CC BY
33
THE MISMATCH OF TEACHING
AND LEARNING STYLES AS AN OBSTACLE
TO THE STUDENTS' SUCCESS
IN THE PROCESS OF LIFELONG EDUCATION
A. Tatarinceva
Introduction. A growing body of research are devoted to the topic how the match of learning and teaching styles affects students' cognitive outcomes. If instructional resources can be considered as having a style of their own, then several studies verified the increased academic achievements and improved attitudes towards learning evidenced when students’ learning styles were matched with complementary methods or materials [4], [10], [11].
I. What is a learning style? Numerous definitions of learning style have been suggested in literature. A learning style are the conditions under which a person begins to concentrate on, absorb, process, and retain new information [9]; a learning style means general differences in learning orientations based on the degree to which people emphasize four models of the learning process as measured by a Self-Report Test called the Learning Style Inventory [12]. There is the positive relationship between how each lecturer teaches and how successfully students achieved [1]. The closer the match between a lecturer's teaching style and a student’s learning style is, the higher the student’s progress is. The Concept of a learning style, includes 21 different variables [4]. Buell [5] matched students with lecturers whose perceptual strengths were similar to theirs and obtained increased achievements and improved attitudes. Studies of at-risk students revealed-the majority of the underachievers strongly preferred collegial-rather than authoritative-lecturers [9].The author believes some elements of style can be revealed by creating varied instructional areas and permitting students to experiment with learning in the ways responsive to their styles.
How can lecturers respond to students' emotional elements? Motivation is increased when students’ learning styles are acknowledged and responded to. Students having “short attention spans” process globally and work on multiple tasks simultaneously. Lecturers should give them moments of “down-time” to accomplish tasks. Less persistent students are the globals and process information differently than persistent analytics do[12]. A less responsible student responds best to (1) knowing why the thing you want him to learn is important;(2) collegial rather than authoritative vocal tones; (3) being given a choice to do the task by own way. The author would like to encourage lecturers to do the following: Give time for a task slightly longer. Tell students they may work alone, if they prefer, or with a group-mate. When they choose to work with you, they need to do that. When students ask additional questions about the task, they need more structure (place the directions on the blackboard, allow such students to read them, draw symbols to help the visual/global students comprehend procedures more easily).
How can lecturers respond to sociological elements of learning styles? The Authority-oriented students may be unable to learn either alone or with a peer and the option of sitting near you and obtaining guidance, reinforcement, or assistance may be a necessary alternative. How can lecturers respond to students’ perceptual
211
strengths? Many people tend to be analytic/visuals; they make sense out of printed words. Global visuals look at diagrams, pictures first. Some students classify tasks and analyze what to do first, pick things up as seem appropriate, begin to experiment through a hands-on approach. Those are likely to be analytic/tactuals. The global/tactuals analyze each part of the task. Some students prefer to read the directions again. That is the easiest way for an analytic/auditory student to accomplish the task. The global/auditory students ask for the additional directions, have the reader skip around, repeat, synthesize. Students do their work according to their processing style and perceptual strengths. Auditory students (they are about 30%) remember 75 % of what they hear at a 40-minute lecture. It is the most difficult way for many people to remember new information. Visual learners (they are about 40%) remember 75 % of what they read or see. That number is divided into the analytics and the globals. Tactual learners remember what they write (if analytics) or draw (if globals). The kinesthetics remember best the things they experience and should be involved in going, doing, traveling, acting. There were experimental studies where students were taught through matched and mismatched perceptual strengths. In each case, the researchers [7], [3], [13], [5] claim that statistically higher test scores resulted when students were taught new information through their preferred, rather than non-preferred modalities. Kroon [13], obtained significantly higher (.01) test scores for students in matched rather than mismatched treatments, and an additional .05 significance when the same students were reinforced through their secondary or tertiary modality. Teaching by a lecture is effective only for auditory or auditory/tactual students who listen to it and take notes. The author believes if a teacher is going to lecture, the following method for introducing new and difficult material through each student’s perceptual strengths; reinforcing through a secondary or tertiary strengths increase the effectiveness of lecturing.
