Styles of Learning and Teaching

An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers and Lecturers

Noel J. Entwistle

• Publisher: David Fulton Publishers
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781853461040
• eBook ISBN: 9781134082131
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First Published in 1989. This book is, in a sense, a text-book of educational psychology designed mainly for those with little previous knowledge of the subject. But it is not a conventional text-book. To begin with it does not cover the whole area which normally defines educational psychology. It concentrates instead on those aspects which are most directly applicable to understanding the processes related to learning intellectual skills and acquiring knowledge. Also the book does not aim to provide a detailed coverage; it is deliberately selective in the topics which are covered. The main aim is to present an outline, or perhaps an overview, of current ideas in educational psychology in the hope of providing a more coherent picture of what otherwise tends to be a rather fragmentary set of topics drawn from mainstream psychology. Read in conjunction with more conventional textbooks, this overview should provide a good guide to the recent literature.

PART I

Introduction to Educational Psychology

CHAPTER 1

Objectivity and Sensitivity

The intention of this book is to introduce and analyse some of the important concepts and ideas from educational psychology which help us to understand how students and pupils learn. Part II contains detailed reports of some very recent work on the styles and strategies used by students in tackling their academic work. These chapters are placed early in the book for two reasons. First, the results of this research have produced a model of learning processes which provides a framework within which to examine other areas of educational psychology. That framework helps us to see coherence in what might otherwise seem, in Part III, to be a series of disconnected areas of psychological research. The second reason for starting with students is that an examination of adult learning provides an opportunity for introspection by the reader, and hence a way of seeing links between theories of learning and the ‘real world’ of everyday experience.

The book contains several recurrent themes which indicate the stance taken by the author. There is an acknowledged emphasis on those aims of education which relate to cognitive development, the acquisition of knowledge and skills. This emphasis has been introduced as a way of limiting coverage, rather than as a protest against recent educational ideas which put more stress on the social purposes of schooling. It is not being suggested that the social setting of learning, or the home background of pupils, are irrelevant: nor that the social and emotional development of pupils should be ignored. It is being argued that we should think very seriously about how to be more effective in achieving those educational objectives which relate to intellectual development. And the model of learning developed here is limited to psychological aspects of education — to a description of the learning process in terms mainly of the individual characteristics of the learner and teacher, with a bias towards the more complex forms of learning.

The theme which develops out of this concern with intellectual development comes from an examination of one important concept in educational psychology — intelligence. The traditional view of intelligence limited it to logical thinking. Recent developments in education have emphasized appeals to pupils’ imagination. But analyses of the structure of the intellect point up three distinct components: memory, logical reasoning, and imaginative thinking. In education, the importance of all three should be recognized. Each has its value in different types of learning. An over-emphasis on ‘creativity’ in school learning may be as damaging to some pupils, as an excessive stress on memorization may be to others. At certain stages in learning, hard repetitive ‘slog’ may be essential. And some pupils may, in fact, take more easily to rote learning than to coping with reasoning and understanding. This book contains a plea not to devalue any of the ways of thinking which are part of our normal mental processes, and evidence to substantiate that plea.

The emphasis on intellectual aims does not imply a lack of interest in non-cognitive factors associated with learning. In fact the second major theme in the book reflects a belief in the importance of recognizing individual differences not just in ability, but also in personality and motivation. It is argued that fundamental differences in personality affect our styles of learning — our preferred ways of thinking. And that our approaches to teaching reflect previous experiences with learning. We teach as we prefer to learn. Stemming from this is perhaps the most insistent message derived from the research literature. There can be no single ‘right’ way to study or ‘best’ way to teach. People differ so much in intellectual abilities, attitudes, and personality that they adopt characteristically different approaches to learning, to teaching, to conducting research, or to writing a book. No one of these approaches could be ‘right’ for more than a small proportion of people. Yet many teachers and educationalists still proclaim the overriding merits of one particular philosophy of teaching, and roundly denounce the alternatives. Why should that be? We shall argue that a teacher’s strong preference for one or other teaching approach — say formal rather than informal — is a reflection of his own learning style and personality. In one way that is not unreasonable: he may teach best using that approach. But best for whom? Presumably only for those pupils or students who share the teacher’s own style of learning. For many others that way of presenting knowledge may create unnecessary difficulties.

