the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ individual teaching/learning styles

This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde]On: 07 October 2014, At: 01:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Further andHigher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

The Relationship BetweenTeachers’ and Learners’Individual Teaching/Learning StylesTony Dixon a & Marian Woolhouse ba Oaklands Collegeb University of HertfordshirePublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Tony Dixon & Marian Woolhouse (1996) The RelationshipBetween Teachers’ and Learners’ Individual Teaching/Learning Styles, Journalof Further and Higher Education, 20:3, 15-22, DOI: 10.1080/0309877960200302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877960200302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0309877960200302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877960200302

should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Relationship Between Teachers'and Learners' IndividualTeaching/Learning Styles

Tony DixonOaklands CollegeMarian WoolhouseUniversity of Hertfordshire

AbstractThis article reports qualitative research which sought to contribute to the under-standing of the importance of individual learning preferences, which is importantin the light of the current shift in emphasis from teacher centred to learner centredlearning in further and higher education. Analysis was made of the preferredteaching and learning styles of two sub groups — engineering and humanities. Theresearch seeks to ascertain whether there is a relationship between the preferredteaching styles of teachers and the preferred learning styles of their learners.Teachers and learners completed Teaching Style Questionnaires (TSQ) andLearning Style Questionnaires (LSQ) which were analysed using four preferences— Honey and Mumford's (1986) activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist. Therelationship between the teachers' and learners' preferred styles was shown to bevariable. The engineering sub group demonstrate the same level of preference inthe reflector and pragmatist categories, but differences in the other two. Thehumanities teachers and learners had minor differences in preference in all fourcategories.

IntroductionMany teachers employed in post compulsory education are currently confronted

with demands for learner centred teaching strategies coupled with increasedflexibility in their teaching methodology. These same teachers are now alsoexpected to provide assistance in the development of individual competencewithin National and General National Vocational Qualification (NVQ and GNVQ)programmes which indicated a resolute trend to focus upon learning rather thanteaching. To emphasise this trend the Further Education Unit (FEU) remindsteachers that 'learning is the "business" of further education.' (Francis et al, 1990,

pl)Some of these teachers, even the most experienced and skilled, may be

justifiably speculating about the extent to which their traditional skills andexperience can contribute to these educational shifts in emphasis. This paper

JFHE 20 (3), AUTUMN 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

16 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS' AND LEARNERS

reports qualitative research which sought to positively contribute to the currentmovement in emphasis from teaching to learning, by examining the relationshipbetween the teaching styles of teachers and the learning styles of their learners.

Teaching and Learning DefinitionsThe terms learning and teaching have many meanings, interpretations and

definitions. Concerning learning and the current curricula initiatives in the postcompulsory sector of education, the FEU state that:

'A range of different perspectives on its purpose [learning] may develop withmuch in common and, perhaps, considerable differences. It would beoptimistic to suppose that the commonality of purpose included a sharedunderstanding of learning' (Francis et al, 1990, pl4)

We considered it important to work from explicit definitions of learning andteaching and for this study used Curzon's (1985) definition which says that leaningis:

'the apparant modification of a person's behaviours through his (sic) activitiesand experiences, so that his knowledge skills and attitudes, including modesof adjustment, towards his environment are changed, more or lesspermanently' (Curzon, 1985, pl4)

By extension, teaching is considered as 'a system of activities intended to inducelearning, comprising the deliberate and systematic creation and control of thoseconditions in which learning does occur' (Curzon, 1985, pl4)

As a consequence of hereditary, individual life experiences and present dayenvironmental demands, the majority of individuals evolve learning styles thatemphasise some learning aptitudes over others. The socialisation experiences offamily, school and work enable individuals to develop characteristic strategies toresolve the conflicts between whether to take action or merely reflect upon thesituation and between immediate experience and detached analysis. Someindividuals develop cognitive styles that excel at assimilating disparate facts intocoherent theories, yet these same individuals may be incapable of, or uninterestedin, deducing hypotheses from those theories. Others may be logical geniuses butfind it impossible to involve themselves in active experience, and so on. Everyindividual develops a unique learning style which is made up of capable and lesscapable elements.

