HEORIES OF LEARNING, LEARNING STYLE AND METHODS OF TEACHING

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON TEACHING METHODS, LEARNING STYLES AND THE ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS TOWARDS ACTIVE LEARNING

INTRODUCTION

The learning theories were explained in the previous chapter. In particular, the focus was on the behaviourist, cognitive and constructivist learning theories, the teaching methods that incorporate active learning methods, and a paradigm shift to active learning.
Chapter 3 presents a literature review of empirical evidence on teaching methods, learning styles and attitudes towards active learning. To this end, the literature on the following is critically reviewed, namely teaching methods in the natural and social sciences, and student-centred instructional methods.

TYPES OF TEACHING METHODS

Generally speaking, the preference of a specific teaching method is problematic by nature. In the first place, the different types of teaching methods cannot be clearly distinguished from one another, because the activities which are incorporated in a certain kind of teaching method can also be observed in another method. Secondly, providing a unanimously agreed-upon definition of any given teaching method is difficult. Yuen and Hau (2006:288) therefore suggested that teachers should rather focus on the advantages and limitations of the various approaches to teaching and learning. This implies that the teachers should be cognisant with the characteristics of the teaching methods they use. To achieve certain ends, the teachers should choose the right means. In addition, the existing multitude of teaching methods need not be considered as mutually exclusive, since the teaching can be eclectic.
Regarding the preference of teaching method, major problems occur in respect of conducting research on this issue. According to Prince (2004:2), many learning outcomes are difficult to measure. Examples include outcomes such as the ability to solve problems and to engage in lifelong learning. It is difficult to find data on these kinds of learning outcomes, with the result that research on such variables is vulnerable to misinterpretation. Prince (2004) also pointed out that research in the area of teaching methods are confronted by several problems, which include the definition of the core constructs that the researcher is examining, the problem of the interpretation of results, and the problem of deciding whether the changes observed are due to experimental interventions, and whether they are significant or not. Therefore, the users and implementers of research findings (teachers, researchers, and policymakers), should take considerable care when interpreting research reports.
However, in general, teaching methods can be classified into two main types, namely teacher-centred approaches and student-centred teaching methods, as mentioned before (see section 1.2).
In the case of teacher-centred teaching, the engagement of the teachers is extensive and they assume a dominant role in the instructional process. According to Miller (2008:965-966), some of the teacher-centred teaching methods are expository and interactive-expository. In an expository teaching strategy, a teacher orally guides the students to engage in the learning situation. Such an approach includes the traditional lecture method and mini-presentations. The interactive-expository techniques are structured in a similar way, but supplementary techniques, such as interactive questioning, modelling, and a high degree of student reply are added to the teaching process.
The student-centred methods are currently widely accepted because of their advantages over the traditional teacher-centred methods (Matthews, 1997:5; Michael, 2006:159; Saville et al., 2005) and their considerable influence in science, the social sciences and the humanities, specifically (Matthews, 1997:5) (see section 3.2.1). In student-centred teaching methods, the teacher assumes the position of spectator, leader, facilitator, or even moderator during the learning process, allowing the learning situations to happen within and among the students (Miller, 2008:964-965). These student-centred methods can be adapted to different subject areas, as is explained next.

