate what will happen if I don’t keep up with my work. Please give me some examples of other students who did! Or didn’t? What sort of students got a High Distinction grade? - What was their background? Can you give me an example of what you call a fax contact…? Why can’t I use email? What is the reason? Don’t just tell me I can’t. 24
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Please repeat information in the booklet rather than referring me back and forth to other pages. Paper is a small part of my fee. Why do I need both textbooks? Can I get old copies from last year’s students? I am not a ‘category’ as you describe me in your last sentence on page 14. What content does the examination cover? What would get full marks for this first assignment? What is an ‘A’, a ‘B’, a ‘C’? Criteria please. Do you mark for grammar, punctuation, and layout? Any advice on these? Could you please give me some examples of your rules about exemplary work, last year’s essay, plagiarism, and your expectations on citations…
Thank you for asking for my advice about your subject. I have enjoyed it and hope that my suggestions will assist others. Signed A. Student. Notice that in this example, the extensive use of personal experience and examples required by the student. Students with a Kinesthetic preference want as many examples as possible to accompany the ‘rules’. That is how they learn. There is also a high degree of personalization in the example. They want names and cases rather than abstract statements, and they want economics to relate to their life. EXAMPLE TWO: A Student with a VISUAL preference complains. Dear Professor I have a preference for learning using Visual information. I found the introductory booklet boring and not exciting in its format. In several places there were opportunities to use Visual information to match my strengths. A Read/write (R) person must have written the book, I think. Here are some suggestions:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Please use different font sizes to show appropriate emphases. Also use bolding for headings and if you can afford it, some color, please. Shading in boxes also helps me identify case studies or examples. A pie graph of the assessment weightings would be helpful. Some linked diagrams to explain the connections between concepts would be really cool. Please don’t use lots of abbreviations DEC, LBL. I get confused with just letters. I have to translate them each time. Why do you use these large or difficult Read/write words – extenuating, documented evidence, dispatched, significant medical condition, relevant unit specification, onus… A diagram would help to show the relationship between this subject and what it leads to. A diagram showing how all the thirteen modules link into a coherent whole and which ones lean on each other would help my learning. A diagram or table showing the connection between grades and marks please. Your mention of the six steps could be helped with a diagram using steps and arrows. What is a ‘facsimile?’ Would you be able to provide a table showing how the textbooks link to the course material. The table showing the workload in this course is quite good but dates are better than numbering each week. My weeks are not numbered like yours. Mine are counting down to my birthday and the end of this course.
EXAMPLE THREE: LESSON PLANNING These are some notes written for a team of respiratory nurses at Christchurch Public Hospital, New Zealand, to assist them with their design for a program to encourage selected asthma sufferers to manage their own intravenous medication. The nurse authors had initially designed a booklet that favored their own Read/write preferences and after a few months were concerned at the error rate among their patients. Dear Authors Here are some suggestions. We know that your patients prefer to take in information in different ways. Although we might give patients a wide range of strategies to cope with their difficulties in understanding intravenous processes we run the risk of mismatching these strategies for some patients. We also run the risk of reinforcing an unpalatable message - that the patient is deficient in some way. And we know that a difference is not a deficiency. So! Why Not? a Appeal to an appropriate range of patient differences. b Tailor your strategies to each patient. c Match your information-giving to the preference(s) of the patient. d Tell the patients that being different is ‘OK’. Even hint that the difficulties they face may be the result of previous and inappropriate teaching (bad matching of styles and preferences). e Gather feedback from the patients to see if it makes a difference. Review the process before the next round of training. Patients with a Visual preference (V) like diagrams, charts and color and different layouts on a page including different font sizes, headings and underlining. These need to be meaningful not just decorative. Patients with an Aural preference (A) like to listen to, or discuss the new techniques they are learning. They will learn a lot from your oral explanations and they will learn more by asking and answering questions. Schedule a discussion and demonstration session as part of their on-going training. Patients with a Read/write preference (R) like your handouts and the guideline booklet. They absorb information by reading and by writing answers to questions. They will keep a tidy diary of their injections and they will follow lengthy lists of procedures in a very systematic way. Patients with a low score for Read/write preferences may ignore your carefully-written lists or jump around the list at random missing some important procedures. • •
•
•
•
•
25
•
•
Patients with a Kinesthetic preference (K) like your demonstrations and will want to try things for themselves. They will learn best in the practice sessions. They use all of their senses as they take in information and they may prefer trial and error or test-and-see methods. Many patients are able to receive information in all of these four modes while some may have a very definite preference for one or two modes. It is also important to know your own preferences as well as the preferences of your patients so that you can match their needs. For example, a patient may not like listening, (A) as a way to learn the hand-washing techniques. There would be little point in telling your patient without also demonstrating the technique (K) and drawing diagrams (V) to reinforce your teaching points. Those with a Read/write preference (R) will be keen to have a guidebook with written descriptions and lists. Be aware also, of the need for the text to match the reading ages of the patients.
EXAMPLE FOUR: FROM ECONOMICS To illustrate the way in which different learners might be helped by different presentations, here is an example from economics. The concept of ‘elasticity’ in economics is an important tenet and one that some students find difficult to understand. It can be rote-learned and many students resort to this. Elasticity is about the response that customers might make to a drop in the price of a good or service. If the price of a product or service falls by 10 percent, will the seller get 10 percent more customers or fewer? If they get more then demand is said to be elastic. If the seller gets fewer, it is inelastic. If total revenue (price times quantity) stays the same, it is called unitary elasticity.
Most teachers present this concept orally (A) and in a Read/write (R)) manner using handouts full of formulae. For the Read/write (R) students a mathematical approach using calculus or algebra (symbolic words) will help explain the phenomenon of elasticity and this is the usual one found in texts and classrooms. For the Aural students, the explanation by the teacher along with the other presentations (R) will probably suffice. It is usually the Visual (V) and the Kinesthetic (K) students who miss out. Here is something to suit them. If it does not make sense to you, you may not have a preference for V or K or you may just dislike Economics! For the Visual learners (V) the concept can be seen in the graphs of total revenue (the return to the seller before and after the drop in price). Financial Return Before
After
Price
Price
$4 $3 Total Revenue
Total Revenue
= 150 x 4 =$600
Quantity Demanded
= 180 X 3 = $540
Quantity Demanded
150
180
Those students with a Visual preference can see the difference in the size of the two rectangles. They can see that the size of the second rectangle is less than the first one. The product is showing aninelastic response to a price drop: i.e. not enough extra customers are buying at the new $3 price to make up for the reduction from $4 to $3. If the two rectangles above are joined into one graph (see below) the reduction in total revenue at the new price is even more obvious for those with a Visual preference.
The shaded rectangle at the right is the gain from new customers buying at the new lower price. It is much smaller than the shaded rectangle above the square, which is the loss from the 150 customers who were willing (before) to pay an extra dollar. Those with a Visual preference learn to distinguish by drawing the graphs and noting the Visual/spatial differences. For the Kinesthetic students (K) the concept of elasticity can be demonstrated with the class acting out the two scenarios above as prospective buyers. Or, they could use the following story. 26
A supermarket wants to encourage more customers by having a special price for Widgets. Usually they sell 150 Widgets each day for $4. They drop the price to $3 and only 30 extra customers come to the shop. The shop owners calculate that from these extra customers they gain an extra $90 (30 X $3) but they lose $150 from the 150 ‘old’ customers who each pay a dollar less than the ‘old’ price. The losses ($150) are bigger than the gains ($90) so the Widgets have an inelastic demand between those two prices - $4 and $3. Examples of elastic demand and unitary (no change) demand are easily explained using the same V and K methods. EXAMPLE FIVE: FROM A PRESCHOOL It is still helpful for teachers of children aged 4-12 to use VARK principles. In many societies the teachers at this level are quite aware of the differences in their classrooms and their strategies are often more encompassing, comprehensive and varied than teachers of older students.
27
This diagram illustrates a variety of modes being used to teach a concept in learning to read and speak. The example, found in a primary classroom in Fiji, is from a Macmillan/McGraw–Hill publication for teaching young people to read, listen and write. Notice words with a similar sound (ut) are grouped and if the children sound out the words it is reinforcing the Aural mode. Allowing children to write letters to make whole words caters for the Read/write and Kinesthetic modes. Being offered a choice of two options for each example also helps them. Kinesthetic children would benefit from this page because the rather abstract notion of ut is directly related to their experience through pictures of familiar objects (hut, rut, cut, nut and shut ). They also print their attempts at the answers by filling in the letters with a pencil or pen. Associating the printed words and the pictures caters for the Visual mode. Lauren has been encouraged to associate the sound of the phonogramut with pictures and words (text). Presumably, in class, the teacher would be making the sound for that phonogram (Aural) and the students would be working through the exercise using clues from all four modes. Lauren’s attempts at the answers and the teacher’s check marks (ticks) are also shown in this excellent application of VARK principles. VARK FOR LITTLES A VARK version that is appropriate for children aged 5-12 is included in the appendices. It cannot use the same questionnaire format as the other versions but it is based on the same principles of modal preferences and children’s choices. Information is trapped from grandparents, parents, teachers, siblings and significant others in the lives of children in the same way that qualitative research traps data for triangulation. Their observations will build a VARK profile that will assist others to understand the child’s preferences for learning. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to answer the following question from a teacher, –“So what do we have to do to accommodate VARK? Any attempt to meet a wider group of modal preferences among students will be rewarded with additional learning. Some teachers maintain that different disciplines and different topics within disciplines have some natural or obvious way of being taught but VARK principles would indicate that that is not so. If it were not so, by now, there would be an established and definedcorrect way to teach everything!
28
CHAPTER FOUR:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARK
INTRODUCTION So what is VARK? In the second half of the 1980s I was a school inspector in the New Zealand secondary school system which educated young people from age 12 to 18. In over nine years (1977-87 in that school inspection system I traveled to all of the 110 high schools that serve most of the South Island of New Zealand. The schools were private and state, co-educational and singlesex, rural and urban. They had total rolls from 84 to 2100. My task was to assess the quality of teaching and learning in my specialist disciplines of economics, consumer education, accountancy, keyboarding (now called Information Technology) and computer education. THE PROBLEM My background for this task was as a trained secondary teacher having taught in Western Samoa, and in rural and urban schools in the South Island of New Zealand. I was, for three years, lecturer at the Christchurch College of Education where I trained high school teachers to teach my disciplines. The roots of VARK go back to those days when, as a trainer and school inspector, I would introduce myself to the teacher and the class of students and move to the back of the classroom to observe the interaction. After nine years, and an estimated 9000 plus lessons observed, I was focused on two unanswered questions.
Why is it that some students still learn when the quality of teaching is poor? Why is it that some students still don’t learn when the quality of teaching is excellent? There is ample research to suggest at least a hazy correlation between good teaching and good learning and, I understood that, in addition, some students learn in spite of the best efforts of teachers. They learn from other students, their parent(s), their extended family, their books, the Internet, on television... But it still seemed an enigma that some students would appear to be learning effectively when from any number of perspectives the teaching was observably poor. Where a teacher was clearly in charge of his/her content, and the classroom interaction was lively and purposeful, there were still students who could not complete even the most straightforward tasks associated with that lesson. They were not learning. I was not interested in episodic learning where a student’s motivation means that he/she learns one day and not another. This was more endemic. HUNCHES With the two questions in mind, I read an article that appeared in a New Zealand magazine23 indicating that the police and nursing professions were using neuro-linguistic programming (N.L.P.) to elicit information from their‘clients’. In 1987, N.L.P was not a new idea but something in the article sparked some more questions for me to answer. I had often been perplexed by the inability of some people to read maps and that this inability represented a rudimentary difference between people. The popular notions of leftbrain/right-brain differences held some interest but they seemed much too dominant and inflexible, being more like left and righthandedness. Learning seemed to be a much less controllable activity and not hard-wired at birth. It also seemed to be capable of change.
I decided to design some multichoice questions based on my hunch that learners had preferences for their intake and output of information. My hunch was that these preferences did not lead to a rigid and permanent set of behaviors. They were true preferences - like a preference for raspberry ice-cream one day and chocolate the next. Could it be that students had preferences for the ways in which they took in information and gave back information in their classrooms? And could those preferences be soft ones that did not turn students into automatons responding to only one single or one dominant preference? Maybe students’ preferences made up a simple but powerful profile just as their genes made up a distinctive profile for their faces or their fingerprints? The questionnaire I was designing began to grow. I developed new questions and discarded old ones being keen always to ensure that the questions came from generalized situations - clues from the students’ own experiences and from their everyday lives. The questions were not confined to learning and teaching. I began to try out these questions on students at Lincoln University where I was appointed in 1987 as the faculty development officer for the 230 academic staff and the 3000 students. To understand how teachers might teach, I chose to back my theories with the first hand experiences of students. I also chose to teach a class or two - a task I enjoyed and in which my student evaluation ratings indicated that I could create a good learning environment. From these students I learned that there were profiles of preferences and that many students had never had the opportunity to talk about how they learned best. They were stimulated by the facilitated discussions, as were some of my closest teaching colleagues. The first and most telling question in the early VARK questionnaire (See Question 1) was about giving directions to other people. This drew on my interest in mapping (my first degree was in Geography). The question dated back to my observations about different preferences for people to use, or not use, maps. Some of my student colleagues could easily translate a map into the features that should be found on the earth’s surface and vice versa. Others had little idea that the two were connected; that reality could be represented in a diagrammatic way.
23
Stirling, P., (1987).
29
Later, with students and with teachers, I would use only this first question to see if differences showed up. In off-campus venues where I was invited to speak I invited oral responses to Question 1. I noted marked differences in the responses even to that onequestion survey. THE REVIEW IN 2006 In September 2006 a major review was undertaken of the questionnaire. Some research by Arne Norborg, Educational Psychologist for the 16 high schools in the Oppland region of Norway, had found that some questions were not discriminating well and one was creating some bizarre response data. With a team comprising Arne Norborg, Carol Cadigan, Faye Fleming, Charles Bonwell, Abby Hassler and Heather Lander 12 new questions were designed and tested during September. The testing involved gathering data about those who chose particular options to understand if each option was attracting those with that preference as part of their profile. That is a circular argument as the options chosen determine the final result but it would be unhelpful if an option written for those who were Aural was selected more by those who were Visual or Read/write in their final profile. This statistic that we labeled Loyalty was used to discard some questions and reword others. The other considerations were that we should not lose the relative brevity of VARK when compared with other learning style inventories and that we wanted the final set of questions to provide us with at least 60% of the respondents indicating that their final VARK profile matched their perception of their learning preferences. The final set of 16 questions re-launched onto the website in October 2006 is the result of that intensive process. VARK 7 was born! THE RESEARCH LITERATURE To return to the earlier development of VARK, in 1988 I was reading Dunn and Dunn’s work from the Secondary Principal’s Conference (USA) and the work of Buzan (UK), Kolb (USA), Myers-Briggs, Kiersey, and Bandler and Grinder’s work on Neurolinguistic Programming. Bandler and Grinder’s work in psychology suggested that different people had different representational systems (cognitive styles) for understanding their environment. Some were primarily language oriented, some were touch-oriented, some relied on auditory information and some were primarily Visual. Because I was convinced that my students were not predetermined to one particular preference for information flows I was reluctant to accept any theories that did not allow for the flexibility associated with a profile of preferences. I rejected the notion promoted in many study-skills books that either every strategy would be successful or, that only one strategy would be useful every time.
Most of the ideas about information flows that prevailed into the 1980s suggested a three-part sensory approach (V, A and K). People took-in information through their eyes, their ears and through their experiences (using eyes, ears, nose, touch, and taste). This reinforced a notion that preferences for information input and information output were based around only three modes Visual, oral and Kinesthetic24. But I was already aware that Visual input was of two kinds - text and drawings, or symbolic and iconic. In my computer education classes I was aware of the use of icons (Macintosh) and text (DOS -PC) as distinct preferences among students and teachers. Some liked clicking the mouse on a picture (icon) while others preferred to type in the text for DOS commands or keying in codes. As well, I had read that two famous mathematicians Student and Fisher had independently derived similar formulae for statistical error using geometric and algebraic methods echoing the difference between iconic and symbolic modes.25 I also had associations with the differences between Kanji (iconic) and Kana (symbolic) to represent the Japanese language that my son was learning.
The Kanji symbol for the concept of ‘goods” is derived from the picture of goods stacked.
Two alphabets exist and are sometimes mixed in Japanese. Kanji uses symbols that are almost pictorial while Kana uses arbitrary symbols that stand for sound combinations, or syllables. MODAL PREFERENCES The technical term for my research is modal preferences and it is a component of the larger field of learning styles. Dunn and Dunn (1989) suggest that there are 18 elements in a learning style and modal preferences is the perceptual part of their terminology. They state that, “Every person has a learning style – it’s as individual as a signature. ” Their basic premise is that “Knowing students’ learning styles, we can organize classrooms to respond to their individual needs.” 26 Although most of their early research was based on primary and high school students its applicability in the post secondary education scene is“only diminished by the fact that universities and colleges are usually unwieldy organizations that have difficulty in adapting to the flexible approaches demanded by individualized learning.” 27
24
25 26 27
There is a distinction between kinesthetic and tactile senses. Tactile suggests manipulation of input through the hands. Kinesthetic is whole-body involvement. Being of Greek origin it can also be spelled “kinaesthetic”. This echoes the points made in the Sternberg quotation in Chapter 3. Dunn, R., et. al. (1989). Dunn, R., et. al. (1989).
30
Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Elements Stimuli ENVIRONMENT
Elements Temperature
Sound
Light
EMOTIONAL
Motivation
Persistence
SOCIOLOGICAL
Peers
PHYSICAL
Perceptual
Self
Pa ir
Design
Responsibility Team
Intake e.g. food
Adult Time
Structure Varied Mobility
Designed by Dr Rita S. Dunn and Dr Kenneth J. Dunn
In the design for each question in the questionnaire I sought four choices – a response that emphasized‘seeing’ as ‘seeing’ as used in graphics, and icons; another that emphasized ‘seeing’ as oral/Aural/auditory ory response and a Kinesthetic one. So VARK28 ‘seeing’ as in text or print; an oral/Aural/audit was born - Visual (V), Aural (A), Read/write (R) and Kinesthetic (K). I discarded the narrower notion of the threesome (V, A, and K) but only after extensive interviewing and discussion with teachers and students. Lincoln University became became a laboratory for my work and I ran lunch hour seminars seminars for students on the topic “How “How Do I Learn Best?” Best?” These were well attended and surprisingly I found that students talked quite animatedly about the four-part distinction. Some resolved to try out the suggestions suggestions I made about using one’s preferences preferences to guide note-taking, studying and sitting examinations and tests. tests. The questionnaire questionnaire and the VARK Helpsheets grew Helpsheets grew in strength and length. Unlike my previous seminars on study skills, that followed the traditional pattern of advocating every technique for every student, I began to tailor the study-skill study-skill advice to the profile of preferences of individual individual students. I even suggested that some study techniques should be discarded as they could be disadvantageous for students especially those who were risk-averse or nervous about their success or or failure. For example, those those who had low scores for Read/write Read/write reported reported little success from from using mnemonics. Those with low scores for Aural received little support from tape-recorded notes and those with little preference for Kinesthetic did not appreciate the practical learning opportunities used by some teachers. Students began to report back on their successes (and failures). While this was anecdotal reporting and not hard data it was a significant step from the mediocre responses from previous years where I had been offeringtraditional offeringtraditional study-ski study-skills lls advice. Now I was suggesting mnemonics for some and mind maps (memory maps) for others; graphs for some, and calculus for others; chat groups and audiotapes for some and textbooks for others. The questionnaire continued to grow, with a total of seventeen questions at the end of the 1980s. The wording of the questions was strengthened and gender, culture and emotional emphases were removed removed so that modal preferences remained the focus. Now there was a decision to make. Was it necessary to go on creating questions until a substantial set was ready for psychometric psychometric testing for reliability and validation? validation? If so, it seemed that the questions would have to move from examples taken from everyday experience and become more detailed and hypothetical and less relevant. relevant. Questions would have to move into the students’ self-reports self-reports on mental processes rather than their recall of physical and mental tasks familiar familiar to most university and college students. That was not what I wanted. VARK had to remain short and forego the possibility possibility of a large bank of questions that would suit statistical statistical analysis. PUBLICATION AND PRESENTATIONS Two colleagues, Colleen Mills and Jody Nyquist, suggested that an article should be written for the US faculty publication,To publication, To inventory. Nor was VARK an attempt to be Improve the Academy, Academy , and that the approach should be that this was not just another inventory. diagnostic. There were already sufficient sufficient statistically statistically sound, diagnostic tests tests and inventories in the education world. world. VARK was to be a catalyst for discussion and change.
Partly from feedback, and partly from choice, I resolved to reduce the questionnaire from 17 to 13 questions and to write up the results based on the pragmatism pragmatism flowing from my students’ students’ responses. The article was co-authored co-authored with Colleen Mills, Mills, an education lecturer at Lincoln University and with the generous oversight and professional advice of Jody Nyquist, on a Fulbright Scholarship from the the University of Washington. Washington. Nyquist as head of the Center for Instructional Instructional Design and Research Research (CIDR) at her university, university, was a faculty developer and a Communication Communication professor. professor. The article was accepted with minor changes and published in 199229. I was still collecting vast amounts of anecdotal evidence and testimony from students as well as investigating the students’ scores ‘A’ grades on the questionnaire. Some claimed to have received received their first ever ever‘A’ grades and some claimed that they were being successful at university study for the first time. It was empowering empowering students and affirming what many already knew. This was a self-fulfilling self-fulfilling ‘good news’ system news’ system although I was aware that there must be some students for whom the questionnaire did nothing. I returned to the two big questions. My sessions on VARK were always presented without suggesting that the questionnaire was diagnostic. It was a catalyst for discussion about a topic that most students had never before talked about with their teachers; How teachers; How Do I Learn Best? The scores from the VARK questionnaire were an indication of preferences but like all preferences they did not restrict the use of other opportunities.
28 29
Several years later I was to find that vark (or varken) meant pig in the Dutch language as in aardvark that is an earth pig. Fleming, N.D. and Mills, C.E., (1992).
31
The questionnaire contained questions about about information inflows inflows and outflows and this this needed to be checked. Advice from cognitive psychologists indicated a reasonable consensus that if people had a preference for information coming into them, then the same preference was likely likely to exist for their output of information. What was still not known was whether whether their preferences also drove their cognitive processing in the ‘black box’ of preference process their ideas as box’ of the mind. Do students with a strong Aural preference sounds?
Information inflows
The “Black Box” Brain processing
Information outflows
Why only Modal Preferences? Why did I place so much effort on just one element in Dunn and Dunn’s set of 18 elements elements of a learning style? The answers go back to my days as a teacher and a high school inspector. inspector. Modal preferences are quite quite easy to explain to students and, for them 3232Many of the other elements in Dunn and Dunn’s list are outside the control of the high school and the university 32it works. 3232Many teacher. University, high school and college college teachers cannot change the biorhythms of their students students to suit times of day, or food intakes. There are set schedules and timetables in higher education institutions so the environment is more fixed than in a K-12 classroom. Also, elements like like light and temperature temperature are not amenable amenable to change in a college college or university. Some of these may may become part of a change process in a more consumer-led or student-centered future education system but the centralized lecturebased system that prevailed in the last decades of the 20th century dictated otherwise30. Interestingly, at an international conference on professional development in universities a working group from a range of countries31 made this statement in their one-page summary:
“It was commonly felt that faculty in higher education frequently fail to display teaching competencies which accommodate the variety of learning styles typically present in their audience.” As a digression, it is interesting to observe the communication modes in a kindergarten classroom. classroom. The emphasis is much more on using all modes to engage students’ attention attention and interest. As an example, the practice of learning to read and learning learning to spell abound with innovative techniques using V, A, R and K modes. Some of the student materials used in these classrooms contain Visual association information such as alphabet charts, audiotapes, flash cards and vowel charts with pictures and phonetic spelling. Learning to count has a similar similar range of resources such as text, physical physical shapes, blocks, charts, color color and concepts of size, length, weight and volume. The comment is often made that kindergarten teachers in various countries and education systems are much more aware of learner differences than secondary and post secondary teachers. In their defense, some university teachers claim that they are preparing students for the Read/write world that they will enter and that it is too difficult to try and individualize instruction. Secondly, VARK had never never claimed to be a learning style. Modal preferences are only only one part, admittedly a powerful and pragmatic part, of the complex set of attributes that make up a learning style. Personality styles are an even larger category. The word ‘pragmatic’ is in the sentence above because unlike temperature, light, food intake, seating position and peer association, students and teachers can do something about learning when they know know their modality preference. Many of the other facets of a learning style leave students unhelped . I wondered what would you do with a class when you found out that two thirds of the 32 when they had just been fed. 32 Some theorists are now suggesting dark students learned better 32 dark glasses and food handouts for those students who learn best in less light and with full stomachs!
The results from using using VARK encouraged me me to focus on only one factor in a learning learning style - modal preferences. preferences. This seemed to be the most amenable to change from from a pragmatic viewpoint. viewpoint. Teachers could learn to accommodate accommodate more methods to meet the needs of their students, and students could become more proficient at using their preferences regardless of the‘mode’ the ‘mode’ used used by the teacher. The other elements, elements, I did not ignore; they were were gently placed‘outside placed‘outside the lens’ of lens’ of my research. ALLOWING FOR MULTIPLE PREFERENCES A naïve research stance might suggest that students and teachers had only one preferred mode but in the data from the 17-question instrument I found all combinations. combinations. Most notably was the 55-65% who were multimodal multimodal - who had no clear preference for any one mode - or who had equally strong preferences for two, three or four modes. This meant that VARK had a fifth dimension dimension and that this fifth dimension (multimodal (multimodal)) was a strong and vibrant one. Those who were multimodal in their preferences clearly had choice and flexibility. They 32used the mode that suited them best or that suited the teacher or the subject or the day or their mood. One student confessed that when she was feeling unhelpful and contrary she would stay in a mode that was different from her companions. Another said that input from only one one mode was not enough. He needed two two or more more modes to understand something. Then there were those with two strong preferences preferences - say A and K or R and V. What advice was to be given to them to help their learning? 30
31 32
Some would argue that the elementary/primary school system allowed for many more of these factors to be filtered into the teacher’s repertoire. In a Montessori or Rudolf Steiner system of primary education many more of these are open to change for both students and teachers. The countries represented were Turkey, USA, South Africa, Scotland, Yugoslavia, Puerto Rico, Eire and The Netherlands. Dunn and Dunn do have a range range of strategies to address some of these aspects aspects in primary and pre-school education - e.g. altering light levels, allowing allowing primary students to sit, stand or lie, playing music etc.
