After doing the test, and extensive testing last year in a different subject, I am pretty aware of my learning styles.
ACT X REF
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
SEN X INT
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
VIS X VRB
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
SEQ X GLO
11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11
<-- -->
I am very strongly active vs reflector. In knowing this I work better with others and when I have an application that I can apply my new found learnings to.
I am, again, strongly a 'sensing' rather than 'intuitive' learner. I like to know how things apply to situations. I love details and how they fit together - so if I don't get that I am stuck!
Verbal all the way! I love words; I love to use them and play with them!
Being a sequential learner rather than a global learner was obvious to me in year 12 Physics. I was the only girl, out of 6 students. All the boys would pick it up and follow the lead of our teacher, who was all over the place, where as I was having to get him to fill in the spaces till I also 'got it'.
However, although if I am one, this testing shows that I am strongly that one. In real life when I am studying I really only find this to be the case with regards to verbal/visual. This is where limited testing (in the case of this one test) does not give a very accurate result.
In a traditional classroom, of 25 students, I would be required, as a teacher, to be able to engage all of my students. I would have to appeal to all 25 different learning styles. Yes there would be double ups within the class but still, each student is different. I would do this by using a variety of styles for the different lessons for the day. In doing this - I would not designate all History for the 'sequential' learners and English for the 'reflective' because only those students would 'thrive' in those subjects. I would mix up my teaching to accommodate all students throughout the day. This way, once they 'get it' they will be more engaged within the class. And the students who 'get it' faster than others can peer teach.
I would use different e-tools in order to engage students and their learning styles. Ones that would better suit their needs.
I would test all students on their Multiple Intelligence, Learning Style and in general what they like to do. If I can engage the student who is a Visual and Kinaesthetic learner and loves skateboarding in my English class, all the better engaged they will be. Chances are I would also get more work, and of a higher quality, than if I didn't engage them.
When I took my Multiple Intelligences Quiz, again there were no surprises.
When I design a unit of work, my natural go to learning styles will be ones that I am comfortable with but I have to take my student's learning styles and how they learning into more of an account - this means using ones that would not usually be my first port of call.
I would also tend to agree with Prensky's ideas. If we do not engage out students we will tend to 'enrage' them. This enraging can come in many forms - one can be in disengagement from the class and discussions. Throughout prac (and certainly my own education) I have experienced the three groups Prensky divides students up in. Personally, however, I don't believe that all students 'demand' technology. I just think they demand engagement - and this engagement has to be one that captures each and every student. It could be a movie, leaving the 'traditional' classroom and using a different venue for the subject, various e-tools - just as long as they were engaged. For a unit of work I designed the only technology were snippets of movies to explore the ideas of different components of film; apart from that it was all paper, pencils, discussions and drawing!