The final recurrent theme is the importance in learning of activity: learning should not be simply a passive process of absorbing predigested knowledge. In higher education, learning should involve many activities; memorizing where necessary, but also relating new information to old, linking theoretical ideas or academic knowledge to personal experience wherever possible, adopting a critical stance to other people’s ideas, and evaluating evidence with caution. The book itself has thus been designed to provoke such activities. The ideas developed in the first three parts of the book are more theoretical than practical, yet the ultimate purpose of the book is to show how useful these ideas can be in thinking about education. Thus the reader is encouraged to seek those connections out of his own experience as he reads, by thinking actively about possible implications of the research evidence and theories being introduced.

The book also seeks to provoke activity and personal involvement through the use of a ‘learning experiment’ and ‘STOP AND THINK’ sections. The learning experiment is a way of promoting introspection about the reader’s own ways of learning, and also serves as an introduction to a particular series of research studies. The ‘STOP AND THINK’ sections invite the reader to think ahead of the text, to consider issues, and to relate to personal experience. Some readers may find these sections useful, others may consider them an annoying interruption to the developing argument. From what has already been said such differences are to be expected and the reader must decide whether or not to take time to think about these questions. The intention is simply to assist in developing an active, critical approach to reading. But in the end the reader’s own questions will be more useful than those provided in the text.

Psychology applied to education

Psychology was originally the study of the human mind, later it included the study of behaviour, and then widened its scope still further to cover the behaviour of animals. Out of this wide reach of academic psychology, only those parts with the clearest relevance to education are to be discussed. The definition of ‘relevance’ is, however, necessarily somewhat subjective; the particular topics selected depend on the focus already outlined. And the way these topics are treated also depends on the connection that is seen between psychology and education. Does psychology produce laws from which direct solutions to educational problems can be derived? Is the link between psychology and education as strong as, for example, that between physics and engineering?

In the early years of this century there was great optimism about the practical value of psychology. For example, James Ward, a Cambridge professor at the turn of the century, argued for the logical inevitability of a strong link between psychology and education.

‘It is not hard to show in a general way that a science of education is theoretically possible, and that such a science must be based on psychology and the cognate sciences. To show this we have, indeed, only to consider that the educator works, or rather ought to work, upon a growing mind, with a definite purpose of attaining an end in view. For unless we maintain that the growth of mind follows no law; or, to put it otherwise, unless it be maintained that systematic observation of the growth of (say) a hundred minds would disclose no uniformities; and unless, further, it can be maintained that for the attainment of a definite end there are no definite means, we must allow that if the teacher knows what he wants to do there must be a scientific way of doing it’ (Ward, 1926, page 1).

The logic is impeccable — but the assumptions are dubious, and attempts at establishing general laws which explain the growth of mind have proved more difficult than Ward imagined. The weakness in the assumptions could be deduced from the previous section. There are many reasons why we should not expect general laws of learning, when individuals, content, and context are all so different. Nevertheless many psychologists have pursued this line of enquiry, looking for general scientific laws of behaviour, and have publicized their implications for education. Students and teachers have viewed the relevance of those implications from mainstream psychology with increasing doubt. By the 1950s the search for scientific laws of behaviour had taken psychologists far away from the interests of educators. Attempts to extrapolate from evidence on pigeons and rats to teaching strategies in the classroom opened up a serious ‘credibility gap’. Stimulus-response psychology still has its value in explaining certain aspects of human behaviour, but it does not provide the most appropriate standpoint from which to consider the intellectual components of the educational process.

