Educational Research and Reviews
Vol. 8(20), pp. 1937-1947, 23 October, 2013 DOI: 10.5897/ERR2013.1583 ISSN 1990-3839 © 2013 Academic Journals http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Full Length Research Paper
Matching of learning styles and teaching styles: Advantage and disadvantage on ninth-grade students’ academic achievements Suntonrapot Damrongpanit1* and Auyporn Reungtragul2 1
Faculty of Education, Mahasarakham University, Thailand. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
2
Accepted 20th September 2013
The purposes of this study were to identify learning styles of ninth-grade students, to identify teaching styles of four subject teachers, and to compare four academic achievements between different matching conditions of students’ learning styles and teachers’ teaching styles. The research participants comprised of 3,382 ninth-grade students and, related with, 440 teachers obtained from multistage random sampling. The research instruments comprised of the four achievement tests, the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ), and the Teaching Style Inventory (TSI). The data analyses were employed by the descriptive statistics, One-way ANOVA, and post-hoc comparison by Scheffé method. The main results have showed the closely number of students between 23.74 to 26.11% in each learning style. The biggest groups of Mathematics, Sciences, English, and Thai Language subjects were congruently the Accommodator teachers. The matching types were almost statistically significant and the overall study showed the most advantageous learning style was the Theorist students matching with the Expert and the Facilitator teachers whereas the most disadvantageous learning style was the Realistic students matching with the Personal Model and the Facilitator teachers. Key words: Learning Styles, Teaching Styles, Academic Achievement, Matching of Learning Styles and Teaching Styles.
INTRODUCTION Concepts of students’ learning styles and teachers’ teaching styles were showed in many documents and research results. Both were influenced by students’ cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain and could be explained by the different students’ learning competencies. The importance issues of learning styles have explained the causes of students’ learning outcome from unequally learning opportunities in the same teaching process. In meaning, that the learning styles were wildly defined in the individual preference process to use in learn. Each student have their own style frequently used for
manipulating, processing, interpreting, and assimilating to be their knowledge (Gantasala and Gantasala, 2009) and no one’s learning styles could convince other learning styles in the real life, due to the fact that each learning styles can do well in different jobs (Kinshuk et al., 2009). If each learning styles of students were confront with the appropriate (or preference) learning situation, it was easy for each student to learn and to achieve. In contrast, the learning outcome always appeared negative if learning styles of students were irrelevant with learning situation (Visser et al., 2006) and made students express many undesirable behaviors in the future related studies.
*Corresponding author. E-mail:
[email protected]. Tel: 66+ 89 780 7612.
1938
Educ. Res. Rev.
INTRODUCTION
Research Purposes
From prior literature reviews, many students had highly occasion to face with the learning situation opposed to their learning styles. Reid (1995) and Kroonenberg (1995) revealed approximately 80 to 90% of secondary teachers set their students function to be good audiences in the classrooms. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1995) found that the high experienced teachers had intended to select conservative teaching methods more than low experience teachers. Moreover, science teachers had intended to select conservative teaching methods more than humanity teachers. There were few situations that explained the difference of students’ achievements and successes, not from teaching method and good learning characteristics and competencies of students and became the critical issue in inequality of each student’s learning methods. Although increasing of knowledge explained the relationships between teaching styles, learning styles, and students’ outcomes, it’s not enough to clarify complexity of teaching in each subject, age, school contexts, and each students’ learning styles. The prior research results had been applied to the teaching and learning styles in specific and different implementations. Nevertheless, this knowledge was unclear and unfamiliar for most educators and researchers in Thailand which were between many crises of student outcomes in all education levels. Many educational organizations reveal results of national assessment of student qualities. Overall was under satisfaction level, especially in academic achievements and skills (The Office of the Education Council, 2012; The National Institute of Educational Testing Service. 2012). Many student problems were continuously increasing; escape from the classroom, aggressive behavior, dropout, or negative perception. All problems were consistent with the effects of mismatch between teaching and learning styles. Many strategies for solving problems were implemented since the early 1980’s, the results of implementation were shrew in many times declarations and seemed to become the chronic and pertinent situations in the era of Thailand’s education reform. For this research, the researchers tried to confirm effects between teaching and learning styles on student achievements based on results of prior manifest concepts and to emphasize the important role of different teaching and learning methods in classroom, especially on important subjects of the basic education level; Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai Language subjects. This research results were particularly useful to make changes in solving problems, to enhance teaching and learning styles awareness in educational process in Thailand, and the teacher and the administrators for specific information to design their teaching methods, innovations, and supplementary activities for the right of equality to learn.
The three purposes of this research were 1) to explore learning styles of ninth-grade students in northeast of Thailand 2) to explore teaching styles of teachers in Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai Language subjects (related to the group of students in the first purpose) and 3) to compare the student achievements between the different matching of teachers’ teaching styles and students’ learning styles in four subjects.