The majority of curricula initiatives have certain underlying principles incommon. The content and methodology of former educational programmes foradolescents and young adults is now being called into question. The NationalCouncil for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) and validating bodies such as theBusiness and Technician Education Council (BTEC) and City and Guilds ofLondon Institute (CGI) are now basing their programmes upon a diagnosis of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

TONY DIXON & MARIAN WOOLHOUSE 17

needs of learners, employers and society. There is an increasing awareness that theactive participation of learners in their learning experience is important and thatthe design of learning programmes need to recognise that learning is an individualexperience.

What teachers think is happening in the learning situation, may not be what isactually happening from the learner's perspective. This situation may result in theteaching methodology interacting detrimentally with the individual learningpreferences of the learner, thus leading to impairments in learning outcome. TheFEU reminds us that:

'there is therefore a greater need than ever to ensure that the individuallearner's needs are central to the learning process. In order to achieve that,teachers must be able to see themselves as learners in the classroom orworkshop alongside their students.' (Francis et al, 1990, p2)

To develop this idea further

'Different individuals need different types of learning activities. In mostcollege courses there is a single teacher and a single set of instructionalmaterial. Not all individuals learn effectively by the same method or type ofactivity. Different individuals need different types of learning activities. Forall students to use identical methods no matter what their ability or personalityis a questionable procedure' (Diamond, 1977, pl7)

In the post compulsory sector there is a move away from the single teacher for anentire course, but Diamond's assertion serves to highlight an area of concernwhich this research tried to address.

Learning Styles — An OverviewLearning styles can also be defined, identified and classified in a number of

different ways. Child (1981) says that the concept of learning style in education isimportant because it incorporates all those human attributes which help todetermine and characterise a person's preferred approach to problem solving. Thusstyle has to do with personality and motivation, as well as thinking strategies usedfor facing and solving problems. Child misquotes the aphorism, 'it's not only whatyou do, but the way that you do it.'(Child, 1981, p262)

We have adapted several definitions and for the purpose of this study, learningstyle will be considered as:

A mode or series of behaviours and attitudes that are combined together toform a characteristic model and manner that serves to facilitate and enablelearning to take place for a person in a given situation.

By extension, teaching style is considered as:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


A system of conscious or unconscious characteristic behaviours, attitudes andactivities provided by the teacher with the intention to induce learning, by thedeliberate and systematic creation and control of those conditions in whichlearning can occur.

A keystone in the theoretical foundations of any discussion on learning andteaching styles is the acceptance that there is no single correct way to learn or toteach. Individual styles influence how an individual learns, how individualteachers teach and how the two interact with each other.

It is commonly accepted by psychologists that individuals use a diversity ofways in which to derive meaning from the world around them. For example, someindividuals may prefer to learn by listening, others learn best by using observation,others still like to learn by reading. Systematic methods are adopted by somelearners, while others tend to approach a learning situation from a more globalview point.

Over the last 20 years research [for example Witkin et al (1977), Kolb (1984),Pask (1976) and Shipstone (1991)] concerning learning styles suggests thepossibility that the way teachers present information determines whether effectivelearning takes place. However, previous research does not appear to haveexamined the relationships between an individual teacher's learning and teachingstyle, nor the relationships between teachers' preferred teaching style and theirlearners' preferred learning styles. This research explores these relationships.

