Learning Styles and Approaches to Studying: Implications for Achievement

1. Learning Styles and Approaches to Studying: Implications for Achievement Dr Derek Peters1, Gareth Jones1, & Dr John Peters2 1School of Sport & Exercise Science 2Learning & Teaching Centre University College Worcester UK

2. Introduction: • Learning styles: • Categories of learning style vary: • activist, reflector, theorist, pragmatist (Honey & Mumford, 1992) • visual, aural, read/write and kinesthetic of VARK • styles are personal attributes of the learner (Ramburuth, 1997, cited in Prosser & Trigwell, 1999)

3. Approaches to study: • origins in the work of Marton & Säljö (1976 a&b) • phenomenographic paradigm • surface and deep approach to learning • clear which approach is considered: • best for learning • most appropriate to Higher Education

4. Purpose: • To examine student learning using learning styles and approaches to studying analysis • Make tentative recommendations for HE teachers seeking to enhance learning in sports related programmes

5. Objectives: • Identify and evaluate the ‘preferred learning styles’ and ‘approaches to studying’ of students in each of the three levels of sports-related undergraduate programmes • Relationships between ‘learning styles’, ‘approaches to studying’ and grade profiles • Recommendations for guidelines for learning, teaching and assessment based on discipline specific evidence

6. Method: • Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ - Reid, 1987) • Approaches to Studying Questionnaire (ASQ – Richardson, 1990) • All students on sport-related HE programmes at UCW and its partner colleges (possible n=450). • Academic achievement: • mean mark for the four modules undertaken in the same semester in which the research data was collected • categorised according to UCW marking and grading criteria.

7. 231 males: 104 yr 1 90 yr 2 37 yr 3 5 UMS courses 3 HND courses 107 females: 30 yr 1 55 yr 2 22 yr 3 2 UMS courses 3 HND courses Results: Sample

8. Predominantly traditional entry • 7% mature • 97% white

9. Distribution of mean actual mark for four modules taken in semester 2 2003/4 E 4% D 24% C 49% B 21% A 2%

10. Significant grade findings: • females higher grades than males (p<0.01) • Yr 3 attained higher grades than Yr 1 (p<0.05) • No sig. diff. for: • mature student status • programme scheme (UMS vs. HND) • course programme • entry-level qualification

11. Questionnaire Analysis: • PLSPQ (Reid, 1987): • PCA with five factors enforced identified the six subscales. • Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha): • Tactile α = 0.80 • Group α = 0.91 • Kinesthetic α = 0.72 • Individual α = 0.90 • revised Auditory α = 0.53 • revised Visual α = 0.68

12. Questionnaire Analysis: • ASQ (Richardson, 1990): • PCA concluded that the 8 subscales of the questionnaire were not supported by the data! • two factor subscales for ‘Meaning’ (8 items) and ‘Reproducing’ (12 items) orientation: • modest construct validity (explained only 26.1% variance) • modest internal consistency (α = 0.62 and 0.68) • Not a useful tool in this population

13. RESULTS: learning styles

14. A K G I

15. T V Multiple ‘major’ preferences

16. Auditory Visual Individual Tactile Group Inter-relationships? Visual 0.096 - - - - Individual 0.079 0.330** - - - Tactile -0.096 -0.101 -0.101 - - Group -0.042 -0.199** -0.643** 0.181** - Kinesthetic -0.038 -0.156** -0.186** 0.345** 0.270** Spearman’s Rank order correlation coefficients

17. Significant findings: • Course programmes? • HND ORM > tactile than UMS Sports Studies • HND ORM < auditory than UMS Sports Studies, Sport & Exercise Science p<0.002 • Yr 3 > auditory than Yr 1 p<0.02 • Grade category relationships? • Small significant correlation with individual learning style category (rho=0.247; p<0.001) • Small significant negative correlation with group learning style category (rho=-0.178; p<0.001)

18. RESULTS: approach to studying

19. Significant findings: • No sig. diffs. in ‘Meaning’ or ‘Reproducing’ orientation between the year groups, courses or course programmes • Females > ‘Reproducing’ orientation scale than males (p<0.01) • Mature students > ‘Meaning’ orientation and < ‘Reproducing’ orientation than none mature students (p<0.05).

20. Reproducing orientation Level of autonomy Grade category Approach and grade? Meaning orientation -0.082 0.293** 0.186** Reproducing orientation - -0.174** -0.099 Level of autonomy - - 0.288** Spearman’s Rank order correlation * p<0.01, ** p<0.001

21. Learning Style (category) Meaning orientation Reproducing orientation learning styles and approaches to study? Visual 0.100 -0.044 Auditory 0.185** 0.092 Individual 0.091 -0.040 Kinesthetic 0.148** 0.009 Group 0.066 0.082 Tactile 0.133* 0.054 Spearman’s Rank order correlation * p<0.01, ** p<0.001

22. DISCUSSION: • first collection and analysis of unique discipline specificdata. • females more able to select the necessary approach to study for achievement of the task at hand? • evidence for the effective integration of students from diverse backgrounds? • increased self-rated level of autonomy in successive levels of undergraduate programmes related to higher grades - resultant from the strategic approach by UCW?

23. CONCLUSIONS 1: • preferred ‘learning styles’ identified as auditory, kinesthetic and group • vast majority of students are multi-modal • individual learning style positively related to higher grade • group learning style negatively related to grade category

24. CONCLUSIONS 2: • positive relationships between meaning orientation, perceived autonomy and higher grade category • negative relationship between reproducing orientation and grade category • tailor sport learning activities to best fit the learning styles of sports students? • evidence of use of the full range of learning styles in sports students would make this approach problematic.

25. Thoughts 1: • rebalance learning opportunities to emphasis particular learning styles while still seeking to ensure that all learning styles are supported • already inclining certain types of learner to undertake HE sports study? • FE experiences? • Nature vs nurture?

26. Thoughts 2: • possible to change the approach adopted by students over time through alteration of the context? • longitudinal research? • deep approach to learning engendered by alterations to the curriculum, teaching methods and assessment?

27. Thanks for listening! d.peters@worc.ac.uk

28. Useful references: • Clifford, V.A. (1999). The Development of Autonomous Learners in a University Setting. Higher Education Research & Development,18 (1), 115–128. • Diseth, A. and Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23 (2), 195-201. • Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004). The impact of training on university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5 (1), 87-100. • Harrelson, GL., Leaver-Dunn, D. and Wright, KE. (1998). An assessment of learning styles among undergraduate athletic training students. Journal of Athletic Training, 33 (1), 50-53. • Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peters Honey.

29. Useful references: • Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning I – outcomes and processes. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11. • Marton, F. & Säljö, R (1976b). On the qualitative difference in learning II-Outcome as a function of the Learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115-127. • Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. Milton Keynes UK: SRHE/Open University Press. • Reid, J.M. (1987). ‘The learning style preferences of ESL students’, TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1), 87-111. • Richardson, J.T.E. (1990). Reliability and Replicability of the Approaches to Studying Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education15 (2) 155-168.