The link between psychology and education is still an important one, but it is not as direct as is often thought. Psychology should affect the way teachers think about their work, but it cannot provide specific solutions to the day-today problems teachers face. The famous American philosopher and psychologist, William James, argued against a direct link between psychology and teaching.

‘You make a great, a very great mistake, if you think that psychology, being the science of mind’s laws, is something from which you can deduce definite programmes and schemes and methods of instruction for immediate classroom use. Psychology is a science, and teaching is an art; and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves. An intermediary inventive mind must make the application, by using its originality’ (James, 1899, pages 23–24.)

This is an appeal to match objectivity with sensitivity in moving from theory or research findings to classroom applications.

James Ward made a similar point about the necessity for the teacher to interact with psychological ideas by drawing on practical experience of teaching situations.

‘The teacher who has a fair knowledge of psychology can see the “why” and “wherefore” of any (educational) theory that is offered him, can even to a large extent make his own theory, or, at any rate, intelligently apply and, by and by, supplement out of his own experience the theory with which he starts’ (Ward, 1926, page 9).

Both Ward and James expected simple laws of learning to emerge from the study of thinking and behaviour. The splintering, since then, of psychology into disparate sections providing contrasting, and even contradictory, explanations of learning and thinking has made it difficult for teachers to be sure what it is that psychology can offer. Often it is expected that a theory of learning will be a panacea, that a single approach to teaching will solve all our educational problems. And some psychologists have reinforced this expectation by arguing strongly for an approach which is in harmony with their own view of learning.

There is now a growing belief that psychological and educational research improve practice, not in the direct way that physics can affect engineering, but in an indirect way by changing the way practical situations are interpreted — by making teachers more aware of aspects of the teaching/learning process which previously had perhaps passed unnoticed. The influence of ‘tradition’ in education is strong, even where that tradition is called ‘progressive’. Research and theory can be used to examine the strengths and weaknesses of whatever has become the ‘accepted’ approach. Its effect can be compared with the way philosophy has been used to challenge established ideas.

‘What is characteristic of philosophy is the piercing of that dead crust of tradition and convention, the breaking of those fetters which bind us to inherited preconceptions, so as to attain a new and broader way of looking at things…. What is decisive is a new way of seeing and, what goes with it, the will to transform…’ (Waismann, 1968, page 32).

The Plowden Report (1967) emphasized the point that theory, and the searching analysis which goes with it, had a value for teachers.

‘What is immediately needed is that teachers should bring to bear on their day to day problems, astringent intellectual strutiny’ (paragraph 550).

The teacher is bombarded in the classroom by an enormous amount of information. Research findings and theoretical ideas can suggest ways of interpreting that information in potentially more useful ways. It provides a language (concepts) and a grammar (models) to consider the rationale for many aspects of educational practice. Even an empirical psychologist such as Cronbach (1975) is now acknowledging the limited extent to which psychological research can provide ‘facts’ which will be of direct, and immediate, value in making practical decisions.

‘Though enduring systematic theories about man in society are not likely to be achieved, systematic inquiry can realistically hope to make two contributions. One reasonable aspiration is to assess local events accurately, to improve short-run control…. The other reasonable aspiration is to develop explanatory concepts, concepts that will help people use their heads’ (page 126).

Thus the links between psychology and education are seen to be indirect. We cannot expect immediate implications for educational practice in each and every theory or piece of research. However the indirect effects are valuable. A study of educational psychology provides a precise language with which to discuss practical issues. It provides evidence about, for example, the outcomes of specific types of teaching or learning which helps to move away from personal impression towards demonstrably valid ideas. But most of all it challenges the teacher and the learner to re-examine accepted ways of thinking about the educational process.

The whole structure of this book has been affected by the assumption of an indirect ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Part I Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Part II How Students Learn
• Part III Topics in Educational Psychology
• Part IV Applications to Teaching and Studying
• Appendix A Scoring Instructions for the Inventory
• Appendix B Categories of Response to Questionnaire
• References
• Index