Learning styles, teaching strategies
and academic
achievement in higher education: A
cross-sectional
investigation
Cristina Tulbure*
Postdoctoral fellow,
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences, Bd. M. Kogalniceanu 050107,[/I]
Bucharest[/I], Romania[/I]
Abstract[/B]
This study aims at comparing two
groups of pre-service teachers (with Educational Sciences and
Economic Sciences major) in order to identify their learning style
preferences, the most effective teaching strategies for each
learning style and some possible differences between their academic
achievements (N[/I]=182). A between subject design was
used to analyze the data collected through a survey method.
Significant differences between the two categories of students have
emerged in relation with the most effective teaching strategies
corresponding to each learning style category.
1. Introduction[/B]
Effective teaching requires
flexibility, creativity and responsibility in order to provide an
instructional
environment able to respond to the
learner’s individual needs. As Tomlinson (2001) puts it, beyond
the
experiential evidence that pervasive
uniformity in teaching fails many learners, there is reason in
both
theory and research to support a
movement towards an instruction attentive to students’
variance
manifested in at least three areas:
the student’s readiness, interest, and learning profile. One of
the
ongoing challenges the university
teachers are facing is related to matching the teaching strategies
with
the students’ learning styles in
order to improve the academic achievement. Starting from this
issue, at
least two essential questions are
asking for an answer: Could it be that matching the teaching
strategies
with the students’ learning styles
enhances their academic achievement? If the answer is affirmative,
how can we identify the most appropriate teaching strategies for
each learning style?
In order to answer the first
question, a considerable amount of research has confirmed that
congruence
between teaching strategies and
learning styles has have a positive impact on the academic
achievement (Arthurs, 2007; Beck, 2001; Felder &
Brent, 2005; Ford & Chen, 2001; Rogers, 2009;
Shaugnessy,1998), motivation (Bell, 2007; Tulbure, 2010; Zhang,
2006) and attitudes toward learning (Beck, 2001;Felder, 1993;
Marshall, 1991). Despite this evidence, we have to take into
account other studies showing that disagreement between teaching
strategies and preferred learning style would have some beneficial
effects on learning outcomes (Baker & Cooke, 1988;
Kowoser & Berman, 1996). However, another set of
studies revealed that the matches between students’ learning styles
and instructional strategies did not affect the students’ learning
performance (Akdemir & Koszalka, 2008; Massa
& Mayer, 2006).Considering the variety of the
existent data, we could only say that this issue is controversial.
Therefore, our first question is still open and needs further
investigation. The task concerning the development of a universal
recipe for all categories of learners is daunting and contrary to
the underlying assumption of
individualizing the learning
environment. Consequently, in this study, we propose a specific
investigation
for pre-service teachers enrolled
within two fields of study: Educational Sciences and Economic
Sciences.
In an attempt to answer the second
question, we have found, in the specialty literature,
some
recommendations regarding the most
appropriate teaching strategies corresponding to each learning
style(Anderson, 2007; Arthurs, 2007; Nilson, 2010; Tomlinson,
1999). For example, Nilson (2010) makes some relevant suggestions
to adapting the teaching strategies to the four learning styles
described by Kolb (2005): assimilator, converger, diverger and
accommodator. Beyond these suggestions regarding the most effective
teaching strategies appropriate to each learning styles, we
consider that by comparing the group of pre-service teachers
attending the Educational Sciences with the group of those
attending the department of Economic Sciences, we can investigate
the possible differences between the teaching strategies that best
suit students having the same learning styles.
2. The objective and the research
hypothesis[/B]
The main objective of this study is
to compare pre-service teachers having two different majors
(i.e.,
Educational Sciences and Economic
Sciences) in order to identify their learning style preferences,
the
most effective teaching strategies
for each learning style, and the differences concerning their
academic
achievement. In other words, our
study investigates the possible differences between the
academic
achievements obtained by the two
groups of students, when instructed with various teaching
strategies.
We hypothesize that the same teaching
strategies will lead to different academic achievement across the
students belonging to the two groups who have the same learning
style.