Subject-area teaching methods

Selecting teaching methods requires different considerations. Basic considerations include the students’ grade levels, their previous knowledge of the subject, the nature of the subject, and/or the nature of the content. Usually, in lower-grade levels, hands-on or active teaching methods are used, due to the limited attention-span of the students (Morra, Gobbo, Marini, & Sheese, 2008:22; Pierce & Kalkman, 2003:127). In addition, in the early stages of their development the children understand their surroundings mainly through their senses and motor abilities. Their cognitive functioning is at a stage of processing information from direct sensori-motor experiences (Harris, 2006:276).
There are several ways of classifying instructional objectives, including Bloom’s taxonomy. The way the students perform in respect of the given content, is called the behavioural construct while the content that requires the students to acquire knowledge is called the cognitive domain. Content may relate to the affective domain, e.g., attitudes and values. Other content may require of students to perform with muscular involvement, and is called the psychomotor domain.
Any given lesson need not be taught with a single method of teaching. According to Nilson (2010:106-7), interactive lectures and recitation focus on the knowledge level only. In contrast, directed discussion, writing/speaking exercises, classroom assessment techniques, group-work or learning, student-peer feedback, cookbook science labs, just-in-time teaching, inquiry-based or inquiry-guided, project-based learning, and role-play and simulations are more effective for comprehension. Finally, writing/speaking exercises, case methods, inquiry-based or inquiry-guided, problem-based learning, and project-based learning are effective for the application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation level of cognitive processing. Thus, almost all of the student-centred methods mentioned above (which are similar to the types of teaching methods used in ‘active’ learning as explained in section 3.2), are effective for the development of higher-level learning outcomes.
Objectives can be classified into three domains across all subject areas and education levels, namely the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. The nature of the subject and the topic may be largely based on the cognitive and less on the affective and psychomotor/kinaesthetic domains, or vice versa. For instance, physical education courses are kinaesthetically dominated, while the practical parts of medicine and law require the application of knowledge to new and complex situations (Nilson, 2010:26).
Teaching methods that are most effective for science and mathematics, as well as for the social sciences and humanities, are outlined in the next sections.

Teaching methods in science and mathematics

Usually science and mathematics are perceived as difficult subjects for different reasons, and many students therefore do not enrol for these subjects. For example, Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003:1061) state that it is difficult for students to memorise the periodic table, and they also do not see its relevance in their everyday lives. Moreover, the concepts of science are too abstract.
An important influencing factor in a student’s decision to pursue science or not is the teaching methods that are used. Osborne et al. (2003:1073) say that the absence of good teaching is one of the decisive factors for students’ aversion to science. Tobias (in Osborne et al., 2003:1068) identified different reasons why students abstain from enrolling in science when starting higher education. Among others, there are too many ‘how much’ questions, and a lack of sufficient discussion of ‘how’ or ‘why’. This indicates the absence of participatory teaching methods.
Several researchers propose active learning methods for the teaching of science (DiCarlo, 2006:291; Ebert-May, Brewer, & Allred, 1997:601 & 606). DiCarlo (2006:291) considers learning as not a matter of committing a collection of information to memory, but of acquiring the capacity to use resources to find, assess and use information. To this end, Ebert-May et al. (1997:601) state that the learning of science demands the active involvement of both the student and the teacher to aid the constructive process.

Teaching methods in social studies and the humanities

According to Ediger (2009:324), social study courses should be designed to meet the cognitive, affective and psychomotor needs of the student.
The following psychological learning principles should be incorporated, namely
• all the students should be engaged in progressive learning activities;
• the students should understand the reasons for the experiences that are provided;
• provisions should be made for the different learning styles of different students;
• meaning and understanding should be emphasised; and
• the teachers should plan for challenge and for success in their instruction.
The above principles imply the use of hands-on teaching methods, based on authentic tasks, using a variety of instructional strategies that could satisfy the interests of different students. The teaching should also encourage the students to apply their knowledge in practice in actual life situations.
Yilmaz (2008:36) indicated that the basic goal of teaching social studies in secondary schools is to help the students become accountable, analytical, insightful, and active citizens, who can make knowledgeable and rational decisions about public matters locally or globally. He stated that students needed to develop positive attitudes toward participatory democracy and to participate in public issues to everybody’s benefit. In order for the students to be active and participatory citizens, they need to be actively involved in issues that required questioning, thinking and reasoning. Since student-centred instruction facilitates the construction of meaning and understanding during each phase of the learning process, it can be used as an instrument to fulfil the aims of social studies education.
However, Yilmaz (2008:48) pointed out that student-centred instruction still remained on the margins of social studies teachers’ range of instructional techniques. This confirms the much older finding of Cuban (1991), who observed that social studies instructional sessions were characterised by teacher-centred instructional practices. The result was that most students found the subject unexciting, tedious and trivial. Therefore, researchers suggested student-centred instruction to change the situation. More recently, Yilmaz (2008:47) suggested that the teachers of social studies should implement progressive learning theories to accomplish the goals of social studies in secondary schools. The progressive learning theories that he refers to are the constructivist and cognitive learning theories. According to him, student-centred instruction is based on the constructivist theory, and it shows great promise to help teachers design engaging and interesting learning opportunities.
A number of student-centred instructional methods are explained below.