Research Hypothesis Despite this research tried to study the basic education level of the ninth-grade students, while the prior researches explained the concept of teaching and learning styles in different levels, in conjunction with few exploratory researches in Thailand (in higher education study). The researchers expected different results of comparison of the students’ achievements in all subjects. Based on the literature reviews, the researchers hypothesized the pair matched and mismatched divided by the subject as follows: the Theorist students matched with the Expert teachers whereas the Realistic student mismatch with the Facilitator and the Formal Authority teachers in Mathematics and Sciences, the Pragmatist and the Activist students matched with the Personal Model and the Delegator teachers whereas the Realistic and the Pragmatic students mismatched with the Expert and the Formal Authority teachers in English, and the Theorist student matched with the Expert and the Authority teachers whereas the Realistic student mismatched with the Facilitator teachers in Thai Language subjects.
Literature Review Concepts of learning styles were seriously investigated and tested. Many years later, the learning styles for many theorists were proved in different context of education and continuously discussed. However, the educators and the researchers intended to keep an eye on learning styles and teaching styles on behalf of the key factors to indicate the success or failure of student’s learning (Okur and Bahar, 2010), and now a day, to apply for equality in learning in many countries like; Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, Denmark Finland, Philippines, Singapore, Sweden, Turkey, England, Oman, and The United States. (Sadler-Smith, 2001; Manochehri, 2008; Dunn et al., 2009).
Learning Styles Learning styles were wildly defined as the individual
Damrongpanit and Reungtragul
method of students frequently used for receiving, collecting, processing, and interpreting to become knowledgeable (Kolb, 1984; McCarty, 1987; Davis, 1993). Honey and Mumford (1992) and Duff and Duff (2002) consistently defined the meaning of learning style as the student’s behavior expressed from individual capability and perception in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains when the student interacted with their classroom and school environments. Many research results dominantly explained closely relationships between learning styles, academic achievements, skills, and characteristics. Each student can learn in various styles, but they can easily do the best from only one which they were dexterous (Kinshuk et al., 2009). The student whose style was in the preferable learning situation would certainly be able to understand and recognize, in contrast, the negative learning outcomes highly appeared for the student who doesn’t like the learning environment in which they aren’t able to use their strong abilities and difficulties to understand (Finson et al., 2006). Some interesting research results are Lovelace (2005) and Dunn et al. (2009) who found positive statistical significant on size from the learning styles to the student’s achievements during medium to large. Moreover, the student has got the opportunity to be over 75% which is a high score contrary to students in their classroom if they learned by the favorable learning environments. Not only in the academic achievement progress for the group of profitable students, but also in the essential skills and learning characteristics, for examples; class participation, problem–solving strategies, self-efficacy, learning strategies, attitude towards learning, learning motivation, and relationship to others skills (Yunfei and Carol, 2002; Vermunt and Vermetten, 2004; Tanabe, 2006; Metalidou and Platsidou, 2008; Kinshuk et al., 2009; Dunn et al., 2009). This empirical knowledge has become a firmly bases for researchers to expand prior research limitation to the specific education contexts. The well-known theorists that had been implemented were the Learning Styles by Kolb (1976), VAK Learning Styles by Dunn and Dunn (1975), Learning Style ID by Gardner et al. (1997), Learning Style Profiles (LSP) by Jackson (2002), Index of Learning Styles by Felder and Silverman (1989), Learning Styles by Honey and Mumford (1982), and Thinking Styles by Sternberg (1998). Overall findings had supported that teachers be aware and also take part in the learning styles of the teaching method designs.
Teaching Styles The strong evidences underlined the teaching styles of teachers were the main factors affecting directly (e.g. Beck, 2001; Zhang, 2005; Huges, 2009) and indirectly with students’ learning style (Vaughn and Baker, 2001; Kabadayi, 2007), to students’ outcomes. However, many
1939
educators and researchers have been trying to explore the individual teaching style and background information to implement for enhancing the teaching quality. Alike students, each teacher could express many ways for their teaching, but the only way or style always employed and helped their students to achieve the learning target effectively (Kabadayi, 2007). This different characteristics was resulted from the individual believe, attitude, inspiration, aptitude, and social background (Vaughn and Baker, 2001; Salem, 2001). Based on evidences, each teacher’s teaching style had a positive effect on the students’ outcome for some students’ learning style and make unequally learning by nature in the same classroom, Grasha (2002) stated these situations led to students getting and losing learning opportunity from the teaching style “the teaching method was biased” and its appeared in every classroom because each had one type of teaching style and various types of learning styles. More than half of the student in a classroom will always be a disadvantaged learner because of the mismatch between the teaching and learning styles. Not only did they have a low achievement, they also had a negative self-concept, got bored and escaped from the classroom, expressed aggressive behaviors, and became disabled learners or dropouts (Vaughn and Baker, 2001; Kinshuk et al., 2009). So, many educators have seriously confirmed that the teacher should explore the teaching styles of themselves and learning styles of their students and also design classroom activities before they start teaching every generation (e.g. Baylan, 1984; Clexton and Murrell, 1987; Richard, 2000).
