The Learning Levels for Dental Students - Essay Example

? Enhancing Academic Practice Inas Nasr Assignment type: Case study report Preference of Theory or Practical Teaching Methods in Orthodontic Postgraduate Education Abstract One of the major challenges that dental instructors face in the modern educational system is the progression in the learning levels for dental students in their respective programs and educational surroundings (Forrest 2008). To demonstrate whether a specific teaching technique is able to enhance the students’ satisfaction compared to other conventionally adopted teaching techniques, a survey regarding the learning inclinations associated with sensory modalities was carried out on undergraduate students from different classes at the Temple University School of Dentistry. Due to the significance of the projected theme, an educator from New Zealand, Neil Fleming, designed a survey called VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic) in 1998. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the most preferred teaching technique of dental undergraduates and to illustrate any important distinction amongst the group of students. 31,243 respondents were interviewed regarding VARK preferences. The outcome of the research revealed that there were major divergences in students’ preferences for a particular teaching style. Overall, dental students preferred practical (kinaesthetic) learning to theoretical (aural) learning. The distribution of the scores also demonstrated preference for teachers who adopted well-planned practical teaching styles and assisted student note-taking throughout the teaching sessions. This case study will consider how these practices have impacted on teaching practices within the field of dental education. The paper will also report the outcomes of a small-scale survey of learning preferences of postgraduate orthodontics students and make recommendations for future teaching practice. Table of Contents Introduction 4 Problem Statement 5 Literature Review 6 Research Methodology 10 Data Collection Process 10 Distributed Questionnaires 11 Data Analysis 12 Validity and Reliability of the Case Study 12 Results 12 Discussion 15 Conclusion 18 Introduction The most important challenge facing dental instructors is the improvement in the quality of learner experience within the programme of study and educational surroundings. In undergraduate dental education, informative and scientific teaching is compressed into a span of four years sometimes even less (Bertolami 2001). This time span includes both theoretical and clinical practice which is a prerequisite to complete for successful graduation (Robotham n.d.). Although the incorporation of scientific approaches in the field of clinical practice is a fundamental aim of any dental course, learners often recognise that the secret for success in training is to pass the science classes by adopting rote learning and memorization approaches in addition to understanding the significance of this education when put into practice (Jordan, 2005). Bertolami (2001) has suggested that one of the most important reasons why students get frustrated with their programme of study was the lack of correspondence involving the learning (content) and the instruction delivery (form). While a considerable number of dental students had a preference for various learning techniques, most relied almost exclusively on the lecture as their primary means of information delivery. Teaching topics using lectures can be essentially passive for the learner and didactic approaches support rote memorization and note-taking (Biggs, 2003). It is essential for dental teachers to recognize that students differ from one another and what oftentimes differentiates them is their diverse approaches to learning and knowledge retention. Adhering to all these factual revelations, this case study explores the preferred teaching technique of postgraduate orthodontic students at King’s College London orthodontic program using questionnaires as the method for data collection. This research question will serve the purpose of highlighting what techniques are best suited to learning and therefore promote those favorable techniques in order to create a more robust program. Problem Statement It is worth mentioning that learning styles that are overly dependent on note-taking in lectures can lead to high levels of absenteeism during lectures. This is mainly the result of the fact that students believe they can have access to all pertinent information from the notes of a designated note-taker and therefore there is no need to attend each and every class. For the most part, this is not a prevalent concern at King’s College London as attendance policies sufficiently encourage students to attend each session for the sake of their overall attendance grade at the end of the term. Naturally, many reasons may exist for students to purposefully miss lectures. These may include: availability of handouts that expressly follow the information reviewed in class, poor timing of the lectures, or the perception that the lectures themselves are inherently redundant. Bertolami notes that many dental students avoid attending lectures and employ an independent learning approach, a practice distinctive of mature learners. Mature learners are aware of their educational strengths and flaws, and need significant functional data put forward in a manner that is easy, academically challenging, and with the utmost of time proficiency. Absence from lectures potentially reflects an apparent gap between the employed teaching techniques and learner needs that compels students to put more emphasis on self-study rather than attending lectures. As such, this case study analyses the most preferred teaching techniques for the students with the aim to identify