A CADEMIAS

One of the pioneers of learning styles was Howard Gardner who explored multiple intelligences (Gardener, 1992). A list of seven intelligences was formulated, namely linguistic, logico-mathematical, musical, bodily kinaesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal (Gardner, 1999, pp. 41-43). Howard Gardner (1999) claimed that the seven intelligences rarely operate independently and that they are used at the same time. It was argued that they tend to complement each other as people develop skills or solve problems (Smith, 2002).

It was also stated that ‘people have a unique blend of intelligences and the challenge facing the deployment of human resources is how best to take advantage of the uniqueness conferred on us as a species exhibiting several intelligences’ (Gardner 1999, p. 45). His work had a profound impact on thinking and practice in education. Gardner’s (2006) argument for an eighth intelligence, known as naturalist intelligence, emerged in 2006 and was characterised by an inherit ability to ‘recognize instances as members of a species’ (Gardner, 2006, p. 19). In 2009, Gardner considered a ninth intelligence called the existential intelligence, which describes one’s ability to conceptualise or take on the deeper, large questions about human existence (Christodoulou, 2009). Thus, according to Gardner, learning is facilitated by the close correspondence of the learner’s internal representation of the information and the mode of the representation.

Figure 2.3 shows the different learning styles proposed by Howard Gardner (1999) through multiple intelligences.

63

Figure 2.3: Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences Source: https://greycaps.com/theteacher/Community/Multipleintelligence) Despite the fact that Gardner’s theory became very famous among educators, many criticisms were made of the theory of multiple intelligences. Aiken (1997) refuted Gardner’s ideas of multiple intelligences by arguing that his ideas were based on reasoning and intuition and there was no empirical evidence (Aiken, 1997, p. 196). Another critique is about how to measure learning styles. Honey and Mumford (1992) argued that research on learning styles explained the preferred ways learners learn but did not report on how best to measure these learning styles. The link made between the mind and education has helped us to understand how learners preferred to learn but because of the limitations of empirical evidence, these statements could not be generalised to different classroom contexts. The study helped in addressing this gap as data on learners’

learning were collected in real classroom situations where learners were actually learning concepts through the digitised learning resources. The findings of the study were credible and trustworthy as there was empirical evidence to support the claims.

64

Another criticism of Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences was that it was not defined precisely whether the intelligences were referring to ‘abilities’,

‘skills’ or ‘aptitudes’. Stenberg (1985) asked whether a person with physical difficulties could be considered in the same terms as a person without disabilities when looking at his or her learning styles. Stenberg’s (1985) arguments were that different cultures have different views of the multiple intelligences. For example, the intelligence ‘bodily kinaesthetic’ might be more valued in certain cultures where hunting was the activity for survival.

Gardner (1983) claimed that ‘intelligences’ are modules. It was argued that modules helped to create particular contents and that each module conducts operations independently. In brief, Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory implied that the mind is made up of seven or eight mechanisms where each one works separately. However, Gardner (1983) failed to explore whether the different modules can work interchangeably or concurrently. For example, ‘conversation can be both linguistic and interpersonal’ (Klein, 1997 p. 379). In this study, learners’ learning through the digitised learning resources brought a conceptual contribution as to how the interactions in the digitised classroom provoked the learner to learn.

Coffield (2013) also refuted the ideas of multiple intelligences proposed by Gardner (1983) as it was argued that the particular context that the students were learning was not taken into consideration. It was posited that the context might have a large influence on the preferred way the learners learn (Coffield, 2013). It was argued that the context in which the learner is learning leads to promotion of specific skills and that learning style is dependent on the subject or problem (Coffield, 2013). An example of learning to become a hairdresser requires different skills than learning to become a plumber was given (Coffield, 2013).

However, Coffield did not consider technology while researching the context.

Coeffield’s research was focused on the skills that the learner had to acquire and whether the environment was conducive enough for the learners to acquire those skills. This study helped in addressing this gap by analysing how leaners were learning in the metamodern era where technology invades the lives of the children but the classrooms were still in the traditional configuration.

65 2.4.2 Kolb learning style model

Another model that frames the learning of students is the Kolb learning style model. Kolb did many years of research involving scholars around the world (Kolb, 2007) and obtained data from thousands of respondents. The research culminated into the Kolb learning style model (Kolb & Kolb. 2005). The Kolb learning style model classifies students as having different preferences:

(1) concrete experience or abstract conceptualisation (how they take information in); and (2) active experimentation or reflective observation (how they internalise information) (Kolb & Kolb. 2005). This classification identified four types of learners. The first type of learner, the concrete-reflective, shows good response to the explanations of how the lessons relate to their interests, experiences and future careers. The role of the teacher is the ‘motivator’ to arouse the interests of learners and allow them to respond in relation to their experiences and future endeavours. The second type of learner, the abstract-reflective, responds to information organised in a logical manner that allows them to reflect. Here the teacher should act as an ‘expert.’ The third type of learner, the abstract-active, responds to information actively on well-defined tasks, learning through trial and error. The teacher functions as a ‘coach’ or ‘facilitator’ that guides learning through feedback. The fourth type of learner, the concrete-active, uses information to solve real problems. The learner learns through discovery. The teacher should provide opportunities for discovery learning to happen. Figure 2.4 illustrates different learning styles that Kolb put forward from his research. The Figure 2.4 was adopted from Ruspat (2010).

