©Angela Lisle 2005

Title: The Development of an Inventory to Assess the Learning Styles of Adults

with Learning Difficulties

Author:

Angela Mary Lisle

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

AbstractLearners who currently attend Padley Development Centre can participate in therapeutic activities such as pottery, arts and crafts and expressive arts. Other courses include National Vocational Qualifications in woodwork, catering and basic skills. Life-skills have been introduced as part of government initiatives of community development, participation and achievement and inclusive education. The develop of an electronic inventory to assess the learning styles of adults with learning difficulties was seen as one way of achieving inclusion. It was also imperative that what was developed was suitable for all manner of learning task and not just basic skills. What use would a basic skills assessment be in a pottery environment for example? From an inclusivity point of view, every learner that attended the centre must benefit from what was to be created. Learning styles analysis material available was huge but there was actually very little that was appropriate for adults with Learning Difficulties. One area within learning styles: the visual, auditory and kinaesthetic (VAK) representational system, seem the most enabling. The research aims thus became: to develop an electronic inventory to assess the learning styles of adults with learning difficulties, that is user friendly, reliable and valid. During the course of its development, it was discovered that the DfES (2004) were to endorse a learning style inventory based on the work of Smith (1996) for use in secondary education. Smith’s system a long with other VAK systems was the guiding inspiration in the development of the Padley Inventory. The use of VAKs has been derogated as leading to theory-practice pedagogy in education that is mis-interpreted and ill-informed (Geake, 2003, 2005). The focus of this paper therefore is dual in that the ‘user friendliness’ of the tool developed will include a critical appraisal of its use in light of Geake’s (2003, 2005) critique. Assessments have shown that 34% of the participants have visual preferences, 34% have auditory, 23% have kinaesthetic, and 9% have multi-modal learning preferences. Interviews reveal the tool to be user-friendly. It is suggested the project be on going monitoring for fine-tuning of questions.

Key Words:

Learning Style Inventory; Adult Learners, Learning Difficulties;

Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic Modalities,

Neuropsychogical-educational Pedagogy

1

©Angela Lisle 2005

Background and Context

It has been well research that each individual has a preferred style of learning, and

understanding of it can influence students’ learning in a positive way (Hartman,

1995). A whole array of theories developed throughout the 19 hundreds and beyond

explain or classify different learning styles in order to firstly understand the process of

learning and secondly to manipulate it, i.e. to improve it. Knowledge of one’s learning

style can lead to enhanced learning and helps the learner focus on the improvement of

weaker points. Honey and Mumford (1986) for example, suggested that learning

styles are a method for the organisation of learning and thus aid the completion of the

learning process. Kolb (1984) suggested that we learn experientially, and his cycle of

learning: experience, reflection, conceptualisation and action indeed describes the

process of learning analogous to the way information is processed in the brain (Lisle,

2000, 2005). Learning styles analysis is useful for informing the teaching and learning

process if used as a tool to enhance achievement and inclusion in line with

government guidelines (DfES, 2004) and Accelerated Learning Packages produced by

theorists such as Bandler and Grinder (1990) Smith (1996) and Rose (1997). But, is it

not enough that teachers’ knowledge of leaning styles be used to develop and plan

teaching strategies without doing the modality assessments for individual learners?

Much of educational pedagogy is exactly that: Teachers learning the theory and

practice of education but without assessing learning styles.

This paper starts out as an assessment of a learning style inventory for validity of

purpose. Staff and clients at the Padley Development Centre developed the inventory

itself. It was thought that such an inventory would enhance achievement and

inclusion, and the Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic (VAK) learning styles inventory

(Bandler and Grinder, 1990: Smith, 1996: Rose, 1997) was chosen because it was

seen as fit for purpose. Such VAK systems are partly supported by experimental work

of Riding and Rayner (1993), cognitive psychologists who discovered relationships

between the presentation of information and recall in that those with ‘Verbal-

Imagery’ cognitive style preferences respond better if information is presented ‘text-

plus-picture’ rather than ‘text-plus-text’. In addition, theorists such as Bandler and

Grinder (1990) use a system called Neuro-Lingusitic Programming to enhance

2

©Angela Lisle 2005

teaching through the knowledge of learning style preferences. Neuro-Linguistics is

about the way the nervous system (the central nervous system being equated with

cognition) receives information through the senses; including language and nonverbal

communication and the mapping of this information reception to neural matter in the

brain. The programming of neuro-linguistics can be essentially that, enhancing

learners’ ability to organise the nervous and linguistic system for learning and

achievement. Yet advances in the field of neuropsychology have had a counter

productive effect manifest as they have become: theory-practice educational

pedagogy based on over fervent conclusions of behavioural representation in specific

brain areas. Geake (2003, 2005) for example, recoils (in the Hegelian sense: ‘The

phenomenology of Spirit’) at the way neuropsychology has impacted on teaching

practice:

‘…reports estimate a 1000 UK schools are using brain gym exercises. Unfortunately much of this well-intentioned interest is predicated on an over-simplification of brain research e.g. lateralisation biases mis-interpreted as left- and right-brain thinking…from results of experiments that have been mis-interpreted and not environmentally validated outside the experimental lab’ (Geake, in ‘researchintelligence: BERA’, 2005, p11-12).

Geake therefore warns of the use of VAK learning styles inventories including that

endorsed by the DfES (2004) and particularly the brain gym work of theorists such as

Dennison (1999). This left the project in somewhat of a quandary. Was the VAK

modality assessment valid given Geake’s comments? It was felt that not only should

the inventory be analysed and evaluated for validity of purpose but through taking on

board what Geake (2003, 2005) had said, further analysis of the VAK system was

essential in light of his critique and developments in neuropsychology that have mis-

led teaching practice. Therefore a sister paper dealing with Geake’s critique was also

written because in the confines of the word limit here, both topics could not be dealt

with satisfactorily. Insights drawn from the sister paper have inform this one.

The rationale for conducting this study therefore, is to understand the teaching and

learning process fully, particularly the modalities of the cognate process. This will

involve assessing the learning styles of participants with learning difficulties so that as

practitioners we can plan for a diversity of individual differences. As learners,

individuals can in turn influence their learning by firstly understanding it, secondly

3

©Angela Lisle 2005

taking control of it and thirdly improving their difficulties once their understanding of

learning preferences is completed using the modality inventory and instruction

materials that will be developed to accompany it. In this way, participants will be

empowered. Although auditory learners prefer listen to instruction, visual learners

prefer to use diagrams and pictorial information, and kinaesthetic learners like to do

practical tasks (Barbe, 1985: Gardner, 1993: Smith, 1996: Rose, 1997), they use

elements of all three learning styles whilst learning but will operate in one modality

more than the others. Learners may use different modalities for different information

learning tasks. But through assessment and instruction can be shown how to lead with

their preferred primary modality to begin with whilst developing their lesser-used

secondary modality/modalities. The primary modality being the main learning style of

a particular learner and the secondary modality being the lesser used learning styles

Bouldin and Myers (2002).

Using learning style assessments to empower learners is extensive amongst all

manner of learner from pharmacy and biology students to primary school children

(Bouldin and Myers, 2002: Sprenger, 2003: Perry and Ball, 2004). Perry and Ball

(2004) for example, examined various learning style programmes such as the Myers-

Briggs’ Type Indicator and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory as well as Gardner’s

Intelligences and concluded how useful learning style assessments were for course

development and teaching practice generally. Therefore, students with learning

difficulties can benefit from modality learning materials equally as well. One last

point to consider though is the suggestion that the kinaesthetic learning style is

unfounded. Coffield (2005) suggests that the kinaesthetic learning style does not exist

and he regards it as ‘kinaesthetic nonsense’. Coffield appears to be concerned about

what happens once labelled kinaesthetic i.e. the self-fulfilling prophecy in which one

becomes what one is labelled, thereby neglecting to enhance the other learning styles.