Matching and Mismatching Not only the learning style or teaching style is being influenced by the students’ outcome, the findings of past studies showed as follows: for example Visser et al. (2006) Ghada et al. (2011) Zhou (2011) explained that a learner’s achievement in any class was determined by factors such as the native ability, and the level of congruence between the students’ learning style and the teachers’ teaching style. They were highly opportuned to find out that both the congruence (matching) and non congruence (mismatching) in every classroom. Matching had a positive impact on the students’ outcome and satisfaction whereas mismatching had a negative impact on the students’ outcome and this resulted to many problems in learning (Ford and Chen, 2001; Naimie et al., 2010). This is the most important reason to explain various patterns between matching and mismatching in the prior research results because they were held differently and specially with theoretical frameworks, subjects, educational level, and contexts (Callan, 2001; Visser et al., 2006; Kinshuk et al., 2009; Zhou, 2011). It’s difficult to identify the correct impact of the learning style, teaching style, and pattern of matching and mismatching
1940
Educ. Res. Rev.
on students’ achievement in different important subjects and natures (Hyman and Rosoff, 1984; Canfield, 1992; Grasha, 1996; Beck, 2001). Although it was continuously and deeply studied in many researches, nevertheless, it was proven that few knowledge can explain critical learning outcomes in Thailand, especially in basic education level. Most researches have showed interesting results in specific point and have been used in higher education level; examples are business and computer (Sadler-Smith, 2001; Zhang, 2005) pre-school teachers (Kabadayi, 2007) management (Provitera and Esendal, 2008) economic (Penger and Tekavčič, 2009) web-based learning (Manochehri, 2008) psychology (Coldren and Hively, 2009). Now a day, many strategies were applied for mending students’ problems constantly, since 1970s, most students’ achievements and competencies were under satisfaction level. The researchers expected that this research result could be the empirical evidence for all education participants awareness in students’ different learning and students’ right to learn, ready to solve students’ problem in a different view than ever. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Population and Sample The researcher planned to keep the school size and school sector form the population to sample in random process. Research samples were 3,382 ninth-grade students obtained by multistage random sampling from all schools in 20 provinces of northeast in Thailand, divided by gender in 1,307 males (38.60%) and 2,075 females (61.40%) in 110 schools from 10 provinces, divided in by sector (The Office of Educational Service Area) 942 students (27.90%) in primary and 2,240 student (72.10%) in secondary, and divided by size in 1,163 students (34.40%), 1,387 students (41.00%), and 832 students (24.60%) were studied in small, medium, and large school size respectively. About teaching style, there were 440 teachers who were responsible for student samples in Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai Language subjects (110 teachers per one subject in each school), were set in the groups of teaching style classification. It was the student of the large sample size that were favorable, but they were obtained by a cluster based on the unit of sample which is the classroom.
Research Instruments The researchers developed three research instruments for data collection as follows. The Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) based on Honey and Mumford’s learning style questionnaire (1992) which was designed to evaluate the comparative strengths of the four students’ learning styles: Activist; define as who learn by doing, need to get their hands dirty, to dive in with both feet first. Having an open-minded approach to learning, involving themselves fully and without bias in new experiences, Theorist; define as who like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to engage in the learning process, Realistic; define as who learn by observing and thinking about what happened. They may avoid leaping in and prefer to watch from the sidelines. Prefer to stand back and view experiences from a number of different
perspectives, collecting data and taking the time to work towards an appropriate conclusion, and Pragmatist; define as who need to be able to see how to put the learning into practice in the real world. Abstract concepts and games are of limited use unless they can see a way to put the ideas into action in their lives. Each learning style is not dominant over the others. The researchers translated the LSQ comprised of 80 items (divided in 20 items for each learning style) in Thai language and considered the meaning of each sentence by English language specialists and tryout with 71 ninth-grade students. The result of LSQ (Thai language version) revealed the discrimination index by item-total correlation method between (rxy) 0.263-0.732 and the reliability (α) of each learning style were between 0.822- 0.870. Teaching Style Inventory (TSI) in Thai language version based on Grasha’s Teaching Style Inventory (2002) which was designed to evaluate the comparative strengths of the different five teachers’ teaching styles: Expert; define as who possesses knowledge and expertise, oversees, guides, and directs learners; gains status through knowledge; focuses on facts, Formal Authority; define as who possesses status among learners because of knowledge and authority/position, follows “traditions” and standards of medical practice, focuses on rules and expectations for learners; supervises learners closely with critical eye toward standard practices and procedures, Personal Model; define as who leads by personal example, suggests prototypes for appropriate behavior in office, shows learners how to do things, wants learners to observe and emulate approach, Facilitator; define as who emphasizes personal nature of teaching-learning relationship, asks questions, explores options with learners, focuses on learner responsibility, independence, and initiative, and Delegator; define as who encourages learner responsibility and initiative when appropriate; goal is to have learner function autonomously, a “resource person”, answers questions and periodically reviews learner progress. The researchers translated that the LSQ comprised of 40 items (divided in 5 items for each teaching style) in Thai language and considered meaning of each sentence by English language specialists and tryout with 40 teachers involved with the ninth-grade students. The result of TSI revealed the discrimination indexes by item-total correlation method were between (rxy) 0.263-0.732 and the reliability (α) of each learning style were between 0.757-0.896. The quality of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSI) and the Teaching Style Investigation (TSI) were shown in Table 1. The four academic achievement tests were developed for considering students’ academic competency, in Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai language subjects with 30, 35, 46, and 50 items respectively, being considered of content validity from three professional teachers per a subject before tryout with 2 classes of nine-grade students. The four achievement tests were assigned to each class randomly, the first class, 34 students, has got Mathematics and Thai Language achievement tests and the second class, 37 students, has got Science and English achievement tests. The quality of achievement tests both of the items and tests were shown in Table 2. The four achievement tests and the learning style questionnaire were used for student. The students have limitation to complete achievement test for one hour in each subject and unlimited time to complete learning style questionnaire. All instruments for student were entirely collected from five to ten days in each school because they have different activities and time schedules every day. Moreover, the researcher got participation from the four teachers in each school to complete the teaching styles investigation perfectly. By totally, the researchers received back 3,382 student data from 110 schools and 440 teachers in Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai Language subjects, overall three months to finish data collection process. After the data screening, the researchers explored basic information by descriptive statistics and categorized by the group of
Damrongpanit and Reungtragul
1941
Table 1. The quality of the LSI and the TSI.