The work of Honey and Mumford (1986) is a valuable and practical distillationof much of the existing research into learning styles. They ask why, with commonfactors such as identical learning experience, full participation and commitment,the same counselling and tutorial help, one learner will report the learningexperience as very useful, and demonstrate by their subsequent actions that theyhave indeed learned from it; yet another will say that the learning experience wasnot useful and gives little or no subsequent evidence that they have learned fromit? Why, with other factors apparently common, one person learns and anotherdoes not? Honey and Mumford's answer to this question, and the reason for thedivergence, lies in the differing reaction of the individuals, explicable by theirdifferent needs for the way in which learning is offered. Honey and Mumforddescribe these requirements in terms of 'learning styles'.

Honey and Mumford maintain that, even if the learning environment isencouraging, it is obvious that effective learning will only take place if learningneeds have been properly identified and measures taken to ensure that theexperience is meaningful to the individual learner. They also emphasise thatlearning is a process which is best based on the provision of consequences that arerewarding, i.e. the process of stimulus, response, feedback, reward andreinforcement.

Honey and Mumford identify the work of Kolb's (1984) four main styles of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


learner — Converger, Diverger, Assimilator and Accommodator, and his LearningStyle Inventory (LSI) which can be used to establish an individual's relativeemphasis on each of the four learning styles, as being important to their own work.They state that:

"it is, however, desirable that we identify the theoretical background which isparticularly crucial to learning styles, and to acknowledge our debt to Kolb,whose theory of learning and identification of learning styles was the originof successively our interest, our dissatisfaction and our developed work.'(Honey & Mumford, 1986, p3)

Many teachers in post-compulsory education and training would agree with thisand consider that any mismatch between the teaching style adopted by the teacherand the learning style of the learner could have a detrimental effect on thoselearners who experience the mismatch.

Research MethodologyThe research reported here is the preliminary stage which sought to establish

whether there was a relationship between the teachers' teaching and thelearners'preferred learning styles. The participants in this research were theteachers and learners in an engineering department of a Further Education collegeand the teachers and learners on one part of a modular humanities degree in aUniversity.

Two self completed questionnaires were used — the revised (1986) Honey andMumford Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) was completed by 74 engineeringstudents and 26 humanities students. A specially developed Teaching StylesQuestionnaire (TSQ) was completed by 17 engineering teachers and 4 humanitiesteachers. Although this sample small the teachers represent 100% of the teacherson the courses) and the students represent in each subject approximately 75% ofall eligible students. Each questionnaire contained 80 questions designed todiscover general trends or tendencies running through an individual's behaviourand does not place any undue significance on any of the individual items — thishelps to eliminate extraneous variables such as an individual respondent'semotional disposition or "mood' at the time of questionnaire completion.Individuals totalled their scores on each of the four learning/teaching styles —activist, reflector, theorist and pragmatist.

This enabled respondents to gain some insight into their preferredlearning/teaching styles thus making the exercise useful to them as individuals.The scores were subjected to the SPSS//PC+ Multivariant Analysis of Variance todiscover if there was a correlation between these learners' preferred styles and theteaching styles they experienced. This was used to give the level of preference inthe four learning/teaching style areas in relation to the general norms suggested by


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

20 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS* AND LEARNERS

Honey and Mumford for learning styles, based on the 'scores obtained by wellover a thousand people.' (Honey & Mumford, 1986, p3) The preferences rangefrom very high, through high, moderate, low to very low. As the teaching stylequestionnaire was specially designed for this research there are no publishednorms. Therefore the norms for learning styles were adapted for use with theteaching style questionnaire analysis.

Research FindingsThe relationship that the various methods and techniques of teaching have to

learning style is very intricate and involved. One of the main complexities is thatthe preferred learning style of the teacher may influence his/her choice of teachingmethods and techniques. In this sample there was only a small disparity betweenthe teachers' preferred learning styles and their teaching style preference,especially among the engineering teachers where the level of preference is thesame for activist and pragmatist. (See table 1)

Table 1 — Preferred learning and teaching styles of sample teachers

Learning/teaching style

Activist

Reflector

Theorist

Pragmatist

SampleTeachers'

learning stylepreference

(Engineering)

Low

High

Moderate

Low

SampleTeachers'

teaching stylepreference

(Engineering)

Low

Moderate

High

Low

SampleTeachers'


(Humanities)

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Sample'Teachers'


(Humanities)

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

However, as the main concern of this research was to improve understanding ofthe relationship between teaching and learning, it was important to discover ifthere was a correlation between the preferred learning styles of the students andthe style of teaching they were experiencing.

