LEARNING STYLES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRICULUM
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).
The categories delineated by Choi and Washington (1988) by 2 no means constitute the only learning style differences mentioned in the literature. For example, Atchison and Brown (1988) speak of learning style differences based on the degree to which students prefer structure in both instruction and the learning environment. The authors also discriminate between students whose learning style is characterized by a preference for auditory input and students whose learning style is characterized ...