Hello Tom and all:

I have read Tom's notes and appreciate having The Learning and Skills 
Research Centre at www.lsrc.ac.uk at hand.

Tom's note is instructive on  many levels; however, a perusal of the site's 
documents and abstracts suggests that a fuller (and more critical) picture 
can be gleaned from a review of those documents and abstracts.  That view 
suggests that Tom has done a bit of interpretive "cherry-picking," perhaps 
to lend credence to his self-described mantle as (I cringe) "Adult 
Literacy's One Man Bunco Squad."  (bunko?)

FIRST: Tom cites a study there saying:

"In a table showing their Overall Assessment of the Dunn & Dunn learning
style work, the authors state, quote 'Despite a large and evolving research
programme, forceful claims made for impact are questionable because of
limitations in many of the supporting (sic) are questionable because of
limitations in many of the supporting studies and the lack of independent
research on the model. Concerns raised in our review need to be addressed
before further use is made of the model in the UK.' End quote The same
recommendation should hold for the US."


The above rightly calls for concerns being addressed, and for more and 
independent study on this issue.    It doesn't call dogmatically for 
"debunking" all research on and interest in LS/MI.  On the contrary, a 
review of the entire site (see a volume of quotes below) gives us a much 
more reasoned and general picture of a call for inter-field collaboration, 
further study, integration of thought from all concerned, including 
academics and practitioners; for inclusion of quantitative, qualitative, and 
action-research models; and with an exceptional emphasis on the fluid 
relationship between the student and the research community in all phases 
from question/problem to implementation and integration.

Also, one of the Dunn works in question in Tom's quote was from 
1978--roughly at the beginning+ of a cycle of change that has finally begun 
to break with positivist research methods and their unbalanced and 
distorting hegemony over research methodologies--a group-think view that (I 
argue) has hindered collaboration in and integration of the fields.

Clearly, we (or those in the UK) haven't found the end of the cycle and 
balanced or integrated ourselves or our fields; however, a perusal of the 
literature on the UK site is heartening as it suggests a conscious and 
self-reflective aim at doing so (see excerpts below) as well as 
well-developed and ongoing dialogue with qualitative, self-reflective, and 
other methods of research that include the broader perspectives--unlike many 
in Stitcht's research community--and that would be a better foundation that 
(instead of aiming at contemptuous debunking) could include further 
qualified research on many issues, including LS/MI.  I would like to suggest 
that Tom inspect his own foundations and take on a more dynamic attitude as 
his own so that we can all benefit by it through his good works.

Furthermore, the report cited above also cautions on using "forceful 
claims," especially by those who are "invested" (financially or otherwise) 
in those claims.  But this is a common and professionally delivered caution 
that applies to ANY research situation and to any researcher and/or 
theoretician, and certainly not only research on learning styles or MI or 
"matching" teaching styles with learning styles, or in using diverse methods 
to reach individual students, etc.

The caution here does not mean to throw out or "debunk" all research on 
learning styles or MI. The difference here is between (a) a reasoned, 
exploratory, and critical response and (2) a knee-jerk one.

Also, at some point, researchers and theoreticians must realize the 
development of a critical mass of teacher wisdom, as well as students who 
"vote with their feet" about responding to methods that incorporate even 
cursory knowledge about learning styles, etc.  This is 
evidence-in-the-making, should we pay attention to it.

It should at least raise some questions about methods, and about those in 
our field whose automatic/dogmatic rejection of research interest and 
teacher-use of such developments speaks more of their own closed-mindedness 
and failure to thrive intellectually than it does those who foster such 
interest.  The teachers whom I know who endorse such LS/MI informed method 
are not invested monetarily, but their investments lay wholly in their 
students' understanding and achievements, as mine are.  I refer here to 
several recent posts--even today--from practitioners suggesting the varied 
use of differentiated instruction using derivatives of learning 
style/teaching methods, student choice, etc.

Also, as the report-writers cited below already understand, formal 
statistical studies are not always the only or best evidence-provider here 
(see excerpts below).  Further, the above site's/institutes 7th more general 
aim is: to "encourage innovation and vision in the development of policy and 
practice in learning and skills."  This and the other material on the site 
(some excerpted below) suggest an openness that does not come forward in 
Stitcht's notes.

SECOND, the site published other documents and a review from which I have 
quoted below what I think is relevant to this discussion for anyone's easy 
review--but a review of the entire site is instructive, to say the least.

....and I must leave the discussion now for other work.

Catherine King

The Below is all quoted/excerpted from the LSRC site. I encourage those who 
have time to visit the site.  I suggest that Tom Stitcht and his colleagues 
read the whole report, and pay attention to the reasoned inclusion of other 
forms of research than positivist or statistical-based research as 
valid/authentic, and the high regard for listening to their adult-students 
and practitioners.