Questionnaire LSQ Theorist Activist Realistic Pragmatist TSI Expert Formal Authority Personal Model Facilitator Delegator
Items
Discremination (rxy)
Reliability (α)
20 20 20 20
0.296-0.515 0.288-0.636 0.304-0.663 0.263-0.732
0.831 0.822 0.870 0.860
8 8 8 8 8
0.305-0.711 0.429-0.569 0.511-0.765 0.505-0.827 0.309-0.813
0.789 0.757 0.869 0.896 0.757
Academic Achievement Tests.
Table 2. The quality of four achievement tests.
Test Mathematics Sciences English Thai Language
n 34 34 37 37
Items 30 35 46 50
p 0.212-0.647 0.206-0.676 0.296-0.800 0.216-0.676
r 0.222-0.889 0.222-1.000 0.200-1.000 0.200-1.000
KR20 0.873 0.886 0.959 0.933
Data collection and data analysis.
Table 3. The result of ninth-grade student learning style survey.
Gender Boys Girls Total
Activist f % 337 25.78 477 29.99 814 24.07
Students’ Learning Styles Theorist Realistic f % f % 304 23.26 325 24.87 499 24.05 558 26.89 803 23.74 883 26.11
learning styles of students and the group of teaching styles of teachers divided by subject. The research data explored the basic assumption by test of error variance equality, and test of equal variance matrix. After that, the researchers employed Two-way ANOVA to consider the different achievements divided by subject due to matching of learning styles and teaching styles and employed the scheffé method in the pairwise comparison.
RESEARCH RESULTS The main research results reveal as follows. 1). The result of exploring of 3,382 ninth-grade students’ learning style and 440 teachers’ teaching style responded for Mathematics, Science, English, and Thai Language subjects were showed in two parts. a). Learning styles of students were categorized closely
Pragmatics f % 341 26.09 541 26.07 882 26.08
Total f 1,307 2,075 3,382
% 100 100 100
by the proportions between four styles. The smallest to the biggest group of learning style ordered from Theorist, Activist, Pragmatics, and Realistic respectively with range of 23.74% to 26.11%. In addition, it was relevant result when considered the proportion of learning style divided by gender, boys and girls. The slight difference between gender showed that the biggest group of boys was the Pragmatist (26.09%) while the biggest group of girls was the Activist (29.99%). The details were showed in Table 3. b). The overall teachers’ teaching styles were found to be different in proportions in each style. The biggest group of teacher style was Facilitator (42.27%), almost half of the total teacher and the second big group was Expert (21.36%) which was one time by approximately. The rest groups, Delegator, Personal Model, and Authority, were closely proportions between 9.09 to 15.54%). Divided by
1942
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 4. The result of teachers teaching style divided by subjects.
