Understanding teachers with extreme individual learning differences: Developing more effective...

This article was downloaded by:[Rosenfeld, Melodie]On: 8 July 2008Access Details: [subscription number 794348835]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713447679

Understanding teachers with extreme individual learningdifferences: developing more effective teachersMelodie Rosenfeld a; Sherman Rosenfeld ba Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlandsb Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2008

To cite this Article: Rosenfeld, Melodie and Rosenfeld, Sherman (2008)'Understanding teachers with extreme individual learning differences: developingmore effective teachers', Teaching Education, 19:1, 21 — 41

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10476210701860008URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210701860008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713447679

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210701860008

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008

Teaching EducationVol. 19, No. 1, March 2008, 21–41

ISSN 1047-6210 print/ISSN 1470-1286 online© 2008 School of Education, University of QueenslandDOI: 10.1080/10476210701860008http://www.informaworld.com

Understanding teachers with extreme individual learning differences: developing more effective teachers

Melodie Rosenfelda* and Sherman Rosenfeldb

aUtrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; bWeizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Taylor and Francis LtdCTED_A_286166.sgm10.1080/10476210701860008Teaching Education1047-6210 (print)/1470-1286 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis191000000March 2008Mrs [email protected] Three teachers, who held extreme preferences for the ways they learn, participated in ayear-long professional development course, designed to sensitize teachers to their own andcolleagues’ individual learning differences (ILDs). The case study focuses on their extremelearning preferences and discusses the impact of these preferences on their language, beliefsand practice, both before and after the course. The teachers’ learning preferences weredetermined from their scores on seven learning/cognitive styles tools and understood furtherfrom field notes, interviews and pre-/post-test responses. The study suggests that teacherswith extreme learning preferences tend to: (a) teach the way they prefer to learn; (b)overgeneralize and project their own learning needs onto students; and (c) hold initialpathognomonic (“blame the learner”) beliefs about students mismatched to them. After thecourse, the teachers changed their language, beliefs and practice in the direction ofbecoming more effective teachers, e.g., they held more interventionist beliefs (“I canintervene to help the learner”). The three teachers were strong prototypes who can provideinsights about the importance of ILDs in learning, practice and professional development.

Introduction

I’ve always been so creative and tactile and active and I thought it was bad and always felt bad aboutmyself in school – I thought I wasn’t clever. … I had great ideas but got 65 in my grades … I hatedthe more clever students. (Anne, pre-service teacher, age 37)

A traditional classroom was the only and best way for me. … And I was perfect in the classroom! …The “touchy-feely” stuff really annoys me. … It never occurred to me that smart people learned anyother way. Anyone who didn’t succeed was stupid. (Noa, pre-service teacher, age 37)

Everything was OK for me – I had no preferences for any subjects at school. I liked everything andeverything was interesting … I have no strong passions for anything – even with food. … Englishwas OK for me. Maths was OK for me. Chess, dance, what’s the difference? (Evelyn, in-serviceteacher, age 50)

Clearly, these three teachers show strong and different preferences as learners. Is there anyconnection between how these teachers learn and teach? Does the strength of a teacher’s learningpreferences make any difference in their beliefs about other learners? When teachers developsensitivity to themselves and colleagues as learners, in what ways do they become more effectiveteachers? Can these teachers offer insights into students who have extreme learning preferencesas learners? Few studies have raised these issues.

Innumerable past studies have dealt with the importance of addressing students’ learningdifferences such as learning styles (Jonassen & Grobowski, 1993). Indeed, “it has been found thatstyles predict academic success incrementally better than do ability tests” (Sternberg & Zhang,

*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008

22 M. Rosenfeld and S. Rosenfeld

2001, p. viii). However, there are few studies dealing with teachers’ individual learning differ-ences (Evans, 2004; Saracho, 1980) or resulting implications. By the term individual learningdifferences (ILDs), we refer to those learning characteristics which affect an individual’s capacityto function as a learner (Shapiro, Sewell, & DuCette, 1995). These learning characteristics caninclude cognitive controls, cognitive styles, learning styles and thinking styles (Jonassen &Grabowski, 1993; Sternberg & Zhang, 2001). For the sake of simplicity, we chose the term ILDsand limited the measures of the teachers’ ILDs to learning/cognitive styles (see Appendix 1 forthe ILDs tools and constructs).

While learning/cognitive style inventories have been used with teachers in research studies,the range of individual learning constructs are often limited to single bi-modal constructs (alonga continuum) such as field-dependency (see Saracho, 1980). Other studies, which have utilizedmultiple ILDs constructs, such as those of Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley and Gorman (1995) (seeHonigsfeld & Schiering, 2004), note the wide diversity and strength of teachers’ learning styles,yet have not focused on the implications for teachers with particular strengths of preference.

A previous study (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2004) looked at the changes that 14 teachersunderwent as a result of a 56-hour professional development (PD) course designed to developteachers’ sensitivity to their own and colleagues’ ILDs. In that study, teachers made changes inlanguage, beliefs and reported practice. For example, teachers showed changes from expressingineffective pathognomonic beliefs (“blame the learner” for learning difficulties) to more effectiveinterventionist beliefs (“I can intervene to help the learner”) (Jordan, Lindsay, & Stanovich,1997). A larger study validated teachers’ changes in beliefs about students (Rosenfeld &Rosenfeld, in press). The three teachers in the current study were participants in the two previousstudies, and were chosen specifically because they had such extreme ILDs preferences. The threeteachers talked incessantly about their strong differences and were eager to share their developinginsights during the year. Perhaps these three teacher prototypes can illuminate teacher ILDs inorder to inform us of the importance of addressing such differences in teacher learning, practiceand professional development.

The study first looks at who the teachers are as extreme learners. What are their ILDs prefer-ences? We then examine the impact of these preferences on their language, beliefs and practicebefore the PD course. Finally, we turn to understand how the teachers changed after the PD. Ourpaper asks the following specific questions:

(1) Who are these teachers as learners with extreme ILDs preferences?(2) Before the PD course, what language, beliefs and teaching practice are associated with

these teachers?(3) After the PD course, what changes, if any, were there in the teachers’ language, beliefs

and practice?

Who are these teachers as learners?

We determined the strength of the teachers’ extreme preferences by their scores on one cognitivestyles test and six self-report learning-style inventories (see Appendix 1 for details of ILDs tools).Since the three teachers taught in elementary and middle school, we chose ILDs tools which theycould use with their young students and avoided using ILDs tools designed for higher education,such as the learning styles and strategies of Vermunt (1996) or learning approaches of Biggs(1987) and Entwistle (1988). While the psychometric rigor of some learning styles inventorieshave been questioned (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004), inventories can be particu-larly effective in teacher development (Rainey & Kolb, 1995; Sadler-Smith, 1997). The teachers’preferences and developing self-awareness were understood further from field notes, interviews

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008

Teaching Education 23

and responses on a pre-/post-test question (see Appendix 2) concerning beliefs about studentswho experience learning difficulties. The PD course included learning styles research and theory,multiple exercises, and a final project that required the teachers to apply their learning withstudents (see Appendix 3).