3. The Method[/B]
3.1. The Procedure[/I]
The learning style of each
participant was identified using a self-report questionnaire. Along
one
semester, two lecturers implemented
five categories of teaching strategies: the graphical organization
of
information, the cooperative learning, the investigation, the
debate and the problem solving. Each strategy was implemented
during about four hours within the same course (i.e., Basis of
Pedagogy). At the end of each four-hour interval, the students’
academic achievement was evaluated through a summative assessment
test.
3.2. The Participants[/I]
A total of 182 pre-service teachers
from two faculties of a Romanian University participated in
the
study. There were 85 Educational
Sciences pre-service teachers (47%) and 97 Economic Sciences
preservice teachers (53%). The age range for the whole sample was
18-51 (M[/I]=20.60; SD=5.37). The
participants’ selection was based on
willingness to take part in the study. Two lecturers from
the
Educational Sciences Department were
also involved in the study.
3.3. The Measures[/I]
Kolb’s self-report Learning Style
Inventory (adapted by Lussier, 1990) was used in order to
establish
the students’ preferred learning
styles. The students were divided into four categories:
assimilators;
convergers; divergers; accommodators
(as proposed by Kolb, 2005). The academic achievement scores of the
students are represented by the grades obtained on the five
summative assessment tests, which were applied after a certain
category of teaching strategies was implemented. The official
grading system at the Romanian universities is that of using scores
ranging from 1 (the lowest) to 10 (the highest).
4. The Results[/B]
4.1. The students’ learning
styles[/I]
According to our results, 31% of the
Educational Sciences pre-service teachers were classified
as
assimilator learners (N=26) and 28%
as diverger learners (N=24). Approximately 23% of them
were
mainly convergers (N=20), while only
18% were classified as accommodator learners (N=15). As for
the
students attending Economics, 36% of
them were identified as convergers (N=36), 25% as
assimilators
(N=24), 20% as divergers (N=19) and
only 19% as accommodators (N=18).
4.2. Between group
comparisons[/I]
Descriptive statistics of the
academic achievement scores obtained after each teaching strategy
was
implemented in the instructional
process are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Means and standard deviation
of academic achievement scores
We hypothesized that the same
teaching strategies will lead to different academic achievement
among
students with different majors having
the same learning style. We performed an independent samples
t Crist[/I]C[/I]in[/I].[/I] a[/I]T u[/I]T[/I]l[/I]u[/I]b[/I]l[/I]u[/I]b[/I]r[/I]u[/I]e[/I]r e[/I]/[/I] /[/I]P[/I] P[/I]ro[/I]ro[/I]c[/I]c[/I]e[/I]e[/I]d[/I]d[/I]ia[/I]ia[/I] -[/I] -[/I]S[/I] S[/I]o[/I]o[/I]c[/I]c[/I]ia[/I]ia[/I]l[/I] l[/I]a[/I] a[/I]n[/I]n[/I]d[/I]d[/I] B[/I] B[/I]e[/I]e[/I]h[/I]h[/I]a[/I]a[/I]v[/I]v[/I]io[/I]io[/I]ra[/I]ra[/I]l[/I] l[/I]S[/I] S[/I]c[/I]c[/I]ie[/I]ie[/I]n[/I]n[/I]c[/I]c[/I]e[/I]e[/I]s[/I] s[/I]0[/I] 3[/I]0[/I]3[/I] ( 2[/I](2[/I]0[/I]0[/I]1[/I]1[/I]1[/I]2[/I])[/I] )[/I]0[/I] 3[/I]0[/I]9[/I]0[/I]8[/I]– 0[/I]–[/I]0[/I] 4[/I]0[/I]0 2[/I] 401 test analysis in order to determine
the differences between the groups. The students’ achievement
scores obtained after applying the five
teaching strategies were treated as dependent variables.
Table 2. Comparisons between the
academic achievements of students with Educational Sciences major
and Economic Sciences
As shown in Table 2, some
statistically significant mean differences between the achievement
scores
obtained by three categories of
learners (convergers, divergers and accommodators) were found.
More
precisely, a highly significant
difference emerged after the Cooperative learning strategy
was
implemented. The fact seems to
suggest that the cooperative learning represents an effective
strategy for Educational Sciences convergers (t=3.17;
p
divergers (t=-5.60;
p
seems more appropriate for the
Educational Sciences accommodators than for the
Economics
accommodators (t=3.11;
p
Considering the fact that no
significant mean differences between the two groups of assimilators
were
found, we can admit that our
hypothesis was only partially confirmed.