Can you identify your own teaching style strengths? If you are an analytic processor, you never concentrated on how to teach reading, maths, or science globally. If you a global processor, you rarely stay on a task without a structured lecture's plan. Both approaches are correct; it is important to teach s the entire required curriculum, to do it through students' learning preferences and to relate them with students' achievements. Thus, both analytic and global lecturers can profit from understanding how to reach both types of student processors. Ramirez [4], believe that the majority of lecturers seem to be strong analytic processors, whereas the majority of higher school students are strong global processors. Thus, the type of information processing is one of the learning style's important element.
II. What is teaching style? Researchers [8], [9], [4], believe there are many ways of teaching the same content; some people do it verbally, or visually, others -experientially, All ways are effective - but not for the same students. Barnes [2] claims that there are three significantly different teaching styles: (a) closed-a formal didactic style with little negotiations; (b) framed -an overall structure is given by the lecturer without students’ contributions; (c) negotiated - lecturers and students largely negotiated the content. Just as with a learning style, perceptual communication is only one part of a teaching style. There are nine major components of a teaching style, including each of the following - (1) Instructional planning - encompasses the diagnosis, learning prescriptions, evaluations
212
completed for each student. Knowledge of each student’s ability, a learning style, interests, skills development, the ability to retain information, the concept formation - is essential to the diagnosis. The prescription includes the design and use of materials and multi-sensory learning activities at various levels [9]. (2) Teaching methods - refer to the way a lecturer groups students for learning, designs resources, uses interaction techniques, employs basic ways to teaching each student. (3) Student grouping - is the way a lecturer assigns learning to occur through groups, pairs, individuals, large groups, one-to-one tutoring. (4) The lecture-room design - reflects the way in which the lecturer designs spaces to match the characteristics of students. (5) The teaching environment - includes time schedules, different types of instructional stations, the optional learning activities. (6) Evaluation techniques mean the methods the lecturer uses to assess the progress of students. Testing, observations, performance assessments, and Selfevaluation are the part of each student's assessment. (7) Teaching characteristics are values a lecturer holds and ways used to transmit those values. (8) Educational philosophy refers to the lecturer's attitudes towards the key program descriptions. (9) Students' types: the types of students the lecturer prefers to have. You could determine your teaching style in The Teaching Style Inventory (Cafferty, 2000).
Conclusion. Higher schools increasingly diverse their capacity to provide a meaningful and empowering lifelong education for individuals. It is directly related to lecturers' willingness to invest their time, resources and guidance to move towards teaching that meets individuals at their points of readiness, interests and learning style preferences.
References
1. Adams J.F. 2003. Learning Style Preferences. USA: KOGAN PAGE;
2. Barnes D. 2001. Language and Learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3(1),27-38.
3. Bauer E. 2001. Learning Style Perceptual Preferences. USA: HILL BOOK
4. Bruno J. 2010. Effects of matching and mismatching college students’ hemispheric preferences. Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 283-288.
5. Buell B.G. 2007. Perceptual preferences as variables. USA: JOSSEY-BASS
6. Cafferty E. 2000. An analysis of student performance based upon the degree of match among the cognitive styles of lecturers and students. USA: TEACHER COLLEGE
7. Carbo M. 2000. Teaching students through their individual styles. USA: PRAEGER
8. Curry L. 1987. The concept of a cognitive learning style. Canada: PALO ALTO.
9. DeBello T. 1990. Hemispheric preference. The American Biology, 44 (5), 291-294.
10. Douglas C. B. 1999. Making biology. American Biology Teacher. 4 (50), 277-299.
11. Gardiner B. 1986. An experimental analysis of selected teaching strategies. USA: WILEY.
12. Kolb D. 1985. Learning Style Inventory. USA: McGRAW-HILL.
13. Kroon D. 2005. An experimental investigation of the effects on academic achievements and the resultant administrative implications of instruction congruent and non-congruent with secondary, industrial arts students’ learning style perceptual preference. USA: PERGAMON.
213