and make recommendations to build a strong teacher-student relationship for the purposes of enhancing lecture-based teaching in the clinical education environment. Literature Review Educational examiners assume that every individual has a learning style and, if tutoring is adapted to incorporate these styles, it is anticipated that the outcome for learners is enhanced knowledge and superior education. Keefe (1988) characterises learning approaches as the “compound of attributive cognitive, influential, and mental makeup that provides comparatively steady signs in what ways a learner may perceive, work together with, and act in response to the learning surroundings.” Reiff (1992) and Keefe (1988) illustrated that an enhanced perspective of learning techniques by a department may seem to be of assistance in order to reduce the students’ level of frustration and enhance the instructional schemes of delivery. Furthermore, Suskie (2003) has advocated that teachers must make an effort to modify their own teaching techniques to provide learners with a chance to be taught in an atmosphere which is more aligned to their learning needs. Humans incorporate information related to their atmosphere with the help of four sensory modalities. These four phases of cognitive progression have been classified by Bruner and Piaget (1990) as: illustrative (observing representations, signs, or figures), auditory (take note, talking about instructional stuff), visual/iconic (interpretation and scripting), and kinaesthetic (using physical sensory aptitudes for instance smell and feel). Assessment of sensory preference is integrated into numerous educational specialties and examination mechanisms (Endorf 2001). Despite the fact that many teachers believe that educational methods or preference standards are empirically-based, only a small number have been authenticated. One of the tools that is employed in evaluating educational systems, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), has been demonstrated by examiners to have legitimacy with recognised characteristics and feature analysis, and has been utilised in calculating dental student’s learning intellect during previous research. An educator from New Zealand, Neil Fleming, developed the VARK survey in 1998 to review the educational techniques and preferences related to the MBTI standards for sensing. VARK is an acronym given for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinaesthetic. In the visual approach (practical teaching), students have a preference for the exploitation of diagrammatic and representative illustrations such as charts, flow diagrams, chains of command, representations, and arrows that correspond to the printed information. Furthermore, they could provide an explanation of the theory to others by sketching a figure or a depiction. Learning Preferences and Teaching Approaches There are different teaching approaches in lectures that are aligned to different learning preferences, which are illustrated in this section of this case study. Visual or practical learning is further divided into a second group known as the Read/Write. Read/Write students choose printed words and text as their means of statistical intake. They have a preference for lists, lecture notes, word lists, manuals, or leaflets. These learners prefer to arrange lecture notes into summaries, reword classroom discussions, and go through previous multiple choice question papers. Aural or theoretical learners on the other hand focus on what the lecturer is trying to say. To a certain degree, they prefer to listen than taking notes. Following the lecture, they would talk about the topics with their classmates so that they can develop a deeper understanding of the topic. Student interaction and communication within the class is a good way of learning from each other (Suskie 2003). A number of researchers found that kinaesthetic learning is a practical dimension making use of sensory utilities. The kinaesthetic preference involves learning that is gained through the exercise of knowledge and performance. In other words, the kinaesthetic student is made to experience or live the occurrence; i.e. learning by doing. In the field of dentistry and in the majority of dental schools, kinaesthetic learning may be accomplished with the help of preclinical laboratory replication or clinical sessions. Sensory modality measurements play an important part in the learner preference. Using Learning Preference Questionnaires in Teaching Fleming states that the objective of instruments such as VARK is to act as a tool for lecturers and students to talk about learning and teaching (Silberman 2003). The mechanisms are swift and simple for students to make use of and understand. The resulting conversations related to the review of results might facilitate the development of self-consciousness about learning for learners to help them identify what aspects help them learn the best and motivate their teachers to look for the best techniques to develop student learning. In essence, this is a two-way street approach for an ideal learning environment. Although this is unlikely to exist in its purest incarnation, it is doubtless the model to which any learning institution and/or classroom should ascribe. Lecturers and students should be cautious of interpreting learning approaches as diagnostic. Learning approaches are not stable but are a construct of student responses to their own environment dependent on the instructor. Although singularity and uniformity may exist, it is far from an absolute (Biggs, 2003). It follows that questionnaires can be used as tools to help support learning by enabling students to understand and monitor their learning process (Cassidy, 2011). The process of utilizing questionnaires to facilitate learning is not limited to undergraduate