Most practitioners therefore who use this method of identifying learning modality

should operate a programme of teaching and learning based around expanding the

teaching and learning process through a variety of instructional strategies that can be

adapted to different learning situations (DfES, 2004). For example, the teacher’s

learning modality and the student’s learning modality should be assessed and

integrated into an overall compendium of teaching and learning situational contexts.

4

©Angela Lisle 2005

Practitioners such as Lacey (2000) think that ‘learning disability is a

multiprofessional, multidisciplinary topic and therefore educationalists should get

involved with the care of adults with learning difficulties because their care is

dominated by the medical profession and therefore this group of people do not get the

access to education they deserve’ (2000, p100-2). Lacey suggests that ‘people with

learning difficulties find learning difficult by definition’ (2000, p100) so their need

for help is greater. Perhaps this inventory will help.

Disabled individuals at Padley Development Centre are mainly mature and have a

variety of learning difficulties. They also mainly fall within the pre-entry level of

skills development, and only sometimes are they at a stage of development up to level

2. Some learning style inventories are too complex for use. Honey and Munford’s

(1986) model for example had little meaning to this student group, and although the

Myers-Briggs’ Type Indicator and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory has proved useful

with some groups of people it did not with this group of individuals. The Visual,

Auditory and Kinaesthetic (VAK) modality type indicator was pitched at the correct

level, but the VAK tests that were available were either aimed at children or they did

not appeal to this particular adult learning group. Tests such as those used by Riding

and Raynor (1999) and Briggs (2000) in Further Education (FE) whilst useful in FE,

were not suitable to individuals in this specialist group. The three learning styles of

VAK: Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic made it one of the most enabling but the

paper assessments left out several learners who found the paper format ‘flat and

boring’. Some learners who could not read or write could not do the test without

assistance so a VAK paper test seemed limiting and because some of the students

were non-readers (pre-entry level) then VARK: Visual, Aural/Auditory, Read/Write,

and Kinaesthetic (Fleming and Mills, 1992) could not be used either.

It was decided that an electronic VAK inventory would be beneficial in this context as

it would allow the use of pictures and sounds which this specialist group would find

more enabling. The use of information technology as a form of scaffolding to enhance

learning has been greatly documented and acknowledge because of its interactive

quality (Ager, 2000). It was thought that because Padley Development Centre

individuals had been collaborative agents in the development of the inventory; some

of them appear in the photographs for example, or have done a similar test, that the

5

©Angela Lisle 2005

inventory should be tested on a separate group who were ‘naïve’ having no prior

knowledge of the test to prevent the results being confounded. It addition, for ethical

reason it was agreed that the participants remain anonymous; therefore using a second

group in the testing of the tool allowed greater anonymity. The questionnaire for the

test was modelled on several Accelerated Learning varieties of VAK, such as Barbe

(1985) Rose (1997) and that of Smith (1996) endorsed by the DfES for use in

secondary education (2004). A copy of the inventory questionnaire is Appendix One.

Literature Review

Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligence (1993) was one of the first to focus in on the

learning process to discover peoples’ learning styles rather than the measurement of

intelligence such as in Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Gardner suggested that intelligence

was not a single unitary entity but made up of several systems of ability that are

independent yet interrelated. He for example, suggested that we each have multiple

intelligences and in ‘Frames of Mind’, Gardner outlined several different

intelligences: Logical/Mathematical, Visual and Spatial, Musical, Bodily and

Kinaesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Naturalistic and Experiential. This system

of abilities allows the individual to solve problems. Three of these intelligences form

the modalities of VAK: visual, linguistic/auditory and kinaesthetic. His theory is

widely used in schools today to enhance the teaching and learning process, and is

often synthesised with Bloom’s taxonomy (Child Education, 2003). The use of

Bloom’s taxonomy outlines the cognitive-behavioural skills to be developed (result)

and Gardner’s multiple intelligence modalities describe the cognitive-behavioural

modalities used (tool).

Gardner’s multiple intelligences is not meant to be a way of compartmentalising

individuals in terms of one or another of the intelligences indeed Gardner warns of

‘Repeating the sins of intelligence Testing’ (1993, p xxvi). He emphasises how

intelligences brings attention to the fact that different cultures have different ideas

about what intelligence is and the intelligences are also diverse within a particular

cultural group too.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, people such as Bandler and Grinder (1990) began to

develop further knowledge in the area of learning styles. Theories that aim to support

6

©Angela Lisle 2005

and scaffold learning in this way have in fact become know as accelerated learning

theories. The aim as the name suggests is to spur on learning and development

through the understanding of the learners’ learning style or information processing

modality within a given social context. The Neuro Linguistic Programming Approach

was formed, an approach that used the VAK inventory to assess learning styles. Smee

and Smee, (2004, p18) advocates of the Neuro Linguistics Programme, state ‘Bandler

used the VAK model to enable the calibration of individual students’ use of different

forms of mental representation, which has enable experts to re-conceptualise and

begin to make progress in assisting those with “learning difficulties” such as Attention

Deficit Disorder and Dyslexia. . In addition, Fleming and Mills state:

‘We have come to the conclusion that the most realistic approach to the accommodation of learning styles in teaching programs should involve empowering students through knowledge of their own learning styles to adjust their learning behaviour to the learning program they encounter…(w)e believe in assisting students to know themselves and to operate in a meta-cognitive fashion to make adjustments in their learning behaviours’ (Fleming and Mills, 1992, p138).

It is in this context that learning styles/modalities are conducive to learning. Teachers’

knowledge of learning styles and use should be complemented by the individuals’

understanding of learning styles to acquire the full benefit of their use.

The Model Used

As the literature review illustrates this project is based on several others that come

under the general rubric of the accelerated learning and neuro-linguistic programming

theorists that use the VAK modalities as indicators of learning styles (Bandler and

Grinder, 1990: Barbe, 1985: Smith, 1996: Rose, 1997: Riding and Raynor, 1999:

Briggs, 2000). It is suggested that the usual outcome from the VAK modality

indicator is 25-30% visual, 25-30% auditory, 15% tactile/kinaesthetic and 25-30%

mixed modalities (Rose, 1997). Briggs (2000) found from research in FE, an even

distribution across the modalities, but in terms of gender, females showed stronger

visual preferences and weaker kinaesthetic. Groups of students on paper based

courses tending to favour visual learning styles, but results were distributed across the

three modalities. Bouldin and Myers (2002) from research using pharmacy students

(176 in total) and the VARK inventory, 79% of participants were multi-modal; and of

the 21% who were uni-modal, the majority were primary kinaesthetic. It appears that

7

©Angela Lisle 2005

pharmacy students like to do experiments as well as learning theoretical based

knowledge: the synthesis of abstract and concrete thinking during the process of

concept formation (Lisle, 2005).

The VAK inventory used here consists of presenting the participants with a computer

based multiple-choice questionnaire that is both pictorial, images are used, auditory, a

voice-over is used and visual-structural, the questions are also presented as text on the

computer screen. The questions test the learning preferences/modalities with which

individual learners receive information for processing in the brain, the processing of it

and then the recalling of it. No one modality is regarded as better than another,

although it has been suggested that Western Educational Systems favour auditory,

then visual, then kinaesthetic (Gardner, 1993). Kinaesthetic learners are to some

extent discriminated against in education because auditory and visual delivery styles

of teaching are more predominant. Learning styles assessments can help change this.