5. Discussion and
conclusion[/B]
The aim of this research was to
compare two groups of pre-service teachers belonging to
different
fields of study in order to match the
most effective teaching strategies with the students’ learning
styles
within each faculty profile. Our
assumption was that when comparing the students in
Educational
Sciences with the students attending
Economics, certain teaching strategies will lead to some
different
academic achievement for students
having a similar learning style. Although our hypothesis was
only
partially confirmed, the results are
partially supported by the literature. More precisely, we have
found
that both Educational Sciences and
Economics assimilators[/I] performed academically better when
they
were instructed based on a teaching
strategy that involves the Graphical organization of
information[/I].
These results are in line with a
previous study showing that assimilators respond better to the
information presented in an organized, logical fashion (Felder
& Brent, 2005). In our study, Educational Sciences
students with a predominant converger[/I] learning style seem to achieve higher
results than the students in Economics when Cooperative learning[/I]
strategy is used. Our results are not
in line with the general characterization of convergers who are
often seen as asocial and unemotional, preferring to work with
things rather than people (Nilson, 2010). We believe that this is
the point where differences consequent to various areas of study
occur, because, as our results demonstrated, Cooperative learning[/I]
is effective for the
diverger[/I] learners of Economics. These results
are only partially sustained by the literature in the field, as
according to previous studies, divergers[/I] respond best to group projects and
all types of discussion, but they tend to move towards Service
fields, Arts, and Social Sciences (Nilson, 2010). The Educational
Sciences accommodators[/I] achieved the best scores when working
with a Problem solving[/I]
based strategy, but their Economic
major colleagues performed better when the Investigation[/I] strategy was used. Taking
into account the results got by the
students in Educational Sciences, our study seems to be in line
with that of other researchers who concluded that accommodators
like to apply the course material to new situations in order to
solve real problems (Felder & Brent,
2005).
Overall, our results sustain the idea
that matching teaching strategies with learning style
preferences
remains a controversial research
issue. Further study should be applied on greater numbers of
students
coming from various profiles in order
to find out the consistent differences among these categories
of
students. The results of such studies
might be useful for both university researchers and teachers who
aim at revaluating the learning differences in order to improve the
students’ academic achievement.
Acknowledgements[/B]
This work was supported by the
strategic grant POSDRU/89/1.5/S/62259, the project entitled
“Applied
Social, Human and Political Sciences.
Postdoctoral training and postdoctoral fellowships in
Social,
Human and Political Sciences”,
co-financed by the European Social Fund within the
Sectorial
Operational Program Human Resources
Development 2007-2013.
References[/B]
Akdemir, O., &
Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Investigating the relationships among
instructional strategies and learning styles in online
environments. Computers and
Education[/I], 50, 1451-1461.
Anderson, K. M. (2007). Diffeentiated
instruction to include all students. Preventing School
Failure[/I], 51 (3), 49-54.
Arthurs, J. B. (2007). A juggling act
in the classroom: Managing different learning styles.
Teaching and Learning in
Nursing,[/I] 2, 2-7.
Baker, J.D., & Cooke,
J.E. (1988). Beyond career choice: the role of learning style
analysis in residency training. Medical[/I]
Education[/I], 22 (6), 527-532.
Beck, C. R. (2001). Matching teaching
strategies to learning style preferences. The Teacher Educator,[/I]
37 (1), 1-15.
Bell, J. (2007). Evaluation of learing
styles and instructional methods in the NROTC naval operations and
seamanship course.
Institute for Learning Style
Journal[/I], 1, 52-61.
Felder, R.M. (1993). Reaching the
second tier-learning and teaching styles in college science
education. Journal of College
Student[/I],
34, 286-290.
Felder, R. M., &
Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences.
Journal of Engineering
Education,[/I] 94 (1), 57-72.
Ford, N., & Chen, S.
Y. (2001). Matching/ mismatching revisited: an empirical study of
learning and teaching styles. British Journal[/I]
of Educational
Technology[/I], 32 (1), 5-22.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb,
D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing
experiential learning in higher education.
Academy[/I] of Management[/I]
Learning &
Education,[/I] 4 (2), 193-212.