studies. For instance, graduate level dental professors can also gain beneficial information from targeted learning needs questionnaires distributed at the beginning of the semester. These can then be used to identify the key components of learning that the students self identify and reconcile these with the key components of the course that the professor has decided to focus upon. In this way, both the needs of the professor and the student can be met and the necessary topics expounded upon to the proper degree. Furthermore, graduate level instructors could utilize the questionnaire both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. The final questionnaire can focus upon what aspects the student would have liked to have been expounded upon to a greater degree. In this way, the learning process is passed along to the professor as helpful feedback to assist him/her with preparation for teaching the next group of students. Cuthbert (2005) summarises the two dominant models of student learning that are most prevalent within the current system – approaches to learning and student learning styles. As such, he attempts to marry these models in a type of symbiotic relationship which serves to enrich the learning experience without taking away any of the peculiar merits of either model. Though surveys and questionnaires are not a perfect tool for identifying stable learner characteristics, they are invaluable for facilitating dialogue between students and their teachers as well as between teachers themselves. This stimulation is one of the most powerful ways to support learning and foster growth in the dissemination of knowledge. Furthermore, when students are provided with adequate knowledge regarding their learning preferences, they may aspire to make use of certain learning techniques that correspond to their preferences. Moreover, the results of surveyed questionnaires may also provide the educators with in-depth knowledge regarding employing alternating strategies for lecture delivery which may attract the intended students by satisfying their learning preferences and perhaps enlarge the students’ contentment with the course content.” Research Methodology The purpose of this case study is to determine the learning styles and preferences of students and reflect on how teaching and learning environments in the Dental School can be enhanced to maximize the positive learning experience. As such, the overall effectiveness of these as well as the particular learning environments that they foster will be measured. Ethical approval was obtained from King’s College London and the supervisors for postgraduate students granted consent to proceed with this case study. The participants included all first year orthodontic postgraduate students at Guy’s Hospital, London. The participants included 36 students with an average age of 27.5 years. As the sole investigator of this case study, I informed the participants about the study and provided a cover letter and an information sheet explaining the purpose of this case study. The questionnaires were distributed to postgraduate orthodontic students who have attended academic lectures as well as preclinical practical sessions. All respondents returned the completed questionnaires and the data were collected and analysed. Questionnaires were used because they are an invaluable tool to collect several data that is concise, yet comprehensive, and easy to use. They also provided valuable information to the students regarding their learning preferences. Data Collection Process The data collection process used for this study is based upon a well-thought out framework consisting of four attributes that are being incorporated into this analysis in order to enhance its credibility. The attributes of integrated framework are feasibility, acceptability, suitability and completeness that are required and recommended before conducting any physical or web-based survey. These four suggested attributes are described as follows: feasibility refers to the aptness of the data collection procedures with available resources; acceptability: refers to the adoption of those procedures that are appropriate within researched environment; suitability refers to the compliance of opted procedures with the addressed situation in legal and ethical context and completeness: refers to the ability of the undertaken procedures to address the critical aspects of the surveyed opinions. Distributed Questionnaires Questionnaires are considered one of the most influential data collection devices and thus are frequently used in many research studies where the aim is to collect information of an intended population. The questionnaire used in this case study consisted of ten multiple-choice questions comprising four to five options. These options were related to the four sensory modalities. This questionnaire was designed to provide me with all-inclusive information regarding the learning preferences of students that may be of significance for both the students and the teachers. The responses submitted by the students via the surveyed questionnaires were rated and tabulated to determine the significance of theoretical or practical learning preferences of the participants. The preferences of students were ranked and calculated by totaling all A responses (practical approach) and all B responses (theoretical approach). The most preferred learning approach for students was identified by determining the category with the maximum favorable responses. Data Analysis Mean and standard deviation methods were used to achieve a comparative analysis of responses being collected. In addition, ANOVA analysis was used to differentiate between variables for continuous and categorical data, respectively. Validity and Reliability of the Case Study The validity and reliability of