The VAK modalities are briefly outline below:

Visual Modality/Learning Style

Visual learners prefer images, diagrams, charts and other visual information as aids to

learning, such as colour, texture, maps and pictures. When asked if they understand

something learners will reply, ‘I get the picture’, ‘I see know’.

Auditory Modality/Learners Style

Auditory learners use aural communication, sounds, dialogue, discussion, rhythmic

patterns and reading materials. They are usually the talkative ones in a group. If asked

if they understand something they will reply ‘that sound right’, or ‘did I hear you

correctly when you said…?’ if they need further clarification.

Kinaesthetic Modality/Learning Style

Physical movement generally causes blood to flow to the brain, feeding it as it were,

and therefore enhancing electrical activity associated with thinking. The Marxian-

Vygotskian methodology of practical-critical activity is partly kinaesthetic learning, it

involves bringing together the abstract and concrete through role-play, poster making

and learning games (Lisle, 2005). These learners are active learners who prefer to do

8

©Angela Lisle 2005

practical tasks and activities. These are the ones who say ‘I can do it know’, or ‘let me

try!’.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the original Padley Project was to develop an inventory for use with adult

learners with learning difficulties. This study is the next stage, now that the inventory

has been developed it has to be tested. Whilst my colleague Shelley Aldridge was

mainly responsible for the development of the inventory itself, I was asked to advise

and supervise her work. In the end however due to lack of funding, Shelley changed

occupations and I became the researcher responsible for the analysis of the inventory

and author of this research. The objectives were broadened as it was felt there should

be an analysis and evaluation of the inventory’s validity as well its user friendliness.

The questions posed then are: Is the inventory valid -can it actually differentiate

learning styles accurately? Is the inventory user friendly: do the participants find it

easy to use and pleasant to do. These questions are poignant given that the group of

students is fairly unique as is the mode of delivery i.e. computer based technology

with the addition of a voiceover and pictures to appeal to this student group.

Research Design and MethodologyThis research is a case study and a field experiment. Thus, it has advantages over the

laboratory experiment in that the environment is not contrived. The Environment

however, is controlled - participants tested are in a quiet room, with no distractions or

glare etc., on the computer screen for example. This design is used because the

assessment for learning style became part of the induction to the programme of study

participants were to undertake. The advantages of using this design are that the

information obtained is both quantifiable and qualitative (Leach, 1991: Gorard and

Taylor, 2004). Answers to the 16 multiple-choice questions of the inventory for

example, generate quantitative data (Leach, 1991: Gorard and Taylor, 2004). The 16

questions were not identical to those of other VAK tests but they do resemble the

questions of inventories such as Barbe (1985) Smith (1996) and Rose (1997). The

questions have been simplified for this client group.

It is suggested that the usual outcome from the VAK modality indicator is 50% plus

muti-modal across the three modalities (Rose, 1997: Briggs, 2000: Bouldin and

Myers, 2002). Validity will be revealed by the resemblance of the results of this study

9

©Angela Lisle 2005

to those found by research using similar tests. In addition, each individual question is

to be analysed for validity and relationships will be examined between characteristics

of participants and modality preferences. If for example clustering appears in the data

for individual questions it may be suggestive that some questions do not lead

participants to differentiate because of learning style preference but because of tastes

and/or customs within the populace: cultural influences, or one of the participant

characteristics such as age, gender and/or disability.

The information of participants’ details generates a small amount of qualitative data

that enhances the analysis and evaluation of the quantitative questions of the main

inventory. Variables such as gender and educational entry level will be looked at in

relation to learning style and will be tested for clustering of responses. It is suggested

that younger learners prefer kinaesthetic learning tasks (Briggs, 2000). In addition, the

information obtained from the researcher-tutor will generate qualitative data (Leach,

1991: Gorard and Taylor, 2004). Using mixed methods in this way: questionnaires

containing quantifiable data from the assessments and details from the respondents

including the interview with the tutor who will administer the assessments; will lead

hopefully to the generation of qualitative data as well as quantitative. Data obtained

that firstly assesses validity, and secondly assesses user friendliness because through

asking participants and staff questions the meaning of the test and its value can be

obtained (Leach, 1991: Gorard and Taylor, 2004).

The direction of the hypothesis: that participants will have a variety of learning style

modalities; is multi-directional based on existing research findings (Barbe, 1985:

Fleming and Mills, 1992: Smith, 1996: Rose, 1997, Briggs, 2000: Bouldin and Myers,

2002). The sample is accidental, in that the participants are all learner-volunteers:

elements of attribution nonetheless, include learning difficulties, educational entry

level, reading skill, gender and age. The single blind procedure is used – a tutor will

administer the assessments without knowing the nature of the research, except for the

information that learning styles are being tested so demand characteristics are also

controlled for (Leach, 1991).

Details of Participants

10

©Angela Lisle 2005

Sixty participants volunteered for the study. The participants are of both sexes:

twenty-nine females and thirty-one male. The majority of the participants did not

reveal the precise details of their learning difficulty yet all the participants regarded

themselves as having learning difficulties. The majority of the participants had mild

learning difficulties, 86%, 12% had moderate learning difficulties and 2% had severe

learning difficulties. Of those participants who did reveal learning difficulties there

was an assortment of conditions: Down’s Syndrome, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, ADHD,

Asperger’s Syndrome, Autism, Profound Deafness, Epilepsy, Anxiety Disorder and

three had no verbal communication. One participant was severely deaf. The level of

learning difficulty was mainly mild or moderate. See the diagram 1 below:

Participant age range was from 16 to 61, 13 were under 20, the remainder over 20.

The diagram here shows the age range of the participants:

11

©Angela Lisle 2005

Twenty-five of the participants were pre-entry level, which means below the basic

skills level of education. Of these, eighteen were non-readers and seven were readers.

Thirty-two of the participants were level one and readers; two were level two and

readers, and one level four reader. See diagrams below:

The information in these diagrams is used when assessing the validity of the

individual questions. For example, are readers more visual then non-readers or are

non-readers predominantly kinaesthetic?

Procedure

If the individual wants to take part then a consent form is read to them. Information

about confidentiality, privacy and anonymity; sensitivity to power relations,

ownership of the results and information about their right to retract information if they

wish is contained in the consent form which is signed only if the participant wants to

12

©Angela Lisle 2005

sign. The consent form is to assure participants that if at any point they wished to re-

tract their assessment from the study they can (Appendix Two). BERA (2004) ethical

guidelines were used for this study. A ‘Participant Details’ form is filled in by each

participant with help from a tutor (Appendix Three).

The VAK questionnaire (paper copy in Appendix One) is presented to participants in

a systematic manner. Each student is tested individually with the assistance of a tutor.

The participants are all learner-volunteers. The participants are individually guided

through the computer-based test from start to finish. Individual participants are also

informed that the test will last approximately 10 to 15 minutes. If a participant does

not understand a question then the tutor is there to assist by defining those questions

the participant does not understand.

On completion of the test, the participants receive a card showing the primary

learning style/s. The students are debriefed by firstly being told how the information

about their primary learning style can augment their learning and secondly by the

tutor-researcher reiterating the details of the research, asking if there is anything that

might improve the test. The information from both the inventory multiple-choice

questionnaire and personal details questionnaire is collated and forms the bulk of the

information presented in the results section.

Results

Sixty assessments have been completed using the Padley Inventory. Of the 60

assessments conducted, the results showed that there is a mixture of learning styles

amongst the participants. The raw data for the study are in Appendix Four. Twenty of

the participants had visual learning preferences, twenty auditory and fourteen were

kinaesthetic. Six participants assessed are multi-modal: Two Auditory-visual learners,

two auditory-kinaesthetic and two visual-kinaesthetic. See diagram below:

13

©Angela Lisle 2005

At face value the results appear to follow the normal pattern suggested by Rose

(1997), Fleming and Mills (1992), Briggs (2000) and Bouldin and Myers (2002), in

that, participants are distributed across the three learning styles in similar numbers.

