Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides an overview of the conceptual and theoretical
framework that supports the study and examines the literature relevant to empirical
research on the problem.
The chapter is divided into 8 sections:
Section 1: Instructional design
Section 2: Instructional strategies
2.1 What is instructional strategy?
2.2 Organizational strategies
2.3 Delivery strategies
2.4 Management strategies
Section 3: Self-Directed learning
3.1 What is self-directed learning?
3.2 Characteristics of self-directed learners.
3.3 Self-Directed learning strategies for the learners.
3.4 Developing self-directed learners.
Section 4: Learning styles
4.1 What is learning style?
4.2 Models of learning and teaching style.
4.3 Dimensions of learning styles.
4.4 Characteristics of learners learning style.
4.5 Teaching techniques to address all learning styles.
Section 5: The study of epistemological beliefs
Section 6: The student-centered
Section 7: Individual differences
Section 8: Research on SDL and Learning style
8.1 Research on self-directed learning
8.2 Research on learning style
12
Section 1: Instructional Design
The instructional process, or teaching, has traditionally involved instructors,
learners, and text books. The content to be learned was contained in the text, and it
was the instructor’s responsibility to “teach” that content to the learners. Teaching
could be interpreted as getting content from the text into the head of learners in such a
way that they could retrieve the information for a test. With this model, the way to
improve instruction is to improve the instructor (i.e., to require the instructor to
acquire more knowledge and to learn more methods for conveying it to learners).
A more contemporary view of instruction is that it is a systematic process in
which every component (i.e., teacher, learners, materials, and learning environment)
is crucial to successful learning. This perspective is usually referred to as the system
point of view, and advocates of this position typically use the system approach to
design instruction.
A system is technically a set of interrelated parts, all of which work together
toward the defined goal. The parts of the system depend on each other for input and
output, and the entire system uses feedback to determine if its designed goal has been
reached. According to Edmonds et al. (1994), the system approach can be
characterized by an input-process-output paradigm, as follows:
Feedback
Conditions Methods Results
Information Actions Outcomes
Data Procedures Products
Environment Development Ideas
Figure 2 System approach model
PROCESS OUTPUT INPUT
13
How is this related to instruction? First, the instructional process itself can
be viewed as a system. The purpose of the system is to bring about learning. The
components of the system are the learners, the instructor, the instructional materials,
and the learning environment. These components interact in order to achieve the goal.
For example, the instructor views sample problems in the text book or manual with
the learners in quiet classroom. To determine whether learning is taking place, a test is
administered. This is the instructional system thermostat. If learner performance is not
satisfactory, then changes must be enacted to make the system more effective and to
bring about the desired learning outcomes.
The result of using the systems view of instruction is to see the important
role of all the components in the process. They must all interact effectively, just as the
parts in heating and cooling system must interact effectively in order to bring about
the desired outcomes. There is not an overemphasis of any one component in the
system, but a determination of the exact contribution of each one to the desired
outcomes. And it is clear that there must be both an assessment of the effectiveness of
the system in bringing about learning and a mechanism to make changes if learning
fails to occur.
Thus far, the instructional process has focused on the interactive component
of the process, namely, the time instructor and learners come together with the hope
that learning will occur. What about the preparation for the instructional process?
How the instructor does decide what to do, and when? It is not surprising that
someone with a system view sees the preparation, implementation, evaluation, and
revision of instruction as one integrated process. In the broadest systems sense, a
variety of sources provide input to the preparation of the instruction. The output is
some product or combination of products and procedures that are implemented. The
results are used to determine whether the system should be changed, and, if so, how.
Dick and Carey (2001) suggested the nine basic steps represent the
procedures that one employs when the systems approach is used to design the
instruction (Figure 3). This set of procedures is referred to as a systems approach
because it is made up of the interacting components, each having its own input and
output, which together produce predetermined products. Data are also collected about
the system’s effectiveness so that the final product can be modified until it reaches the
14
desired quality level. When instructional materials are being developed, data are
collected and the materials are revised in light of this data to make them as effective
and efficient as possible.
Figure 3 Dick and Carey systems approach model for designing instruction flowchart
Section 2: Instructional Strategies:
2.1 What is instructional strategy?
Instructional strategies consist of methods, procedures, and techniques using
by the teachers to present content to learners and leading to desired consequences
(Oliver, 2005).Instructional strategy resources come from : 1)Instructional objectives
2)Contents 3)Learners 4)Community and 5) Teachers.
In organizing an instruction, teacher will try in every ways to organize
learning procedures in order to help learners gained knowledge and changed their
behavior according to instructional objectives.
According to Reigeluth (1983) instructional strategies are composted of
three different aspects:
1. Organizational strategy characteristics
2. Delivery strategy characteristics and
3. Management strategy characteristics.
2.2 Organizational Strategies The predominant decisions that must be made at the lesson level are
organizational strategy decisions: What content should be presented? How should this
content be presented? What sequence should the instruction follow? One of these
characteristics is that the organization of a lesson should generally follow this pattern:
15
1. Introductions
2. Body
3. Conclusion
4. Assessment
Sometime assessment is not included in an individual lesson but is delayed
until a number of objectives across several lessons can be assessed at one time.
However, the other three sections of a lesson are commonly included in most
instructional theorists’ lists of the episodes that comprise a lesson organization. What
should be included the introduction, body, assessment, and conclusion. R. Gagne’
(1972) has suggested that lessons include nine “events of instruction”:
1. Gaining attention
2. Informing the learner of the objective
3. Stimulating recall of prerequisite learning
4. Presenting stimulus materials
5. Providing learning guidance
6. Eliciting performance
7. Providing feedback
8. Assessing performance
9. Enhancing retention and transfer
Traditionally, instruction in training environments, such as military training,
has included the following events:
1. Gain attention
2. Promote motivation
3. Give overview of lesson
4. Explain and demonstrate knowledge
5. Learner practice with supervision
6. Evaluation
7. Summary
8. Remotivation
9. Closure
When combined these two groups to suggest a list of expanded instructional
events that a lesson should include (Smith and Ragan, 1992):
16
Introduction
1. Activate attention to lesson (gain attention to lesson)
2. Establish purpose (inform learner of instructional purpose)
3. Arouse interest and motivation (stimulate learner’s attention)
4. Preview the lesson (provide overview)
Body
5. Recall relevant prior knowledge (stimulate recall of prior
knowledge)
6. Process information and example (present information and
examples)
7. Focus attention (gain and focus attention)
8. Employ learning strategies (Guide or suggest use of learning
strategies)
9. Practice (elicit response)
10. Evaluation feedback (provide feedback)
Conclusion
11. Summarize and review (provide summary and review)
12. Transfer learning (enhance transfer)
13. Re-motivate and close (provide re-motivation and closure)
Assessment
14. Assess performance (conduct assessment)
15. Evaluate feedback and seek remediation (provide feedback and
remediation)
2.3 Delivery Strategies
Delivery strategy decisions involve determining an appropriate medium (or
media) of instruction and determining grouping strategies. These selections may be
the same through all the events, or they may be varying from event to event. For
example introduction events might be represented via videotape to a large group;
events in the body of instruction through computer-based instruction in an
individualized format: and conclusion events with teacher and print in large
groups.( Smith and Ragan, 1993)
17
Media selection
The most common delivery strategy decision made at the lesson level
concerns the instructional medium or media (print, teachers, computers, etc.) that will
be used to deliver the instruction that was planned during the “determine
organizational strategies” phase. When possible, instructional designers need to enter
this portion of the lesson design process without an a priori decision as to the medium
that will be used to deliver instruction. By medium, we mean the physical means by
which the instructional message is communicated, such as television, print materials,
teacher or computer. Designers prefer to examine the demands of the instructional
situation first and then decide which medium or combination of media will best meet
the needs of situation.
Generally, the media selection decision is made after the instructional
analysis and at the time that the instructional strategy is being developed. This
approach to media selection is particularly critical to those designers who have the
capability or budgets to produce elaborate instructional materials, such as computer
software or video production. Too often these technologies become “solution looking
for a problem.” High technologies are still scarce resources in educational and
training settings. It is imperative that they be used well and only when they are the
best choice of instructional medium.
Characteristics of media
For several decades researchers have attempted to establish that certain
media are superior to other media for delivery of instruction. Generally, these studies
have operated in the absence of a theory base. Not surprisingly, these media
comparison studies have failed to establish the overall superiority of one medium over
all others. In other words, neither computers nor television nor texts nor use of a live
teacher is a generally superior way to conduct instruction. Clark and Solomon (1986)
conclude the following:” Past research on media has shown quite clearly that no
medium enhances learning more than any other medium regardless of learning task,
learner traits, symbolic elements, curriculum content, or setting”.
18
Despite the lack of a general superiority of one medium over others, we need
to continue to pay attention to the characteristics of media that make them more
appropriate for certain requirements of instruction. Instructional technologists have
investigated how specific capabilities of a medium may support specific cognitive
processes that are required for targeted learning tasks. For some years, theoreticians
have investigated single channel versus dual channel media, such as those that convey
both visual and auditory messages, questioning whether there is any superiority to
multimodal presentations. Contrary to earlier thinking, researchers in 1950s found
evidence for the superiority of single-channel presentations. More recent research led
to conclusions that whether single or dual channel presentations are most successful
depends on the learning task.
If one medium is no better than another, why do we not always choose the
cheapest, most available medium, such as books, for all instruction? Some media are
more capable than others of efficiently delivering the conditions that facilitate
learning for particular kinds of outcomes and particular learners. We call these
capabilities of a medium its attributes. So when we come to the point in design where
we must select a medium, we consider a number of factors:
1. The learning task along with the instructional conditions that facilitate
the learning of the task
2. The characteristics of the learners
3. The learning context and other practical matters that influence the
appropriateness of the medium
4. The attributes of the potential media (what each potential medium can
and cannot do with regard to the prior three factors).
Reiser and Gagné (1983) based their media selection flowchart on
decisions based on attributes of media and their relationships to learning task types.
19
Begin
Teach a Skill(Motor or Mental)
Go toBox F
Go toBox F
13.Either an
Attitude or verbalInformation ?
Candidate Media Portable Equipment Training Device Computer Interactive TV Motion picture Slide/Tape TV Cassette Filmstrip Printed Text Training Aid Audio Chart Overhead Projector Slides Instructor
17.Attitude ?
Teach verbalInformation
18. Will visuals help recall ?
D-4 Audio
14.Motor Practice
Necessary ?
16.Can the media in D-2 (below) provide adequate feedback?
15.Can the media in D-1
(below) provide adequate feedback?
D-1Portable equip. (a)Training device (a)
D-2Computer (a)Interactive TV
D-3Motion Picture
Slide/TapeTV Cassette
Yes
No Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Figure 4 A Portion of a Media Selection Flowchart
Source : Reiser & Gagné (1983)
20
Grouping strategies
Instructional design will always result in instruction that is to be delivered
individually. An important question to answer in delivery is “What grouping(s) of
students shall I use?” The selection of grouping may be determined on a highly
subjective basis. Thus the essential, we must know the grouping options available and
to know reasons that might be involved in selecting one option over another.
Because of the interaction among organizational strategies, media decisions,
and grouping strategies, these decisions are often made concurrently.
Types of groupings Gagné, Briggs, and Wager (1988) present four basic grouping patterns that
reflect variations in practice and differentiate primary interaction pattern alternatives
provided by different groupings: two-person groups (tutoring); small group
( interactive); small or large groups (recitation); and large groups and very large
groups ( lecture). Gagné, Briggs, and Wagner suggested that they would like to add a
fifth: individualized (adaptive) instruction, which is a grouping option even though
the “grouping” selected is one person.
Individualized instruction
In individualized instruction, the learner works alone with materials. A
primary characteristic of individualized instruction is that instruction may be adapted
to the needs and traits of the learner. One of the common adaptations of
individualized instruction is pace. Individualized instruction, learners proceed
independently at different rates, pursuing their learning without the necessity of
human tutor. Materials – based individualized instruction allows many students to
proceed individually in what is frequently a cost –effective fashion. Relatively recent
requirements of individualized instruction that have been made possible by computer
technology are learner control and adaptive instruction. In learner- controlled
instruction, individualization is provided for (1) when and what the student may study
and (2) how instruction will proceed. Learner control refers to given students control
over instruction strategy elements of the lesson. Adaptive instruction refers to
instructional delivery systems that change the form and content of instruction as a
result of analysis of student learning progress.