We now discuss our first question: Who are these teachers as learners with extreme ILDs pref-erences? We introduce each teacher, presenting her scores as compared to inventory norms, andsharing her insights about herself as a learner.

Anne, a pre-service teacher (age 37) originally from Scotland, lived in Israel with her husbandand children. She had 15 years of experience teaching in informal education, and working as apuppeteer and artist. According to Anne’s scores, her style preferences were not only extreme,but extremely mismatched to traditional school learning (Table 1). While traditional schoolcontexts favor left hemisphere learning (rule-driven, hierarchical, sequential, analytical), Anneextremely preferred right hemisphere processing (creative, associative, experiential). Sheextremely preferred kinesthetic learning, the least efficient learning modality for school tasks. Shestrongly avoided sequential and precise learning, and extremely preferred technical and confluentlearning, not often favored in traditional school contexts. She extremely preferred the convergerstyle (applied learning). While school favors reflective, sensory (data-driven) learning, Anneextremely preferred active, intuitive learning. While school favors field-independent learners(analytic/details; Riding, 1997), Anne scored as an extreme field-dependent (global learner).

Not surprisingly, Anne had been consistently unsuccessful in school, carried with her anegative self-image as a learner and concluded that she was not very smart. She had very strongand unconventional learning needs that were clearly mismatched to a traditional school context:

I was a student who worked very hard but didn’t get anywhere because I had all these weird ideas. Inhigh school, I’d have to write a paper and instead of reading, I’d go to the museum and learn aboutthe topic with my father. It would take me forever and I never got good grades – but I just couldn’tdo it any other way.

Noa, a pre-service teacher (age 37) from the USA, lived in Israel with her husband and chil-dren. She had worked for eight years in informal education, directing a youth group in the USA.According to Noa’s scores (Table 2), her style preferences were extremely matched to traditionalschool contexts, and quite different from Anne’s. She extremely preferred left-hemisphere learn-ing, sequential and precise processing, analytic and practical abilities, all of which are favored intraditional school tasks. She strongly avoided the kinesthetic modality, technical processing, andcreative tasks: “At our college, I had to write an imaginary dialogue for the literature class. It’snot my style. It makes me crazy”.

Similar to Anne, she preferred the converger style of applied learning. She had very balancedpreferences between active/reflective and sensory/intuitive preferences.

Noa had always been highly successful as a student and had a very positive self-image as alearner. She had very strong and traditional learning needs which explained her success in atraditional school setting: “School was easy for me and I didn’t work hard … I’m strongly left-hemisphere, analytic, verbal … I’m so extreme in everything. … No balance at all”.

Evelyn, an in-service teacher (age 50) from Moscow, lived in Israel with her son. She hadtaught languages for over 10 years. According to Evelyn’s scores (Table 3), she was extremelybalanced, i.e., almost equally adept in each of the ILDs constructs. She strongly preferredauditory processing, but not extremely so. She strongly avoided the kinesthetic modality whichis, in any case, inconsequential in traditional school contexts. The Kolb LSI inventory (Kolb,1976) requires forced-choice answers and when Evelyn filled out the LSI, she bemoaned herdifficulties in choosing any one of the answers. She scored as a diverger, but the score was veryclose to the middle of the Kolb chart, indicating an extremely balanced learner on the LSIconstructs. Her other ILDs scores were extremely balanced.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Tabl

e 1.

Ann

e’s

scor

es o

n ba

tter

y of

IL

Ds

tool

s.

ILD

s to

ols

Sco

res

(str

engt

hs o

f pr

efer

ence

s)

ILD

s co

nstr

uct p

refe

renc

esB

old

indi

cate

s an

ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

;U

nder

line

indi

cate

s an

avo

ided

con

stru

ctT

he s

tren

gth

of A

nne’

s pr

efer

ence

s fo

r th

e co

nstr

uct

Hem

isph

eric

pre

fere

nces

(Tor

ranc

e, 1

980)

+9.

5(n

orm

s: −

7 to

+7)

Lef

t/ri

ght

hem

isph

ere

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(R

ight

he

mis

pher

e)L

earn

ing

mod

alit

ies

VA

K (

Bar

sch,

19

80)

25/2

0 /32

10 p

t. D

iffe

renc

e =

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

Vis

ual/

audi

tory

/ kin

esth

etic

mod

alit

ies

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(ki

nest

heti

c)(s

tron

gly

avoi

ds a

udit

ory)

Lea

rnin

g co

mbi

nati

on in

vent

ory

– L

CI

(Joh

nsto

n &

Dai

nton

, 199

7)11

/13/

35/3

2N

orm

s:S

eque

ntia

l, pr

ecis

e, t

echn

ical

, co

nflu

ent

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(te

chni

cal &

co

nflu

ent)

(str

ongl

y av

oids

seq

uent

ial &

pre

cise

)L

earn

ing

styl

e in

vent

ory

– L

SI

(Kol

b, 1

976)

AC

-CE

= 2

2 95

th p

erce

ntil

eA

E-R

O=

22

93rd

per

cent

ile

Div

erge

r, a

ssim

ilat

or, c

onve

rger

, ac

com

mod

ator

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(co

nver

ger)

Inde

x of

lear

ning

sty

les

(Fel

der

&

Sil

verm

an, 1

988)

a. 1

1pts

.b.

9pt

s.a.

7pt

s.b.

7pt

s.(1

1pts

. is

top

scor

e on

any

sin

gle

cons

truc

t)

a.A

ctiv

e/b.

Ref

lect

ive;

a.S

enso

ry/

b.In

tuit

ive;

a.V

isua

l/b.

Ver

bal;

a.S

eque

ntia

l/b.

Glo

bal

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(ac

tive

)E

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce (

intu

itiv

e)

Fie

ld d

epen

denc

y G

EF

T(W

itki

n, O

ltm

an, R

aski

n &

Kar

p,

1971

)

2 pt

s.N

orm

s fo

r w

omen

:0–

8 ex

trem

e F

D;

9–11

FD

;12

–14

FI;

15–1

8 ex

trem

e F

I

Fie

ld d

epen

dent

/ind

epen

dent

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(F

D)

Tri

arch

ic a

bili

ties

(S

tern

berg

, 198

5)In

form

al r

espo

nses

fol

low

ing

tria

rchi

c ex

erci

ses

in c

ours

e(a

naly

tic,

cre

ativ

e, p

ract

ical

)E

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce (

crea

tive

)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Tabl

e 2.

Noa

’s s

core

s on

bat

tery

of

ILD

s to

ols.

ILD

s to

ols

(Str

engt

hs o

f pr

efer

ence

s)

Noa

’s le

arni

ng p

refe

renc

esB

old

indi

cate

s an

ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

; un

derl

ine

indi

cate

s an

avo

ided

con

stru

ctT

he s

tren

gth

of h

er p

refe

renc

es

Hem

isph

eric

pre

fere

nces

(T

orra

nce,

198

0)−−−− 1

1 (−

7 to

+7

are

norm

s )

Lef

t/ri

ght h

emis

pher

eE

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce (

Lef

t)L

earn

ing

mod

alit

ies

VA

K (

Bar

sch,

198

0)24

/26/

910

pt.

