Using Learning Styles in Information Literacy: Critical Considerations for Librarians

Using Learning Styles in Information Literacy: Critical Considerations for Librarians by Heather Sanderson Available online 30 July 2011

Librarians are using learning styles as a tool to engage students and enhance their teaching. However, a review of the literature reveals that learning styles theory is complex and problematic. It is important to base our practice on sound pedagogy. This critical examination of learning styles explores the issues surrounding them and what they can offer to information literacy.

Heather Sanderson, Information Literacy Librarian, Patrick Power Library, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Canada, NS B3H 3C3 .

INTRODUCTION Learning styles have great appeal for educators, including librarians. Proponents of learning styles claim that identifying the distinct ways students learn and tailoring the learning situation to best fit their individual learning styles will make instruction more effective and increase their academic success. Instructors can identify their students' learning styles with one of the available diagnostic tests, and then encourage their students to reflect on how they learn. Students can use their learning styles to help them become better learners, as teachers vary their instructional approach to engage a range of learning styles. Learning styles are also seen as one way to address the changing needs of and differences between current students. Additionally, as librarians increasingly deliver instruction online, they are turning to learning styles as they identify best practices for instruction. Recent LIS publications demonstrate that academic librarians are using learning styles in our teaching. One sign of the widespread penetration of learning styles is their incorporation into official guidelines for information literacy. A key example is the influential ACRL Characteristics of programs of information literacy that illustrate best practices (2003), which includes the statement “responds to multiple learning styles” in the section under pedagogy [1]. These guidelines are widely cited and linked to from library and association websites, indicating that they are being used. They have also been influential in the formulation of similar guidelines by other national bodies. For instance, Best practice characteristics for developing information literacy in New Zealand universities (2006) similarly includes “responds to multi-learning styles” under “Reflects sound pedagogical practice” (section C8); the New Zealand document is closely based on one for Australian universities that was adapted from the ACRL document [2]. Such guidelines are intended to be used in the development of information literacy programs and the practices of individual librarians. Clearly, learning styles are becoming an expected part of librarians' approach to information literacy. Learning styles, however, are not as straightforward as they first appear, and librarians need to think carefully before using them in their teaching. In fact, they are a fragmented, confusing field of educational theory. The very concepts of learning styles, the research behind the different models, and the educational claims that are made for them have repeatedly come under critical scrutiny. It is important that librarians make themselves aware of the issues surrounding learning styles, and any limitations of the models they employ. As our profession moves farther into evidence-based practice, it is our responsibility to do due diligence and to apply the critical thinking skills we teach others to the theories that influence our own teaching. We need to have more thoughtful discussion of what learning styles have to offer information literacy. As part of this important dialog, this paper will first review some of the ways learning styles are being used in information literacy, before

376 The Journal of Academic Librarianship Volume 37, Number 5, pages 376–385

turning to explore some of the issues that have been pointed out in the field of learning styles. Finally, it will look more closely at two of the theories being used in information literacy, Kolb's model and the Approaches to Learning model, to explore in more detail what they are and can offer information literacy.

LEARNING STYLES

IN INFORMATION

LITERACY

Librarians have been drawing on learning styles for many years. For example, Bodi asserts their relevance to bibliographic instruction in 1990, and Rader argues in 1997 that librarians must recognize diversity in learning styles as part of their preparation for teaching [3]. Dalrymple's statement that “learning styles theory has gained a broad base of acceptance in the library field” [4] is now nearly a decade old and is supported by the number of recent publications that continue to refer to them. Learning styles are raised and discussed in a variety of contexts, such as teaching the one-shot class, [5] teaching diverse students in the online environment, [6] teaching within course management software, [7] teaching distance education students, [8] and teaching through online tutorials [9]. Individual information literacy case studies and research studies employing various learning style models have been published [10]. Some authors focus on the learning styles of particular groups. For example, Weiler discusses the learning styles of Generation Y in the context of their information-seeking behavior [11]. As well, numerous articles and chapters in books introduce the topic of learning styles, typically advising librarians to appeal to multiple learning styles in their teaching. However, the presentation of learning styles in information literacy overall reveals a troubling lack of critical evaluation. In many cases, learning styles are briefly invoked as a general concept. The assumption seems to be that the reader already knows what this concept means and that no further explanation is necessary. Even when individual learning style theories are applied, the explication of the theory is frequently brief and fairly superficial. For example, in studies where students' learning styles have been measured, the authors may not give much if any information about the instrument's reliability and validity, and they may not even provide a rationale for using that particular theory. The introductions to learning styles intended for information literacy practitioners can also be similarly generalized; too often there is no contextualization of the various theories presented, no comparisons made between them, and no acknowledgment that any of the theories may have limitations. The effect is to present all theories as potentially equivalent, and the instruction librarian is left to wonder which one might be the most useful in teaching. In fact, Bodi rather tellingly advises that “the theory chosen is not as important as choosing a theory and structuring bibliographic instruction around it [12].” Reducing the theories to simplified outlines risks generalizing about students in terms of their learning styles and frequently leads to generalized pedagogical advice.

the presentation of learning styles in information literacy overall reveals a troubling lack of critical evaluation.

One example of this pattern of the treatment of learning styles is Teaching Information Skills: Theory and Practice by Webb and Powis. They first give an overview of key learning theories and then briefly introduce several of the major learning style theories, including Kolb's Learning Style Inventory, Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire, and Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. Each theory is summarized in about a paragraph and is not evaluated. Their main focus is on practice, about which they say: “the important principle to remember from these theories is that you should always try to provide a mix of teaching and learning activities in order to accommodate diversity [13].” While this is

good advice, it's also little more than common sense. The models as outlined give little of substance, and in fact seem presented mainly to illustrate the potential range of diversity that librarians may encounter among their students. There are many other texts similar to this one, in which the theories are presented simply as straightforward tools to draw upon in teaching. There is a substantial gap between the concept of learning styles as a technical term that refers to a body of theories, with different models and measurement instruments, and the more colloquial use of the term as an indicator that students learn in a variety of ways. This colloquial sense of learning styles is characteristic of how the term is generally used in information literacy. We need to be aware that there is more to this field than a taken-for-granted concept, and in fact, should evaluate carefully any concepts we bring into our teaching.

There is a substantial gap between the concept of learning styles as a technical term that refers to a body of theories, with different models and measurement instruments, and the more colloquial use of the term as an indicator that students learn in a variety of ways.

WHAT

ARE

LEARNING STYLES?

