Learning Styles, Hidden Secrets

Learning style questionnaires, if we are not careful, can be little more than a technicality, especially in my area. After all, how many ways can you teach someone to draw? Explaining how only goes so far, this is not English comprehension, you have to get the students to see it, and do it.

Typically we have students for art that have high visual and high kineasthetic prefference, and this makes sense given what art & design entails. Typically they have a lower relative auditory preference. Something like this:



This is what we expect for art. However we have 2 students with the reverse.



When they clearly have a preference for auditory learning, and they are less strong on a visual or kineasthetic approach, why choose Art? I might expect this profile from an English Literature student or something.

A quick peep at their Literacy diagnostic showed them both to still have strong L2 literacy skills, with one of them exhibiting some L3 literacy skills. So, I ask again, why Art?

I believe the answer is that they both have a disability which makes learning via their preferred method difficult. One is Dyslexic and the other Dysgraphic (writing is an issue).

Basically, they don't have as strong a natural leaning to learning art the way art learning works (visually, and by doing), so it seems they picked art because their disability means they are prevented from learning other subjects that better match their natural learning style.

These learners will need particular help (lots more describing than is normal for an art student) since in some ways it appears that they are choosing to go against their own nature by doing art. (That's my view, but I welcome your comments.)

I wonder how much support this lends to my theory that some students choose art, not because they are great at it, but because they simply found other subjects even more difficult (on account of Dyslexia for instance). What do you think?

Teaching Art or Multimedia (Unit by Unit or Everything Linked?)

When I first started teaching multimedia after working for several years in industry, I was pushed in the direction of teaching each unit of the course separately from the other. The college approach seemed to be one of individual teachers taking responsibility for individuals units (or subjects) and each being taught independent of the others during different sessions across the week.

At the time (several years ago now) I was so new to teaching that I didn't argue. After all, I am the newbie, what do I know? However as my teacher training progressed (now complete I am glad to say) I came to see how this approach was not really the ideal for our students. I did not feel the approach would adequately make the students into what I call whole creatives. Instead of seeing the course as 18 units, I began to see teaching and learning in multimedia as being essentially split into just 2 main areas:

• Design Processes/Design Thinking
• Tools and Tool Techniques

These areas appear in each unit in different degrees. Some are very strongly focused on design thinking, while others on tools. While the titles of these two areas could probably do with some refinement, the idea is that while different types of knowledge or skills can be taught independently initially, ultimately learners need to be able to use these together to be a whole creative individual. We call this bringing of knowledge or skills of different kinds together synthesis.

I have developed a model to explain this below:

Synthesis of skills over time allows greater learner maturity, freedom and creativity

For instance a learner can be taught how to use Photoshop during one session or unit, and methods for generating ideas in another session or unit. But this only goes so far, they must then be able to use those two skill areas together to meet creative objectives.

I did not feel that teaching units independently of each other was going to achieve this.

In changing the unit by unit approach however, it needs to be understood that you still can't pour everything together into a big pot straight away either. The problem there is that the concept of using skill areas together is too large and complex to be a good starting point and learners will simply drown. Initially then learners must be taught some different skill areas independently but then (as soon as possible and as they become ready) they should be guided so that their understanding in these different areas becomes linked together

This is essential for several reasons.

Learners who remain strong in design processes are usually good at understanding design problems, and generating and refining ideas - but unless they learn about production tools (e.g. Photoshop or Studio Max) they will not fully understand how the technology impacts on the suitability or production of their ideas.

Learners who are strong on tools and techniques for using tools are able to use technology efficiently - but unless they learn to apply the design process they will be under-developed creatively and relegate themselves to the role of technician, essentially reproducing the ideas of others. They may be efficient, but not as effective as they could be.

The aim then is for learners to be able to use tools and techniques in conjunction with design process and design thinking, thus making them whole creative individuals.

So I don't worry about one unit per lecturer any more, or one unit per session. Instead we teach by project, we link units to projects and work on them in every session, and every tutor brings their expertise to each project.

This is actually one of the benefits of the BTEC National Diploma system. While the whole qualification is made up of 18 units (each one being a different subject), we are free (and encouraged to by Edexcel, if not your particular college) to link these units together wherever possible.