Dif

fere

nce

= E

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce/a

void

ance

Vis

ual/

audi

tory

/kin

esth

etic

mod

alit

ies

Stro

ngly

avo

ids

kine

sthe

tic

Lea

rnin

g co

mbi

nati

on in

vent

ory

– L

CI

(Joh

nsto

n &

Dai

nton

, 199

7)32

/30/

14/2

2Se

quen

tial

, pre

cise

, tec

hnic

al, c

onfl

uent

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(se

quen

tial

, pr

ecis

e) s

tron

gly

avoi

ds

(tec

hnic

al)

Lea

rnin

g st

yle

inve

ntor

y –

LS

I (K

olb,

19

76)

AC

-CE

= 3

1(1

00th

per

cent

ile)

AE

-RO

= 1

7(8

2nd

perc

enti

le)

Div

erge

r, a

ssim

ilat

or, c

onve

rger

, ac

com

mod

ator

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(co

nver

ger)

Inde

x of

lear

ning

sty

les

(Fel

der

&

Sil

verm

an, 1

988)

b.1p

t.a.

1pt

.b.

9pt

s.a.

11p

ts.

a. A

ctiv

eb.

Ref

lect

ive

a. S

enso

ryb.

Intu

itiv

ea.

Vis

ual

b.V

erba

la.

Seq

uent

ial

b.G

loba

l

Bal

ance

dB

alan

ced

Stro

ng p

refe

renc

e (v

erba

l)E

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce (

sequ

enti

al)

Fie

ld d

epen

denc

yG

EF

T(W

itki

n et

al.,

197

1)

11 p

ts.

Nor

ms

for

wom

en:

0–8

extr

eme

FD

;9–

11 F

D;

12–1

4 F

I;15

–18

extr

eme

FI

Fie

ld d

epen

dent

/ind

epen

dent

Bal

ance

d

Tri

arch

ic a

bili

ties

(S

tern

berg

, 198

5)R

espo

nses

bas

ed o

n in

form

al

tria

rchi

c ex

erci

ses

in c

ours

eA

naly

tic,

pra

ctic

al, c

reat

ive

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

(an

alyt

ic)

Stro

ngly

avo

ids

crea

tive

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Tabl

e 3.

Eve

lyn’

s sc

ores

on

batt

ery

of I

LD

s to

ols.

ILD

s to

ols

Eve

lyn’

s sc

ores

(st

reng

ths

of

pref

eren

ces)

Her

lear

ning

pre

fere

nces

Bol

d in

dica

tes

an e

xtre

me

pref

eren

ce;

unde

rlin

e in

dica

tes

a st

rong

ly a

void

ed c

onst

ruct

The

str

engt

h of

her

pre

fere

nces

fo

r th

e co

nstr

uct

Hem

isph

eric

pre

fere

nces

(T

orra

nce,

19

80)

+1

(−7

to +

7 ar

e no

rms

)R

ight

/ lef

t hem

isph

ere

Bal

ance

d

Lea

rnin

g m

odal

itie

s V

AK

(B

arsc

h,

1980

)28

/37/

1810

pt.

diff

eren

ce=

Ext

rem

e pr

efer

ence

/avo

idan

ce

Vis

ual/

audi

tory

/kin

esth

etic

mod

alit

ies

Stro

ngly

avo

ids

kine

sthe

tic

Lea

rnin

g co

mbi

nati

on in

vent

ory

– L

CI

(Joh

nsto

n &

Dai

nton

, 199

7)24

/24/

24/3

0S

eque

ntia

l, pr

ecis

e, te

chni

cal,

conf

luen

tP

refe

rs c

onfl

uent

Lea

rnin

g st

yle

inve

ntor

y –

LS

I (K

olb,

197

6)A

C-C

E=

−1

35th

per

cent

ile

AE

-RO

=5

48th

per

cent

ile

Div

erge

r, a

ssim

ilat

or, c

onve

rger

, ac

com

mod

ator

Bal

ance

d

Inde

x of

lear

ning

sty

les

(Fel

der

&

Sil

verm

an, 1

988)

0; 0; 0; 0

a. A

ctiv

eb.

Ref

lect

ive;

a. S

enso

ryb.

Intu

itiv

e;a.

Vis

ual

b.V

erba

l;a.

Seq

uent

ial

b.G

loba

l

Bal

ance

dB

alan

ced

Bal

ance

dB

alan

ced

Fie

ld d

epen

denc

yG

EF

T(W

itki

n et

al.,

197

1)

9 pt

s.N

orm

s fo

r w

omen

:0–

8 ex

trem

e F

D;

9–11

FD

;12

–14

FI;

15–1

8 ex

trem

e F

I

Fie

ld d

epen

dent

/ind

epen

dent

(Wit

kin…

)P

refe

rs F

D

Tri

arch

ic a

bili

ties

(S

tern

berg

, 198

5)R

espo

nses

bas

ed o

n in

form

al

tria

rchi

c ex

erci

ses

in c

ours

eA

naly

tic,

prac

tica

l,cr

eati

ve

Bal

ance

d

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


She was very aware of having no preferences for how or what she learned, a fact which hadbothered her for many years:

I always thought I was not right all the time as a pupil in Russia. …My friends rushed to thetheater or cinema, but I had the same pleasure being in the theater, watching a film, or reading thebook.

In summary, the two pre-service teachers, Anne and Noa, were extreme learners, i.e., theyexhibited extreme (and very opposite) preferences or avoidances for many of the ILDsconstructs on the battery of learning and cognitive styles tools. Thus, teachers with extremeILDs preferences are those whose scores on multiple ILDs tools are skewed strongly in onedirection and who acknowledge their very strong preferences for a particular learning context(see Table 4). Anne was extremely mismatched to traditional learning and acknowledged beingmatched to non-traditional contexts such as discovery learning, project-based learning, construc-tivist learning (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006). Noa was extremely matched to traditional learn-ing. The in-service teacher, Evelyn, was an extremely balanced learner, i.e., she had no strongpreferences on any of the ILDs constructs and acknowledged being matched to many kinds oflearning contexts.

Before the PD course

We now discuss our second question: Before the PD course, what language, beliefs and teachingpractice are associated with teachers with extreme ILDs preferences?

Anne’s language, beliefs and practice before the PD

Anne used language which reflected her blame-the-learner beliefs (pathognomonic – Jordanet al., 1997) when students experienced learning difficulties with her creative learning activities,labeling such mismatched students “problematic”. The previous year, a student in her class andhis parent did not like her creative approach to teaching: “One kid hated my lessons and hismother thought I was terrible”.

Anne had concluded that the student and his parent did not recognize good teaching whenthey saw it:

Table 4. Summary of teachers’ ILDs scores (from Tables 1, 2, 3).

Anne Noa Evelyn

Summary of teachers’ILDs scores (from Tables 1, 2, 3)

Extremely prefers these styles:Right hemisphere, kinesthetic, technical, confluent, converger, active, intuitive, field-dependent, creative.