QUOTED

This Learning and Skills Research Centre (LSRC) review is the first stage of 
a three-year research programme addressing the question: what is the nature 
of non-formal learning, and how does it contribute to the pursuit of further 
learning and employment opportunities?


Research studies will typically benefit from a quantitative preface to the 
particular study, whether the study itself uses quantitative or qualitative 
methods. P. 8 on the site, and p. 17 in the downloadable copy.




>From Idea to Impact:  A guide to the Research Process.




The purpose of this publication is to encourage collaboration in research 
and development in post-16 education and training through increased 
understanding of the diversity of contributions. To achieve this, it 
describes the different traditions, provides information and puts forward 
ideas.



... aims to encourage collaboration through increased understanding of the 
diversity of contributions across post-16 education and training. Greater 
collaboration and wider engagement are important factors in increasing the 
effectiveness and influence of research (Davies, Nutley and Smith 2000).



... To achieve this, it describes the different traditions, provides 
information and puts forward ideas. If different kinds of knowledge are to 
be drawn upon in conducting an investigation - knowledge drawn from practice 
as well as from theory, for example - then people with different knowledge 
backgrounds will need to work together.  Practitioner participation is 
important in:



identifying relevant research questions

advising on sampling or access to research subjects

contributing knowledge based on practice

interpreting emerging findings

elaborating implications of the findings for policy or practice.



For impact, it is helpful to think through in advance which kinds of people 
will need to act on the findings, and to find ways in which they can be 
involved at all stages of the research process.  Systems and structures that 
operate throughout the full research process are needed to facilitate the 
interaction of the various players at different stages. These need to work 
across the research, development, practice and policy communities.



The full research process calls for a wider range of skills, knowledge and 
understanding than a single individual or even institution can normally be 
expected to provide. It is important to analyse the roles needed and to plan 
the way they interact.  The full range of expertise needed to tackle 
research from the original ideas through to impact will be located in 
different professions and different institutions. Collaboration is called 
for between individuals and between organisations.



The management of collaborative effort requires 'hybrid' managers, who speak 
the languages of the various parties and are credible to each of them.

Research is an ill-defined word. There is little agreement about what it 
embraces and what it is for. Its central role in decision-making and 
improvement action is widely discussed, but less widely encountered. In many 
areas of public life, the persistence of many social and economic problems 
and the limited impact of interventions suggest that a stronger base of 
evidence is needed to inform our  practices and our strategic decisions. 
Motorways designed to ease traffic congestion add to it. Housing planned to 
reduce social distress adds to it. Education intended to enhance achievement 
adds to social polarisation. Research is looked to for the remedy, but 
expectations of it can be too high.  Each research method has its 
shortcomings and some problems of practice and policy remain intractable, 
even after illumination by research. There is more to research than simply 
the provision of evidence. It also breaks new ground conceptually, probes 
the future and analyses the current state of things.



This publication focuses on research applied to improvement and discusses 
this within the context of post-16 education and training, specifically that 
of the learning and skills sector.  It is descriptive rather than 
analytical, and takes an inclusive approach to the many traditions of 
research. Its purpose is to help the reader understand his or her own 
activity in relation to that of others, with a view to encouraging better 
integration of the various processes within research, development and 
practical change. Research on evidence-based policy and practice in public 
service areas such as health care, social

care and criminal justice, as well as education, suggests that the 
development of partnerships between the various users of research enhances 
the influence of evidence on practice (Davies, Nutley and Smith 2000).



In education, the question of practitioner involvement in the research 
process was brought to prominence by David Hargreaves in a speech to the 
Teacher Training Agency (TTA), where he suggested that the results of 
research are sometimes not worth disseminating, because of insufficient

involvement of practitioners in setting the research agenda (Hargreaves 
1996). In the FE sector, the regular involvement of practitioners in 
development activity has led to proposals for a stronger, iterative 
relationship between development and research (Stanton and Morris 2000).



Within the learning and skills sector as a whole, there are many pockets of 
research and of development activity that could add up to a significant and 
influential resource for the sector. They do not yet do so, however, partly 
because they are not conceptualised and managed as a unified resource

for the service. In the field of health care, by contrast, a service-led 
research and development (R&D) programme has been in existence since 1990, 
functioning alongside the work of the biomedical sciences research community 
(NHS R&D Programme 2002).



This publication is intended to help people involved in the planning of 
research or of development to make sense of the various parts of a complex 
system. As a first step, it considers types of research already taking place 
in the learning and skills sector, and the uses to which they are

put. It addresses the stages and relationships within a holistic research 
process. The expectation is that greater understanding of the motives and 
traditions within the learning and skills research community will lead on to 
more effective research.



p. 14 or 30:



In the area of guidance and learning support, a growing body of evidence is 
available on what approaches work for different client groups (Martinez 
2001) and how learners themselves perceive the process (Bloomer and 
Hodkinson 1999). Pedagogic practice, an area that has been relatively 
neglected hitherto in post-16 learning, has recently become the subject of a 
major ESRC research programme(TLRP 2002b).



p.  19 or p. 35 below



A wide range of approaches - involving, for example, interview, 
questionnaire surveys, biographical study, statistical analysis, 
observation, photographic and diary recording - are all commonly used in the 
sector. The merits and drawbacks of particular methods are dealt with 
extensively in the literature.