The majority are visual learners 34%, and auditory, 34% with 23% kinaesthetic,

similar to the finding to Briggs (2000) for male participants. When gender differences

were examined, it was found that in this study males were mainly visual learners and

auditory learners whilst for females, K10 >A9 >V7 >VK1, AK1, AV1. Briggs found

the opposite from her participants, V>A>K for both males and females but more

evenly distributed for males. The table below illustrating how gender and learning

style preference interact:

Females in this study tend to have greater kinaesthetic preferences than males; i.e. for

females, 10K > 9A > 7V preferences and males 13V > 11A > 4K which runs

14

©Angela Lisle 2005

concurrent to neuro-linguistic information on right and left-brain functioning for

males and females. For example, females are thought to be left-brain dominant with

auditory preferences thereby developing language skills earlier in life. Males are

thought to have right-brain dominant functioning thereby excelling in spatial ability

with a tendency for kinaesthetic preferences (Head in Murphy and Gipps, 1996). An

examination of learning style modality, gender and reader, non-reader nonetheless,

suggests reading ability to be almost equal, 22 male readers to 20 female. See diagram

below.

Because this client group is atypical further examination was needed to assess the

relationship between reading skills and disability. For example, if a client has hearing

impairment or visual problems would this influence the results? The table below

shows modality in relation to learning difficulty and literacy:

FEMALE NON READERS MALE NON READERS

15

©Angela Lisle 2005

Audi/Vis/Kin Disability Aud/Vis/Kin DisabilityAudi Downs Audi DownsAudi L Diffic Audi DownsAudi L Diffic Audi DownsAudi L Diffic Audi No Verbal ComAudi Anxiety Disorder Audi No Verbal ComKin L Diffic Aud/Kin L DifficVisual Downs Visual L DifficVisual L Diffic Visual L DifficVisual No Verbal Com Visual L Diffic

FEMALE READERS MALE READERSAudi/Vis/Kin Disability Aud/Vis/Kin DisabilityAudi L Diffic Audi L DifficAudi L Diffic Audi L DifficAudi L Diffic Audi L DifficAudi L Diffic Audi L DifficAudi/Vis L Diffic Audi L DifficAud/Kin L Diffic Audi L DifficKin ADHD Audi/Vis L DifficKin Autistic Kin L DifficKin Dyslexia Kin L DifficKin L Diffic Kin L DifficKin L Diffic Kin L DifficKin L Diffic Kin/Vis L DifficKin L Diffic Visual AspergersKin L Diffic Visual DyspraxiaKin L Diffic Visual EpilepsyVisual Downs Visual L DifficVisual Downs Visual L DifficVisual Dyspraxia Visual L DifficVisual L Diffic Visual L DifficVis/Kin Profound Deaf Visual L Diffic

Visual L DifficVisual L Diffic

Related difficulties such as Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Asperger’s Syndrome, Autism and

ADHA have visual and kinaesthetic learning modality preferences. Down’s Syndrome

individuals and the hearing impaired have auditory and visual modality preferences.

When examining the relationships between literacy and learning style, it appears, this

group’s characteristics tend to be that non-readers prefer visual and auditory learning

styles and that readers have a mixture of learning style preferences (see table above).

So that readers share this similarity with the wider populace and non-readers are

16

©Angela Lisle 2005

atypical. In this particular sample, five of the non-readers are Down’s Syndrome and

three of them do not communicate verbally, one suffers from anxiety disorder. Nine

of the non-readers did not declare their difficulty, which makes analysis difficult. But,

Down’s Syndrome individuals and the hearing impaired tend to lip-read which

requires visual focusing on lips and facial expressions.

The table below examines the relationship between age and learning style. A part

from one participant who entered further education at sixteen and pre-entry level, and

one participant who entered further education at 21, a mature client and non-reader;

all of the younger clients between 16 and 21are readers. In the younger age group,

60% of the participants have kinaesthetic preferences. Briggs (2000) had similar

finings. In addition, all of the clients with kinaesthetic preferences are readers. It

would be expected clients with visual and auditory preferences be readers more so

than those with kinaesthetic preferences, see diagram here of reader participants:

Audi/Vis/Kin Age Sex E Level Reader Disability Severity1 Audi 17 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild2 Audi 18 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild3 Audi 19 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild4 Audi/Vis 19 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild

1 Kin 17 F 1 Reader ADHD Mild2 Kin 18 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild3 Kin 18 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild4 Kin 18 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild5 Kin 19 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild6 Kin 20 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild7 Kin 21 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild8 Kin 21 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild9 Kin/Vis 18 M 2 Reader L Diffic Mild

1 Visual 16 M Pre-Ent Reader Dyspraxia Mild2 Visual 17 F 1 Reader Dyspraxia Mild3 Visual 18 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild4 Visual 18 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild5 Visual 20 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild6 Visual 20 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild7 Visual 21 F 1 Reader Downs Mod8 Visual 21 M Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild

17

©Angela Lisle 2005

The mature clients aged 22 and over (see table below), tend to be a mixture of readers

and non-readers with learning preferences predominantly auditory, 20, then 13 visual

then kinaesthetic, 6. Mature clients nationally do tend to predominate in further

education rather than sixth form colleges where clients tend to do A levels and NVQ.

The age group of the students then accounts for learning preferences here in line with

finding from Briggs (2000). Disability has an influence on the results here, in that

Down’s Syndrome participants are concentrated in the older age range i.e. 21 and

above. Therefore, there are more non-readers in the older age range, Down’s

Syndrome participants use sign language. Clients with kinaesthetic learning

preferences tend to be readers in this older age group as well as in the young, with the

exception of one female of 47 years of age. Kinaesthetic preferences are more

predominant in the lower age range. Briggs (2000) found that NVQ student who were

expected to be kinaesthetic did in fact have preferences for observing and listening

before doing.

AUDI/VIS/KIN AGE SEX E LEVEL READER DISABILITY SEVERITY1. Aud/Kin 23 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild2. Aud/Kin 44 M Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild3. Audi 23 F Pre-Ent Non Anxiety Disord Mild4. Audi 24 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild5. Audi 25 M Pre-Ent Non No Verbal Com Mild6. Audi 25 M Pre-Ent Reader L Diffic Mild7. Audi 26 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild8. Audi 26 F Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild9. Audi 26 M Pre-Ent Reader L Diffic Mild10. Audi 27 M Pre-Ent Non No Verbal Com Mild11. Audi 32 M Pre-Ent Non Downs Mod12. Audi 35 F Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild13. Audi 39 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild14. Audi 40 F Pre-Ent Non Downs Mild15. Audi 42 M Pre-Ent Non Downs Mild16. Audi 45 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild17. Audi 47 F Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild18. Audi 53 M Pre-Ent Non Downs Mod19. Audi 61 M 2 Reader L Diffic Mild20. Audi/Vis 42 F Pre-Ent Reader L Diffic Mild

1 Vis/Kin 47 F 1 Reader Profound Deaf Servere2 Visual 23 F Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild3 Visual 25 F Pre-Ent Reader Downs Mod4 Visual 25 M 1 Reader Aspergers Mild

18

©Angela Lisle 2005

5 Visual 27 M 1 Reader Epilepsy Mild6 Visual 28 F Pre-Ent Non No Verbal Com Mild7 Visual 30 F Pre-Ent Reader L Diffic Mild8 Visual 39 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild9 Visual 40 F Pre-Ent Non Downs Mod10 Visual 40 M Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild11 Visual 41 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild12 Visual 42 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild13 Visual 43 M Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mod

1 Kin 25 F 4 Reader Dyslexia Mild2 Kin 27 F 1 Reader Autistic Mod3 Kin 29 F 1 Reader L Diffic Mild4 Kin 35 M 1 Reader L Diffic Mild5 Kin 49 F Pre-Ent Reader L Diffic Mild6 Kin 50 F Pre-Ent Non L Diffic Mild

Analysis and Evaluation of Individual Inventory Questions

All 16 questions are analysed using gender, learning style preference and rader or

non-reader characteristics to see if there is clustering around modalities influenced be

variables other than actual learning style preference. The 16 diagrams are in Appendix

Seven. A summary of the information is presented here.

