student learning differences report · student learning differences page 5 question 5. if you do...

OFFICEOFINSTITUTIONALEFFECTIVENESS

LosAngelesMissionCollegeSurveyonStudentLearning

Differences

DATAANALYSIS

Spring2014

Los Angeles Mission College Student Learning Differences

Introduction

The Los Angeles Mission College (LAMC) Office of Institutional Effectiveness conducted a survey on the assessment and application of student learning differences during the spring 2014 semester to assist the College in adopting a working definition of student learning styles and needs. This report summarizes the results of the survey. The survey was administered to all full‐time and adjunct faculty members. 100 responses were received from full‐time faculty members (42 percent of all responses) and adjunct faculty members (58 percent) in 39 disciplines and departments (see Appendix 1 for a full list of the disciplines and departments of survey respondents). Respondents were asked three multiple‐choice questions and three open‐response questions regarding their approaches to student learning differences, including questions on which approach they have found most useful in improving student learning, which approach they recommend that LAMC adopt, what major learning differences they have identified, which methods they used to determine these differences, what pedagogical changes they have made as a result, and what student characteristics they feel should be considered in the College's research on student learning styles and needs. Respondents were also given the opportunity to make additional comments on learning differences at LAMC (see Appendix 2 for a copy of the survey instrument). More respondents found "adapting your materials, pedagogy, or content to take into consideration your students’ different abilities, background knowledge, and interests" to be useful than found "matching your teaching to some extent with the preferred learning modes (e.g., auditory vs. visual, linear vs. holistic, etc.) of your students" to be useful over the past two years in improving student learning in their own classrooms at LAMC. The largest proportion (49 percent) found both approached to be useful. Likewise, the majority of respondents (55 percent) recommended that LAMC adopt "adapting your materials, pedagogy, or content to take into consideration your students’ different abilities, background knowledge, and interests" as the approach to be used as a basis for a working definition of student learning styles and needs. The primary methods used by faculty to determine student learning differences are classroom discussions, either in small groups or as a whole (used by 80 percent of respondents), individual meetings with students (used by 56 percent) and non‐graded Classroom Assessment Techniques or other in‐class learning checks (used by 50 percent). The following section gives detailed breakdowns of the responses to the three questions and a summary of responses to the three open‐ended questions and the comments section.


Detailed Data

Question 1: Which approach to learning differences have you found most useful over the past two years in improving student learning in your own classroom at LAMC?

% of All Faculty

% of Regular Full‐Time Faculty

% of Adjunct Faculty

I have found both approaches equally useful 49.0% 40.5% 55.2%

Adapting your materials, pedagogy, or content to take into consideration your students’ different abilities, background knowledge, and interests

24.0% 31.0% 19.0%

Matching your teaching to some extent with the preferred learning modes (e.g., auditory vs. visual, linear vs. holistic, etc.) of your students

10.0% 14.3% 6.9%

None of the above: I am able to help my students reach course objectives and learning outcomes without regard to any learning differences they might have

9.0% 4.8% 12.1%

Other (e.g., using a variety of modes as appropriate to the material, using more visual presentations, applying real life examples, teaching at a more basic level, assuming no background knowledge, focusing on discipline‐specific strategies for academic success, teaching students to adapt to the class)

8.0% 9.5% 6.9%

Question 2. Which approach to learning differences do you recommend that LAMC adopt as a working definition, as we seek to resolve Recommendation 5?

% of All Faculty



Adapting your materials, pedagogy, or content to take into consideration your students’ different abilities, background knowledge, and interests

55.0% 50.0% 58.6%

Matching your teaching to some extent with the preferred learning modes (e.g., auditory vs. visual, linear vs. holistic, etc.) of your students

27.0% 28.6% 25.9%

Other (using a variety of modes, incorporating social media in lectures, giving students the opportunity to adapt to various styles, encouraging self‐directed learning, encouraging students to take responsibility for informing the instructor of their needs, etc.)

11.0% 9.5% 12.1%

Both definitions 7.0% 11.9% 3.4%


Question 3. If you do consider learning differences in your teaching, what primary methods have you used in the past two years to determine the relevant differences? Please mark all that apply.

% of All Faculty



Classroom discussion, either in small groups or as a whole 80.0% 81.0% 79.3%

Individual meetings with students 56.0% 54.8% 56.9%

Non‐graded Classroom Assessment Techniques or other in‐class learning checks

50.0% 59.5% 43.1%

Exams or essays before the midterm 39.0% 38.1% 39.7%

Midterm exam 32.0% 35.7% 29.3%

Questionnaire completed by students 31.0% 31.0% 31.0%

Graded in‐class or take‐home assessment during the first two weeks

30.0% 35.7% 25.9%

Exams or essays after the midterm but before the final 30.0% 38.1% 24.1%

Other (frequent assignments and exams rather than one midterm and final, assigning a variety of assignments using different learning styles, assigning a research paper, allowing students to determine the content of assignments)

16.0% 19.0% 13.8%

None of the above: I do not consider learning differences in my teaching

3.0% 2.4% 3.4%

Question 4. If you do consider learning differences in your teaching, what change(s) in content, organization, presentation, support, or other elements of teaching have you implemented most frequently in the past two years to help students succeed, based on your findings about student learning differences?