the results regarding student preferences have been interpreted with caution. Usually, in the literature, validity and reliability of data have been interpreted differently by different researchers due to the different means and modes that are being used to affirm these two attributes in any research work. This statement can be understood on the basis that there are many researchers who consider these two attributes as the means of accurate and on-the-time findings (Cohen and Manion, 2007). On the other hand, some researchers, as suggested by Joppee (2000), believe that a research work is valid and reliable when it undertakes elaborated measurements of generality concepts and the mean of gauging sustainability. However, in this survey-based case study, all possible aspects linked to the validity and reliability of data and information have been focused and implemented to increase the authenticity of the entire study. Results Key: Practical Teaching Style = S1 Theoretical Teaching Style = S2 Research Parameters Outcomes Attitudes of participants toward the Practical and Theoretical Styles of teaching An analysis of variance was conducted to choose whether participants’ attitudes toward practical and theoretical teaching styles differed; as if, it was inclined towards S1 or S2. The ANOVA indicated a difference F1 (2, 207) = 3.393, p < .05. Follow-up analyses with pair wise comparisons showed that participants appreciated the Practical Teaching Style more (M = 3.74) than the Theoretical Teaching Style of dental school faculty (M = 3.27, p < .05). Attitudes of participants towards students’ learning outcomes on Annual Clinical Progress Report No significant outcomes in ANOVA. Possibility this occurred because the entire subjects skewed negatively towards S2. Perceptions of participant postgraduate teaching performance Students’ postgraduate teaching performance varied on the basis of whether they were exposed to the Theoretical Teaching Style or Practical Teaching Style of the governing faculty. The ANOVA specified a difference among the teaching styles F1 (2, 206) = 10.65, p< .001. Follow-up analyses using pair wise comparisons demonstrated that the Practical Teaching Style was more precisely portrayed to the postgraduate performance of the students (M = 4.68) than the Theoretical Teaching Style of faculty (M = 3.84). Perceived benefits by the students regarding the Practical Teaching Styles of teaching on their postgraduate clinical performance A perception about the students’ professional performance reveals that it is primarily based upon the style of teaching. The ANOVA indicated variance among the faculty teaching styles F1 (2, 207) = 3.50, p < .05. Follow-up analyses using pair wise comparisons shows that the majority of employers believed that the Practical Teaching Style depicted the benefits of long-term student performance in their workplace (M = 3.76) than did the Theoretical Teaching Style (M = 3.23, p < .05). Apparently negative impressions of postgraduate students regarding teaching styles in their performance domain Postgraduate students’ perceptions about the effectiveness of teaching styles in increasing an individual’s performance vary depending on the teaching styles of the institute. The ANOVA indicated a dissimilarity among the teaching styles of faculty F1 (2, 206) = 6.14, p < .01. Follow-up analyses using pair wise comparisons proves that most dental professionals perceive Theoretical Teaching Style to be more pessimistic for the professional growth and expansion of students (M = 3.80) than the practical one (M = 0.09). Affects of teaching style on students’ income after five years of graduation Participants largely perceived that the impact of teaching styles imposed by the faculty on postgraduate income is very significant. In addition, it was also considered that this impact varies with different teaching styles. The ANOVA indicated a dissimilarity amongst the teaching styles of faculty F1 (2, 205) = 6.32, p < .01. Follow-up analyses using pair wise comparisons prove that individuals oftentimes perceive that the Practical Teaching Style of faculty is more convenient for the professional growth of students. For this reason, students governed under this type faculty teaching come up with higher income rates after five years of their graduation (M = 4.53) than those who are governed by theoretical ones (M = 1.09). Affects on S1 and S2 on overall clinical knowledge of the students Participants largely perceived that the impact of teaching styles imposed by the faculty on the overall clinical knowledge of students is very significant. In addition, it was also contemplated that this impact varies with different teaching styles of faculty. The ANOVA indicated variance amongst the faculty teaching styles F1 (2, 207) = 3.50, p < .05. Follow-up analyses using pair wise comparisons reveals that the Practical Teaching Style of faculty comes up with elevated clinical knowledge for students (M = 3.76) than did the Theoretical Teaching Style (M = 3.23, p < .05). Likelihood of faculty to switch its teaching style for students who are being trained at their institutes No obvious answers were found as to define the faculty’s perceptions about switching their existing teaching style from theoretical to practical approach. Discussion Based on the above findings, dental students seem to possess a stronger preference for practical learning. This inclination, accompanied with the firm read/write preference average count, would put forward the idea suggests that the lectures emphasised with representations, illustrations, PowerPoint presentations, brochures, or maybe even guided notes would be able to fulfil the requirements of the majority of students. Additionally, lectures that are centred upon inquiry-based and question-driven exercises are deemed the most