Extremely prefers these styles:Left hemisphere, sequential, precise, converger, sequential, analytic.

Extremely prefers these styles:(None)

Strongly avoids these:Auditory, sequential, precise

Strongly avoids these:Kinesthetic, technical, creative

Strongly avoids these:Kinesthetic

(Anne’s style preferences are extremely matched to non-traditional learning contexts)

(Noa’s style preferences are extremely matched to traditional learning contexts)

(Evelyn’s style preferences are strongly matched to many learning contexts)

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Before the course, I’d say “this kid in my class is problematic”, or “this parent just doesn’t understandgood teaching”, since I bring a lot of art into the classroom. Before, it was the kid’s problem and notmine. I’d think, “Shape up!”

While it may seem contradictory, Anne also held pathognomonic beliefs about herself. Sheattributed her own school difficulties solely to a weakness in herself, believing that she wasintrinsically not smart: “Before, they [other students] were clever and I was stupid”. Her early andcontinuous mismatch to traditional school tasks likely reinforced this tenacious and dysfunctionalbelief about herself (Nespor, 1987). She dismissed her strong performance in creative learningtasks as “not real learning”. Her recent, very good grades at the college did not change her negativeself-image as a learner. She simply had attributed her recent academic learning success to herknowledge of English, since she was a native speaker, competing with Israelis whose English wasa foreign language: “I thought I was succeeding at college maybe because of my good English”.

On the pre-test (Appendix 2), Anne found it too difficult to answer the question (“What is a‘weak student’?”) and she wrote: “Sorry, find it too hard to answer this”.

She drew a line through the question. Perhaps her own painful experiences of school failuremade it difficult to write a response. Perhaps she intuitively knew the answer was complicatedbut lacked the language and concepts to explain.

Anne’s practice reflected how she herself learned best – with creativity and excitement.During the practicum teaching week, she felt it tedious and boring to have students do exercisesfrom the workbook. Instead, she filled her classroom with creative, exciting learning activities.She later reflected that this kind of learning was what she thought was the most relevant andcorrect way to teach:

I love puppets and feeling. I thought I’d be the greatest teacher in the world. I’d “save the world” andbe the “greatest” … I thought that how I learn is how everyone should learn. It’s the fun way!

Noa’s language, beliefs and practice before PD

Noa also used language which reflected pathognomonic beliefs about students who experienceacademic difficulties, considering such students “dumb”. She initially believed that students withlow achievements were intrinsically not smart people:

I had a roommate in university who really studied hard. I felt bad for her and thought “she’s notsmart”. It was just hard for her to study for “precise”, detailed information – that’s what I think now.

Since she was successful in traditional school contexts, she believed she was intrinsically avery smart person in all learning contexts: “I thought I’m sophisticated and everyone else is dumb”.

Noa’s response on the pre-test (Appendix 2) reflected pathognomonic beliefs: “A weakstudent is one who has difficulty concentrating, following the lesson, finding interest in thesubject, taking in connections between points”.

Noa’s practice reflected her own extreme structured, analytic learning. “I’m a classicteacher…”. She felt herself unable to do creative activities: “I’m so uncreative!” Even when shetried to do creative things, such as think of creative learning activities for her classroom, shefound it extremely difficult: “Coming up with a creative idea was hard work!” She, like Anne,dismissed creative learning tasks as not real learning. In order for Noa to design creative activi-ties, she needed to do it in her own analytic fashion: “Even with creative things I have to makethings into a list to make it sequential”.

Evelyn’s language, beliefs and practice before PD

Evelyn used language which reflected pathognomonic beliefs about students who did not like aspecific learning activity, and she considered such behavior frustrating and “annoying”. Even

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


though Evelyn had had many previous experiences that students learn differently, she could notmake sense of it and expressed frustration: “It was very annoying when I had a 9-year-old pupilwho didn’t translate words. He just drew every word. I just couldn’t understand it”.

Evelyn’s practice reflected her own lack of preferences for any specific learning context. Asa result, she consistently diversified instruction; nevertheless, she did not express reflection orappreciation of the importance of diversifying for some students. Thus, her diverse instruction didnot stem from any grand theory of pedagogy, or matching the needs of any learner. Rather it wasbased on who she was as a learner, i.e., a balanced learner who enjoys a wide variety of differentpedagogical methods. Evelyn’s pre-test (Appendix 2) response reflected pathognomonic beliefsabout students: “A weak student has a low level of knowledge and has difficulties in learning”.

In summary, before the PD, the three teachers expressed language, beliefs and practice whichfrequently showed a direct relationship between how they themselves preferred to learn andteach. They overgeneralized, assuming that others had the same needs as them, and they weresurprised at their powerful, unconscious preferences. Thus, there is evidence that these teachers’language, beliefs and practice were strongly influenced by their own extreme ILDs preferences,as shown in Table 5.

After the PD course

We now turn to our third question about changes which the teachers may have made: After thePD course, what changes, if any, were there in the teachers’ language, beliefs and practice? Wealso discuss surprises which were expressed by each teacher in regard to herself as a learner.

Changes in their language of ILDs

Initially, the three teachers used language which framed themselves and other learners negatively.During the PD they reframed their experiences, speaking in more positive terms and conceptsbased on ILDs constructs and models. For example, Anne changed from calling her ideas “weird”to calling them creative, confluent, right-hemisphere. Noa changed from dismissing creative,divergent thinking to accepting that being creative is a legitimate way of being smart: “The 4-MAT learning cycle helped me … to recognize and give a language to who we were and how wewere different”. Evelyn was superficially conscious of learner differences but initially did notlegitimize and could not describe those differences. She gained a language to talk about learningdifferences: “From the beginning I saw everyone as an individual. Now I understand theextremes. I couldn’t formulate it before …”

Changes in beliefs about themselves and other learners

From interviews we heard many incidents exemplifying the three teachers’ changes in beliefsabout students, particularly their attributions of why students might be considered “weak”. ThePD relied on learning styles theory (Honigsfeld & Schiering, 2004; Ojure, 1997), where insteadof blaming difficulties solely on the student’s ability or motivation, teachers broaden their causalattributes of learning difficulties to include a possible mismatch between the learning task, theteacher and the student’s styles (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). For example, some students arelow achievers in one subject but strong in another or with another teacher. Sometimes a “weak”student can perform significantly better in a project-based context and “suddenly” becomesmart, a common phenomenon which has been shown to surprise teachers (Rosenfeld & Rosen-feld, 1999).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Tabl

e 5.

Find

ings

bef

ore

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t (P

D).