32
WORKING WITH TEACHERS As well as working with students, I was also responsible for helping the new university teachers to teach. I was anxious to provide a set of practical hints for those students who wanted to enhance their preferences and also those teachers who wanted to broaden their strategies to cater for the wide diversity in front of them. In one sense I was working at both ends of the continuum - students as learners and teachers as facilitators facilitators of learning. If I could encourage the university professors professors to broaden their repertoire; to cater for all VARK modes and if I could encourage students to use strategies that reinforced their set of preferences then learning should increase with some vigor.
From parents, teachers and students I collected anecdotes about successes and failures. Here are two brief examples from parents: I have 17 year-old triplet t riplet sons so I’m interested in what you have to offer so we can help them with their study programs. Two of our boys are predominantly reader/writers but the third is definitely not! I have two t wo intelligent boys who are naturally enough quite different- especially i n how they grasp concepts when learning. Sometimes I am at quite a loss as to how to “teach” number 2. He is incredibly creative, can think in three dimensions but often has trouble grasping basic things in the learning process. Once he does grasp a concept it stays! Suggestions please! From students I collected their note-taking efforts efforts and the exam results for those who had made changes. I gathered the students’ own stories on video, audiotape and in writing - following my own belief in using as many modes as possible. Later I was to carry through a VARK idea that students should be able to use their preferred preferred mode for taking examinations and tests. tests. To cater for those students who had a preference for oral output I offered students in my classes oral examinations as an option to the usual written ones. SO WHAT? After individual or small-group interviews I would ask students or teachers some questions, “Tell me about your own ideas about and, How do you think you learn?” This was followed by a question about whether the profile of your VARK preferences? and, preference(s) shown by the questionnaire echoed their experiences of life, learning, relationships, sporting achievements, work, aspirations, hobbies,... Students and teachers were given the “So what” is missing from some other inventories. inventories. Other what” that is inventories had interesting questions and it was often fun to complete them and find out that you were an “XYZ” but there was no indication about what to to do about it or whether you should change change or how you might apply XYZ XYZ in your everyday life. The pragmatism that had been a big part of my research was the main focus for accompanying the questionnaire with a detailed series of helpful hints for both teachers and students so that I could answer the SO WHAT? question. And it was the helpful lists that accompanied the questionnaire questionnaire that gained most most interest. Those who finished the the questionnaire quickly quickly went on to read the associated pages looking at their their preferences and the strategies strategies they could accommodate. Without these, the questionnaire questionnaire was merely a fill-in for a tabloid newspaper or weekly magazine, similar to one of those“Test those “Test your love life,” questionnaires or “Rate your investment success.” success.” To be more than helpful, VARK had to be accompanied by strategies that reinforced preferences or expanded preferences. VARK had to make life life easier for students and and teachers. There was little little point in providing a label for a student without offering help in using it. Those who used it had to benefit in some tangible way - either cognitively or practically. LAUNCHING VARK IN NORTH AMERICA AND THE UK The publication of the initial paper paper on VARK, mentioned above, saw a major increase increase in interest. The additional impetus for VARK’s popularity stemmed from a number of other initiatives. Firstly I teamed up with Dr Chuck Bonwell of Active-Learning fame and also with Dr Peter Hurd a very33 competent researcher, both of whom were at the St Louis College of Pharmacy, Missouri. They used VARK at their College and became enthusiasts. Peter Hurd set out to collect data and followed through with Learning which also hosted the VARK some research into validation issues. Chuck Bonwell created a website for Active for Active Learning questionnaire as an interactive fill-in. VARK was the subject of Bonwell and Hurd presentations at both Lilly and AAHE Conferences.
VARK was featured in the publication The Teaching Professor and Rhem’s National Teaching and Learning Forum . At Professor and in James Rhem’s National Learning , VARK received a British launch and some universities there took the 1996 Bath (UK) Conference on Improving on Improving Student Learning, up the idea with their their teachers and students. From there, the popularity popularity and usefulness of VARK VARK snowballed. snowballed. In 1999 there were 4704 completions of the VARK questionnaire on Bonwell’s website33, in 2000 there were 11,738 and by May 2001 there were already 5,716 making a total since its inception on the web of 22,158.34 In July 2001 a new website website at http://www.vark-learn.com was designed by Heather Heather Lander, a software software designer from Christchurch, New New Zealand. Two student and teacher teacher books were written and Heather Lander also also designed the software. This began a new phase for trapping data along with more information about those who filled in the questionnaire. Those who complete the questionnaire and provide additional demographic data about themselves make up some 40% of those who do the questionnaire online. Data from the remainder is not collected. collected. The website receives some one million users annually so the database is now very large.
33 34
www.active-learning-site.com A completion refers to those respondents on the website who answered at least ten questions. There could be double c ounting from those who completed the questionnaire several times.
33
STATISTICAL VALIDITY RESEARCH From this additional data, more research on the validity of the questionnaire began. In 2004, Dr Marilla Svinicki, University of Texas at Austin, USA agreed to have a team work on the issue of statistical validity. A wide range of different statistical techniques was used. Unfortunately the results were inconclusive. They were unable to confirm the four scales (with a confirmatory factor analysis) after trying several different strategies of coding the data (because of the possibility for someone to pick more than one choice) and deleting items that are poorly correlated with their intended scales. They also tried multidimensional scaling techniques, which are a non-parametric method.
One conclusion and a caution was that there isn't a single score that researchers can use statistically like a regression analysis. The difficulty of validating an instrument that has more than one choice for each question is that you cannot isolate an underlying factor in order to validate it. The statistical properties of VARK were not stable enough to satisfy the requirements of research, but then, one of their findings was that no one else has been able to design an instrument along these lines that does. The constructs of learning style are too varied to pin down accurately and every instrument Dr Svinicki had considered, suffered from this same issue. In later correspondence Dr Svinicki stated: We have been attempting to find a way to assess the statistical properties of the VARK questionnaire. So far we have not been able to find a satisfactory statistical method that validates the four-factor model that is the basis of the VARK. At this time I can say that the instrument is an excellent vehicle for opening a dialog on the differences that might exist in the way individual prefer to learn, but the statistic al properties are not sufficient f or its use as a research tool. This is due to the multiple option s that an individual can choose in answering. This characteristic also is possibly responsible for the distribution of the preferences, in which the multiple modal preference is the one most people fall into. If you are looking for a reliable instrument to use in statistical analyses of some sort, I'm not prepared to recommend the VARK at this time. However, if y ou are using it as a teaching inst rument, it is more than satisfactory for that use and it has excellent instructional materials to support it."
This did not mean that the instrument itself was not valid or desirable. Its strength lay in its educational value for helping people think about their learning in multiple ways and giving them options they might not have considered. In 2009 Dr Walter Leite from the Research and Evaluation Methodology program of University of Florida took up the challenge of working on VARK data. He conducted a study of VARK. His paper provides evidence of the validity of the VARK for measuring learning styles and also presents its limitations35. The abstract reads: The authors examined the dimensionality of the VARK learning styles inventory. The VARK measures four perceptual preferences: visual (V), aural (A), read/write (R), and kinesthetic (K). VARK questions can be viewed as testlets because respondents can select multiple items within a question. The correlations between items within testlets are a type of method effect. Four multitraitmultimethod confirmatory factor analysis models were compared to evaluate the dimensionality of the VARK. The correlated traitcorrelated method model had the best fit to the VARK scores. The estimated reliability coefficients were adequate. The study found preliminary support for the validity of the VARK scores. Potential problems related to item wording and the scale's scoring algorithm were identified, and cautions with respect to using the VARK with research were raised. From pages 18 and 19 of Dr Leite's paper, the reliability estimates for the scores of the VARK subscales were 0.85, 0.82, 0.84 and 0.77 for the Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic subscales, respectively.
SOME TESTIMONIALS Email correspondence about VARK now takes many hours each day. Here is a selection of responses. The VARK questionnaire is fabulous and it has helped me in many ways and is a very interesting topic. (Jennifer) You have done a most excellent job. (Alfredo) I enjoyed reading your website and taki ng the questionnaire on how do I learn. The answers were right on target. (Marline) The students already do the XXXX learning styles questionnaire as part of their handbook - but I think this will make more sense to them. (Anne) I will use the presentation to encourage more of my staff to step outside their comfort zone and try something new…dare to be different….anything to improve the learning outcomes for our students….once again thanks for your wisdom. (Anne) Thank you very much; I think the test is excellent, and I'm sure that the students using my book will benefit from learning how they learn. (Susan). Thanks so much. It is a marvelous vehicle for self-awareness and reflection. I knew that someone would ask about this on Monday so your response is very helpful. (Dorothea) I have found the book incredibly usef ul. (Naomi) I have told lots of people about it and particularly lik e the acknowledg ement of the 'read/ write' style - one of my preferred styl es. (Trish) I thank you so very much for your research and techniques you have shared. The information has helped me be a better teacher and my students better learners. (Kate) I was intrigued by the inclusion of the Read/write component. Personally, that is my learning style and I have never seen it included on a learning styles questionnaire before. (Livia) Just to say I found yo ur Learning styles resource s very interesting, informative and Fun. Thanks for doing it . I hope we'll be able to use the resources to help Junior Doctors in their education. (Paul) 35
The paper is published and the citation is: Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M. & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted Validation of the Scores of the VA RK: Learning Styles Inventory With Multitrait-Multimeth od Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 70, 323-339. The link for the article is: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/323 34
I am beginning my 32nd year of teaching high school. Because o f the information on your web sit e and in your books, I am eager to begin the year. I used many of your strategies in a three-week summer school session and found much greater success. By understanding the differences in preferences between read-write and Kinesthetic, I have been able to teach for Kinesthetic preferences. I have designed lessons that specifically allow for trial and error, and the students' understanding of abstract concepts has truly increased. You have become one of my mentors and have made me a better teacher, and I have suggested your web site in every in-service I have presented this summer. I hope that more teachers will become aware of the needs of their students. (Deana)
THE BIG QUESTIONS AGAIN! The two big questions at the start of this chapter that had been sparked by the high school classrooms around New Zealand’s South Island were now being answered. Some students learned from even the worst of teachers because there was some match in their preferred modes - teacher and student. Some students failed to learn with the very best of teachers because those teachers did not always provide enough stimulation in their preferred mode(s). It is worth repeating here the quotation by Robert Rosenthal (1999)36 that stated: “There is a whole body of work in psychotherapy literature about something called ‘patient matching.’ And it is possible we might learn how to do something like that with students and teachers. If the interactional styles of a variety of different types of good teachers were matched up with students especially receptive to those interactional styles, more academic success might well be the result.”
So what about all those other inventories and statistically sound educational instruments? VARK was too short to have questions inserted merely to test the respondent’s consistency and I never believed that students would stay alert and honest for a questionnaire that had more than 20 questions. Even mature professionals throw such questionnaires in the trash or play games with their responses once the number of questions gets past the tedium threshold. As one US teacher said by email: I have been using the XXXX questionnaire and find that the group of students I am working with finds it difficult to concentrate on answering over 100 questions. I believe VARK is more succinct. Some respondents find other inventories have ambiguous questions that force false choices making people choose answers for reasons other than the intentions of the questionnaire. Or, the questions are only within an educational context. VARK was to remain short and quickly answered with only 13 (from 2006 read 1637) practical questions taken from everyday situations relevant to respondents. The respondents did not have to imagine; they had to recall. Even so, some still tried to choose the VARK option that they thought they should chose! Few, if any refused to complete it when invited. In workshops most completed it in less than ten minutes. VARK worked. That was the most helpful aspect for students and teachers.
36 37
Rhem, J., (1999). With 16 questions (2006) and each with four options VARK has 64 choices spread across the four modality choices.
35
CHAPTER FIVE:
THE RESEARCH BASIS
INTRODUCTION In this chapter some of the research findings that led to the development of VARK are described and research emanating from VARK is also summarized and reviewed. The appendices and the website also hold a set of research projects that add to our knowledge of VARK. Many of the suggested projects on the website are straightforward and do not involve large amounts of funding. They would yield useful articles and journal and conference papers. Much of the research for the development of VARK was done in the early 1980’s and this can be seen in the rather dated bibliography.38 More recent research adds to the ideas promoted by VARK especially the work on metacognition and reflection. Readers are advised to search the VARK website for the latest statements on validity and reliability39. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF VARK. Dunn & Dunn s work. !
Collaboration with Nyquist & Mills
N.L.P.
Notions about differences in preferences for using maps and giving directions.
Unanswered questions about student learning.
Publishing in To Improve the Academy
The Development of VARK
Bonwell & Hurd s presentations at AAHE and Lily conferences. !
Nine years experience as a school inspector.
Collaboration with Dr Charles Bonwell of Active Learning fame.
Research results Dr Peter Hurd.
The split of the Visual mode into V &R
Observation of good and bad teaching and learning
Designing questions
Building the database Running workshops and seminars on VARK
Feedback from Students
Experience as a teacher and a trainer.
Feedback from Faculty Trials at Lincoln University, New Zealand.
In essence VARK was a heuristic creation backed by grounded research as a post rationalization. In other words, VARK was based on a hunch, a lot of experience with students and teachers, and some post hoc reading of the literature. VARK was developed and students applauded it so the originator looked for reasons why it worked! Cautionary Note : The diagram above illustrates a point made earlier in this book. There is no universal set of interpretive symbols in imagery. In the symbolic world of words there are some commonly accepted definitions printed in dictionaries. Not so for diagrams! Viewers, other than the original designer for whom it had a particular set of meanings, will interpret this diagram differently. PERCEPTION AND MODAL PREFERENCES VARK is about our perceptions. Perception is the process whereby one becomes aware of the world by sensing the environment. We use our senses (eyes, ears, nose, mouth and nerve endings in the skin) to make contact with the world outside ourselves. These senses are the collectors of information for our nervous system that transforms them by electrical and chemical means to trigger a further set of events in the brain. Through that process, we become aware of our environment and the events taking place in it. We can also trigger electrical and chemical impulses to examine things within ourselves including our memory of past events and a real-time check on how we are feeling. Perception therefore precedes communication and communication leads to learning.
38 39
A full research bibliography is in the Appendices. In addition, key citations are placed as footnotes. Dr. Walter Leite from the Research and Evaluation Methodology program of University of Florida conducted a study of VARK. The paper provides evidence of the validity of the VARK for measuring learning styles and also presents its limitations. The paper is published and the citation is: Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M. & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted Validat ion of the Scores of the VARK: L earning Styles Invento ry With Multitrait-Mul timethod Confirma tory Factor Analysis Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 70, 323-339. They explain that Cronbach’s alpha would underestimate the reliability of the VARK scores, because Cronbach’s alpha assumes that all items are parallel measures of the construct, which is not true with the VARK. Therefore, they provide estimates of reliability based on confirmatory factor analysis. The reliability estimates for the scores of the VARK subscales were .85, .82, .84, and .77 for the visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic subscales, respectively, which are considered adequate given that the VARK is not used for high-stakes decisions.
36
The experience of perception is unique to each individual. Sampling our environment using our perceptions is comparatively external compared with the internal nature of mental processing. Modal preferences are concerned with the primacy of certain senses. We share the same senses but we can observe differently because we perceive differently. Those differences are related to our preference for one or more sensory mode over another (sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell). Of course we use all of our senses but we choose to ignore some signals and believe others or we believe some senses more than others. We have preferences for particular modes of information input. Similarly we have preferences for information output (drawing, designing, speaking, writing, doing and touching). Our preferences for input are aligned with our preferences for output. If we prefer speaking, we will probably prefer listening. Modal preferences can be likened to other preferences such as the preference for a particular color or food. We like some and we dislike others. Some we would regard as neutral, neither liking nor disliking them; so too, with modes of communication. Some may prefer talking to reading. Other may prefer reading to talking. And, as with our other preferences, our modality preferences are subject to change with time and experience. VARK: A LEARNING STYLE? At the outset, it has to be reiterated that VARK is not a full learning style despite many claiming that it is. If we accept Dunn and Dunn’s40 terminology, VARK is a component of a learning style because it is focused on modality preferences; and is therefore a field within learning style research. Hunt41 (1985) listed the following: Dimensions of Learning Style Individual or group interaction Noise Active - reflective Personal - objective Concrete - abstract Time Systematic - intuitive Temperature •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Visual Light Theoretical - practical Auditory Analytic - global Tactile Self-directed - teacher directed
•
Hunt has also written an excellent critique of learning styles and his diagram is used here to identify the three major groups within his model of a learning style. VARK fits both Receive and Send in the diagram because it deals with the preferences for receiving and responding. VARK makes no claims about the neural processing styles shown here asrepresentational. That is the point at which a distinction lies between cognitive style and learning style. What happens in the central processing “black box” of the brain is somewhat uncertain, although there is much work being done on whether we process ideas as pictures or language or both. VARK says nothing about cognitive style. Three Types of Learning Styles Receive
Hold
Send
Perceptual style
Representational style
Response style
WHY WAS THE VISUAL CHANNEL SPLIT INTO V AND R? At one point in VARK’s development there was a need to integrate some intuitive observations about the Visual channel. While NLP, Accelerated Learning and other typologies were quite content to stay with a threefold V, A, and K categorization of input and output in communication, others were suggesting that the Visual channel dealt differently with text and pictures. The idea of splitting the Visual input and output into two parts, was not only based on research, but also on the pragmatic observations that come from the author’s life experiences. From his degree studies in geography, he knew that the ability to represent reality in a map and the ability to read a map and imagine the topography and directions, were differentially situated. Some could do it, and others could not. This was most often expressed as a preference: “I hate maps.” “I always buy a map whenever I go to a new place.” “Maps make no sense to me.” “I just find places by feel.” “I prefer maps to somebody telling me.”
So out of the Visual channel came two distinct preferences – V for diagrammatic input and output and R for textual input and output. Although these arose through a heuristic they are easily traced in the literature where the diagrammatic is usually referred to as iconic mode and the textual as one part of the symbolic mode. (The other symbolic component is speech – audition). Paivio (1986) is only one of many pedagogical theorists who indicated that human cognition had become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with non-verbal objects and events. Pavio’s Dual Coding Theory assumes that there are two cognitive subsystems, one specialized for the representation and processing of non-verbal objects or events (i.e. imagery) and the 40 41
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E., (1987). Hunt, D. A., (1985).
37
other specialized for dealing with language. He also postulates that there are two types of representational units:“imagens” for mental images and “logogens” for verbal entities. Logogens are organized in terms of associations and hierarchies whileimagens are organized in terms of part-whole relationships. His theory is represented diagrammatically below: SENSORY SYSTEMS representational connections
logogens
imagens
referential connections
Verbal processes
Non-verbal Processes
Monique Boekaerts at the Catholic University in Nijmegen also contributed interesting findings in this field. She examined the ways in which input from the outside world was filtered and transformed into the short-term memory. She suggested that some people were skilled at using a verbal mediator to store both pictorial information and verbal information (spoken or text) while others were skilled at using an imagery mediator to achieve the same task. The term mediator is broadly used to mean the filtering and transformation processes that take place in the brain before the short-term memory storage occurs. The results indicated that students are differently successful at retrieving visuo-spatial and verbatim information. She concluded with this advice for educators: “Students who learn poorly from pictures but are efficient in the use of verbal organizational strategies (verbalizers) should be allowed sufficient time to transform pictorial information into a series of verbal statements or to adapt teacher-imposed graphical representations so as to incorporate the necessary verbal labels. Visualizers, on the other hand, are less efficient in the use of the verbal mediator. They should be presented with plenty of Visual information and the teacher should assist them in transforming rules and other verbally-stated principles into a Visual representation (e.g. flow charts, tables, graphs, etc.).” In his chapter on Visual Imagery, Thompson, at the School of Education, University of Birmingham wrote: “From the end of the nineteenth century there has been a growing awareness of individual differences in Visual imagery and of the nature of mental imagery yet attempts to validate measures of this variable were often unsuccessful because of the self-report nature of most tests and the failure to distinguish between different aspects of Visual material in the validating tasks.“ He went on to say that increased awareness of imagery among both teachers and pupils could lead to more flexible teaching methods which take greater account of a pupil’s individual style of thought and its interaction with the nature of the learning task. Chandler and Sweller (1992) suggest that forcing students to split their attention between text and diagrams tends to interfere with their learning. Baddeley (1983) in his book, Your Memory: A User’s Guide, states that our memory is made up of semantic information from perceptions of the world. He goes on to comment: “A less extreme linguistic argument suggests that, although the semantic system might initially be based on and driven by our perception of the world, it encodes that information in terms of a linguistic system. This of course cannot be true for all semantic information since much of it is beyond our capacity to express in words. We know more than we can say! Hirumi and Bowers (1991) concluded that students who received a concept tree performed better and showed higher levels of attention, confidence and satisfaction with the additional text-based instruction in a study of whether a conceptual illustration aids students learning from text-based materials. Richard Mayer and Laura Massa42 at the University of California, Santa Barbara worked on this same Verbalizer-Visualizer dimension and their paper has interesting insights into the differences. The exercises they use to test for the differences are also very cleverly constructed.
42
Mayer, R.E. and Massa, L. J. (2003) Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preference, Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, Vol. 95, No. 4, 833– 846.
38
The VARK distinction between Visual-graphic and Visual-text has appeared in a variety of semantic variations. Researcher
VARK - Read/write
VARK - Visual
Boekaerts Paivio Baddeley Various authors Various authors Various authors Mayer and Massa
verbalizers logogens linguistic symbolic text semantic verbalizer
imagers imagens graphic iconic images graphic visualizer
The VARK split into Visual and Read/write does not mean that the two are not able to assist each other. Clearly, different modes help each other and no mode stands alone. Nature, according to McKim (1980) doesn’t separate seeing from the other senses, only words do. Seeing, he claims, is polysensory, combining the visual, tactile and kinesthetic senses. The helpfulness of one mode to another is illustrated by Chandler & Sweller (1992) in these two pieces of research: In the first of two studies, 26 randomly assigned students in first-year trade courses at various technical colleges in Australia received either a booklet containing conventional or modified instructions on numerical control programming for a milling machine. The booklet containing conventional instructions separated text and diagrams whereas the booklet containing modified instructions integrated text with diagrams. One week later, 20 of the students took an examination on the material in the booklet. T-tests revealed that the students given the integrated instructional booklet outperformed those given the conventional booklet both overall and on three of the ten test items. They also tended to outperform their counterparts on the remaining seven test items. In the second study, 20 Educational Psychology students from the University of New South Wales, Australia, were randomly assigned to receive and to study at their own pace a conventional or an integrated instructional booklet, after which they were asked to answer 34 test questions. T-tests indicated that the students given the integrated instructional booklet took less time to read the material and answered more questions correctly than did the students given the conventional instructional booklet. The findings suggest that forcing, students to split their attention between text and diagrams tends to interfere with their learning. With hindsight, a VARK test of these students might have added a level of explanation. The appendices contain a section describing statistical tests for the independence of V, A, R and K. IS THE INVENTORY RELIABLE? VARK characteristics are not hard-wired at birth. Any set of human preferences is likely to be dynamic rather than static in the long term. People’s preference for particular foods, or colors, or music, or beverages or friends will be reasonably consistent within a short time frame but over a period of years they will change. We expect the same to be true of modal preferences. Already there is an observed and expected trend towards multimodality with aging there are also instances where some individuals maintain their profile of preferences just as some people never like broccoli, science fiction, blondes or pink. In an independent evaluation of the VARK questionnaire the following statements were made about its reliability.
“The questionnaire was not designed to be reliable in terms of consistency of scores over a long period of time. Instead, the questionnaire was designed to provide students with effective learning strategies to use on their learning preference(s). Over the course of a student’s career it is likely that some modes will become strengthened, some will dominate and others may be under utilized, therefore it is difficult to say that a student taking this test each year for twelve consecutive years will obtain similar scores each year. On the other hand if a test-retest occurs within a few weeks it is likely that the scores received will be similar.” Research into the reliability of VARK awaits longitudinal studies of individuals. Because VARK provides a profile rather than a single score, it is not conducive to longitudinal research and it is hypothesized and accepted that individual VARK profiles will change with age and experience. Anecdotal information from only a few individuals indicates that their profiles changed but that core preferences persisted. As an example, a student had this profile (5, 1, 8, 2) in her first year at Lincoln University, New Zealand and four years later took the VARK test again with these results (6, 2, 9, 4). Another with a four-year gap between two profiles said in an email: I note with some interest that my R/W score has gone up since the test in 1995. It was 4,2,6,4 and is now 3,2,9,3. Most respondents (55-70%) in a population have more than a single preference and with age and experience it seems they are likely to broaden any narrow or single preferences. This makes intuitive sense in any discussion of human development. This trend towards multiple preferences (multimodality) with increased age and experience is based on the view that people learn to adapt to various modes that they may have struggled with at an earlier age. They use their primary modalities (or primary modality) with more flexibility as they learn to transform information flows more quickly into their own frameworks. This was observed at Lincoln University where students, once they were aware of their preference(s) tended to become more focused on using the strategies most closely aligned with their preferences and omitted using those strategies that were a mismatch for their personal VARK profile. That form of metacognition led to self-reports of development and success. It also accounted for increased flexibility in circumstances where there was not a good match between the teaching strategies and the student’s learning strategies.
39
IS THE INVENTORY VALID? Content Validity VARK’s content validity is strong because it is not a semantic quiz. The stems and response choices represent major aspects of the four learning modes. Many inventories rely on the importance of words and choices about their meanings. Such quizzes are notoriously susceptible to cultural and fashionable nuances in language. When tested against students’ perceptions of themselves, the VARK instrument was remarkably consistent. In its development students indicated that it matched their perceptions of their preferences and, more importantly, matched the strategies associated with their preferences.
Hurd and Bonwell followed this last and important distinction further in a study of student behaviors at the St Louis College of Pharmacy (STLCoP). They found that students chose to use strategies aligned with their VARK results. Those who had a strong Read/write preference (from the VARK questionnaire) chose to use writing and reading strategies, those who were strongly Aural in their preferences chose to use discussion with others, and so on. The correlation table below indicates their findings. Students’ Study Strategies used
V A R K
Students’ Modality Preferences from the VARK questionnaire.
V .46* .28* .09 .24*
A R K .21* .04 .27* .34* .15 .33* .12 .54* .08 .17 -.05 .44* The asterisks show significance at the 0.001 level.
