Analysis of learning styles and ICT

Analysis of learning styles questionnaire and how it might affect how you learn or teach generally and in an ICT learning environment in particular. Do you agree with your profile?

After taking the VARK learning styles questionnaire (http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire), I got the following results:

• Visual: 6
• Aural: 8
• Read/write: 3
• Kinesthetic: 9

Apparently my learning preferences are multi-modal. I was surprised that I scored so high on kinesthetic learning, but the more i reflect on it the more it makes sense. It also makes sense that lectures work well for me because I'm a strongly aural learner. It could also explain why I like taking tutorials so much, because it involves conversation. However, my low score in read/write preference could be a problem for someone in academia who is required to do volumes of written research.

On reflection, my stronger preference for visual and kinsethetic learning is evident in the way that I teach. I prefer conversation, oral explanation, the occasional diagram/scribble and, when, I can, physical activity.

It is perhaps a good thing that my style is multi-modal because I am naturally inclined to use more than one teaching style. This also for the moment works well because read/write learners are also being catered to outside of the classroom (as the classroom is not their preferred place for learning anyway). Perhaps the reason I am attracted to teaching in the first place is my preference for these learning styles.

I am inclined to be enthusiastic about ICT because it seems to address the deficiency in tertiary teaching which is currently read/write and aural based. ICT allows for more visual and kinesthetic learning tools to be available - video and the creation and publication of video, tools like mindmeister that allow visual representation of ideas, even the act of blogging, which makes reflection a visual (colours, schemes design etc) as well as written exercise. Interactive websites that require students to move things around etc will also address kinesthetic learners to some extent (when they cannot be involved in physical space, they can be involved in virtual space).

Entry 2: Digital Natives Debate

The material for today on "digital natives" (Bennett, Maton, Kervin 2008) has caused me be to reflect on the different levels of technological literacy that must exist in my students. While Bennett et al criticise the 'moral panic' associated with the tech-savvy of the 'net generation', I am not convinced that the phenomenon of digital natives is not real. I agree with the authors that the generation gap is not as severe as some others (eg Prensky) suggest, but I think there can be large differences in the levels of familiarity and competency that different students have in regards to particular technologies. However, I think these differences can probably (as Bennett et al suggest) be more often attributed to socio-economic and cultural factors rather than age.

On the other hand, there appears to be some research suggesting that those belonging to the tech-savvy group may actually be changing the information processing habits by the level of their interactions with technology and multiple tasks (see the NY Times article in the previous post and also http://gazzaleylab.ucsf.edu/). Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist at the University of California certainly seems to think so. It will be interesting to see how this research develops and informs the way we think about education as reforming the pathways of the brain to process deep learning.

In the meantime, today’s class has shown that while this unit is directed towards how to integrate recent technology into our teaching, we need to reflect on whether there is an additional value to our students (who have different levels of technological engagement) in using such technologies over traditional teaching methods and avoid using technology "because we can".