I like to teach new tools or skills separately and give short projects or homework to ensure these new skills are understood. Then I like to feed these new skills into larger projects where they must be used in conjunction with the design thinking and design process skills, or other tools skills the learner has.

In this way learners get to learn processes, and tools, and bring them together. It is not always easy, but learners do have the opportunity to become better creatives who can see how everything they learn fits together, and can make intelligent decisions based on a real understanding of the whole picture.

A Degree in Selling Cars

The ripples of the Leitch Report spread far and wide, and it seems universities are not immune to its influence. That, and of course the drive for universities to generate funding, has no doubt led in some small way to the idea that universities need to provide more training to meet employer's skill shortages.

This BBC article talks about Loughborough University's collaboration with Ford to create a BSc in Car Dealership. Going, it seems, are the days when multinational corporations were capable of training their own staff to meet the needs of their business, from the expertise held within the company.

While some may chuckle at the idea, doing it this way does have some advantages for the individual, not least of which is that their training, while useful to the company, will also be a formally recognised qualification.

From the government's point of view this is great because it means more people are getting university degrees (one of their other priorities along with basic skills for the under achieving), but I will talk more about this and the magic growth in favour of the "Foundation Degree" over HNDs and L4 NVQs in another post.

Which Costs More? Evening Classes or Mental Heath Care?

The BBC reports that the government's response to the Leitch Report, while driving a focus on basic skills, has left adult learners missing out on Life-long Learning.

Associate Director of the National Institute of Adult Coninuing Education (Niace) Stephen McNair is reported to have said:

"There are clear benefits in terms of public health and social cohesion from life-long learning that are not recognised by the government..." (BBC)

It seems that Niace is now using this approach to try to pressurise the government into increasing funding for education for personal development (perhaps Life-long Learning in its purest sense).

In response the government reckon they are investing a further £210 million in "informal adult learning". No small sum but only a teeny tiny % of the total LSC budget.

I suspect that what we have heard of the government's response is, at least for now, the best statement they can give to the press at this moment in time. Meanwhile I hope they do look at how feasible it is to oil the machinery giving money to "informal adult learning" on a grander scale.

Being cynical for a moment I suspect they will do it in style if it means they spend less on mental health via the NHS (in other words produce cost savings elsewhere) but otherwise the momentum they have in developing basic skills, and "upskilling" the "work force", will mean that education for recreation or personal development will probably not get much light in the near future. Don't forget, the government are trying to get the economy going, as well as improving the UK's position internationally as a base of skills and that means giving people work skills.

Evening classes for the long term incapacitated, women at home with small children, carers and the elderly, in languages and art, hardly fits that bill. So for now they are unlikely to become a pressing government priority.

Having said that, I do agree with Niace on this one. But then I am biased, any proposal that allocates more funding to FE institutions is, from my perspective, a good thing. After all, I do work for one.

Accessibility and Colour Blindness

Colour blindness has been more relevant to me this year more than previous years on account of having a colour blind student.

While it certainly doesn't make life easier for an Art & Design & Interactive Media student it doesn't make it impossible to work in the design industry either. I did know of a former product designer, who was colour blind, who had a successful career in industry and in teaching.

Even so, as a teacher, it is helpful to have some understanding of colour blindness so I know what to expect, and can help the student develop strategies to cope with areas of difficulty.

One resource I found recently is a website called Vischeck. Vischeck provides colour blindness simulation tools, including an image previewer, a website previewer and a Photoshop filter. The site also gives information about a Daltonization algorithm for correcting images for colour blind people. All fascinating stuff.

I downloaded the Photoshop filter and installed it for Photoshop and Fireworks. It works fine in both.

I wondered how the normal visible spectrum would look to a colour blind person, and so I used the Photoshop filter to adjust a bog standard colour wheel. The results were truly astonishing:

I just cannot imagine a world so radically different to the one I see now.

Now I know why my student picked a muted grey/green instead of a vibrant green to represent grass in a client visual. To them they looked the same.

This insight into how colour blind people actually see the world is probably the most valuable outcome of this find. Meanwhile the Photoshop filter will allow me to demonstrate it to other people, and to gauge usability of my own designs.