Kowoser, E., &
Berman, N. (1996). Comparison of pediatric resident and faculty
learning styles: implications for medical
education. American Journal of Medical
Science,[/I] 312 (5), 214-218.
Lussier, R. N., (1990).
Human relations in organizations. A
skill-building approach.[/I] Homewood, Boston: IRWIN.
Marshall, C. (1991). Teachers’
learning style: How they affect student learning.
The Clearing House,[/I]
64, 225-227.
Massa, L.J., & Mayer, R.E.
(2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction
accommodate verbalizer-visualizer
cognitive style?
Learning and Individual
Differences,[/I] 16,[/I] 321-336.
Nilson, L. B. (2010).
Teaching at its best. A
research-based resource for college instructors[/I]
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-
Bass.
Rogers, K. M. A. (2009). A
preliminary investigation and analysis of student learning style
preferences in further and higher
education. Journal of Further and Higher
Education[/I], 33 (1), 13-21.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1998). An
interview with Rita Dunn about learning styles.
The Clearing House,[/I]
71 (3), 141-145.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999).
The differentiated classrooom:
Responding to the needs of all learners.[/I] Alexandria, VA. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1999.
Tomlinson, C. (2001).
How to differentiate instruction in
mixedability classrooms[/I] (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association
for
Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tulbure, C. (2010).
Determinan[/I]Ġ[/I]i psihopedagogici ai
reu[/I]ú[/I]itei academice (Psychological and
educational predictors of academic[/I]
achievement).[/I] Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitara
Clujeana.
Zhang, L. F. (2006). Does
student-teacher thinking style match/mismatch matter in students’
achievement? Educational
Psychology,[/I]
26 (3), 395-409.
翻译：
跨学科调查
在高校中学习风格，教学策略和学业成就之间的关系
摘要：
本研究旨在通过对两组职前教师（教育学专业和经济学专业）进行比较，来确定其学习风格，对不同学习风格，最有效教学策略在学业成绩上存在它们差异（N = 182）。通过分析调查问卷收集的数据，设定一个中间变量。这两类学生的显著性差异与有效教学策略和相对于的学习风格分类相关。
1、简介
有效教学需要灵活性，创造性和责任以提供能够应对学生的个体的教学环境。正如Tomlinson
(2001)
所说，除了经验的证据表明教学的普遍一致性导致许多学生失败，在理论和研究上有理由赞同教学应该关注学生的个体差异性至少体现在三个方面：学生的意愿、兴趣和学习概要。现在高校教师正面临的挑战之一是为提高学生学业成就，教师的教学策略与学生的学习风格相符合。就这点而言至少有两个必不可少的问题1、当教师的教学策略与学生的学习风格相匹配是学生的学习成绩能否提高？如果回答是，对不同的学习风格来说，我们怎么判断那种教学策略最适合。