STUDENT-CENTRED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS

As mentioned in section 2.6, the emergence of learning style-matched instruction and active learning in the teaching and learning context, is from the emphasis given to individual students’ needs.
In the next section the issue of individualised instruction is considered.

Individualised instruction

Considering individual differences in instruction is important, because they are expressions of the uniqueness of individual personalities and of individual identities (Joyce & Weil, 1996:385). Similarly, Grasha (2002:44) pointed out that the most important issue for teachers is not to consider which way of thinking is better than the other, but to contemplate the students’ individual mental abilities and learning styles. These differences should be encouraged in order for the students to profit from their own talents. According to the constructivist view (see section 2.3.3), all of the students cannot learn in exactly the same way because of their differences in attitudes, values, and experiences. That is, students construct their own knowledge on the basis of their prior knowledge by their active involvement with the new learning content. The curriculum, therefore, has to be arranged in such a way that it allows for the effective interaction of individual students with the learning material (Jenkins, 2006:196).
Accordingly, the curriculum change implemented in Ethiopia in 2003 was intended to satisfy the students’ individual learning preferences by varying the teachers’ teaching methods (MOE-TESO, 2003:2).
In general, students have dominant learning styles by means of which they acquire better learning, and they need to learn to capitalise on that style. However, most students also have secondary learning styles to reinforce their initial learning and for the further acquisition of knowledge (Denig, 2004:103). Therefore, teachers should vary their teaching style to accommodate their students’ varied styles.
However, since learning styles vary from student to student, it is impossible to provide individualised instruction which fits all the students in a classroom at the same time. Coffield et al. (2004b:133) noted that it could be a difficult undertaking to teach many students in a class through individualised instruction in respect of the teachers’ time, and the monitoring and supporting of individual learning programmes. Lazear (in Brualdi, 1996:4) pointed out that
…it is impossible, as well as impractical, for a teacher to accommodate every lesson to all of the learning styles found within the classroom. Nevertheless, the teacher can show students how to use their more developed intelligences to assist in the understanding of a subject which normally employs their weaker intelligences.
In consideration of the above, Felder and Henriques (1995:29) recommended that the teachers continuously change their teaching methods and approaches to include different strategies, even though it may hinder the covering of the syllabus. They suggested that the different strategies should be tested from time to time during instruction. In this way, teaching styles that are both effective for the students and comfortable for the teachers could be developed. Hunt (1997) also stated that strategies should be devised to satisfy all the preferences of the students. Thus, it is suggested that the teachers should vary their teaching methods to meet the preferences of all the students in the classroom (Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004:408).