Teacher’s Teaching Styles Subjects
Expert
Authority
Personal Model
Facilitator
Delegator
Total
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
f
%
Mathematics
33
30.00
7
6.36
16
14.55
38
34.55
16
14.55
110
25.00
Sciences
19
17.27
6
5.45
14
12.73
57
51.82
14
12.73
110
25.00
English
28
25.45
3
2.73
9
8.18
51
46.36
19
17.27
110
25.00
Thai Language
14
12.73
24
21.82
13
11.82
40
36.36
19
17.27
110
25.00
Total
94
21.36
40
9.09
52
11.82
186
42.27
68
15.45
440
100.00
subject, the Facilitator style was relevant result of the biggest group every subject (34.55 to 51.82%), especially for Science and English subjects, whereas the Authority style was the smallest teaching style for Mathematics, Sciences, and English subjects (2.73 to 6.36%). The Personal Model was the only smallest group for English (11.82%). The details were showed in Table 4. 2). The results of students’ academic achievements in comparison between the difference of the student’s learning style and the teacher’s teaching style were showed statistical significant at 0.05 level of interaction effect between learning style and teaching style (Mathematics: F= 57.25, df=12; Science: F= 8.15, df=12; English: F= 2.02, df=12; Thai Language: F=8.72, df=12) and the Univariate statistics method was implemented to compare academic achievement in each subject between the difference in learning style divided by teaching style by One-way ANOVA and employed the Scheffé method for the multiple comparison between group mean. The results of multiple comparisons were summarized as follows. a). For Mathematics subject, they have 9 matching (45%) and 11 mismatching (55%) between learning and teaching styles. The four groups of learning styles comprised of 1) the Theorist style studied with the Expert, Facilitator, and Delegator teachers, 2) the Activist style studied with the Authority and Facilitator teachers, 3) the Realistic style studied with the Delegator teacher and 4) the Pragmatist style studied with the Expert and Personal Model teachers were the high achievement groups more than other groups. It should underline that the Realistic student was the most disadvantage group, especially when matching with the Personal Model teacher. b). For Sciences subject, they have 7 matching (35%) and 9 mismatching (45%) between learning and teaching styles. The four groups of learning styles comprised of 1) the Theorist studied with the four teaching styles, except Delegator teachers 2) the Activist style studied with the Authority teachers, 3) the Pragmatist style studied with the Facilitator teachers, and 4) the Realistic studied with the Delegator teachers were the highest achievement
groups more than the other groups. c). For English subject, they have 3 matching (15%) and 5 mismatching (25%) between learning and teaching styles. The three groups of learning styles comprised of 1) the Activist style studied with the Personal Model teachers, 2) the Theorist style studied with the Facilitator teachers, and 3) the Realistic style studied with the Delegator teachers were the highest achievement groups more than other groups. It should underline that the Pragmatist style was the most disadvantaged group, especially when matching with the Personal Model and Delegator teachers. d). For Thai Language subject, they have 10 matching (50%) and 6 mismatching (30%) between learning and teaching styles. The four groups of learning styles comprised of i) the Activist style studied with the Facilitator and Personal Model teachers, ii) the Theorist style studied with the four teaching styles, except Facilitator teachers, iii) the Realistic style studied with the Authority and Delegator teachers, and iv) the Pragmatist style studied with Authority and Personal Model teachers were the highest achievement groups more than other groups. The overall matching results were showed in Table 5 (see details in Appendix 1 and 2) and Figure 1.
Discussions and Suggestions The researchers have a main opinions based on the research results as follows. 1. There have a very big group of student who were effected by mismatching effect in Thailand, 129,763194,645 ninth-grade students by approximation in northeast (50 to 75% mismatching based on research result). It was surprisingly and seriously view for Thai student quality and it showed unequally to learn. This number related with the many declarations from educational assessment organizations and realized to enhance the problem before, but did not include the learning and teaching style as the research result. Then, the teacher, the administrator, and the policy maker
Damrongpanit and Reungtragul
1943
Table 5. Matrix of achievement outcome from matching of learning styles and teaching styles.
Teaching Style
Mathematics
Sciences
Activist
Theorist
Realistic
pragmatist
Activist
Theorist
Realistic
Pragmatist
Expert
-
+
-
+
-
+
0
0
Authority
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
Personal Model
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
Facilitator
+
+
-
-
-
+
-
+
Delegator
-
++
++
+
0
-
+
0
Teaching Style
English
Thai Language Subject
Activist
Theorist
Realistic
pragmatist
Activist
Theorist
Realistic
pragmatist
Expert
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
-
Authority
0
0
0
0
-
+
+
+
P. Model
+
0
-
-
+
+
-
+
Facilitator
0
+
-
0
+
0
-
0
Delegator
-
0
+
-
-
+
+
-
Note: (++) Very advantage or group mean exceed +1SD of grand mean (+) Advantage (-) Disadvantage (0) no significant .
1.1 Mathematics
1.2 Sciences
1.3 English
1.4 Thai Language
Figure 1. Academic achievements of ninth-grade students divided by subject Figure 1. Academic achievements of ninth-grade students divided by subject.
should revise and redesign to take knowledge about learning style and teaching style part in basic of
development plan on behaviors and responsibility (Visser et al., 2006; Zhou, 2011).
1944
Educ. Res. Rev.