Note that those with a V or A or K preference tended to use a range of strategies, especially those aligned with their own preference but NOT including R. Conversely, those with a strong R preference identified almost exclusively with R strategies. They also found that instructor and student preferences affected the course structures, the teacher’s instruction strategies and the learning strategies of the students. In addition, making students aware of their modality profile assisted them in choosing effective behaviors as well as catalyzing opportunities for reflection and proactive approaches to learning and teaching. Abby Hassler43, Adjunct Physical Therapist Assistant Instructor and MEC Tutor at Northern Virginia Community College has also worked extensively with VARK and had some very positive interventions. In her paper she stated: A struggling student, barely getting by with a 71% average last semester, came to me saying that he had learning disabilities and ADD and that is was impossible for him to learn all this medical information. I rapidly discovered that this VK student had almost a photographic memory for diagrams. I taught him how to turn all pertinent information from text and lecture into pictures, symbols and stories. I received an email from this student the following week saying that he would have been happy to get a solid C on the test he just took, but that he received 100%. He told me to, “Keep up the good work.” The stories go on and on, and if predictions hold, the data will show that this program is increasing the retention of our students in these demanding health technology programs. The next step is to bring this program into our feeder schools at the high school level so that the students will already know what it takes to study using their learning style preferences and increase their chances of succeeding from the start. With six weeks left to go in the semester I look forward to being part of further success stories now that I know what I know and how I know what I know and how to use it. The language used in the VARK inventory has been subjected to a number of critiques by communication experts and in the earlier versions some words were changed to prevent them bringing inappropriate influences into the choices. For example in an earlier version of a question, one response used the word ‘friend’. In some contexts the word could encourage respondents into choosing that option because of friendship motivation rather than because of the VARK information in the question stem. For several years the questionnaire disobeyed the rules for the grammatical use of pronouns. Each question began in the second person and then switched to the first person. This was done to try and encourage respondents to think generally first and then to use personal recall rather than hypothetical or constructed answers as they looked at the options. Each year a handful of grammarians wrote and pointed this out; some vehemently. In 2006 with Version 7.0 we became grammatically correct. The questionnaire is short. From an original 17 questions 13 became standard and in 2006 16 questions became the new standard. Experience with college and university students indicated that they were tolerant of questionnaires when they could answer them in less than ten minutes and when there were fewer than 20 questions. Being on two sides of a page or two pages on a website was also an advantage. Beyond that, students are prone to manipulate their answers towards a“correct” scenario if they become bored with the questions or detect that there are some desirable outcomes that can be manipulated by choosing “right” answers. Teachers are even more likely to manipulate the results especially if there is a hint that the questionnaire results might prejudice their promotion, tenure or their peers’ opinions!
43
Hassler, A. (2004) Retaining Students Through Individualized Study Skill Training: A Perkins Funded Pilot Project at the Medical Education Center.
40
The responses were balanced in each version. VARK version 3.0 had thirteen questions and nine of them had options for each of V, A, R and K. The remaining four had three responses. As a result there was a balanced set of responses with a total of twelve for each mode. The VARK version for those aged 12-17 had 13 questions with four options in each – one for each of V, A, R and K. Balancing Options for Version 3.0 No.
Question
4
You are going to cook something as a special treat for … You have an eye problem. Would you prefer that the doctor… You are about to learn to use a new program on a computer… A new movie has arrived in town. I would… Total number of options for these four questions
8 9 12
V Option?
A Option?
Yes Yes
R Option?
K Option?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3
3
3
Yes
3
Version 7.0 (2006) has 16 questions each with a full set of four options. Most of the VARK questions are about situations within the experiences of the target group. The inventory is a pragmatic one that relies on the respondents being able to recall what they did in certain real situations. It is, therefore, not an intellectual test or a mental exercise. There are a number of criticisms raised about inventories based on self-reports and attempts to triangulate the respondents’ observations are helpful in this regard. Jim Eison44 in a workshop on Recognizing and Responding to Learning Style Differences noted that: “In all self-report inventories, participant honesty and openness is a necessary pre-requisite; if students understand why they are being given the inventory and are promised personal score reports, there is little reason to doubt their integrity.” VARK uses such self-reports with the respondents’ recalling past or present behaviors. Students and teachers can answer the questions from a baseline of relatively common human experiences. VARK’s content validity is strongest when it is working with recalled situations, and weakest, when the respondents are imagining what they might do in a situation that they have not faced. The situations described in the VARK questionnaire are real for most people in a developed western society. Every effort has been made to have the questions culturally neutral but there is still a proviso that the questionnaire may be inaccurate in societies where respondents do not have access to the experiences of cooking a meal, watching a movie or learning a new computer program. VARK is best used with people who are 18 years or older, while the High School version of VARK is designed for 12-17 yearolds. To the extent that students have had these experiences the instrument is valid. Overlapping Modes It was difficult to design options that were uniquely attributable to only one mode. For example, cartoons may have both a Visual (V) and a Read/write (R) impact.45 Communication channels such as speaking and writing are open to “pollution” from other modes. For example “telling you the directions,” unless done by telephone or cellphone could allow for a number of body language cues to be observed which would mean that it was both Aural and Kinesthetic. A doctor using a model of a knee with a patient is likely to enhance his/her explanation by adding speech to the use of the model so it is a mixture of K and A. This overlap is apparent in almost all situations and it is difficult to find tasks or experiences that are purely V or A or R or K. Nevertheless, in the design of the questionnaire, the responses were selected and tested on the basis of minimal overlap from other modes. Put another way, the options in VARK were selected because of the primacy of a particular mode not their exclusivity.
One could suggest that because the question stems are based on real situations the instrument is unfairly biased towards experiences and therefore towards Kinesthetic modes rather than the other three modes. Or, because the questionnaire is in printed text, it is biased towards those with a Read/write preference. If the designers were true to their beliefs, the VARK questionnaire would not only be in written form but it would also be available in the other three modes. In an ideal world there would be four versions of the questionnaire! For Aural respondents there have been suggestions that the website should have audio output for the Aural helpsheets page. Unfortunately that is currently impractical as many viewers do not have the capacity to receive audio feedback from a website and it is very slow. It will happen, but not yet. For a Visual questionnaire there could be questions and options provided by picture clues, video situations and similar formats for responses. It is more difficult, however, to conceive of a practical Kinesthetic format for delivering the VARK questionnaire. Predictive Validity VARK does not have predictive validity because it was designed as an advisory tool for student and faculty development. It was not envisaged as a diagnostic or predictive tool. Despite this, there is anecdotal evidence that students use it to predict the study methods they will find successful. In allowing respondents to select more than one option for any question and in having no more than 16 questions it does not support sophisticated standardizing tests and norms for different populations. What we can observe is 44 45
Dr Jim Eison, Director, Center of Teaching Enhancement, University of South Florida. It has been suggested that preferences for cartoons differ. Some prefer cartoons where the text is apt and clever (R). Others prefer a lesser role for the words because the visual information is what interests them (V).
41
that when students and teachers are matched in terms of their VARK preferences, then learning is more likely to be facilitated. Conversely, when teachers have a set of teaching preferences different from the students learning preferences, learning is likely to be adversely affected. A PROFILE NOT A CATEGORY The questionnaire allows for multiple responses and this means that there are no assumed right answers. Although giving one response to each question provides a somewhat stronger indication of any preference(s) the author concluded that a forced-choice defeated the purpose of any instrument that purports to reinforce that one can learn in a variety of ways. This means that each respondent completing the questionnaire gets a profile made up of four scores rather than a single categorization or label. Respondents whose scores are 6, 5, 3 and 4 are not labeled Visual or Multimodal. Their VARK scores provide a four-part, individual profile of their preferences and there is no reliable, single shorthand to describe it to others. Even someone who has atypical scores, say 0, 10, 4, 2, is not labeled as being only Aural or unsuccessful at anything Visual. Those labels are unhelpful. What is indicated, in the last example above, is that such a person has a strong preference for information to flow (in and out) in Aural modes (listening and speaking). No person is an A, or a V, or an R even if they may have a very strong preference for one of these modes.46 Our sensory channels work together to provide a complete picture even though we may prefer one or more modes. Preferences give a profile not a label.
Because VARK provides a profile there is no such thing as a desirable profile or a profile that will assure academic success. Students with quite atypical profiles are able to use their own strategies to reach their academic goals. Being strongly Read/write may help because that is often a strong preference used by teachers but there is no“golden” profile of preferences. Even a student with a VARK profile of 9, 9, 9 and 9 was not satisfied with her multiple and “balanced” preferences! She admired those who had a single preference because it seemed that they were more focused and assured about what they would choose among their learning strategies. And we know that successful learning is as much about motivation and the ability to persevere and sustain effort as it is about modal preferences. At one point the author investigated the statistical connection between students’ grades and their VARK scores across a first-year university cohort. Nothing of significance was found in the limited example. That provided some backing for his intuitive understanding that it is the students’ effective use of their preferences and the match to their teachers teaching methods rather than the particular preference itself. Pedersen and St Hill (1999) however found that: “In a statistical analysis of the final examinations it appeared that there was a significant (and positive) correlation between students’ Read/write scores and their marks.” This may have been because the teacher had Read/write strategies as a teaching preference and effective matching was occurring. The author contends that more research will support the view that students can succeed at academic study with any mix of VARK preferences. ARE THERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN’S AND MEN’S SCORES?
It is difficult to separate scientific fact from myths and anecdotes to answer this question. There is a discernible difference in the relative proportions of Read/write and Kinesthetic preferences with women having a larger proportion of the former and males a larger proportion of Kinesthetic preferences (either single or multiple). This may indicate that there are differences between how information is processed but more research work is needed. The website has always attracted more than twice the number of women than men. Psychologists say that that is common for questionnaires where women can find out information about themselves. Moir and Jessel (1990) in their book Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women raise some differences but the evidence from VARK data collected up to the date of this publication, is inconclusive. This may be because VARK is about preferences not skills and attributes. Here are some of Moir and Jessel’s findings. Men are better at map reading. Men have greater mechanical aptitude. Men have a better sense of perspective but women take in more because they have wider peripheral vision. Men perform much better on tests of spatial ability. Men are more often able to picture things, their shape, position, geography and proportion accurately in the “mind’s eye”. Men are better at working with three dimensional objects or drawings. • • • •
•
46
Despite this assurance, it is often easy to use a form of shorthand to define those with a strong or very strong preference as being Aurals , Kinesthetic s, Read/writers or Visuals, especially in the interactivity generated in an active VARK workshop!
42
•
• • •
•
Men generally outperform women in the areas of mathematics involving abstract concepts of space, relationship and theory. Men have superior hand-eye coordination necessary for ball sports. Men are better at strategic thinking. The female brain has a thicker corpus callosum and we hypothesize that more information is exchanged between the two sides than in men. Women have a greater capacity to integrate and cross relate verbal and Visual information.
•
Which of these have an implication that might be captured by the VARK questionnaire and which ones are explained by social conditioning we do not know. We do know that on most tests of cognitive ability there is an enormous overlap for women and men. Matthews’ (1991) work in this field was summarized as follows: “At four-year colleges and universities in a southern state, 790 first-year students completed Canfield's Learning Styles Inventory and a demographic questionnaire. The findings indicated that the students preferred to learn by direct experience, through the use of Visuals, and through specific assignments, rather than by independent readings and listening. Analysis of variance revealed gender and racial differences: the men preferred to rely on peers, use numbers, and manipulate concrete objects; the women preferred organization, detail, language activities, and working with people.” Again the variables go beyond VARK that focuses on modality preferences. Some of Matthews’ variables are social and environmental. NORMS AND PATTERNS We have found no research that reliably indicates a“normal” pattern of preferences in sensory modality, so it is difficult to test the instrument against a set of norms. If there were, it would need to be balanced with cultural information, as there is reasonable evidence that some societies are more oral/aural (Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian). Others are more visual (native peoples of Australia and North America) and many have a heavy cultural bias towards text and print. Dunn and Dunn (1989) do, however, have a breakdown of modal preferences as they defined them. Allowing for the fact that they used only a three-part categorization (V, A, and K) they claim that 30% of the population appears to be auditory; 40% Visual and 30% Kinesthetic. If their Visual dimension was split equally across VARK’s (R) and (V) that would mean that a derived norm for VARK would be V= 20%; A=30%; R=20%; and K= 30%. There was no data provided to support this.
Our data suggest that the teachers’ world is less dominated by multiple preferences (multimodality) than students. Teachers have more single preferences. They also have more preferences for Read/write modes. There is a lesser contribution for Visual and Aural modes for both students and teachers. This may be the result of a biased self-selected sample leading to the dominance of Read/write and Kinesthetic modes. The demographic and occupational data collected on the website indicate that it has been swamped with college and university students rather than representing the general public, hence the predominance of Read/write preferences and lower numbers for single preferences for Visual and Aural. Some other distinctive groups in the data so far. n= 51
19 26 92 12 31
Group Occupational Therapy Students- Otago University, New Zealand. Teachers new to Lincoln University, New Zealand. 1997 and 1998. Teachers – Manawatu Polytechnic, New Zealand. Random sample – Students at Lincoln University 1995- 1997. Teachers at Economics Dept. USQ, Australia. Postgraduates, Lincoln University.
V 9
Single Preferences A R K 6 3 14
Multimodal
19
2
1
5
0
11
2
1
5
0
18
5
4
6
10
67
0
0
4
0
8
2
0
3
5
21
Although based on very small numbers there have been some interesting findings, related to different disciplines. For example, of the 23 law faculty at Dalhousie University, Canada, five had amild Read/write preference, two a strong Read/write preference and five a very strong Read/write preference. One had a strong Kinesthetic preference and 10 were multimodal in their preferences where stronger Read/write scores were noted within their profile. It is unusual in any set of VARK data to find such high levels of single preferences as well as the dominance of Read/write modes. By contrast, the students of law at the same university had the characteristics shown in the table below. Dalhousie Faculty and Student Summary Table Individuals with Single Preferences n=
A
R
Multimodal
Group
V
40
Students
3
0
5
6
26
23
Faculty
0
0
12
1
10
43
K
Should one feel some sympathy for the three students with a Visual preference? The mismatches raised a number of eyebrows in the teacher workshop that followed this data collection. The variation could be explained however, by the small sample. Information about any discipline–specific patterns awaits more comprehensive data from the website and from researchers. In work done between 2003and 2006 with sports personnel it was found that coaches were like teachers – dominated by Read/write preferences mixed with an expected high proportion of Kinesthetic profiles. Athletes, especially those in team sports were much more likely to have higher Aural and of course Kinesthetic scores in their profiles. Dr Eric Hobson and Dr Peter Hurd developed a basic learning style profile for pharmacy teachers and students at two similar institutions (private, urban, 0-6 programs). They also wanted to explore the instructional implications highlighted by the resulting profiles. They completed a three-way comparative study using the Albany College of Pharmacy (ACP), the St Louis College of Pharmacy (STLCoP) and members of a teaching workshop at the Lilly Conference on Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching47. They found that there was a predominance of multimodal preferences among all data sets – usually in the range 55%-65% of the total. They also found that the single preferences for teachers and students differed. In a simplified metaphor the teachers’ V, A, R, K proportions were like the “Alps” and the students like a “Staircase.” as shown in the data and graphs above. Hobson and Hurd’s conclusions, using Version 3.0, were: while students and teachers have a low preference for Aural learning situations, the lecture was still the dominant instructional mode, teachers’ and students’ learning preferences differ, students can make the best of a given learning situation by employing study strategies based on their preferred modes. VARK can provide a catalyst to stimulate teachers to discuss learning, many pharmacy students are Kinesthetic learners, VARK can stimulate students’ critical understanding of learning processes, VARK can provide students with study strategies attuned to their learning preferences. •
• • • • • •
OTHER RESEARCH FINDINGS Mehryar Nooriafshar and Rod St Hill (1999) at the Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Australia provided this abstract for a VARK study entitled: Adopting The Technologies Associated With Modern Computing To Incorporate Students’ Modal Preferences Into Course Design.
Teachers have been aware for many years that learning styles differ among students. Although it is probably not feasible for teachers to cater for the full range of learning styles it is possible to take into account modal preferences. Some students have very strong preferences for one mode of taking in information, processing and outputting. Others are quite comfortable operating in a variety of modes. It is desirable that, in the design of courses and their delivery and assessment, modal preferences are taken into account to whatever extent is feasible for the teacher. There is no justice in discriminating among students on the basis of their modal preferences. In this paper one particular approach to modal preferences is described. Then an application of our understanding of modal preferences in the design of student revision questions in an introductory subject in the Bachelor of Business degree at the University of Southern Queensland is demonstrated. The particular aspect of the subject that is the focus of this paper is what we have called the Interactive Multimedia Revision System (IMRS). This system has been designed to both cater to different modal preferences of students and to incorporate the principles of constructivist learning. A particular example is presented. Eugenia Fernandez (1999)48 in a paper on The Effectiveness of Web-Based Tutorials, wrote: The World Wide Web offers myriad possibilities for delivering course content using different instructional strategies. Common strategies include text-based delivery, broadcast courses, and tutorials. But does using the Web improve student learning? According to a report compiled by Russell (1999), numerous studies have shown there to be no significant difference in learning between face-to-face and distance delivery. However, none of the studies included student learning styles in their inquiry. Since the flexibility of the Web provides instructors with the opportunity to match teaching methods with student learning styles, this question begs examination. This paper explores these two questions: (1) Is a web-based tutorial as effective as a traditional classroom lecture? and (2) Does a student's learning style affect whether a web-based tutorial is effective? The study described in this paper compares the change in knowledge on a specific topic resulting from a classroom lecture and an instructor-designed web-based tutorial. It tested the assumption that the two methods resulted in different levels of knowledge. It further investigated whether student learning styles had any impact on the effectiveness of the teaching method. Fleming (1995) presented a paper on VARK to an Australasian Conference of educators.49 This is the abstract: A questionnaire developed and used at Lincoln University identifies the preferences of students for particular modes of information presentation. Used with students, it can provide a focus for developing strategies that are tailored for individuals. In so doing it helps overcome the predisposition of many educators to treat all students in a similar way. Used with teachers, the questionnaire can motivate them to move from their preferred mode(s) to using others. In so doing, they reach more students because of the better match between teacher and learner styles. Some case studies of students and teachers, empowered by the questionnaire, are provided. 47 48 49
Their study was presented to the 1998 Lilly Conference as Pharmacy Students’ Learning Style Profile: Course and Curricular Implications. Department of Computer Technology, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, Indiana University, Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A. Fleming, N.D., (1995).
44
Pedersen and St Hill (1999), of the Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland in their paper on, Meeting the Challenge of ‘Massification’: Taking Learner Diversity Seriously, produced these findings: Diversity among learners has always been a factor that university teachers should take into account when designing or delivering subject matter . ‘Massification’ of university education seems to have brought diversity into relief in Australia during the last two decades, perhaps more acutely in the post-Dawkins universities. In this paper, some design and delivery strategies are outlined and preliminary assessments of their effectiveness are made. The strategies focus upon the feasible implementation of sound pedagogical and andragogical principles. The paper does not seek to prescribe best practice. The authors have not implemented identical strategies in their respective subjects, but they have a common objective: to improve learning and assessment outcomes by recognizing the different learning needs of different students. In 2001, St Hill reporting on the results of his efforts to restructure his Intermediate Macroeconomics course made these comments: Diversity in Modal Preferences Fleming (personal comment) has suggested that about 40 percent of students have a preference for one mode over the others, but that about 60 percent are multi-modal. He has also suggested that mature age students are more likely to be multi-modal than school leavers. These general observations do seem to be borne out by the distribution of modal preferences in the Macroeconomics class in 2000 in which the percentages of distance (older) students who are bi- or multi-modal is greater than the percentages of on-campus (younger) students as shown below : Group Distance Students On-Campus students
V
A
R
K
3.9 12.8
1.3 2.0
15.6 8.5
15.6 23.4
Bimodal 13.0 17.0
Multimodal 50.6 36.2
Although the distribution of modal preferences among students is quite different for the two groups of students, it is clear that there is considerable diversity of preference in each group. This presents a challenge in teaching that is not easy to meet. He mentioned two quite noticeable outcomes that were apparent from his attention to modal preferences and course redesign. First, student assessment outcomes have improved. Second, student learning experiences appear to have improved. Assessment Outcomes (Percentages) Year Passed Failed Incomplete- Did not Withdrew illness sit 1996 56.4 20.7 8.0 9.6 5.3 1997 43.0 30.2 6.6 14.3 5.8 1998 36.3 26.5 19.0 5.8 12.4 1999 85.8 4.7 1.6 6.8 1.1 2000 68.9 19.3 5.2 3.7 3.0
Total % 100 99.9 100 100 100.1
n 188 258 228 190 135
One might even go so far as to claim that the improvement was dramatic. The results for 1999 were very much better than for 1998 or 1997. The percentage of students who failed in 1999 was only 4.7 percent. This contrasts dramatically with 26.5 percent in 1998 and 30 percent in 1997. The percentage of students who applied for deferred examinations in 1999 was 1.6 percent (compared to 19 percent in 1998 and 6.6 percent in 1997). All students who sat deferred examinations in 1999 passed, whereas almost half of those who sat “deferreds” in 1998 and 1997 failed. The percentages of students obtaining A and High Distinction grades increased very significantly in 1999 compared to 1998. It would be an overstatement to claim that it was attention to teaching methodology (unit design and delivery) that explained all of this improvement. There is little doubt that students found the assessment tasks easier. However, it could be argued that assessment was also much better designed in 1999 than had been the case in 1997. Also, there was a decline in the proportion of students studying in Malaysia in 1999, as result of a change in agency arrangements of the university. These students, as a group, tended to perform poorly in assessment tasks compared to other groups of students. However, it is almost certain that attention to teaching methodology had a significant impact on assessment outcomes. Not only did the proportion of students who failed decline in 1999. It appears that the student learning experience also improved. The proportion of students who did not complete the subject by the end of the semester fell from 26.5 percent in 1998 to 9.5 percent in 1999. Results in 2000 were not quite as dramatic as those in 1999. The main reason for this appears to be the penalties for fundamental errors. Had these not been applied the failure rate would have been around 11 percent rather than the 19.3 percent recorded. CONCLUSION The debates and research continue. This chapter will always be unfinished as further research results arrive. The website at http://www.vark-learn.com has allowed for the collection of individual’s responses to each of the 16 questions. These data will allow for more sophisticated research work. VARK welcomes enterprising researchers who might take up the challenges and opportunities for further research and contributions to the discussion about points raised in this chapter. (See the Appendices for a table of research opportunities.) 45
CHAPTER SIX: LINKS TO SOME OTHER SYSTEMS FOUR-PART SYSTEMS There are a number of inventories, questionnaires and typologies about learning. The Greeks separated personality into a four-part typology (earth, fire air and water) but four-part separations are widely found among modern theorists too. Dr John Monroe at Melbourne University in a talk titled Key Theory of Learning to the 1995 conference of the Business Education Association used the analogy of garden beds for his four-part categorization. He said that if we use more of the‘garden beds’ learners would too. Two dimensions of cognitive style Riding and Cheema (1992), in a survey of a number of cognitive style-type constructs, suggest that each may be assigned to one of two principal cognitive styles ‘families’. Their approach suggests that learners differ in terms of two fundamental dimensions.
Wholist-analytical dimension of cognitive style This describes the habitual way in which an individual processes information and is derived from the work of Witkin and his coworkers (see Witkin et. al., 1977). Analytics tend to process information into its component parts; wholists tend to retain a global view of a topic. This may be equivalent to the analytic-intuitive dimension of cognitive style identified by Allinson and Hayes (1996).
Wholist Verbalizer
Imager
Analytic
Verbalizer-imager dimension of cognitive style. Verbalizers tend to represent information in memory in 'words'; imagers tend to represent information in memory in ‘pictorial’ form (Ridinget al., 1989). These two dimensions may be combined to give four cognitive style types. An individual's position on each dimension, and their cognitive style, may be assessed using the computer-presented Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) (Riding, 199). Very low correlations have been reported between the verbal-imagery and the wholist-analytical dimensions of cognitive style and intelligence as measured by the British Abilities Scale (see Riding and Pearson, 1994: 419). Sadler-Smith and Riding (1996b) found that cognitive style affected individuals’ preferences for autonomous (e.g. self-instruction), collaborative (e.g. role-play) and dependent learning methods (e.g. lectures). VARK is somewhat separate from these dimensions though the verbalizer-imager continuum relates closely to the Reasd/write and Visual distinctions. The two dimensions of cognitive style appear to affect learning in two separate ways. The verbal-imagery dimension has been shown to interact with the mode of presentation of information to affect learning performance. Verbalizers may be expected to benefit more than imagers from the presentation of information in a textual form; imagers on the other hand may be expected to benefit more than verbalizers from the presentation of information in a pictorial or diagrammatic form. Hence, the verbal-imagery dimension of cognitive style may indicate the most appropriate mode of presentation of information for a given individual; i.e. the mode of presentation may be matched to the verbal-imagery dimension of cognitive style. Hence, the two fundamental dimensions of cognitive style may be accommodated when designing learning by: matching the mode of presentation of information to the verbal-imagery dimension; providing a compensatory strategy for the wholist-analytical dimension by using some form of advanced organizer or content map. Again the concept of matching is underlined as a teaching strategy. • •
KOLB’S LEARNING CYCLE Two widely used models of the learning process are Kolb's model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), and one of its derivatives, Honey and Mumford's 'learning cycle' (1986, 1992). Both take as their basis the Lewinian model of learning (see Kolb, 1984: 2 1) that may be summarized as: Stage 1: concrete experience; Stage 2: observations and reflections on the experience; Stage 3: formation of abstract concepts and generalizations based upon the experience and the subsequent reflections; Stage 4: testing the implications of the concepts and generalizations in new situations. Dimensions of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
Concrete Experience 25%
35%
18%
22%
Active Experimentation
Reflective Observations Abstract Conceptualization
46
The percentages refer to the distribution of learning styles in an education population50. Kolb suggested that the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, 1985) be used to identify individuals' learning styles. Honey and Mumford (1986,1992) modified Kolb's approach and classified learners in terms of their strengths and weaknesses for each stage of the cycle. They suggest that there are four contrasting learning styles that are based on the quadrants between each of the two dimensions.: •
•
• •
people who involve themselves in new experiences, tackling problems by brainstorming, and moving from one task to the next as the excitement fades- (25%); reflectors : cautious and thoughtful people who like to consider all the possible angles before making any decisions and whose actions are based on observation and reflection – (35%) ; theorists : people who integrate their observations into logical models based on analysis and objectivity (22%); pragmatists : practical people who like to apply new ideas immediately, and get impatient with an over-emphasis on reflection (18%). activists :
Conner (1982) suggested that our education system is based on serving the needs of the theorists – the 22% of the population and that we tend to favor students who are good at abstract thinking. “The other 78% are shortchanged”. In Learning and Teaching Styles in Theory and Practice Kathleen Butler,51 provides some types and characteristics for each of Kolb’s four categories. Some of these align with VARK strategies quite closely while others draw a comment in the footnote beneath each listing. Abstract Sequential briefs references
Is this a match with the VARK Kinesthetic dimension?