66

Figure 2.4: Four Distinct Learning Styles according to Kolb’s Learning Styles

Source: Ruspat (2010)

Kolb and Kolb (2005, p.1) noted, ‘learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes’. They stressed that engaging learners in the process enhanced their learning. They emphasised learning as a process including feedback on the effectiveness of their learning efforts. The views of Kolb and Kolb (2005) were somewhat resonant with O’Toole’s (2008) views of the need to put the learner at the centre of the learning process. Added emphasis began to be placed on the needs of the learners and not on educational objectives. O’Toole (2008) proposed that learners ultimately produce learning. The term ‘learning power’ was used to illustrate a kit of learning skills that was developed. The kit consisted of: (1) how one pays attention; (2) how one feels; (3) one’s personal qualities of hope and curiosity; (4) the capacity to reflect; (5) how one senses;

and (6) the ability to communicate and work in groups. It was suggested that involving emotions, physical awareness and intellect are important part of the children’s learning process.

Even though the Kolb theory is extensively acknowledged in the field of education and recognised for its use to improve performances, the problem with Kolb’s theory is that it did not consider different real situations (Greenaway, 2007). The

67

neat learning stages proposed by Kolb may not always be a reflection of people’s reality. In practice, processes can occur at once, jumped, or even missed completely (Forrest, 2004). Similarly, Jeffs and Smith (1999) also agreed that learning does not always occur in a linear way. Jeffs and Smith (1999) believed learning might happen simultaneously during learning. Since learning is dynamic, it cannot be neatly structured as in the model proposed by Kolb (1984). This study addressed this gap by researching on how learning occurred in a digital classroom and why learners learned in such ways. This helped in contributing to the body of knowledge on whether learning is actually neatly structured or fuzzy when using digitised learning resources.

However, Boud et al. (1985) had a different view of the Kolb Learning Cycle (Smith, 2001). They argued that the type of learner and the type of activities they are engaged in might alter the stages of the Kolb model in various ways.

Moreover, in the modern era, Dewey (1938) discussed the complexity of reflective learning processes and for instance, Smith (2001) also argued, it is too simple and problematic to represent the complex reflective processes of learning through neat and structured stages. Furthermore, Smith (2001) also advanced that at that moment digital tools were not there to support or facilitate learning.

The Kolb learning model belonged to the postmodern era where the use of digital tools was not widely recognised and there is an important need to research the processes of learning in a metamodern era, rich in digital media. Since the study looked into learning with digitised resources, the gap involved in learning with digital tools was actually catered for.

Adding to this debate, Greenaway (2007) argued that Kolb’s theory was confined to limited factors that could influence learning. The social, psychodynamic and other institutional attributes to learning were not considered. Greenaway (2007) posited that the learning style or learning type of people changes over time and situations and these changes might require different approaches for the same person at different stages of life. Furthermore, Forrest (2004) also argued that the Kolb Learning Cycle failed to make allowance for ways of learning other than experiential learning and the latter might not be applied to varied situations.

Forrest (2004) argued that the inventory that Kolb (1984) used in his research

68

was limited to a range of Western cultures and was not generalised to other cultures. Similarly, Dickson and Tugwell (2000) also argued that the Kolb’s (1984) research lacked consideration for people from varied backgrounds, cultures, gender, ages, socio-economic situations and education. The study tried to address this gap by looking at learning through digitised learning resources where the culture was not of Western one but a multi-racial one in a developing country, Mauritius. This helped in informing other modes of learning in different cultures and in an era where technology has become part of the culture.

Learning styles have been applied and accepted to explain the learning process.

However, there is still some debate about the validity of the concepts (Husmann

& O’Loughlin, 2019). The different conceptions of learning styles maintain that the classroom teaching methods are directly proportional to the students’

preferred learning styles. Many teachers believe that learning style is one of the factors that contributes to the effectiveness of students’ learning but this might not always be the case. Although the Gardner’s (1978) model and Kolb Learning Cycle are popular for their simplicity, however, it is more noteworthy to consider how the results are used rather than categorising as ‘label’. The study sought to address this gap by trying to bring an understanding of how learners with different learning styles learnt the concepts presented through digitised learning resources.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted the different conceptualisations of learning over time. What is noteworthy is that some conceptualisations have been carried over to subsequent eras. Furthermore, some conceptualisations of learning have developed in stark contrast with previous ones. Cognitivism could be cited as an example in this case. Indeed, cognitivism believes in the internal working of the human brain, while for behaviourists, the human brain is deemed unattainable.

