HOW I TAUGHT LAW AND ECONOMICS · Web viewThe paper starts with a brief summary of key theories of...

1Australasian Journal of Economics Education Vol. 5. Numbers 1 & 2, 2008

LEARNING STYLES AND INTRODUCTORY ECONOMICS: A MATTER OF TRANSLATION

Mary R. HedgesDepartment of Economics

The University of AucklandE-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACTMany students struggle with first year economics. Students with no previous experience of economics often find it overwhelming. Even those with previous experience often find the university focus on the mathematical expression difficult. They then interpret these difficulties as an inability to do economics and leave their first year programme with a negative perception of economics as a 'hard' subject.This paper argues that often it is not that students find the economics difficult but have difficulty translating ideas when they are expressed in different languages - in economics these languages are English (words), pictures (graphs) and numbers (algebraic expression). Therefore their difficulty is one of translation, not of understanding. This paper explores this idea and uses two case studies to illustrate the positive changes that can be brought about through considering these problems as a language acquisition problem instead of an economics problem. For students who are unilingual in this context some strategies for improvement are then suggested. Finally it concludes by identifying further avenues for work in this area.

Keywords:

JEL Classification:

1

Australasian Journal of Economics Education Vol. 5. Numbers 3 & 4, 2008

“Learning is a complex set of processes that may vary according to the developmental level of the learner, the nature of the task and the context in which the learning is to occur” (Gredler, 1992, p10). There are a significant number of factors that determine how an individual learns and thus there are a large number of theories relating to the subject of learning. Each seeks to develop a set of principles that is consistent with predetermined assumptions about the nature of learning. Three such theories are shown in the top part of Figure 1.

Figure 1: Theories of Learning

Learning styles, like the theories of learning, are complex. A range of different theories on learning style are listed in the bottom half of Figure1. To provide a complete picture of an individual, it would be necessary to develop a learning profile. The profile would include the student’s preferences with regard to personality type (Myers-Briggs), social interaction (Grasha-Reichmann), left brain versus right brain thinking (Brain dominance inventory), sensory modes, environment, chronopsychology, thinking versus feeling, competitive versus collaborative, reflectivist versus activist, theorist versus pragmatist, and so on. The first four are explained in more detail below.

Social interaction addresses how students interact with teachers and fellow students in the classroom. Anthony Grasha and Sheryl Reichmann developed the Grasha-Reichmann inventory to assess students involved in tertiary education. Like Myers-Briggs, the inventory categorises students around bi-polar pairs: competitive-collaborative, avoidant-participant, and dependent-independent.

Brain dominance considers which side of the brain is used to process different kinds of information. Students can be classified as left-brain dominant, right-brain dominant or bilateral dominant. A student who is left-side dominant is more likely to prefer information to be conveyed verbally. On the other hand, a student who is right-side dominant is more likely to prefer non-verbal information and is more artistic.

2


The focus in this paper is on sensory modes of learning. There are three senses used to process new information: hearing (auditory), seeing (visual) and feeling (kinesthetic). These sensory modes will be discussed in more detail below. It is important that we emphasise that this is just one variant of learning style determination as outlined in Figure 1.

2.2 Diagnosing Learning Styles

Learning style inventories (generally questionnaires) are used to help a student determine different aspects of his/her learning style. By using a number of different learning style inventories it is possible to create a full learning profile of a student. 'VARK' is one such example of a learning style inventory tool. It is the main focus of this paper and is discussed in more detail below.

2.3 Why are learning styles important?

Students absorb and process information in different ways. A student, for example, could be visual or auditory, logical or intuitive in his/her reasoning; competitive or collaborative; work steadily or in fits and starts. Similarly teaching methods vary with the learning preferences of the lecturer. One lecturer may prefer structured teacher-centred sessions, while another allows students to discover principles for themselves; one lecturer may talk non-stop while another prefers visual methods; one may focus on theories while another continually refers to real life applications.2

Students therefore learn best when their learning style is consistent with the modes of teaching used by their lecturers. In the case where there is a mismatch between the style of the learner and the teaching method of the lecturer, a student can become discouraged with the course and achieve below his/her potential, or in extreme cases withdraw totally from the course. Thus it becomes useful for a student to know his/her learning style preference to help plan the learning tasks necessary for academic achievement.