In answer to the directions question one, almost half of participants chose to be led to

another place (kinaesthetic modality) rather than read a map or listen to directions,

suggesting the kinaesthetic modality is predominant: 28 K > 17 A > 15 V. Given the

level of achievement perhaps something instead of a map might be better used as an

example of visual information and aid to understanding for this question, because it

may have influenced the results.

The response to the greetings question (two) is 27 K > 24 V > 9 A. In the kinaesthetic

modality, females in particular responded with a ‘hug’ majority and males ‘see them’

response, followed by ‘hug’. It is part of the English culture and language to refer to

seeing someone whether you like to hear their voice or hug them. In addition, females

are thought of as the nurturing sex/gender that may account for their preference

majority ‘hug them’. It could be that these cultural influences have affected the

responses here. The males influenced by language and females by gender identity

constructs (Berger and Luckman, 1966: Qakes, Haslam and Turner, 1994).

19

©Angela Lisle 2005

In answer to the teaching methods question (three) both male and female participants

predominantly chose the auditory modality: 25 A > 18 V > 17 K. It appears that both

gender like to engage in listening and discussion. The males also gained high scores

on the kinaesthetic modality suggesting they like to do practical activities: 8 K ♂: 5 K

♀. Non-reading males prefer visual teaching styles and the female non-readers are

distributed evenly across the modalities. Given that females were predominantly

kinaesthetic across the 16 questions combined, one would expect it to be evident here.

Similarly, given that males are predominantly auditory and visual learners one would

expect them to choose those methods of teaching but kinaesthetic preference are also

high for males.

The majority answer to the enjoyment question (four) is the auditory modality: 41 A >

10 K > 9 V. Forty one of the sixty participants (68%) chose to listen to music in their

spare time. It appears that non-readers like to listen to music and the next preferred

modality for the males is the kinaesthetic. Because music is such a favourite pastime

perhaps, another form of auditory relaxation/task might be better used here to prevent

possibly bias and skewered results.

Ekman and Friesen (1975), suggest new borns are equipped to read facial expressions:

it is innate. It is not surprising therefore that the majority response to the emotions

question (five) is in the visual modality: 28 V > 21 K > 11 A. Notwithstanding, babies

and indeed adults do equally respond to voice cues such as shouting etc that signal

emotions and behaviour is probably one of the most valid predictors of feelings. The

feelings question/answer alone would not be a valid predictor of learning modality

since it is influenced by our innate capacities to interpret emotions and emotional

behaviours we may or may not have been exposed to during our lives.

For the aids to memory question six, the majority answer is the auditory modality for

the males, 16 A > 9 K > 6 V and kinaesthetic for the females: 15 K > 8 V > 6 A. Both

male readers and non-readers predominantly chose the auditory modality for this

question, and the female readers and non-readers chose the kinaesthetic. The numbers

however are not particularly skewered but ‘someone showing you pictures’, visual

20

©Angela Lisle 2005

modality, does sound patronising to adult learners, thus the wording of the question

may need revision.

Best way to learn question seven, as one would expect, given that this question is

similar to question three, similar results are obtained: 23 V, 18 A and 19 K. However,

the response for the kinaesthetic modality ‘by trying to do it’ is suggestive of not

being competent in comparison to the other two responses. I would suggest rephrasing

the response.

Favourite pastimes question eight, reveals much about the sociability of the

participants. For example, looking at pictures and listening to stores is a solitary

pastime whilst playing games is much more sociable. Thus, as one might expect the

results are: 34 K > 17 V > 9 A. Changing the responses for visual and auditory

modalities might be beneficial.

For pastimes with friends question nine, the male preference was: 14 V > 9 A > 8 K.

When the questions for this test were constructed, simplicity was the aim but perhaps

the results show that some of the questions are too simple making the responses vague

with connotations that deter participants from choosing them. ‘Doing things with

friends’ is suggestive, sociable and intimate. Once again, the language here may

influence the participants’ perceptions, constructs and identification with one answer

rather than another. The female participants’ responses: 11 V = 11 A > 0 K show none

chose the kinaesthetic preference here yet females were more likely than males to

have kinaesthetic preferences.

For ‘what do you notice most about people’ question ten, the responses are

interesting: 29 V > 23 A > 8 K. It is suggested that ‘one should not judge a book by its

cover’ and that ‘first impressions last’. The former applies mainly to visual

appearance and the latter could be any of the three modalities. Attitudes for example

have behavioural, cognitive and affective elements that can be detected through verbal

as well as non-verbal cues; so perhaps putting attitude into a context that requires

examination via visual, auditory and kinaesthetic means would need to be how this

question is framed to elicit unbiased responses.

21

©Angela Lisle 2005

‘What is a good time?’ question eleven, appears to have a majority response - the

participants in the main prefer to talk to friends 35 A, rather the look at pictures 7 V

or play games 18 K. To question eight, which is similar, the majority response was to

play games 34 K. This time it is to talk to friends. Again, the respondents are sociable

rather than solitary. Would they have chosen talk to friends if compared to watching

the TV? Looking at pictures for example can be boring!

‘Playing new games’ questions twelve, and the ‘remember most’ question, thirteen,

have face validity, and as one would expect, the responses are evenly distributed

across the modalities. The questions are implicit and a little vague however, and using

vocabulary that is accessible to the participants is a reasonable judgement to make,

but over use of works like ‘things’ will lead to boredom and perhaps disengagement

with the task. Similarly, when I recall someone, or if people try to get me to

remember someone else, they will usually give the name of the person, followed by

their appearance, then the context in which the person is known i.e. school, work

place etc. The ‘remember about people’ question fourteen, therefore, might benefit

from being more explicit, rather than implicit. Information remembered about people

was also tested in question fifteen. This time, because auditory and kinaesthetic

preferences have to compete with the visual preference, watching TV, then the latter

becomes the majority preference: V 26 > A 22 > K 12. The males in particular have

chosen the visual preference hear whilst the females have chosen the auditory, ‘listen

to music’. The response for the kinaesthetic modality ‘make something’ could be

more explicit perhaps referring to painting or going for a walk. The question needs to

be more explicit too because ‘which of these would you like to do most?’ does not

really spark memories of people I have know in the past. And lastly, question sixteen,

the new HiFi, has face validity but few people have the kinaesthetic ability to build

something without reading instructions but those who can have kinaesthetic

preferences. Is this kinaesthetic preference a little hard though?

Conclusions and Areas for Consideration

The aggregate results produced from this study are not too dissimilar to those of other

studies. Rose (1997) for example, found that the percentages across the three

modalities were: visual learners within the range of 25-30%, auditory learners within

the range of 25-30%, and kinaesthetic learners within the range of 15% with 25-30%

multi-modal preferences. In this study 34% of participants were visual learners, 34%

22

©Angela Lisle 2005

were auditory learners and 23% kinaesthetic learners, whilst only 6% came out as

multi-modal. The inventory assesses multi-modality but the card printed and the final

assessment given on paper (percentages appear at the top of individual test results

stored on the computer data base) is based on ranking of the percentages thus it

appears there are fewer multi-modal preferences than there actually are. This element

of the inventory needs refining.