Bef

ore

PD

Ann

e: e

xtre

mel

y m

atch

ed to

non

-tra

diti

onal

le

arni

ng c

onte

xts

Noa

: ext

rem

ely

mat

ched

to tr

adit

iona

l le

arni

ng c

onte

xts

Eve

lyn:

ext

rem

ely

mat

ched

to a

ll le

arni

ng

cont

exts

(ba

lanc

ed)

Lan

guag

e be

fore

PD

Fra

med

her

self

neg

ativ

ely:

had

“w

eird

” id

eas

Dis

mis

sed

crea

tive

, div

erge

nt th

inki

ngC

alle

d pu

pils

“an

noyi

ng”

whe

n th

ey le

arne

d di

ffer

entl

yB

elie

fs b

efor

e P

DC

reat

ive

task

s ar

e no

t “re

al le

arni

ng”

Oth

er le

arne

rs a

ll w

ant t

o le

arn

the

“fun

way

”H

eld

path

ogno

mon

ic b

elie

fs a

bout

her

ow

n w

eak

acad

emic

per

form

ance

and

stu

dent

s m

ism

atch

ed to

cre

ativ

e ta

sks.

Cou

ld n

ot a

rtic

ulat

e w

hat i

s a

“wea

k” s

tude

nt

Sm

art p

eopl

e le

arn

sequ

enti

ally

and

an

alyt

ical

lyH

eld

path

ogno

mon

ic b

elie

fs a

bout

“w

eak”

stu

dent

s.

Sm

art l

earn

ers

do n

ot h

ave

stro

ng p

refe

renc

es

that

mig

ht in

flue

nce

thei

r le

arni

ng s

ucce

ssH

eld

path

ogno

mon

ic b

elie

fs a

bout

“w

eak”

st

uden

ts.

Pra

ctic

e be

fore

PD

Tau

ght w

ith

crea

tive

and

exc

itin

g le

arni

ng

acti

viti

esC

onsc

ious

ly a

void

ed g

ivin

g “b

orin

g ex

erci

ses”

Tau

ght w

ith

stru

ctur

ed a

nd a

naly

tic

lear

ning

act

ivit

ies

Una

ble

to d

o or

lead

cre

ativ

e le

arni

ng

acti

viti

es.

Div

ersi

fied

inst

ruct

ion

wit

h bo

th c

reat

ive

and

anal

ytic

act

ivit

ies,

but

una

war

e of

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f di

vers

ific

atio

n

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Anne’s changing beliefs

Experiencing learning styles theory, Anne broadened her concept of what learning is andreframed herself as a strong learner when doing matched, creative learning tasks:

This is the first time I feel good about myself as a learner – that it’s OK and sometimes even better tobe such a creative learner … I accepted myself because of the course … I know now that beingcreative is good. Now I know that making puppets and doing art is also good academically.

As a result, three things happened:

(1) Her self-image as a learner improved: “Before, other students were clever and I wasstupid. … Now, I’m on the same height as them … on top of the moon!” She broadenedher professional plans, now considering doing a master’s degree: “Before, I neverdreamed of going on for a higher degree!”

(2) She became a more effective learner, empowered to redesign mismatched learning tasksto match her own learning strengths: “I learned to first write reports my own way and thendo what the teacher wants. The first thing is accept myself and my learning style. … Ifigured out how to get around when I’m writing a paper. Others start by brainstormingand mapping … but I need to write a few notes, a few points, and then draw a picture onthe side. I write the paper and then I map it. If the teacher wants a map, then do it later”.

(3) Anne expressed more interventionist beliefs about students with difficulties. Reflectingon the student who did not like her “fun” assignments, Anne admitted that she played arole in his dissatisfaction and said that she had not matched her student’s traditionallearning needs. On the post-test, Anne wrote a response which reflected both the match/mismatch concept and that the teacher plays a role in helping the student succeed: “A weakstudent does not fit into the criteria of the school. His learning style is not used in schooland he has not been taught how to use his learning style, to fit into the school system”.She seemed to be talking about herself here, speaking in a strong voice that acknowledgedher mismatch to the traditional learning contexts of her school experiences.

Noa’s changing beliefs

As Noa experienced the match/mismatch concept in learning styles theory, she underwent fourchanges:

(1) She began to reframe her own extreme, traditional learning. She acknowledged thatschool learning was not the only kind of learning and that there were different ways ofbeing smart: “I began to understand that my left hemisphere, sequential, precise, analyticand judgmental style was not the only way to be smart …”.

(2) She became more compassionate towards non-traditional learners like Anne, who hadsuffered continuous failure throughout her school experiences: “No one ever told Anneabout her learning style. All these [highly creative] kids suffer needlessly”.

(3) She began to stretch into other ILDs constructs, trying out less-preferred or avoided-styles: “Coming up with a creative idea was hard work! … Now I believe that as a teacherit’s good to work hard with something that’s hard for me”.

(4) She had previously believed that creativity was a waste of time, but by the end of thecourse, she was sobered by the creativity that she lacked: “I can say that I’m still super-intellectual and analytic – it’s great! But now I give legitimacy to others and actually feelbad for myself that I’m missing out on things … since I’m so extremely sequential”.

Noa’s post-test response reflected an understanding of the match/mismatch concept, andacknowledged the role of the learning context in student success, i.e., an interventionist belief:

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


“To me, a ‘weak student’ is someone who is not successful within the school system and mayneed to learn in a different style in order to succeed”.

Evelyn’s changing beliefs

Evelyn made few changes in beliefs about students or learning. Even up until the end of the PD,she found it difficult to acknowledge that the match/mismatch concept is an important factor inlearning success for some students. She had observed over the years that some children learnbetter with some kinds of tasks, such as learning English vocabulary with songs. Nevertheless,she did not believe that diversifying instruction made much difference to anyone – it is just whata good teacher does: “In Moscow I could always teach as I want. There was lots of material –cassettes, songs, text … I give a large variety, like stories and questions and texts, etc. and notonly a chart”.

Only after lengthy and direct mediation, together with innumerable examples during theyear from more extreme colleagues about their frustration when doing a mismatched task, didEvelyn begin to reflect and express some changed beliefs of attributions of student difficulties.She had always seen external differences among students but began to appreciate, howeverslowly, the internal differences that made certain kinds of learning difficult for some learners:“In the beginning, I couldn’t get it. … The difference is something inside the person that makesa difference. We come to the same results in the end. It’s just how we learn that’s different”(her emphasis).

At the very end of the year Evelyn expressed some understanding about the nine-year old whoneeded to draw vocabulary words. “Now I understand that it’s his learning style” (a visual/tactilelearner). Nevertheless, her post-test response (Appendix 2) ignored the role of the teacher or learn-ing context in student learning success, continuing to blame the learner for difficulties: “A weakstudent is a student whose results in studying are poor [operational definition] and is one whodoesn’t know (didn’t yet find) his own way of learning for getting better results [pathognomonic],to enjoy the process of learning”.

During small focus-group interviews, Evelyn agreed with Anne’s insight: “Evelyn’s such abalanced learner, that she doesn’t really get what we’re talking about! Lucky her!” Evelyn wasso extremely balanced that she did not internalise the importance of addressing ILDs for somelearners. The only change of belief she expressed was her increased self-acceptance as a learnerwith no preferences: “After the course … I’m OK now not to have differences or preferences”.