Research into learning styles spans more than 40 years and has produced multiple theories. One of the first problems is the lack of a standard definition of learning styles. When different authors use the term, they may not mean the same thing. As Price says, “Learning style is often used as a metaphor for considering the range of individual differences in learning [14].” This range can extend from environmental preferences for learning, to the characteristic information processing methods of individuals, to their cognitive personality styles. Various theories focus on one or several of these elements. Environmentally-based learning style theories argue for the influence of the environment and the senses on taking in and understanding information, such as with visual, auditory, or kinaesthetic learners. Personality-based learning style theories focus on the influence of personality types, such as introvert and extrovert, on how individuals respond to learning situations. Information-processing learning style theories focus on the individual's characteristic ways of taking in and processing information, including how they organize and remember it. Common to many theories is the tendency to conceptualize learning styles in pairs of opposites, such as abstract versus concrete learners, sequential versus random learners, active versus reflective learners, visual versus verbal learners, imaginative versus analytic learners, thinking versus feeling learners, and field dependent versus field independent learners [15]. Some models go further to theorize the roles played by the right and left brain hemispheres in students' learning. In fact, some theories define learning styles as biologically-based, and therefore as fixed and stable over time, while others see learning styles as preferences and habitual behaviors, and thus, as more flexible and less fixed. For example, Rita Dunn, author of one of the most influential models, defines learning styles as fixed: “Learning style is a biologically and developmentally determined set of personal characteristics that make the identical instruction effective for some students and ineffective for others [16].” In short, individual models can rest on very different definitions of what learning styles are, and whether they are conceived as environmental preferences, cognitive and/or personality traits, or some combination of these, the definition of learning styles has implications for how teachers should respond to their students, suggesting that it does make a difference which model is used.

September 2011 377

A second problem is that terminology used in discussions of learning styles can be unclear. For example, some writers make careful distinctions between learning styles and cognitive styles. Price distinguishes between these terms in this way: “Cognitive styles reflect the ways in which individuals process information and make sense of their world”, denoting consistencies in how individuals “habitually approach” this task; in contrast, “Learning styles are self-reported accounts of an individual's preferences for and perceptions of how they process information [17].” However, these two terms are also used loosely, even interchangeably, in the field [18]. Differences in terminology are related to the various disciplinary backgrounds of the theorists, which include psychology, sociology, education, and management. Research has not tended to be interdisciplinary; thus, disciplinary differences between researchers mean that terms may have more or less precise meanings depending on who is using them. Riding and Cheema note the many theorists who “fail to mention the existence of other types of schools” with the result that “The terms cognitive style and learning style have been much used by theorists, but what they mean still remains very much up to its author [19].” For the non-specialist, confusion over terminology makes comprehending the research difficult, obscuring the degree of overlap between theories. Rather than movement toward a unified theory of learning styles, decades of research have produced many different theories and instruments. In their review, Coffield, Mosely, Hall and Ecclestone identify 71 different models, observing that many of these are merely adaptations of one of the better-known models. They also note that there is a financial incentive behind the development and promotion of multiple competing models. A number of the main models are commercial products. Furthermore, the financial gains of having a model adopted by educational institutions and corporate training programs can work against rigorous empirical testing of that model and even lead to resistance against criticism of its flaws [20]. The net effect of this fragmentation is that the many definitions, terms and models are a barrier to a coherent theory that can be used for teaching, as well as bewildering and off-putting when trying to navigate the field. For practitioners, choosing a model, interpreting results, and drawing from research studies are all made harder by the lack of clarity surrounding learning styles. Outside of the research reports, much of the literature on learning styles is directed toward instructors. This can mean that unresolved confusion at the theoretical level is glossed over in the practical treatment of learning styles in education, which is similar to the positive way they are usually treated in information literacy. Perhaps this helps to explain the pattern of uncritical use by librarians outlined above. There is a disconnect between the theories and learning styles in their widespread application. Critics charge that practitioners are basing their teaching interventions on claims that may be taken at face value and out of context [21]. Mainstream use has developed without determining “whether a particular inventory has a sufficient theoretical basis to warrant either the research industry which has grown around it, or the pedagogical uses to which it is currently put [22].” Books and articles giving teaching advice about learning styles often do not delve into the models in any detail or acknowledge any limitations they may have [23]. There can be a large gap between the models and the teaching advice derived from them. Recommendations to appeal to and accommodate a variety of learning styles are often made without really engaging with how this might be accomplished in a class. If a number of theories are introduced, it may not be clear which learning styles are most likely to be encountered, are most important to consider, or are most amenable to intervention. Additionally, a vast amount of information of varying depth and quality is available on the Internet, including learning style tests associated with or derived from various models. These may not include much context or information on the theories behind them. It is easy enough to find a quick test online to administer to students, but many of

378 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

the freely available tests do not indicate which, if any, particular model they have been adapted from (the measurement instruments of proprietary models may be available only for a fee). Even if the site does say what was used as the basis for the test, without information about validity and reliability, it is hard to give much credence to any results such tests may provide. Much of the material available online also provides advice on teaching and learning strategies that may be useful to teachers and students. However, it is disturbing to realize that it is possible to read fairly widely about learning styles on the web without being made aware of debates in the field, evidence for and against the claims made for various models, or the implications of choosing one model over another. In light of the complexities in the field, the pedagogical advice to adapt one's teaching to students' learning styles can come to seem more of a burden than a help. For librarians, who often have limited class time with students, trying to appeal to all or even multiple learning styles can feel like a very tall order, especially if the main form of information literacy instruction at their institution is the oneshot class. Taken to an extreme, if all of the theories are equivalent, teachers could be shouldering the task of trying to respond to the full range of everyone's learning styles, refracted through multiple theories simultaneously. As Coffield's team concludes, this advice could be taken to mean “that the teacher…is obliged to respond appropriately to visual and verbal learners…to inductive and deductive, reflective and active, sequential and global, conceptual and concrete learners; and to those who like working in groups as well as those who prefer learning individually [24].” Even more troubling, they go on to say that this advice may not be supported by sufficient evidence of benefit to students: “Despite the strong convictions with which these ideas are promoted, we failed to find a substantial body of empirical evidence that such strategies have been tried and found successful [25].” If the evidence upon which we are basing our pedagogy is weak and inconclusive, then this is something we need to address. At the very least, we need to evaluate the claims and supporting evidence for ourselves.

In light of the complexities in the field, the pedagogical advice to adapt one’s teaching to students’ learning styles can come to seem more of a burden than a help.