When comparing the preferred learning styles of students with the preferredteaching styles of their teachers, we found that there was a greater disparity for theengineering group, while for the humanities group there was only a small disparity.(See table 2) For the engineers this disparity is most apparent in the activistcategory where students have a high preference while their teachers have a lowpreference, and in the theorist category where students have a low preferencewhile their teachers have a high preference.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Table 2 — Preferred learning style of learners and preferred teaching style ofteachers

Learning/teaching style

Activist

Reflector

Theorist

Pragmatist

SampleLearners'


(Engineering)

High

Moderate

Low

Low

SampleTeachers'


(Engineering)

Low

Moderate

High

Low

SampleLearners'


(Humanities)

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Low

Sample'Teachers'


(Humanities)

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

ConclusionsThis research demonstrated that there is some relationship between the preferred

learning and teaching styles of the teachers. This suggests that teachers, who havepresumably been successful learners, use their own learning styles as a basis fortheir teaching strategies. Many current developments in education emphasise theactive participation of students in the learning process. The activist/ theorist datafrom the engineering sub-group suggests that these students favour active methodsof learning while their teachers still prefer the more theoretical approach. Howeverit is interesting to note that on the reflector and pragmatist categories there was acomplete match between the students and teachers.

The questionnaire used asked for teachers to volunteer information about theirpreferences, but we do not know whether they actually teach to these preferencesor if their teaching has been adapted to suit the new curricula demands. We hopethat by providing information and insight into the whole area of individuallearning/teaching styles, teachers who have to adapt to new delivery andassessment methods will be better able to cope with these new demands whichmay not feel "natural' to them.

With the humanities sub-group there was no complete match in any of thecategories, but neither was there a large disparity in any which suggests that in thissub-group no individual is likely to be disadvantaged by a disparity between theirown preferred learning style and their teachers' preferred teaching style. Thecurrent research did not seek to discover whether there was any correlationbetween the actual achievement of students and the match or disparity betweentheir and their teachers' preferences. This would be an interesting piece of followup research.

As outlined in the introduction there is a trend in many areas of educationtowards an emphasis on learning rather than teaching. Learners now have a much


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


greater responsibility for designing, planning and implementing their own learningexperiences. This results in a more pronounced need to understand their ownlearning strengths and weaknesses — an understanding of individual learningstyles can help not only the learners themselves, but also those who are facilitatingthat learning.

ReferencesChild D (1981) Psychology and the Teacher, London, Holt Rinehart & Winston Ltd.Curzon L B (1985) Teaching in Further Education: An Outline of Principles and Practice,

Guildford.Diamond L (1977) Relationships of Personality and Cognitive Ability to Innovation Diffusion

Process Paper presented at the College Reading Association, Cincinnati OhioFrancis H Clare M, Simpson E (1990) Individuality in Learning, London FEU.Honey P & Mumford A (1986) Using Your Learning, Styles, Maidenhead & Slough, PrintiqueKolb D (1984) Experiential Learning, New Jersey, Prentice Hall Inc.Pask G (1976) Styles and Strategies of Learning British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol

46, ppl28-148.Shipstone K (1991) Holists and Serialists as Teachers: The Search for Versitility NASD Journal

No 24, pp332.Witkin H A, Moore C A. Goodenough D R, Cox P W (1977) Field-Dependent and Field-

Independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications Review of EducationalResearch Vol 14, No 1 ppl-64.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 01:

13 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ individual teaching/learning styles

Documents