Changes in reported practice

Anne expressed positive changes in what she was going to do with her students: “My teachingapproach changed as a result. … Now I look at kids in class and say I’m gonna give them thechance to succeed”. She began to address and advocate for her own first-grade son who had asimilar non-traditional learning style to hers and whose needs were not being met in school: “Ifigured out during the year that my son has a very strong tactile learning style, which is just likehis mother’s! So I just cut out some sandpaper letters for him and he learned them just fine….Teachers need to open their eyes!”

Before PD, Noa did not teach with creative activities since she did not believe that creativeendeavors were important or constituted real learning: “I used to think that being creative wassilly and had nothing to do with learning … I dismissed it”. After PD, she explained that her newinsights into her own limitations allowed her to legitimize creative students: “I realise that I’dnever get to creative solutions as well as Anne. … Now I’m open to others – to creative kids I’dsay, ‘OK! Go with it!’”

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Evelyn reported that her practice did not change in any way and she felt that the PD did notcontribute to her professional development. The mediator suggested that perhaps Evelyn’s lackof enthusiasm was because she was already addressing a wide diversity of ILDs in her classroom.Evelyn strongly agreed with this conclusion.

Surprises about themselves as learners

Anne was surprised at how unique she was. She learned in the course that very few studentspreferred to learn the way she did: “I learned that fun, kinesthetic, hand-on activities are notenough for some kids … I found out that only about 10% of the kids were like me – creative,tactile learners – that was a shock!”

Noa was surprised at how extreme she was. The inventories helped her to quantify herstrengths and weaknesses: “Intuitively I knew I was an ‘extreme person’. When I saw the results[scores] and how extreme I was – that did it”. She was also surprised that she had consistentlyconsidered the traditional school context as the only legitimate context for learning and “beingsmart”. Noa saw that she lacked expertise in many of the constructs and learning contexts thatAnne excelled at, which became a humbling experience for Noa: “I used to think that beingcreative was silly and had nothing to do with learning. I’m so uncreative! Now I think that halfof my life was missing”.

Evelyn was surprised that others could not learn as flexibly as she could in a wide variety ofcontexts: “It was strange for me why two pupils didn’t like games”. As a balanced learner, Evelynfound particular difficulty understanding diverse learners. She was the most resistant to acceptingthat some students learn best in a particular learning context. Even up until two months before theend of the course, Evelyn said, “All styles are fine. Why discuss it?! All methods are the same!”

In summary (see Table 6), Anne and Noa, as learners with extreme preferences, showed manychanges in the following: (1) they changed their theories of attribution of student difficulties,moving from pathognomonic to interventionist beliefs; (2) they reframed themselves and otherlearners; (3) they internalized the match/mismatch concept of learning style theory; and (4) theyreported changes in their practice. In contrast, Evelyn, the extremely balanced learner, expressedfew or no changes in her beliefs about students, continuing to express pathognomonic beliefs;however, her reported pedagogical practice continued to be diverse. Each expressed surprise thatother learners did not share her ILDs preferences.

Concluding points

We argue that the three teachers became more effective teachers when they increased theirsensitivity to their own ILDs. Effective teachers show “respect for diversity” (National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards, 2007) and meet the needs of diverse learners (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Before PD, the three teachers consistently overgeneralized, projecting theirbeliefs about effective learning, which reflected their own learning needs, onto students. Theteachers expressed strong tendencies to teach the way they preferred to learn, favoring learnerslike themselves. This tendency has been shown to hold dangers, in that teachers tend to overratelearners who match themselves (Sternberg, 1997). Mismatched students can be disadvantagedwhen they study in learning contexts which do not match their learning needs (Sternberg &Zhang, 2001). Anne exemplified such a student with long-term self-image scars from having beena bright, creative person, who was continuously and unknowingly mismatched in a traditionalschool learning context.

Not only did the three teachers, themselves, make changes during the PD. They also inadvert-ently helped other teachers in the PD course (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2004) to make changes, by

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Tabl

e 6.

Find

ings

aft

er P

D.

Aft

er P

D

Ann

eN

oaE

vely

n

Lan

guag

e af

ter

PD

Use

d la

ngua

ge th

at r

efra

med

her

self

pos

itiv

ely

(fro

m

havi

ng “

wei

rd”

to “

crea

tive

” id

eas)

Gai

ned

a la

ngua

ge o

f ho

w le

arne

rs a

re

diff

eren

tC

ould

now

talk

abo

ut le

arni

ng

diff

eren

ces.

Bel

iefs

aft

er P

DA

ccep

ted

crea

tive

lear

ning

as

legi

tim

ate

Ref

ram

ed &

legi

tim

ized

her

self

as

“sm

art”

Str

ong

inte

rven

tion

ist b

elie

fs a

bout

“w

eak”

stu

dent

s

Acc

epte

d cr

eati

ve le

arni

ng a

s le

giti

mat

eH

umbl

ed b

y he

r ow

n la

ck o

f cr

eati

vity

; ad

mir

ed A

nne’

s cr

eati

vity

Str

ong

inte

rven

tion

ist b

elie

fs a

bout

“w

eak”

stu

dent

s

Con

tinu

ed to

fin

d di

ffic

ulty

un

ders

tand

ing

lear

ners

wit

h di

vers

e IL

Ds

Sti

ll h

eld

path

ogno

mon

ic b

elie

fs

abou

t “w

eak”

stu

dent

sP

ract

ice

afte

r P

DS

uppo

rted

cre

ativ

e, n

on-c

onve

ntio

nal l

earn

ers

as

“sm

art”

; adv

ocat

ed f

or ta

ctil

e so

nO

pen

to g

ivin

g st

uden

ts c

reat

ive

lear

ning

act

ivit

ies

Did

not

cha

nge

prac

tice

; con

tinu

ed to

di

vers

ify

Sur

pris

es a

fter

PD

Sur

pris

ed th

at s

o fe

w o

ther

lear

ners

wer

e as

cre

ativ

e &

ta

ctil

e as

she

was

.S

urpr

ised

at h

ow e

xtre

me

she

was

as

an

anal

ytic

lear

ner

& th

at s

he h

ad

legi

tim

ized

onl

y tr

adit

iona

l lea

rnin

g

Sur

pris

ed th

at o

ther

s w

ere

not a

s fl

exib

le le

arne

rs a

s sh

e w

as

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


exposing other teachers to learners with extreme learning preferences. In fact, we argue that thethree teachers, as learners with extreme preferences, played a central role in sensitizing otherteachers to the significance of addressing ILDs. Other teachers heard insider-information aboutwhat some students experience. For example, when Anne shared her own painful school experi-ences, other teachers were exposed to the price paid by mismatched students like Anne. WhenNoa shared her prejudices about low-achieving learners (“Anyone who didn’t succeed wasstupid”), other teachers were encouraged to examine their own beliefs as teachers. When Evelyndid not “get it” (that ILDs preferences can make a difference with some learners), the mediator,a teacher educator, gained insight about such extremely balanced learners who find it difficult toappreciate the value of addressing ILDs. During the year, other teachers “interviewed” the threeteachers, who generously shared their growing insights about who they are as extreme learnersand what they believe about learning and teaching. Other teachers also shared their insights, ofcourse, but the three, with such concentrated preferences, particularly distilled the essence ofILDs preferences. As “pure types”, they helped other teachers understand the strengths andchallenges of learners with strong ILDs preferences. We strongly recommend that such teachersbe “given the stage” during similar PD courses which use the non-judgmental framework of stylestheory.