2. The main research results revealed that the difference between the matching and mismatching pattern tends to rely on the different subjects naturally. Mathematics and Sciences were 50% harmonious in pattern on behalf of logical and reasonable subjects whereas English and Thai Language subjects were 45% harmonious in pattern on behalf of skills and applied subjects. This result was relative to the prior suggestions that the subject nature was on important ingredient for considering the academic success between the different learning styles (Witkin et al., 1977; Hyman and Rosoff, 1984) and the teaching success between the teaching styles (Canfield, 1992; Grasha, 1996). It should also be noted that the patterns of matching and mismatching might be changed for specific subjects. The 40% of English, 80% of Science and Thai Language, and 100% of Mathematic achievements have been explained by matching and mismatching. Although it was an incomplete statistical significance in all matchings, the overall result cannot be neglected for consideration. It’s related with the prior knowledge, for example Ford and Chen (2001) Wirz (2004) Visser et al. (2006) and Naimie et al. (2010). The researchers supported elaborately and they studied how the learning and teaching styles were effected on the students’ achievements and how they interacted with those subjects in the future. 3. The administrators should support the teachers to improve their teaching competencies for all students’ learning styles. It’s hard and unreasonable to change individual teaching style because they have not one learning style in one classroom. The sustainable solution to face with the problem is to just change teachers’ thinking for teaching the way they prefer and give opportunities to receive special knowledge from specialists about teaching method and psychologist and adapt to their classrooms (Beck, 2001), maybe it will set in knowledge management programs for all teachers to share experiences and teaching materials. Some teaching styles can do well for some learning style in some subject, this is the good practice from the real life that have been implemented and easy to exchange and to solve the student problem suddenly. 4. The teacher should be more aware in the difference in teaching and difference in learning on student outcomes. Although teaching in the same subject, the student achievements were different from important factors in which not only teaching quality, but teaching style and learning style also (Beck, 2001; Wirz, 2004; Naimie et al., 2010). First of all, the teachers should understand the teaching styles of themselves and should receive the proportion of students’ learning styles in the classroom for designing their teaching process. It should underline for equality to learn in the whole teaching process, such as teaching media, team learning methods, assessment methods, or homework assignments, and should diagnose and keep an eye on specific students who are disadvantaged for the mismatching. Overall matching, the activist students should closely take care of delegator
teachers, the theorist students, the most advantage group especially in Science and Thai language subjects, should closely take care of Authority and Personal Model teachers in Mathematics subject, the Realistic students, the most disadvantaged group, should closely take care of Personal Model and Facilitator teachers in every subjects, except Delegator teacher, and the Pragmatist student, the most various disadvantaged results rely on subject, should be closely taken care of every teachers’ teaching styles. 5. This research conceptual framework were designed for the effect of learning style and teaching style on academic achievements based on Honey and Mumford’s learning style together with Grasha’s teaching style model. It has many interesting prototype of learning style and teaching style model have been tried to elucidate students’ academic competencies and very specific explanations on some specific characteristics and still obscured in the present day. Example for learning style, Dunn, Dunn, and Price’s Learning Style (1989) emphasized instructional preference in learning situation, Witkin’s Field-Dependence and Field-Independence learning style (1962) emphasized dimension of thinking in learning, or Felder and Pavio’s Verbalizer and Visualizer model (1971) emphasized the student’s verbal imagery dimension, and example for teaching style, Mosston and Ashworth’s The Spectrum of Teaching Style (1986) emphasized the difference in levels of teacher’s command, McCarthy’s 4MAT System (1980) , based on Kolb’s model, emphasized student’s brain capability for teaching, or Dunn and Dunn’s Teaching Style of Context (1993) emphasized probable environment for learning in teaching. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This study was supported by the research fund, the Thai Research Fund (TRF), the office of Higher Education Commission, and Mahasarakham University (MSU). The author gratefully acknowledges Prof. Dr. Peter Honey, Prof. Dr. Alan Mumford, and Prof. Dr. Antony Grasha to inspire and to give different view and consent for the translation of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) and the Teaching Style Inventory (TSI) in Thai version. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the ninthgrade students, the teachers and the administrators for their willing consent of the research data. REFERENCES Beck CR (2001). Matching teaching strategies to learning style preferenes. The Teacher Educator. 37(1):1-15. Callan RJ (2001). Effects of matching and mismatching students’ time-of-day preferences. The Journal of Educational Research. 92(5):295-299. Canfield AA (1992). Learning Style Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Chen M (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a
Damrongpanit and Reungtragul
foreign language learners. Learning and Individual Differences. 19:304-308. Coldren J, Hively J (2009). Interpersonal teaching style and student impression formation. College Teaching. 57(2):93-98. Davis B (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Fransisco. CA: Jossey-Bass. Dunn R, Honigsfeld A, Doonlan LS, Bostrom L, Russo K, Schiering MS, Suh B, Tendero, H (2009). Impact of learning-style instructional strategies on students’ achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educations in diverse institutions. Clearing House. 82(3):135-140. Duff A, Duffy T. (2002). Psychometric properties of Honey and Mumford’s learning styles questionnaire (LSQ). Personality and Individual Differences. 33:147-163. Dunn R, Dunn K, Price GE (1989). Learning Styles Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. Dunn R, Dunn K (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Principle approaches for grades 7-12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Felder RM (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching. 23(5):286290. Finson KD, Pedersen J, Thomas J (2006). Comparing science teaching styles to students’ perceptions of scientists. School Science and Mathematics. 106(1):8-15. Ford N, Chen, SY (2001). Matching/mismatching revised: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology. 32(1):5-22. Gantasala PV, Gantasala SB (2009). Influence of learning styles. The International Journal of Learning. 16:169-184. Ghada S, Rima B, Nahla Nola B, Mona N (2011). A match or a mismatch between student and teacher lerning style preferences. International Journal of English Linguistics. 1(1):162-172. Hyman R, Rosoff B (1984). Matching learning and teaching styles: the jug and what’s in it. Theory into Practice. 23(1):35-43. Honey P, Mumford A (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications. Kabadayi A (2007). Analyzing the cognitive teaching styles of preservice and cooperating preschool teachers in Turkey. Early Child Development and Care. 177(3):275-293. Kinshuk LT, Graf S (2009). Coping with mismatched courses: Students’ behavior and performance in courses mismatched to their learning styles. Educational Technology Research and Development. 57:739-752. Kolb DA (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kroonenberg N (1995). Meeting language learners’ sensory-learning-style preference. In J. M. Reid (ed.), Learning Styles in the ELS/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Lovelace MK (2005). A meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn learning-styles model, 1980-2000. Journal of Educational Research. 98(3):176-183. Manochehri NN (2008). Individual learning style effects on student satisfaction in a web-based environment. International Journal of Instructional Media. 35(2):221-228. McCarthy B (1987). The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques. Barrington: Excel, Inc. Naimie Z, Siraj S, Piaw CY, Shagholi R, Abuzaid RA (2010). Do you think your match is made in heaven? Teaching styles/learning styles match and mismatch revisited. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science. 2:349-353.