Concrete Random artifacts hands on games investigative kits
exploring situations art materials simulations
Concrete Sequential flow charts workbooks guides (?) outlines flip-charts maps
Comment:
Comment:
Is this a match with the VARK Visual dimension?
computer programs overheads charts bulletin boards diagrams
The match between the characteristics underlined and the Visual dimension of VARK depends on what is represented. Many lie outside the VARK definition of Visual because they are merely text and words. VARK would say these belong in Read/write?
Abstract Random non verbals multimedia art
Is this a match with the VARK Read/write dimension?
texts publications
Is this a match with VARK Aural dimension? discussion music posters
Those underlined do not fit into the VARK mode for Aural. Multimedia is a mix of modes and non-verbals are a part of the Visual dimension. Art spans a number of modes and is more likely to be Visual or Kinesthetic47
Accommodating the Learning Cycle Honey and Mumford suggest that a balanced approach that attempts to accommodate each stage of the learning cycle should include either: a range of activities with help available to enable learners to cope with those elements of the cycle which do not match their preferences52; alternative learning activities pertinent to individual learners. Users of the self-instructional materials designed in such a way would then need to be: (a) aware of the learning cycle; (b) aware of their own strengths and preferences; (c) able to select those activities congruent with their own preferences. •
•
50 51 52
Conner, J. E., (1982). Butler, K., (1984). Honey, P., and Mumford, A., (1992).
47
The former is seen as the more practical approach. Hence, 'balanced' learning materials would be those that included a range of activities only some of which would be congruent with the style or preferences of the individual. Applying the guidelines given by Honey and Mumford, it is suggested that designing self-instructional materials may accommodate the learning cycle. NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING (N.L.P.) AND VARK Colin Rose (1992) in his book on accelerated learning stated that communication styles mirror learning styles; and we can determine the ways in which students may be processing information through their utterances and writing but this is risky. He listed the three principal forms of communication as Visual, auditory and Kinesthetic (V, A and K) and identified the principal researchers as Richard Bandler, John Grinder and Dilts and Zaner-Bloser whose techniques published in 1979 became the foundation for neuro-linguistic programming or NLP. Rose, on page 152, says: “Note we are NOT saying that you communicate or learn only with your preferred sense. Clearly we all process information by Visual, auditory and Kinesthetic means. We are saying however, that learning will be easier and more effective if the elements are expressed in the way you prefer to learn, whether that is V, A or K. How you present something is often as important as what you say – and indeed may determine whether it is understood at all.”
Hunt (1985) stated: We usually think of variations in modality (for example. Visual and auditory) as referring to how we receive experience. Bandler and Grinder (1979) noted we also differ in how we represent experience in our minds - in Visual form as pictures, in auditory form as tapes, or in tactile form as feelings. They have proposed a fairly complex scheme called Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) which is based primarily on persons varying in terms of their representational systems (Visual, auditory, or Kinesthetic), referring to one's "lead channel" as that representational system which is most accessible. In that sense VARK is using the NLP concept of ”lead channels ”to advantage learners through knowledge of their own modal preferences. In the development of VARK there were several influences. At the most basic level the development of VARK began with something akin to the statement in The Structure of Magic by John Grinder and Richard Bandler, two of the founders of NLP.53 We have five recognized senses for making contact with the world – we see, we hear, we feel, we taste and we smell. In addition to these sensory systems, we have a language system that we use to represent our experience. We may store our experience directly in the representational system most closely associated with the sensory channel.” We do know that students have preferences for using their senses to examine the world and to take part in it. Bandler and Grinder go on to say that: “There are three major input channels 54 by which we, as human beings receive information about the world around us – vision, audition, and Kinesthetics (body sensations). Each of these three sensory input channels provides us with an ongoing stream of information which we use to organize our experience.” Later (p 9) they state that the input channels may combine to provide information of an even more complex nature. For example we receive the experience of texture through a combination of Visual, Kinesthetic and (in some cases) auditory stimulation. Rose (1992) maintains that we have the ability to create representations of input in a different mode from that in that they were received and manipulated in the mind. VARK stays closer to perceptions and the individual’s preferences for them. VARK AND LEFT-BRAIN/RIGHT BRAIN RESEARCH Left/Right brain research has spawned a number of initiatives in learning. In many ways it lies behind the approaches used in NLP. Researchers were finding differences between the functions of the two brains but as long as the corpus callosum remained intact there was considerable overlap between the functions of each hemisphere. Significantly, brain research, and an understanding of mental processes is continuing at an increasing rate and we will know a great deal more in each successive decade. Sinatra55 stated that both brain hemispheres cooperate in most learning tasks and that successful reading and writing both require analysis and synthesis and that written literacy itself, based on the nature of the alphabetic coding system is a process of verbal mediation in the left hemispheres of most learners. He believed that of slightly more interest is the development trend in brain preferences with the left hemisphere exerting increasing influence from early childhood. VARK was influenced by the leftbrain/right-brain research findings in the 1970s and 1980s but dividing the student population into only two camps (left and right) seemed unhelpful to the students and their teachers. As Joyce56 said;
“After a lifetime of the study of learning styles we never thought we’d be distressed by the subject, but we are upset by the direction that discussion about individual differences has taken. “This child can’t learn from lectures because she is right brained. That one can’t write creatively because he is left-brained!” 53
54
55 56
Neurolinguistic pro gramming is an approa ch to understanding th e process of human commu nication. It was devel oped in the late 1970 s by Richard Bandler and John Grin der who observed the skills of ou tstanding counselo r communicators (Sati r, Perls and Erikson) to discover th e secret of their effectiveness. NLP addresses the way in which people take in and make sense of information. It enables us to better understand our own communication processes. (From an NLP promotional brochure). The remaining two most commonly accepted sensory input channels – smell and taste- are, apparently, little used as ways of gaining information about the world according to Bandler and Grinder! Sinatra, R., (1982). Joyce, B. R. & Showers, B., (1988).
48
David Hunt (1985) has a somewhat more critical view about the usefulness of Left Brain/Right Brain distinctions. The claim that some learning styles are based on the physiology of the brain is at once persuasive and mystifying. For example, rational, systematic, linear ways of thinking are said to be controlled by the left side of the brain while creative, divergent, holistic ways of thinking are said to be controlled by the right side of the brain. The jargon of "right brain-left brain" has so pervaded our language that it now occurs in the comic strip "Peanuts," which may make you wonder why call it mystical. First, note carefully that the evidence for right versus left-brain functioning is based entirely on brain-damaged persons and animals, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever measure brain activity directly to assess learning style. Second, the pattern of thinking described as "brain behavior"-systematic versus intuitive, linear versus holistic-has been present for thousands of years and can legitimately be described in its own terms as different ways of experiencing. Third, such differences could be equally well described as Eastern thinking ("right brain") or Western thinking ("left brain") since they correlate with these cultures. It is interesting to note how much more persuasive the claim is in our culture if it is reduced to physiology rather than described by cultural correlates. Again I am not taking issue with the research on brain behavior, only noting that when it is applied to the learning styles of non-brain damaged persons, it is nothing more than a metaphor (which could equally well be Eastern versus Western). We need to keep this in mind so that we are not mystified by physiological reductionism. The list below of Left-Brain/Right-Brain tasks from David Lewis’ book, ”Mind Skills”, has some similarities to the VARK lists of strategies for students and teachers but his list contains many forms of expression other than communication modes. VARK restricts itself to learning through communication inputs and outputs. It intentionally omits emotional, motivational and personality dimensions, examples of which are included here. What the left brain does best. Explaining with words Remembering using language Step by step thinking Controlling emotions Taking life seriously Working with facts Analysis Logical reasoning Practical tasks Structured activities Organization
What the right brain does best Explaining Visually Remembering using images Holistic thinking Expressing emotions Approaching life playfully Working with pictures Synthesis Intuitive understanding Abstract tasks Fluid, open activities Improvisations
THE DUNN’S Kenneth and Rita Dunn and their associates at the School of Education and Human Services, St. John’s University, New York completed a most impressive record of research in learning styles 57. Much of their work was co-sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and St John’s University. They assembled a huge list of studies indicating links between the various components of learning style and students’ achievements. The task of citing their research findings is made a little easier in our context because Dunn and Dunn’s work encompassed all of their 18 elements of a learning style. VARK is focused on only one aspect of a learning style (modality preferences) and only at secondary and post-secondary level. Their work was mainly with kindergarten to 10th grade students. Only a selection of their research findings can be mentioned here and some quotations on the whole field of learning styles is included because of its influence on the development of VARK. In1989, Dunn et al, stated that “a number of studies conducted during the last decade have found that students’ achievement increases when teaching methods match their learning styles.” They also stated that sensory preferences (modality preferences) influence the ways students learn. “Eight studies reveal that when youngsters were taught with instructional resources that both matched and mismatched their preferred modalities they achieved statistically higher test scores in modalitymatched rather than mismatched treatments. In addition, when children were taught with multi-sensory resources, but initially through their most preferred modality and then were reinforced through their secondary or tertiary modality, their scores increased even more.” They go on to say that: “No learning style is either better or worse than another. Since each style has similar intelligence ranges, a student cannot be labeled or stigmatized by having any type or style. Most children can master the same content; how they master it is determined by their individual styles.”
57
In 1993 their bibliography of research, based on their Learning Styles Model ran to some 30 pages.
49
In an article on outmoded beliefs58, Kenneth and Rita Dunn listed the following interesting fallacies about learning styles: Students learn best when seated upright at a desk or table. Students perform better on tests and learn more from their homework in an absolutely quiet environment. Students learn best in well-illuminated areas and damage their eyes when they read in low light. Students learn difficult subjects best in the early morning when they are most alert. Students who do not sit still are not ready to learn. Whole group instruction is the best way to teach. Most students could achieve well academically if only they were self-moti vated. Students concentrate best when classroom temperature is maintained at from 68 to 72 degrees Fahrenheit. Effective teaching requires clearly stated objectives followed by detailed, step-by- step sequential explanations until students understand what is being taught. Eating should not be permitted in classrooms except at snack time; food belongs in the cafeteria. Students learn best in blocks of time of approximately 40 to 55 minutes with variations for lab period (80-100 minutes). Students who cannot remember verbal instruction tend to be less intelligent than those who can. Generally the older students are, the easier it is for them to adapt to a teacher’s style. Truancy is related to poor attitudes, home problems. Lack of motivation and other factors having nothing to do with students’ preferred learning time. MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES Howard Gardner has contributed a typology of intelligences using the plural to indicate that students have more than one intelligence. Gardner initially identified seven different intelligences some of which correspond with VARK modalities. He has added more. VARK, however, is focused on the ways that modes are preferred in information exchanges based on learning. Gardner’s work is much more complex as it explores the “black box” processing of information in the brain.
His website59 describes the intelligences as follows: 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. Logical-mathematical intelligence consists of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. In Howard Gardner's words, it entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking. 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 linguisti c intelligence. 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. Spatial intelligence involves the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas. Interpersonal intelli gence 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 counselors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal inte lligence 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 ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives.
CONCLUSION We have only begun the complex task of understanding how the human brain functions which is the focus for much of this chapter. VARK is not reliant on the results of brain scans and neural research though it will obviously benefit from it. Its basis lies in the research on perception and people’s preferences which are a “layer’ closer to the outside world than the brain processing and functioning. This outer layering means that we can be somewhat more objective about what people say about their learning. Their modal preferences can be expressed more succinctly and with more assurance than the reasons for their preferences. As the psychologist Charles Osgood said, “Only the effects of thought, not the process itself, can be observed. A man (sic) cannot lift himself up by his own bootstraps, neither can he observe that which is doing the observing.” Maybe the next decade will alter Osgood’s prediction.
58 59
Dunn, K. and Dunn, R., (1987). http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm
50
CHAPTER SEVEN:
UNDERSTANDING A VISUAL PREFERENCE Seeing believes! Or is it?
This chapter is about those teachers and students with a single Visual preference and those with Visual as part of their multimodal set of preferences. This includes all of the following: Single preference – Mild, Strong and Very Strong V Multimodal -
VA
VR
VK
VAR
VAK
VRK
VARK
Those with a Visual preference would prefer that this entire chapter be presented in a series of diagrams, charts and drawings because that is how they learn best. INTAKE To take in information Learners who have a strong preference for the Visual (V) mode should use some or all of the following. maps charts graphs symbols diagrams brochures underlining flow charts highlighters different colors textbooks with diagrams the layout and design of posters, slides... word pictures – e.g. ‘marching up the slopes’. different spatial arrangements on the page (like this list) listening to teachers who use gestures and picturesque language. whitespace- making the blank areas around text and diagrams more significant. SWOT Study WithOut Tears To make a learnable package they need to reduce their‘notes’ by making them into distinctive ‘page pictures’. They should: turn tables into graphs. draw pictures to show their ideas. read the words and convert them into diagrams. make complex processes and lists into flowcharts. redraw their newly designed pages from memory. replace the words with symbols, pictures or initials. look at their pages for meanings. Remember the shape, format and color. reconstruct the images in different ways - try different spatial arrangements. use all the techniques above to make each study page look different.
51
OUTPUT To perform well in examinations they should: practice turning their Visuals back into words. practice writing exam answers- there are few Visual tests in higher education. recall the “pictures” made in the study pages. draw things. Use diagrams to answer the questions.
Those with a Visual preference like to see the whole picture so they need some overall diagram to make sense of complex ideas. They like to see where they are up to- like a roadmap of their learning journey. They are often swayed by the look of an object and are interested in color, layout and design. Drawing something seems natural. ABOUT VISUAL LEARNERS The first stage in gathering information for learning is called note taking because they are merely collecting notes from teachers, textbooks, friends and webpages. They should convert those notes by reducing them (three pages down to one page). This stage is called note making. To do this they should use pictures that are meaningful to them. Not all Visual students take their notes in the same way and some have developed diagrams and forms of shorthand to represent both common and complex ideas. Some consider that cartoons are a part of a Visual preference (V) but they have an alternative Read/write (R) attraction for those who like the captions and words. It is interesting to ask whether it is the caption or the drawing that appeals. It may depend on whether the meaning is in the drawing or the text or speech bubbles. They are capable of developing their own special diagrams to help their brain remember their notes. They enjoy teachers who choose to provide them with maps, diagrams and graphic images and those who illustrate their teaching. They may convert any notes into diagrams using small symbols (stars, arrows, outline boxes etc) to organize them into main ideas.
different font sizes and
Using remember.
provides them with plenty of Visual variety and makes things easier to
In fact, all text looks the same for those with a Visual preference so handwritten notes may be better than printed notes . Centering, right justifying and arranging key words in innovative ways, perhaps using WordArt©, will also be helpful. Color too is important. One student with a Visual preference remembered key ideas by writing all her Economics notes in red pen, and all her Biology notes in black pen. The color codes helped her recall. They are well advised to avoid lists because, to them, they all look the same. Personalizing their notes as much as possible is another learning technique.
" = ! = "
It makes his or her notes look different from everyone else’s. Some examples are shown later in this chapter.#
Those who have strong Visual preferences and who have difficulty remembering words from their notes may notice that they are able to remember where the words were written on a page. The placement of things on a page is important because they are better able to remember ‘what’ by using ‘where’. They may also recall the other ideas around it or Visual associations such as accompanying diagrams. Taking mental photographs of pages and their memory will assist in recalling a detail on a page by its placement. As Buzan says, “The memory is in fact working excellently. The reason that recall is difficult is that the notes were not initially made with an awareness of what would be good for recall.” It would seem that video and television are really useful for those who are strongly Visual (V) but much of the information in these media is Aural (A), Kinesthetic (K) or even written (R). Students with a Visual preference get little help from unstructured images like photographs, videos and films. Also they should:
Some students with a strong Visual preference are distracted by the way electronic information appears and disappears and most of the content in PowerPoint is little more than words. There are usually few diagrams even though the text may be shown in interesting (and diverting!) ways. It is often referred to as a Visual medium but in terms of modal preferences it is usually in text and favors students with a Read/write preference.
52
Those who have a strong Visual preference may be able to recall their ”pictures” in almost complete detail. One report from an eidetic60 student said: "I was fifteen. During an exam, I 'saw' my chemistry book. I mentally opened it, turned over the pages and 'copied' the nitric acid diagram into my exam paper." REMEMBER: Preferences are not the same as Strengths. WORKING WITH OTHERS If those with a Visual preference are matched with others who have a Visual preference (V) there will be no problems with communicating ideas and instructions because they will both be reaching for pieces of paper to sketch designs, or directions, or ideas. Those who prefer Visual input are often keen to see an overview of the situation in a diagram whether it is a customer complaint or a design fault in a system. They mentally convert text and speech into pictures, schemas or images that make more sense in their world. If their employer has a Visual preference too it will be important to draft any plans or new ideas in a Visual way. Charts and graphs are preferred over tables of figures so translating percentages and ratios into pie graphs is important. Sometimes those with a Visual preference appear not to be paying attention. They may be forming a Visual representation of what is being said or what is written. You can sometimes observe them reaching for a pen and paper to start drawing something. They design their information using symbols as in the example below.
Those with a Visual preference like to ‘see’ relationships and they often choose to use words like, “link”, “draw”, “vision”, “view’”, ”see” or “perspective’”. They have a strong spatial sense and are often able to find their way when others cannot. They are usually aware of their surroundings, especially the layout of rooms or houses or outdoor spaces. They may have a strong sense of color, location, placement, negative space and they enjoy working with maps, signs and anything that is symbolic (flags, logos, road signs, advertisements). Some can use their preference to remember people’s faces but not their names! IF YOU ARE VOID ON V? If your results show a zero score or low score for Visual (V) You may have some distrust of graphs and diagrams and anything that relies on symbolism. You don’t always share the same meaning of these symbols. An arrow representing a ‘flow’ may mean something quite different to you. The placement of words on a page has little added meaning and things like layout and style are not very important. You probably get lost trying to find your way to other places and you may have little memory for the surroundings in a room, an auditorium or a house. You prefer not to use a map to find your way. Remembering what people wear or what they look like is probably not a strong point. You may have difficulty understanding why others place so much importance on trivial things like fonts and formats and layouts. Who cares about merely pictures! Mary was so weak on the Visual dimension that in Introductory Economics, which has a strongly Visual presentation through using graphs, she drew the graphs as minuscule diagrams (one line in height and two centimeters long) but wrote a full explanation of what the graph indicated underneath the graph. Her scores on the questionnaire indicated a strong preference for Resad/wrtite information and a void on the Visual dimension. Clearly, she did not value the Visual presentation though she knew she would have to use it somehow. VISUAL STRATEGIES Those with a strong Visual preference should train to convert text into their own diagrams for easier recall. Visual imagery is a very effective way of remembering random sequences and words that suggest pictures are more easily memorized than those that aren’t. Students and teachers can do this by listening for key words that have a strong Visual association. Some students develop this skill so well they can draw the diagrams in the classroom as the teacher speaks. Others may take down the words as text and convert them into diagrams later.
60
Although some adults cannot recall clear visual images helpful to their learning others are able to recall images that are clear and accurate. These mental pictures are termed "eidetic images. Their images are detailed, and can be scanned like a document. “The eidetic image, often unfaded years after the initial perception, is not truly "photographic," however. Like perception, eidetic recall is subject to inaccuracy; the eidetic image is scanned selectively, according to the viewer's needs and interests. Few would deny the value of eidetic recall.” McKim, R. H., (1980).
53
Here are some examples. The teacher said:
I drew:
There is a definite link between smoking and the incidence of lung cancer.
Between selling your house and buying the next one you may need bridging finance.
“Motivation is affected by the quality of the relationship between teacher and student.”
What can be suggested to teachers and students with a Visual preference? Haigh and Katterns (1992) suggest that students should be asked to represent their learning in a Visual form in the following circumstances: When images such as pictures, photographs, drawings and graphs seem likely to provide a less ambiguous representation of students’ ideas than words. When what is known cannot be represented in words but can be represented pictorially. When graphic devices such as typographical cues, design and layout features can highlight important differences in the nature of ideas and the relationships that exist between them. When posters, charts and concept maps reveal the complete cluster of ideas that a student associates with something. They say that text can only provide a succession of snapshots to some of that structure and readers or listeners are required to assemble an analogous structure in their minds as they read or listen. There are categories of word pictures that skilled people with a Visual preference use. For example words are often presented in one or other of the categories listed below. •
• •
•
Concepts of Structure
Exchange Flow Links Overlap Merger Hierarchy Ranking Composition Makeup
Could be represented by drawings of: Buildings, foundations, shapes (triangles, squares etc), brick or block walls, skyscraper levels… Rivers, merging traffic/roads, bridges, cycles, pipes, water systems, circulatory or respiratory systems… Chains, handshakes, bridges, arm-in-arm… Venn diagrams…
Pie graphs, competitions (races), head-body-legs, arm-hand-fingersnails, tree roots-trunk-branches-leaves, organization chart… Pie graph, bar graph, cube, division of a common object e.g. a coin, a measure of petrol, tax dollar split, filtering systems… 54
Parts of a whole Causal Reasons for Balance Equilibrium Non-sequential points
Arrows, controls, before-after scenarios… Line graph, scales, pulleys, and seesaw… Star shapes, bullet pints, sunburst, fingers, legs, and signposts…
There is little doubt that students should be helped to explore and extend their Visual representation repertoires. It may not be something that comes naturally and teachers do not often reinforce it as an appropriate technique – say for note taking. As Thompson states: “There are numerous examples where instructing pupils to use imagery has produced improvement. Those who learn well from pictures benefit from imagery instructions in a number of different tasks.” Strangely, we help students with many aspects associated with their modal preferences but seldom with the Visual ones. Karin McGinnis and Kenneth Maeckelbergh, Lakewood Community College, USA in an unpublished article stated that 85% of our knowledge comes through our eyes. They also noted that learning to speak, learning to read and learning to listen are all-important elements of a sound education whereas learning to see is omitted. McKim (1997) has a number of interesting quotations about Visual preferences and how students are disadvantaged with this profile. He says that: “Our current system of education actively discriminates against the student who is competent in spatial ability.” “Nature doesn’t separate seeing from the other senses, only words do. Seeing is poly-sensory, combining the Visual, tactile, and Kinesthetic senses.” On the other side of the lectern, Thompson states: “There are differences between Visual and non-Visual teachers. The latter adopted a more lecturing style, but while Visual teachers lectured too, they tried to make connections between the mathematics curriculum and other areas and expressed many traits commonly associated with creativity. Not surprisingly, non-Visual teaching inhibited Visual learning. It does seem, then, that teachers may unconsciously try to push their pupils into their own mode of thinking, once again a result of people’s inability to appreciate the radical ways that pupils think.” SOME CASE STUDIES During the development of VARK, students provided the author with a wide range of examples of their techniques for using their preference. The case studies that follow are evidence of their skills and preferences in action. Hamish - VARK scores (5 2 3 and 3) Hamish had time to doodle one of the check boxes on his VARK questionnaire into this television set. Only a person with a Visual preference would think of that! Clare I find it easier to study information that has diagrams, charts, pictures and writing that explains them. It is easy for me to associate a word or a phrase with a symbol or a diagram. When a tutor talks for longer than 5 or 10 minutes I find that my mind wanders and I start to draw. I also like to have a tutor explain written handouts and during this time I jot down ideas. I then go home and write them out neatly with different colored pens to help me to remember and file the notes in order. I also struggle to read from textbooks. It is best for me to highlight main points and read them, then transfer them into my own words and re-read them. Brett, had a very strong Visual preference. He provided these diagrams from his notes. They illustrated (for him) the important features of a topic in Management. The first one he translated as“executive power”, the second one he described as “current issues” and the first one in the second line he said was “control”. (Brett was a trainee pilot!) Can you guess the others?
55
Kim From the VARK test it shows that I am Visually oriented with a similar approach to Kinesthetic. I like to look at Visual information as opposed to solid blocks of text because they hold more interest for me and are easier to recall. Adrienne I am very strongly Visual and learn by the layout on the page mainly. In an exam situation I can identify the question with information that we have been given in lectures by extracting the page and its layout. Headings are a strong focal point and enable me to determine which is the page that I need to complete the question asked for. Diagrams and flow charts are also very easy for me to learn, as are lists and numbers. As far as Aural is concerned, it goes in one ear and out the other. I have to write it down quickly and then I will write it again in my own format, e.g. when taking telephone messages I write the message down as I get it but will religiously rewrite the message so that it looks nice and is arranged on the paper neatly. As far as reading is concerned I could think of nothing worse than a piece of paper that is all one color and has no indentations. I would learn nothing, as I would not read it. I do love to read novels, but I remember the book by the Visual images I have made rather than the words used, or the author’s name and title etc.
On a page I love to indent, use (a), (b) or numbers and have headings that are underlined. With major headings I write in one color and underline in another. For small headings I use the same color. I have a lot of color displayed in all my notes, and buying highlighters is as essential as buying the weekly groceries. I also remember work by numbers and lists when answering a question in an exam. I remember the study notes by the points involved (I have already made my own study notes from lecture notes to lists, graphs, flow chart format with lots of color). For example with my charts overleaf I would remember that: 1) Diagram 1 has 4 points. 2) Diagram 2 has 6 points. 3) Diagram 3 has 7 points. 4) Diagram 4 has 5 points. My favorite pastime is going to the movies. Understanding now, through the education system the way I learn best, this pastime fits perfectly into my preferred way of learning. As I write this paper I can say that I have been to three movies in the last week and that is not unusual. If you want me to learn something, show me using color and variations on the page, and then make me physically do it!!, as I also have a touch of Kinesthetic in me! Ashlee My learning style is Visual and Kinesthetic. I doodle in class and write messy notes then tidy them up later. Having to listen to teachers too long puts me to sleep. Reproducing Visual images assists me and I enjoy doing it. In school I had the ability but didn't do much as I was constantly drawing pictures and not taking notes. I read comics but no novels as color and pictures with words are good for me. Joanna VARK scores (10 0 1 9) My survey was really strongly pulled to the ends of Visual and Kinesthetic. I like to see things and do things and I doodle most of the time. It makes the notes personal so I like them better. The way things look on the page is really important. I like white pages not colored ones, except maybe yellow. Not green or blue or pink. Malcolm 'I had to learn the three phases in the Buying Process for which there was a lot of material on each. For each of the three phases (Pre-Purchase Behavior, Evaluation and Buying and Post Purchase Behavior) I chose a different color for my notes. This helped me to remember them. Where there was a contrasting point I used a different color to show that it was out of line.