We suggest that PD courses, designed to develop teacher sensitivity to ILDs, can facilitateteachers to become more effective by: (a) exposing them to their own and colleagues’ uniquestrengths as learners; (b) challenging their overgeneralizations about learning and students; (c)exposing teachers with extreme preferences or avoidances to the resulting implications in theirclassrooms, including using unnecessary negative language and beliefs about mismatchedstudents; (d) exposing those who are extremely balanced to the difficulties of students who aremore extreme in their learning needs, particularly those mismatched to traditional learningcontexts; (e) encouraging teachers to “stretch” into less preferred styles of learning, thusengendering more empathy for mismatched students; and (f) enlarging their conscious repertoirefor meeting the needs of diverse students, many of whom also have extreme ILDs preferences.

The following hypotheses are supported by our case study, and we suggest they be studiedfurther with larger sample sizes: (a) Teachers have very different individual learning differencesand those with extreme ILDs unconsciously tend to teach the way they prefer to learn; (b) Thosewith extreme preferences tend to hold pathognomonic beliefs about students who are mismatchedto them; (c) Professional development that sensitises teachers to their own and colleagues’ ILDscan develop teachers’ language, beliefs and practice, making them more effective teachers.

References

Barsch, J. (1980). Barsch learning styles inventory. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publishers.Biggs, J.B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn: Australian Council for

Educational Research.Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What

research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Retrieved November27, 2007, from www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence.Education Policy Analysis Archives 2000, 8(1), 1–53. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1

Dunn, R., Dunn, D., & Price, G.E. (1979). Learning styles inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.Dunn, R., Griggs, S., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, B.S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn

and Dunn model of learning style preferences. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353–362.Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students’ approaches to learning. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.),

Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.Evans, C. (2004). Exploring the relationship between cognitive style and teaching style. Educational

Psychology, 24(4), 509–553.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Felder, R.M., & Silverman, L.K. (1988). The index of learning styles. Retrieved September 27, 2007, fromwww.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html.

Gregorc, A.F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), Studentlearning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 19–26). Reston, VA: National Associationof Secondary School Principals.

Honigsfeld, A., & Schiering, M. (2004). Diverse approaches to the diversity of learning styles in teachereducation. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 487–508.

Johnston, C.A. (1996). Unlocking the will to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Johnston, C., & Dainton, G. (1997). Learning combination inventory users’ manual. Glassboro, NJ:

Rowan University.Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L., (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning and instruction.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Jordan, A., Lindsay, L., & Stanovich, P. (1997). Classroom teachers’ instructional interactions with

students who are exceptional, at risk, and typically achieving. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2),82–93.

Kolb, D.A. (1976). The learning style inventory (LSI) technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer and Co.McCarthy, B., (1980). 4-MAT in action. Barrington, IL. Excel, Inc.Myers, I.B., & Myers, P.B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA:

Davies-Black.National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2005). The five core propositions. Retrieved October

23, 2007, from http://www.nbpts.org/the_five_core_propositiNespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4),

317–328.Ojure, L.P. (1997). An investigation of the relationship between teachers’ participation in 4MAT funda-

mentals training and teachers’ perception of teacher efficacy. PhD dissertation, Blacksburg, Virginia,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-6197-102045/unrestricted/Oj6241.pdf

Rainey, M.A., & Kolb, D. (1995). Using experiential learning theory and learning styles in diversityeducation. In R. Sims, & S. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles (pp. 129–146). Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Riding, R. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 29–50.Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (1999). Understanding the “surprises” in project-based learning (PBL);

An exploration into the learning styles of teachers and their students. Paper presented at the EuropeanAssociation for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference. University of Gothenberg,Sweden, August. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from www.designworlds.com/techscape/Sherm_LStyles.html.

Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2004). Developing teacher sensitivity to individual learning differences.Educational Psychology, 24(4), 465–486.

Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to constructivist learningenvironments: Challenges and resolutions. Science Education, 90(3), 385–399.

Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (in press). Developing effective teacher beliefs about learners: The role ofsensitising teachers to individual learning differences (ILDs). Educational Psychology, 28.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Learning styles: Frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17, 51–65.Saracho, O.N. (1980). Relationship of teachers’ cognitive styles to pupils academic achievement gains.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 544–549.Seagal, S., & Horne, D. (1997). Human dynamics: A new framework for understanding people and realising

the potential in our organisations. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications.Shapiro, J.P., Sewell, T.E., & Ducette, J.P. (1995), Reframing diversity in education. Educational leadership

for the twenty-first century. Basel: Technomic Publishing.Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge

University Press.Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.Sternberg, R., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P., & Grigorenko, E. (1996). Identification, instruction, and

assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly,40(3), 129–137.

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R.J.Sternberg, & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–22).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Sternberg, R.J., & Zhang, L. (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Torrance, E.P. (1980). Your style of learning and thinking: Right, left, or whole brain dominance. Athens,GA: University of Georgia.

Vermunt, J. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies:A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31, 25–50.

Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independentcognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.

Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). Manual for the embedded figures tests. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Appendix 1.The battery of seven ILDs tools used in the PD course

1. Learning style inventory (Kolb, 1976).Inventory appropriate for high school to adult.

Four learning styles Explanation

1. Diverger Prefers feeling-watching:(concrete-experience/reflective-observation)Needs to personally connect to the topic in order to learn.Preferred question: Why learn the material?

2. Assimilator Prefers thinking-watching:(abstract-conceptualization/reflective-observation)Needs to understand factual information in order to learn.Preferred question: What are the facts and theories?

3. Converger Prefers thinking-doing:(Abstract-conceptualization/active-experimentation)Needs to apply information in order to learn.Preferred question: How do the theories work?

4. Accommodator Prefers feeling-doing:(concrete-experience/active-experimentation)Needs to self-discover information in order to learn.Preferred question: What if I did it this way?

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


2. Left/right hemisphere preferences (Torrance, 1980) (“Left/right hemisphere” is used as a meta-phor for sequential vs. associative preferences.)Inventory appropriate for middle school to adult.

3. Visual/auditory/kinesthetic modalities (Barbe-Swassing, 1980; Barsch, 1980).Inventory appropriate for middle school to adult.

4. Learning combination inventory (Johnston & Dainton, 1997).Inventories appropriate for all ages, including first graders.

5. Group embedded figures test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971).Test appropriate for adult learners only.