Similarly, to Rose (1997) and Briggs (2000), there are more visual and auditory

learning style preferences than kinaesthetic learning style preferences. Do learners

prefer to be passive rather than active learners? In this study, there were more female

kinaesthetic preferences in comparison to males of other studies where male

preferences are more evenly distributed (Briggs for example, 2000). This information

does not support left-brain, right-brain neuropsychological theory that would predict

there being more male kinaesthetic preferences than female.

Because the participant group is atypical, learning difficulty was analysed in relation

to VAK preferences. Participants with learning difficulties such as ADHD, Dyspraxia,

Dyslexia, Autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, tend to be readers and mainly

kinaesthetic, then visual, then auditory and Down’s Syndrome participants were

predominantly non-readers, yet had auditory and visual learning preferences. Down’s

Syndrome individuals tend to learn signing because of their associated hearing

impairments, so visual and kinaesthetic learning preferences would have been the

most probable when in actuality it was A>V>K. But there were only nine Down’s

Syndrome participants in this group so they are not truly representative of the group

as a whole. When examining age and leaning style preferences, kinaesthetic

preferences are concentrated in the younger age range, this Briggs (2000) suggests is

typical.

A rigorous analysis of the individual questions would suggest a number of problems

with the wording of the questions. Some of the questions are too vague ‘see things,

hear things or do things’ for example, is overuse of the word ‘things’. When the

questionnaire was written the authors wanted the assessment to be self-administering

so the vocabulary was deliberately made simple and accessible but this has resulted in

lose of meaning and possibly biased results for some of the questions. In addition,

participants’ age and other characteristics deserve consideration because adult

23

©Angela Lisle 2005

learners may find the pastime ‘looking at pictures’ an immature activity thus

preventing them from chose the visual modality for that particular question. The

connotations of language such as ‘doing things’ can be negatively charged or

suggestive which again will lead to bias. A cultural bias may be present in some

questions, for example, ‘to hug’ is nurturing and a female trait which may lead to

males not choosing that preference and females choosing it. Indeed, more females

than males chose the ‘hug’ option. I am not suggesting that the inventory should have

built into stereotypical preferences: they should be removed and replaced by

androgynous behavioural activities.

When tasks are chosen for the different elements of the inventory, the preference

responses are not evenly matched. ‘Watching TV’ for example does not compare well

to ‘doing something’, and ‘listening to music’ does not compare very well to ‘doing

things’, the latter in each pair having connotations of boredom. These problems

however are not surmountable and whilst I have been critical of the questionnaire, I

still think with modifications it will make a useful teaching and learning tool.

From the interview with the tutor who administered the tests, it was found that the

individual times of the assessments are not accurate. The times recorded are much

shorter than the actual time taken to do the assessment. If a printer error occurs, there

is no option to go back and print the result cards for the participant. This was very

disappointing for some because the whole point to the assessment was to inform the

participant of their learning style and have the information contained on the card for

future use. It was also felt that perhaps the inventory needs an option showing

participants chose no voice, rather than just turning the volume down. Participants

who are not auditory learners for example found the voice distracting or irritating. Of

the participants who liked the voiceover, preference was for same sex voice for both

males and females (See Appendix Six).

Some of the participants found it difficult to choose one answer over the others. For

example, they would have preferred to choose all three options i.e. auditory, visual

and kinaesthetic sometimes rather than just one of the three. This seems to be

predominant among the pre-entry level students rather than level one upwards. The

tutor thought it might be a case of indecision as a characteristic of the younger

24

©Angela Lisle 2005

participants age and learning difficulties. Nonetheless, if the participants were multi-

modal rather than primary modal then this information is important. Likewise found,

the participants could not change their minds if an answer was clicked by mistake,

making results invalid. If an inventory that does not give the full information of multi-

modal preferences of participants is use; then this is bad practice, suggesting the use

of instruments that are poorly developed and poor indicators of participants’ learning

modalities. Rather than the instrument aiding inclusion, it may in fact perpetuate less

than optimal learning and bad practice.

The present inventory package only creates a card at the end of the assessment with

the primary learning style information on it. The percentages are calculated however

and appear at the top of the individual profiles. Having viewed numerous tests on the

Internet it appears most of them would regard some of this tool’s primary learning

styles as multi-modal, because they work on percentages rather than ranking the

percentages of the different style as this tool does. Nonetheless, one individual who is

profoundly deaf completed the questionnaire and the individual’s key worker said the

results were very accurate in comparison to other tests completed by the participant.

In the main, learners found the assessment ‘fun’ to do, ‘The learners so far have really

enjoyed completing the questionnaire, the same comments keep being made’ the

inventory administrator reported. As an ICT exercise then, the test came out on tops

because it is multi-modal interactive: with visual stimuli, pictures and images,

auditory voiceovers and kinaesthetic key board work. ICT therefore works as an

excellent scaffold for learning, it is user friend and extremely interactive – it’s VAK!

In addition, supporting reflective learning along side VAK assessments will help

prevent social constructs such as left- and right-brain theory becoming the taken-for-

granted-reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). Learners can plan their learning using

the information from the inventory as a starting point for personal developing

planning (PDP). They can plan to build on their primary modalities and develop their

secondary modalities, similar to target setting or learning objective planning.

Results from inventories are very useful for informing the teaching and learning

process. Planning, assessment and the personal development of learners are just some

of the areas that can benefit from this information. The results are promising showing

25

©Angela Lisle 2005

that the inventory can distinguish between learning styles but the product is by no

means full functional, it is in its infancy and further trials and modifications are

essential before it can be stated positively that it produced valid and reliable results. In

use with informed Personal Developing Planning, it can greatly influence learning in

a positive way. In fact personal development planning is a form of reflective learning

style that incorporates all three modalities of VAK, and is another learning style that

student can benefit from. Rather than focusing on the process of learning as it occurs,

though, reflections inform future learning and development. An integration of both

learning styles: VAK and reflective practice, would be something to consider for

further research and would help make learning difficulties more multi-disciplinary as

Lacey (2000) suggested we should work towards. I hope this research is not too

critical. It could be used to inform future analysis of VAK inventories particularly in

terms of gender differences, cultural influences on questions and relationships

between VAK modalities and learning difficulties.

Bibliography:

1. Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1990) Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming. London: Eden Grove Editions.

2. Barbe, W. B. (1985) Growing up Learning. Washington D. C.: Acropolis Books.

3. BERA (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Nottingham: British Educational Research Association.

4. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

5. Bloom, B. S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives 1. USA: D. McKay Incorporated.

6. Bouldin, A. S. and Myers, S. M. (2002) Learning Style Preferences Revised at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy. Mississippi: Mississippi University.

7. Briggs, A. R. J. (2000) Promoting learning style analysis among vocational students. Education and Training, Vol. 42, No 1, 2000. Milton Keynes: MCB University Press.

8. Child Education (April, 2003) Every Child’s Potential. UK: Scholastics Ltd.

26

©Angela Lisle 2005

9. Coffield, K. (2005) Kinaesthetic Nonsense. Times Educational Supplement. 14th January 2005, p28.

10. Denison (1999) Brain Gyms. Glasgow: Brainwise Ltd.

11. DfES (2004) Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools: Unit 19: Learning Styles. UK: Crown Copyright, Department for Education and Skills.

12. Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. (1975) Unmasking the Face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

13. Fleming, N. D. and Mills, C (1992) VARK: a guide to Learning styles.

14. Gardner, H (1993) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London: Fontana Press.

15. Geake, J. and Cooper, P. (2003) Cognitive Neuroscience: implications for education? Westminster Studies in Education, vol. 26, no. 1, June 2003. UK: Carfax Publishing, Taylor and Francis Ltd.