为了回答第一个问题，通过大量调查已经证实了学习风格和教学策略相适应对学生的学业成就学习动机和学习态度都有积极的影响。尽管有这些证据，然而我们仍然不得不考虑其他其他研究所表现的差异：教学策略和相适应的学习风格会对学习结果产生其他有益的影响。然而另外一系列研究表明教学策略和学习风格之间的相匹配不会影响学生的学业成就。考虑到现有的不同数据，现在这个话题还具有争议。我们的第一个问题仍需要进一步的调查。这个涉及一般的各类不同的学习者发展策略问题是那个令人头疼的并且反对可能存在的有个性化学习环境的假设。因此，在本研究中针对职前教师所涉及的教育学和经济学两个领域的研究提出了专门的调查方法。
试图对第二个问题的回答，在专业文献上我们发现了一些注释关于对每种学习风格都有相适应的最合适的教学策略。例如nilson
提出相关建议对于kolb所提出的对于四种学习风格相对应的教学策略：发散思维型，聚合思维性，吸收型，和适应型。除了这些对于每种学习风格及其相应的教学策略的建议外，我们考虑通过比较两组职前教师，能够找出在相同的学习风格上不同教学策略上某些可能存在的差异。
2、研究目的和假设
本研究的主要目的是通过比较两组不同专业的职前教师确定她们的学习风格，及每种学习风格最相适应的教学策略，并且她们学业成就上存在的差异。也就是说本研究是想探究在采用不同教学策略进行教学的两组学生在学业成就之间可能存在的差异。我们假定在两组学生中拥有相同的学习风格，采用相同的教学策略也会导致不同的学业成就。
3、研究方法
3.1研究过程
通过采用自我报告的问卷调查来确定每位参与者的学习风格。在一个学期内，两个讲师采用五种不同的教学策略：图形化的组织的信息,合作学习、探究、小组讨论和解决问题。在最后间隔的四小时中，通过总结性评价来评价学生的学业成就。
3.2实验者
来自罗马尼亚大学两个学院的182名职前教师参与本研究。其中85名是教育学的职前教师占47%，97名经济学职前教师占5%。整个样本的年龄范围在18—51之间。样本的选择是在自愿参与的基础之上的。两名来自教育学院的教师也参与本研究。
3.3研究实施
采用Kolb’s的自我测量的学习风格量表建立学生的学习风格。这些学生被分为4类：发散思维型（Diverger），聚合思维性（Converger），吸收型（Assimilator），和适应型（accommodators）。通过5次总结性评价测试的分数作为学生学业成就的分数，这些分数是通过应用特定的教学策略得到的。罗马尼亚大学的评分系统是使用分数的从1(最低)到10(最高)。
4研究结果
4.1学生的学习风格
根据研究结果，31%（26）的教育学职前教师是吸收型，28%（24）是发散型，大约23%是聚合型，仅仅只有18%（15）是适应型。而经济学的职前教师36%（36）是聚合型25%（24）是吸收型，20%（19）是发散型，19%（18）是适应型.
4.2两组之间对照
采用不同教学不同教学策略进行教学所获得学校成绩分数是描述行统计数据如表一所示。
我们假定相同教学策略运用在不同专业，相同学习风格的学生上会有不同的学业成就。我们对样本进行单独测量分析已确定群组的差异。在应用5中不同教学策略后所得到的学生的学业成就分数是作为因变量。
正如表2所示，数据表明在3类学习者（聚合型，发散型和适应型）中在学业成就上存在差异。确切的说在应用协助教学策略后出现显著差异。研究结果现实协作教学策略似乎更适合教育学专业的聚合型学生和经济学的发散型学生。另外一个重要的结果表明相对于经济学适应型学生，问题解决策略更适合教育学适应行学生。在实施探究教学策略后，经济学适应型学生的分数明显高于教育学学生。考虑到两组吸收型学习者间没有显著性差异，我们的假设是正确的。
5结论
本研究通过比较两组不同研究领域的职前教师来确定最适合学生学习风格的教学策略。比较教育学专业的学生和经济学专业的学生，假设特定的教学策略对相同的学校风格的学生的学业成绩会有差异。尽管我们的假设只有部分被证明。文献也证实了结果。更确切的说，我们发现当运用结构化信息组织教学策略，教育学和经济学的同化型学生表现的更好。这些结果与之前研究一致共同表明：当信息有组织有逻辑的呈现出来是同化这的反映更好。在本研究中主要表现聚合型学习风格的学生在应用协作学习策略时比经济学的学生表现更好。与本研究结果不一致的是一般非情绪化的聚合型学习者，她们更喜欢工作的事情而不是人。我们认为研究区域不同也会造成结果差异，正如我们所说的，协作学习适合经济学的发散学习者。这些结果是只适用于部分文学领域，根据以往的研究，发散型学习者最适合项目组和所有类型的讨论，但他们往往走向服务领域，艺术，社会科学。教育学同化型学习者最适合的问题解决策略。但是经济学学生在运用探究型教学策略时成绩最好。考虑到教育学专业学生的结果，本研究以其他研究者一致认为同化型学习者更喜欢将课程应用到解决实际问题。
总而言之，本研究认为教学策略与学习风格是否有必要匹配仍需要继续研究。需要不同学习风格的大量学生中进行进一步研究，以找出她们之间存在的一致性差异。本研究适用于那些高校研究人员和教师在评估学生的差异性来提高学生成绩。
致谢
本研究受到社会应用人权和政治学项目的支持及该项目下的博士后培训和博士后奖学金同时受到欧洲社会基金人力资源开发。
|