21
Group learning
Direct Teacher Input System (lecturing), Teacher Modification System
(lecturing with feedback), One Way System (reflective lecturing), and Two-Way
System (guide discovery) are all labels for technical descriptions of traditional lecture
techniques provided by Romiszowski (1981). The lecture, in one form or another,
delivered to either a medium-sized or large group is one of the most widely used
forms of instructional delivery in both schools and training agencies. Yet lectures,
particularly for large groups, are in some ways a very “individual” learning
experience.
Educators are increasingly capitalizing on the phenomena of group
development and maturation, techniques enhancing group productivity in ideation and
problem solving, and techniques of feedback use.
Reasons for selecting different groupings
1. Learning task consideration: What is the relationship between the nature of learning task and optimal
groupings? Many of the relationships suggested by the educators seem to possess
several exceptions to the rule, but they are suggestive of ways to begin thinking about
grouping decisions. Some beginning points include the use of cooperative learning for
learning rules, the time honored group problem -solving approach suggested by
Dewey (1924), and the use of individualized delivery for tasks in which there is
reason to expect a wide variation in learning rate.
Romiszowski (1981) suggests that facts may often be efficiently learned
through individual learning. This method may also be helpful for concept and
procedure learning. Principles, particularly social principles and principles
“discovered” through inquiry, are centrally appropriate to group leaning. Concepts
and procedures may also be learned in groups. Romiszowski argues that there is little
need for a group if one is learning factual material, but for learning of principles he
says that the opportunity to apply them in “analytical conversations” can be helpful
contribution that results from working in a group.
The selection of grouping may also be interacting with media selection
decisions, which are base on learning task factors. For example, inquiry and frequent
22
interactions are possible in individualized, computer-based instruction, particularly
via simulations and Socratic dialogue. Another example of the grouping-media bond
is in situations that require human interchange, such as attitude objectives. In this case,
group instruction is preferable because it is efficient and involves human interaction.
Subject matter can sometimes bring with it “natural” groupings. For example,
instruction in computer-related learning, such as programming and productivity
software use, is typically conducted in pairs or triads-a “cooperative learning
“environment.
Gerlach and Ely (1980) rest the primary decision making for groupings on
questions teachers would ask related to the learning tasks at hand:
1. Which objectives can be reached by the learners on their own?
2. Which objectives can be achieved through interaction among learners
themselves?
3. Which objectives can be achieved through your formal presentation and
through interaction between you and the learner?
The assumption Gerlach and Ely make is that all objectives that can be
reached through individualized instruction should be delivered via individualized
instruction. This is an assumption that various considerations, such as media options
available and other organizational factors, may contradict.
Learner characteristics
In addition to the learning task, learner factors may sometimes enter into
grouping decisions. Perhaps the single most important learner difference that impacts
on grouping decisions is Locus of control. Learner with a more internal locus of
control generally attributes their successes and failures to factors within themselves.
Learner with a more external locus of control tends to attribute their success or failure
to factors outside themselves.
Another learner factor that might influence grouping decisions is the degree
of variation in the prior knowledge and ability levels of the learners. When a wide
variation in learners’ knowledge and/or ability exists, then large group instruction is
generally not optimal. In such a case, the teacher tends to direct instruction to the
lower middle of the class, boring the brighter students and losing the less skilled
23
students. Two somewhat different grouping choices are available in such cases. One
choice is to use individualized instruction that can be designed to adapt to different
needs of learners. Individualized grouping is the most efficient and effective grouping
option available for a highly variable audience. However, often the resources for
development of individualized instruction are unavailable, and often the willingness
to make basic organizational changes necessary for individualization is not present.
Also, the tendency toward learner isolation evidenced in individualized instruction is
sometimes perceived as being undesirable. In such cases, the second choice,
cooperative learning groups, may be constructed. Membership in a cooperative group
is based on knowledge and skill level and, hopefully, compatibility. Such a group will
have some skilled and some less skilled learners. The group will be given a learning
task assignment that they must complete together with their combined skills.
Learners’ perceptions, experiences, skills, and preferences may also be
considered in determining grouping. For example, learners are often not skilled or
experienced in working in small groups. If small groups are clearly indicated as a
desirable grouping, then students must receive some training in working effectively in
groups. For the sake of motivation and interest, students’ preference for grouping
should be considered whenever possible. However, preference should not be the first
factor considered for two specific reasons.
1. Students who are inexperienced with a particular grouping may not
prefer a grouping strategy simply because they are unfamiliar with it.
2. Ample research has indicated that learner preferences are often not
highly predictive of strategy’s effectiveness.
Context factors
Facilities, equipments, and production capabilities available in the learning
setting can have a major impact on what groupings are employed. In many cases,
using analysis of both the learning task and learners will yield no prescription for
groupings; the task could be achieved individually or in group work. In such a case,
context variables may become the deciding factors in grouping decisions. These
variables involve the availability of learning spaces, instructional hardware/software,
and media production resources. For example, if a school has an individual learning
24
laboratory equipped with computers, some objectives that could employ group
instruction to provide sufficient interaction could be taught better using computer-
supported simulations. In another example, an institution might not have available
lecture halls or halls equipped properly to support the required visual presentations. In
such a case, small group presentation of such visuals may be required. The actual
physical characteristics of a facility may preclude a certain grouping. For example, a
large classroom with desks bolted to the floor may not permit small group work.
When learning outcomes are equally supported by more than one grouping alternative
in terms of efficiency , effectiveness , and appeal-and if facilities are available for
more than one grouping alternative-choices can legitimately be made on the basis of
economic and instructor factors. For example, costs may tip the decision to large
group instruction for certain objectives, but if no one is available or willing to prepare
and deliver the lectures, other groupings must be considered.
Teacher preferences and skill with certain grouping strategies often
influence the ultimate decision. Factors within the context, such as a teacher training
resources, aides, and management devises, may broaden these preferences.
Organizational strategy decisions and grouping decisions are also highly
interrelated. One difference among organizational strategies that can have a bearing
on grouping decisions is the expository versus inquiry choice. If an organizational
strategy is expository, there is generally no reason to select anything but
individualized approach ; however, if the strategy is an inquiry- related one, the need
for exploration, discussion, and application will frequently be present for cooperative
learning in small groups. Yet, this distinction is not flexible. Some highly effective
inquiry-based computer lessons have been designed.
A particularly insightful treatment of the interaction among grouping
decisions and other major instructional variables is provided by Gerlach and Ely
(1980). They have considered the interactions of grouping decisions with time, space,
media, and delivery strategy. Their model for instructional design, which addresses
these interrelationships, is presented in figure 5. As with media selection decisions,
grouping decisions can not be made on the basis of knowing which is the “best”
grouping and always using it. The “best” grouping strategy depends on many factors
and will therefore vary from event to event and lesson to lesson.
25
Specification ofCONTENT
Specification ofOBJECTIVES
Measurement ofENTERING
BEHAVIORS
Determination of
STRATEGY
Organization ofGROUP
Allocation ofTIME
Allocation ofSPACE
Selection ofRESOURCES
Evaluation ofPERFORMAN
CE
Analysis ofFEEDBACK
Figure 5 The Gerlach/Ely Model for Systematic Planning of Instruction.
Source : Gerlach&Ely (1980)
2.4 Management strategies Instructional management strategies are those strategies that guide the
orchestration of organizational and delivery strategies. These are the strategies that
guide the scheduling of instructional events and the mechanisms for delivering these
events. Management also coordinates the articulation among various delivery systems.
With the amount of assessment and scheduling information inherent in many
instructional systems, management strategies must also devise means of organizing
and reducing this information into interpretable units and getting this information to
26
the proper people in a timely fashion. Management strategies also involve techniques
for getting the instructional resources to the learners who need them.
At the micro level, these management decisions can be dealt with by the
teacher/trainer/facilitator. The teacher‘s guide is developed by the designer to give
critical information about the instruction to inform management decisions. It also
provides concrete instructional management suggestions that pertain to particular
segments of the instruction.
At the macro level, system of instructional management often needs to be
advised. During the 1960’s, as individualized instruction began to be considered a
viable option for instruction in public schools, it become apparent that some explicit
management systems were needed to manage such in the curriculum, as is possible
with individualized instruction, management strategies are critical if chaos is to be
avoided.
Plan
The Program of Learning in Accordance with Needs (PLAN) was developed
in the 1960s jointly by the American Institute for Research (AIR) and Westinghouse
Learning Corporation. An early example of computer- managed instruction (CMI),
PLAN employed mainframe computer to provide test scoring, diagnosis, prescription,
and reporting to aid teachers in keeping track of students within a curriculum and to
help them deal with the bewildering amount of data generated in an individualized
system. Teachers in PLAN schools received daily computer printouts that detailed the
progress of each student. Teaching Learning Units were prescribed by the computer,
which were cooperatively developed by teachers and students into a program of
studies.
AIS
The advanced Instructional Systems developed by McDonnell Douglas
Corporation in the 1970s is another example of individualization assisted by computer
management. The functions of AIS are similar to those provided by PLAN, except
that the AIS contains its own instructional materials authoring system and is currently
available commercially as computer software.
27
IPI
Robert Glaser of the University of Pittsburgh developed the individually
Prescribed Instruction system under his Research for Better Schools program. Key
features of the IPI approach include detailed diagnosis of students’ prior learning,
careful placement of students into curriculum entry points, and the use of pretests,
posttests, and “curriculum-embedded tests.” Under IPI, each pupil’s work is guided
by a written prescription and frequent communications between student and teacher.
The student works independently using prescribed materials, frequently using semi-
programmed instruction materials, workbooks, cassette tapes, and objects and
occasionally doing small group work. The teacher’s primary roles become those of
decision-maker, tutor, and evaluator, with extensive use of teacher aids for scoring
and tabulation.
LAPs
The idea of individualizing through Learning Activity Packets (LAPs) has
no particular source that we can find. The concept of the LAP is a simple one: The
materials that are needed for instruction are either included or specified in a print-
based packet. First, material is presented that orients students to a learning task
(providing for the Introduction events in our expanded instructional events). Then,
learners are either provided with learning materials or referred to something such as a
text, video, or filmstrip that will deliver the Body and Conclusion events. Third,
learners are provided with problems and feedback to those problems, unusually in the
form of print-based instruction. Finally, learners are directed to assessment
instruments, which are often distributed and monitored by a teacher or aide. The idea
of providing instruction either internally or by specification gives the LAP concept a
practical flexibility, which contributes to its widespread adoption.
28
Audio-tutorial instruction
The audio-tutorial instructional approach was developed in the early 1960s
by S.N. Postlethwait, a professor of botany at Purdue University. The approach
evolved in an experimental offering of Postlethwait’s introductory botany class. At
first, the professor provided tape-recorded lectures so that the students could listen to
them in audiovisual center. With use, it became apparent that it would be a good idea
for students to bring their texts so that they could refer to specific illustrations
discussed on the tape. The final evolution of the concept occurred when it was
realized that the tape recordings could be listened to in the laboratory so that the
actual plants under discussion could be handled and inspected. Experiment could be
performed by the student in the lab, as directed by the tape recording. Heinich,
Molenda, and Russell note (1989), “ Consciously or unconsciously, Dr. Postlethwait
had move his instructional technique from one focusing on abstract learning
experiences (lectures) toward a multimedia system emphasizing concrete
experiences-an integrated lecture-laboratory approach.”
PSI
A college teaching –based innovation developed by F.S. Keller in the 1960s,
the personalized system of instruction (PSI) has been wide adoption in colleges and
universities and has an excellent record of success. A key concept in PSI is mastery-
based individualized instruction, as facilitated by proctors- assistant instructors or
advanced students who volunteer their help. Proctors provide individualized help, test
administration, scoring, and immediate feedback and personalized assistance to the
student. The instructor for the course only occasionally conducts large group sessions,
which are generally motivational in purpose. PSI is a good example of the judicious
combining of grouping and other instructional factors into a general delivery strategy
of real merit. Keller’s PSI is not the only possible intelligent combination of delivery
strategy elements: others of your own devising may be just as good.
Section 3: Self-Directed Learning
The concept of self-directed learning originated in the field of adult
education (Roberson, 2005). In the literature, closely related terms include
29
independent learning, self-planned learning, autonomous learning, self-education, and
so forth (Hiemstra, 1996). Due to the benefits for learning outcomes, school
environments and corporate settings strongly emphasize the importance of self-
directed learning, including its value as a required skill needed for work in the 21st
century (Murane & Levy, 1996). Likewise, one of the most important tasks for
teachers is to enhance students’ abilities for accessing self-directed learning (Taylor,
1995).
3.1 What is self-directed learning?
Knowles(1973) defines self-directed as : a process in which individual take
the initiative, with or without the help of others, in designing their learning needs,
formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources of learning,
choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning
outcomes.
Guglielmino (1977) defined, a highly self-directed learner as: ...one who
exhibits initiative, independence, and persistence in learning; one who excepts
responsibility for his or her own learning and views problems as challenges, not
obstacles; one who is capable of the self-discipline and has high degree of curiosity;
one who has a strong desire to learn change and is self-confident; one who is able to
use basic study skill.
Grow (1991) viewed self-direction as a learner characteristic and “the degree
of choice that learners have within an instructional situation”
Knowles, 1975, Tough, 1979. Self-directed learning (SDL): a learning
process where learners have developed skills to have control over and input into their
own learning process and accomplish their education goals through their own engaged
learning activities.
3.2 Characteristics of a self-directed learners
Self-directed learners can exhibit key characteristics and/or fall under key
premises as defined by SDL (Hiemstra, 1994; Robotham, 1999; Areglado, Bradley, &
Lane, 1996; and Billington 1998), such as:
30
1. The ability to identify their own learning needs.
2. A positive view of their own learning capability based on past
experience.
3. The ability to set appropriate goals.
4. An expertise in selecting learning strategies, or even devising new
strategies for a particular situation.
5. The ability to be self-motivated and to be self-disciplined.
6. The flexibility in setting objectives and choosing learning strategies.
7. Awareness of how they learn, and their own learning strengths and
weaknesses.
8. Knowledge and skill in learning.
The literature described the characteristics of a self-directed learner as many
and varied; several characteristics interrelated. The following summarizes the general
aspects that appear in the literature (Knowles, 1975; Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991;
Candy, 1991; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991; Guglielmino & Guglelmino, 1991 and
Gibbons, 2002):
1. Independence. Self-directed learners are fully responsible people who can
independently analyze, plan, execute, and evaluate their own learning activities.
2. Self-management. Self-directed learners can identify what they need
during the learning process, set individualized learning goals, control their own time
and effort for learning, and arrange feedbacks for their work.
3. Desire for learning. For the purpose of knowledge acquisition, self-
directed learners’ motivations for learning are extremely strong.
4. Problem-solving. In order to achieve the best learning outcomes, self-
directed learners make use of existing learning resources and feasible learning
strategies to overcome the difficulties which occur in the learning process.
31
The PRO model
The four characteristics discussed above seem to construct a concept which
separates self-directed learners from others because self-directed learners will
autonomously control their own learning. Despite the autonomous nature of self-
directed learners, they need to interact with peers and fellow learners in order to
exchange valuable information (Brookfield, 1985).
Brocket and Hiemstra (1991) synthesized characteristics of self-directed
learning and conceptualized the PRO (Personal Responsibility Orientation) model.
This model recognizes both differences and similarities between self-directed learning
as an instrumental method and learner self-direction, which is based on personality
characteristics. As can be seen in Figure 6, the point of departure for understanding
self-direction is personal responsibility and empowerment. Personal responsibility
refers to individuals assuming ownership for their own thought and actions. This does
not necessarily mean control over all personal life circumstances or environmental
conditions, but it does mean people can control how they respond to situations.
Self-directed learning, the left side of the model, refers to the actual teaching
and learning transactions, or what refers to as those factors external to the adult
learner. Learner self-direction, the right side, refers to the personal orientation of the
individuals engaged in a learning process. This involves a learner’s personality
characteristics, or those factors internal to the individual such as self-concept.
32
Personal Responsibility
LearnerSelf-Direction
Self-directedLearning
Self-directionIn Learning
CharacteristicsOf the
Teaching-LearningTransaction
CharacteristicsOf Learning
Factors within the social context
Figure 6 The Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) Model
In terms of learning, it is an ability or willingness of individuals to take
control that determines any potential for self-direction. This means that learners have
choices about the directions they pursue. Along with this goes responsibility for
accepting any consequences of one’s thoughts and actions as a learner.
The PRO model’s final component is represented by the circle in Figure 5
that encompasses all other elements. While the individual’s personality characteristics
and the teaching and learning process are starting points for understanding self-
direction, the social context provides an arena in which the learning activity or results
are created. To fully understand self-directed learning activity, the interface existing
between individual learners, any facilitator or learning resource, and appropriate
social dimensions must be recognized. Thus Brockett and Hiemstra recommend that
self-direction in learning be used an umbrella definition recognizing those external
33
factors facilitating adults taking primary responsibility for learning and those internal
factors or personality characteristics that incline one toward personal empowerment or
accepting such responsibility.
3.3 Self-directed learning strategies for the learner
Learning to learn' is a crucial skill. SDL starts with learners becoming aware
of some need for learning. Through self-directed learning you can control what you
want to learn, how you want to learn and when you want to learn. The following skills
help you succeed at being a self-directed learner. Study them and think of your own
abilities. Are you able to question, inquire and solve problems, keep an open mind to
others' points of view, scan data and quickly choose relevant resources, collect data on
your performance through self-observation and feedback from others, assess your
present performance using that data, set goals to improve your personal performance,
observe and model others' performance to improve your own, make a firm
commitment to working on your goals, move through the full learning cycle,
continually motivate yourself ? Take note of the skills that you feel comfortable with
and also note which ones you would like to strengthen. Think of how you can work
on them and improve them. Then make a conscious effort to do it.
For the teacher (the facilitator of learning):
In most courses, teachers are concerned about helping students in a life-long
learning process, so that the student develops an interest in further learning and
provide base for concepts and skills that will facilitate further learning and thinking.
Modern teachers need to provide a variety of learning experiences for students. In the
first place, the concept should change from that of 'teacher' to that of 'facilitator of
learning', 'motivator' and 'designer of the learning situation' and sometimes join the
students honestly as a continuing co-learner. Creating an environment in which
students can learn effectively and efficiently is the core managerial role of teachers.
The following skills will help one succeed at being a 'facilitator of learning' (Knowles,
1975).
34
1. Climate setting: Get learners to become acquainted with one another as
persons and as mutual resources for learning. Help them to understand the concept of
self-directed learning, provide simple practicing skills and above all create an
atmosphere characterized by both mutual caring and support and intellectual rigor.
SDL can flourish only when learners and teachers see one another as mutually helpful
human beings.
2. Planning: Develop 'your' model of competencies (knowledge, skills,
attitudes and values) regarding the content of the course namely: a. The list of 'given'
objectives of the course , b. List of references containing information relevant to these
objectives, c. A list of 'inquiry units' specifying the kinds of questions with which the
course deals. Organize the contents needed to be covered into manageable units,
arrange these units in a logical sequence and introduce the most efficient means of
transmitting each unit (by assigned reading, audio-visual presentation etc.). Decide
about the procedures to be used, invite learners' suggestions at certain points, involve
them in the decision-making process, and delegate responsibilities to subgroups or
elected committees.
3. Diagnosing needs for learning: Start with a model of the competencies
the particular learning experience should be concerned with. Present it in such a way
that the learners will feel free to change it or build upon it, realistically and non-
threateningly assess gaps between their present level of development of the
competencies and the level required by the model.
4. Setting goals: Translate the diagnosed needs into learning objectives that
are clear, feasible, meaningful and appropriate by suggesting changes constructively.
5. Designing a learning plan: Propose guidelines for designing a learning
plan; expose them to resources and strategies, for using resources that they may not
know about, suggest mechanisms (e.g. Consultation teams) to facilitate their helping
one another in designing their plans.
35
6. Engaging in learning activities: Make yourself available to subgroups
and individuals as a consultant and resource as they plan and carry out their learning
activities. Take up the responsibility of assuring quality performance of the learning
activities.
7. Evaluating learning outcomes: Evaluation is done not primarily by the
teacher but by mutual assessment of self-controlled evidence. Make the right
judgments about the adequacy of the evidence of accomplishment of the learner's
objectives and the adequacy of their criteria and means for validating their evidence.
Present these judgments in such a way that they will enhance rather than diminish the
learner's self-concepts as self-directed persons.
3.4 Developing self-directed learners
Self-direction can be learned and it can be taught. Regan (2003)
recommends that it is necessary to examine what motivates students toward self-
directed learning. Students need specific guidance and feedback to motivate them
towards SDL, which is not consistent with the philosophical basis of SDL and may
lead to inconsistency amongst teachers in the facilitation of this process.
The first responsibility of a facilitator of learning is to help students develop
competence as self-directed learners. Different students have different abilities to be
self-directed. Many students find that the idea of self-learning for the first time is so
strange that they become over anxious. They have been so conditioned to having
teachers tell them what they are to learn and how, that they become confused and
worried when confronted with the responsibility of thinking through what they want
to learn and how they will go about learning it. A good teacher is one who motivates
students and encourages student to develop on their own.
Optional strategies that might use for doing this:
1. Ask the students individually (preferably, before classes start) to study a
topic on their own, coming to you only when they want help.
36
2. You could team the students up into small groups and ask them to pursue
the topic independently as teams, coming to you only when they need
help.
3. You could involve all of a given group of students to pursue the
specified subject, coming to you only when they need help and having
them analyze their experience
Section 4: Learning Styles
4.1 What is learning style?
The idea that people learn differently is venerable and probably had its
origin with the ancient Greeks (Wratcher, Morrison, Riley & Scheirton, 1997).
Educators have, for many years, noticed that some students prefer certain methods of
learning more than others. These dispositions, referred to as learning styles, form a
student's unique learning preference and aid teachers in the planning of small-group
and individualized instruction (Kemp, Morrison & Ross, 1998).
The phrase “learning style’ first came into use when researchers began to
search for specific strategies for matching course presentation and materials to
students’ needs. Educators and psychologists have recognized that understanding the
ways in which students learn is a key element to education improvement.
Rita and Kenneth Dunn define learning style as the way in which individuals
began to concentrate on, process, internalize, and retain new and difficult information
(Dunn & Dunn, 1992, 1993, 1999; Dunn, Dunn, & Perrin, 1994).
Keefe and Ferrell (1990)“A complexes of related characteristics in which the
whole is greater than its parts. Learning style is a gestalt combining internal and
external operations derived from the individual’s neurobiology, personality and
development, and reflected in learner behavior”
Felder and Silverman’s(1988) definition of learning styles, which is denoted
as preferences in the manner that individuals receive and process information.
Stewart and Felicetti (1992) define learning styles as those "educational
conditions under which a student is most likely to learn."
37
Morrison, Ross and Kemp (2004) define learning styles as the characteristics
individuals demonstrate when undertaking learning tasks and processing information.
Kolb (1976) contends that learning styles are the unique learning method
that learners demonstrate during the learning process.
Biggs (1994) identifies learning styles as the way in which students go about
their academic tasks, thereby affecting the nature of learning outcome.
Grasha (1996) has defined learning styles as, "personal qualities that
influence a student's ability to acquire information, to interact with peers and the
teacher, and otherwise participate in learning experiences".
Silver & Hanson (1986). Learning style is a reflection of one’s choice of
preferred functions for perception (how data are perceived or collected), and how
these same data are judged and mentally processed, i.e., how the individual comes to
conclusions about the meaning and importance of specific data.
From above mentioned a tentative definition of learning style could be a
person’s characteristics and the unique learning method that each learner prefers to
learning, thinking or solving problems in classroom .How does this definition relate to
other important, related concepts like personality or learning strategies? One might
visualize these complex relationships in this way (Figure 7):
Figure 7 Relationships of personality, learning style, learning strategies and
technique/tactics (Luciano Mariani ,1996)
38
At the very top we might place personality-the very general basic individual
character structure. Future down the line we meet learning styles-how personality
works in a learning context, for example in the classroom; styles reflect the
individuals consistent and preferred learning approach, an approach which he or she
exhibits time and time again, in a wide range of situations and contexts-and not
necessarily in school contexts. A person’s style affects the kinds of learning strategies
that he or she will use-in other words, if you tend to prefer certain strategies on a
rather permanent basis, this means that you are probably using a particular learning
style. Finally, a learning strategy consists of a cluster of tactics or techniques, this
being the only visual level, what we see when we look at what a learner actually does
in the classroom.
As we move from the bottom to the top of this line, we move from specific
to general, and we also move from less stable, more modifiable personal qualities to
more stable, less modifiable features.
4.2 Models of learning & teaching style
Under the rubric of “learning style” one finds a baffling array of research
and rhetoric which unquestioningly has profound implications for educational
planning. Claxton and Ralston (1978, p 19) reviewed a number of salient studies on
this amorphous topic and organized their discussion of the literature into two basic
categories: research which focuses on “observing how people perceive and respond to
stimuli in their environments.” Which is referred to as cognitive style; and research
which grows out of psychological tests and (on) observations of how students behave
and interact in classroom,” which is termed student response style. The distinction
between generic cognitive styles and student behavior has the appeal of being
empirically sound, as well as theoretically useful, and will therefore be adopted as the
organizing framework for the discussion of the learning style models.
Partridge (1983) has classified learning style models that proposed by
educators and psychologists into 3 groups namely:
39
1. Cognitive Styles.
2. Student Response Styles.
3. Integrated models of learning style.
Cognitive Styles
This dimensions or models of cognitive style were generated by different
researchers. The cognitive style research that is most relevant to college teaching has
been done on the dimensions of: 1) field independence-dependence 2) impulsivity-
reflection, and 3) preceptive /receptive-systematic/intuitive.
Student Response Styles
The research on student response style focuses specifically on how students
behave and interact in classroom settings. There are 3 most prominent models, those
developed by Mann and others(1970) , Mann Model was developed and this model
clusters student into 8 categories:1)compliant students,2)anxious-dependent
students,3) discouraged workers, 4) independent students, 5)heroes , 6) snipers, 7)
attention seekers, and 8) silent students. Stern (1966) has developed the three
categories of student behavior: 1) authoritarian, 2) antiauthoritarian, 3) rational. The
Grasha-Riechmann Model (1974) focuses on students’ attitude toward: learning,
classroom procedures, teachers and peers. Three bipolar dimensions are concluded
Integrated Models of Learning Style
The integrated model described below differ from the preceding models in
that they are derived from an eclectic approach incorporating learning theory,
individual development, and personality types. Examples of these models are Myers
and Briggs and Kolb. The Myers-Briggs model (1967 cited in Krause, 2000) is based
on Jung’s theories of behavior. “That there are two ways of perceiving- by sensing or
by intuition-and two ways of judging- by thinking or by feeling. In addition to
whichever of these processes an individual prefers, there will be accompanying
40
preference for introversion or extroversion. The Kolb Model (1976) also utilizes the
Jungian concepts and focuses primarily on experiential learning .Four prevalent
learning styles have been identified using these instrument: 1) The convergers, 2)The
divergers,3) The assimilators, and 4) The accommodators.
Since, a variety of learning style instruments has been used, so that grouping
these researches with different learning style, it might be worth. Curry (cited in O’
Conner, 1997) has classified learning style into 3 levels, likes the layers of an onion.
Randall (2004) has used the layers of an onion as a metaphor for the
different levels of a person’s learning style into 4 levels as follows:
1. The first layer or the core is Personality models of learning style deal
with the basic characteristics that a person brings to the learning situation. Personality
characteristics are the most stable and the least subject to change in response to
intervention by researcher or instructor. Personality models include:
1.1 Field dependence and independence;
1.2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator;
1.3 Reflectivity versus impulsivity models;
1.4 Omnibus Personality Inventory; and
1.5 The Holland Typology of Personality.
From the above mentioned, Myers and Briggs Type Indicator is a very
popular instrument for most of researcher or instructor.
2. The second layer of the learning style onion is the person’s information
processing style. Information process models of learning styles deals with how people
take in and process information. Information processing models include:
2.1 Comprehensive learners versus operation learners;
2.2 Conceptual versus factual learner (sequencing of information)
models;
2.3 Deep elaborative versus shallow-reiterative models;
2.4 Kolb’s Model of Experiential Learning;
2.5 Gregorc model; and
2.6 Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple intelligences.
41
3. The third layer of learning style onion is the person’s social interaction
styles. Students learn better in a setting that meet their social-emotional needs and in
social situations that are attuned to their predominant pattern of behavior. Social-
interaction models of learning styles include:
3.1 Mann’s Research based on personality clusters;
3.2 Grasha-Reichman Student Learning Style Scales;
3.3 Furmann-Jacobs model; and
3.4 Eison’s learning and Grade orientation.
4. The final layer of the learning style onion is the person’s instructional
preference and learning environment. Instructional style models are concerned with
students’ preference for particular teaching methods. Instructional style models of
learning styles include:
4.1 Cognitive mapping;
4.2 Canfield Learning Style Inventory.
4.3 Dunn&Dunn.
The traits identified by the different learning style measures are not discrete
and each level influence s the other. Nevertheless, information from learning styles
can help faculty become more sensitive to diversity among students. In particular, this
information can help faculty to design a broad range of learning experiences to meet
the needs of the varied learning styles of students. Perhaps most importantly, in a self-
directed learning situation, learning style information can help student to become a
better student. The more students know about their own styles, the better they can
study and thus also increase their chances of succeeding. Learning style information
gives students a greater appreciation of their strengths and helps them become more
deliberate in their learning.
From the group of research as mentioned above, researcher has adopted
Personality model of Myers and Briggs Type Indicator which is based on Jung’s
theory for the purpose of this study. The first reason is that this model is the
personality model that is less susceptible to change in legal educational environment,
and this model has been widely used in research in over 100 research studies. In
addition, Myers and Briggs model has more different from the other, that is, (Krause,
2002)
42
1. Perhaps the biggest difference in this model from most is that it does not
identify a learner as only one type, but emphasizes that each of us has some amount of
ability in each type of learning. It helps us to identify and concentrate on our strongest
type, while it shows us how to build skills in the less strong areas.
2. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it deals with not only how we
take in new information, as most other “learning style” model do, but what we do
with the information once it is inside. The best known models of learning styles (the
best known is from Dunn and Dunn at St.John’s University, and variations on their
work) deal with the environment in which we study best, and the shape of the
information, as in auditory, visual, or tactile kinetic. This model describes
environmental preferences, and how information is taken in, but *not* what the
learner does with the information, cognitively. Without mulling it around inside the
brain somehow, we can’t learn.
4.3 Characteristics of learners’ learning styles
Krause (2002) suggests 4 types of learner’s characteristics and their study
techniques which are very useful for instructional strategies.
1. Sensor Thinker: The ST learner
The ST learner work from details to the concept, using concretes, models,
and “manipulative” where possible. He needs to be able to pick things up, turn them
around and inside out. He needs the material to be organized, and step by step. The
ST typically prefers to memorize and repeat what has been learned, and may not be
comfortable when presented with new types of tasks without explicit directions.
The sensor thinker (ST) is closed to Dunn and Dunn’s analytical learner, and works in
an organized fashion, methodically and stepwise.
The ST student learns best alone, by repetitious drill and practice, and has a
profound need for feedback on his work. Answers are either right or wrong, and the
ST student may be easily frustrated by discovery learning where there is no clearly
defined path to the correct result. ST’s memorized well, and does not best in recall
tests. The ST student is advised to study alone, in a well structured area, desk and
chair, with no distractions, and to do repeated example problems and exercises.
43
Complex concepts should be broken into step or small pieces, and each piece
mastered before going on to the next. Large quantities of information may be
tabulated on flash cards, and some stepwise progression devised to facilitate learning.
The ST is the classic student for which American schools have been structured for
most of this century, and the population from which Dunn emphasizes most of
American teachers have come, perhaps they enjoyed success in school under the
structure imposed.
ST Study Techniques
First, ST learner will probably be most comfortable studying alone, in a
place that is quiet and free distractions. They also probably like good lighting and
conventional table and chair. If they want music on be sure that it is instrumental only,
nothing with words. It also should not be anything with which they have strong
memories or personal connections. Many students find that Mozart’s instrumental
works are good study music.
Next’s learner need study area to be well organized. Be sure they have
begun. If they will need a calculator, for example, get it out before they start. Their
pencils should be sharpened, their light at angle they like, in short, everything set the
way they like, before they begin.
As for the material itself, begin reading at the beginning of the chapter,
taking care to assemble the details in order. Take notes while they are reading, either
in outline form, or as numbered listed s of facts. Every so often, perhaps every 5 to 10
minutes, or by sections in the text, stop and review what they have done so far. Don’t
let too much time go by before these little reviews, no more than 10 minutes. If there
are problems to be worked, work a few of them each time they stop. If there are
vocabulary words or terms, practice spelling the words, writing them out with the
definitions a number of times until they know them well.
For difficult material, they may find it helpful to make up flash cards of the
important terms or concepts as they study, that they can carry with them for added
review as they wait online for meals or whatever odd moments.
44
Break the material into manageable pieces, and work to get one piece down
at a time, before they go on to the next piece. Remember, they are working to
understand the material, not to just be able to regurgitate it.
If there are complex calculations to work:
1. Lay out a sample problem on evenly lined paper, preferably quadrille.
2. Identify the steps they go through to solve the problem, and what happens
to each variable in the process.
3. Write out instructions for each step, not in terms of “plug and play” but in
terms of the meaning of each variable.
4. Remember they are learning to solve the problems, not just plug numbers
into an equation.
5. After they have done this, practice solving similar problems, and
problems where different variables are given, where they must solve for different
variables than in the sample problem.
6. Look at word problems from the chapter, and practice setting up the
problems according to their steps.
For the ST learner, practice makes perfect. Just be sure they practice each of
the many different types of problems, not all the same type. Some parts of the ST and
SF study skills are quite similar because both ST’s and SF’s are concrete learners. The
major differences lie in ST’s doing best alone, and SF’s doing best with company. If
learners are an ST and their best friend are an SF, they will need to be tactful in
telling them that their study best alone, but after they have it down, the two of them
can work together on practice problems and drills.
2. Sensor Feeler: The SF learner.
The sensor feeler is a concrete learner, and is the students for whom
cooperative learning is made to order. The SF learners like to talk about what they are
learning. They need to process information orally, and learning best if they can relate
personally to the content.
SF students often “get in trouble” in the classroom for talking too much. The
student and the teacher need to recognize the reason for the need to talk, and find
opportunities for the student to talk about the content. The student can recognize that
45
it’s normal for the way she learns, and learn to discipline the drive until an appropriate
time. The teacher should build exercises that permit students’ talking with one another
(cooperative learning) into the lesson plans.
The process of talking through new material is important. In talking about
the new stuff, the SF learner is using the new words, and forming her own sentences
to build the concept. This is a different cognitive process than just listening to
someone else talk about it or even writing it out.
When attempting to process complex content, the SF must talk it through
and studies best with another learner.
The SF should break large tasks into several small steps, and find a means of
relating to the content. She may create a story line or example problem using friends’
and family members’ name s, or take part in a play or game.
Both SFs and STs need to learn sequentially, building from the known to the
unknown with manipulative where possible. Constructivist theories hold well for both
ST’s and SF’s , in that the learning is built stepwise from basic to concept, and that
the students build their own learning based on their own experiences.
SF Study Techniques
The SF learner likes to talk things through, and wants to know how the
material at hand affects her life. How is it like something familiar and comfortable?
They are functioning when they identify themselves on personal level with the
material or subject.
The SF learner generally learns best when working with another SF learner.
She needs to talk through the material. What happens is a specific cognitive process,
where the SF is forming sentences about the content, using the vocabulary and saying
something. Sometimes they will not be completed sentences, frequently at first they
won’t make a lot of sense or strictly correct, but the sentences must be made and must
be spoken out loud. The correctness and sense will come later as understanding
improves.
Teachers tell their SF student that if they study alone, talks to themselves.
Talk to the walls. Talk to a mirror. Call their mother and tell them about it. She
46
doesn’t have to understand it, but she will be glad to here from you (and know you are
studying) anyway!
When they begin new material, begin reading at the beginning of the chapter,
taking care to assemble the details in order. Take notes while they are reading, either
in outline form, or as numbered lists of facts. Every so often, perhaps every 5 to 10
minutes, or by sections in the text, stop and review what they have done so far. At this
point, stop and talk about what they have read, explain the concepts. When they think
they understand it thoroughly, write out a paragraph explaining it to a 5 to 7 year old
child. (They don’t have to have one of these children as a study assistant; an
imaginary friend will do nicely!). Don’t let too much time go by before these little
reviews, no more than 10 minutes. If there are problems to be worked, work a few of
them each time they stop. If there are vocabulary words or terms, practice spelling the
words, writing them out with the definitions a number of times until they know them
well.
Break the material into manageable pieces, and work to get one piece down
at a time, before they go on the next piece. Remember, they are working to understand
the material, not to just be able to regurgitate it.
If there are complex calculations to work:
1. Lay out a sample problem on evenly lined paper, preferably quadrille.
2. Identify the steps they go through to solve the problem, and what
happens to each variable in the process.
3. Write out instructions for each step, not in terms of “plug and play” but
in terms of the meaning of each variable.
4. Remember they are learning to solve the problems, not just plug
numbers into an equation.
5. After they have done this, practice solving similar problems, and
problems where different variables are given, where they must solve for
different variables than in the sample problem.
6. Look at word problems from the chapter, and practice setting up the
problems according to their steps.
Some parts of the ST and SF study skills are quite similar because both ST’s
and SF’s are concrete learners. The major differences lie in ST’s doing best alone, and
47
SF’s doing best with company. If they are an SF and their roommate is an ST, they
will need to accept their need for quiet, and not try to talk to them while they are
studying. Find another SF to study with.
3. Intuitive Thinker: The NT Learner
The NT is a thinker, dwelling mostly on the abstractions, and therefore
approaches concepts first, before the trivia of the details. The intuitive thinker (NT) is
characterized by logic, patterns and understanding, needs to process new material
alone before discussion, and must see the overall picture prior to processing details to
enhance understanding. When studying alone, the NT should first look over new
material to get the overall picture. Once the global concept is grasped, the pieces fit in
naturally.
Mnemonics and other memory devices. Since NT's often do not memorize
well or easily (that is, if the ST is not a subdominant), they must understand the
concepts in order to figure out what they will not otherwise recall.
The intuitive learners, NT and NF, work most effectively in the abstract, and
need to begin new material with a global perspective. This direction is foreign for
most educators, so the intuitive learner will generally be assisted by reading the
material prior to class in order to glimpse the whole concept for a starting point.
The NT is perhaps ideally suited for a career in research sciences, but often
does not find academic success early due to natural dislike of repetition and
memorization which is so characteristic of our schools.
NT Study Techniques
The NT learner spends much of the early educational experience frustrated.
Often perhaps considered (usually inappropriately)"late bloomers" educationally, the
NT needs to know the destination before planning the trip. Many of us are haunted by
memories of a teacher's litany, "We have to build the foundation before we put the
roof on the house!"
48
The NT learner needs to see the overall concept first. Begin a new chapter
by looking at the abstract on the first page, then turn to the end of the chapter and look
for the summary. Read the summary to get an idea of what major ideas will be
covered in the chapter, and how they all fit together. They might also want to look
over the pictures, read the captions, and especially any charts and tables. Charts will
often show the relationships between variables.
After they have a rough idea of the overall concepts, then go back to the
beginning of the chapter and read it through. They may need to reread sections after
they get to the end to help fit the pieces together, since most texts are not written with
their "whole to part" learning patterns favored. As they read, attend to where these
details fit into the overall concepts they picked up from the summary.
Take notes while they read. They will likely find their notes full of pictures
and diagrams which show the patterns in the information. Lines and arrows are
meaningful to the NT, and help to order the content into the 3 dimensional patterns of
reality. When they encounter calculations, look at the variables and at what is
happening to each variable in each step of the calculation. See in their minds eye what
is being calculated, in terms of real stuff, or what is begin changed in the system of
details first, building to concept, which is the exact opposite to what the NT needs to
do.
NT's may or may not care to work in groups, but rather consistently prefer to
do it alone first, then to come into the group once they thoroughly understand what
needs to be done and how to do it. NT's should therefore attend to their own behavior
and try NOT to take over the group, which is a natural tendency, since they already
have determined how to accomplish the task. For this reason, NT's make good tutors
in a peer group, explaining the physical and three dimensional concepts the ST's and
SF's may have initial difficulty seeing.
49
4. Intuitive Feeler: The NF Learner
The intuitive feeler is the creative learner. Often lacking aptitude for both
logic and memorization, (if NT or ST are not sub-dominant) most at home in the
abstract, the NF represents the greatest risk for non-completion of the educational
process. The NF learns best through metaphor, building new learning on a structure of
comparison with some other known concept, no matter how far afield.
The NF student should look for another situation in which the same "rules"
apply, as apply to the concept being studied. "How is an internal combustion engine
like a rock band?" has meaning for the NF, who will see connections between the
various energy sources and sounds in the two contexts, and thereby enhance them
understanding of internal combustion engines.
NF's are the most inventive. Albert Einstein was undoubtedly NF. Who but
an NF would picture himself riding on a beam of light through space, wondering what
they would see? NF's are perhaps the world's greatest resource of new technologies
and ideas. Unfortunately, too many of them do not succeed in school to get to the
point of contributing to the extent of their potential.
NF's often relate very strongly to "causes," and may be active in efforts to
save the whales, the trees, mankind or the ozone layer.
The NF learner may perhaps be described as marching to a different
drummer. Non NF's must realize "those who can't hear the music think the dancer is
crazy. " The teenagers may dress differently than the majority of their peers, matching
a small number of others who enjoy feeling that they are different from most, they are
unique. Current styles of NF "non-conformity" are reflected in baggy pants, long
skirts worn with heavy black or maroon boots or sandals, body piercing or tattoos.
This is not to say that destructive behavior should be condoned because the reasons
are understood. The NF may be encouraged away from destructive behavior if more
success is found in acceptance of inward differences. All teenagers conform to some
group. NF's conform to a much smaller group.
50
A warning to teachers, parents and counselors is relevant. It is currently
"cool" in this group to be depressed. Permitting and encouraging creative outlets and
metaphorical reasoning, and permitting a modicum of "daydreaming" can go a long
way in bringing the NF dominant to a happier place.
NF Study Techniques
The NF learner is the most unique, and the least understood in most
academic environments. Global in perspective and poetic in nature, the NF needs to
see the whole picture at the beginning, to get an overall view of the idea.
As the NT, the NF learner needs to see the overall concept first. Begin a new
chapter by reading the abstract in the first pages, then turn to the end of the chapter
and look for the summary. Read the summary to get an idea of what major ideas will
be covered in the chapter. Look over the pictures, read the captions, and especially
any charts and tables to get a feel for how the information fits together.
After they have a rough idea of the overall concepts, then go back to the
beginning of the chapter and read it through. They may need to reread sections after
they get to the end of each to help fit the pieces together, since most texts are not
written with their "whole to part" learning patterns favored. As they read, attend to
where these details fit into the overall concepts they picked up from the summary.
As they read, take notes in whatever form is meaningful to them. Their notes
might be mostly pictures and diagrams, but they do need to include the important
vocabulary to nail the content in a shape that they will need to communicate their
understanding to others.
When it is necessary for them to recall details, they can try this colorful
technique. Write out the equation or diagram or structure they will have to recall on a
fresh page. Then retrace the lines with another pen, then a pencil, then a variety of
colored writing implements, colored pens, pencils, crayons, or markers. Each time,
carefully trace the lines in the same order each time. Later, when they need to recall it,
51
they should find they can look up into space, or close their eyes, "see" the image, and
read it right off the image of the page in their mind.
Find metaphors for the larger concepts to help them to build understanding
for how things work. They probably find themselves saying things like "That's just
like ... but this has A and that has B." These metaphors are beneficial constructs and
very helpful to them, even though their study partners see them as diversions.
Eventually they will have to work through calculations. They may be able to
"see" the 3 and 4 dimensional changes that are taking place as the equation describes
what is happening. They may imagine themselves inside the changes taking place.
Imagination is one of their strongest tools. Use their imagery and
metaphorical reasoning in creative study sessions. Work towards developing a depth
of understanding of the concepts. Teachers and even an occasional Professor may be
pleased to accept creative adaptations of routine assignments. Just clear their ideas
first to ensure they get full credit.
4.4 Dimensions of Learning Style
Learning in a structured educational setting may be thought of as two-step
process involving the reception and processing of information. In the reception step,
external information (observable through the senses) and internal information (arising
introspectively) become available to students, who select the material they will
process and ignore the rest. The processing step may involve simple memorization or
inductive deductive reasoning, reflection or action, and introspection or interaction
with others. The outcome is that the material is either “learned” in one sense or
another or not learned. (Felder, 1988)
A learning style model classifies students according to where they fit on
number of scales pertaining to the way they receive and process information, as well
as teaching style model, which classifies instruction method according to how well
they address the proposed style components.
52
A student’s learning style may be defined in large part by the answers to five
questions:
1. What type of information does the student preferentially perceive: sensory
(external)—sights, sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive (internal) –possibilities,
insights, hunches?
2. Through which sensory channel is external information most effectively
perceived: visual—pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or auditory—words,
sounds? (Other sensory channels—touch, taste, and smell—are relatively unimportant
in most educational environments and will not be considered here.)
3. With which organization of information is the student most comfortable:
inductive—facts and observation are given, underlying principles are inferred or
deductive—principles are given, consequences and applications are deduced?
4. How does the student prefer to process information: actively—through
engagement in physical activity or discussion, or reflectively—through introspection?
5. How does the student progress toward understanding: sequentially—in
continual steps, or globally—in large jumps, holistically. Teaching style may also be defined in term of the answers to five questions:
1. What type of information is emphasized by the instructor: concrete-
factual, or abstract-conceptual, theoretical?
2. What mode of presentation is stressed: visual-pictures, diagrams, films,
demonstrations or verbal-lectures, readings, discussions?
3. How is the presentation organized: inductively-phenomena leading to
principles, or deductively-principles leading to phenomena?
4. What mode of student participation is facilitated by the presentation:
active-students talk, move, reflect or passive-students watch and listen?
5. What type of perspective is provided on the information presented:
sequential-step-by-step progression (the trees), or global-context and relevance (the
forest)?
53
Preferred Learning Style Corresponding Teaching Stye
Sensory
Perception
Intuitive
Visual
Input
Auditory
Inductive
Organization
Deductive
Active
Processing
Reflective
Sequential
Understanding
Global
Sequential
Perspective
Global
Active
Student
Participation passive
Inductive
organization
Deductive
Visual
Presentation
Verbal
Concrete
Content
Abstract
Figure 8 Dimensions of learning style
4.5 Teaching techniques to address all learning styles (Felder, 1988 )
1. Motivate learning. As much as possible, relate the material being
presented to what has come before and what is still to come in the same course, to
material in other courses, and particularly to the students’ personal experience
(inductive/global).
2. Provide a balance of concrete information (facts, data, real or
hypothetical experiments and their results) (sensing) and abstract concepts (principles,
theories, mathematical models) (intuitive).
3. Balance material that emphasizes practical problem-solving
methods (sensing/active) with material that emphasizes fundamental understanding
(intuitive/reflective).
54
4. Provide explicit illustrations of intuitive patterns (logical inference,
pattern recognition, generalization) and sensing patterns encourage all students to
exercise both patterns (sensing/intuitive). Do not expect either group to be able to
exercise the other group’s processes immediately.
5. Follow the scientific method in presenting theoretical material.
Provide concrete examples of the phenomena the theory describes or predicts
(sensing/ inductive); then develop the theory or formulate the mod
(intuitive/inductive/ sequential); show how the theory or mod can be validated and
deduce its consequences (deductive/sequential); and present applications
(sensing/deductive/sequential).
6. Use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches liberally
before, during, and after the presentation of verbal material (sensing/visual). Show
films (sensing/visual.) Provide demonstrations (sensing/visual), hands-on, if possible
(active).
7. Use computer-assisted instruction—sensors respond very well to it
(sensing/active).
8. Do not fill every minute of class time lecturing and writing on the
board. Provide intervals—however brief—for students to think about what they have
been told (reflective).
9. Provide opportunities for students to do something active besides
transcribing notes. Small-group brainstorming activities that take no more than five
minutes are extremely effective for this purpose (active).
10. Assign some drill exercises to provide practice in the basic
methods being taught (sensing/active/sequential) but do not overdo them
(intuitive/reflective/ global). Also provide some open-ended problems and exercises
that call for analysis and synthesis (intuitive/reflective/global).
11. Give students the option of cooperating on homework assignments
to the greatest possible extent (active). Active learners generally learn best when they
interact with others; if they are denied the opportunity to do so they are being
deprived of their most effective learning tool.
12. Applaud creative solutions, even incorrect ones (intuitive/global).
55
13. Talk to students about learning styles, both in advising and in
classes. Students are reassured to find their academic difficulties may not all be due to
personal inadequacies. Explaining to struggling sensors or active or global learners
how they learn most efficiently may be an important step in helping them reshape
their learning experiences so that they can be successful (all types).
Section 5: The Study of Epistemological Beliefs
Epistemology (Theory of knowledge)
Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified
belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following
questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are
its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified
belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the
concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal
or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about
issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular
areas of inquiry.
The research on epistemological beliefs overlaps with and is sometimes
considered to be a specific subset of the study of cognitive and moral development.
Studied of personal epistemology are varied and span many disciplines, drawing on
theoretical constructs from educational, developmental, and instructional psychology,
as well as on various aspects of educational research, including counseling, science
and math education, higher education, reading and literacy studies, and teacher
education. The research questions that appear most frequently within the educational
and social sciences are about how individuals develop conceptions of knowledge and
how those conceptions inform, shape, and mature into a world view. Specific
epistemological research includes studies pertaining to “beliefs about the definition of
knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, how knowledge is evaluated, where
knowledge resides, and how knowledge occurs”.
56
The study of personal epistemology began with Perry’s investigation of
Harvard undergraduate students. Perry’s team of investigators interviewed the
subjects over their four-year college experience. From these interviews, Perry
developed a hypothesis of nine development stages that range from dualistic thinking
in early college to complex, relativistic thinking at the end of college experience.
Perry concluded that most first year students believed that knowledge is gained by an
omniscient authority handing down unchangeable facts to the recipient. By, contrast,
most students in their senior year believed that knowledge is tentative, rather than
unchanging, and it is obtained through reasoning and inquiry. Students in this stage
formed strong but mutable commitments to ideas and concepts, and they recognized
that there are multiple possibilities for knowledge and knowing.
Baxter Magolda (1992) focused exclusively on the epistemological beliefs of
college students. Baxter Magolda’s work focused on changes in students’ construction
of meaning as they moved from absolute truth, through contextual knowing, and
toward independent knowing. The findings of Baxter Maglda’s longitudinal study
suggested that 68% of college students were in a state of absolute knowing when they
entered the university. These students considered their role as learners to obtain
knowledge from the instructors. The remaining 32% of students entering college were
in a state of transitional knowing. These students considered knowledge to be partially
certain and partially uncertain. They viewed their role as learners as understanding
knowledge. In both stages, the students saw themselves as passive recipients of
knowledge passed down from an authority figure, the professor. During their final
year of college, 16% of these students progressed to independent knowing. During
this stage, the students considered knowledge to be uncertain; and they expected
everyone to think for themselves and create their own perspective base on learning
and reflection. During the year following graduation, independent knowing increased
to 57% of the sample.
Section 6 Student-Centered Approach
In a nutshell, the student-centered approach is based on the hypothesis that
students who are given the freedom to explore areas based on their personal interests,
and who are accompanied in their striving for solutions by a supportive,
57
understanding facilitator not only achieve higher academic results but also grow with
respect to their personal values, such as flexibility and self-confidence. This approach
is also known as experiential learning. It aims at involving the whole person, his or
her intellect, feelings, intuitions, meanings, goals, social skills, practical skills,
involvement in learning communities, etc. Recent research and educational policy in
the US and the European Union strongly support this whole-person view on learning
since it appears to be better suited to cultivate life-long learners who can more
appropriately cope with the complex and unpredictable problems of today’ world .
Experiential learning requires specific personal attitudes on the side of the instructor
who takes over the role of a facilitator. These attitudes are highly transparent open
communication, respect towards students and the striving for deep understanding of
students
The Student-Centered Approach to teaching and learning is one of the
derived theories of Carl Rogers’ (1902 – 1987) Theory of Personality and Behavior.
The only basic assumption of this theory is that human beings, like all living
organisms, strive to maintain, actualize, and enhance their experiencing organisms.
Rogers calls the single and unique source of motivation the actualizing tendency and
derives from it the conclusion that human beings are constructive in nature. He then
devoted his lifetime to researching the necessary and sufficient conditions under
which this constructiveness can best become effective. In working with children and
as a counselor and psychotherapist he found that personal growth unfolds itself best, if
the facilitator (e.g. counselor, teacher, therapist, parent, etc.) holds three attitudinal
conditions: Congruence (also called realness, genuineness, transparency), authenticity,
understanding (a deep understanding for the feelings and meaning of the respective
person), and if the other person perceives them, at least to some degree.
Rogers himself taught several courses at various universities in the U.S.A
and coined the term experiential, or whole person learning to refer to the effects of his
style of “teaching” which he described in several articles and one book. All these
references describe Rogers and his colleagues’ practical experiences along with
detailed reactions from the students’ point of view.
Consequent research in the student-centered approach proved that students
achieve superior results along with personal growth in terms of higher self-confidence,
58
openness to experience, self-respect, and respect towards others and their environment,
etc., if they learn in an atmosphere or climate that can be characterized by three basic
attitudinal conditions; congruence, acceptance, and empathic understanding. These
necessary and sufficient conditions must be held or lived by the instructor, better
facilitator, and reciprocally need to be perceived by the students. While this may
sound easy, concrete situations often are challenging such that beginners will find
themselves in situations that make it hard to find the right proportion among the three
attitudinal conditions. How to deal with a situation where a scheduled presenter of
essential material does not show up in time or another group is about to use much
more time for their presentation than scheduled.
Some of the characteristics that have proven essential in conduct of the
student-centered approach (Renate Motschnig-Pitrik, Michael Derntl).
• The teacher takes over the role of a facilitator holding the three attitudinal
conditions.
• Students and faculty share the responsibility of meeting curriculum
requirements.
• Students participate in all aspects of learning and decision making, for
example in supplying material, tackling problems, in fine-tuning a course’s contents,
learning strategies, evaluation procedures, etc.
• Students perceive authentic problems they wish to resolve personally or in
small teams.
• Students are free to suggest or to choose topics, aspects, processes within
the context preset by the curriculum.
• Learning takes on several dimensions. It precedes both individually and
cooperatively in small teams and the large group, along the content- as well as the
process dimension, and cognitively as well as socially and personally, intuitively or
emotionally.
• Students may use the facilitator as a resource, ask for his or her experience
in the field, for his or her opinion, ask him/her to lecture, etc.
• Students participate in the evaluation of learning.
59
Section 7: Individual differences
An individual difference is a cornerstone subject area in modern
psychology. In many ways, it is the "classic" psychology that the general public
refers to - it refers the psychology of the person - the psychological differences
between people and their similarities. (James Neill, 2003)
Plato stated more than 2000 years ago:
“No two persons are born exactly alike; but each differs from the other in
natural endowments, one being suited for one occupation and the other for another.”
Individual difference psychology examines how people are similar and how
they differ in their thinking, feeling and behavior. No two people are alike, yet no
two people are unlike. So, in the study of individual differences we strive to
understand ways in which people are psychologically similar and particularly what
psychological characteristics vary between people.
In the Western psychology approach to individual differences, it is generally
assumed that:
• People vary on a range of psychological attributes
• It is possible to measure and study these individual differences
• individual differences are useful for explaining and predicting behavior
and performance
We can classify people psychologically, according to their intelligence and
personality characteristics, for example, with moderate success, however people are
complex and much is still left unexplained. There are multiple and often conflicting
theories and evidence about individual difference psychology.
Human beings have been aware of individual differences throughout history,
e.g.
• Gender differences -hunters=men, gatherers=women
• Intelligence differences - caste, class, education, etc.
• Personality differences - job specializations.
60
Section 8: Research on Self-Directed learning and Learning style
8.1 Self-directed research
Self-directed learning is essential for adult learners or learners in higher
education. So that, there are many researches on self-directed learning that used the
SDLRS instrument developed by Guglielmino in her doctoral dissertation at Georgia
University in 1997 as assessment tool for the study in various populations. For
example, Hall-Johnson (1986) used the SDLRS with cooperative extension agents;
Savoie (1980), Skaggs (1981) and Graeve (1987) have used the SDLRS with nurses.
Whereas, Frisby (1991), Shokar and others (2002) also used SDLRS to survey self-
directed learning readiness of medical students, they found that medical students have
a mean score of SDLR higher than general adults. In addition, they also found that
SDLR scores were correlated with clinical performances and probably represented a
readiness for self-directed learning.
Russel (1990) studied the relationship between preference for structure and
self-directed learning readiness. As supported by the literature, she found an inverse
relationship between preference for structure and self-directed learning readiness.
Those students who scored high on the SDLRS preferred less structure in the
education setting, while those who scored low preferred more structure.
Wiley(1983) suggested that those students preferring low structure may
benefit more from a self-directed learning project than those preferring more
structural learning situations. This investigation reported that neither preference for
structure nor participating in a self-directed learning project contributed significantly
to variance in SDLR score. Wiley did, however, find an interaction between these
variables. Those students having a low preference for structure had greater residual
SDLR scores following a self-directed learning project than did those preferring
higher structure.
Mala-Maung, Zoraini Wati Abas and Azman Abdullah (2007), in their
research on “factors influencing development of self-directed learning in a higher
61
education environment.” This study aims to determine how prior knowledge obtained
from pre-university education that the IMU (international medical university) students
experienced and their learning style preferences influenced a perception of SDL in
relation to the learning resources provided in a higher education environment. They
concluded that there was no significant difference between the different learning
styles and the learners’ appreciation of SDL or of the university resources. They also
noted that knowledge of an individual’s learning style provides additional support for
effective instruction and aids in the delivery of learning tools.
Shelley (1992) investigated the relationships of adults’ field-dependence-
independence and self-directed learning. Some variables such as G.P.A, duration of
the study, age, and sex were selected as predictor variables. This study revealed that
there is a relationship between degree of self-directed learning readiness and the
individual differences in cognitive style. Specially, individual differences in cognitive
style and age are the predictors to degree of self-directed learning readiness while the
G.P.A and grade are less explained.
Oliveira and Simoes (2006) in their research on impact of socio-
demographic and psychological variables on the self-directedness of higher education
students, they conducted a careful and thorough literature review it was possible to
identify a set of variables that were pointed out by several authors as crucial to the
understanding of learner self-directedness. Specifically, the following variables were
identified: self-confidence for self-directed learning, self-esteem, life satisfaction,
conscientiousness, internal orientation, and epistemological beliefs. The results
revealed direct and statistically significant effects of the psychological variables on
the learner’s self-directedness construct, while the socio-demographic variables only
showed indirect effects, as hypothesized.
From the above mentioned, most of the studies are concerned about the
impact of some variables on self-directed learning, whether the inner self variables
such as psychological variables , age , sex and educational levels or outer self
variables such as G.P.A, duration of the study etc. When those researchers have
62
found that these of outer variables were impacted on self-directed learning, later on
the other variables related to self-directed learning were examined as the following.
Hudspeth (1991) studied on the relationship of teaching style to readiness for
self-directed learning. The problem investigated in this study was to determine if
teaching style had an effete on community college students’ readiness for self-
directed learning. The relationship of demographic factors such as age, high school
achievement, gender, and college attended in relationship to self-directed learning
readiness was also explored. The results of the study demonstrated that age, high
school grade point average (GPA), and college attended had a significant effect on the
students’ scores on the SDRLS. Students who were over the traditional age of 25, who
had a low high school GPA, and attended the larger, more comprehensive community
college indicated a preference for the skills and attitudes associated with a self-
directed orientation to learning. Conversely, the variables of teaching style and gender
did not have a significant relationship to student scores on the SDRLS.
Adenuga (1989) studied on Self-directed learning readiness and learning
style preferences of adult learners. The main purpose of this study was to identify the
relationships among demographic characteristics, learning styles, and self-directed
learning of adult American and foreign students. The results of this study indicated
that nationality and degree program directly influence readiness for self-directed
learning. Also, preference for learning styles and level of education directly influence
an individual’s level of readiness for self-directed learning. Academic major and years
of prior work experience are indirectly indicative of readiness for self-directed
learning. Age, gender and type of employment showed neither direct nor indirect
influence on inner – outer directedness in learning; therefore they have no predictive
capability for either self-directed learning readiness or preference for experiential
learning style. The researcher concluded that a combination of active and abstract
abilities is required for effective self-directed learning.
There are not so many studies on self-directed learning in Thailand, almost
of these researches were conducted on the readiness for self-directed learning with
63
students in higher education. Some studies were conducted such as the study of
effects of self-directed learning on various variables, the study of factors influence on
self-directed learning, the relationship among each variable, and study on the
development of self-directed learning system.
Sasithorn Kulsirisawatdi (1994) was conducted the study on topic “The
degree of self-directed learning readiness of agricultural students, department of
vocational education”. The research was aimed at measuring degree of self-directed
learning readiness of agricultural students, and at comparing scores of self-directed
learning readiness which is varied to variables of sex, age, curriculum, G.P.A.,
parent’s occupations, students’ expected occupations, sizes of college, and type of
institutions. The study revealed that the degree of agricultural students’ SDLRS was
high. The SDLRS score was found no statistically significant differences in terms of
sex, parents’ occupations, students’ expected occupations, sizes of colleges, and types
of institutions. Variables of age, curriculum and G.P.A. were found statistically
significant differences in the study.
Narin Boonchu (1989) explored the characteristics of self-directed learning
of students based on Guglielmino concept at Ramkhamhaeng University. It was found
that students gained SDLR scores at the high level on two aspects: 1) openness to
learning opportunities, and 2) informed acceptance of responsibility for one’s own
learning .The others six aspects were at the moderate level ranging from more to less
as follows: future orientation, a love to learn, self-concept as an effective learner,
creativity; the ability to use basic study skills and problem-solving skills, initiative
and independence in learning, respectively. Variables such as sex, faculty and
learning outcome were affected on self-directed learning of students.
Pornpan Anantakul and other (2003) in their study on SDLR, learning
achievement and satisfaction of students on psychological study via computer net
work at Boromrajonani college of nursing, Lampang province. The findings revealed
that students gained SDLR and learning achievement higher than from the outset and
expressed the higher level of learning satisfaction.
64
Sombat Skulphan and other (2005) investigated on academic achievement,
readiness and satisfaction in self directed learning among nursing students attending
the self-directed learning course. Findings indicated that nursing students in the SDL
course showed their readiness and satisfaction because they were encouraged of
responsibility, self-directed seeking of knowledge, and good relationship within
groups and instructors.
The research on SDL as mentioned above, we can see that students gained
SDLR scores ranging from the moderate to high level and only two characteristics
were at the high level while the rest of six characteristics were at the moderate level.
Although, characteristics of learner did not gain at very high level in all aspects,
however, when SDL concept was applied into learning situations it indicated that
students increased their obtained knowledge, more responsibilities, and they will have
a good relation to others.
Kanaporn Khomson (1997) studied on the development of a self-directed
learning model in English reading comprehension for upper secondary school students.
The model derived from the study concentrated on a learning process that students
were free to plan their learning activities by them on collaborating with their friends
in order to achieve long term learning goals by using learning contracts as a tool to set
goals derived from individual’s needs, to define activities and methods to evaluate
learning outcomes. Students had responsibilities to follow their contracts and gain
reading supplementary knowledge from the teacher.
Sununta Suwannasilp (2000) has constructed and developed a module for a
course in environmental health education with self-directed learning approach,
specifically for undergraduate nursing curriculum under the Ministry of Public Health.
The results were found that self-directed learning module developed by the researcher
was proven to be effective, innovative instructional media and can effectively
improved self-directed learning skills of nursing students.
65
Montathip Chaisak and other (2001) studied the effects of using portfolio on
self-directed learning skills of nursing students in practical training under the
supervision of preceptors. Results of the study revealed that the average score of SDL
skills in the experimental group, using portfolio, was higher than the control group.
Wiphada Wattananamkul (2001) developed a self –directed learning system
for public health students and examined the effects of the system on improvement of
expected self-directed learning competences, learning achievement, and attitudes
toward self-directed learning. The findings of the study revealed that learning system
developed by the researcher was an effective system. It consisted of six components
namely: analysis of learning objectives, preparation of instructors and students,
preparation of learning environment, preparation for self-directed learning process,
implementation of self-directed learning procedures, and conduction of evaluation.
Self-directed learning competences and learning achievement by comparing with the
Public Health standard score were also improved. However, attitudes toward self-
directed learning by comparing with standard attitudes score were not different.
As mentioned above, research confirmed that self-directed learning has
more benefit to learners. It will lead to increasing the learning achievement and
developing a positive intrinsic motivation. It also indicated that learners with high
level of self-directed learning have much more self-confidence in their work, more
success in academic performance and their further study. Hence, self-directed learning
skill was played an important role in helping learners learn by their own without help
from the instructor. They can control their own learning and continue relying on self-
instruction throughout life span. That is, the importance skill, which corresponding to
the National Education Guidelines B.E 2542, emphasized on lifelong learning or
learning for life. It was due to a wide variety of advance knowledge ( global learning)
that one needs (to update himself) in pursuit of and in respect to the importance of
self-directed learning skill. This made the educator try to find out methods or learning
materials to help in developing learners on self-directed learning. Thus, the
development of instructional strategies for enhancing the potential of higher education
learners is placed a very important role. Due to standard of the effectiveness in
66
academic achievement was depended on learners who are responsible for their own
learning, thus in order to accomplish this they have to direct their own learning
processes (North Central Regional Laboratory, 2006). In order to accomplish this,
therefore, if the instructor could develop students’ self-directedness, the impact will
be placed in their work and lifelong learning.
8.2 Learning style research
It has been suggested that the research underlying much of the work into
learning style is flawed (Hayes & Allinson, 1994), where the primary concern of
some researchers has been financial gain, rather than the execution of robust research
methodologies (Curry, 1990). Questioning the objectivity of the research, Curry
further suggests that research studies into learning style have used only small samples,
and many of those studies were done by research students supervised by lecturers.
Geiger & Pinto's (1991) criticism of methodology rests on the observation that
researchers have tended not to use longitudinal studies when studying learning style,
and where they have, they have not followed the same groups for the duration of the
study (cited in Pinto et al., 1994). This suggests learning style is temporally unstable.
The situation regarding the research on learning styles is perhaps best summarized by
Masterman (1970), who suggests that it is currently in a stage he terms
multiparadigmatic with no accepted theoretical orthodoxy. Overall there would appear
to be no widespread acceptance for any one theory for determining individual learning
differences.
A recurring feature of the research into learning style is the frequency with
which different styles are presented as being diametrically opposed. For example,
Kolb (1976) suggests that an individual may display a preference for one of four
possible learning styles, but these four styles derive from two dimensions presented as
opposing elements of learning. Further work by other researchers has presented
learning style as a bipolar construction as shown in Table 1.
67
Table 1 Dichotomies in Learning Style.
High Quality Learning Style Low Quality Learning Style
Witkin et al
(1977) field-independence field-dependence
Ausubel et al
(1968) meaningful learning rote learning
Goldma & Warren
(1972) logical forming mnemonic concrete
Wittrock (1986) generative processing reproductive processing
Pask (1976) comprehension learners operation learners
Marton & Saljo
(1976) deep learning surface learning
Biggs (1978) transformative learning reproductive learning
Svensson (1977) holistic learning atomistic learning
Schmeck (1983) deep processing elaborative processing
Thomas & Bain
(1984) transformational learning reproductive learning
Although there are variations between the characteristics of these styles,
there are elements common to the two sides of learning style identified. Those listed
in the second column can be placed under broad heading termed quality learning. A
key feature of these quality learning styles is that the learner approaches learning from
a contextual perspective, where a problem is addressed at two levels. At a micro level
the problem or task requirements are addressed and completed, while at a macro level,
the problem or task is perceived in the context of, for example, the course or subject
area of which it is a part. Rather than adopting a narrow focus and concentrating on
68
only solving a particular problem (low quality learning), the learner attempts to
identify links and similarities with other problems and other areas. The interest of the
individual is not confined to an instrumental approach to learning where task
completion is the only aim; there is also an interest in the learning process (high
quality learning).
One of the reasons for the development of these dichotomies in learning
style is the view held by some researchers that there are two kinds of thinking:
"The view that there are two qualitatively different types of thinking is
widely shared. Among the terms used to describe one type are analytic, deductive,
rigorous, constrained, convergent, formal and critical. Representative of the terms
used to describe the other type are synthetic, inductive, expansive, unconstrained,
divergent, informal, diffuse and creative. No doubt the partitioning of thinking into
two types involves something of an over-simplification but possibly a useful one"
(Nickerson et al., 1985, p. 23)
There is also a view that hemispheric activities within the brain are
particular to either the right or left side of the brain. This would provide an anatomical
justification for the view of learning style as being bipolar. Riding & Cheema (1991),
from an extensive review of the literature, conclude there are only two principal styles
"families", the holist-analytic, and the verbalizes-imager. These two broad groupings
relate to the type of cognitive activities normally ascribed to the two hemispheres of
the brain. Curry (1983) suggests there are three different perspectives on styles: those
relating to a preference for a particular instructional approach, those relating to the
individual's intellectual approach to assimilating information independently of the
environment, and those relating to the individual's intellectual approach to
assimilating information with the environment.
One issue ignored by researchers is the nature of learning tasks in relation to
these dichotomies of learning style. While it may be possible to justify this
polarization of learning styles based on anatomical differences in the brain, it is not
clear whether this polarization can be applied to learning tasks. There is an
69
implication that if learning styles can be bisected into two groups, then learning tasks
can be divided into two categories. A specific learning task will have its own
particular requirements, so it would seem inappropriate to think of there being only
two kinds of learning tasks. Therefore it is questionable whether this bipolar approach
to learning style can be successfully applied to learning tasks. This is an important
issue as it has implications for whether one should attempt to match learning style to
instructional style.
Learning style instruments
Despite the lack of clarity and agreement surrounding the concept of
learning style, a significant amount of the literature has been devoted to the
development of a range of instruments claiming to measure an individual's learning
style. If it is possible to assess the learning style of an individual, then one would be
in a more favorable position to educate them in a more appropriate manner. It is
unclear whether learning style is amenable to measurement or assessment. While it is
accepted that students do exhibit different approaches to the acquisition of material
( Emanuel & Potter 1992, Gregorc & Butler 1984, O'Brien, 1992), it is not clear
whether one can quantify those differences, or whether those differences constitute
different learning styles. It is also unclear whether these differences are conceptually
different, or simply variations on a single theme.
However, if one does assume such differences in material acquisition are
learning styles, by what means is it appropriate to measure those styles? For any
assessment of learning style to be considered valid, the learning style of an individual
would need to be consistent over time. If learning styles were subject to significant
change over time, then any assessment of style would be valid only at the time the
assessment was carried out. Research into the relative stability of learning style as a
construct remains both confusing and confused. Cornett (1983) considers while there
may be qualitative changes in the learning style of an individual, the essence of that
style will remain unchanged over time. Claxton & Ralston (1978) suggest that
learning style is stable in describing it as a consistent way of responding to…. In a
three year longitudinal study of forty students, Geiger & Pinto (1991) found only
70
weak and inconclusive evidence that individuals' learning style preferences changed
over time. Pinto et al (1994) in a later study found the learning style preferences of
students to be susceptible to change over time, reinforcing the earlier and similar
findings of Price (1980).
These studies indicate it is not clear whether changes in learning style would
be significant in terms of how effectively an individual would be able to learn
following a change in learning style. Is the learner simply tampering with their
learning style to meet the specific needs of a single task, or is it a significant
developmental change? Given the lack of agreement over the nature of learning style,
and whether learning style is a stable characteristic, it is surprising there exists a
relatively wide range of instruments claiming to measure learning style. Bohrnstedt
(1970) suggests that in attempting measurement, one should always use the most
refined measure available, together with well-defined terms so not only are you
measuring what you claim to be measuring (the instrument has validity), but also the
measurement is accurate (the instrument is reliable). In the case of the measurement
of learning style, there is some doubt whether many of the instruments used satisfy
both of these requirements. There is an implicit assumption that the relative
preference of an individual for one style over another can be measured, and there is a
significant lack of agreement over the nature of the construct of learning style.
Research on learning style in foreign country:
Research into learning style has its roots in the late 19 th and early 20 th
centuries. This early research emphasized “finding the one perceptual mode that
would best increase learning or retention” (Keefe, 1987). Researchers have attempted
to identify specific traits of learners to describe preference for processes of learning.
This quantity of research continue to reinforce the theme that variations in learning
style of students can have important implications for the instructional process
(Ester,1995). For example, Copenhaver (1979)(high school), Domino (1970) (college),
and Pizzo(1981) (elementary school) studies also showed that improved attitudes
toward school resulted from teaching through learning styles, which is corresponded
with the studies of Oberer and Nicoletti (2000) which found that students in grade
71
4,5 and 6 who behave misconduct and low academic achievement have gained higher
academic achievement and positive attitudes toward learning. Sullivan(2000) has
analyzed the effects of teaching by using strategies in relevant to their learning styles.
This study showed that 46 students who studied in elementary school have gained
higher academic achievement and attitudes toward science subject. Carrier (1987)
also found that there is a relationship between differences in learning styles and
preferences for type, frequency, and intensity of instructional feedback. He asserted
that more learning effectiveness can be gained if learning instruction can provide in
relation to learning styles and all of this preferences .Dixon(11982) suggested that by
understanding the differences in learning styles and taking them into account in
designing training programs, greater gains can be made in learning. Reactions of
participants to the program will be more positive, and the time for training can be
reduced.
In every case, students who were matched with methods, resources, or
environments that complemented their reported strong preferences achieved
statistically higher; they achieved statistically less well when they were mismatched
with their preferences: those studies include Krimsky(1982), Lynch(1981),
Pizzo(1981), Shea(1983) and White (1980).
72
Table 2 Researchers and their findings on learning styles.
Researcher Date Population Findings
Cafferty,
1,689 teacher-
student pairs
1. The greater the match between the 1980
student’s and the teacher style, the higher
the student’s grade point average.
2. The greater the mismatch between the
student’s and teacher’s style the lower
the student’s grade point average.
Copenhaver,
1979
76 high school
students
1. Students’ learning styles remained
consistent regardless of the subject being
study.
2. Significantly more positive attitudes
resulted when students’ styles were
similar to their teachers.
3. A wide range of learning styles existed
in each class.
Domino, 1979
100 college
students
1. Students taught in preferred styles scored
higher on tests, fact knowledge, attitude,
and efficiency than those taught in a
manner dissonant from their orientations
Farr, 1971
72 college
students
1. Individuals accurately predicted the
modality in which they would achieve
superior academic performance.
2. It was advantageous to learn and be
tested in the preferred modality.
3. The above advantage was reduced when
learning and testing were both in the
non-preferred modality.
73
Table 2 ( continued)
Researcher Date Population Findings
Krimsky, 1982
32 fourth graders 1. Students who preferred bright light
performed statistically better when
tested in bright lit area; those who
preferred reading in dim light lit equally
as well in low-light settings.
2. Both groups performed statistically less
well when tested in a mismatched
situation.
Pizzo, 1981
64 sixth graders
1. When students were matched with
their learning style preferences,
statistically higher reading and attitude
scores resulted at the .01 level.
2. Students who were mismatched
achieved significantly below the
matched students.
Shea, 1983
32 ninth graders
1. When students were matched with their
learning style preferences for design,
statistically higher reading scores
resulted at the .01 level.
2. Students who were mismatched for
informal design achieved significantly
lower than when matched.
74
However, from those researches as mentioned in table 2, it showed that the
instructions relevant to the learners’ learning style was effected on G.P.A, test scores,
learning achievement, and greater benefit can be gained in learning, and absent can
be reduced. In contrast, if the instructions can not provide instruction in accordance
with their learning preferences, the results will also be opposite.
This is the reason why these findings were taken into account by the
educators; which belief that if one were able to diagnose the learning style of an
individual, and then it would seem logical to assume that matching the characteristics
of instruction to that style would make the instruction more effective. This finding is
supported by Dunn, Deckinger, Withers& Katzenstein (1990), who found that
teaching students based on their diagnosed learning style did significantly increase
their achievement level.
A contemporary outgrowth of research on learning style has been the interest
in applied modes of learning style. Researchers are attempting to assess learning
styles in an effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of instructional
materials and methods. Many of learning style models has been used as assessment
tools to categorize learners according to the parameters of the respective model and
match learners with instructors and approaches that are suited to their learning styles
(Ester, 1995). The relationship between learning styles and achievement has been
examined by many researchers.
Oakland and Horton (1997) conducted a study to determine if students
demonstrate higher levels of achievement when they receive social studies instruction
through a teaching style designed to match their temperament-based learning styles.
Four hundred and seventeen students were used as subjects and the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) was used to identify student’s learning styles. It was found
that achievement improved among students who received instruction that used
teaching strategies that matched their temperament-based learning styles. It is relevant
to the study of McNutty and others (2006), which concluded that personality /
learning preferences of individual students influence their use of CAI in the medical
curriculum.
75
Ester (1995) evaluated the relative effectiveness of computer-assisted
instruction (CAI) and lecture approach in the teaching of vocal anatomy and function
to undergraduate music students with different learning styles. Sixty students in the
men’s and women’s choral ensembles at a large Midwestern university were used as
subjects. The Gregorc Style Delineator was used to categorize students into learning
styles. Results of the study revealed significant interaction between the instructional
approach and student learning style. Abstract learners demonstrated significantly
higher achievement with the lecture approach, whereas concrete learners performed
equally well with the lecture or the CAI instruction mode.
Due to the previous findings, it has been found that when the instructions
designed to match learning style of the learners, attitudes and learning achievement
will be increased. Researchers have argued over whether or not learners’ learning
style can be related to other variables such as retention, creative thinking and critical
thinking. As the study of Leavitt (2004), he used Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory to
study the relationship between learning styles of freshmen in coordinated studies
learning community and their academic achievement and retention. The findings from
this study revealed that students’ course achievement were increased but due to some
students did not return for further study, so they concluded that the results about
retention based on preferred learning styles were not meaningful. For the study of the
relationship between learning styles and creative thinking, Hagans (2005) has studied
the relationship among learning styles, instructional strategy and perception on critical
thinking of the musician. It was found that there was no correlation among them. He
suggested that it should be continuing developed. Marra (1997),McDade (1999) have
studied and found that there is a relationship between learning styles and critical
thinking ability among health professional students
As learning style was correlated to learning achievement, attitudes and
critical thinking, later on, research on learning style and learning strategy have gained
the interest by the researchers.
Shuford (2000) has studied on learning styles and learning strategies of first-
year college students. The purposes of this study were to examine the learning styles
and learning strategies of first-year students and their relationships to active learning,
76
academic success, race, and gender. Relationships among preferred learning style,
used strategies, and active learning practices were also examined, as well as the
relationships of these variables to academic success, race, and gender. Deep learning
was related to the used strategies of participants; in other words, students who stated
their learning style preferences as comparing and contrasting information were more
likely to write more complexly. Both measures of preferred learning style were
significantly related to several of the active learning process items. Academic
achievement was also significantly related to the used strategies of participants;
participants who used higher levels of cognitive complexity in their writing also had
higher academic achievement. Group differences by race were found on preferred
learning style, used strategies, and academic achievement measures.
McClolgin (2000) has also studied the effects of a match versus mismatch
between learning styles and teaching methods on students’ academic performance,
amount of perceived learning and course evaluations. The study was conducted to
first year nursing students enrolled in courses that used three distinctly different
instructional strategies. Stepwise multiple regressions indicated that the best
predictors of the students’ final nursing course grade were previous academic
performance and the type of teaching methodology used by the faculty. The only
predictor of the amount of perceived learning was the perceived degree of student
effort to put forth in their coursework. Lastly, the best predictors of the course
evaluation were the degree of student effort, the type of teaching methodology, and a
match versus mismatch of learning styles and teaching methods.
As for the previous research, various instruments were used to measure
learning style such as Kolb, Canfield, Felder, Grasha and Reichman and Jung. Study
on learning styles in Thailand also revealed that Grasha and Reichman was one of the
prominent inventories as in the study of Pornthip (1991), Supat (1992),Chantana
(1992) and Saenglar and other (2005), The results of these studies can be summarized
as follows:
77
Learning styles in educational settings.
1. Students in both private and government universities most preferred
learning style patterns were Participant and Collaborative respectively
(Supat,1990 Chantana, 1992), whereas the least preferred was Avoidance
style (Pornthip 1991, Supat 1992).
2. Humanities’ students most preferred learning style was Collaborative
style whereas social sciences’ students and sciences’ students most
preferred was on Participant style.
3. There was no correlation between year of study and learning style
whereas field of study and learning achievement were correlated to
learning style.
4. Students with different learning achievement tend to prefer different
learning styles.
5. Learning style pattern of secondary school’s students was the high level
on Independent, Collaborative, Dependent and Participation.
In addition to Grasha and Reichman learning style, there is Kolb’s learning
style inventory in which researcher frequently used to measure learning styles as in
the study of Radchaporn (1991), Wichan (1991), and Methi (1994).The findings can
be summarized as follows:
Learning styles in educational settings.
1. Graduates students from 5 universities namely a) Chulalongkorn
University, b) Srinakharinwirot University, c) Kasetsart University, d)
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang and e) King
Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok showed that there
was no difference in learning styles, almost all of the students were
Assimilator more than the others.
2. Students, in the Science Olympic Project, found most preferred learning
styles on Accommodator, Assimulator, Divergers and Convergers,
respectively.
78
Effects of age and year of study on learning style
1. Undergraduate students from government university located in Bangkok
were not different in their learning styles with regard to different in year
of study ( Radchaporn, 1992).
2. Graduate students from 5 universities located in Bangkok namely a)
Chulalongkorn University, b) Srinakharinwirot University, c) Kasetsart
University, d) King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang and
e) King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok were not
different in learning styles with regard to their different age and year of
study ( Methi.1994).
Variables affecting learning styles
1. Undergraduate students studied in government universities in Bangkok
with their differences in field of study were different in their learning
styles( Radchaporn, 1992 ) as well as students in The Science Olympic
Project when classified by field of study, it was found that Physics
Olympic students were most Assimilator, while Chemistry and Biology
students were most Accommodators.
2. Undergraduate students studied in government universities in Bangkok
with different sex were found different in learning styles. Men tend to
most prefer on Convergers whereas women tend to most prefer on
Divergers ( Radchaporn, 1992).It was contrary to the study of Methi
(1994) , which concluded that graduate students in 5 universities in
Bangkok whether men or women found no differences in learning styles.
Felder and Solomon learning style is another inventory in which researcher
used in their study as in the study of Kanchana (1999) and Amara (2004) .The results
can be summarized as follows:
Learning styles in educational settings.
79
Most of Suranaree’s students was most preferred on visual learner in input
dimension and sensing learner in perception dimension, respectively whereas the least
was verbal learner in input dimension ( Kanchana, 1999) . It is contrary to the study of
Amara (2004) on learning styles of business administration and accounting students,
that found most of the students learning styles were sensing learner in perception
dimension and visual learner in input dimension respectively. Intuitive learner in
perception dimension was ranked the last. From the findings, it can be conclude that :
Variables effecting on learning styles ( Kanchana, 1999).
1. Sex and field of study were associated with learning styles.
2. Background, year of study, learning achievement, and type of university
entrance were not correlated to learning styles.
Additionally, research using learning style inventory according to Carl Jung
concept as a tool for the study were found in Thailand such as Kingfa and others
(2001) ; Krongkarn and Sopon (2003) that can be summarized as follows:
1. Khon Kaen University Students in every field of study most preferred
learning style was on SF ,ST and NT respectively and the less preferred was NF
which correspond to study of Krongkarn and Sopon (2003) that found students in the
Faculty of Education preferred learning style ranging from more to less on SF,ST,NT
and NF respectively.
2. Both sex preferred the same learning styles as the most of students ,that
is, SF, ST, NT and NF respectively.(Kingfa and other , 2001)
3. Students in all majors preferred learning styles in a similar pattern with
most of students, except for students from 4 majors namely; Health, English,
Agriculture and Home economics which rated themselves a greater preference on NF
than NT, as well as students from the Health Science , Humanities and Social Science
whereas men preferred on NF more than NT (Kingfa and other,2001)
As for the research mentioned above, it is likely that each research was
conducted using different learning styles instruments. Although different kinds of
80
instrument were used, the results were nearly the same, especially the variables
affecting on learning styles such as sex and field of study or variables that were not
correlated with learning styles such as background, year of study. However, learning
achievement is another variable that is controversial whether or not there is the
relationship with learning styles.
Research findings as measured by learning style instruments were applied to
educational study such as Anuchai (1999), Pongsak (2000) and Chulaporn (2002)
which can be summarized as follows:
1. TI-TAI and Chinese undergraduate students with different learning
styles, studied by using of rhythmic method in multimedia lessons and
learning exposure, were found different on learning achievement This
finding is contrary to the study of Anuchai( 2002), he found that learners
with different learning styles were not increased on learning achievement
of students who studied in virtual campus.
2. Learning styles is not correlated with learning aptitudes of learners and
that would have an effect on problem solving behavior and knowledge
used to solve problem by students.
3. Learning styles is one of the factors influencing on learning achievement
of TI-TAI and Chinese students ( Chulaporn, 2002).
Additionally, related research both in or out of the country, it appears that
the students who studied in different field of study or faculties will have different
learning style. Learning style inventories also vary and were depended on researcher’s
framework of study and /or on theory used for supporting concept which concerns to
those studies. Above on the research has indicated that learning style was related to
active leaning. If one can provide learning process in compatible with individuals’
learning style preferences, it is expected that their academic achievement and attitudes
will be increased. When learning style has influenced on learners’ learning as
mentioned, then the teacher must be adjusted their teaching to match learners’
learning styles.
By addressing students’ learning styles and planning instruction accordingly
we will meet more individuals’ educational needs and we will be get more success in
our educational goals (Hood, 1995). However, in fact, students in one classroom did
81
not have the same learning styles. Due to this reason, students should be divided into
small groups according to learning style in which each learner in each group was
assumed that they have the same learning styles. That is why educational environment
for flexibility at the individual student level must be promoted. This requires a move
away from stimulus-response conditioning approaches, in which a passive learner is
trained to perform in a set manner in defined situations. What is required is a
stimulus-stimulus approach, where the student and lecturer are actively involved in
both learning and the mechanics of the learning process, the aim being to facilitate
learner empowerment by developing in students a critical awareness of material
studied and the delivery and the structure of the material. Learners can then tailor
flexible education strategy to their requirements to optimize the quality of the learning
experience (Robotham, 1999). So that self-directed learning is an essential skill for
learners especially in higher education and can lead to lifelong learning and become
the quality graduated students.