Using a wide variety of formats, methods and techniques to deliver the material.

Incorporating multimedia and visual/auditory material in lectures.

Providing small group, hands‐on, active learning experiences.

Relating the material to real life experiences and students' community/ethnicity.

Incorporating Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences concepts.

Introducing Reading Apprenticeship, Habits of the Mind and Flipping the Classroom methodologies.

Adjusting the pace of teaching.

Reducing the amount of information presented and repeating concepts.

Referring students to the Learning Center.

Being more explicit in giving directions.

Showing and discussing examples of assignments.

Adjusting the standards for grading.

Being available for students beyond the number of office hours required by contract.

Asking for feedback and suggestions for improvement from students throughout the semester.


Question 5. If you do consider learning differences in your teaching, please describe briefly the major learning differences that you have identified most often in the past two years based on these methods.

Different levels of academic preparation (many students are not prepared and lack basic reading, writing and math skills, critical thinking skills, study skills such as note‐taking and test‐taking and/or the ability to follow instructions, etc.).

Visual learners vs. auditory learners vs. tactile/kinesthetic (hands‐on) learners. Many younger students are more visually oriented.

Preference for individual, independent work and study vs. collaborative, group work and study.

Preference for small group work vs. listening to a lecture.

Differences in attention span correlated with age.

Differences in motivation and learning engagement based on interest.

Different degrees of discipline and work ethic.

Different socio‐economic and cultural backgrounds.

Different levels of self‐esteem and confidence.

Students with limited English (it may be difficult to determine whether there is a language barrier or a learning difference).

ESL students often feel more comfortable, or prefer, learning by memorizing, repeating after the instructor, working in groups, and role‐play.

Students with developmental or sensory challenges or an identified learning disability.

Some students are good at test taking, some are good writers, some are better at oral communication.

Some need to know why before they will do anything. Others want to know everything before they will try. Others want a personal guide to step through the problem solution with them.

Question 6. If you do consider learning differences in your teaching, based on your observations, what student characteristics should be considered in LAMC's research on student learning styles and needs?

Personal characteristics such as age, ethnicity, socio‐economic and cultural background.

Educational background and work experience as well as career goals and future aspirations.

Personal experiences of students that enable them to relate content to their lives.

Level of preparation for college‐level coursework (do students lack basic reading, writing and math skills and/or study habits such as note‐taking and test‐taking skills, etc.?).

Learning styles (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, etc.) and their receptivity to learning directly from the teacher, from other students, via group discussion, via solitary exercises, teacher‐directed assignments or student‐directed assignments.

Students' classroom behavior and how students take notes.

Abilities and disabilities.

Attention span.

English language proficiency.

Student motivation and engagement.

Students' low self‐esteem and lack of self‐confidence.

How respected a student feels.

Number of hours per week a student works.


Please enter any other comments you have related to learning differences at LAMC.

I have often been struck by the fact that we teach how to support a variety of learning styles and abilities in children, but often we neglect to provide it for our adult students. I believe that our students need to feel welcomed, valued and accepted, and that requires that we recognize that each student brings her/his own strengths and areas that need strengthening. When the learning environment is supportive of the student's learning approach, student success is far more likely.

I find the notion of identifying and teaching to different "learning styles" useless at best, and at worst a disservice to our students since a focus here fails to engage students in learning and applying strategies to deal with the practical challenges in the workplace or academic world. When our students enter the workforce or further their academic training, I believe few employers or educators who expect rigorous and critical thinking will engage in matching their methods to our students’ “individual preferred learning mode.” Students need to learn strategies to work through challenges how those strategies can be applied in any workplace or learning community.

Best, most recent research, seems to indicate that it's most important to match the "style" to the content rather than the student. Teaching how to tie knots, for example, should be done kinesthetically for all students. Trying to teach subjects that are best suited to one style in other styles works poorly.

In my particular area of education, Dev Com, I have found that the principle deterrent to learning is not primarily in how the information is presented, but in the feelings of opposition that many of our students have toward classroom education. They are a population of students who have reading aptitudes that range from 4th grade to high school level. The reason for this is not due to lack of talent or intelligence, but rather to a lack of instruction and reinforcement of the skills that students need for basic functionality. So, in my class, my students spend a lot of time reading, thinking, discussing. I don't believe that there are "film strips" on the subject of reading that are better for my students than actually reading fiction and non‐fiction material and, through that, learning the basics of structure and literary meaning.

