Match and Mismatch between Learning and Teaching Style in the Agricultural Education Process
محورهای موضوعی : Education and training
خوشقدم خالدی
1
(دانش آموخته دکتری، گروه ترویج وآموزش کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران)
محمد چیذری
2
(استاد گروه ترویج وآموزش کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران)
عنایت عباسی
3
(دانشیار گروه ترویج وآموزش کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران)
حسن صدیقی
4
(دانشیار گروه ترویج وآموزش کشاورزی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران)
کلید واژه: learning style, Teaching style, education, field-dependent, field-independent,
چکیده مقاله :
Teaching and learning processes in universities have not achieved expected outcomes. The mismatch between learning and teaching styles is a challenge in the education process. Instructors should strive to incorporate their teaching style with students’ learning styles in order to ensure effective teaching and learning process in higher education. The present descriptive-survey study aimed to explainthecompatibility of students’ learning styles using Witkin’s (1976) Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and teachers’ teaching style using van Tilburg and Hamilich’s (1990) test. The target population consisted of students and faculty members at the agricultural college at Razi University, Iran. Results revealed that the majority of males were field-independent and the majority of females were field-dependent learners. Concerning four teaching styles (expert, provider, facilitator and enabler), the instructors tended to use the enabler teaching style. Instructors should consider the characteristics and needs of both field-dependent and field-independent students and use different teaching methods. Recommendations about matching learning and teaching styles are provided based on the results.
فرایند تدریس و یادگیری در دانشگاه­ها، خروجی­های مود انتظار را به دست نمی­آورد. عدم تطابق بین سبک تدریس و یادگیری، یکی از چالش­های فرایند آموزش می­باشد. آموزشگران باید تلاش کنند تا سبک تدریس خود را با سبک یادگیری دانشجویان تلفیق نمایند تا از فرایند تدریس و یادگیری اثربخش، اطمینان حاصل کنند. هدف از این مطالعه توصیفی- پیمایشی این بود که تطابق بین سبک یادگیری دانشجویان با استفاده از آزمون گروهی بازیافت تصاویر پنهان (ویتکین، 1976) و سبک تدریس آموزشگران با استفاده از آزمون ون تیلبرگ هملیچ ( 1990) را مشخص نماید. گروه هدف این مطالعه شامل دانشجویان و اعضای هیئت علمی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه رازی، ایران بود. نتایج نشان داد که اکثریت دانشجویان مرد دارای سبک یادگیری مستقل از محیط و اکثریت دانشجویان زن دارای سبک یادگیری وابسته به محیط بودند. با توجه به چهار نوع سبک تدریس ( متخصص، آماده گر، تسهیل­گر و توانمندساز) اساتید به استفاده از سبک تدریس توانمندساز گرایش داشتند. اساتید باید ویژگی­ها و نیازهای هر دو گروه دانشجویان مستقل از محیط و وابسته به محیط را مورد ملاحظه قرار داده و از روش­های تدریس متفاوت استفاده کنند. در این راستا توصیه­هایی در مورد تطابق سبک تدریس و یادگیری بر اساس یافته­ها ارائه شده است.
Aissaoui, Q. Madani, Y., Oughdir, L., and Allioui, Y., (2019). Combining supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms to predict the learners learning styles. Computer Science, 148, 87-96.
Alkhasaweh, I. M., Mrayyan, M. T., Docherty, C, Alashram, S., & Yosef, H. (2008). Problem-based learning (PBL): Assessing students' learning preferences using VARK. Nurse Education Today, 28, 572-579.
Balasubramanian, V., Margret Anoncia, S., (2018). Learning style detection based on cognitive skills to support adaptive learning environment – a reinforcement approach. Engineering Journal, 9, 895-907.
Barkley, A. (1995). Learning style and student achievement. NACTA Journal, 51(4), 16-22.
Bota, O., & Tulbure, C., (2015). Aspects regarding the relationship between teaching style and school results. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 203, 285-290.
Cox. T. D. (2008). Learning styles and students attitudes toward the use of technology in higher and adult education classes. Institute for Learning Style Journal, 1, 1-13.
Davis, A. (2006). Learning styles and personality type preferences of community development extension educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 90-99.
Donggun, An & Martha Carr (2017). Learning style theory fails to explain learning and achievement: recommendations for alternative approaches. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410-416.
Franzoni, A. L., Assar, S. (2009). Student learning styles adaption method based on teaching strategies and electronic media. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 15-29.
Fruza, V., (2014). Implication of teaching styles on learning efficiency. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 342-346.
Heimlich, J. E. (1990). Measuring teaching style: A correlation study between the van Tilburg Heimlich Sensitivity Measure and the Myers- Briggs personality, Indicator of adult Education. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Katsioloudis, p. &. Fantz, T. (2012). A comparative analysis of preferred learning and teaching styles for engineering, industrial, and technology education students and faculty. Journal of Technology Education, 23 (2), 156-180.
Krejcie, Robert V., and Daryale W. Morgan (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Rae, D. & Carswell, M. (2000). Using a life-story approach in entrepreneurial learning, the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences. Education and Training, 42 (4/5), 220-227.
Saeed Khurshid, Zainab (2015). The charismatic blend of learning & teaching styles in the cross –cultural scenario of Jazan University. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 275-283.
Shaari, A., Yusoff, N., Ghazali, I., Osman, R., & Mohamadzahir, N., (2014). The relationship between lecturers teaching style and students' academic engagement. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 10-20.
Stirling, Bridget V. (2017). Results of a study assessing teaching methods of faculty after measuring student learning style preference. Nurse Education Today, 55, 107-111.
Torres, R. M., & Cano, J. (1994). Learning style of student in a college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 61-66.
Van Tilburg, E., & Heimlich, J. (1990). Clarifying theory through operationalizing constructs: A look at sensitivity and inclusion in adult teaching style. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Adult Education Research Conference pp. 237-248. Athens: University of Georgia.
Witkin, H. A. (1976). Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick and Association (Ed.), Individuality in Learning. San Francisco: Josses-Bass Publishers.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (Winter 1977). Field- dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64.
Witkin, H.A., Price-Williams, D., Bertini, M., Christiansen, B., Oltman, P.K., Ramirez, M. & Van Meel, J. (1974). Social conformity and psychological differentiation. International Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 11-29.
Wittmann-Price, R. A., & Godshall, M. (2009). Strategies to promote deep learning in clinical nursing courses. Nurse Educator, 34(5), 214-216.
Yoo, M., Park, H., 2015. Effects of case-based learning on communication skills, problem solving ability, and learning motivation in nursing students. Nurse Health Sciences, 17 (2), 166–172.