Attempts to Organize the Field The sheer volume of material generated by decades of research and practice is a barrier to understanding learning styles. In many ways, the farther one goes in reading about them, the less clear the picture becomes. Critical reviews become essential tools to gain some distance from claims and generalizations about learning styles. Over the years, there have been several attempts to simplify and organize the field. For example, DeBello compares eleven models and concludes that there are areas of overlap between them and that practitioners and administrators who wish to implement a program based on one or another of the models should investigate the research behind them [26]. Curry's onion model has been influential as one such investigation of the research that systematizes the field. She reviewed 21 measures of learning styles, and found ten of those met minimal criteria for reliability and validity to justify further research. She groups nine of these instruments into three layers, like an onion [27]. The outermost layer of the onion deals with instructional preferences, or “the individual's choice of environment in which to learn;” this is the most observable, and most susceptible to external influence of the layers

she proposes, and therefore the least stable or fixed. Curry includes Grasha and Reichman's Student Learning Styles Scales in this layer. The middle layer deals with information processing style, “the individual's intellectual approach to assimilating information,” which is more stable because it does not interact with the environment, but is still modifiable. She includes Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory in this layer. The innermost layer, which is the most fixed, deals with theories of cognitive personality style, or the “individual's approach to adapting and assimilating information… which is an underlying and relatively permanent personality dimension.” She includes Witkin's Embedded Figures Test and the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator here. Curry's onion model is still widely cited. For example, in a recent review of research into the relationship between online learning and learning styles, Santo uses it for her organizing structure, although she comments that while the onion model is helpful, “it can be unclear as to which instruments to put into which parts of the model [28].” Other recent attempts to evaluate and organize various models include the substantial review by Coffield et al., who examine 13 models in depth. They group these into a continuum of five families based on the degree to which they conceive of learning styles as fixed. Going from most to least fixed, these are: a) those that see learning styles and preferences as largely constitutionally based, including those that assess visual–auditory–kinaesthetic styles (Dunn and Dunn; Gregorc); b) those that consider learning styles reflect deepseated features of the cognitive structure (Riding); c) those that see learning styles as one component of a relatively stable personality type (Apter; Jackson; Myers–Briggs); d) those that see learning styles as flexibly stable learning preferences (Allinson and Hayes; Herrmann; Honey and Mumford; Kolb) ; and e) those that consider students' learning approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning (Entwistle; Sternberg; Vermunt) [29]. Their comprehensive review examines the internal and external support for each model's measurement instrument, and the evidence for the pedagogical claims made about each model. They conclude that nearly all of the models they examine have significant problems, and they advise against basing teaching practice solely on any one of them [30]. Commissioned for the Learning and Skills Research Centre in London, this review is widely cited in current discussions of learning styles. Perhaps not surprisingly, given all the confusion, Desmedt and Valcke note that there are even problems with such reviews, since the reviewers may be organizing the field based on criteria that may not be made explicit, which makes the various reviews difficult to compare or integrate [31]. They then attempt to organize the field through a citation analysis of the literature since 1972. Based on their analysis of the pattern of citations in over 1000 articles, they identify Witkin and Kolb as the two main authors, the former associated with cognitive styles, and the latter with learning styles. They conclude that there is little overlap between the citations for each, illustrating the degree to which the fragmentation in the field resists systematic organization.

Criticisms of Learning Styles The various reviews do agree that there are serious problems with learning styles, beginning with having too many models, terms and definitions in play. The fact that learning styles, although widely used, are subject to consistent criticisms of a fundamental nature is important in an instructional context. The range of what is meant by learning styles leads to different prescriptions for what can or should be done by instructors in their teaching. If learning styles are fixed, aspects of students' personalities and cognitive identities, should teachers simply accommodate them, targeting instruction to their students' learning styles? Or if they are preferences, aspects of behavior that are susceptible to influence, should teachers in that case also accommodate them, or can they further help students to adapt

and become more flexible in their learning styles? The answer varies, and practitioners should be aware that they are making assumptions about how they consider their students learn when they select which model to use [32].

The fact that learning styles, although widely used, are subject to consistent criticisms of a fundamental nature is important in an instructional context.

Claims about learning styles and how teachers should adapt their teaching rest upon the interpretation of results from the tests, questionnaires and interview protocols used to collect data about students. Learning styles research is built on measurement, which in turn requires evaluating the measurement instruments for reliability and validity. Reliability is the degree to which the instrument is internally consistent and gets the same results time over time (e.g., test–retest reliability). Validity includes the degree to which it measures what it claims to measure and that what it measures is explained by the theory (construct validity), that it accurately predicts the behavior it measures (predictive validity), and that it is an accurate reflection of behavior in real world rather than just experimental conditions (ecological validity). Because of the differing theoretical perspectives behind the models, matters like construct validity need to be established for each measurement instrument individually [33]. There have been years of debate over the validity and reliability of learning styles tests. The consensus from external reviewers who have investigated the evidence for the major models appears to be that the field is weak empirically. In too many cases, the models are based on limited research and larger studies to confirm initial findings have not been done. Curry asserts that researchers have tended “to rush prematurely into print and marketing with very early and preliminary indications of factor loadings based on one dataset [34].” Instead of large studies which could provide strong evidence and implications for practice, many of the subsequent studies have been based on “small-scale applications of particular models to small samples of students in specific contexts,” and therefore the conclusions that may be drawn from them are limited [35]. The prevalence of small studies is problematic in that they are too narrow to encounter and account for all of the relevant factors and effects, while their combined findings may not add up to a coherent understanding of learning styles. Design problems may also affect the quality of data in some studies. For example, issues that could influence the results are not always considered, such as using a model developed in one context (e.g., elementary school; the particular educational culture of one country) in another (e.g., higher education; educational institutions in another country) [36]. In light of such criticisms, the learning styles field begins to look like it is built on shifting sands, supported by evidence that is mixed at best. Another key objection is that the research relies on student selfreports about their learning styles. Self-reports can lead to errors in the data because of student misperceptions or misleading answers. Self-assessments assume that students are answering honestly and accurately, when, in fact, students may give the answers they think the instructor would prefer, to paint themselves in a more flattering light, or they may even believe they do one thing when they are actually doing another when learning and answer accordingly [37]. Other related errors can be caused by the way questions are designed. For example, questionnaires that give sets of words or phrases out of which students must pick an answer can skew the data as people will tend to make some choices based on criteria that may not be connected to their learning styles: “Nearly everybody would prefer a

