The introduction begins with explaining the development of mental capability, beginning at birth we continue to strengthen and expand our capability. Mental ability is often associated with and does have a connection to how quickly and well individuals learn. While intelligence itself is not an indication of the efficiency of someones learning process, the two do seem to go hand in hand. The tactic that works best for students to learn should be very important to their educator. Using tools that closely align to the most beneficial style promote fast and easy learning and application. The mental ability of students can be a key indicator as to what approach the teacher should take. Although the connection between mental capability and learning style seems to be very important, there is a real lack of research done on the two topics (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
The next section of the article is listing definitions related to learning style in order to show the classifications associated with the different styles. Response types are a sizable factor in learning style, the three different types of responses show the reaction to exposure of teaching in a classroom and learning from others. Other definitions exhibit the students feelings and action towards participation and how that may dictate absorption of material (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
Mental ability is a measure of intelligence and potential to house information. In this article in uses the term in a way of general intelligence, different from the ability to excel in one specific area (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
The objectives for this study were to take data of learning style according to different levels of mental capability, and to examine these variables on the basis of a higher level student in secondary education. The methodology used to gather this data was offering varying tools and styles to the secondary education students of the study (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
750 students of 45 different secondary schools within a certain region were the sample for the study. The technique for data contraction was multistage stratified random sampling, they were divided into three groups dependent on their mental capability. The Students Learning Style Scale was the tool applied to the sample, measuring student interaction with educators, peers, and different learning style stimuli. This tool measure the six characteristics defined in the previous section of useful terms. The terms can be put together to create three different bipolar traits in students. These traits are measured on a number scale that ascends up to five, therefore this is a quantitative tool for measurement (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
The mode for measuring the intelligence, or mental capability, of the sample students was the Standard Progressive Matrices. It’s a test split up into smaller sections dictating what a certain factor showing a student is. The mean of the testing showed that the preferred style across each mental capability level is the participant style. That is the willingness and benefit of interaction between student with their peers and instructor through discussion, interactive presentations, and group activities. This want to be in the physical classroom and actively speak with others shows that these students want to learn the teachings and opinions of others, they’re willing to take into play several different opinions. Students with a high or low capability level seemed to prefer the independent learning style, this allows personal reflection and an ability to control at which pace and level of difficulty they allow themselves. Students of an average level typically seemed to react to education in the competitive fashion. They felt the need to always win and prove their abilities to other students and instructors in the classroom (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
The lowest level of mental capability is actually the level at which there was the most variation in desired learning styles. Although most preferred among these student was the independent style, there were those that deviated and went along with the participation and competitive styles. The other two levels exhibit lower amounts of deviation from their typically preferred style. These results in data interfere with the previous findings of a study done by Singh and another by Kumari. These studies showed that there was no correlation at all between the mental capability levels and learning styles aside from the case of average intelligence boys, the only demographic to show these results (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
The conclusion of the article discusses the ending deductions and making suggestions. It shows that not all of the learning styles are evenly dispersed throughout the different mental capability levels, there is not one definite style that is equally beneficial and prefered. The participant style is the most preferred across each level of capability, allowing for discussion between the student and their instructor and peers, allowing for more exposure to opinions, perspectives, and access to new resources. The overall least preferred style is the avoidant. This style allows for a student that does not wish to reflect on the ideas of others to develop their own thoughts without interference. Although this does not allow for all of the exposure that participant offers, it provides a private atmosphere for personal reflection and ability to move along at their own discretion. For students that are struggling, the avoidance style lets them focus on whichever topics they find the most difficult and for a personal decision on how long spent on a certain aspect or subject of the curriculum, the same sort of principle applies to the higher level thinking students, this allows them to think beyond what their peers may say and provide them the chance to speed through curriculum and move on past the current topic. The average mental students feel the need to compete with their peer, proving to themselves and all others that they can surpass the standards of low scoring students and keep up with the higher scoring students. The study shows how lower intelligence level students have more difficulty learning with others, but they also probably do not possess the skills to develop their knowledge all on their own. Possible solutions are for educators to provide them encouragement and confidence is their own thoughts and the prospect of learning and discussing with others (Agarwal & Jaiswal, 2010).
One limitation on this study is that the sample of students taken only cover those in secondary education. Therefore the same conclusions and suggestions may not be relevant for younger children. Another limitation is the utter lack of research that has been done into the styles of learning. The tactic used only gives six different variations of how a student might learn when in reality I believe it is much more complex and personal than that.
One way to improve the experiment would to have several different groups as samples. These groups should be from multiple education levels, broken even further to grade levels for the younger students, they should also be taken from different areas varying in demographic levels and poverty levels. This would allow for more variables to be accounted for.
Also, I think binding the data down to just the six learning styles is not sufficient, there are combinations and particular situations in which they may shift from one style to another. I believe the style preferred depends on the subject, the class size, and the particular material of that unit.
I taught children’s dance for several years, ages ranging from two to fifteen and class sizes from private solo sessions to classes of twenty. Although this study was done on an academic level, I can definitely say from my teaching experience that different children benefit and absorb more in different class sizes. I obviously didn’t have scores showing the students intelligence, but can judge from maturity attention that there was not one personality that seemed to prefer any one style. It was varying and unique for each child, depending heavily on class size and dance style.
I believe the finding of this study could be applied to the current development of ADHD research and knowledge. Many students with ADHD do not respond well to traditional teachings, yet that’s what’s continuing to be pressed in the majority of public and private schools. These children often either struggle with the methods being used and act out as a sign of frustration, or learn very easily and become bored with the material, leaving spare time and the need for them to occupy themselves, many times in a disruptive manner. If educators could really pay attention and realize that the same tools will not work for all students, especially those with ADHD and other disorders, the education system as a whole would be much improved.