likely to support learning. Online resources in a virtual learning environment could be used in the form of an add-on for the independent student who is willing to learn and gain knowledge of the subject. It is without question that there is a correct ratio of inquiry-based and standard lecture practices. As such, one way in which professor’s could include a greater variety into their methodology would be to blend lecturing with inquiry-based learning. For instance, in order to achieve a correct mixture of inquiry based and lecture-based learning, the professor might conclude a portion of his time and seek to actively involve the class or individual students in discussion in what way real-world and practical knowledge can be inferred from the theories or ideas he/she has proffered during the lecture. Not only does this involve a key element of participation, it also encourages the student to actively listen as there is a great likelihood that they will need to expound on what they have learned by lecture’s end. In this way, students could play a more active part in the process and could actively seek out knowledge from the professor rather than merely recording volumes of notes to study at a later time. Further assessment of the educational models in higher education shows that student attitudes are likely to change if they had an understanding of the essential principles of the lecture/topic and their learning style (Montgomery 1998). In essence, it stands to reason that the attitude of the student will have a direct effect on the degree to which knowledge is retained. A practical study of graduates’ preferences based on their instinctive learning choices and the grades they achieved could give a suggestion of potential changes in their learning choices during their studies. For instance, students in their first year may discover the need to tolerate aural and kinaesthetic learning in the hopes that they will soon proceed onto their second year where they will attempt more taxing manual skill assignments in clinical dentistry. For those that are very attentive to visual stimulation and learning, illustrative manuals will be relied upon more heavily at certain times as compared to others. Likewise, senior students use up a significantly smaller amount of time in lectures as compared to their time in practical sessions. In short, regardless of student preference, certain modes and styles of education must be tolerated and appreciated in order for certain information to be transmitted as it is not feasible for all information to be transmitted and learned via a single learning model. Not every educator agrees that identical instructional techniques to a particular choice or approach are a source of knowledge (Hendricson 2008). Few researchers have suggested that the student’s preferred learning style might not be the best way to learn in every situation. Grasha (1990) and Stellwagen (2001) have pointed out that the unsystematic application of learning techniques might be the result of the students’ adherence to a particular fashion or collection of styles. The requirement to study under stress can result in the student becoming conscious about the notion that he or she may be contented in the same way as with other learning models. In the initial period of the course, dental practitioners, and staff members may choose practical and read/write teaching techniques to communicate the essential foundation knowledge. On the other hand it may require the development of aural methods in order to execute more successfully in the medical segments of the study program. Grasha has argued that some staff members try diverse forms of instructional methods to accommodate the diversity of students they instruct. The sensory model of a lecture presentation may be improved by attempting to incorporate the student’s involvement with the objective being conveyed. There is no set curriculum which would single-handedly incorporate the student’s involvement; however, minute changes and being willing and able to tweak the learning situation and environment is perhaps the most needed approach to aid the learning process. Instead of monitoring student progress as a function of a few tests and a final, instructors might do better to work to ascertain the level of information the student’s are retaining by assigning such projects as “minute papers”. Such an approach, although work-intensive for the instructor, provides invaluable feedback as to the students overall level of preparedness as well as what percentage of the course material they are able to retain and what material needs further explanation. Supervision and incorporation of data, offered in numerous ways, may lead to increasing student confidence and understanding. In order to enhance the educational environment, a discussion involving students and staff members is essential (Fang 2001). To accomplish a profound understanding of the problem, discussion calls for teachers to defer the decisions which were previously held on the subject of learning or time management constraints of the dental core curriculum (Pinto 1994). In order to develop as independent learners, students need to understand and develop their own approaches to learning. This desired outcome yields a cohort of students that are both interested and fully knowledgeable in their professional fields and who will be able to constantly evaluate their learning and identify areas to continuously improve and update their practice. Conclusion This case study has presented data which suggests that students’ beliefs and thoughts about the teaching style of faculty, especially the practical method, is perceived by the students to have an impact on their long-term professional growth and expansion in their clinical fields. These results also showed that the practical