I don't feel like writing much in lectures so I read the summary first and get the highlights and then I thought ‘How can I show this in a diagram.’ I wrote notes in the margin to remind me of a diagram, and then I would draw it later. Sometimes I could not draw anything. I couldn't get it. In my study notes I used three colors again but this time for these three codes - points, important points and points that will be in the exam’
56
SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND THEORIES This section of the chapter has a number of ideas about those with a Visual preference. They are provided here as ideas to enhance our understanding of what it is like to have a strong preference for Visual! Firstly, it is worth remembering that we communicated with pictures long before we developed the kind of non-pictographic language that we call text.From McKim (1980).
According to Colin Rose, those with a strong visual preference reflect their preferences in the language they use. They will say such things as: I see now. That looks right to me. I need to get it into perspective. I’m in the dark about… I get the picture. That’s an enlightening answer. I can picture that. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Others have suggested that these phrases may be used more often: I see what you mean. Picture this. Look! When you… Show me. Let me see. I think… In the light of… That looks right. Now look here, John. I can see a solution. Get an eyeful of this. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Today, those with a Visual preference are somewhat at a disadvantage in higher education where there are fewer opportunities to express themselves in their mode. There are also fewer teachers who share their preference. However it is a mistake to believe that all Visual thinkers think in the same manner.61 As McKim states: “Our current system of education actively discriminates against the student who is competent in spatial ability.” And “It is also important to recognize that Visual thinking styles vary. Some Visual thinkers are most at home working three dimensionally; others operate very well with inner images; and still others think best with pencil and paper. The teacher of Visual thinking naturally favors his own style; he should be careful not to impose it on an entire class.” Thompson makes a different point. In his book onVisual Imagery (p142) says that those with a strong Visual modality may see numbers in some form of spatial relationship to one another. They may see the numeral in their mind’s eye immediately on hearing it spoken. One of his colleagues can “see long strings of words up to 30 or 40 letters in length and, by dividing them into groups, tell you immediately how many letters there are in any phrase you might speak”. It is likely that modal preferences may also influence choices of career. As early as 1883, Galton, as quoted in Thompson’sVisual Imagery, said: It (Visual imagery) is of importance in every handicraft and profession where design is required. The best workmen are those who Visualize the whole of what they propose to do before they take a tool in their hands … strategist, artists of all denominations, physicists who contrive new experiments, and in short, all who do not follow routine, have need of it. Roe in 1951 interviewed 64 research scientists at length. She found that biologists and experimental physicists were more Visual in their thinking while theoretical physicists, psychologists and anthropologists were more verbal. One of the major problems for those who have a strong Visual preference is that there is no “dictionary ” for images. There is no universal set of understandings about road signs or diagrams or gestures. We don’t see things in the same way and we may not share the same Visual conventions as others. Although those with a Visual preference assume that everyone sees things as they see them the truth is somewhat different. The interpretation from a single diagram can be quite variable so there is no guarantee that the teacher’s interpretation is the same as the learner’s. An example of this piece of common knowledge is well illustrated by a simple diagram provided for a class at the University of Hawaii. The students were asked to add features to make this diagram more complete.
61
While some may see this as a distinct disadvantage for those with a Visual preference there is a similar problem for students with Aural and Read/write preferences over the meanings of words especially when they are spoken!
57
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
Some Filipino students added legs (long piles) to the ‘house’ so that it would be above the water. A Chinese student added curly architecture to ward off evil spirits. Some translated this into a threedimensional drawing by adding walls. Many added a door and windows. Some had no walls because their traditional long-houses at home were without walls. Some added a cross to make it a church because their conception of a building that looks as ‘perfect’ as this had to be a church. Some students from Canada added a chimney. One person thought it was an envelope and drew a stamp and wrote an address on it.
The ‘straightforward’ diagram below illustrates that a line of ‘connectedness’ can mean a variety of things. What different meanings could be used to describe the arrow in this diagram?
A
B
Here are some suggestions from a class of undergraduate students who were asked that question. The arrow shows: a flow of something from within A to B. that A becomes a part of B. that B is affected by A in some way. A caused B. that B is to the east of A. that all of A moves to B. that A is connected to B in some way. that A changes to become B. A becomes B and disappears into it. B comes after A (in time). B is owned by A A is responsible to B (organization chart) that A and B are at the same level of …? • • • • • • • • • • •
The amount of confusion over such a simple diagram indicates how dangerous it is to assume that diagrams have universal meanings. Here is an example where the ideas should probably have been presented in a list, as the diagram does nothing to help understanding. The items appear to be independent rather than overlapping or linked.
Clients served
Performance technology
Products provided
Some diagrams carry their own rules with them. McKim (1980) says that organization charts have these rules: The higher an item on a page the more important it is. Equal rank is shown at the same level. Like functions are grouped together. Lines represent connectedness. • • • •
58
CONCLUSION Those with a strong Visual preference appear to be a smaller proportion of the academic population than other modes but they are an important group because of the extensive use of Visual symbolism in our, and other societies. The familiar Visual elements such as space, color and representation are often the distinguishing features of different societies and our symbols tend to be drawn with a strong cultural influence. As individuals, we possess a Visual vocabulary but it is highly personal because the conventions are not as strongly formalized as for text. The cultural separation of text and pictures and the so-called higher status of text often make for a division that is unhelpful for many learners. It would be more helpful if those with a Visual preference were recognized as being different rather than disabled. It is our society’s insistence that things must be written down that imposes restrictions on their learning, as we shall see in later chapters.
59
CHAPTER EIGHT:
UNDERSTANDING AN AURAL PREFERENCE A man’s word is his bond.
This chapter is for those with an Aural preference and for those who have an Aural preference as part of their multimodal profile. Single preference – Mild, Strong and Very Strong A Multimodal -
VA
AR
AK
VAR
VAK
ARK
VARK
INTAKE To take in information Learners who have a strong preference for learning by Aural and Oral methods (hearing and speaking) should use some or all of the following. Explain new ideas to others. Explain what happened to others. Discuss topics with other students. Discuss topics with their teachers. Use a tape recorder so they can listen again and again. Attend as many lectures and teaching sessions as they can. Leave spaces in their lecture notes for later recall and‘filling’. Attend discussion groups and other opportunities to share ideas with others. Describe the overheads, pictures and other Visuals to somebody who was not there. Remember the interesting examples, stories, and jokes that teachers use to explain things. SWOT Study WithOut Tears
To make a learnable package they need to reduce their notes and change them into memorable ways for them to hear. They should: read summarized notes aloud. explain their notes to another ‘Aural’ person. ask others to 'hear' their understanding of a topic. talk about their learning to others or to themselves. put their summarized notes onto tapes and listen to them. their notes from lectures may be poor because they prefer to listen rather than take notes. They will need to expand and enhance their notes by talking with others and collecting notes from the textbook. OUTPUT To perform well in examinations they should: speak their answers. listen to their voices and write them down. tune into their teachers talking about the topics. spend time in quiet places recalling the big ideas. still practice writing answers to old exam questions. if the system allows it, choose an oral examination of their learning. imagine they are talking with the teacher as they write their answers.
Those with an Aural preference would like to have all of these pages explained to them. The written words are not as valuable as those they hear are. They will probably go and tell somebody about this book and this chapter. They will want to discuss some issues in it. ABOUT AURAL LEARNERS The first stage in gathering information for learning is called note taking because they are merely collecting notes from their teachers, textbooks, friends and webpages. They should convert those notes by reducing them (three pages to one page). This stage is called note making. They should do this by talking with friends who share their Aural preference, find out what they think and work with them to condense their notes. Those with an Aural preference often have very poor notes from teaching sessions especially lectures. They may become interested in the speaker and what is being said. To them it is all quite clear – as they listen. They may forget to take notes that would help them later. If we were to talk with them after class they would have a clear idea about the topic. However, a few weeks later they may not remember the details and with no notes to help them to recall, they will be at a disadvantage in their learning. One student with a strong Aural preference said that he was always surprised at how many notes were written down by those around him. Maybe they should sit next to a person who has a strong Read/write preference because they usually have very detailed notes!
Their primary input comes from what others say. They will take notice of the words that others speak and place a great deal of emphasis on the spoken views of experts. They seek knowledgeable people to help them learn. Telephones and cellphones and the audio stream of the Internet are made for them! Students with a strong Aural preference often use tape recorders to gather information and some even put their notes onto tape so that they can learn by listening. Speaking their ideas amongst others will 60
be important, so small group discussions are good learning opportunities. One student with a strong Aural preference said that he liked to speak, often without much thought about what he said because others then discussed his views and he learned from listening to their discussion. Those with an Aural preference are not necessarily good listeners because they may be too keen to voice their own ideas. Debates and arguments and talking things through are important strategies for them. Explaining new ideas to others is another excellent way for them to learn. There seems to be no distinguishing features about environmental noise and people with a strong Aural preference. Some students say they like to learn with lots of radio, tape, iPod or CD music. Others are easily distracted by the slightest noise and prefer to learn in semi-silence. Some students with an Aural preference report that they have to ‘hear’ the words as they read them so their lips are often forming the words when they are silently reading texts and notes. This makes them slow readers compared with others who do not have to mentally ‘voice’ the words. Audio output in the form of television or video is really important as a learning strategy. Even though some think that these are Visual media they are primarily auditory and suit those with an Aural preference. REMEMBER: Preferences are not the same as Strengths. WORKING WITH OTHERS Groupwork is important to them because of the opportunities to listen (Aural) and to speak (oral). Those with an Aural preference can take in complex instructions and directions easily. They prefer to have someone ‘spell things out’ in spoken words rather than in text. They are often impatient with those who ‘don’t listen’ or who forget the details within a lengthy verbal exchange. If they are supervisors it will be important to remember that not all of their employees will share their preferences. They may need to provide instructions through a variety of media not just by ‘telling’ them. An effective way to work with Aural people is to have them give back in words what they have heard or learned. This feedback will allow a check on whether they have heard correctly. Some believe that those with an Aural preference are always first to speak or ‘loud-mouthed’ but that is a personality dimension related to extraversion rather than modal preferences. Shyness, and ‘loudness’ should not be associated with strong preferences for oral output and Aural input. IF YOU ARE VOID ON A? If your results show a zero or low score for Aural (A)! You don’t rely on what people say. To you, that is merely a few spoken words. You easily forget things that are said to you and you miss the importance (stress) that some people put on some of their spoken words. If a person talks at length you may get easily distracted and bored. Also, people who insist on reading to you may annoy you because you would prefer to read the words yourself (especially if your preference for R/W is strong). Talkback radio, political speeches and television talk shows are all in your worst dreams. Being ‘told again and again’ means nothing really. You believe in the saying ‘in one ear and out the other’! Besides, who can rely on what others say. SOME CASE STUDIES Stacy Some techniques that work best for me are to listen to the words in my head while I am reading. If I get stuck I replay and re-read what I just read. While studying I read my notes aloud. Tamara I find that when I study, the most productive means I use is to read notes or sections from the book out loud so I can hear myself saying it. For some reason, it is easier for me to hear myself or someone else saying what I need to remember. Tim - VARK Scores (1 8 4 1) What are the interesting parts of my Aural preference? I need to attend lectures (i.e. hear the teacher) in order to know what's going on in the class. However I can absorb often more than I desire e.g. easily disturbed by other noises, conversations...which means my head often becomes very full of thoughts/ideas i.e. congested. Doing assignments/projects etc....I need to talk to people to express my ideas and therefore get feedback from them as to whether they're realistic! I need to get a 'big picture' of what's going on, in order to fully understand and know the subject, i.e. build up concepts and overall ideas. Because I have so many ideas in my head i.e. Aural stuff...I find it difficult to sieve out important information that's pertinent to the topic and put this down on paper.
Notice that as you read Tim’s statement above it is as though he is speaking to you. Tim often wrote as though he was speaking. He said that in group discussions he often spoke ‘rubbish’. When asked why he did this he said that he was so keen to contribute his ideas he never really thought them through and got them organized before he said them. This did not worry him because “I always ‘got them back’ in much better shape than I sent them”. He said that he ‘used’ group discussions to help refine his ‘rough’ ideas. It did annoy others! Neill Pickard, one-time Director of the Jazz School, Christchurch Polytechnic, New Zealand previously found it difficult to teach the necessary chemistry to students who much preferred their trade courses in car painting and dent removals. As a strong jazz proponent Neill wrote some catchy tunes incorporating as lyrics the chemical terms and formulae for the class. These were recorded on tapes and the students played them in their cars while they were joyriding around the town or traveling to and from the Christchurch Polytechnic. The students said that they learned the chemistry in a more interesting way and retained their knowledge. 61
Nick was a student who had a strong preference for Aural information. He liked listening in lectures. As a consequence, he took poor notes from them, but he liked to test his ideas in discussion with other people. His short-term Aural memory fooled him into thinking that he understood the lecturer and didn't need notes. When he explained things to others he found that he learnt more than they did. In examinations he could lift his eyes from the paper and hear his law lecturer speaking. If he could tune into the correct part he could wait for that lecturer's voice to give him the answer. Rather than writing out his notes in condensed form he read his condensed notes onto audiotapes. These notes were learned, wandering the campus with headphones on - listening to his summaries. SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND THEORIES We have some form of auditory memory that allows us to recall the sounds from our youth or imagine the sounds of familiar objects. Often they are sounds that we cannot make which indicates that it is not necessary to be able to make a sound in order to understand it. This has interesting repercussions for reading. We know words that we cannot pronounce and may be surprised when we hear others say them. This is similar to those with a Visual preference who are surprised when they see the video or film character as being a different person from the one they created in their imagination as the read the book or heard the story.
Some, with a strong Aural preference say that they: • •
• • •
• • •
• •
enjoy poetry and stories read aloud. argue and debate or enjoy debates and listening to oral competitions. enjoy public speaking. believe what others say. talk things through and enjoy discussions. contribute to Internet chat groups. admire storytellers. like the ‘soaps’ and talkback shows on radio and television rely on phone calls for information. talk to themselves.
• •
•
•
•
•
•
attend discussion groups. enjoy meetings (even formal ones) and family gatherings. are easily distracted by noise or others speaking. like movies full of dialogue rather than action. listen to the lyrics more than the sounds in music. are impressed with a person’s speaking skills. contribute to gossip!
According to Colin Rose62, auditory learners may reflect their preference in their choice of words. They will say such things as: • • • • •
That sounds right. Suddenly it clicked. I get tuned into it. Something tells me that’s the answer. I can hear you’re unhap py.
• • • •
That rings a bell. Just listen to me. I hear what you say. That’s music to my ears.
Others have suggested that these phrases may be used more often: • •
Just tell me. Let’s discuss this.
• •
Now listen here. Sounds like a good idea.
If you are in a library observe some of the people who are reading. There will be some that will make their lips move as they read – speaking the words silently. They may be listening to the words inside their heads as they are ‘said’. For some, this slows down their reading because most people can read much faster than they can speak. Others with an Aural preference make the shapes of words with their lips as they listen, especially parents copying young children’s first attempts at speech. Although most teachers use their voices a great deal in teaching and lecturing it is not usually their strongest modal preference. Many more teachers prefer Read/write modalities and they would prefer to read and study research writings rather than attend conferences, listen to colleagues or lecture to students. It is not easy to be definite about this, as some of this reluctance to speak may not be a result of modal preferences but a consequence of personality differences. Speechwriters have to learn different techniques from newspaper journalists and authors because their ‘text’ has to be said not read and a ‘speaking’ is different from a ‘reading’! Although this seems obvious, there are still some people who read text as a speech. The audience soon notes the difference. There are many differences between the two modes – speaking and writing - that are beyond the scope of this book. Just one example is the way in which great orators are able to repeat phrases several times to gain effect. That is not done in written text and would become annoying if it were. That is not done in written text and would become very annoying if it were. CULTURE In some societies the role of the speaker is often as strong as the role of the leader. In Samoan society thematai (chief) chooses an orator or a ‘speaking chief ’ to accompany them and to do their speaking for them on special occasions. Oratory is revered in that society as is public speaking in general. Here is a quotation about their special standing in society.63 It describes the demands of etiquette in an account of a malaga (significant journey) undertaken in 1978 by the rural development radio team to various villages in Samoa. In most villages the routine was much the same with only slight variations. Lavea acted as orator using his Lavea title. Before arriving in each village the party changed from their dusty traveling clothes into the correct costumes for the 62
63
Rose, C., (1992). Thomas, P., (1983).
62
ceremonial welcome. Lavea wrapped a fine tapa cloth around his waist, replaced his shirt with a long string of red painted pandanus seeds and arranged his giant sennit flywhisk over one shoulder. Inside the fono tele (meeting house) the coconut blinds were raised and the village chiefs sat crossed-legged on mats around the edge of the floor, village people crowding on the steps outside. The village ali'i sili (chief) sat on one end of the fono (meeting house) flanked by his orator and ali'i (chief) while the visiting party was directed to the place of honour at the opposite end of the house with Lavea seated slightly to one side. The village tulafale (chief) made the official welcome honoring both visitors and local chiefs. To this Lavea replied in the appropriate manner. His reply varied in direct relationship to the fame, seniority and rank of the leading village orator. If the village had no orator of high repute Lavea’s speech was short and to the point. It would have been considered ill mannered and out of place to have given a bravura performance knowing it could not be matched. If however there was an important orator against whom he could match his wit and mastery with words the speeches went on much to the delight of those present.
Many early societies had no written language though their communication patterns were very complex and skillful. The Maori of New Zealand and some other Polynesian, Melanesian and Micronesian societies handed down to their children very detailed information often about their heritage and their genealogy. This was all done orally. Sometimes special people were chosen to carry the oral history of their particular tribal group and they were honored members of that group. In those societies, the loss of these key people was a significant problem in handing on their heritage. War, especially World Wars I and II removed many of them. In early European history, minstrels and balladeers carried recent news and items of interesting history in their lyrics and town criers were more common than newspapers! In North America the native peoples had similar traditions and skills. Chants and songs were used to carry the history of their people rather than written text. The Rwanda peoples of Central Africa allocate ‘remembrance roles’ to members of their communities so that their history is not lost. Some communities reinforce oral remembrance with rhythm and music. Drums, for example are used in many cultures as an aid to memory enabling information to be conveyed through rhythm and tones. The move from oral stories to written stories is a complex business because emphasis, intonation and pitch can convey slight differences in meaning. Indeed there are a number of tonal languages where the same word, pronounced differently could have a number of meanings. Oral stories also carried more than fact. They carried information that bonded them together or were used to identify relationships. CONCLUSION We might expect that those who have a strong Aural/oral preference would form some sort of majority in our society because speaking seems to pervade our society especially on some media like television and radio. Many countries claim that they are an oral society based on strong oratory and we are surrounded by sound in both communication and employment and leisure. Despite the abundance of sound, our data shows that those with an Aural/oral preference are no more than those with a Visual preference. Our society may use sound for much of its communication and for building relationships between people but it is not our dominant single mode in teaching and learning. The lecture rooms and classrooms certainly would make one think that learning is about talking but in many groups of students and teachers it is the absence of a high proportion with a preference for Aural modes that is interesting.
63
CHAPTER NINE:
UNDERSTANDING A READ/WRITE PREFERENCE The pen is mightier than the sword
This chapter is for those with a single Read/write preference and those with Read/write as part of their multimodal set of preferences. This includes all of the following: Single preference – Mild, Strong and Very Strong R Multimodal -
VR
AR
RK
VAR
VRK
ARK
VARK
Those with this preference would prefer that the chapter is dense with text and unadorned with fancy fonts and diagrams! INTAKE To take in the information Learners who have a strong preference for Reading and Writing (R) should use some or all of the following: lists. notes. essays. reports. contracts. textbooks. glossaries. definitions. quotations. dictionaries. printed handouts. readings – library. laboratory manuals. websites and webpages. placing meanings in headings. taking lecture notes (verbatim). computer and other mechanical manuals. listening to teachers who use words well and who have lots of information in sentences and notes. SWOT Study without tears To make a learnable package they need to reduce their “notes” by using these reading and writing techniques. Write out the words again and again. Read their notes (silently) again and again. Do the “extra” reading requested by the teacher. Rewrite the ideas and principles into other words. Organize any diagrams, graphs … into statements e.g. “The trend is…” Use a wordprocessor to arrange their ideas and to “play” with words. Turn reactions, actions, diagrams, links, charts and flow diagrams into words. Imagine lists arranged in multiple-choice questions and distinguish between them. OUTPUT
To perform well in examinations they should: write exam answers. write practice paragraphs. re-order their lists into priority order. refer to publications – citing references. practice with multiple-choice questions. organize written beginnings and endings. use their wordprocessor to prepare answers. write their notes into lists (a, b, c , d, 1, 2, 3, 4,). arrange their words into hierarchies and bullet points. search the Internet for new ideas and confirmation of old ones. They like this page because the emphasis is on words and lists. They believe the meanings are within the words, so talk is OK, but this handout is better. They are heading for the library for more books to read or they are going to write to somebody about this.
64
ABOUT READ/WRITERS AS LEARNERS The first stage in gathering information for learning is called note taking because they are merely collecting notes from their teachers and textbooks and friends and the webpages. In the lists above we have suggested that they should convert those notes by reducing them (three pages to one page). This stage is called note making. To do that, they need to reduce the quantity of words that they have collected by summarizing – a skill that needs to be learned. Those with a Read/write preference usually try and catch all the words that they can because they love words and regard them as very important. They collect them and store them, often too many. Now it is necessary to discard some, so their brain can cope with the load. They will also enjoy putting their lists into order because to them, what comes first in a list is obviously more important than what comes second. So they prioritize and categorize their bullet points and lists.
The learning world is made for those with a Read/write preference. Those who become teachers usually have strong scores for Read/write input and output so learners with an R preference are well matched with their teachers. Most of the examinations and qualifications are based on written tests so those with a Read/write preference are advantaged. Words are important too, so they often place a great deal of importance on words and word order. They may not understand those who underestimate the importance of texts and books. Those with a Read/write preference probably make fine distinctions between words like ‘inferred’ and ‘implied’ and they can be pedantic about word order and sentence structure. They want to reference everything back to words of written authority. They like assessment tasks that depend on the use of words so multiple choice tests where they can get the right answer by working with the words are well suited. Textbooks are important for them. Finding the right text and using it to backup their learning is an important strategy for them. Taking everything down from the teacher is also important and they may have developed skills in doing this verbatim using their own form of shorthand, abbreviations or just fast writing. Those with a strong preference often place little importance on the placement of words on a page and the size, color or shape of the words. It is the meaning behind the word that fascinates them. They are hoarders of words, using dictionaries, bibliographies and thesauri. One student with a VARK Read/write score of 12 had seven different dictionaries that she carried around to class; a dictionary of biology, a dictionary of ecology, an English dictionary… Choosing key words is a learning strategy that works for them. Mnemonics (a lovely word for them!) and wordy mind maps are helpful. Although some see mind maps as a Visual medium, in many cases the maps are merely assemblages of words on a page with little meaning in the arrows and boxes that link and contain them. Similarly television and video are often more use for those with a Read/write or an Aural preference so they use those media too. REMEMBER: Preferences are not the same as Strengths. WORKING WITH OTHERS Those with a strong preference for Read/write output keep a distance between themselves and others by believing that words in such things as letters, email, orders, manuals and notices are enough. If they are supervising others, remember that some may reject their memos, e-mails and notice boards even though they believe that they contain the whole story. They may also place too much importance on the definitions that they use. Others may not share the same definitions and read their words differently. They should allow for different interpretations, even thoughthey are quite clear that…
They may dislike talk about abstract ideas without any reference to printed research. To them, meetings may seem like a great waste of time unless there is a strict record kept of what took place and the actions that should follow. Many meetings are j ust idle talk- they think! Books and journals are an important part of their scholarship and a source for new ideas. People who have written books that have sold really well and who use words effectively, are preferred to videos or talks or conferences. They like to go back to their sources –invariably written text. Reading is more important than listening because they can control the speed that they are taking in the ideas from the printed version. They admire the person who chooses words carefully; who thinks through their speech before speaking and who has a rich vocabulary. They are wary of those who speak first and think later, or those who state ideas just for the sake of discussion or argument. Handouts Rose Marriott, a teacher at Avonside Girls High School, Christchurch, NZ, explained an interesting point about those with a Read/write preference. She found in her study that some students learnt more from a rewritten handout than from two hours of teaching. Unfortunately she also identified that 40% of her class did not read her handouts.
In their writing those with a Read/write preference may be inclined to use unimaginative layouts with lots of dense text, left margins. They like bullet points. To some extent they rely on lists and believe that lists can make people do things. For those who work with them it would be best if they write down what they wanted them to do. Ideas should be presented to them on paper not using telephones, meetings or conferences. They prefer an employer, supervisor or group leader to provide them with a piece of paper with text on it. They are collectors of paper and the words that are on them and often feel vulnerable when important things are merely said rather than read. They like word logos rather than graphic logos. Many of the strong Read/write people enjoy quotations and clever word games (crosswords and scrabble) and sayings. Check out the screen savers used by those 65
with a Read/write (R) preference. It will probably be a ‘thought for the day’! The walls of their workplace are probably covered with witty sayings and their mission statement, or cartoons. Cartoons that rely on the clever use of words and captions are more appealing to them than those that get their humor from the actions depicted. Diaries and daily organizers, and pads of“To do” lists are marketed especially for them. IF YOU HAVE A VOID ON R? If your results show a zero or low score for Read/write (R)! You don’t use lists and you don’t see why so much emphasis is put on words. You can often find alternatives to written words to get information about the important things in your life. You find it disappointing that so much of our learning society is based on printed words. You may not see the intended priorities in printed lists, because to you they are just a group of words. You do not invest heavily in textbooks, manuals or guidebooks and you are often accused of not having read important information. You search for opportunities where there are no written examinations and no such thing as multiple-choice tests. You don’t really believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. Besides, there is no written evidence for that! SOME CASE STUDIES Jim used the VARK questionnaire and agreed with the preference for read-write approaches to studying. He found lectures confusing and asked to be excused from attending them. Instead, he met with the teacher on a regular basis and kept track of the topics being covered. He used the library to read about the subject and claimed that he learnt more. The textbook was sufficient for a good grade (B+) in a marketing subject. Victoria I am more of a Read/write person with no preference for audio at all. When the teacher is talking I write down everything. I thought it was just to keep my hands busy but I now realize that this is a tendency of Read/write persons. Corrine I have always known that I am a Visual and Read/write learner. I take a lot of notes in lectures and color code my notes. I learn best by taking notes with diagrams associated with it. If I have to listen for too long I find that I switch off and start to daydream. In class I will listen and take notes but not very often ask questions. I am too busy taking it in. I will think of the questions at the end of the class or later when revising. I am easily distracted and find it hard to concentrate unless I have something Visual to focus on. I read a lot and if I need to know something I will get a book out and re-read it often. Janice In class I take as many notes down as I can. When the teacher is talking too fast and I cannot write everything down he or she says, then I study even harder out of the book. I try to never miss a class so I never miss the notes. When I am taking notes I try to leave spaces if I think the teacher is going to go back to that subject. Eric VARK Scores (6 1 13 1) I am a chronic read-writer. Basically I'm terrible when it comes to remembering things, so I always insist on writing things down. Indeed, I believe that you don't really know something until it's written down (I'm talking about intellectual knowledge here; it's a bit hard to apply this to something like knowing how to drive). If I learn something but haven't yet written it down, I feel that I only know it temporarily. I believe that the capacity of my mind to remember things is highly limited, and that shortly after I have finished working actively with something, I will tend to forget it. That's why I try to write everything down. And I try to be as explicit as possible in my writing; I never use abbreviations or just summarize.
During lectures, I would take as complete a set of notes as I possibly could. I wouldn't normally bother revising my notes during the term. Faced with the prospect of an exam in a week's time, I would set to work. I would start by systematically typing into my computer all of my class notes. Given that I might have 60-70 handwritten pages of notes, this might take a couple of days. When I finished, I would make a print copy of the file, and start working systematically through it. I would go through it topic by topic, doing whatever reading I needed and writing and rewriting my notes until I finally produced a highly paraphrased version of my original, handwritten notes. These notes would be both more precise and more complete than my first version. Because I had looked things up, I was sure of including everything. And because I had rewritten them maybe an average of five times, I was sure to get the essence of what the topic was about. When I finished making these condensed notes, I would again take a printed copy of the file and start converting it into outline form. I would take each topic and try to produce a single sentence about each one. The idea here was to reduce things as much as possible. If there were several issues involved, I would write them down as succinctly as possible. I would work through this outline again and again, until finally it was finished. Darin I prefer to read material at least three times, highlighting as I read. I will then handwrite a study guide from the reading assignments and notes. This does not work as well as if I type the study guide. If an instructor uses lectures extensively I will tape the lecture and flesh out my notes by listening to the tape at least one more time. 66
VARK Scores ( 0 1 10 2) Louise I think the VARK questionnaire was right about my reader/writer preference. It was actually a great revelation to me during the radio interview about VARK –thinking I was meant to be Visual (for which I have a zero score) rather than Aural. I had struggled with mind maps then wondered why I could never ‘picture’ them during university exams and yet lists of main points came readily to mind. It also explains why I don’t like my producer briefing me orally about the radio interviews I am going to do – I almost feel like snatching his briefing papers out of his hand! And you’re right – I wanted to inform a friend, a tutor in distance education about VARK but rather than tell her I insisted she read the information for herself. Author’s Note: I tried to guess the VARK scores of Louise (above), a national radio announcer in New Zealand and got it completely wrong. I thought that because she was employed in radio broadcasting she would have an Aural preference but from her VARK scores she had a very strong preference for Read/write. She explained my error by saying that she could not speak on radio without being almost totally scripted for each event. Being host of a talkback show was not within her expertise and was never going to be her choice! Her style of informality in interviews was carefully managed through her preference for using reading and writing techniques. Jan. VARK Scores (5 1 10 1). Note: Jan was asked to write something about her VARK scores and the ways she used her very strong R preference in her life. She wrote three wordprocessed pages! Below are some excerpts that show the ways in which Jan expressed her strong Read/write preference s. The underlining and punctuation are hers.
“When it comes to learning, I worry about my memory ! I mean, what is it to have learnt something if you forget it very quickly, and therefore are the same as if you’d never learnt it? I feel that perhaps my reliance upon reading and writing as a way of learning is based upon my inability to remember things! (Do most Read/writers have bad memories?) I am looking at the nice LIST of Read/write things in the VARK Help Sheets. Yes, absolutely, all those things are me. I have a dictionary of geology, biology, chemistry and a Turkish-English English-Turkish one too, not forgetting my lovely big Concise Oxford Dictionary (I mean - how could you not just love all the useful information crammed into this one - not to mention pure entertainment.) I'm always using lists - it's really the only way I can get things done (the memory thing). That is, be it shopping, everyday tasks, things to take to so and so, things to do on Thursday etc.; lists are essential - helps me to organize my mind! In terms of learning too, lists are great- nice and concise, (I also keep a list going of assignments ahead and when due, so that I don't forget about them. I always breath a sigh of relief when I come across a teacher who puts everything they say on overhead projector - I can keep up this way – it can get a bit desperate trying to write down everything that seems to have meaning when a teacher is merely speaking... And I must admit -- I very rarely listen. I can write pages and not be able to tell you what it all meant at the end of the 'lecture’. I do drift off in lectures. I love books. I haven't sold any of my textbooks from previous classes of course. I hoard them so that they will always be there to refer to when/if needed in the future. When I think about it, I think one of the important reasons I like learning from books and things written, in general, is because it allows you to think and therefore learn at your own pace. I need a little room to think before I can properly comprehend something. When reading, you have the choice how long to take. I get satisfaction from reading too, as it is as if you are teaching yourself, rather than being told by someone else. I also like what seems to me the more direct link with the original communicator - i.e. the author, rather than getting things second hand through a third party. The beauty of books is that they often excite your interest because they have all this other information, i.e. they have a lot more detail on the subject than your teacher is willing to give you. I often get frustrated when you know a teacher is not giving you the full picture and simplifying things. To understand properly, I feel I need to have a reasonable overview of 'the rest'. You can find this stuff in books. In fact, THAT is why I like books so much, it's because anything (almost) you want to know can be found in books. So, you don't need anything else! I often pull out essays, notes, and manuals from previous years and continue to refer to them... For example, just this weekend a friend and I were thinking about what we could cook for a wild foods evening. The first thing I did was consult a book on early New Zealand, which I knew contained many accounts of Maori food sources and how these foods were prepared. Then I looked up an essay I wrote two years ago on the food resources of the Maori, and also checked the bibliography of this to see further references where I could find what I wanted to know. While studying, I like to make glossaries. Really, the reason I feel I value dictionaries and anything that defines words and imparts knowledge is that I am really rather ignorant about so many things and funnily enough my knowledge of the English language is very poor. There are so many words that I don't know the meaning of. Generally I only get around to reading through my notes once and a little bit before an exam. Ideally I would scribble notes at the same time (if I allowed myself enough time) - I don't re-read study notes, this is just an action to stick things in my mind a little better. Oh! and I like my wordprocessor !” 67
SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND THEORIES There is no shortage of writing about writers and no shortage of books in our academic institutions. It is the dominant mode for teachers and many of them expect that, with time, they will be able to convert the learners to their way of learning.
McKim (1997) states: “Most students pursue the 3 R's because there is no other alternative. Opportunity for Visual expression usually ceases early in the primary grades. There are many causes for this, including our utilitarian society's generally negative attitude toward the arts. Rudolf Arnheim points to an even more important cause, the common educational notion that "man thinks in words alone, and that without words no thinking can take place. In our schools, reading, writing, and arithmetic are practiced as skills that detach the child from sensory experience. Only in kindergarten and first grade is education based on the cooperation of all the essential powers of the mind; thereafter this natural and sensible procedure is dismissed as an obstacle to training in the proper kind of abstraction." CULTURE Read/write may have been dominant since the days when medieval monks held the keys to learning because they were the only ones who could write. The invention of the printing press changed the nature of societies and led to an even greater dominance in learning from print materials. Our society has enshrined print as the mode that must be used for most legal, religious, business and governmental aspects of our lives. In addition, the printed word pervades our literature, our leisure, our archives, our communication (letters, email, text messaging) and our education system. The development of our scholastic ability is measured mainly in written forms despite the fact that we can draw and we can understand talking and speaking well before we learn to read and write. Many of our teachers believe that the written word is pre-eminent as a means of evidence, proof and logic and anthropologists measure the development of societies by their ability to write. AsRichardson says: As schooling advances, language is used more and more to compress, to represent, and to express experience. Language labeling is presented in the classroom as mentally economical: "To re-see, re-hear, and re-feel the experience is uneconomical.“
Early societies that developed writing are said to be more advanced than those that maintained only oral traditions. Today, literacy is even used to measure socio-economic status. CONCLUSION The positive side of a Read/write preference is quite obvious because most of the people who read this book are part of a Read/write society. The wonderful use of language to express, in written form, the ideas, complex and simple, abstract and concrete, factual and poetic has been the subject of numerous essays and theses.
For teachers the Read/write mode is the most dominant single VARK preference but not for students. This disparity creates an interesting challenge for those teachers who want to ‘reach’ more of their students as our education systems add to the pool of potential teachers who emphasize reading and writing at the expense of other modes. By doing so they are making successes of those who are most literate in a self-perpetuating cycle of teacher-student-teacher. The same disparity, mentioned above creates a challenge for students. Regardless of their VARK preferences, they need to “perform” in a Read/write environment but does that mean they have to ignore their preferences for other modes. This book would argue that they do not. They should use their other preferences to advance in the Read/write environments of learning.
CHAPTER TEN:
UNDERSTANDING A KINESTHETIC PREFERENCE If I am told, I forget. If I am shown, I remember. If I do, I understand.
This chapter is for those with a single Kinesthetic preference and those with Kinesthetic as part of their multimodal set of preferences. This includes all of the following: Single preference – Mild, Strong and Very Strong K Multimodal -
VK
AK
RK
VAK
VRK
ARK
VARK
Those with a Kinesthetic preference often find academic learning difficult because it may be conceptual and abstract when they prefer reality and concrete situations. INTAKE Learners who have a strong preference for the Kinesthetic (K) mode should use some or all of the following.
Videos. Field trips. Trial and error. Teaching others. Demonstrations. 68
Previous exam papers. Examples of principles. Using applied opportunities. Do things to understand them. Exhibits, samples, photographs... Laboratories and practical sessions Recipes and solutions to problems. Pictures of real things- photographs. Listen to teachers who give real-life examples. Hands-on approaches (computing, laboratories…) Using all their senses - sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing ... Collections- rock types, plants, shells, grasses, bones or contracts... Listen for the examples. They hold the key to understanding the abstract bits. SWOT Study without tears
To make a learnable package they need to convert their lecture notes by reducing them into things that are concrete and real to them. They should: recall the experiments, field trips... remember the “real” things that happened. talk about their notes with another “K” person. use pictures and photographs that illustrate an idea. go back to the laboratory or their lab manual or their practical notes. use case studies and applications to help with principles and abstract concepts. look at their lecture notes. They may be poor because the topics were not 'concrete’ or 'relevant'. OUTPUT
To perform well in written examinations they should: write practice answers, paragraphs. remember they cannot avoid writing. recall the experience of previous exams role-play the exam situation in their study. put plenty of examples into their notes and their answers. They like the ideas above because they emphasize examples and real, concrete things. They enjoy learning by doing things and trying things out for themselves. Practicing and experimenting is their way of trying things. They are probably going to try some of the ideas mentioned above to see if they really work.
69
ABOUT KINESTHETIC LEARNERS The first stage in gathering information for learning is called note taking because they are merely collecting notes from their teachers, textbooks, friends and webpages. In the lists above we have suggested that they should convert those notes by reducing them (three pages down to one page). This stage is called note making. To do that they need to use the stories and experiences that they have gathered and expand them out to fuller notes for their brain to do its work. Often the notes made by Kinesthetic learners are skimpy and disorganized because they miss some of the conceptual learning that comes at the start of the teaching and the start of the textbooks. They may be tuned-out when the conceptual, “heavy” stuff is done at the beginning. They are often waiting for the reality that comes at the end. They need to build their notes‘backwards’. Leaving blank paper at the start of each topic can do this. This can be filled in later. Down the page, catch the examples, cases and problems that the teacher often uses late in the session. Later, fill in the blank by using their texts and ideas from others.
They believe ‘practice makes perfect’ and have a healthy distrust for strategies that do not allow for a ‘hands-on’ approach. They enjoy using the practical opportunities in learning especially in those classes that have laboratories, practical sessions, clinics, tutorials, fieldwork, industry contact, case studies, and problem solving. They want to hear about the examples before the theory and that is not the usual way that learning is presented in lectures and classrooms. To get a sense of something they want to see, touch, taste, kick and smell it! Get a feel for it! REMEMBER: Preferences are not the same as Strengths.
Often the theory only becomes clear when they learn about the case study on which it was based because experiences and real stories help their learning. The classes that attract them are about helping others in a practical way and producing tangible things that make a difference. Abstract ideas take them some time to gather. They like to try things to see how they work before they read the instructions. Note-taking for Kinesthetics – Taking notes backwards!
Put your heading for the next topic here. !
Supply and Demand
This section will need to be filled in after class ; when you have a good idea about what the topic is really about. You can get ideas for this section from friends, textbooks, computer programs, field trips, and laboratories…
When the teacher talks about “real” things try and catch all of them in your notes here.
$ Leave this section blank while you listen to the teacher presenting the new ideas and concepts.
Examples Case studies Stories Practical problems
!
WORKING WITH OTHERS They enjoy the interaction with others as long as it is not just talking about conceptual ideas and theories. They learn best from the experiences of others and they seek their details and experiences to build a new idea. When leading others they prefer to show by example and ‘do as I do’ becomes their motto. When being led or working under a supervisor they would prefer to have a demonstration of what is required with examples of previous results so that they can produce the same level of service or product. They are impatient with too much instruction (Aural) or print (Read/write) and would prefer to‘get on with it’. They like to move around and respond physically to music or drama. They prefer to use words like‘practice’, ‘actual’, ‘real’, concrete’ and ‘applied’. 70
IF YOU HAVE A ZERO K SCORE? So your results show a zero or low score for Kinesthetic (K)! You distrust the things that are learned from actual experience. Practice is something that has to be done but it is not as important as learning the ideas that come from other sources. Learning by doing seems a slow way to acquire new knowledge. There have to be quicker ways. It is a waste of time to actually run through a case study or an example or trial. One conceptual idea can replace a thousand experiences. Why not get on with it? SOME CASE STUDIES Tracy I learn best when it is hands-on. Someone could talk about it, and show me but when I go to do it is when I will actually learn it. I can watch or listen but the problem is I forget it. In cases where teachers only lecture I tend to hear it but forget it an hour later. When I practice by doing is when I seem to remember it. It works when I see it hands–on and it doesn’t work when I listen. Rob VARK Scores (2 2 2 8) When I was asked to describe what it is like to be a K learner, my first instinct was to provide an example. That, in a nutshell, is what being a K learner is all about. Being a K learner has affected my life in many ways, most of which I didn't realize until I became aware of different learning styles. It has had an affect on note taking, my choice of major and my course, the way in which I study, and even in the way I conduct a conversation.
I will begin with my in-class experience. Note taking for a K learner is very different than it would be f or another type of learner. When I take notes, they are very sporadic, until I have an example of the concept, which will allow me to focus the notes much more effectively. This is often a problem for me when I am being taught by a teacher who does not use examples to teach an abstract concept, or who teaches the concept, and then backs it up with an example later. This results in me having to revise my notes at a later time (often creating my own examples), centering them around the example, and using the example to determine which parts of the notes are important to an understanding of the concept, and those which are not. I am versatile in my use of examples, however. Often, my understanding will concentrate on the differences between the example and the concept, which serves as a way to deepen my understanding, since a firm grasp on the subject is required to pick apart the similarities and differences between two concepts. I feel that this learning style has truly guided my class selection in my university career. The majority of my classes have a lab requirement, which I find to be the most beneficial aspect of my learning experience. I often joke to my lab partners that I wish I could write the exams in the lab, since I have such a complete understanding of the concepts in that environment. When I am in a situation where I can actually observe the concept taking place, it will become solidly embedded in my mind and hard to forget. This is often the way I test my understanding of the subject; I close my eyes, and try to Visualize the process taking place. If I can actually imagine the process taking place, I feel much more assured in my understanding of the subject. I feel that being a K learner has some definite advantages. Although it may take some time for me to understand a concept fully, once I do understand, I am very unlikely to forget it, or lose that knowledge. This has obvious advantages in a testing situation. So, although some extra work is required in the learning process, complete understanding of the topic is often the result. The knowledge of my learning style has definitely served to relieve some tension I previously felt about how I learned and studied in comparison to others. My studying often requires many hours in order to understand fully the subject at hand. In comparison to my roommate, who is a strong Visual learner, I began to feel somewhat less intelligent. She is able to look at a diagram, and take away from it something that might take me hours to understand. I have found that understanding one's learning style has many applications, especially the selfconfidence achieved when one is able to truly study effectively. Mere I have always found that I could learn more easily by doing rather than reading, writing or listening. Also if I had the chance to watch something being done I could more readily learn from association with things that I had recorded from seeing. It always annoys me that exams are designed specifically to cater for learners who are R and A learners. I am an intelligent person who had to study like mad to get even mediocre results. It always seemed that all those people who did very little study would do brilliantly. Since being a student of the arts I have found that by use of hands-on techniques I retain far more of what I learn because I really enjoy getting in and doing things. Doug VARK scores (3, 1, 0, 11). Doug was an unlikely university student with a zero score for the Read/write preferences that are an important element in a westernized system of education. He had difficulty completing his undergraduate degree and was struggling through his Ph.D. His topic was a quite practical and technical engineering application that required skills in analyzing experiments and trials. This was cutting-edge stuff; a new, exciting and practical thing. Unfortunately his supervisor was a strong Read/write person who believed that a Ph.D. had to reflect a very strong theoretical base and a deep knowledge of the literature. The latter, Doug could cope with. The theory however seemed to him to be an unbalanced use of time. There were no existing models in the literature that fitted his experiences.
71
Doug distrusted printed knowledge and valued experience above all. He claimed that he learnt best when the supervisor spent time with him exploring and demonstrating. Then, he understood the theory. As we would expect, writing was always a chore. He quickly fell out with his supervisor and eventually left the university to use his knowledge and skills in a more technical (and practical) way. Brett VARK scores (2, 3, 3, 8). Brett, who was studying horticulture, had a very strong Kinesthetic score in his VARK questionnaire and an absence of preference for the Read/write modality. When there were laboratory experiments he did really well but he failed most written assignments, multichoice tests and essays. His note-taking skills were appalling so he was taught to ‘take lecture notes backwards” i.e. write down the examples first and the principles later. This often meant leaving space in his notes to later write down the examples given by the teacher. Most teachers, because they have a strong Read/write preference in their VARK profiles, begin with principles and end with examples. Kinesthetic learners prefer the opposite. He really enjoyed, and learnt from the practical sessions. For example, in lectures about the various techniques for pruning grapes and the reasons for taking notice of the growth patterns he learnt very little. When the professor led a field exercise and showed Brett how grapes should, and should not be pruned, he was able to learn and to link this back to the theory in the classroom. Brett was taught to use his Kinesthetic preferences as a strength and managed to complete his B.Sc. SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND THEORIES According to Colin Rose64, Kinesthetic learners reflect their preferences in the language they use. They will say such things as: • • • •
That feels right. It’s a smooth answer to a tough problem. I’m groping for an answer I find it difficult to handle.
• • •
It’s an intense problem. Give me a concrete example. I have a firm grip on the subject.
Others have suggested that those with a strong Kinesthetic preference will use the following: I feel that… How does that suit? I know from experience that… When you grasp… Hang in there. That feels right… Get your head around this… Get a grip on yourself. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One educational researcher65 had this to say about those with a Kinesthetic preference: “The poor Kinesthetics are very disadvantaged – particularly at university level where it is mostly auditory. Just sitting still for an hour is difficult for a Kinesthetic person. Kinesthetic children in primary schools are still told to “sit up and look at the teacher,” when they are looking down and trying to process or access information. They literally cannot think looking up. Yet Kinesthetic strategies do work well at times. Mig Wright gives the example of a Kinesthetic student learning an electrical circuit. He couldn’t visualize it very well until his tutor told him to imagine himself bobsledding round it. He remembered every exhilarating bend.”
In a similar way, some innovative early teaching about computing had students as ‘bits’ of information dashing about the room to other students who were called ‘arithmetic units’ and ‘logic units’ and finally to students playing the role of‘printers’. Sometimes the term haptics is used for those with a Kinesthetic preference who have a particular sub-preference for perceiving through their sense of touch. Some of the haptics have this as such a strong sense that their fingers ‘play’ an imaginary keyboard as they listen to the music. Others want to assist a child eating so they open their mouths as the child opens its mouth to feed from a spoon. CONCLUSION This mode is the dominant single preference for students. They believe in learning by doing even though that may be a lengthy process. While there is a common perception that learning by doing is the ‘best’ way to learn that is only a half-truth and not one that seems to fit academic study where the advanced concepts are abstract rather than concrete. Those with a Kinesthetic preference can often translate these abstract ideas into their own sense of reality and their own experiences can be used to identify practical applications of the theories. This translation and interpretation process is often difficult and slow and students are disadvantaged when compared with those who work more easily with words and text alone. The students with a strong Kinesthetic preference also have to translate back into Read/write mode when they are being assessed because most of our higher education assessment methods are in written form. Whatever their personal attributes the people who have a strong preference for a Kinesthetic modality are a large part of our student and teacher population.
64 65
Rose, C., (1992). Stirling, P., (1987).
72
CHAPTER ELEVEN:
UNDERSTANDING MULTIMODAL PREFERENCES
MULTIMODAL DEFINED This chapter is for those who have preferences for several VARK modes. For convenience we call them ‘multimodals’ (MM). They make up some 50-70 percent of the VARK database. They have no single preference but prefer a mix of V or A or R or K.
The 11 different types of multiple modal preferences are: VA
VR
VK
AR
AK
RK
VAR
VAK
VRK
ARK
VARK
Those who like all four modes equally well are like buffet diners who have difficulty choosing because they want a little of everything. Other multimodals have some definite “tastes” and dislikes because they are bimodal or trimodal. All these are grouped together for this chapter though one could write a different profile for a student who had scores of (3, 3, 6, 6 ) and one with scores of (4, 4, 4, 4) or a teacher with VARK scores of (0, 6, 6, 4). To explore the components of their multi-modality they should select from chapters 7-10. This chapter will add to those. Here are some examples from the website data of scores from those who have more than one preference. V
A
R
K
Total No. options chosen
Multimodal because of preferences for:
They would benefit from the strategies in chapters
0 7 5 6 5 9
2 2 5 2 6 9
7 6 5 5 5 9
7 2 1 4 7 9
16 17 16 17 23 36
R and K V and R V, A and R V, R and K V, A R and K V, A R and K
9 and10 7 and 9 7, 8 and 9 7, 9 and 10 7, 8, 9 and 10 7, 8, 9 and 10
Although there is a wide diversity within this group some, the bi-modals, are little different from those with a single V, A, R or K preference. For example a multimodal VA student whose scores are 6, 6, 2, 2 is similar in one respect (the Visual preference) to a single-preference student who has scores of 8, 3, 3 and 3. They will each benefit from the Visual strategies in Chapter 7. One of them will get extra benefit from the Aural strategies in Chapter 8. At the other end of the spectrum are those students who share equal preferences among all four modes. With a balanced set of preferences they prefer information arriving in a wide variety of the four modes. They may adjust to the different teaching styles faced in a day or they may opt in and out of alternative strategies; being Visual in Economics 101 and Read/write in Philosophy 102. As soon as more than one mode is preferred choice arrives! THEIR CHARACTERISTICS Those who are multimodal approach learning and decision making in two different ways.
1
Some act like people with a single preference except that they have four single preferences. They look at the information that has to be learned and choose the mode that they believe is the best one for each situation. For example if they have to learn a physical skill they will use their kinesthetic preference to work with it, to try it and to become practical. If they have to learn about an important legal contract they will use their read/write preference. This group switches from mode to mode and they have the flexibility to adapt to a number of different modes both incoming and outgoing. From the VARK questionnaire this group tends to have a low total score –somewhere between 16 and 25.
2
The second group within this multimodal category uses a number of their modes in combination to make decisions and to learn and present materials to others. They are uncertain about any learning that comes in only one way and they want to reinforce it by adding other modes of input or output. For example they may gather some of the ideas from the teacher’s oral explanations, and some from discussing and questioning their colleagues. They may add to this by using the textbook or by thinking about some practical applications of the new idea they have learned. They may also use their visual preference to draw some form of schematic diagram of the material to be learned. Together these choices use V, A, R and K. Only then are they satisfied that they really understand something. Some people may criticize them for taking a long time to learn or make a decision. That is because they are being careful and gathering a wider view before acting. This group tends to have total VARK scores above 25. This group takes longer to become confident about their learning because they have to gather in all four modes to really understand something fully. The payback is that, when they do so, their understanding of their new learning is more versatile and more certain than those with only a single preference. This is an advantage if they have to express or teach their learning to others because they will have a deeper/wider understanding of it. The disadvantage that this group has is that they may not be able to gather in the many ways that would be satisfying so they often half-learn new material and it is not fully understood. If their teacher or colleague uses only one mode to explain something – say Read/write (a teacher who use a text book all the time) - they may have difficulty doing well in that subject. In one study of students who asked for help from a learning centre, a high proportion was multimodal V A R and K. Some complained that they did not get enough teaching. Others said there was not enough variety in their learning. 73
Another clue to multimodality exists in the order in which they gather information. Some say that they always begin with something written or maybe they start by trying it before you ask for help from others. This may indicate that within their VARK multimodality there is a primary mode and that they use the other modes only as support. Note taking and Making The first stage in gathering information for learning is called note taking because those with a set of preferences are merely collecting notes from their teachers, textbooks, friends and webpages. Like the students with single VARK preferences we suggest that they convert their notes by reducing them (three pages down to one page). This stage is called note making. To do this they will need to be consistent. When they were taking notes they may have been in any one of their modes. As one student said, ”My notes are a mess because I am never sure what mode I was using at the time. I have to try and remember and then change them into a single set.” If they have some Read/write in their set of VARK preferences that will be helpful for note taking. If they have more A and K that may mean that their note-taking strategies are weak.
