[quoting Wild, 5 May 94] I would like to suggest it may not be valuable to look too deeply into learning styles but rather to concentrate upon learning approaches. That is, to consider in particular the characteristics of deep learning and surface learning and the cognitive strategies associated with both approaches. The problem with learning styles is that there are as many styles of learning as there are learners... Further, it is evident that learners change their approaches to learning (i.e., either deep or surface) to a large extent, according to task perception--that is, learners can learn to use cognitive strategies that are characteristic of deep learning approaches.
This is an idea that I wrote about in a 1982 Journal of Instructional Development article called Content Treatment Interactions.
...but for now would like to draw attention to the wealth of work that has been done in this area in the UK by those who saw a place for knowledge construction tools back in the mid 80's. Nichol, Briggs, Conlon, Yazdani, Brough, Cumming, Mental Models Group (London)--the list is a long one. What is important is the work completed on the use of knowledge construction tools (cognitive toolkits) built in Prolog that allowed learners to become what was coined "knowledge engineers."
This is excellent work. You're right, the British have been conceptually ahead of the Americans for quite some time. I would argue, however, that Prolog is not as useful a cognitive tool as many others because of the large cognitive overhead that it assumes. Learning to program requires the assimilation of a large and complex formalism that requires months or even years to acquire. Once the learners understands and can use that formalism, then Prolog is a powerful environment for knowledge representation.
And can I further suggest that constructivism seems to have been used (misused?) in this debate as a "politically correct" paradigm--it is useful but it is only one. Constructivism offers a theory of knowledge acquisition that shares characteristics with other cognitivist theories and is different to objectivism--but it is not on the same continuum.
I quite agree. However, I wouldn't associate constructivism quite so closely with cognitivism. Most cognitive theories are quite objectivist as are, of course, behaviorist. You are right, there are multiple dimensions and perspectives that can be used to represent what is a very complex process--learning. I agree that the debate is often too polemical--us or them--when these theories and models should merely be added to the designer's toolkit to be used judiciously and when appropriate.