LEARNING STYLES & CURRICULUM AN

The purpose of this paper is to examine the existing literature on learning styles and the implications of these diverse styles for both curriculum and instruction. To this end, the paper reviews a sampling of the current research in this area. Specifically, the focus is upon review of studies delineating both different conceptions of learning styles as well as different learning style instruments developed on the basis of these differing conceptions. The different implications (regarding both instruction and curriculum) that are associated with each of the different conceptualizations and measurements are discussed.

Learning Styles: Curricular and Instructional Implications

Smith and Renzulli (1984) have noted that:

To develop an educational program that works for every student, it is important to consider that learning style differences do exist and that learning style matching can positively affect achievement (p.44).

Regarding learning style differences, Choi and Washington (198) have pointed out that learning styles can be categorized into four categories: (1) the accommodator (leads, takes risks, gets things done); (2) the diverger (brainstorms, a team player, uses imagination, understands people); (3) the converser (defines and solves problems, reasons deductively); and (4) the assimilator (defines, organizes, plans, and develops theories in order to solve problems).

. . .
references for the following instructional methods: projects, simulations, drill and recitation, peer teaching, discussion, teaching games, independent study, programmed instruction, and lecture. The RSLSI was used in a study by Ristow and Edeburn (1983) in an effort to better understand students' instructional preferences. The instrument was administered to 115 college level juniors and seniors. Findings showed that the majority of college students preferred peer teaching, discussion, teaching games, programmed instruction and lecture. Females preferred both teaching games and programmed instruction more than did males. Discussion was preferred significantly more by average students than by high achieving students. Also, the larger the school, the more students preferred the discussion method. Some studies have attempted to tie in students' learning style preferences with career and career choice variables. For example, Miller and Kennedy (1979) attempted to determine the characteristic learning styles of alumni at a mid-western school for technical engineers. The authors found that frequently individuals' learning styles had attracted them to classes which satisfied their immediate interests but not their long-term ca
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Assisted Instruction, Miller Kennedy, Smith Renzulli, Atchison Brown, Ristow Edeburn, Choi Washington, Similarly Kirby, INSTRUCTION Introduction, learning style, Style Inventory, Rowland Stuessy, learning styles, students' learning, style inventory, learning style inventory, style preferences, paper annual, learning style differences, learning style preferences, style differences, students learning, teaching games, students' learning styles, students' learning style, atchison brown,
Approximate Word count = 1672
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)

More Essays on LEARNING STYLES & CURRICULUM AN