Some useful introductory texts are given in the References section (Bell 
1993; Wilkinson 2000).



An issue of particular importance here is the combination of methods. 
Quantitative and qualitative approaches are sometimes wrongly counterposed, 
when a judicious mix of the two might yield a more rounded view of issues of 
practical concern. A salient example is the work of the Centre for

Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, which combines analysis of the 
national birth cohort studies (longitudinal studies of a sample of people 
born in a given year) with systematic analysis of in-depth interviews with 
adults in the community (WBoL 2002). The experience at this centre,

as elsewhere, is that statistical data is important in demonstrating trends 
and pointing up relationships between factors for which a record exists 
(such as attainment at school and subsequent success in the labour market); 
however, it is limited by its lack of finer explanatory detail. Conversely,

data drawn from the lives of individuals is rich in such detail, but yields 
generalisable conclusions less easily. For addressing issues of policy and 
practice, using a combination of research methods is often advisable.




p. 22 & 38 below




An issue of particular importance here is the combination of methods. 
Quantitative and qualitative approaches are sometimes wrongly counterposed, 
when a judicious mix of the two might yield a more rounded view of issues of 
practical concern. A salient example is the work of the Centre for

Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, which combines analysis of the 
national birth cohort studies (longitudinal studies of a sample of people 
born in a given year) with systematic analysis of in-depth interviews with 
adults in the community (WBoL 2002). The experience at this centre,

as elsewhere, is that statistical data is important in demonstrating trends 
and pointing up relationships between factors for which a record exists 
(such as attainment at school and subsequent success in the labour market); 
however, it is limited by its lack of finer explanatory detail. Conversely,

data drawn from the lives of individuals is rich in such detail, but yields 
generalisable conclusions less easily. For addressing issues of policy and 
practice, using a combination of research methods is often advisable.



below p. 24 & 42



In the interpretation stage, knowledge drawn from practitioners may be 
important in the 'transformation' of research findings. This process, 
described by Desforges (2000), combines two kinds of knowledge: the 
contextual understanding developed by experienced and reflective 
practitioners, and the more generalised findings of systematic research. 
Understanding drawn from practice, though not necessarily generalisable or 
capable of validation, may

provide important clues as to how to interpret findings in ways that will 
make sense to other practitioners. This influence may prove helpful in 
creating research outcomes that are relevant and applicable.



An example of the process of combining knowledge from practice and research, 
drawn from work for the DfES commissioned by the Social Exclusion Unit in 
2001, involved investigating ways that public agencies could help young 
people who are neither in education, employment nor training.

The work involved practitioners in community-based organisations working 
with a research team to identify principles and practices. An outline of 
this work is given in the box on page 21.






below p. 24 & 41





The active engagement of users of research in appropriate stages of the 
research process contributes to both a sense of ownership among the user 
community and enhancement of the quality and applicability of research 
outcomes. The sense of ownership may be crucial in determining whether

the research evidence is ultimately used in practice. For research planners 
wishing to develop a strategy for impact, it is helpful to think through in 
advance which kinds of people will need to act on its findings, and find 
ways to involve them at the stages identified above.

Research report Section 3 page 14/15



Below p. 26 & 41




Section 4 Working together

Research report page 16/17

Roles



In the various stages of the full process indicated in Figure 1 on page 9, 
contributions are called for from many different kinds of professional. 
Those identified with the investigative phase include discipline 
specialists - social scientists, management scientists, historians, 
anthropologists, for

example; and specialists in methods - statistics, surveying, market 
research, qualitative analysis, for example. These may be associated with 
higher education institutions, independent research institutes, colleges, 
work-based or community-based providers, local LSCs, or charities, or they 
may operate independently as freelancers. Other kinds of professional play 
key roles in the planning and influencing phases, particularly several kinds 
of

practitioner. In the post-16 sector, these include teachers, trainers and 
lecturers, guidance and counselling staff, library and information 
specialists, marketing and MIS people, as well as those managing teams, 
services and institutions.



Likewise, issues relating to policy need to involve policy strategists, 
developers and advisers, as well as those who implement it. Their knowledge, 
drawn from practical experience, needs to inform the identification of key 
priorities for research, the specification of research questions related to 
practical problems, and the interpretation of findings.  Without this kind 
of knowledge, research runs the risk of being directed to less important 
areas, of producing less useful outcomes, or of being poorly timed in 
relation to the delivery of teaching and learning. In short, it risks being 
less likely to influence actual behaviour.



Mediators ...

Communicators  ,,,

Integration ...

Responsibilities ...

Collaboration ...