Mode of instruction and learning style

The question can be asked if all the students learn equally well through the use of one or more learning preferences. To answer this question, the different researchers have a variety of arguments. According to the constructivist view, students learn through the active involvement with their environment (Ryan & Cooper, 1998:308).
However, this theory clearly indicates variations among students due to their biological endowment, as well as their interaction with their social and physical environment. Thus, learning style is a combination of various biological and experiential variables that contribute to learning (Rochford, 2003:667). This means that learners are not uniform in the way they process and organise information in a specific learning situation, due to differences in cognitive style and instructional preferences (Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004:396). This is in accordance with the constructivist views and learning style theories that point to individual variations. Instruction, therefore, has to be diversified to address the students’ prior knowledge, values and attitudes.
The introduction of learning style theories into the theories of learning is primarily due to the strong claim of the theorists and proponents that teaching through learning style-matched methods could improve the students’ learning performance and achievement. However, the results on this issue are sometimes contradictory. Roberts and Newton (2001) conclude that it is difficult to assume that learning style-matched instruction results in the improved achievement of the students, or has nothing to do with the students’ learning performance. This is due to the fact that the teaching-learning process is highly complex, and that learning is the result of many factors that include gender and subject matter, the social and physical environment, inheritance and prior knowledge. They also added that matching one learning situation or task with a learning style may not be effective for another learning task. Thus, it is concluded that learning style-matched instruction could be considered as one of the factors that affect the students’ learning. It contributes a certain percentage of the variance, although the specific impact needs to be investigated by means of empirical studies on a large scale.
Reinert (2002) conducted a study on the influence of visual aids in learning. This study on individual learning styles in the Edmonds School District indicated that one type of learning style which is effective for some students would not be equally effective for other students and would not necessarily lead to better achievement.
A mismatch of learning style with teaching methods is not the only reason for low achievement, although findings indicate its significant effect on students’ achievement and interest. According to Felder and Spurlin (2005:103), the amount of knowledge acquisition (and thus achievement), is partly affected by the students’ learning styles, their natural potential, and the teaching methods used. They further noted that if learning styles are not matched to teaching methods, it could possibly lead to student failure. This is because the students are inclined to become uneasy, bored and absent-minded in class, achieve low results in tests, become disheartened about the subject, the syllabus and themselves, and may change subjects, or even drop out of school (Felder & Spurlin, 2005:103).
With language instruction, Felder and Henriques (1995:28) found, matching teaching styles with learning styles can significantly increase academic attainment. In addition, it can enhance the students’ learning interest and their performance at all educational levels.
Varying teaching strategies for lower grade levels could create new learning opportunities, because it is the time to harmonise the students’ inborn tendencies with their sociological and environmental components. On the other hand, if a teaching method is not carefully selected, it may also create a difficult situation. According to Felder and Silverman (1988:674), and Felder and Henriques (1995:21), changing teaching methods is not a mistake in itself, but a sudden introduction of unfamiliar instructional methods can lead to conflict with the developed cognitive style of a student.

Active leaning versus learning style-matched instruction

As indicated in chapter 2 (see section 2.6), both active learning and learning style-matched instruction advocate the active construction of knowledge by the students, a key principle of the constructivist theory, though they vary in their principal premise. That is, active learning emphasises the active involvement of all students, whereas learning style-matched instruction indicates that each student has his/her own learning style that is not necessarily active. Learning style proponents appreciate the predisposition of the student, whether active or passive, as in the case of listening to conventional lectures.
In line with the above ideas, Wolfe (2006:79) warns teachers to consider individual differences when trying to implement active learning instruction, because students differ from one another in learning style. For example, according to a learning style questionnaire developed by Neil Fleming (in Wolfe, 2006:79), there are four learning styles, namely visual, auditory, reading, and kinaesthetic. On the other hand, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) focuses on four different kinds of learning styles that relate to the following types, namely abstract, concrete, reflective, and active. Wolfe suggests a consideration of various learning approaches that can accommodate these different learning styles.
Moreover, regarding the implementation of active learning and learning style-matched instruction, contradictory findings exist. For example, on the one hand, a large number of researchers, which include Cotton, De Vita, Felder and Soloman, Grasha, Gross Davis, Honey and Mumford, Kolb, and Smith (in Auster & Wylie, 2006:340), acknowledge a variation in student learning styles and the matching of teaching strategies with student learning styles. On the other hand, contemporary studies indicate that the mismatching of teaching and learning styles expand the students’ abilities (DeVita and Smith, as cited in Auster & Wylie, 2006:340). These research findings show that by using different kinds of teaching strategies, the teachers can address different types of learning styles, and also motivate their students to think of and learn novel approaches (De Vita, Keyser, and Smith, as cited in Auster & Wylie, 2006:340). Such contradictions require further empirical investigation.
However, in this study the intention was not to compare and contrast the advantages of learning style-matched instruction against the active learning-teaching strategies or vice versa, as indicated by the research questions stated in section 1.2. Rather, the researcher employed a learning style inventory to identify the students’ learning styles and attitudes towards active learning approaches. More specifically, the study made use of the Felder-Silverman learning style questionnaire to investigate the aforementioned Grade 10, and university level students, and to test for significant differences between the groups.