teaching style covered and dealt with the overall performance concerns of the postgraduate participants to a high extent. It would not be erroneous to argue that the results depicted the apparent significance of promoting and implementing authentic teaching styles that contains a practical approach aligned to the practice of dentistry, which is more beneficial for young and energetic dental students. The influence achieved by the theoretical teaching style were relatively limited; whereas, the practical teaching style has formulated some tremendously strong results in this respect. In addition, the outcome of this study regarding practical teaching styles gave a clear picture about postgraduate performance and has a considerably positive outcome if it were implemented. Furthermore, the practical teaching style has proven to be the most preferred and seemingly useful among the students that were surveyed. Further it was found that the practical style served to promote the following: (1) broadening the scope and visions of course studies for the students, (2) reducing boredom and encouraging student motivation, (3) enhancing the development of students’ personal and professional skills, (4) improving awareness of learning preferences that can help graduates to develop the ability to self-regulate their learning and thereby improve their ability to continue this learning beyond graduation. In summary, those students who were greatly influenced by the practical teaching style of faculty were at a significantly less risk of having unpromising professional careers in the future as, under this type of teaching they get an opportunity to explore their interpersonal as well as professional skills and aptitudes (Jones 1997). All in all, the results, which this case study has reached, signify that the practical teaching style of faculty is perceived to be an effective method for motivating dental students to achieve their goals and also encourage them to successfully strengthen their professional perceptions and behavioural inclinations in their future careers. References 1. Bertolami, CN (2001), Rationalizing the dental curriculum in light of current disease prevalence and patient demand for treatment: form vs. content, J Dent Educ, 65, p.p. 725–35. 2. Biggs, J. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning (Society for Research Into Higher Education). 3 Edition. Open University Press. 3. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does (2nd ed.), Maidenhead: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press 4. Bruner, JS (1997), Toward a theory of instruction, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 5. Cassidy, S (2011). 'Self-regulated learning in higher education: Identifying key component processes', Studies in Higher Education, 36 (8) , pp. 989-1000. 6. Cuthbert, P. 2005. “The student learning process: Learning Styles or Learning Approaches”. Teaching in Higher Education. Vol. 10 no. 2. Available at: http://www.numyspace.co.uk/~unn_evdw3/skills/current/papers/cuthbert.pdf. [Accessed 20 August 2012]. 7. Endorf, M & McNeff, M (1991), The adult learner: five types, Adult Learning,2(7), p.p. 20–5. 8. Fang, AL (2002), Utilization of learning styles in dental curriculum development, N Y State Dent, 68(8), p.p. 34–8. 9. Fincham, AG & Shuler, CF (2009), The changing face of dental education: the impact of PBL, J Dent Educ, 65, p.p. 406–21. 10. Fleming ND (1995), I’m different, not dumb: modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom, In: Zelmer A, ed. Research and development in higher education: proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), p.p. 308–13. 11. Fleming, ND (2004), VARK: a guide to learning styles, VARK, viewed June 27, 2012 12. Forrest, AS, Walsh, LJ, Isaacs, G & Williams, LM (2008), PBL as a tool for integrating anatomy into the dental curriculum, J Dent Educ, 62, p.p. 685–92. 13. Grasha, T (1990), The naturalistic approach to learning styles, Coll Teaching, 38(3), p.p. 106–14. 14. Hendricson, WD, Berlocher, WC & Herbert RJ (1997), A four-year longitudinal study of dental student learning styles, J Dent Educ, 51(4), p.p. 175–81. 15. Jones, AC, Courts, FJ, Sandow, PL & Watson (1997), RE. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and dental school performance, J Dent Educ , 61, p.p. 928–33. 16. Jordan, L, (2005). Integrating Inquiry Across the Curriculum. 1 Edition. Corwin Press. 17. Keefe, JW (1988), Profiling and utilizing learning style, National Association of Secondary School Principals: Reston, VA. 18. Keefe, JW (1998), Learning style: theory and practice, National Association of Secondary School Principals: Reston, VA. 19. Middle States Commission on Higher Education (n.d.), Measures of learning style originating from a variety of perspectives, MSACHE, Viewed June 27, 2012 20. Montgomery, SM & Groat, LN (1998), Student learning styles and their implications for teaching. Occasional paper #10, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor. 21. Piaget, J (1990), The child’s conception of the world, Littlefield Adams: New York. 22. Pinto, JK, Geiger, MA & Boyle, EJ (1994), A three-year longitudinal study of changes in student learning styles, J Coll Student Dev, 35, p.p. 113–9. 23. Reiff, JC (1992), Learning styles, Childhood Educ , 69(winter), p.p. 96E. 24. Robotham, D (n.d.), The application of learning style theory in higher education teaching, Glos, viewed June 27, 2012 25. Silberman, M (1998), Active training, 2nd ed, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer: San Francisco. 26. Stellwagen, J (2001), A challenge to the learning style advocates, Clearing House, 74(5):265–9. 27. Suskie, L (2003), What are learning styles? can we identify them? what is their place in an assessment program? First year assessment listserv, Brevard, viewed June 27, 2012 Read More