One distinguishing feature for some who are multimodal is that they are able to match those with whom they are interacting. Matching is an important skill to learn and one made a little easier by their multi-modality. Doctors, K-12 teachers, counselors, nurses, lawyers and police may receive training in how to match themselves to their ‘clients/patients’ in speech, body position, language and even breathing so they can be more effective. The theory is that matching somebody’s modes will encourage communication. Those who have equal preferences for V, A, R and K can choose to ‘get on the same wavelength’ as others to facilitate communication. You may know of some superb communicators close to you who use this skill. Others with bi and tri modalities are able to match more easily than those with a single modal preference. Students with three or four preferences can do some choosing in class. They can match the modes being used by their teachers or the modes used in a particular discipline. Students may switch modes. For example, there are large amounts of Visual material in some subjects – economics, biology, design, organizational management, computer systems, and information systems. Multimodal students with some V could take advantage of matching to improve their learning in those subjects. There are other disciplines and teachers that have preferences for A, R or K that could be matched by multimodal students with a profile including preferences for those modes. That is why they can switch. However, if there is not a match with a particular discipline or teacher it will be much more difficult to switch. So a student with V and A preferences may still be at a disadvantage when faced with a teacher who prefers to use R and K methods. Or a student with three equal preferences, say V, A and K may still find learning a struggle when the teacher has a strong Read/write preference. Some people with a multiple preferences may still have a weak preference for one or two modes. For example one student had VARK scores of 6, 6, 4 and 1. Although defined as a multimodal set of scores, this person clearly had strengths in using the Visual (V) and Aural (A) modes but said he was relatively weak at using the Kinesthetic strategies (K). His study techniques needed to focus on Visual, and Aural strategies. For practical exercises and demonstrations he chose to translate them into his V and A preferences rather than struggle with them in his weaker preference (K). Although those with multiple preferences have choices in the strategies they can use when approaching a learning task there are some negatives. One disadvantage is that it is seldom sufficient for them to receive and give in only one mode. They need to have some input (and some output) in at least two modes if they are to ‘get it’. They need to use their many modes. For example in a case study below a student from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada used the VARK questionnaire and had scores of 9, 9, 9 and 9. Although she had a wide range of strategies to use in her study she said that she needed at least two modes to get a good understanding of a topic or idea. Others have said the same thing. In a lecture she could listen effectively (A) and take very good notes (R). She could use her practical skills (K) to experience the laboratory-based subjects she was studying and she had the ability to understand and draw diagrams and flow charts (V) to help her remember and use the new ideas she was learning. But no single mode was sufficient for her understanding. She also said she had another disadvantage. She had difficulty with choices in both her daily life and her academic career because she was so flexible in her preferences. She found it difficult to choose classes; she liked them all. WORKING WITH OTHERS If you have an even set for your four VARK scores you should be able to select the mode that best suits those with whom you learn or work. However, when interviewed, one such person said that he was also capable of annoying others by deliberately choosing a mode that was not well represented in their preferences. This behavior can sometimes be heard in arguments where one person will ask for practical applications (K) from others or for written evidence (R) to prove or disprove something. Those arguing from a strong preference for Aural input might rely much more heavily on what others have told them. Generally those with a multiple preference are fortunate to be able to choose between two, three or four preferences when they work with others. Where there is a good match of preferences then it is likely that the communication relationship will be enhanced and there will be fewer misunderstandings. So if they are employed in the retail trade, and they are sensitive to others, they can switch into the mode that best suits their customers. This flexibility makes for effective sales staff as long as they have the personality to match the need to be sensitive to others. They may detect in their customers a sense of misunderstanding or miscommunication as they interact with them and that should mean that they switch to an audio or Visual or Read/write or Kinesthetic approach. Of course each of these modes has its own way of selling. No one way will suit all customers.
A problem occurs if they are not feeling accommodating or sensitive to others. That same flexibility may keep them “out-of-sync” with their customer. For example, if a customer annoys them it is possible that they could stay in a Read/write mode (pushing bits of paper or brochures at them) when the customer merely wants an explanation in a Kinesthetic way. For example, the customer may want them to refer to other purchasers, or previous experiences with the product or service, or to demonstrate its features. Those with multimodal preferences can be obstinate and obstructive if they choose to be. REMEMBER: Preferences are not the same as Strengths. 74
Imagine someone whose V, A, R and K scores are the same. If they wanted to learn about the new release of a product or service, because they are multimodal, they would not be satisfied until they had: seen a detailed diagram of how it works, and heard about it from a friend or authority that they believe in, and read something about it, and tried it themselves. • • • •
Each of these is using a different mode in the V, A, R or K set of preferences. Those with a multimodal set of preferences need more input whereas those with a single preference can often get the message with input only in their single preferred mode. An interesting example of multimodality Chi et al., (1981) who distinguished between literal, naive, scientific and algebraic forms of representation for problem solving in physics, concluded that experts use more forms (modes) of representation (enactive, iconic and symbolic) and were more likely to use a mix of modes in particular problem solving situations. CASE STUDIES Hamish
I am pretty balanced in the VARK survey. If stronger in any it would be Aural and Visual. I don’t find writing down notes is going to be beneficial to my learning. I like colors and noise - something that blinks at me! You leave this world with memories not with a pile of notes!
Natalie VARK Scores (9 9 9 9) While I'd never encountered a term to describe the way I learn up until now, I believe I've always instinctively known that I was "multimodal ". I have always loved school simply because I need to be constantly learning. However I have never been able to decide on a "favorite subject”, as most people seem to do. I have always done equally well and also enjoyed equally well all subjects, from history to physics. This was a rather large problem when, after high school, I was told I had to "choose a career". For someone who is multimodal, this is almost impossible. I believe the reason for this is because any particular subject emphasizes certain "modes ". For example, English class, which I have always loved, tends to be R/W while Physics class, which I love equally well, requires someone who is strongly K. While this means that I could probably do equally well in a variety of careers, it also means that actually making this choice is quite hard. After all, choosing an area of concentration can mean "losing" a particular mode.
One rather large disadvantage of being multimodal is that I need to receive information in more than one way in order to fully absorb it. For example, while studying for exams I will often simply read the material several times. This is sufficient for me to do reasonably well on an exam but to feel confident that I know the material I must also study using other modes, be it writing the information out several times or recording my lecture notes on tape and listening to them as I fall asleep that night. This means that it can take me twice as long to study as someone who has a preference in his or her mode of learning. Another disadvantage is that I often suffer from "over stimulation". This becomes a problem when I'm trying to study - I find it necessary to virtually isolate my books and myself or I would end up absorbing all of the information in my environment rather than concentrating on the task at hand. This made it necessary to learn to block out a particular form of information if that information is boring or annoying me. i.e. if I'm trying to read and my roommate is listening to the radio; I can block out all audio information. This explains why, as a child, I virtually lost myself in novels - my mother says she could stand directly in front of me saying my name and I wouldn't hear her unless she actually touched me or raised her voice. I think one advantage of being multimodal is that I can take in information in any form and at least understand most of it. In fact, depending on a particular professor’s chosen mode of instruction (i.e. slides, handouts or discussion) I find that I actually "switch modes ". I will then attend the class expecting to learn in that particular form and will study for exams for that class making the most of my ability to learn in that mode. However to fully understand I still find it helpful to convert the inf ormation to another form after I attend the lectures so that I can understand it better.
75
Rebecca My first reaction to discovering that I learnt almost equally in all modes was that it explained a lot of things. I have tended to adopt a method where if it didn't work in one way then I would totally change my approach to the task in question and keep trying until I was either successful or gave up. It also means that I sometimes need to have a fairly balanced intake of information. I have problems with subjects molded completely around one style, for example, I have problems with one subject which is completely R, where I would prefer more applied examples, and in another subject, which is almost completely V, I have to do a lot of background reading to understand. However, it does mean that I can be versatile when I want to and have no problems in situations that require some lateral thinking as I just 'switch' into another mode. My father is also very similar in his approach to learning so I wouldn't be surprised if he was equally multimodal. I probably learnt or inherited it from him. He is what you would call a' Jack of all trades' but a master of some too! The advantage of being more than one learning type is that I can pinpoint where I am going wrong and try to change that instead of just repeating a subject or getting a low mark in it. It also explains why I have such a wide variety of interests as they encompass all forms of learning. For example, my friend is strongly Aural and finds that he gets most of his general knowledge from the radio whereas I can supplement that with what I have read in the newspapers or in books, seen on television, or experienced. As a result, I can carry on a reasonable conversation on many subjects. CONCLUSION Those with a mixture of preferences dominate the statistics. They make up between 55% and 65% of any group but they are not an homogenous group and only a few generalizations that can be made about them. They include those with two equal preferences and those with three and four. They are somewhat fortunate because they have more choices than those with a single preference, but there is the disadvantage that they may need to use more modes too.
76
CHAPTER TWELVE:
ISSUES AND CAUTIONS
USING THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH OTHERS. The strongest position to take is to leave the analysis to the person who completes the questionnaire. Seldom are they lost for an explanation of their results. If you are talking with students after they have completed the questionnaire, ask them to talk about their own perceptions of their preferences and also to talk about the ‘degree of fit’ that they see between their preference(s) and other aspects of their life.
The questionnaire does not attempt to be diagnostic. It is a catalyst for teachers and students to reflect on their own preferences. Occasionally a respondent may claim that the results are inaccurate66, but even then the process has been beneficial through having them reflect on their strategies for learning. Most have not done that in any systematic way before. Many are intrigued to find that they may be different rather than dumb; that past failure may not have been their entire fault and that a change might bring improvements. For some, the questionnaire offers explanations for past failure, hope for the future and some alternatives. Once respondents have completed the questionnaire and there has been some discussion about the results, they should be given the list of helpful strategies matched to their preferences. Those students who are multimodal should be given all the lists that are matched to their scores. Some students choose to use all these strategies. Others, who are more risk averse, may stay with the strategies used in previous years. One cautious student, who was assessed as being strongly Visual decided to switch his study techniques to Visual strategies for only one of his four subjects. He was a C+ student. He was thrilled to get his first ever A grade in the subject in which he used Visual strategies. The next year he used the‘new’ Visual techniques for all of his subjects. His class and study notes looked, ultimately, like an artwork folder. The Helpsheet suggestions offered may mean excluding some of the ‘tried and true’ techniques found in study-skills books. Those books often insist on students trying every technique regardless of their learning profile. A VARK stance is different. It is of little use to suggest mnemonics to a student who does not have some preference for a Read/write (R) approach. Those who have a low or void score on the Read/write dimension say that they don't remember the mnemonic, or if they do, they cannot connect the initial letters to any of the right words! The emphasis on words and letter patterns in mnemonics does not make learning any easier for those who are strongly Aural or Kinesthetic or Visual. The idea that all students should draw diagrams of the main points (mental or concept maps) is also inappropriate advice. Those who are Visually strong may benefit. Tell students to play to their strengths. When using VARK with students the notes they take in lectures provide further evidence of their preference. Those with a Read/write preference usually have the best (near verbatim) sets of notes and students with an Aural (A) preference, the worst. The latter may become so engrossed in listening that their notes are scrappy and difficult to follow. They tune in, become engrossed in the rhetoric and stop taking notes because, as they often say, It ‘ was all perfectly clear at the time.” That is why students at who missed classes were advised to borrow notes from those students with a strong Read/write preference because these students usually caught most of the words of their teachers. Students with a Read/write preference seldom miss out on the handouts and references. Those with a strong Kinesthetic preference are advised to try and record in their notes the examples, analogies, stories and cases because they may miss the more abstract principles and concepts. Visual students are encouraged to use word pictures or present their notes in a Visual way either at the time or later. For confirmation of a preference check out any notes the respondent may have made. STRETCHING OR MATCHING VARK provides an indication of preferences for learning and as such it will indicate stronger and weaker preferences. It would be wonderful if students could explore their weaker preferences and enhance them by using all the VARK strategies associated with them. Someone with a strong Read/write preference could learn to use Visual strategies for note taking or expressing his/her learning. A student with a strong Visual preference might attend a course to assist with Kinesthetic ways of taking in information or for expressing it. Indeed, there are a number of such courses available in most communities. For example, there are usually seminars and workshops for developing mind mapping skills or creative writing or improving reading comprehension or accelerated learning.
Is it appropriate to improve students’ strengths by using their preferences rather than improving their deficiencies by exercising their weaker modes? The latter is an attractive possibility for their future but the students at Lincoln have said that they are much more interested in using their present strengths because of the pressure of essays, tests and exams. This means that, unlike traditional study advice, techniques that lie outside their preferences or are only weakly represented are usually dropped from their strategies. It may take a course in accelerated learning or concept mapping (mind maps, mental maps) to give students enough confidence to add something to their repertoire or to switch modes midstream. Merely suggesting a strategy does not allow for its effective use. And, college or university study is not the place to experiment. But this touches on a point on which students and teachers differ. For most students there are stressful tests and examinations where they are expected to indicate how much they have learned. The feedback from students, at least those who are the younger ones in higher education (17-25), indicates that they are not keen to risk a development phase when there is stress and risks to avoid. That would be akin to a soccer player learning to kick goals with the less-preferred foot just before a big game. Student motivation and their levels of risk aversion vary but they usually steer away from anything that might reduce their desire to impress their examiner or teacher with their learning. While teachers may lament this reality, it is folly to pretend that every student is on a voyage of self-discovery and in a position to‘amend’ his/her preferences.
66
Those teachers with a strong Read/write inclination usually want to critique the wording of the questionnaire!
77
The stress among students has a significant effect on whether VARK can be used for the development of new skills. Many students in higher education are at critical points in their search for employment, or partners, or self-esteem and they often cling to the strengths and preferences that they have identified, rather than extending themselves into unknown areas. For them it is often a matter of staying with what they know despite the advisers urging them, to expand their repertoire. This does not mean that preferences prevent development opportunities. Some students may choose to work in under-represented VARK areas to develop new skills – but they are not the norm. Thompson (1990) in his chapter on Visual Imagery has an interesting conclusion on page 164. He states: “If you can identify a strong Visualizer, do you encourage them to use Visual strategies, or do you train the verbalizers to use them as well, hoping that imagery ability will improve in the process? Do you encourage pupils to use two or more strategies in the understanding of school topics, say fractions, or do you encourage them to choose their own method and stick to it. For these matters to be investigated further, the development of an easily administered test of Visual/verbal thinking propensity should be given high priority.” VARK is a test that Thompson might have used! It would be desirable to have all students equally proficient in all modes of information intake and output. This would be a ‘development’ strategy - find out their weak preferences and enhance them. But a preference is not to be confused with an ability. Many shy people learn to be effective and skilled in social interactions even though they may prefer solitude. It is suggested that they use VARK to discover their preferences and then take advantage of that (those) preferences to enhance their learning. This is counter to the advice of most study skills teachers and study skills books but when the author changed his advice from‘develop your weak preferences’ to ‘use your strong preferences’ he got much more positive feedback from students. THE PRIMACY OF LANGUAGE Neil Haigh and Bob Katterns at Waikato University, New Zealand, presented an unpublished paper at a New Zealand teacher development conference that advanced a view that Bruner had first expounded in 1966. Bruner and others had characterized modes for acquiring learning as enactive, iconic and symbolic. For our purposes the enactive mode aligns with Kinesthetic characteristics (K) and the iconic mode with the Visual ones (V). The symbolic or linguistic modes (R) and (A) focus on words as symbols of our experiences and was seen by Bruner as being primary to our development from childhood to adulthood. Bruner however emphasized that the enactive and iconic modes were still accessible to all of us in adulthood but were under-utilized. The primacy for linguistic expertise is still a major force in most, but not all societies. It has a history at least as far back as Aristotle who said that philosophers drew a sharp distinction between those who ask “Why?” and the inferior work of artisans who make and do. In the Haigh and Katterns paper there is a quote from Harrison (1978) about linguistic chauvinism and downgrading the contributions of those who are practical (enactive). They also provide, without comment, a quizzical list of so-called‘truths’ that espouse an alternative view about the primacy of language. Actions speak louder than words. Saying is one thing, and doing another. Seeing is believing. One picture is worth ten thousand words. We know more than we can say.
To this we could add the following: Learning by doing is the best way. Do and I understand. Haigh and Katterns quoted Maurer (1991) who challenged the primacy of language again. Maurer, a leading computer scientist, argued that the Western educational systems have been systematically killing the ability of learners to acquire and express their learning in the Visual mode; that students are taught how to describe pictures but not how to transform words to pictures. Sperry (1973) added that our educational system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect the non-verbal form of intellect. Even mathematicians providing mathematical proofs at the turn of the 20th Century were deplored if they used graphs and diagrams (Visual). It was seen as an indication that theycould not use formulae (Read/write). Jacquelyn Wonder and Priscilla Donovan’s book, Whole Brain Thinking, quoted by David Lewis,67 stated that cultures that prefer mystical, involved, intangible and artistic values are not politically or socially powerful! Haigh and Katterns68 stated, “When students have difficulty explaining something, but may be able to demonstrate it, undue emphasis on language competence can lead to inaccurate judgments about students’ knowledge or skills.” Maurer says that we should be anticipating and preparing students for a world in which many media will be used to represent reality. And where students will need to be able to construct and ‘read’ such presentations. Societal and cultural pressures towards Read/write preferences Does any society have a normal set of modal preferences? If we could give the VARK questionnaire to a whole society would it endorse the Read/write dominance found in those who teach in its schools, colleges and universities. Although knowledge of VARK preferences may enhance learning and enable students and teachers to develop various strengths, our society does have a strong Read/write basis. In the work done with VARK we have emphasized to students that they would have to prepare for a ‘Read/write world’! David Lewis in his book Mind Skills stated:
67 68
Lewis, D., (1988). Haigh, N., and Katterns, B., (1992).
78
“The left hemisphere exerts increasing influence both as a result of the greater use of language and because our society strongly favors left-brain thinking. Scientists and technologists for example are usually more highly regarded than painters, dancers and musicians. In order to succeed, therefore members of right-brain minority groups (Hispanics, Blacks and American Indians) must adopt left-brain thinking. So too, must children when they start going to school.” Any examination of the education evaluation system would find that print media are extensively used even to the exclusion of other methods of expression. In a puzzling way, students have more opportunities to use various media in their earlier years than later. Why should this be so? Why is it that as students’ progress they are given fewer choices about the medium in which they will learn or express their learning, being forced to work almost exclusively in a Read/write educational system? Although our culture places great emphasis upon the written word should we exclude alternative modalities for students to learn and express their learning? In other societies, dance and story and hieroglyphics and art have been dominant forces for learning and for archiving knowledge. Why not in our society? In Stirling’s article about neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) an NLP practitioner asserts that most European New Zealanders are V and K and most Maori and Polynesian people are Aural/oral (A). Wright states that New Zealand has an educational system that attracts teachers with audio-Visual preferences and they naturally present information in the way that they learned best; to the detriment of other cultures. Similarly, Matthews (1991) found that the African American students at four-year colleges and universities in a southern state preferred reading, and working with numbers and logic; the Euro-American students preferred listening, iconics, and direct experience and placed more emphasis on interpersonal relations with the instructor and working with people. These differences could introduce problems in meeting educational needs. David Lewis also stated: Goal setting, emotional restraint, time keeping and matching your behavior to other people’s expectations are all left-brain skills. Children are meant to learn by listening, keeping notes and reading books… all left hemisphere specialties,” Some professors insist that students should be able to write about what they have learned. Because the professor has professed what has to be learned (using mainly Read/write media) there is an expectation that student learning must follow the professor in the same way. Is this determined by society? Could a student demonstrate in a sculpture that he/she has learned the principles of physics; or could a student of astronomy use poetry to give a sense of the enormity of the universe? Despite the attractiveness of these hypothetical possibilities there is a dulling uniformity that does require students to ‘re-enter’ through the Read/write mode when they are asked to profess their learning. It appears that learning institutions are based on Read/write evidence that students have learned the appropriate material. This is a limitation that means students who do not have Read/write skills or preferences are often unsuccessful in our learning institutions. Yet they may be great learners! Are we rewarding a subset of the population? Does our society require only those who graduate with skills in reading and writing? Where did this requirement come from and how is it continued? Are its roots in the monkish ways of the middle ages or the structures of early academia in Europe? Will the Internet in this new millennium change all that? How will the new knowledge be distributed and archived? SOME CAUTIONARY TALES The notion of perceptual differences and modes can become a call for amateur psychologists to propound their own lists and strategies. But there are traps for the unwary. Few teaching strategies are purely in one mode and it would be unwise to suggest any rigidity when advising students. Quotations like the ones below are quite common in training manuals and study skills books. They often assume a simple relationship that goes beyond good practice. Below each quotation is our critical comment about the underlined strategy being suggested.
Some like to see the material. You can satisfy them with demonstrations, handouts, flip charts and overhead projections, videos, film etc. These students remember what they see. 69 Comment:
69
Demonstrations can certainly be watched and involve seeing, but it is probably the Kinesthetics who get most from a demonstration because it represents a real example/experience for them. There is a tendency to categorize all Visual experiences as being helpful for those with a Visual preference but each Visual experience is usually loaded with “extraneous” Aural, Kinesthetic and Read/write material. Field visits and bus trips are a conglomerate of perceptual modes though they can be made very pertinent for those with a Kinesthetic preference. Videos, demonstrations and films seldom have Visual content as defined by VARK. They are more likely to be suited to those with a Kinesthetic preference. Overhead projection (like PowerPoint) also means a scarcity of VARK Visual information and instead, with its text and bullet points, suits those with a Read/write preference. The same can be said for handouts.
From a brochure Training with NLP, author unknown.
79
Others are more auditory. They like to hear from the material. For them lecture-based format is ideal, with lots of questions and answers. They will remember what was discussed and their memory of the training may be in the form of an audiotape, either a mental one or an actual audiotape of the presentation. Comment
Lecture-based format is ideal! Lectures are seldom ideal for any learner. If they are lengthy and involve only one-way communication they can be boring for all. Only skilled presenters are willing to open up their teaching sessions to any extended question-and-answer component and this is usually curtailed well before the last quarter of the lecture so the presenter can again take control!70 Those with a strong Aural preference much prefer discussion in tutorials or debates or just free discussion outside the lecture theatre and classroom. If they are stopped from contributing, those with an auditory preference may switch off in any format, lecture or otherwise.
The Kinesthetic thinkers need to do exercises and enjoy the role-play. They learn by doing and may want to move around a lot. This does not mean that they are not paying attention. It is a leftover idea from schooldays that learners need to sit still to pay attention. Comments
Kinesthetic thinkers need to do exercises. While students with a Kinesthetic preference do say that exercises are helpful they add that much depends on the type of exercise. Exercises need to be based on reality and experience for them to see it as meeting their needs. Abstract exercises may be unhelpful especially if the K student cannot see the point in them. Doing 25 examples of problems likely to appear in a forthcoming assessment event will be seen as useful. Doing 25 problems in logic may be quite meaningless if they lack a context! Doing 25 practice questions on laboratory findings is likely to be more useful. Kinesthetics may want to move around a lot. This mixes together two different dimensions. The need to move around is a different dimension from modality preferences and those with a Kinesthetic preference may not move around less often or more often than others may.
STRENGTHS AND PREFERENCES 71 The documentation that accompanies the VARK questionnaire emphasizes the statement, "Remember preferences are not strengths.'” Although it may seem contradictory, it is wise to deal with measured preferences rather than observed strengths. Some who completed the questionnaire were disappointed that VARK did not mirror what they perceived as their own strengths. One student, when made aware of her profile of preferences, said:
"VARK says I am a V, but I am not good at Visual things. I like them but I cannot draw or do anything like that. I was always hopeless at art." Comment:
This student expected that artistic ability would follow her preference for Visual information. Not so! Input and output modes may be at different levels of 'strength'. For example students may like to listen but may not be good at speaking. And speaking often involves some extroversion and social skills that are part of the larger set of learning styles and behavioral characteristics not modal preferences.
Another adult student exclaimed: "VARK says I have got a really low score for Read/write but I get good marks and grades when I write essays." And, another exclaimed: "VARK says I have got a really high score for K but I am hopeless at mending things." Comment:
Some people may have developed a skill which is not represented in their preference list or which has been built by using their preferences in novel ways. For example it is possible that a person with a strong preference for Visual input could use that preference to write superb essays where the essay calls for remembrance of an event or situation that has them writing from strong Visual input or word pictures. Preferences may also be masked by personality, experience, and job opportunities so the ‘real’ preferences may not be expressed. Alternatively, some students may not have used their preference(s) in their 'working, hobby, leisure or social' life to build strengths. We suspect that there are many adults who are in jobs where their preferences are not being fully used but they have built high levels of skills (strengths) in non-preference areas through repetition and the need to earn a living. So saying "preferences are not the same as strengths,” is emphasizing that merely having a particularly strong preference or preferences may not ensure that you have excellent skills in the expression of that preference. It does indicate that there may be some untapped potential. And, more importantly, in indicating a preference it ensures that the respondent has some liking for those behaviors.
70
71
Rose Marriott found that those lecturers who encouraged active participation closed their questioning with approximately 12 minutes to the end of the session. Please refer to the diagram and text on page 12.
80
About Textbooks and Advertisements Students are advantaged or disadvantaged by the textbooks recommended by teachers. Some books are clearly more Visual but most are ideally suited to students with a preference for Read/write modes and are probably written by teachers with a Read/write preference. The text is aligned to the left margin, often with bullet points or lists repeated on every page, no relief from words in blocks of text and there is little white space. Most academic journals are typical examples. More recent texts have wide margins often with comments or excerpts, illustrations that duplicate the text, boxed summaries, color photographs, colored text and plenty of whitespace. One professor at Lincoln University, New Zealand deliberately chose a Visual text to complement the Read/write style of his own handouts and his own teaching.
Textbook writers and teachers could learn from studying advertising material. Those who prepare such materials know about VARK; that in the market place, there are different preferences for information. Marketing materials cater for the Visual population with whitespace, font changes, challenging layout, design and color.... Some advertisements get into story mode (K) by quoting examples of satisfied consumers or experts’ views on the product or they enhance the hype with tasting, in-store demonstrations, smells, sounds or Visual pyrotechnics. Effective television commercials regularly pan a comprehensive range of modes. At least the advertisers know that to cater for only one segment of the market would be financially ruinous. This underlying principle applies to the classroom as well. POSTSCRIPT: SHOULD STUDENTS OR TEACHERS CHANGE? James Rhem72, in his article on VARK had this comment on the need to challenge students to use their preferences rather than expecting teachers to adopt new strategies to match the diversity among their students.
“Working in New Zealand, observing the great variety of learning styles exhibited by students, Fleming came to the same conclusion many faculty have reached: namely, that it seems unrealistic to hope to provide programs that can meet the needs of all these learning styles, to ask the teacher to forgo strengths and become a presentational pretzel. Instead, Fleming thought, why not empower students by helping them identify their learning preferences, and offer them advice on how to utilize those in response to the different teaching styles they might encounter?” Teachers should spend some time advising students about the particular learning styles that their discipline requires. This may run counter to the current view that everything should be done to help students, rather than expecting the students to make changes in their learning habits. Clearly, a little of both approaches would be helpful. An excellent teacher is one who is aware of, and caters for all four modes at some stage in the presentation of information and who provides an opportunity for individual students to have their needs met through alternative opportunities in learning. An excellent student is one who has thought about the ways in which they learn and has taken advantage of the special features including modality preferences that make them different from others. They are also aware that a learning style has to be backed with effort and an ability to accommodate differences in disciplines. VARK is a catalyst for both teachers and students to improve the quality of their learning. Knowing the answer to the question, HOW DO I LEARN BEST? is just a beginning.
72
Rhem, J., (1998).