Learning styles inventories

As was mentioned in section 2.3.6, several learning style theories and inventories have been developed (Coffield et al., 2004(a) & (b)). The purpose of the learning style inventories is to identify the learning styles in line with the theory that the inventory was based on. In turn, identifying the students’ learning styles enables one to match the instruction with the students’ learning preference, which enhances the students’ learning and achievement (Felder & Soloman, in Felder, 1996; Hawk & Shah, 2007; Pitts, 2009; Watson, 2001).
The widely-used learning style instruments are Dunns’ Learning Style Inventory (LSI), Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (KLSI) and Felder and Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles (ILS), because they were developed from popular learning style theories (Duff, 2004:699; Hawk & Shah, 2007:2; Henson & Hwang, 2002:712; Kayes, 2005:249; Wang et al., 2006:208). The different instruments have various dimensions measuring different constructs; however, they could have similar constructs (Severiens & Ten Dam, 1994:494).
Merely mentioning some results from several findings in respect of the students’ learning style preferences and gender variations and by using Kolb’s learning style inventory, Severiens and Ten Dam (1994:487) found that men were more likely to prefer an abstract conceptualisation style of learning than were women. Based on Entwistle’s Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI), they found differences between the gender groups regarding the affective components of approaches to studying. In addition, they found that men were more inclined towards abstract conceptualisation than women. But those studies did not explain the nature of the relationship between gender and learning styles very well (Severiens & Ten Dam, 1994:498).
In the Ethiopian context, there were no findings on the students’ learning styles using ILS. But Geche (2009) studied the students’ learning styles in the area of mathematics using LSQ. At the ‘global’ level, ILS was widely used in the area of engineering (for example, Livesay, Dee, Neuman & Hites, 2002) and business economics (for example, Van Zwanenberg, Wilkinson & Anderson, 2000).
Felder and Brent (2005:61) reviewed studies that were done using different versions of the ILS. They found variations in the ILS dimensions from year to year and from study to study. In general, the participants in those studies were very ‘active’ and ‘sequential’.
Some specific results of research that was done are presented below.
• A study conducted at the University of Sao Paulo by Kuri and Tiruzzi (2002), as was discussed by Felder and Brent (2005), among freshmen mechanical engineering students, showed 47% ‘reflective’; 67% ‘sensing’; 84% ‘visual’ and 45% ‘sequential’ learners (55% ‘global’ learners).
• The findings by Livesay et al. (2002) at Tulane, among second year engineering students, indicated 62% ‘active’, 60% ‘sensing’, 88% ‘visual’ and 48% ‘sequential’ learners.
Though studies on gender variations that were assessed by the ILS were very limited (Felder & Brent, 2005:68), a number of studies outside the United States and the U.K. (which were not included in Felder and Brent’s review) are mentioned below.
• D’Cruz, Rajaratnam and Chandrasekhar (2013:323) conducted a study among medical students in Tamil, to investigate the strengths of the learning preferences of boys and girls using the ILS, and found no significant differences between the genders groups.
• At AMA International University at Bahrain, Gappi (2013:74) carried out a research study on freshman boys and girls using the ILS, and found no significant gender differences in their learning style preferences. In addition, he (2013:72) found the majority of the respondents were fairly well-balanced on the four dimensions of the ILS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
SUMMARY
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.3 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.5 DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPTS
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1.8 THE DIVISION OF THE CHAPTERS
1.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO: THEORIES OF LEARNING, LEARNING STYLE AND METHODS OF TEACHING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THEORIES
2.3 THEORIES OF LEARNING
2.4 A PARADIGM SHIFT TO ACTIVE LEARNING
2.5 TEACHING METHODS THAT INCORPORATE ACTIVE LEARNING METHODS
2.6 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING STYLES AND ACTIVE LEARNING
2.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON TEACHING METHODS, LEARNING STYLES AND THE ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS TOWARDS ACTIVE LEARNING
3.1 TYPES OF TEACHING METHODS
3.3 STUDENT-CENTRED INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS
3.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS STUDENT-CENTRED INSTRUCTION
3.5 SUMMARY
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR: THE RESEARCH DESIGN
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
4.4 THE RESEARCH DESIGN
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE: THE RESULTS AND A DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 THE RESULTS
5.3 DISCUSSIONS OF THE RESULTS
5.4 SUMMARY
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.5 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
6.6 SUMMARY
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT