In order to optimise learning through simulated experiences, the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model (FSLSM) is recommended. People exhibit different ways they prefer to learn and by incorporating different learning styles in teaching plans learning is made easier. Graf, Viola, Leo and Kinshuk (2007) observe that FSLSM is often used in the design of technology-enhanced learning. The learning styles models of Kolb (1984) and Honey and Mumford (1982)—in contrast to Felder and Silverman (1988)—classify learners into a few groups. FSLSM describes learning styles in more detail, distinguishing four dimensions depicted below (Sidhu, 2010: 23):
Graf, Viola, Leo and Kinshuk (2007) further points out that FSLSM is based on tendencies. They point out that although learners with a strong preference for certain learning style may experience difficulty if the teaching style does not match their preferred learning style; indeed sometimes behave differently. They further convey that educational researchers in recent years investigated how incorporating learning style models impact technology-enhanced learning and found that FSLSM is highly appropriate for hypermedia courseware. It has been found that when students do an online course that matched their preferred learning style they achieved significantly better results compared to students who took a course that did not match.
The first dimension—sensory/intuitive—Students that prefer learning facts and concrete learning material have a sensing learning style. Such students prefer standard approaches in solving problems; to relate the learned material to the real world; and tend to be more patient with details. They are generally realistic, sensible and practical. Intuitive learners, by contrast, prefer learning abstract learning material, such as the underlying theories and their meanings. Such students tend to be innovative and creative as well as more able to discover possibilities and relationships.
The second dimension—visual/verbal—Students with a visual preference learn and retain best what they have seen, for example pictures, diagrams, and flow-charts. Verbal learners derive more from textual representations, both written and spoken.
The third dimension—active/reflective—addresses different ways of processing information. Some students learn best by actively engaging; trying out and by applying the learning material. They further tend to prefer communicating and by working in groups where they can converse. Other students, in contrast, prefer to reflect and think about learning material. They prefer working alone or possibly in a small group or with a good buddy.
The fourth dimension—sequential/global—is about characterising students according to their understanding. Those students that learn in small incremental steps in linear progression are sequential learners. They prefer following logical step-by-step paths towards solutions and are interested in details. Global learners, however, use holistic thinking processes learning in large leaps. Such students tend to absorb learning material almost randomly, not necessary seeing connections initially but suddenly grasp the whole picture. They are capable to solve complex problems; to find connections between dissimilar areas; and to put things together in novel ways. However, they can seldom explain how they did it. Global learners prefer overviews and broad knowledge.
Sidhu (2010: 23) poses four questions:
- What type of sensory information is most perceived?
- What type of information does the student preferentially perceive?
- How does the student prefer to process information?
- How does the student characteristically progress towards understanding?
Graf, S.; Viola, S.R.; Leo, T & Kinshuk. 2007. In-Depth Analysis of the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Fall 2007, 40(1). Accessed on Internet 31 May 2012 from: http://wit.at/people/graf/publications/graf_viola_kinshuk_leo_JRTEjournal.pdf
Sidhu, M.S. 2010. Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education: interactive multimedia applications. Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.
Comments