Procrastination and Task Avoidance

Related to my recent ponderings on student motivation is procrastination. This being the most obvious side effect of reduced motivation (students delaying working). I did write an assignment a few months ago on "Managing behaviour in the classroom" and procrastination was the behaviour I focused on at that time. I did plently of research but one source in particular I found especially insightful (Take a peek online here).

One of the findings indicated that procrastinators "are frequently unsure of their ability to complete a task. Consequently they delay starting the task in Question." It goes on to say:

At the heart of such irrational fear for procrastinators is an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task. Failure is inevitable; standards are simply too high. To circumvent the emotional consequence of this failure, procrastinators delay beginning a task until it cannot be completed satisfactorily. The payoff for the procrastinator is that his or her avoidant behaviour furnishes a convenient excuse for the inevitable failure caused by this avoidance. A task done poorly by the procrastinator can be blamed on time limitation or even laziness, rather than inability. In this manner, procrastination serves as an ego defensive function, not unlike that postulated in psychoanalytic theory. Furthermore, its occurrence is perpetuated because of this reason, despite the anxiety it seems to create in the frantic last-minute efforts of the procrastinator. (Ferrari et al.)

If you saw yourself in that passage, you wouldn't be the only one. What I find interesting is that yet agin we see a link to prospect theory. This time it is loss of self-image that is being protected. You might say that procrastinators work hard at procrastinating in the sense of putting up with the anxiety - but the payoff is worth it, because they don't have to face up to being unable - they can always blame the procrastination for any underperformance or failure.

From the student's point of view however, teachers can take action to eliminate this reason for procrastinating. At the heart of this passage is the idea that students have "an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task". As a teacher then, I need to ensure my students have a correct concept of what is adequate. There are several things I can do to help bring this about:

• At the beginning of any task or assignment, present a good example of a task or assignment completed. Talk the students through it.
• Provide more information about what the students are to achieve.
• Ask questions to determine understanding - specifically target known procrastinators.
• Regularly tutorial students to monitor progress, ask direct questions to find out actual attainment, do not be hazed.

This is often easier said than done. Past educational (or home) experiences have taught some students that being wrong is to be a failure, therefore they try to haze their teachers rather than use them to correct their understanding. This takes time to correct, but until it is corrected to a sufficient degree, students "hide" from their teachers, pretending they understand when deep down they still have "an inappropriate concept of what constitutes an adequately accomplished task" and are subconsciously planning to procrastinate.

What is really key, is that students do understand what they need to do, and feel that they can do it.

I have found that the cognitivist approach works best in these situations. My students are far too clever to be fooled by mere positive talking, and the stick and carrot approach only works if students are earning the carrots they get (which can sometimes mean all they get is stick - so it only serves to reinforce their belief in their own failure). What I do instead, by way of using the cognitivist approach, is to tell them about Ferrari et al, explain the motivations for procrastinating, and explain the solution. Empower (how I hate that word) them to regulate their own behaviour, by helping them to recognise the stimulating factors.

It will probably take longer to see change this way but I am more convinced that the change will be real. Students who change from the inside (motivated by their own understanding) are surely better off than those who change on the surface only, while all their doubts and fears remain, and which will resume control again as soon as the student is out of your influence.

Intrinsic Motivational Growth and the End of Term

Perhaps like me you have witnessed the increasing business of your students as the end of the academic year approached. Perhaps also like me you saw motivation to work increase beyond your wildest dreams, soaring to heights you thought the students could never attain. Perhaps like me then you also experienced the disappointment that such motivation was saved up until the very last minute.

From my point of view it is disappointing when such strategies effectively relegate the students to grades below their capability. I have given the problem much thought and yesterday began to see a connection I had not seen before.

My Hypothesis

Once again Prospect Theory may have a connection. Prospect Theory basically says that people are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain.

I beleive this principle is in action within many of our students. My hypothesis is as follows:

Typically intrinsic motivation drops after the first few weeks on the course. They are more familiar with the territory, they have made friends and might therefore have more distractions. The novelty has worn off and other life factors are impacting academic success. They are beginning to "chill out" too much and there is a sense that there is plenty of time. This is the part we teachers all hate, and we have to keep finding ways to get our students to value their education. In more extreme circumstances students refuse to work, have tantrums etc.