81
APPENDICES Appendix A Research Questions VARK is a comparatively young inventory. Outlined below are possible research questions for which we would like volunteers for research. For correspondence about these, contact the author. Data from the VARK database could be offered to assist researchers. Test of
Research Question to be answered
Research Design
Comparison
Does the VARK group know their preferences better than the control group? OR Do their VARK scores reflect what they thought were their preferences beforehand? Do teachers use strategies matched to their VARK preferences?
Control group and a group who are taught about VARK. Question the control group and the VARK group about the strategies they use and their knowledge of them.
Matching
Matching Success Matching
Matching
Matching
Matching
Matching Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis
Do students use the strategies associated with their VARK preferences? Do those who use VARK strategies matching their preference(s) do bette r than those who don’t? Do students see themselves as being more successful in subjects where the teacher matches their preferences? Do students on distance education courses succeed (drop out) because of the match (mismatch) to their modality preferences? Do students choose careers based on their VARK preferences? This assumes that som e careers are VARK specific! Do students choose subjects (majors) based on their VARK preferences (known or unknown at the time of choice.)? Do students prefer assessment/grading methods aligned with their VARK preferences? Which responses in the inventory are the strongest indicators of a strong V or A or R or K preference? What are the question responses most often chosen by a strong V an A an R or a K? Which responses in the inventory are not indicators of a strong V or A or R or K preference? That is, which non-V responses do Strong or Very Strong V respondents choose most often? Among multimodals what are the most common partial preferences (strongest scor es.)?
Without knowing about VARK, teachers self-report on what strategies they prefer. Then compare with their VARK scores and their self-report post survey. Give students VARK knowledge and ask if they used the matching strategies before (and after) they knew about VARK. Self-report on expected grades between control and VARK groups. Self-report of the degree of subject-satisfaction with different teachers. Teachers would need to be VARK tested and questioned about the extent of their strategies to match VARK preferences, as would students in their c lasses. Analyze distance materials for relative strengths in VARK modalities. Give distance students a VARK test. Analyze those who drop out/succeed. Analyse student career choices and compare these with their VARK scores Analyze student subject (majors) choices for VARK biases and compare these with their VARK scores. Request student preferences for strategies and test for matches to their VARK scores. Analyze the results from students with strong preferences to test whether they choose the same responses to some questions.
Analyze the results from students with strong preferences to find what responses they choose that are not aligned with that preferences Analyze the results from MM students to find out the spread of responses to V, A, R, and K. Most students are VA or VK or VARK because of? Analyze the results from MM students to find out the spread of responses to V, A, R, and K. Analyze the results from MM students to find out the spread of preferences V, A, R, and K for double and triple mode respondents.
Comparison of sub groups to whole group
Among multimodals what proportion have two-strengths, three strengths all four strengths? Among multimodals with two preferences and three preferences what are those predominant preferences? That is, how ma ny of the bi- and t rimodals had V, A, R or K sub-preferences? Are multimodals as a subgroup similar to the total VARK database in terms of their proportion of V, A, R and K responses?
Comparison of sub groups to whole group
Are non-multimodals (Single preference students) as a subgroup similar to the total VARK database in terms of their spread of V, A, R and K responses?
Analyze the results from non-MM students to find out the spread of responses V, A, R, and K compared with the whole database
Comparison of Subgroups
Are multimodals as a subgroup similar to the non- –MM database population in terms of their spread of V, A, R and K responses?
Analyze the results from MM students to find out the spread of responses V, A, R, and K compared with the non-MM database.
Numerical count Numerical count
What is the spread of VARK types in the whole database? What is the spread of VARK responses in the whole database?
Of all the students count the preferences for V, A, R, K and MM.
Factor Analysis
Analyze the results from MM students to find out the proportion of responses V, A, R, and K compared with the whole database and the non-MM database. Check the averages for each group.
Of all the students count responses for each of V, A, R and K.
82
Appendix B
Website and Statistical Data
Statistical Analysis An analysis of the 1999 data from the website (n=4704) was used to establish whether V, A, R and K scores from the questionnaire were independent and to clarify any relationship between the Visual and Read/write modes. The correlation matrix, ignoring any group structure was: Variables V A R K
V 1.000 0.189 0.043 0.188
A
R
K
1.000 0.135 0.201
1.000 -0.115
1.000
This shows that there was no strong correlation across all data between the various measures used. Using Principal Components Analysis which takes the variables and attempts to find a series of independent weighted averages that can explain most of the variability the first three such components accounted for 35, 31, and 18 percent of the total variation respectively. From this we may infer that there are no strong correlations between the variables or combinations of the variables. The weights used for each component are listed in the following table. Latent Vector (Loadings) Variables V A R K
1 0.27690 0.71875 0.59994 0.21632
2 -0.23227 -0.35560 0.72751 -0.53883
3 0.48603 -0.59735 0.28566 0.57039
Notice that the weights or coefficients (scaled to lie between -1 and +1) are relatively high for all variables in all vectors. This again shows that V, A, R and K are relatively independent, and that they all contribute to the total variance. If two variables were highly correlated, one of the vectors would have high weights for those variables, and small weights for the others. If one variable were completely independent of the other three, it would tend to be in a vector with a high weight for it and small weights for the other three. This is not the case. Using Canonical Variate Analysis, the plotted positions for the four single modes (V A R and K) is shown below. Their separation on the graph indicates their independence while the sizes of the circles indicates the confidence region. If the circles overlapped they would be sharing some interaction. More details are available.
83
Appendix C
VARK for Littles
VARK FOR LITTLES Name of child
Age
Years
M / F
Instructions: Please help us to understand the learning preferences of this young child. We want you to complete the questionnaire from your knowledge. You will need to recall seeing them do something or say something. Please do not imagine what they might do, just report on what you know they do. I am this child’s mother father other relative friend grandmother grandfather teacher self report sister brother other Tick the boxes VISUAL
READ/WRITE
Prefers exercises where you have to match objects by shape and colour.
Prefers matching words with words, or words with alphabet letters.
Likes computer games, books and videos where the story can be understood from the pictures. Enjoys drawing as an activity. Prefers matching by shape or colour. Contributes ideas by pictures. Uses colour and different formats well (e.g. changes the sizes of letters, etc.).
#
Likes computer games and videos that use words on the screen. Prefers writing as an activity. Contributes ideas in lists or in writing. Brings books as a contribution to class. Enjoys times that are strongly based on writing and reading (silent) exercises.
Likes things to “look right”. Enjoys times that are strongly based on visual experiences. Easily notices the details in pictures and designs. Uses language rich in “picture” words. Organizes space, drawings and placement well.
Writes well. Enjoys writing stories. Enjoys reading words or stories in books. Copies writing and printing. Enjoys writing numbers or letters.
KINESTHETIC
AURAL
Prefers matching objects by physically placing or moving them. Likes computer games and videos that are strong on real-life actions (things already experienced or based on him/her). Likes things to be real or concrete or within his/her experience. Enjoys real experiences. Likes things (e.g. toys) that do things. Prefers “action” activities – dance, role-play, acting, games and dressing up ( role play). Brings objects/things (shells, balls,) as contributions. Hoards or collects things carefully. Prefers playtime/break time. Plays well with others. Enjoys times that are strongly based on kinesthetic exercises – doing, action….
Prefers matching flash cards (words) from sounds. Likes to use audiotapes, computer games and videos that are rich in sound. Likes story tellers. Prefers talking as an activity. Enjoys listening to stories. Enjoys times that are strongly based on speaking and listening exercises. Enjoys songs and singing. Speaks well. Contributes ideas verbally. Follows verbal directions easily. When listening, may repeat information quietly to self - mimics sounds. Enjoys rhyming words and "playing" with language. Easily learns the sounds for letters and words.
#
#
#
#
#
#
Reflective Question To what extent does your child’s present teacher(s) use strategies for learning that match your child’s preferences noted above? An excellent match
A very good match
Some matching
Signed ………………………………………………….
Not a good match
Date ..............................................
Copyright (2012) held by Neil D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand. See the copyright conditions on the VARK website at www.vark-learn.com. Warning: Children are still forming their preferences for all manner of things, including how they learn, so it is unwise to categorize children or label them in ways that restrict their opportunities to explore all four modes. !
84
Bibliography For the most recent VARK questionnaires please go to the VARK website at www.vark-learn.com. Anderson, J. A., & Adams, M. “Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design.” In L.L.B. Border and N.V.N. Chism (Eds.) Teaching for diversity. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baddeley, A. (1983). Your memory: A user’s guide. England: Penguin. Bandler, R. (1985). Using your brain- for a change. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Bandler, R., & Grinder, 1. (1979). Frogs into princes. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1976). The structure of magic. Volumes I & II. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. Baxter-Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in student development . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Belenky, M. B. Clinchy, B. M. Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Biggs, J. (1987). Reflective thinking and school learning: An introduction to the theory and practice of metacognition. (Item 10, Set 2. 1-4). Wellington, NZ: NZCER. Bligh, D. A. (1970). The case for a variety of teaching methods in each lesson. British Journal of Medical Education, 4, 202209. Bloom, F. E. & Lazerson, A. (1988). Brain, mind and behavior. W.H. Freeman and Company, N.Y. Boekaerts, M. (1981) Individual differences in the use of Visual and verbal mediators. Research in Education, 27, 49-62. Bogen, J. E. (1969). The other side of the brain. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Societies , 34, 73-105. Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. E. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington School of Education and Human Development. Bruner, C. J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Butler, K. (1984). The Learners Dimension. Connecticut, USA. Buzan, T. (1974). Use Your Head , London: BBC. Buzan, T. (1986). Make the most of your mind, Simon & Schuster, London. Buzan, T. (1991). Use both sides of your brain. New York- E. P. Dutton. Canfield, A. A., & Lafferty, L. C. (1974). Learning styles inventory. Birmingham, MI: Humanics Media. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62 (June) pp. 233-246. Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J. and Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, pp. 121-152. Claxton, C. S. & Smith, W.F. (1984). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Claxton, C. S., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and administr ation. ASHE-ERIC, Higher Education Research Report, No 10. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Conner, J. E., (1982). Half A Mind is Terrible Thing to W aste, ERIC Document ED 238 422, Microfiche Edition. Conti, G. J. (1985). The relationship between lecturing style and adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 4, pp. 220-228. Cronbach, L J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York. Irvington. Curry, L. (1983). An organisation of learning styles theory and constructs , ERIC Document 235185. Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S. and Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, Vol. 46, 6 pp46-54. Dunn, R., Dunn, K. (1987). Dispelling outmoded beliefs about student learning. Educational Leadership, 44, 6, pp55-61. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1987). Manual for the learning styles inventory (LSI). Laurence, KS: Price Systems Eble, K. E. (Ed.) (1980). Improving teaching styles. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Edwards, B. (1979). Drawing on the right side of the brain: London: Fontana. Eison, J. (1984) Researchers examine learning style. APA Monitor, 15(5), 34. Farr, B. J. (1971). Individual differences in learning: predicting one’s more effective learning modalit y, Dissertation Abstracts International: Humanities and Social Sciences, 32, p1332A. Faurier, M. (1984). Disclosure of cognitive style information: Effects on achievement of adults. Adult Education Quarterly, 3, 147-154. Fernandez E. (1999). The Effectiveness Of Web-Based Tutorials. Department of Computer Technology, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick, (Ed.),The nature of intelligence .(pp. 231235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Helping students understand how they learn.The Teaching Professor, Vol. 7 No. 4, Magma Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection.To Improve the Academy, 11, 137155.
85
Fleming, N.D. (1995). I'm different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Zelmer, A., (Ed.) Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) , HERDSA, Volume 18, pp. 308 – 313. Gazzaniga, M. C. (1973). The split brain in man. In R. E. Ornstein (Ed.),The nature of human consciousness: A book of readings (pp. 87-100). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Goldstein, K. M., & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grasha, A. F. (1990). Using traditional versus naturalistic approaches to assessing learning styles in college teaching. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 23-39. Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers. Haigh, N. and Katterns, B. (1992) How can we know what they know? Unpublished conference paper, Waikato University, New Zealand. Harrison, A. (1978). Making and thinking: A study of intelligent activities . Sussex: Harvester Press. Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction: Making learning personal, empowering and successful. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hirumi, A. and Bowers, D. R. (1991). Enhancing motivation and acquisition of coordinate concepts by using concept trees. Journal of Educational Research, 84 (May/June), pp. 273-279. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey. Hunt D. E. (1985). Demystifying learning style. Orbit, 16,1; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Ingham, J (1992). Learning styles: Challenging and transforming education. Innotech Journal, January-June. Joyce, B. R. & Showers, B., (1988). Student achievement through staff development , Longman Inc., New York. Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive style, learning style and transfer skill acquisition. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Knox, A. (1977). Adult development and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Knowles, M. S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy Versus Pedagogy. New York: Association Press. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop ment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lawrence, G. (1982). People types and tiger stripes. [Second edition]. Gainesville, FL: CAPT. Le Francois, G. (1991). Psychology of teaching .California: Wadsworth Lewis, D. (1988). Mind Skills: giving your child a brighter future. London, Grafton. Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences , Vol. 1: Text; Stanford University Press, USA. Martens, K. (1975). Cognitive style: An introduction with annotated bibliography. Albany: State University of New York. Matthews, D. B. (1991). Learning styles research: Implications for increasing students in teacher education programs. Journal of Instructional Psychology , 18 (December), pp. 228-236. Maurer, H. (1991). The end of the three Rs. A seminar presented at Waikato University, New Zealand. McKim R.H., (1980). Experiences in Visual thinking. Brooks/Cole, California. McKim R.H., (1997). Thinking Visually: A strategy manual for problem solving . Dale Seymour; California. McLeod, M. (1990). Is your mind made up? New Zealand Listener, April 2,1990, pp. 10-12. Messick, S. (1970). The criterion problem in the evaluation of instruction: Assessing possible, not just intended outcomes. In: M. C. Wittrock & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The evaluation of instruction: Issues and problems (pp. 183-220). New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston. Mills, C. E. (1989). Learning revisited. Tutor, 37, pp. 16-22. Wellington: Tutor Education Centre. Mills, C. E. (1992). Killing two birds with one stone: Promoting reflection in student learning and faculty development . Paper presented to Reflective Practice in Higher Education Conference, 11-13 July, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Moir, A. and Jessel, D. (1989). Brainsex: The real difference between men and women. London: Michael Joseph. Murrell, P. H., and Claxton, C. S., (1987). "Experiential Learning Theory as a Guide for Effective Teaching." Journal of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, 27: 4-14. Nooriafshar, M. and St Hill, R. (1999). Adopting the technologies associated with modern computing to incorporate students’ modal preferences into course design. Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. New York: Oxford University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1987). Creative Evaluation, Sage Publications, USA, pp. 154-5. Pedersen, C. and St Hill, R. (1999). Meeting the challenge of ‘massification’: Taking learner diversity seriously: Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland. Price, G. (1983). Diagnosing learning styles. In R. M. Smith (Ed.), Helping adults learn how to learn. New Directions for Continuing Education, No. 19. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, (pp. 49-55). Rhem, J. (1998), The VARK questionnaire. National Teaching and Learning Forum, Vol. 7, No. 4. Oryx Press, USA. Richardson, J.T.E. (1978). Mental imagery and memory: Coding ability or coding preference? Journal of Mental Imagery, 2, pp101-116. Roe, A. (1951). A study of imagery in research scientists, Journal of Personality, 19, pp. 459-70. Rogers, C. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill. Rose, C. (1992). Accelerated Learning, Bucks, England: Accelerated Learning Systems. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L.(1992). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Russell, P. (1979). The brain book. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London. 86
Sadler-Smith, E., (1996). “Learning styles” and instructional design, Innovations in Education and Training International , Vol. 33, No 4, pp. 185-93. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goete, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 171-19 1). San Diego: Academic Press. Schneider, C., Klemp, Jr. G. O., & Kastendiek, S. (1981). The balancing act: Competencies of effective teachers and mentors in degree programs for adults. Chicago: Office of Continuing Education, University of Chicago. Sinatra, R. (1982). Learning literacy in nonverbal style. InStudent Learning Styles and Brain Behavior , National Association of Secondary School Principals. Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn. Chicago: FolIett. Sperry, R. (1973). Lateral specialization of cerebral function in the surgically separated hemisphere. In F. J. McGulgan, & R. A. Schoonover, (Eds.), The Psychophysiology of Thinking, (pp. 209-229). New York. Academic Press. Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. (1985). Left-brain right-brain (3rd ed.), New York-W. H. Freeman. St Hill, R. (1997). Modal Preferences in Teaching and Learning Economics , Contributed paper, Fifth Annual Teaching Economics Conference, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba. St Hill, R. (1999). Some thoughts on a Whole-of-Department Approach to Teaching and Learning, Unpublished discussion paper for Department of Economics and Resources Management, University of Southern Queensland. St Hill, R. (2001). A Strategy for the Design and Development of Intermediate Macroeconomics, Contributed paper for 8th Annual Teaching Economics Conference, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 9-10 July, Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking Styles; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stirling, P. (1987). Power Lines. New Zealand Listener, June 20, pp13-15. Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. N.Y.,Routledge. Thomas, P., (1983). Roles and realities: Developmental communications and Pacific Island cultures, Paper presented at XV Pacific Science Congress, Dunedin, New Zealand, Feb 1-11. Thompson, S. V. (1990). Visual imagery: A discussion, Educational Psychology, 10(2) pp141-167. Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1982). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. Madison CT: International Universities Press.
87
INDEX distance instruction, 23 drama, 12, 14, 23, 70
abbreviations, 24, 25, 65, 66 abilities, 10, 19, 50 abstract, 1, 25, 28, 35, 37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77 accountancy, 29 acronym, iv, 1 active learning, 22 adult, 80, 84, 86 advanced organizer, 46 age, 10, 26, 29, 39, 45 algorithm, 8 art history, 14 artisans, 78 assessment, 18, 19, 20, 25, 44, 45, 65, 72, 80, 82, 86 athletics, 13 audiotapes, 31, 32, 62 auditory, 30, 43, 48, 61, 62, 72, 80 Aural, iv, 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80
economics, 12, 20, 24, 25, 26, 29, 74 education, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 45, 47, 52, 55, 56, 57, 67, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85 elasticit y, 26 email, 1, 12, 21, 24, 35, 39, 40, 65, 68 essay, 13, 18, 25, 67, 80 essays, 13, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 80 ethics, 14 exam, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 33, 52, 53, 56, 60, 64, 66, 67, 69, 75 examination, 13, 17, 19, 20, 25, 39, 44, 60, 79 examinations, 12, 13, 31, 33, 42, 45, 52, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 69, 77 experience, 1, 13, 15, 22, 25, 28, 31, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45, 46, 48, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 79, 80 flow diagrams, 64 fonts, 11, 24, 53, 64 football, 13
bibliographies, 14, 65 bi-modal, 4, 14, 15, 17 biographies, 13 biology, 12, 13, 65, 67, 74 book, iv, 1, 10, 13, 19, 22, 23, 25, 34, 36, 38, 42, 44, 48, 49, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 78, 81, 85 brain research, 48 business, 63
geography, 12, 37, 42 grammar, 14, 25 graphic, 1, 39, 52, 54, 65 graphics, 11, 31 graphs, 1, 7, 8, 11, 20, 26, 31, 38, 51, 53, 54, 56, 64, 78 group work, 12 handout, 64, 65 handouts, 13, 25, 26, 32, 55, 64, 65, 75, 77, 79, 81 high school, 30, 35, 40, 75
Canonical Variate Analysis, 83 case study, 70, 71, 74 catalyst, iv, 31, 44, 77, 81, 84 charts, 1, 11, 24, 25, 32, 38, 47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 64, 74, 79 chemistry, 13, 14, 53, 61, 67 children, 17, 27, 28, 49, 62, 63, 72, 79 classes, 1, 14, 17, 19, 30, 33, 67, 70, 71, 74, 82 classroom, 1, 7, 11, 15, 19, 28, 29, 32, 44, 50, 53, 68, 72, 80, 81, 84, 85 coach, 17 coefficients, 83 cognitive processing, 32 cognitive style, 22, 37, 46, 84 cognitive styles, 46 college, 11, 31, 32, 40, 43, 77, 84, 85 color, 1, 6, 11, 24, 25, 32, 37, 51, 52, 53, 56, 59, 65, 66, 81 communication, iv, 1, 6, 15, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 40, 48, 49, 63, 68, 74, 80 computer, 12, 13, 18, 22, 23, 29, 30, 41, 46, 47, 64, 66, 70, 74, 78 computer technology, 13 computer education, 29 computer programming, 14 computer systems, 12, 74 concrete, 24, 43, 46, 68, 69, 70, 72 conference, 15, 23, 32, 36, 46, 78, 85 conversations, iv, 12, 13, 61 corpus callosum, 43, 48 correlation, 29, 40, 42, 83 culture, 49, 79
iconic, iv, 30, 37, 39, 75, 78 image, 53 imagery, 22, 36, 37, 38, 46, 53, 55, 57, 78, 85, 86 information, iv, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 instructional preference, 1 internet, 6, 17, 29, 60, 62, 64, 79 interview, 67 inventories, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41, 46 Japanese, 30 K-12, 15, 32, 74 Kana, 30 Kanji, 30 Kinesthetic, iv, 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 26, 28, 30, 42, 47, 68, 71, 72, 74, 79, 80 knowledge, 17, 18, 23, 24, 36, 44, 48, 55, 57, 61, 66, 67, 71, 72, 76, 78, 79, 82 laboratory, 17 languages, iv, 10, 12, 13, 19, 50, 63 learning, iii, iv, 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86 learning cycle, 46, 48 learning style, 1, 22, 30, 44, 47, 48, 49, 81 lecture, 18, 19, 20, 22, 32, 40, 44, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 80 left hemisphere, 48 leisure, 10 listen, 12, 25, 28, 51, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 74, 80 literature, 11, 14, 17, 35, 36, 37, 68, 71
Dalhousie University, 43, 74 data, 6, 83 demonstrate, 13, 15, 18, 74, 78, 79 demonstrations, 13, 22, 26, 74, 79, 81 diagram, 6, 10, 20, 25, 28, 36, 37, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 71, 75, 80 diagrams, 11, 12, 13, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 36, 38, 39, 40, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 64, 66, 74, 77, 78 dictionaries, 14, 36, 64, 65, 67 discipline, iv, 11, 15, 17, 19, 44, 74, 81 88
management, 13, 74 matching, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22, 25, 35, 42, 46, 74, 79, 82 mathematics, 43 medicine, 14 memory, 31, 36, 38, 40, 46, 51, 52, 53, 62, 63, 67, 80, 84, 85 metacognition, 24 mnemonics, 31, 77 modality, 1, 18, 24, 32, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 57, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 82, 84 mode, iv, 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 55, 57, 63, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82 motivation, 17, 29, 40, 42, 50, 77, 85 multichoice questions, 13, 29 multimedia, 47 multimodal, iv, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 23, 32, 43, 44, 51, 60, 64, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 music, 12 Neurolinguistic Programm ing, 30, 37. 48 , 79 note making, 52, 60, 65, 70, 74 note taking, 52, 55, 60, 65, 70, 71, 74, 77 notes, 14, 20, 24, 25, 31, 51, 52, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79 observation, 15, 47 oral, 1 orator, 62 pattern, 31, 43, 49 perception, 10, 37 , 38, 50, 53, 7 2 perceptual, 1, 3 0, 79 personality, 1, 17, 46, 49, 61, 62, 74, 80 physics, iv, 12, 13 , 14, 75, 79, 8 4 picture, 30, 41, 42, 52, 57, 61, 66, 67, 78 practical, 10, 12, 13, 15, 31, 33, 35, 37, 41, 47, 48, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 78 preference(s), iv, 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 problem solving, 23, 70, 75, 84, 85 profile, 1, 4, 1 0, 11, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 55, 60, 73, 74, 77, 80 psychology, 14, 30, 85 public speaking, 12, 62 questionnaire, iv, 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, 66, 67, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80, 83, 85, See, quiz, 17, 40 Read/write, iv, 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 52, 57, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 reading, 1, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 30, 34, 36, 37, 40, 42, 48, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 71, 76, 77, 79 reflection, 17, 24, 34, 36, 40, 47, 84, 85 reliability, 31, 39 repetition, 20, 21, 80 report, 13, 18, 31, 39, 41, 64 representation, 1, 37, 38, 53, 54, 55, 59, 75, 84 research, iv, 14, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 57, 62, 65, 82, 84, 85 right brain, 49 role play, 17
seminar, 17 senses, 1, 13, 26, 30, 36, 37, 39, 48, 55, 69 sensory modalities, 1 simulation, 1 single preference(s), 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 39, 42, 43, 44, 72, 73, 75, 76 skills, 10 society, 41, 59, 62, 63, 66, 68, 78, 79 sociology, 14 statistics, 19, 21, 76 stories, 13, 33, 40, 60, 62, 63, 70, 77 strategies, iv, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 61, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86 strengths, iv, 10, 19, 21, 22, 25, 47, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 structure, 54, 65, 83, 84 students, iv, 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85 study skills, 18, 30, 31, 77, 78, 79 styles, 1, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 71, 73, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86 summary, 18, 43 symbolic, iv, 1, 26, 30, 36, 37, 39, 53, 75, 78 tactile, 30, 39, 48, 55 talkback, 62, 67 taste, 1 teacher(s), iv, 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86 teaching, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 40, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 52, 55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 70, 72, 73, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85 teaching strategy, 17 television, 29, 52, 55, 61, 62, 63, 65, 76, 81 temperature, 32, 50 testing, 18, 31, 46, 71 tests, 13, 18, 19, 22, 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 50, 52, 65, 66, 72, 77 textbook, 20, 60, 66 texts, 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 26, 47, 61, 65, 70, 81 theatre, 13, 80 theorists, 1, 32, 37, 46, 47 theory, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, 38, 43, 70, 71, 72, 74, 84 touch, 1 translate, 25, 29, 72, 74 university, 11, 31, 32, 33, 40, 42, 43, 45, 67, 71, 72, 77 University of Southern Queensland, 44, 45, 85, 86 validity, 34, 40, 41 VARK modes, 7, 15, 33, 73 VARK profile, 42, 44 verbal, 37, 38, 43, 46, 48, 50, 57, 61, 78, 84 verbalizer, 45, 46 video, 18, 23, 24, 33, 41, 52, 61, 62, 65 videos, 1 Visual, iv, 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 vizualizer, 45 vocabulary, 59, 65 void, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 53, 77
science, 13, 39, 78 scoring, 4 sculpture, 13, 79 89
website, iv, 1, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 33, 34, 40, 41, 44, 45, 50, 73, 83 websites, 1 whiteboard, 12, 20 wholist, 46
wordprocessor, 64, 67 workshop, 13, 41, 42, 44 World Wide Web, 24
90
