Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically reviews various learning preferences and human intelligence theories and models with a particular focus on the implications for online learning. It highlights a few key models, Gardner’s multiple intelligences, Fleming and Mills’ VARK model, Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles, and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model, and attempts to link them to trends and opportunities in online learning with emerging technologies. By intersecting such models with online technologies, it offers instructors and instructional designers across educational sectors and situations new ways to think about addressing diverse learner needs, backgrounds, and expectations. Learning technologies are important for effective teaching, as are theories and models and theories of learning. We argue that more immense power can be derived from connections between the theories, models and learning technologies. Résumé : Cet article passe en revue de manière critique les divers modèles et théories sur les préférences d’apprentissage et l’intelligence humaine, avec un accent particulier sur les implications qui en découlent pour l’apprentissage en ligne. L’article présente quelques-uns des principaux modèles (les intelligences multiples de Gardner, le modèle VAK de Fleming et Mills, les styles d’apprentissage de Honey et Mumford et le modèle d’apprentissage expérientiel de Kolb) et tente de les relier à des tendances et occasions d’apprentissage en ligne qui utilisent les nouvelles technologies. En croisant ces modèles avec les technologies Web, les instructeurs et concepteurs pédagogiques dans les secteurs de l’éducation ou en situation éducationnelle se voient offrir de nouvelles façons de tenir compte des divers besoins, horizons et attentes des apprenants. Les technologies d’apprentissage sont importantes pour un enseignement efficace, tout comme les théories et les modèles d’apprentissage. Nous sommes d’avis qu’en établissant des liens entre les théories, les modèles et les technologies d’apprentissage, il est possible d’obtenir un résultat plus puissant. This article has been translated to Armenian. Click here for the translation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".