1945
Okur M, Bahar HH (2010). Learning styles of primary education prospective Mathematics teachers; states of trait-anxiety and academic success. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2:3632-3637. Penger S, Tekavčič M, Dimovski V (2008). Meta-analysis and empirical research of learning style theories in higher education: The case of Slovenia. Journal of College Teaching and Learning. 11(5):1-22. Penger S (2009). Testing Dunn & Dunn’s and Honey & Mumford’s learning style theories: The case of the Slovenian higher education system. Management. 14(2):1-20. Provitera MJ, Esendal E (2008). Learning and teaching styles in Management Education: Identifying, analyzing, and facilitating. Journal of College Teaching and Learning. 1(5):69-78. Reid JM (1995). Learning Styles in the ELS/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Richard C (2000). Know your student’s learning style: The missing link in the lecture V. active learning issue. Paper Presented at NISOD Conference, Austin, Texas, May 28-31:2000. Sadler-Smith E (2001). The relationship between learning style and cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences. 30:609-616. Tanabe H (2006). Effects of teaching styles on motivations for self-training by students in teaching of presentation in L2. Academic Reports, Tokyo Polytechnic University. 28(2):1-7. The National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS). The Basic Information of O-NET Scores of Sixth-Grade, Ninth-Grade, and Twelfth-Grade Students in 2010 Divided by Subjects. Retrived March 16, 2012 From http://www.niets.or.th/uploadfiles/uploadfile/9/bdaea64f96d90aeca0bb751dc827ca60.pdf The Office of the Education Council. (2012). The Study for Preparation of Human Resources Production and Development for Supporting of Liberal Labor Movement under ASEAN Economic Community Framework. Bangkok: Prig Wan Pub. Vaughn L, Baker R (2001). Teaching in the medical setting: Balancing teaching styles, learning styles and teaching methods. Medical Teacher. 23(6):610-612. Vermunt JD, Vermetten YJ (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, concepts of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology. 16(4):359-384. Visser S, McChlery S, Vreken N (2006). Teaching style versus learning styles in the accounting sciences in the United Kingdom and South Africa: A comparative analysis. Meditary Accountancy Research. 14(2):97-112. Wirz D (2004). Students’ learning styles versus professors’ teaching styles. Inquiry. 9:1-5. Witkin HA (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley. Witkn HA, Moore CA, Goodenough DR, Cox PW (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research. 47:1-64. Zhang L (2005). Does teaching for a balanced use of thinking styles enhance students’ achievement? Personality and Individual Differences. 38:11351147. Zhou M (2011). Learning styles and teaching styles in college English teaching. International Education Studies. 4(1):73-77.
1946
Educ. Res. Rev.
Appendix 1. The results of academic achievement comparisons between different learning styles matching with teaching styles (n=3,382).
