Accommodating learning styles: relevance and good practice in VET

The research undertaken in this project was designed to identify how vocational education and training (VET) practitioners view learning style differences between students and what sort of account they take of those differences in designing and delivering teaching. Part of that broader research question involved an identification of the methods that VET practitioners use to identify learner group and individual styles, and the forms of response that they make to those identified styles in their teaching. The research was also designed to identify forms of professional development that may be most useful to VET practitioners in their attempts to identify and accommodate learning styles. The research was undertaken in five TAFE institutes and one professional network of trainers in private and public registered training organisations. Research sites were spread between Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Participants in the research were teaching staff, students and management staff. Data collection methods included a questionnaire undertaken by teaching staff, focus groups of teachers, students, and management/support staff, and case studies of exemplary practice. Participants were largely self-selected. In general, the research revealed that there is considerable evidence that VET teachers pay attention to the learning styles of groups and of individuals, and most make a habit of assessing those styles through their observations of students as they learn and as they interact in class sessions. The data indicated a strong belief among teachers that learning styles matter and need to be taken into account when designing and delivering instruction to students. Student focus groups also indicated that learning styles are important to them. While teachers might refer to the learning differences between students or between groups of students as styles, preferences or strategies, most did not have a strong theoretical basis for their understanding. Self-directed learning was acknowledged not only as a desirable outcome of the education and training process, but also as difficult to develop in some students. The mutual relationship between intrinsic motivation and the students' capacity for self-directed learning was generally recognised. Furthermore, there was awareness that motivation could be increased by bringing course delivery more in line with students' interests, learning styles and preferences. Show less