Over the past three decades, a dozen or more learning style taxonomies have been created by various educational researchers. For example, Howard Gardner of Harvard University (Multiple Intelligences Profile) based his taxonomy on mind psychology, and David Kolb (1984) of Yale University and the Bates Institute (LSI—Learning Styles Inventory) based his on experiential learning.
The latter two and other learning style inventories based on them, such as the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles model (1992). based on Kolb’s work; and Neil Fleming’s VARK (Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing and Kinesthetic) (2001) of Lincoln University in New Zealand, and the Memletics Accelerated Learning Styles (Advantogy, 2003) models, both similar to Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences taxonomy, are particularly suited to online course delivery. All of these learning style models highlight student preferences and natural tendencies for processing information and understanding content. E-learning offers a rich medium for appealing to the diversity of learning styles if used in inventive, adaptive, and creative ways. The time to consider this is at the course planning stage, as the design team chooses the components and activities during the development process.
Multiple Intelligences
“We are all able to know the world through language, logical mathematical analysis, spatial representation, musical thinking, the use of the body to solve problems or to make things, and an understanding of ourselves and of others. Where individuals differ is in the strength of these intelligences: the so-called profile of intelligences—and in the way such intelligences are invoked and combined to carry out different tasks, solve diverse problems, and progress in various domains”. (Howard Gardner, 1991)
Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard University, hypothesized that people are capable of eight unique ways of information processing, which he called multiple intelligence theory. Information processing is the person’s preferred intellectual approach to assimilating facts, information, and knowledge. Gardner suggested that individuals should be encouraged to apply their preferred intelligences in learning. Learners who have an understanding of their own particular learning styles can reflect on how to use their learning strengths and cultivate their less dominant ones. A key point in multiple intelligence theory is that most people can develop all eight of the intelligences to a relatively competent level of mastery.
Gardner’s eight unique intelligences are:
-
linguistic—verbal
-
visual—spatial
-
logical-mathematical
-
bodily—kinesthetic
-
musical
-
interpersonal
-
intrapersonal
-
naturalistic
As online courses become more prevalent, new research is being done on how the multiple intelligences can be cultivated, and appealed to through the use of technology and multimedia in education (Veenema & Gardner, 1996). Since it is unrealistic to expect that the design team will know the learners’ preferred learning styles beforehand, it makes sense to design activities and resources that can tap the strengths and meet the needs of all eight intelligences (Sims, 2006). Table \(\PageIndex{1}\) below provides some suggestions to guide this process.
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Multiple intelligences in online course planning
|
INTELLIGENCE
|
PREFERENCES
|
APPEALING ONLINE ACTIVITIES
|
|
Linguistic—Verbal
|
Written and spoken word, language, Literary activities, reading
|
Text, journals, forums, chats, wiki, blogs, written assignments, audio, dialogue, stories, debates
|
|
Visual—Spatial
|
Visual and spatial thinkers, sensitive to colour, line, shape, form, space and the relationships between these
|
graphics, movies, Flash, photos, multimedia, 3D modelling, design, charts, concept maps, diagrams
|
|
Logical—Mathematical
|
Detects patterns, scientific reasoning, deduction, mathematical calculations, cause and effect relationships
|
Socratic questioning, problem based, pattern pames, puzzles, experiments, statistics, matrices
|
|
Bodily—Kinesthetic
|
Fine and gross motor movements, sense of timing, and direction. Also physical coordination, balance, dexterity, strength, speed, flexibility, and proprioceptive, tactile, and haptic capacities
|
Role playing, psychomotor skills, demonstration, simulations, virtual reality, cooperative games, video games, ergonomic awareness
|
|
Musical
|
Musical ability and appreciation, Recognizes rhythmic patterns, pitch, melody, timbre, and tone colour
|
Audio, sound and music recording, rhymes, background music, chants, raps, create music
|
|
Interpersonal
|
The capacity to interact with others, to understand them, and to interpret their behaviour accurately. The ability to notice distinctions among other people, and to recognize their moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. A sensitivity to other’s facial expressions, voices, and gestures, and the ability to respond effectively to these cues
|
Group projects, forums, Chats, email, cooperative work, teams, interviews, coaching, counseling, listening, clubs, drills, community involvement
|
|
Intrapersonal
|
The ability to sense one’s inner being—to discover who we are, what feelings we have, and why we are the way the way we are. It represents our self –knowledge and our ability to act adaptively on the basis of this knowledge. It is our reflective self. Enables an accurate picture of the inner self, strengths and weaknesses, inner moods, goals, intentions, motivations, temperament, beliefs, and desires
|
Journals, reflective activities, independent study, autobiography, portfolio, concentration work, metacognition techniques, personal growth activities, narratives
|
|
Naturalistic
|
Awareness of the forces, principles, and laws of nature. Recognize relationships among species, enjoy nature-related classification systems. Promotes ecological awareness and stewardship
|
Ecological study, biology, natural sciences, charts, diagrams, taxonomies, genetic models, virtual field trips, systems, pattern recognition, nature analogies
|
Kolb's Learning Styles Model
David Kolb’s learning style model is also quite amenable to course design planning. As well, this model provides a sort of developmental map for the cultivation of experiential learning throughout the human life span. Kolb described experiential learning as consisting of four stages: experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. Kolb’s experiential learning taxonomy comprises four distinct activities:
-
concrete experience—(CE)
-
reflective observation—(RO)
-
abstract conceptualization—(AC)
-
active experimentation—(AE)
and a four-type definition of learning styles (each representing the combination of two preferred styles, rather like a two-by-two matrix of the four-stage cycle styles, as illustrated in Table \(\PageIndex{2}\) below), for which Kolb used the terms:
-
diverging (CE/RO)
-
assimilating (AC/RO)
-
converging (AC/AE)
-
accommodating (CE/AE)
Diverging (concrete, reflective). A characteristic question of this learning type is “Why?” These learners respond well to explanations of how course material relates to their experience, their interests, and their future careers. These learners prefer an instructor who functions as a Motivator.