There are several notions of both behaviourism and cognitivism in constructivism.

Feedback, which could be considered as a behavioural concept, is an essential element of constructivism. The notion of scaffolding could be influenced by cognitive markers; these markers help learners to understand information and

69

possibly move up to another level of knowledge. Even connectivism is sometimes considered an extension of socio-constructivism. Moreover, radical constructivism resonates to some extent with enactivism.

What can be noticed is that newer conceptualisations of learning tend to borrow to some extent from older ones. Moreover, newer conceptualisations also appeared at times when there were social changes on a massive scale. Indeed, behaviourism emerged in times when mass schooling appeared in the modern era. Cognitivism developed in the computer age, building human cognition on the computer metaphor. More interactive forms of technology coincided with the rise of socio-cultural explanations of learning. The question that arises is what could be the newest conceptualisation of learning in an era where technology is in classrooms in a form that was unconceivable only decades ago. Indeed, it would have been difficult to foresee in the 1950s or 1960s that classroom walls would become interactive and teachers and learners would be able to engage with these walls (as in the case of the digital classroom set-up).

Therefore, an appropriate theoretical lens is needed to better understand the zeitgeist of this so-called digital era. This theoretical lens needs to adequately capture how this era makes sense of social phenomena; learners’ learning being the phenomenon under the research lens of the study. This sense making could be along the lines described above; a carrying over of some concepts from previous conceptualisations of learning to generate a new one with the addition of new elements. On the other hand, it could be something new altogether, breaking away from previous concepts. Digital technologies such as the IWB may be a game changer in the classroom. However, radical change has not occurred in the classroom (as mentioned in Chapter 1). The same four walls, furniture, methodologies, content and modes of interaction probably cohabit with digital technologies. One of the gaps that this study sought to address was: ‘What is the new conceptualisation of learners’ learning in a context where the old and the new co-exist?’

Hence, the researcher believes metamodernism is an appropriate lens to look into learners’ learning with technology. Metamodernism is a theory that contends

70

that the world is in a post-postmodern era, beyond postmodernity. This theory explains a mode of thinking and philosophy that transcends postmodern thought.

Therefore, the author believes it could aptly capture the mix of old and new and the brew it could result into. The next chapter will give a detailed explanation of metamodernism and theoretical understandings of education from modern and postmodern perspectives.

71

Chapter 3: - Theoretical Framework

3.1 Introduction

The previous chapter discussed the literature on learners’ learning. An exploration of learning through different elaborations provided an introduction into the terrain of learning. Then, a historical perspective on learners’ learning was adopted, charting the phenomenon from the pre-industrial to the postmodern era. Several theories of learning, such as behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism were considered. The literature also moved the discussion beyond constructivism to purposely step into the digital era. Indeed, the focus of the study is learners’ learning with digitised learning resources. Therefore, novel perspectives of learning such as connectivism and enactivism were considered.

From this approach, the researcher could identify the gaps in the literature. One of the first gaps is that no theory could satisfactorily explain young leaners’

learning through digitised learning resources within the classroom. The second gap was that the explanations of learning that were examined in Chapter 2 did not specifically pay attention to the hybrid nature of the 21st-century classroom (in the Mauritian context of the study). Furthermore, the complexities of learning were explained through an account of diverse learning styles. These explanations were supported by two famous learning styles models that provided different ways to view learners and their preferred learning styles. The gaps in the literature with regard to the models explored were also indicated.

This chapter describes the theoretical framework of the study. From the introductory chapter, one can note the hybrid nature of Mauritian classrooms.

Indeed, the classrooms in the study are a mix of traditional and modern set-ups.

The traditional set-up of tables, chairs and walls are combined with hi-tech equipment such as IPs and laptops. Also important was the amalgamation of tasks that teacher educators, teachers and learners were asked to perform in this peculiar hybrid set-up; mixing up traditional and technological learning strategies.

Therefore, the researcher believes that a new frame of reference is needed to examine learners’ learning through digitised learning resources in the hybrid situation of traditional set-up where technological learning tools are introduced

72

into the traditional framework. This need has been explained in the previous chapters and is beyond traditionalism and techno-centric approaches to learning (that are expressed to some extent by connectivism in particular). Hence, an approach that breaks away from both traditionalism and technocentrism is metamodernism. Metamodernism will be explained in detail in this chapter.