Left hemisphere characteristics Right hemisphere characteristics

Sequential AssociativeHierarchical CreativeLogical EmotionalPlanned SpontaneousObjective Subjective

Visual Auditory Kinesthetic

“Tell me” “Let me move”Prefers watching to gain information

Prefers listening to gain information

Prefers moving to gain information

Prefers visual means (charts, graphs, pictures) to represent knowledge

Prefers verbal means (lecture, tape, talking aloud) to represent knowledge

Prefers physical means (walking, writing, constructing) to represent knowledge

Learning style preference Explanation

Sequential processing style Prefers clear order of cognitive tasks, reliance on teacher directions, neatnessPrecise processing style Prefers memorization of details, researched answers, taking testsTechnical processing style Prefers construction of a product, reliance on technical reasoning, information

from previous real-world experienceConfluent processing style Prefers independence, non-conformance and risk-taking

Field independent Field dependent

Analytic GlobalPrefers small bits of information to understand Prefers large picture to understandPrefers working alone Prefers working with others

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


6. Index of learning styles (ILS) (Felder & Silverman, 1988)Inventory appropriate for adult learners only.

7. Triarchic abilities test (Sternberg, 1985)The PD used simplified exercises to evoke discussion of teachers’ use of the three abilities.Tests appropriate for all ages.

Bimodal style constructs and explanationsLearner preferences can fall anywhere on the continuum between the bimodal constructs

Active vs. ReflectiveApplies, discusses, explains Thinks about it quietlyLikes group work Likes working alone“Let’s try it out & see how it works” “Let’s think it through first”

Sensory vs. IntuitivePrefers memorizing facts Prefers discovering possibilities and conceptsDislikes surprises Dislikes repetitionPractical and careful Works faster and with innovation

Visual vs. VerbalRemembers what is seen (pictures, diagrams, flow charts, films)

Gets more from written and spoken explanations

Sequential vs. GlobalPrefers linear, logical steps Prefers large, almost random jumps and then

suddenly “gets it”

Analytic Practical Creative

Prefers cognitive, academic problem-solving

Prefers real-world, contextualized problem- solving

Prefers generating novelty

Skilled at standard psychometric intelligence measures

Skilled at grasping and dealing with everyday tasks

Skilled at insightful responses to novel situations

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Appendix 2. Levels of teacher beliefs about students

The following pre-/post-test question was designed to elicit and measure teacher beliefs aboutstudents who experience difficulties in learning: “Professor A claims that the concept of a ‘weakstudent’ is very simple. Professor B claims that the concept of a ‘weak student’ is very compli-cated. In your opinion, what is a weak student?”

Levels of beliefs (adapted from Jordan, Lindsay & Stanovich, 1997) Examples of teacher responses

1. An operational definition: defines how a student qualifies as a “weak student”

A “weak student”:Gets low grades.Is behind other students.Needs extra time or help.

2. A pathognomonic response (blame-the-learner) reflects that the weakness is: (a) a permanent quality of the student; or (b) because of what the student does or does not do habitually

A “weak student”:Has low intelligence or ability.Is not motivated.Has poor work habits.Doesn’t participate in class.Hasn’t found his learning style.

3. An interventionist response reflects: (a) that the reason for weakness comes from outside the student, such as the learning context; or (b) awareness of a relationship between the student, teacher or learning context (task, assessment); or (c) that a “weak student” can change in a different context.

A “weak student”:Is one who is not in an appropriate learning environment for him.Is a term given to a child because of a lack of seeing his strong sides. This is a label a teacher gives to a student who doesn’t fit into his/her kind of instructions. There is no such thing as a weak student - there is a “frustrated” student.Sometimes a student is weak with one teacher and strong with another teacher or subject.The student doesn’t manage with how the material is taught & thus he doesn’t have control over the material & has low grades. It’s not necessarily that the S doesn’t want to learn or can’t learn – simply he has a hard time with the way it’s learned in class.Other students can learn in many different ways – they adjust themselves to the situation. Weak students only succeed, learn & understand in certain conditions, (e.g., concrete illustrations, kinesthetic activities, slower pace, alternative methods), but in most cases they can succeed in learning.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Ros

enfe

ld, M

elod

ie] A

t: 12

:11

8 Ju

ly 2

008


Appendix 3. Details of the professional development (PD) course

The main goal of the professional development (PD) course was for teachers to develop sensitivityto their own and other learners’ individual learning differences (ILDs). The PD began with anoverview that included numerous, specific examples of individuals’ different learning prefer-ences, as explained by a wide variety of constructs and models: Jung’s personality types andMyers–Briggs MBTI (see Myers & Myers, 1995); Field Dependency (global/analytic constructs)(see Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977); Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (see Rainey& Kolb, 1995); Gregorc’s constructs of abstract/concrete, random/sequential (Gregorc, 1998);visual, auditory, kinesthetic modalities (Barbe-Swassing, 1980); right/left hemisphere constructs(Torrance, 1980); Dunn learning styles (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1979); 4MAT model (McCarthy,1980); Human Dynamics model (Seagal & Horne, 1997); Let Me Learn model (Johnston, 1996);Triarchic Abilities model (Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996). As each modelwas discussed in the beginning of the PD, the teachers were encouraged to reflect on their ownbehaviors and those of people they knew, including students, friends and family members. Theywere introduced to the notion that with some individuals, the way they learn (ILDs) can make asignificant difference in learning success (Sternberg & Zhang, 2001), particularly those withextreme preferences or avoidances. The mediator was an active participant in each class andshared her own personal preferences for learning and teaching in relation to the constructs andmodels.

After the overview of constructs and models, the mediator facilitated teachers’ personalexperiences using learning style theory, structured around a battery of one cognitive style test(GEFT: Witkin et al., 1971) and six styles tools (LSI: Kolb, 1976; right/left hemisphere prefer-ences: Torrance, 1980; VAK: Barsch, 1980; LCI: Johnston & Dainton, 1997; ILS: Felder &Silverman, 1988; Triarchic Abilities: Sternberg, 1985). The seven tools were chosen because oftheir diverse perspectives on ILDs and applicability for elementary and middle school teachers.The teachers agreed to the confidential nature of personal information learned about colleaguesin class, and teachers “interviewed” each other, sharing their personal and professional insightsafter each inventory during the PD. The mediator encouraged those teachers who reported havingan extremely strong preference or avoidance for a construct, to share how they learned and taught,so that others would be exposed to a deeper understanding of the learning diversity of theircolleagues. Teachers discussed their own experiences when teaching in matched or mismatchedlearning contexts (e.g., traditional vs. constructivist: see Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006). Afterteachers experienced each inventory, they applied materials according to each model, workedwith learners with diverse styles, and recommended ways for learners to match and “stretch”(develop non-preferred styles).

Final project

Requirements for the PD course included a final written project, in which teachers did the follow-ing alone or in pairs: read and reflected on academic articles about ILDs; compared constructsand models of ILDs; designed a 4MAT learning unit (McCarthy, 1980); analysed styles of otherlearners (family members, friends, students); wrote recommendations of how best to work withdiverse learners they taught; transformed and presented school material from one style to another;applied the Triarchic Abilities model (Sternberg, 1996) with classroom assignments they gave;wrote examples of critical incidents and personal insights which documented changes they wereundergoing (for examples of critical incidents and changes, see Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2004).

Understanding teachers with extreme individual learning differences: Developing more effective...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding teachers with extreme individual learning differences: Developing more effective...