September 2011 379

demonstration in a science class to an uninterrupted lecture. This does not mean that such individuals have a visual style but that good science teaching involves demonstrations [38].” In such a case, the response would not give much information about distinctive differences between students in terms of their learning styles. Beyond problems with how information on learning styles is collected, there are problems with how it may be applied in teaching. Theoretical models can become simplified and deterministic in practice. Proponents of learning styles argue that there are benefits for students to learn their strengths and relative weaknesses in learning more about how they learn, that they can use this knowledge to develop strategies to cope with different learning situations. Selfknowledge can be powerful and enabling for students, but there is also a danger that learning styles can create new limitations. One potential consequence is that students can become labeled by their learning styles. The belief that they learn best in only certain ways can come to constrain their experience in the classroom and influence their level of engagement with the material, depending on how it is taught [39]. Learning about learning styles can also create expectations that place significant demands on the instructor. For example, Dewar and Whittington point out that the attention to learning styles in online learning has created “a rigid insistence by some adult learners that ‘this is the way I learn and it must be accommodated’ [40].” Furthermore, test results may appear to simplify how people learn, reducing complex behavior to a series of categories, and obscuring other important factors such as the specific context of learning. It is possible to become too dependent on the categories in a model when talking about learning, as if everyone can be slotted neatly and consistently into one or another of the types in that model. Similarly, reviewers have criticized the evidence behind the repeated advice to match instruction to students' learning styles. Many claims are made for matching, and on the surface, it seems to make sense that teaching in the style or mode favored by the student will help that student learn more effectively (for example, presenting material visually to visual learners). Others argue that a deliberate mismatch can help students to strengthen their less-preferred learning styles. Unfortunately, the evidence that tailoring teaching to students' learning styles helps people learn better is not strong. Critics argue that studies claiming to demonstrate this effect are often poorly designed [41]. In a recent review of the literature, Paschler, McDaniel, Rohrer and Bjork assert that only a specific type of evidence would suffice to demonstrate support for matching: a crossover effect, such that the method of instruction which benefits one group of students with a particular learning style would work less well for a second group of students with a different learning style, and vice versa. They found only one such study, which appeared to provide “tenuous” evidence of this crossover effect from matching, while several other studies which also met their design criteria showed no effects [42]. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but they argue persuasively that the burden is on those making the claim to demonstrate the evidence of effect, and that at present, convincing evidence has not been provided. Against claims for matching, Willingham argues that cognitive science research has found that learning and remembering have more to do with meaning than the modality in which information is presented. In other words, visual or auditory presentations of information are most useful where the meaning is connected to that form of information. Thus, the best instructional design is to match the instruction to the content and not to individual learners; information should be presented in the best mode to convey it: “There is no benefit to students in teachers' attempting to find auditory presentations of the Mayan pyramids for the students who have good auditory memory. Everyone should see the picture [43].” Furthermore, instead of testing for learning styles, which the evidence does not support, Riener and Willingham argue that testing for students'

380 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

prior knowledge, interests, and abilities is a better use of resources in the classroom, because they are better indicators of teaching success [44]. This is also a useful reminder of the need to consider the subject matter being taught as well as the learners. Often the content appears to be taken for granted and even ignored in discussions of learning styles. Disciplinary differences, such as the structure of knowledge and research techniques in the sciences and the humanities, which affect teaching methods and student learning, also need to be taken into account [45]. Finally, it has been pointed out that learning styles generally do not give adequate consideration to cultural differences [46]. This is problematic for instructors who teach culturally diverse classes, as well as classes representing other aspects of diversity, such as nontraditional students, wide variations in age and experience, and different socioeconomic and language backgrounds. Much of the research “reflects the Western cultural context given that the major learning styles models and measures have originated from Europe and North America [47].” The possibility of unrecognized cultural bias compounds the questions of validity over learning styles research and raises the issue of how useful these models may be for students from non-Western cultures. Such questions are an important reminder that individual models of learning styles may not account for all of the differences between students, and that there are other factors in the social and cultural learning environment influencing how and how well students learn.

A CLOSER LOOK

AT

TWO INFLUENTIAL MODELS

Having looked at the overall pattern of criticisms made against learning styles, it is helpful to examine two widely-used models, Kolb's and Approaches to Learning, applying the same critical lens to see what they do offer and where their limits lie.

Kolb's Model David Kolb is an American professor of organizational behavior, who developed his theory of experiential learning from teaching management students. His model of learning styles is one of the most widely-cited and influential, including in information literacy. As laid out in Experiential Learning, learning for Kolb is a continuous and interactive process that is grounded in the individual's experience. To be effective, learners need abilities in four ways of processing experience [48]. He formulates these as two opposing pairs of processes. The first pair consists of two ways of grasping information: concrete experience (apprehending, or taking in) and abstract conceptualization (comprehending); and the second consists of two ways of transforming or processing information: reflective observation (working on it internally) and active experimentation (working on it externally). These four adaptive learning modes combine to form the cycle of experiential learning. Simply put, concrete experience provides a basis for reflections and observations. These are then assimilated and developed into abstract concepts that can be tested. This process in turn leads to new experiences. In ideal learning, the cycle involves all four stages, and the process repeats with each new experience. Based on this experiential learning cycle, Kolb identifies four learning styles that represent an individual's tendency to emphasize or favor specific phases of the four-stage cycle. He defines learning styles as consistent preferences based on past experience; they are also adaptive responses to the demands of specific situations. To be balanced learners, students should work toward becoming competent in all four learning styles. Most librarians are familiar with the four styles: converger, diverger, assimilator and accommodator. Convergers rely primarily on abstract conceptualization and active experimentation; they are strongest at “problem solving, decision making and the practical application of ideas” and are less strong in interpersonal issues. Divergers emphasize concrete experience and