The DSP&S Center has been very helpful in accommodating and assisting students with learning differences as have the various writing and tutoring centers, especially the Student Success Center. The Library staff are also very knowledgeable and helpful. The Spring Flex Day and the emphasis on Carolyn Dweck's Habits of the Mind made me more aware of areas I want to work on to help my students succeed.

Calling upon instructors to alter course materials after those materials have been finalized in the syllabus undermines the principle of the syllabus as a valid contract. Expecting the instructor to change the character and nature of their pedagogy in response to changing needs while still expecting that same instructor to meet the principles of academic standards (including viewing the syllabus as a valid contract between instructor and student/class) makes no sense to me.

This research has already been collected in multiple disciplines all over the country, we should be evaluating what the results already tell us and actually make changes that combine New College student orientations, mandatory placement tests, mandatory academic counseling, tutoring support and required time/study skill workshops. All these things together with proper instruction and motivated teachers could really make an impact on all of our students.

I don't think that "learning styles" has as much relevance to physics as to liberal arts disciplines. Physics is about learning how to solve problems by understanding the principles; it's focused and somewhat intense. Whether a student favors audio, visual, tactile, or other learning styles, they all


need to be able to learn from lectures and textbooks. Clever little YouTube videos may help, as may hands‐on activities, but the nitty‐gritty learning process boils down to the ability to hunker down and read the text and lecture notes, follow through the sample problems and do the homework.

The ethnicity of the general ESL student population has changed from formerly being predominantly Spanish speakers to presently being predominantly Armenian speakers from Iran. This change in the diversity of the student population has promoted greater learning differences which in turn require some adjustments in teaching methods and strategies.

LOWER CLASS SIZE! Our students are smart but are soft spoken, respectful and often shy. They are intimated by the large class sizes we have. They are afraid to speak up in a large classroom setting. You don't need to do research on this. I have taught the exact same class at SMC ‐ class size 25 ‐ at LAMC ‐ class size 40. The learning curve goes WAY up with smaller classes. With a smaller class size it is possible to identify learning differences and accommodate them. In large classes, the classroom is less personal and it is very hard to accommodate differences no matter how much research you chose to do.

Two points: 1. Academic freedom ‐ the freedom to choose one's textbook to use in his/her course. This gives us instructors the ability to use a more affordable textbook thus ensuring that every student has his/hers textbook, is able to complete the assignments, and therefore succeed in transferring or graduating from Mission College. 2. Respect the students ‐ they are at Mission not just to learn the subjects and move on; some are there to connect with their Latino community, and many of my students complained of the lack of respect that instructors who do not possess cultural sensitivity and act ethnocentric put off students who wish to learn.

Not sure I agree with faculty having to change their pedagogy just to suit specific learning styles. What good are we doing the students who are going to go out to the real world and have to deal with all kinds of styles?

LAMC needs to be consistent with our students so they understand exactly how the world works. All too often I hear a sense of entitlement from too many students and the world just does not work that way. If people are late to work or miss too many days...it is simple they are fired. Same thing with students ‐ if they are late and miss more classes than allowed they need to face the consequences ‐ just like the rest of the world.

Instructors who pander to students' preference for "videos" in place of text are doing a long‐term disservice to the students. The results of such practice will be difficult to ever remediate.

Please let us not adopt rules and guidelines to be implemented in every classroom. If a student has a "learning difference" that results in poor learning, then why should we change our teaching and allow them their same "differences". Yes, we must adapt to student needs and new technologies. But, not at the expense of pushing students to do more. Let's "teach them to fish."


Appendix 1: Disciplines of Survey Respondents

Discipline Regular full‐time faculty Adjunct faculty Administration of Justice 1 1 Animation 0 1 Anthropology 0 4 Art 2 1 Basic Skills 0 1 Behavioral Science 0 1 Biology 1 1 Business 0 1 CAOT 1 1 Chemistry 2 0 Chicano Studies 2 0 Child Development 1 6 Cinema/Theater 1 0 Communication Studies 1 1 Computer Science 2 1 Culinary Arts 3 1 Developmental Communications 2 5 English 4 5 ESL 3 5 Family and Consumer Studies 0 1 Finance 0 1 Fitness and Health 0 1 Foreign Languages 0 1 Health 0 2 History 1 3 Humanities 0 1 Kinesiology 1 1 Learning Skills 0 2 Library Science 1 0 Life Sciences 2 1 Mathematics 4 9 Multimedia 1 0 Nutrition 0 2 Personal Development 1 1 Philosophy 1 0 Physical Sciences 1 1 Political Science 0 1 Social Sciences 1 0 Sociology 2 0

Appendix 2: Survey Instrument

Student Learning Differences

Los Angeles Mission College

Los Angeles Mission College

Student Learning Differences

student learning differences report · student learning differences page 5 question 5. if you do...

Documents