Good Teacher or Bad Teacher? Do styles Matter?

Author(s):

Wen-Hui Lu(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Poster

Session Information

22 SES 05 C PS, Interactive Poster Session

Interactive Poster Session

Time:

2015-09-09

11:00-12:30

Room:

338. [Main]

Chair:

Christine Teelken

Contribution

The purpose of this study was to explore how the fit between the students’ learning styles and teaching styles could differentiate "good" teacher from the "bad" teacher. It has been popular to apply inventories of students' evaluations of teaching (SET) as one of the evidences of the qualities of teaching at universities across the world (Pike, 1998; Shirk & Miller, 1994) . As the increasing importance of SET, it has been queried if the results of SET reflect teaching qualities and has been concerned if there are any other factors that could have effects on the results of SET. Factors have been contented to have effects on SET include grading leniencies (Badri, et. al., 2006; Ellis, Burke, Lomire, & McCormack, 2003; Griffin, 2004), gender (of me2006; Potvin, Hazari, Tai, & Sadler, 2009; Richards, Taylor, and Ramasamy, 1997; Smith, 2009), and class size (Pike, 1998). However, these factors could explain for only 10% to 20% of the variances of SET (Lu & Wu, 2008), and teaching qualities could explain for very limited amount of variances of SET (Lu, 2012).

In this study, the researcher contended that the fit between learning styles and teaching styles could have effects on the results of SET. Learning styles refers to how students prefer perceiving and processing information during leariing (Grimley & Banner, 2008). It has been shown that learning styles could explain for the students' achievements in different disciplines (Dunn, 1980；Dunn & Griggs, 1995；Felder, 1996; Graf, Lin, & Kinshuk, 2008；Hlawaty, 2008；Lin & Graf, 2009；Lu & Lin, 2010; Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1995; Peterson, Rayner, & Armstrong, 2009).

Teaching styles refer to how an instructor presents the lecture. Teachers of different discipline could have different teaching styles (Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1995). Felder and Silverman (1988) contended that teachers should teach according to students' learning style to improve the learning. As a result, if the teaching styles fit the learning styles of students, the students could feel more comfortable in the class, and rank the instructor as a good teacher. In the contrast, if the teaching styles do not fit the learning styles, the students are more likely to rank the instructor as a "bad" teacher.

In this study, the researcher want to explore the differences between those college instructors who were ranked as the best in SET and those who were ranked as the lowest in SET in terms of teaching styles.

Method

1. Subjects A total of 556 college students participated in this study. All of them were invited by emails and filled out 3 questionnaires online. Among them, 427 finished the Index of Learning Styles, 450 finish the Inventory of Teaching Styles of the Lowest-SET Teachers, and 387 finished the Inventory of Teaching Styles of the Best-SET Teachers. 281 finished both of the inventories of teaching styles, and 234 finished all of the three inventories. 2. Measures Index of Learning Styles (ILS, Felder & Soloman, 2004) was revised to measure the learning styles of students. The ILS has been translated into Chinese version, and students have to choose their tendencies in the two dimension of 5-point Likert Scale. There are 44items to measure the four dimensions of learning styles measured by ILS, namely sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, active-reflective, and sequential-global. Inventory of Teaching Styles of the Lowest-SET Teachers was designed by the researcher based on the dimensions of ILS. There were a total of 20 items to measure the four dimensions, and the items were adopted as how the instructors teach during the semester. Students were instructed to rank how often the instructor the ranked lowest during latest semester taught in the ways as described. The Inventory of Teaching Styles of the Best-SET Teachers was the same as the Inventory of Teaching Styles of the Lowest-SET Teachers, except that students were instructed to rank the instructors they gave highest ranking in SET in the latest semester. 3. Procedures All of the students have to fill out the inventories online. Due to the limitation of the website, students filled out the three inventories separately. To encourage students finish all of the inventories, the researcher provided 20 gifts for those who finish all of the inventory.

Expected Outcomes

1. The results showed that, in average, the participants were apt to be sensing in the sensing-intuitive dimension, and visual in the visual-verbal dimension. The inclinations in the other two dimensions were not so significant. 2. The teaching styles of the best teachers were more likely to be active (in active-reflective dimension) and sensing (in sensing-intuitive dimension) than the lowest teacher. Although the best teachers were ranked higher be present their lecture with more visual information than the lowest teacher, students ranked both kinds of teachers to be more verbal than visual. 3. The differences between the learning styles of students and teaching styles of instructors served as the index of the fit between the learning styles and teaching styles (FLT). Results of dependent t-test showed that the FLT of the best teachers were significantly better than the lowest teachers in the sensing-intuitive and visual-verbal dimension. 4. Practical and theoretical suggestions were provided based on the results.

References

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681. Felder, R.M. (1996). Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23. Graf, S., Lin, T., & Kinshuk (2008). The relationship between learning styles and cognitive traits – Getting additional information for improving student modelling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 122-137. Herrmann, N. (1981). The Creative Brain. Training & Development Journal, 35(10), 11-16. Lumsdaine, M. and Lumsdaine, E. (1995). Thinking Preferences of Engineering Students: Implications for Curriculum Restructuring. Journal of Engineering Education, 84 (2), 193-204. Kinshuk , Liu, T.-Z. & Graf, S. (2009). Coping with mismatched courses: students’ behaviour and performance in courses mismatched to their learning styles. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(6), 739-752 Raupers, M. (1999). Effects of accommodating perceptual learning style preferences on long-term retention and attitudes toward technology of elementary and secondary teachers in professional development training. Dissertation Abstracts International,59(11),4031A.(University Microfilms NO. AAT99-4066). Nicoll-Senft, J. M., &Seider, S. N. (2009). Assessing the Impact of the 4MAT Teaching Model Across Multiple Disciplines in Higher Education. College Teaching, 58(1), 19-27.

Author Information

Wen-Hui Lu (presenting / submitting)

Providence University

Graduate Institute of Education

Shaloo

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.