reflective observation; they are strongest in “imaginative ability and awareness of meaning and values” and are able to see situations from different perspectives. Assimilators are dominant in abstract conceptualization and reflective observation; their strengths are in “inductive reasoning and the ability to create theoretical models, in assimilating disparate observations into an integrated explanation.” Accommodators emphasize concrete experience and active experimentation; their greatest strengths are in “doing things, in carrying out plans and tasks and getting involved in new experiences,” and using trial-and-error to solve problems [49]. Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) measures the degree of preference for one of the learning styles. Kolb states that over time most people will develop a learning style that emphasizes one approach over the others. He cautions that these learning styles are not meant as rigid types: “Individual styles of learning are complex and not easily reducible into simple typologies [50].” Learning styles are both influenced by and have an influence on various levels of behavior, including personality type, educational background, professional career, current job and adaptive competencies for specific tasks. For example, he argues that college education has a deep influence on learning styles, theorizing that people will tend to choose disciplines that suit their learning styles and that they are then further shaped by the learning norms in those disciplines: “When there is a mismatch between the field's learning norms and the individual's learning style, people will either change or leave the field [51].” Thus, there is a degree of both flexibility and stability to Kolb's learning styles, which are conceived of as adaptive behaviors that are consistently manifested by individuals. Kolb's model has been both widely used and adapted by numerous researchers. One well-known variation is Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire, which is now also being used in higher education. At the same time, there has been disagreement over the strength of the empirical evidence behind Kolb's model, leading to questions about its reliability as a measurement of learning styles and a guide to teaching practices. Many studies using Kolb's model claim to show evidence linking student performance with their learning styles, such that their learning styles enable students to perform better in certain situations than in others. However, Coffield et al. note that both the test–retest reliability and the construct validity of the LSI have been repeatedly questioned over the years, and that these issues have not yet been resolved, even after several revisions to the LSI [52]. If there are problems with the LSI, then this calls into question research which links student performance to the learning styles it measures. It also calls into question the soundness of the teaching advice derived from the model. Further criticisms have emerged from how the model has been used in teaching. Kolb advises that teachers should first determine and then individualize their instruction to students' learning styles, while also encouraging them to become balanced learners. Yet, the empirical evidence for matching instruction to the four styles is contradictory and inconclusive, and largely based on results from small studies [53]. As well, descriptions of Kolb's model can represent the learning cycle as more deterministic and the learning styles as more fixed than in the original theory, leading to didactic prescriptions for how to move through the cycle in teaching. More fundamentally, critics have charged that the conceptual basis of experiential learning theory has remained largely untested; that it may, in fact, be a flawed representation of the learning process; and that the implications for teaching have been logically derived from the theory rather than from the research [54]. Based on such objections, Coffield et al. conclude: “There does not yet appear to be sufficient experimental evidence about Kolb's learning styles on which to base firm recommendations about pedagogy [55].” Other criticisms of Kolb's model focus on assumptions embedded within it, such as its emphasis on learning as an individual rather

than as a socially-mediated process. As Jarvis notes, Kolb places a greater focus on the processes that take place in the individual's mind than on the individual in his/her social, cultural and physical context [56]. Decontextualizing the learner and the learning experience also suggests that Kolb's model does not take sufficiently into account the impact that social and cultural differences may have on learning.

Approaches to Learning Model While Kolb's model and its adaptations are familiar to many in North America, the Approaches to Learning model has been influential in higher education in the United Kingdom and Australia. It emerged from research in Sweden by Marton and Säljö, who began from the premise that to find out why some students learn better than others, it is necessary to ask them what learning means to them. They focused their research on student conceptualizations about learning, how these underlying conceptualizations affect their intent and motivation, and thus how they approach the material to be learned. Through a type of qualitative research that has become known as the phenomenographic method, Marton and Säljö identified two distinct approaches to learning: some students focus on the details of the text, while others focus on the meaning of the text [57]. These have become known as the “surface approach” to learning, in which students are more concerned with acquiring, memorizing and reproducing information accurately for the teacher, and the “deep approach,” in which students conceive of learning as transforming information, leading to personal understanding and growth [58]. These two approaches are hierarchical, with the deep approach seen as “an essential prerequisite for high quality learning [59].” The movement from surface to deep approaches to learning is also seen as part of the development of students as they progress to more advanced studies. Subsequent research, led by Noel Entwistle in Scotland, has continued qualitatively exploring students' conceptions about the learning process. Entwistle has also developed the Approaches to Study Inventory (ASI) to measure aspects of the concepts which have emerged in the qualitative studies. One such study interviewed students about their approaches to a completed assignment and concluded that students' approach “was dependent to some extent on the nature of the problem set and to some extent on their perception of the teacher's requirements [60].” Thus, the student's previous experience, their perceptions, and the particular context of the learning situation are all important factors in the choice of a deep or surface approach to learning. In contrast to learning style models such as Kolb's, which tend to see learning style as something inherent to the student, Approaches to Learning focuses on the choices that the student makes when he or she is learning. The insight that students' approaches to learning are shaped by their perceptions of the learning environment as well as by the actual learning environment has implications for teaching. Ramsden argues that whether students engage with course material superficially or try to understand it is influenced by the assumptions they make about which content is important, assumptions that are based on implicit as well as explicit messages they get from faculty, and their own desire to get high grades: “[Students] do what they think will bring rewards in the systems they work in [61].” In other words, assessment is a key driver of student behaviors. Some teaching methods and types of assessment, such as lecturing and multiple choice exams, more easily encourage and appear to reward surface approaches like memorization. Instructors who wish to inculcate deep approaches to learning need to assess for the demonstration of understanding, such as encouraging students to consider different perspectives on the material and assessing them on this understanding. This model, too, has been criticized. One objection is perhaps a reflection of the degree to which Approaches to Learning has become institutionalized. Haggis charges that there has been “a surprising lack

September 2011 381

of critique” over the concepts of deep and surface approaches to learning, and that they have become almost a cliché in the literature; she also argues that as the theory has moved into wider circulation, it has grown more deterministic [62]. Ironically, given the model's focus on student behaviors rather than traits, the terms “deep approaches to learning” and “surface approaches to learning” frequently become “deep learning” and “surface learning,” and then students become labeled “deep learners” and “surface learners.” The conceptual flexibility of an approach taken by the student becomes reified into the expression of a type of “truth” about how students learn. In the same vein, Coffield et al. note that “the tendency to label people is a problem of all the inventories [63].” In terms of the empirical evidence for this model, critics claim that the unquestioned preference for deep approaches distorts evidence that deep approaches are not always the only route to academic success, that in some contexts, surface approaches can be effective strategies for students [64]. As well, Haggis notes that claims that the right sort of learning environment and encouragement can induce deep approaches in students are not supported by the research. Attempts to manipulate students into using deep approaches actually can have the opposite effect of increasing surface approaches as a strategic response: “Many studies continue to report that students are mainly resistant to attempts to change the way they approach their learning [65].” Furthermore, although Coffield et al. judge the qualitative research behind the model to be robust and ecologically valid, they give the quantitative research a mixed review: reasonable test–retest reliability has been established for the ASI, but concerns have been raised over its construct and predictive validity, and not enough data is available yet on the reliability of the more recent ASSIST version of the inventory [66]. Finally, Approaches to Learning has also been charged with not sufficiently taking into account the differences in culture that may influence how students experience learning. For example, although memorizing is seen as a surface approach, studies with students in Hong Kong and Nepal have shown that “high achieving students appeared to be memorizing in a way that led to understanding,” and critics assert that the Approaches to Learning model has not yet completely accounted for this “Chinese paradox [67].” Haggis argues further that, in making explicit the preference for deep approaches, this model reveals culturally biased and elitist assumptions about the purpose of education, which may not fit well with current conditions in which higher education is increasingly tied to the anticipated needs of the job market for skilled workers [68].