16. Geake, J (2005) Educational neuroscience and neuroscientific education: in search of a mutual middle-way. Researchintelligence: News from the British Educational Research Association. August 2005, Issue 92. UK: British Educational Research Association.

17. Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004) Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research. UK: Open University Press.

18. Hartman, V. F. (1995) Teaching and learning style preferences: Transitions through technology. VCCA Journal 9, no. 2 Summer: 18-21. http://www.so.ccva.us/vcca/hart1.htm

19. Head, J. (1996) Gender Identity and Cognitive Styles, in Murphy, P. F. and Gipps, C. V., Equity in the Classroom: Towards Effective Pedagogy for Girls and Boys. London: Falmer Press UNESCO Publishing.

20. Honey and Mumford (1986) (2nd Edtion) A Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.

21. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Learning Cycle and Learning Style Inventory, in D. A. Kolb Experiential Learning. London: Prentice Hall.

22. Lacey, P. (2000) (Editorial) Don’t forget education! In The Journal of Learning Disabilities (2000) Sage Publications, London. Vol. 4(2) 99-103 013654, ISSN 1469-0047 (200006)4:2

23. Leach, J. (1991) Running Applied Psychology Experiments. UK: Open University Press.

27

©Angela Lisle 2005

24. Lisle, A. M. (2000) ‘All hail reflexivity’, in I. Parker (Ed.) Annual Review of Critical Psychology: Action Research, Vol. 2, pp. 109-129. Bolton: Discourse Unit, Manchester Metropolitan University.

25. Lisle, A. M. (2005, forthcoming edition) Maintaining Interaction in the ZPD through Reflexive Practice. Teacher Development: an international journal of teachers’ professional development. Vol. 9, No 2, 2005. Oxford: Triangle Journals Ltd.

26. Perry, C. and Ball, I (2004) Teacher Development: an international journal of teachers’ Professional Development. Vol. 8, No: 1, 2004. Oxford: Triangle Journals Ltd.

27. Qakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. and Turner, J. C. (1994) Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwell.

28. Riding, R. and Douglas, G. (1993) The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 297-307.

29. Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1999) Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.

30. Rose, Colin (1997) Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. USA: Judy Paitkus.

31. Smee, P. E. H. and Smee, L. M. (2004) Neuro-Linguistic Programming: The Key to Accelerated Learning. URL: http//: www.citcle-of-excellence.com

32. Smith, A. (1996) Accelerated Learning in the Classroom. UK: School Effective Series, Network Educational Press.

33. Sprenger, M. (2005) Differentiation Through Learning Styles and Memory. California: Corwin Press Ltd, a Sage Publication Company.

28

©Angela Lisle 2005

APPENDIXES

29

©Angela Lisle 2005

Appendix One

Padley Group - DISCOVER HOW YOU LEARN - Results for: Ann Other (bogus name used) Assessment Started: 16:01:52 on 09/03/05 Time taken: 4.7 minutes.

Ann Other is a KINAESTHETIC LEARNER.

Scores on each styleVisual - 19% Auditory - 38% KINAESTHETIC - 44%

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TUTOR

Visual

Show these learners what you mean/demonstrate Breaking down words and putting them back together will help them

remember Use dictionaries where possible Will benefit from watching videos Learners may want to re-type/re-write notes Will write things down several times Will need silence whilst studying Will need a tidy environment to work in Remembers things they have seen

Auditory

This student will benefit from listening to your instructions Repeat the instructions or learning material being delivered The student will want to talk aloud Let them discuss things in groups This learner will read quickly and therefore may miss out/skip words or

sections, encourage them to use fingers as a guide to slow themselves down May not understand illustration very well, especially in relation to maps They will be distracted easily by sounds

30

©Angela Lisle 2005

Will remember things they have heard

Kinaesthetic

Allow this student to study in shorter periods Break up these study periods with lots of short breaks Allow them to move about a lot Let them experiment with ideas and objects Resources such as guidebooks using practical illustration will be really useful Will fidget whilst listening Will get distracted by movement Remembers things they have done

Individual Question Results

Question 1 name Secs Type of directions 22Question:If you needed to get somewhere nearby, what help would you like?Correct answerto see a map = Visualsomeone to tell you the directions = Auditorysomeone to walk you there = KinaestheticAnswer given:to see a mapQuestion 2 name Secs Greeting 16Question:When you meet an old friend, is it good to..Correct answersee them? = Visualhear them? = Auditoryhug them? = KinaestheticAnswer given:hug them?Question 3 name Secs Teaching methods 18Question:Which of these do you like a teacher to use?Correct answerTalking and discussion = AuditoryDrawings and pictures = VisualPractical activities = KinaestheticAnswer given:Talking and discussionQuestion 4 name Secs

31

©Angela Lisle 2005

Enjoyment 25Question:What do you enjoy the most?Correct answerListening to music = AuditoryReading and looking at books = VisualDoing things = KinaestheticAnswer given:Doing thingsQuestion 5 name Secs Feelings 18Question:How can you tell how another person is feeling?Correct answerBy how their voice sounds = AuditoryBy how they act = KinaestheticBy the look on their face = VisualAnswer given:By how their voice soundsQuestion 6 name Secs Aids to memory 18Question:What helps you to remember?Correct answerTrying things yourself = KinaestheticListening to instructions = AuditorySomeone showing pictures to you = VisualAnswer given:Trying things yourselfQuestion 7 name Secs Best way to learn 17Question:What is the best way for you to learn?Correct answerBy watching how its done = VisualBy trying to do it yourself = KinaestheticBy listening to an explanation = AuditoryAnswer given:By trying to do it yourselfQuestion 8 name Secs Favourite pastimes 15Question:Do you like to..Correct answer

32

©Angela Lisle 2005

listen to stories? = Auditoryplay games with friends? = Kinaestheticlook at pictures? = VisualAnswer given:play games with friends?Question 9 name Secs Passtimes with friends 19Question:Which one of these do you like the best?Correct answerTalking to friends on the telephone = AuditoryMeeting friends face to face = VisualDoing something with friends = KinaestheticAnswer given:Meeting friends face to faceQuestion 10 name Secs What do you notice 16Question:What do you notice most about people?Correct answerHow they sound when they talk = AuditoryHow they dress or look = VisualHow they stand or move = KinaestheticAnswer given:How they sound when they talkQuestion 11 name Secs What is a good time 13Question:Do you have a good time when you are..Correct answertalking to friends? = Auditoryplaying games? = Kinaestheticlooking at pictures? = VisualAnswer given:talking to friends?Question 12 name Secs Playing new games 17Question:How do you like to learn to play a new game?Correct answerBy someone explaining the rules = AuditoryBy watching other people play first = VisualBy learning as you play = KinaestheticAnswer given:By learning as you play

33

©Angela Lisle 2005

Question 13 name Secs Remember most 14Question:Do you remember most when you..Correct answerdo things? = Kinaesthetichear things? = Auditorysee things? = VisualAnswer given:do things?Question 14 name Secs Remember about people 17

Question:What do you remember best about people?Correct answerNames = AuditoryThings you have done with people = KinaestheticFaces = VisualAnswer given:NamesQuestion 15 name Secs Remember about people 17

Question:Which of these would you like to do most?Correct answerWatch TV = VisualMake something = KinaestheticListen to music = AuditoryAnswer given:Listen to musicQuestion 16 name Secs New HiFi 17Question:If you got a new Hi-Fi, what would you do first?Correct answerAsk someone how it works = AuditoryJust start putting it together = KinaestheticLook at instructions and pictures = VisualAnswer given:Look at instructions and pictures

34

©Angela Lisle 2005

Appendix Two

RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

TITLE OF PROJECTAssessing an Inventory that Measures the Learning Styles of Adults with Learning Difficulties

ETHICS APPROVALThis consent form will be used as informed consent.