Then as the end of the year approaches, the mindset begins to change. Suddenly, in spite of their previous performance (or lack of it), they have decided that they do want their qualification after all - it would be such a waste of time to spend a year at college and come away with nothing!

And there we find the connection. After all the weeks and months have passed, almost regardless of the type of student, each one of them feels they have now made an investment of time and effort.

From the teachers perspective it might not have been enough time or effort, but from the student's point of view the investment has been made. With this new perspective the student looks at the approaching end of year, looks at their grades, their pile of unfinished work, and suddenly wants to get it done.

Prospect Theory says students are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain. Because students now feel they have made an investment they now have something to lose. They feel it likely that they might lose their invesment and so are more likely to take action to avoid the loss.

And there you have it. My hypothesis in a nutshell. Take a peek below and you can see it in a diagram too.

Even more amusing, if you let it happen, is the students who continue to come in to college even after the end of term. Grasping with both hands their "last chance saloon". Students with appalling attendance records during term time somehow find the motivation to come into college during their holiday. An incredible increase in motivation. Wow.

Of course this is just my theory, I am happy to discuss its potential flaws. We mustn't also forget the other extrinsic factors like fear of parents, fear of not going to uni etc... or are they intrinsic too?

I think my next student study will be based around this. Perhaps prospect theory comes into it, no doubt other factors, but I want to know what the factors are. Then I can start introducing them earlier in the year to bring about this marvelous motivational change sooner.

Half a Brain, and Attention Deficit

One "diagnostic" test I have had the opportunitiy to do with several groups of my students is the Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) self report scale (ASRS) from the World Health Organisation (Sample here). This does not diagnose the disorder, only a Doctor can do that, but has been proved to be reliable at predicting probability.

Along with all the usual numeracy and literacy diagnostics I find this one helpful for finding out which students are most likely to struggle with concentration, and seek out distractions.

The test is originally designed to indicate probability of someone having ADD. Actually, I don't use it for this, though interesting. I use it mainly because in answering the questions on the test I find out some interesting things like:

• Which learners will find it hard starting a piece of work.
• Which learners will find it hard finishing a piece of work.
• Which learners tend to procrastinate.
• Which learners are disorganised.

Knowing all these things can be really helpful as you try to get each learner to reach their potential. The test reveals these things simply in the questions it asks. Answers are given as 'never', 'rarely', 'sometimes', 'often', 'very often'.

• How often do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, once the challenging parts have been done?
• How often do you have difficulty getting things in order when you have to do a task that requires organization?
• How often do you have problems remembering appointments or obligations?
• When you have a task that requires a lot of thought, how often do you avoid or delay getting started?
• How often do you fidget or squirm with your hands or feet when you have to sit down for a long time?
• How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor?

These questions reveal quite a bit about my learners inner workings that is really helpful.

In pondering Attention Deficit, I have wondered to what degree this is actually a 'condition' for my learners, and to what degree they simply never learned to concentrate properly.

A large proportion of my students insist that listening to music helps them to concentrate. I disagree. Logically, if half your brain is being used up with music, only half is available for doing the work. OK, there may be left brain right brain issues here, fine, I welcome your insight. In favour of my view I cite the animation director of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' whose mentor ain his early days advocated turning the music off - and when he did, his animation imediately improved.

Why? Because in the words of his mentor he wasn't "clever enough to think of two things at once".

So where does that leave our students? Because they have never learned to focus on one thing, they find it boring, the trade off is to listen to music and only work on part efficiency. Half a brain.

Prospect Theory and Student Motivation

I know I promised to talk about the behaviourist approach to discipline, but I just had to say something about the recent BBC Horizon programme - "How to Make Better Decisions".

Part of the program went into an area of behavioural psychology called Prospect Theory. Although students motivation was not the subject of discussion I could see definate connections between students decisions to work or not and Prospect Theory.

So what is Prospect Theory?

Prospect theory basically explains how human motivation is altered depending on a persons perceptions of risk. Simply it says - people are more likely to take action to avoid a loss, than they are to take action to recieve a gain.