Approaches to Learning also offers key insights into how students go about learning. As with Kolb's styles, the descriptions of deep and surface approaches to learning are recognizable and make a great deal of sense. The focus on students' approaches to learning avoids the idea that teachers simply have to accommodate their students and places much of the responsibility and agency for successful learning back onto the students. As well, awareness of the interplay between the specific learning situation, the learning environment and the learning behaviors students employ gives a more holistic way of looking at how students learn. The theory leads to useful teaching strategies such as tying assessment closely to the learning objectives. This insight is helpful to librarians, who already know that information literacy instruction is most effective when delivered at the time students are working on course assignments. Approaches to Learning, and the research methodology behind it, has had a further influence on information literacy through the work of Christine Bruce. She uses the phenomenographic method to identify conceptions of information literacy among instructors in higher education. Based on this research, she proposes an alternative to the dominant, skills-based model of information literacy. Her model of seven increasingly complex conceptions of information literacy describes the range of ways that people experience and conceptualize information literacy, conceptions that change over time through experience [70]. By shifting to a more “holistic evaluation of people's experience of information literacy as an aspect of learning,” [71] Bruce has opened up new directions for research in information literacy [72]. Her framework is also useful for teaching, helping instructors reflect on their own approach to information literacy and understand the range of approaches taken by others. However, it is important that if these models continue to be used by librarians there is more thoughtful consideration of the criticisms that have been made of them. Both models have weaknesses. In particular, librarians need to be cautious of Kolb's model, especially of explanations that treat learning styles simplistically and deterministically. As well, given the charges that Kolb's model is empirically weak, we should regard claims for significant research findings using this model with skepticism. With Approaches to Learning, librarians need to keep firmly in mind the reported difficulties in changing people's approaches to learning. In each instance, it is necessary to avoid labeling individuals or making assumptions about learning that are blind to cultural differences. In cases like these, where the theories appear to make so much sense, it is even more important to keep a critical distance and interrogate their claims.

Utility of the Two Models for Information Literacy Exploring these two models gives a sense of the basis of their appeal, and by extension, the appeal of learning styles in general, to educators. Both models highlight the common values in the field, as well as some of its common problems. Kolb's model strongly appeals to common sense, indicating one reason for its popularity. The model describes learning behaviors that are easily recognized. It also facilitates planning instruction around the stages of the cycle. Many authors give advice on how to structure lessons to appeal to convergers, divergers, assimilators and accommodators. Such structured instruction seems to work well in information literacy. In one recent article, Jones et al. explain how they draw on Kolb to increase interactivity in their database instruction. They provide a range of materials, from step-by-step search exercises (for the assimilators) and database help guides (divergers), to worksheets for students to plan their own research (convergers), as well as time to practice searching (accommodators), so that students can choose the hands-on practice methods that work best for them [69]. This example illustrates how Kolb's model can sensitize practitioners to the variety in students' styles and help them develop concrete teaching strategies to respond to that diversity.

382 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

it is important that if these models continue to be used by librarians there is more thoughtful consideration of the criticisms that have been made of them.

CONCLUSIONS Given the controversies over learning styles that have been outlined in this paper, it is reasonable to ask what they have to offer information literacy. If, after all these years, the field has yet to offer a single, integrated explanation of the different ways in which people learn, and if most learning style models have not been proven in a way that satisfies external review, how much weight should librarians place on them? With care, there are several ways learning styles are useful to information literacy. For one thing, some of the advice associated with learning theories, particularly around using active learning to engage

students, is practical and sound. Knowing more about how people learn can help librarians motivate students and increase their sensitivity to the diversity among students. Introducing students to the variations in how people learn can help to develop a more reflective, self-aware approach to learning. Students can take more control of their learning as they develop their learning strategies in a range of learning situations. More broadly, becoming better versed in educational theories and research will enrich librarians' teaching, giving them knowledge of concepts and strategies in use in education, and a more specific vocabulary to use when discussing learning with students and with faculty. As well, reading more widely increases critical distance, creates informed consumers of research, and helps inoculate against being tempted to follow blindly one theory or another. It is very important to avoid the pitfalls of learning styles. The veneer of “hard science” that empirical studies give to learning styles may lead librarians to place too much confidence in the categories of styles and make deterministic assumptions about learners and learning. Students can also get locked into labels about themselves. The result is a reduction in the capacity to respond to the flexibility of learning. Instructors must remember the importance of context, the fact that there are many individual differences and situations that affect learning. It makes sense, therefore, that people have been found to learn in a range of ways, and it follows that there is no one thing that teachers can do to magically produce the learning in their students they desire. Teaching is a process of responding to specifics and trying a range of techniques to see what works best. To put it another way, learning and teaching are both hard work, with no quick fixes. Insights from learning styles theories can usefully inform but should not determine our teaching. To resist taking claims about learning styles at face value and for granted, we most of all need to evaluate critically any theories we plan to use in our teaching. In particular, we need to be aware of the ongoing debates around the quality of evidence on which these theories rest. In fact, while we can draw what is useful from learning styles, the wide concern over their effectiveness suggests that it is probably best at this point not to adapt our teaching solely on the basis of any individual model. Furthermore, the problems with learning styles need to be acknowledged and considered much more extensively in the information literacy literature. If we don't do this, we lay ourselves open to charges of not being sufficiently evidence-based in our practices. In the end, we should judge for ourselves whether the benefits to our understanding of teaching and learning outweigh the limitations of learning styles, and we should be explicit about what we consider learning styles can and cannot offer to information literacy.