3. SENSORY PREFERENCES (VARK)2 http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/locker...elder/public/Learning_Styles.html

3


5. LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORY

The focus on this paper is in second language acquisition (SLA) - that is a language acquired after early childhood (including what may be third or subsequent languages learned). SLA tends to be viewed in two ways: as a part of applied linguistics where the focus is on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom; or as a part of the language system and learning processes themselves. The latter is particularly important when considering language acquisition with little or no formal training (termed naturalistic acquisition) (Canale & Swain, 1980). It is often this type of language acquisition that students develop their learning style preferences through.

What has been found through SLA is that there is a consistent order in the acquisition of language structures (Archibald, 2000). More importantly this order remain reasonably consistent between first and subsequent language acquisition. This order can be broken into four periods: silent; formulaic speech; experimental phase and; fluency8.

Most learners begin their acquisition process with a 'silent period' in which they speak very little if at all. For some this can be a period of 'language shock' in which they actively reject the incomprehensible input of the new language (consider our maths averse students). During this 'silent' period may learners are engaging in private speech (sometimes called 'self-talk'). While appearing silent, they are rehearsing important survival phrases and lexical chinks. Consideration of this silent period can place a new importance on students who do not participate in smaller classes. As they acquire their new language skills they start to participate and speak up - entirely consistent with what happens in the classroom.

The second phase is that of formulaic speech. The memorised phrases developed and practiced silently during the silent phase are then employed in this second period. This is where the student has a number of key phrases that they are able to use, often in context. It is this phase of language acquisition that can lead to difficulties in economics. Students who are at this phase of their language acquisition can and often do ask questions using the correct phrases suggesting a level of understanding that they have not actually achieved yet. As lecturers or tutors we then respond in a similar vein. While this does reinforce the language skills developed already by the student it does little to move their language acquisition forward. Rather it reinforces the replication rather than creative thinking.

8 The description and breakdown of these four steps is largely taken from (Canale & Swain, 1980) and (Lightbown & Spada, 1993)

5


The third phase is the experimental phase of acquisition. At this point the learner will start to use words and put them together in ways different from those through which they were acquired. They effectively start to experiment, try new combinations and develop a deeper understanding. There will be grammatical and semantic errors that may suggest poorer acquisition than in formulaic speech but this is genuine development. In terms of economics these are students who will be attempting to re-phrase things, creating links between ideas and experimenting with the application of the concepts. While obviously not always correct this is equivalent to a deeper level of learning than those in the grammatically correct formulaic phase.

6


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archibald, J. (Ed.). (2000). Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.

Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Dabb, H., Eveleens, W., et al. (1998, 1-3 July). VARK: Teaching and Learning Modal Preferences. Paper presented at the New

Zealand Diploma in Business Conference, Nelson, NZ.

Evans, J. (2000). Adults' Mathematical Thinking and Emotions. London: Routledge.

Fleming, Neil D. (1995). “I’m different; not dumb: Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom.” Contributed paper,

annual conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Rockhampton, July.

Fleming, Neil D. (No date). “VARK - A resource pack for students and teachers...”. Lincoln University.

Fleming, N., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another Inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-149.

Foxall, G. (1999). Behaviourism. In P. Earl & S. Kemp (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Consumer Research and Economic

Psychology (pp. 38-46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Grasha, A.F. (1990). Using traditional versus naturalistic approaches to assessing learning styles in college teaching. Journal of

excellence in College Teaching, 1, 23-29.

Gredler, M. (1992). Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

St Hill, Rod. (1997). “Modal Preferences in Teaching and Learning Economics.” Contributed paper, fifth annual Teaching

Economics Conference, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 2-4 July.

Stirling, P (June 20, 1987) "Power Lines" New Zealand Listener, pp13-15

Zapalska, Alina. (1996). “The Market Game: Interactive Learning Through Market Stimulation.” The 1996 SBAA Innovation

Teaching Award at the Southern Business Administration Association, College of Business and Public Affairs, Clemson

University, SC, August 1996.

7

HOW I TAUGHT LAW AND ECONOMICS · Web viewThe paper starts with a brief summary of key theories of...

Documents

Transcript of HOW I TAUGHT LAW AND ECONOMICS · Web viewThe paper starts with a brief summary of key theories of...