Assimilating (abstract, reflective). A characteristic question of this learning type is “What?” These learners respond to information presented in an organized, logical fashion and benefit if they have time for reflection. To be effective, the instructor should function as an Expert.
Converging (abstract, active). A characteristic question of this learning type is “How?” These learners respond to opportunities to work actively on well-defined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment that allows them to fail safely. To be effective, the instructor should function as a Coach, providing guided practice and feedback.
Accommodating (concrete, active). A characteristic question of this learning type is “What if?” These learners like applying course material in new situations to solve real problems. To be effective, the instructor should adopt a supportive Constructivist role, giving opportunities for the students to discover things for themselves.
Table \(\PageIndex{2}\): Kolb’s learning styles model
|
|
Active Experimentation
—AE—DOING
|
Reflective Observation
—RO—WATCHING
|
|
Concrete Experience
—CE—FEELING
|
Accommodating
(CE/AE)
|
Diverging
(CE/RO)
|
|
Abstract Conceptualization
—AC—THINKING
|
Converging
(AC/AE)
|
Assimilating
(AC/RO)
|
Learner Interactivity Preferences
“Interactivity is not simply a function of computer-based transactions, but a fundamental success factor for teaching and learning, especially when implemented in an online context. In most cases, regardless of any virtual community that exists, the learner will be working independently and therefore the effectiveness of those communications (interactions) will ultimately determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning environment” (Sims, Dobbs & Hand, 2001, p. 514).
The theory of learner interactivity preferences (developed by Rhodes and Azball in 1985) also has meaning to the course design team. Again, it is difficult to predict the actual preferences of future learners, but measures can be taken to promote all three levels within the course design. These three levels are reactive, co-active and proactive interactivity preferences in structure and presentation, which correspond to each learner’s cognitive activity. This theory described interactivity according to three different levels of quality. Later, other researchers added a fourth level, reciprocal interactivity (Sims, 1997; Sims, 2006). The four preferences are described on five functional levels through the following transactions: confirmation, pacing, navigation, inquiry, and elaboration.
Reactive interaction
A reactive interaction is a behaviourist response to presented stimuli, for instance, providing an answer to a question. This level of interaction within an online course structure shows very little learner control over content structure with program-directed options and feedback, the course components and activities are completely predetermined by the design team and instructor.
Co-active interaction
A co-active interaction preference means the learner prefers more opportunities for choice and setting the pace for their own learning. A co-active online course design allows more control, providing learner control for sequence, pace and style of interaction within the online environment.
Proactive interaction
“Proactive interaction is constructivist: the learner prefers to both construct and generate activities to support their learning. A proactive course design enables the learner’s actions to go beyond selecting available information and reacting to existing structures, and generate individual constructions and elaborations beyond the rules set up by the design team and instructor” (Sims, 1997, p. 160).
Reciprocal interaction
Reciprocal interaction preferences means the learner wants a dialogue-like, reciprocity- based interaction with the online course interface and participants. This sort of interaction is usually found only in designs where artificial intelligence or virtual reality are situated. In these learning environments, both learner and system reciprocally adapt to one other. This level of interaction is rare in online courses, but is anticipated to be much more feasible in the not so distant future.
Readiness for E-Learning
Design teams can help their prospective learners prepare for, or at the least assess their own readiness to learn within an online environment. Research supports this as a critical consideration, since an individual learner’s success in an online course often hinges on this foundation of readiness. Readiness entails three dimensions to assess: the learners’ computer or technical skill, learning skills, as well as their time management behaviours.
Design teams can help their prospective learners prepare for, or at the least assess their own readiness to learn within an online environment. Research supports this as a critical consideration, since an individual learner’s success in an online course often hinges on this foundation of readiness. Readiness entails three dimensions to assess: the learners’ computer or technical skill, learning skills, as well as their time management behaviours.
Computer/technical skills: The more experience a student has in using basic computer skills (use of networks, word processing and other software applications, ability to upload and download files, use of the World Wide Web and email, accessing online libraries and other resource databases, and experience with online forums and other discussion applications, the more ready they are to take an online course. Other foundational requirements include access to a stable Internet connection and dependable computer and printer.
Learning skills: Readiness is fortified by the ability to work independently, be self-motivated, possess mature reading and writing skills, and a proactive approach to learning, and a positive attitude.
Time management skills: Readiness is evident when a learner can safely plan blocks of time for participation and study within their existing lifestyle and commitments. Managing one’s time in order to complete an online course requires a respectable level of commitment and discipline.
Recommended online tools for gauging e-learning readiness
There are some excellent free online tools available for students to use (and design teams to examine) in gauging readiness for e-learning. Three highly recommended ones include:
-
Novosel, S. (2000). Readiness Index for Learning Online (RILO). Indiana University School of Nursing. nursing.iupui.edu/About/default.asp?/About/C TLL/Online/RILO.htm
-
Schrum, L. (2001). SORT: Student Online Readiness Tool. University of Georgia. www.alt.usg.edu /sort/
-
DeSantis, C. (2002). eLearners Advisor. University of Guelph. www.elearnersadvisor.com