REFERENCES 1. ACRL, “Characteristics of Information Literacy Programs that Illustrate Best Practices: A Guideline." Online. (2003). Available: http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/characteristics. cfm (September 30, 2010). 2. CONZUL (Council of New Zealand University Librarians), “Best Practice Characteristics for Developing Information Literacy in New Zealand Universities: A Guideline.” Online. (2006). Available: http://www.nzvcc.ac.nz/aboutus/sc/CONZUL/Documents (September 30, 2010); CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians), “Best Practice Characteristics for Developing Information Literacy in Australian Universities: A Guideline.” Online. (2004). Available: http://www.caul.edu.au/content/upload/files/ info-literacy/InfoLiteracyBestPractice.pdf (October 1, 2010). 3. Sonia Bodi, “Teaching effectiveness and bibliographic instruction: the relevance of learning styles”, College and Research Libraries 51 (2) (1990): 113–119;

Hannelore B. Rader, “Educating students for the information age: the role of the librarian”, Reference Services Review 25 (2) (1997): 47–52. 4. Connie Dalrymple, “Perceptions and practices of learning styles in library instruction”, College and Research Libraries 63 (3) (2002): 261–273 p. 263. 5. Susann DeVries, “Learning styles, active learning and the one-shot information literacy class”, LOEX Quarterly 32 (4) (2006): 2–5. 6. Lori Mestre, “Accommodating diverse learning styles in an online environment”, Reference and User Services Quarterly 46 (2) (2006): 27–32; Barbara A. Burd & Lori E. Buchanan, “Teaching the teachers: teaching and learning online”, Reference Services Review 32 (4) (2004): 404–412. 7. Barbara Costello, Robert Lenholt, & Judson Stryker, “Using blackboard in library instruction: addressing the learning styles of generations x and y”, Journal of Academic of Librarianship 30 (6) (2004): 452–460. 8. Evadne McLean & Stephen H. Dew, “Providing library instruction to distance learning students in the 21st century”, Journal of Library Administration 45 (3) (2006): 315–337, doi:10.1300/J111v45n03_01. 9. Katherine E. Holmes, “A kaleidoscope of learning styles: instructional supports that meet the diverse needs of distant learners”, Journal of Library Administration 37 (3) (2002): 367–378; Cecile Bianco, “Online tutorials: tips from the literature”, Library Philosophy and Practice 8 (2005): 1–6. 10. Intan Azura Mokhtar, Shaheen Majid, & Schubert Foo, “Teaching information literacy through learning styles: the application of Gardner's multiple intelligences”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 40 (3) (2008): 93–109, doi:10.1177/0961000608089345; Rosie Jones, Karen Peters, & Emily Shields, “Transform your training: practical approaches to interactive information literacy teaching”, Journal of Information Literacy 1 (2007): 35–42. 11. Angela Weiler, “Information-seeking behavior in generation y students: motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory”, Journal of Academic of Librarianship 31 (2005): 46–53. 12. Bodi, “Teaching effectiveness and bibliographic instruction: the relevance of learning styles”, College and Research Libraries 51 (2) (1990): 113–119 p. 115. 13. Jo Webb & Chris Powis, “Teaching Information Skills: Theory and Practice”, Facet, London, 2004, p. 30. 14. Linda Price, “Individual differences in learning: cognitive control, cognitive style and learning style”, Educational Psychology 24 (5) (2004): 681–698 p. 681. 15. Frank Coffield, David Moseley, Elaine Hall, & Kathryn Ecclestone, Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/Resource-32188. aspx (August 29, 2010). This recent review of learning styles lists 30 such pairs mentioned in the theories they examine, p. 137. The companion report by the same team is: Should We Be Using Learning Styles?: What Research has to Say to Practice (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www. lsnlearning.org.uk/search/Resource-32186.aspx (August 29, 2010). 16. Rita Dunn, “Capitalizing on college students' learning styles: theory, practice and research”, in: Rita Dunn, Shirley Griggs (Eds.), “Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education”, Bergen and Garvey, Westport CT, 2000, quoted in Burd & Buchanan, “Teaching the teachers: teaching and learning online”, Reference Services Review 32 (4) (2004): 404–412 p. 405. 17. Price, “Individual differences in learning: cognitive control, cognitive style and learning style”, Educational Psychology 24 (5) (2004): 681–698.

September 2011 383

18. Susan A. Santo, “Relationships between learning styles and online learning: myth or reality?”, Performance Improvement Quarterly 19 (3) (2006): 73–88 p. 73; Ella Desmedt & Martin Valcke, “Mapping the learning styles ‘jungle’: an overview of the literature based on citation analysis”, Educational Psychology 24 (4) (2004): 445–464, doi:10.1080/ 0144341042000228843 p. 445. 19. Richard Riding & Indra Cheema, “Cognitive styles: an overview and integration”, Educational Psychology 11 (3/4) (1991): 193–215; Lynn Curry, “An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11–15, 1983) (ERIC Document 235 185), 1983. 20. Coffield, et al., “Learning Styles; Stan D. Ivie, “Learning styles: Humpty Dumpty revisited”, McGill Journal of Education 44 (2) (2009): 177–192; John G. Sharp, Rob Bowker, & Jenny Byrne, “VAK or VAK-uous? towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship”, Research Papers in Education 23 (3) (2008): 293–314, doi:10.1080/ 02671520701755416. 21. Myron H. Dembo & Keith Howard, “Advice about the use of learning styles: a major myth in education”, Journal of College Reading and Learning 37 (2) (2007): 101–109; Sharp, et al., “VAK or VAK-uous? Towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship”, Research Papers in Education 23 (3) (2008): 293–314, doi:10.1080/02671520701755416. 22. Coffield et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 2. 23. See, for example, Alan Pritchard, “Ways of Learning: Learning Theories and Learning Styles in the Classroom”, 2nd ed, Routledge, London, NY, 2009; Rena M. Palloff & Keith Pratt, “The Virtual Student: A Profile and Guide to Working with Online Learners”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 2003; Mohammed Ally, “Foundations of educational theory for online learning”, in: Anderson Terry (Ed.), “The Theory and Practice of Online Learning”, 2nd ed, Athabasca UP, Edmonton, 2008, pp. 15–44. 24. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 125. 25. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 125. 26. Thomas C. DeBello, "Comparison of eleven major learning styles models: variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and the research behind them", Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities 6 (1990): 203–222 http://www.ldrc.ca/projects/ atutor/content/7/debello.htm (September 30, 2010). 27. Curry, “An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11-15, 1983) (ERIC Document 235 185), 1983, pp. 7–9. Curry does not indicate why she omits the tenth instrument, Dunn and Dunn's Learning Style Inventory, from her onion model. 28. Santo, "Relationships between learning styles and online learning: myth or reality?", Performance Improvement Quarterly 19 (3) (2006): 73–88 p. 85. 29. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 9.

