Laura Faulkner

LME537 ID-4
July 20, 2016
In education there are always popular buzz words that seem to appear
each year and become the focus. One exception to this is the phrase
differentiating instruction. This concept has been around for decades but is
often overlooked or ignored. Truth be told, this concept can have a profound
impact on the success of our students. Since no two students are the same
chances are that they do not learn the same way either. The Differentiating
Instruction article explains this concept as creating multiple paths so that
students of different abilities, interest or learning needs experience equally
appropriate ways to absorb, use, develop and present concepts as a part of
the daily learning process (n.p.).
Taking learning styles into account can be beneficial; however equally
significant is what can occur when student learning styles are ignored during
instructional planning and delivery. On the Learning Styles webpage Felder
explains what can occur when there is a mismatch between the way a
teacher teaches and the learning style of the students. He suggests that
students may become bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on tests,
and get discouraged about the courses, the curriculum, and themselves
(n.p.). The consequences arent shouldered on students alone. Felder also
suggests that instructors are confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or
hostile classes, poor attendance and dropouts, know something is not
working. They may become overly critical of their students (making things
even worse) or begin to wonder if they are in the right profession (n.p.)
As teachers we are educated to recognize the different learning styles
and needs of our students. However, taking a step back to analyze our own
style doesnt seem to have the same significance. Truth is though, how we
learn often shapes how we teach. In respect to this concept I have recently
completed the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Inventory. I found this style
inventory to be more in depth than others that just focus on kinesthetic
verses verbal or visual. The Felder-Silverman model classifies learning into
four different categories. My results are displayed below in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Faulkner Learning Style Inventory Results
Analyzing the results did not uncover any unexpected findings. The
first category addressed active verse reflective learning. In this category I
am very balanced, only slightly skewed towards reflective. I feel this to be
accurate, because although I spend a great deal of time thinking through and
analyzing assignments before beginning, as well as stopping along the way
to contemplate any issues and the direction I am taking, I tend to learn and
commit to memory by doing, acknowledging the balance with active
learning.
The next category addressed sensing verse intuitive. This category
resulted in the most significant variance for me with the results skewed
dramatically to sensing. According to Felder (1996) sensing learners are
detailed oriented, practical and focus on procedures, all of which describe my
style.
The visual verse verbal and sequential verse global categories were
fairly balanced as well, indicating only a slight preference to visual and
sequential learning. Both of these assessments are confirmed in the fact
that I tend to remember more of what I visualize and prefer to learn in
smaller increments rather than tackling the big picture all at once.
After taking the time to analyze my learning style I decided to take a
closer look at how my students learn. The same Felder-Silverman inventory
was given to a sample group of students. Although there were some
similarities the results varied greatly. Figure 2 displays the results in the

category of active verse reflective. All of the students were identified as

being active learners, but only one was extremely skewed. Sensing verse
intuitive, displayed in Figure 3, yielded a much greater divide. Two of the
three were identified as sensing, while one was on the opposite end of the
spectrum with intuitive. Figure 4 displays the results of visual and verbal
which were also divided with the majority identified as visual. Finally, when
it came to sequential verse global in Figure 5 all three were more middle of
the road
with only one
being
identified as
being
global, but
only
slightly
skewed.

Figure 2. Active vs. Reflective Results

Figure 3. Sensory vs. Intuitive Results

Figure 4.
Verbal

Visual vs.
Results

Figure 5. Sequential vs. Global Results

Although the sample taken was small the results are indicative of the
diversity of learners that occupy our classrooms. Taking into account
students learning styles for the Persuasive Advertising IDP it is necessary to
differentiate instruction. When it comes to the process the results of the pretest can be used to determined modifications to the teaching process.
Students that can demonstrate that they are familiar with persuasive
techniques can proceed to creating the project. By updating our class page
on Google Classroom with all of the content materials it allows the students
to glance back at them at any time throughout the process for a refresher,
but not require them to sit through direct instruction. The students that
dont fare so well on the pre-assessment may benefit from more detailed
interactive group instruction.
In addition to the process students can also benefit from differentiating
the final product in multiple ways. The Persuasive Advertising project was
designed to incorporate content from previous lessons on techniques such as
bandwagon, repetition, etc. with the new material that focuses on rhetoric.

For students that struggle with large quantities of information their

commercial can be limited to current content.
Some students interact with technology on different levels and
progress at different rates. The project was designed to have students
create an animated commercial using either Animoto or Movie Maker.
Students that struggle with technology can have the option to utilize an
alternative program that they are more familiar with. Although, it is not
necessarily considered differentiating instruction a simple accommodation
that can be made is taking strengths and weaknesses into account and using
careful consideration when assigning students to groups for the project.

References
Differentiating Instruction. (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2016, from
http://members.shaw.ca/priscillatheroux/differentiating.html
Felder, R. M. (n.d.). Learning Styles. Retrieved July 20, 2016, from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Learning_Styles.html
Felder, R. M. (1996, December). Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.
Retrieved July 19,
2016, from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/LS-Prism.htm
Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (n.d.). Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire.
Retrieved July
20, 2016, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html