(You can read more on Wikipedia, or for a more succinct article, on EconPort.)

It took me about half a second to make a connection between this and my own student's motivation.

Impact on student's motivation

My hypothesis is that education, in the student's mind, is more about recieving a gain than it is about avoiding a loss. Their qualification is seen as something that they currently don't posess. Likewise improved job prospects, possibility of increased earnings etc. are all future events - 'maybes' that they currently don't own. They lose nothing that is currently theirs if they fail. This is particularly true if the student already has low self-esteem - then they can't even lose that.

On the flip side, students do own some things that do stimulate more vigorous action.

Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is one example. Students who recieve EMA feel a definate sense of ownership. If their EMA is paid late even by one day, students rarely fail to take up the issue with their tutors. On one occasion a student, mistakenly thinking that certain college employees are to blame, even spoke about making complaints against those staff members they percieved were to blame. I say this because it is important in illustrating the students sense of ownership. Prospect Theory says these students are more likely to take action to avoid a percieved loss. This is born out in practice - and as I just mentioned, even motivates potentially more drastic action.

In some class situations (thankfully not mine) the students most prized possesion may be the respect of their peers. If so, Prospect Theory says, they will take more drastic action to keep that peer respect than they will to do anything the teacher asks.

Owning the future

Assuming the above is true (and I believe it is), solutions are both obvious and difficult. One solution I have begun to adopt with my students, is to help them to take ownership of their future. They need to feel that their next step, whether employment, whether university, (whatever it is), is something that they own right now - and by implication, something that they can lose. When a student takes ownership in this way, Prospect Theory says they will be more likely to take action to prevent the loss of their future dream.

So how are we doing it? I, along with my team, have adopted a strategy that introduces students to their next step almost as soon as they start with us. We do this by taking students to open days at universities, by inviting in speakers from universities, by getting the students to start deciding straight away what their next step will be. To have an aspiration that they own.

True, their future next step is 2 years away. But it is that very idea that we need to change in the minds of our students. By owning their future next step now, Prospect Theory becomes an advantage to our students, and not a distraction.

Army style discipline in schools?

The latest news is likely, for some teachers, to bring hope and frustration in equal measure. The BBC reports that the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) is urging the government to:

"adopt a US-style programme which brings ex-servicemen and women back to
school."

Their reasoning?

"...ex-soldiers could have a profound effect on discipline and learning."

Their logic is simple. Ex-soldiers are not intimidated by adrenaline fueled adolescents. Ex-soldiers are statistically more likely to stay in the profession longer. Ex-soldiers are more confident in their moral authority. Ex-solidiers are likely to gain respect, especially from boys, because of their experience in a macho profession.

The implication however is that teachers from other backgrounds may be more intimidated, less likely to stay in the profession, un-confident in their moral authority and less likely to gain the respect of boys.

All in all a description of a teacher worn down by the circumstances of their job day-in day-out.

The Frustration

It is at this point the frustration kicks in. Surely there is a reason why some (perhaps many) teachers might be described in this way - apart from the fact that they don't happen to have spent 10 years in the armed services.

I suggest that many, if not all teachers, could be as effective at maintaining discipline as any ex-serviceman - provided they were given the training, tools and support from their senior management team.

The Hope

Unbelievably the think tank's report also said:

"Whether we like it or not, children from more deprived neighbourhoods often
respond to raw physical power".

One has to wonder what they expect ex-soldiers to do that existing teachers currently do not do. Something highly illegal by the sounds of it. But this may represent a teeny glimmer of light in the area of classroom discipline.

Perhaps new government policies will come down from above, untying the hands of school senior managers and teachers to be more effective. We can only hope.

While none of us would really want to 'bring back the cane' I think the CPS has really hit on the crux of classroom discipline - sometimes what is required is a show of strength - and currently by-and-large, that show of strength is simply not being given.

It really comes right down to behaviourist theory at its most basic level - stimulus response - Stick and Carrot. The problem however is that balance between the two may not be correct, too much carrot and not enough stick for the students who need it most - so it doesn't work effectively. This is a topic all on its own and I will cover it in my next post.