384 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

30. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 140. They identify Allinson and Hayes' Cognitive Styles Index as the strongest of the models they reviewed. 31. Desmedt & Valcke, "Mapping the learning styles 'jungle': an overview of the literature based on citation analysis", Educational Psychology 24 (4) (2004): 445–464 doi:10.1080/0144341042000228843. p. 445. 32. Simon Cassidy, et al., "Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures", Educational Psychology 24 (4) (2004): 419–444. 33. Dembo & Howard, "Advice about the use of learning styles: a major myth in education", Journal of College Reading and Learning 37 (2) (2007): 101–109 p. 104. 34. Lynn Curry, "A critique of the research on learning styles", Educational Leadership 48 (2) (1990): 50–56 p. 50. 35. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 1. 36. Sharp, et al., "VAK or VAK-uous? towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship", Research Papers in Education 23 (3) (2008): 293–314, doi:10.1080/02671520701755416 p. 300. 37. Santo, "Relationships between learning styles and online learning: myth or reality?", Performance Improvement Quarterly 19 (3) (2006): 73–88. 38. S.A. Stahl, "Different strokes for different folks: a critique of learning styles", American Educator 23 (3) (1999): 27–31, quoted in Dembo & Howard, “Major Myth,” p. 103. 39. Cedar Riener & Daniel Willingham, "The myth of learning styles", Change 42 (5) (2010): 32–35. 40. Tammy Dewar & Dave Whittington, "Online learners and their learning strategies", Journal of Educational Computing Research 23 (4) (2000): 385–403 p. 401. 41. Dembo & Howard, "Advice about the use of learning styles: a major myth in education", Journal of College Reading and Learning 37 (2) (2007): 101–109. 42. Harold Paschler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, & Robert Bjork, "Learning styles: concepts and evidence", Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9 (3) (2010): 105–119. 43. D.T. Willingham, "Do visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory and kinesthetic instruction?", under “Teachers Should Focus”, American Educator 29 (2) (2005): http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/summer2005/ willingham.cfm (September 30, 2010). 44. Riener & Willingham, “The myth of learning styles”, Change 42 (5) (2010): 32–35. 45. Noel Entwistle, "Taking stock: an overview of key research findings", in: Julia Christensen-Hughes, Joy Mighty (Eds.), Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal and Kingston, 2010, pp. 15–57, p. 30–31. 46. Z.M. Charlesworth, "Learning styles across cultures: suggestions for educators", Education and Training 50 (2) (2008): 115–127, doi:10.1108/00400910810862100. 47. Eva Cools, Carol Evans, & James A. Redmond, "Using styles for more effective learning in multicultural and e-learning environments", Multicultural Education and Technology Journal 3 (1) (2009): 5–16, doi:10.1108/17504970910951110 p. 9. 48. David A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, pp. 30–42. 49. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, pp. 77–78.

50. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, p. 66. 51. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, p. 88. 52. Coffield et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) pp. 65–67; see also Cassidy, “Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures”, Educational Psychology 24 (4) (2004): 419-444 p. 431. 53. Coffield et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 68. 54. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 70. 55. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 69. 56. Peter Jarvis, Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning Routledge, London, 2006. 57. Ference Marton & Roger Säljö, "Approaches to learning", in: Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell, Noel Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education 3rd (Internet) edition, University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 39–58 http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html, (September 30, 2010). 58. Noel Entwistle, "Contrasting perspectives on learning", p. 17, in: Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell, Noel Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education 3 rd (Internet) edition, University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 3–22 http://www.tla. ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html, (September 30, 2010). 59. Entwistle, "Contrasting Perspectives on Learning", p. 20 in: Ference Marton, Dai Hounsell, Noel Entwistle (Eds.), The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education 3rd (Internet) edition, University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, Edinburgh, 2005, pp. 3–22, http://www. tla.ed.ac.uk/resources/EoL.html (September 30, 2010). 60. Diana Laurillard, Re-thinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology 2nd ed., RoutledgeFalmer, London, 2002, p. 28. 61. Paul Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education 2nd ed, Routledge, New York, 2003, p. 62.

62. Tamsin Haggis, "Constructing images of ourselves?: a critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education", British Educational Research Journal 29 (2003): 89–104, doi:10.1080/0141192032000057401 p. 90–91. 63. Coffield et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 99. 64. Coffield, et al., Should We Be Using Learning Styles?: What Research has to Say to Practice (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/Resource-32186. aspx (August 29, 2010) p. 26. 65. Haggis, "Constructing images of ourselves?: a critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education", British Educational Research Journal 29 (2003): 89–104 doi:10.1080/ 0141192032000057401 p. 92. 66. Coffield, et al., Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review (London: Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004), http://www.lsnlearning.org.uk/search/ Resource-32188.aspx (August 29, 2010). 67. Haggis, "Constructing images of ourselves?: a critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education", British Educational Research Journal 29 (2003): 89–104 doi:10.1080/ 0141192032000057401 p. 93; see also Graham Webb, "Deconstructing deep and surface: towards a critique of phenomenography", Higher Education 33 (1997): 195–212 p. 206–207. 68. Haggis, "Constructing images of ourselves?: a critical investigation into ‘approaches to learning’ research in higher education", British Educational Research Journal 29 (2003): 89–104 p. 90–91, doi:10. 1080/0141192032000057401 p. 97. 69. Jones, et al., "Transform your training: practical approaches to interactive information literacy teaching", Journal of Information Literacy 1 (2007): 35–42 p. 35. They use Honey and Mumford's terminology, but for clarity here, I have substituted Kolb's nearequivalent terms. 70. Christine Bruce, The Seven Faces of Information Literacy Auslib, Adelaide, 1997, p. 16. 71. Susie Andretta, "Phenomenography: a conceptual framework for information literacy education", Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 59 (2) (2007): 152–168, doi:10.1108/ 00012530710736663 p. 155. 72. Clarence Maybee, "Undergraduate perceptions of information use: the basis for creating user-centered student information literacy instruction", Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (2006): 79–85; Margy MacMillan, "Watching learning happen: results of a longitudinal study of journalism students", Journal of Academic Librarianship 35 (2) (2009): 132–142.

September 2011 385