IDENTITY OF RESEARCHERSAngela Lisle: Academic Supervisor/AdvisorKaren Lawcock: Research Worker/Tutor

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCHTo investigate the validity and accessibility of computer based software that assesses the learning styles of adults with learning difficulties. At the end of the assessment the learner will be given a card that contains information about his/her learning style preference. This information will allow the learner to maximise learning by identifying whether s/he has visual, auditory or kinaesthetic learning preferences.

35

©Angela Lisle 2005

The education system usually adopts teaching styles that suit visual and auditory learners rather than kinaesthetic. By identifying the learner’s style of learning, it will enable the teacher/instructor to plan teaching sessions that maximise learning for the adult learner’s style identified. In addition, the teacher will be able to encourage the adult learner to develop the other aspects of their learning faculties. So that for example, if a learner has visual preferences, they can be encouraged to develop their auditory and kinaesthetic learning faculties.

PARTICIPANTSThe diagnostic tool is aimed specifically at adult with learning difficulties. The approximate age range is 18 to 60 years. Equal numbers of males and females will be asked to take part. Participation is voluntary and potential participants have the right to refuse to partake if they do not want to. The participant can also withdraw at any point in the assessment if s/he so wishes.

CONFIDENTIALITY All participants will remain anonymous, that is, will not be named in text or other materials disseminated from this study, including the context and setting for the assessments. If for any reason a participant does not want his/her assessment details used in the study they can retract the information.

The assessment details of each participant will be given to him/her only and teaching staff, if they so wish. In addition, participants will have access to the overall details of the research once the data has been analysed and evaluated.

Information from the study will be sent to Derby University where it will be analysed by the research staff named herewith. The findings from the study will be distributed to the Padley Group Charity and various other bodies who have funded the study. Research findings will also be sent for publication in suitable journals chosen by the researcher.

DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCHThe test will last for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. It is a computer-based assessment, which means the volunteer will use the media of computer software to assess his/her learning style with the aid of the researcher.

The volunteer will be seated in a comfortable but quite room, out of direct light to prevent glare. The researcher will guide the volunteer through the assessment.

Volunteers will be assessed individually. There are 16 questions and the volunteer should respond to all questions. If at any point the volunteer does not understand a question or response, then the research will explain whichever is appropriate.

The computer software ‘Padley Inventory Tool to Assess Learning Styles of Adult with Learning Difficulties’ will store the results of each assessment and calculate the learning style. At the end of the assessment the researcher will administer the learning style assessment card for each individual learner.

36

©Angela Lisle 2005

CONSENTI have read the information herewith and I understand that I will in no way be forced to take part if I do not want to. If I do decide to take part I understand that I can withdraw at any time. I can ask questions during the assessment if I so wish and even after I have done the assessment I can retract the information that relates directly to me. On these grounds only do I consent to taking part in this research:

Participant’s signature:………………………………………………….

Researcher’s signature:…………………………………………………

Appendix Three

PARTICIPANT DETAILS

Name:………………………………………………...…Age:…………..

Sex:……………………………………Ethnicity:…………………….….

Circle that which pertains to participant:

Entry level : 1 2 3 4 (and over)

Reader Non-reader

Disability:………………………………………………………………….

Circle that which pertains to participant:

Mild Moderate Severe

Has done a similar test and got the following results:……………….

37

©Angela Lisle 2005

Did the Granada test and got the following results:………………….

Circle that which pertains to participant:

Found the test stressful/ did not find the test stressful

If the participant found the test stressful, then ask why?

Did the participant complete the assessment? Yes/No

What results did s/he get?………………………………………………

Would the participant like to make any comments about the test?

Ie, were the questions easy to understand?

Were the pictures a valuable aid to understanding the questions?

Was the voiceover a valuable aid to understanding the questions?

Male voice requested Female voice requested Why fe/male?

Were the activities in the pictures a valuable aid to understanding the questions?

DEBRIEFINGThank you for taking part in this study. The card I am about to give you tells you your preferred learning style. You may have more than one learning style or two more prominent ones or one most prominent. Use the card to aid your learning. Your teacher/lecturer will help you.

Any information you have given the researcher today will not be used without your permission. You will not be named nor will the setting where you study. Hope you find the test results useful.

38

©Angela Lisle 2005

APPENDIX SEVEN

TABLES: Individual Inventory Questions 1 to 16

All 16 questions are analysed using gender, learning style preference and reader or

non-reader characteristics to see if there is clustering around modalities that is

influenced be variables other than actual learning style preference.

Type of Direction Question 1: If you needed to get somewhere nearby, what help would you like?Answers to choose from:Visual: To see a mapAuditory: Someone to tell you the directionsKinaesthetic: Someone to walk you there

39

©Angela Lisle 2005

Greeting Question 2: When you meet an old friend, is it good to…Answers to choose fromVisual: See them?Auditory: Hear them?Kinaesthetic: Hug them?

Teaching Methods Question 3: Which of these do you like a teacher to use?Answers to choose fromVisual: Drawings and picturesAuditory: Talking and discussionKinaesthetic: Practical activities

40

©Angela Lisle 2005

Enjoyment Question 4: What do you enjoy the most?Answers to choose fromVisual: Reading and looking at books Auditory: Listening to music Kinaesthetic: Doing things

Feelings Question 5: How can you tell how another person is feeling?

Answers to choose fromVisual: By the look on their face Auditory: By how their voice sounds Kinaesthetic: By how they act

41

©Angela Lisle 2005

Aids to memory Question 6: What helps you to remember?Answers to choose fromVisual: Someone showing pictures to you Auditory: Listening to instructions Kinaesthetic: Trying things yourself

Best way to learn Question 7: What is the best way for you to learn?Answers to choose fromVisual: By watching how it’s doneAuditory: By listening to an explanation Kinaesthetic: By trying to do it yourself

42

©Angela Lisle 2005

Favourite pastimes Question 8: Do you like to…Choice of AnswersVisual: look at pictures? Auditory: listen to stories? Kinaesthetic: play games with friends?

Pastimes with friends Question 9: Which one of these do you like best?Choice of AnswersVisual: Meeting friends face to face Auditory: Talking to friends on the telephone Kinaesthetic: Doing something with friends

43

©Angela Lisle 2005

What do you notice Question 10: What do you notice most about people?Choice of AnswersVisual: How they dress or look Auditory: How they sound when they talk Kinaesthetic: How they stand or move

What is a good time Question 11: Do you have a good time when you are…Choice of AnswersVisual: looking at pictures? Auditory: talking to friends? Kinaesthetic: playing games?

44

©Angela Lisle 2005

Playing new games Question 12: How do you like to learn to play a new game?Choice of AnswersVisual: By watching other people play first Auditory: By someone explaining the rules Kinaesthetic: By learning as you play

Remember most Question 13: Do you remember most when you…Choice of Answers Visual: see things? Auditory: hear things? Kinaesthetic: do things?

45

©Angela Lisle 2005

Remember about people Question 14: What do you remember best about people?Choice of AnswersVisual: Faces Auditory: Names Kinaesthetic: Things you have done with people

Remember about people Question 15: Which of these would you like to do most?Choice of AnswersVisual: Watch TV Auditory: Listen to music Kinaesthetic: Make something

46

©Angela Lisle 2005

New HiFi Question 16: If you got a new Hi-Fi, what would you do first?Choice of AnswersVisual: Look at instructions and pictures Auditory: Ask someone how it works Kinaesthetic: Just start putting it together

47