Teaching Styles
Expert
Authority
Personal Model
Facilitator
Delegator
Learning Styles
Subjects Mathematics
X
SD
Sciences n
X
English
SD
n
X
Thai Language SD
n
X
SD
n
Activist
7.14
3.12
310
15.63
5.75
131
19.12
9.14
210
19.78
6.76
96
Theorist
11.20
4.48
252
17.72
5.65
127
19.48
9.37
203
21.15
7.36
99
Realistic
8.73
3.37
254
16.86
5.55
168
19.73
8.95
245
19.31
6.30
128
Pragmatist
10.83
4.35
279
16.01
5.27
163
18.07
8.72
244
18.55
6.27
124
Total
9.38
4.20
1,095
16.54
5.58
589
19.08
9.04
902
19.61
6.68
447
Activist
11.40
3.43
45
18.60
4.92
45
11.84
10.01
38
16.56
6.61
198
Theorist
8.11
3.64
63
15.90
4.06
39
10.45
7.67
22
19.46
6.04
170
Realistic
8.83
2.93
64
14.36
5.52
47
8.81
5.09
26
19.19
5.84
211
Pragmatist
9.44
2.86
36
12.19
4.83
36
10.56
6.33
27
19.92
6.17
224
Total
9.27
3.45
208
15.40
5.38
167
10.57
7.78
113
18.80
6.30
803
Activist
10.28
3.19
68
13.96
5.53
136
17.22
7.22
37
20.03
6.27
92
Theorist
9.35
3.72
54
18.46
7.47
110
14.38
4.85
48
21.23
6.03
61
Realistic
8.15
3.05
81
15.06
5.23
124
12.73
3.68
56
16.60
6.04
86
Pragmatist
12.63
4.48
96
15.56
6.61
106
13.94
5.14
65
19.53
6.55
92
Total
10.29
4.10
299
15.64
6.41
476
14.30
5.36
206
19.22
6.43
331
Activist
12.21
4.43
263
17.22
6.30
398
16.41
6.80
403
22.60
6.52
275
Theorist
11.70
4.22
272
18.21
6.56
436
17.50
7.04
395
21.16
7.36
302
Realistic
8.95
3.15
329
16.18
5.99
450
16.20
6.53
416
20.86
6.96
279
Pragmatist
7.47
2.78
373
18.41
5.74
478
16.29
6.07
405
21.51
6.08
310
Total
9.80
4.11
1,237
17.52
6.20
1,762
16.59
6.63
1,619
21.51
6.77
1,166
Activist
14.02
5.21
128
17.87
5.74
104
14.21
4.35
126
21.03
6.06
153
Theorist
21.32
3.99
162
16.31
4.69
91
15.07
5.59
135
23.37
6.78
171
Realistic
18.11
3.34
155
19.37
6.18
94
16.01
5.14
140
23.21
6.24
179
Pragmatist
16.09
4.56
98
17.62
4.85
99
13.56
4.08
141
19.17
6.47
132
Total
17.74
5.06
543
17.70
5.49
388
14.72
4.91
542
21.89
6.60
635
Notes. Box’s M=923.45, F=4.79, df1=190, df2=752505.13, p=0.00. Levene’s Test: Math(F=11.04, p=0.00), Sci(F=1.58, p=.00), Eng(F=13.81, p=0.00), Thai(F=2.34, p=0.00).
Damrongpanit and Reungtragul
Appendix 2. Results of the One-way Analysis of Variance.
Mathematics Teaching S SOV Expert
Authority
Personal
Facilitator
Delegator
Teaching S Expert
Authority
Personal
Facilitator
Delegator
English SS
df
MS
F
p-value
Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within Total
3084.91 16163.993 19248.903 302.359 2167.02 2469.379 942.536 4062.728 5005.264 4770.000 16080.895 20850.895 4132.839 9741.547 13874.386 Sciences
3 1091 1094 3 204 207 3 295 298 3 1233 1236 3 539 542
1028.3 14.816
69.406
.000
100.786 10.623
9.488
.000
A > P, R, T
314.179 13.772
22.813
.000
P > A, T & R A>R
1590.06 13.042
121.918
.000
A & T >R > P
1377.61 18.073
76.223
.000
T>R>P>A
SOV Between Within Total
SS 349.892 17952.57 18302.47 891.036
df 3 585 588 3
MS 116.631 30.688
F 3.801
p-value .010
Scheffé T>A
297.012
12.379
.000
Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within Total Between Within Total
3910.880 4801.916 1302.350
163 166 3
A>R&P T>P
23.993 434.117
Scheffé T & P > R> A
11.252
.000
SS 383.197
df 3
F 1.566
pvalue .196
Scheffé -
47.513 60.892
0.780
.507
-
153.695 26.833
5.728
.001
A>P&R
147.648 43.745
3.375
.018
T>R
MS 127.732
73223.567 898 73606.764 901 142.540 3 6637.212 109 6779.752 112 461.084 3 5420.256 202 5881.340 205 442.943 3 70648.002 1615 71090.945 1618 470.028 3 12561.345 538 13031.373 541 Thai Language
81.541
156.676 23.348
6.710
.000
R>A&P
SS 389.144 19527.343 19916.488 1387.608
df 3 443 446 3
MS 129.715 44.080
F 2.943
pvalue .033
Scheffé T>P
462.536
12.161
.000
P, T & R > A
30389.304 31776.912 904.307
799 802 3
38.034 7.729
.000
T, A & P > A
12753.149 13657.456 485.088 52824.289 53309.377 1775.694
327 330 3 1162 1165 3
39.000 161.696 45.460
3.557
.014
A>R
591.898
14.475
.000
T &R > A &P
25801.809 27577.502
631 634
40.890
301.436
T > P, R & A 18210.936 19513.286 1435.123 66318.600 67753.723 438.837
472 475 3 1758 1761 3
38.582 478.374 37.724
12.681
.000
146.279
5.005
.002
P>A&R T>R
T>R>P>A 11222.882 11661.719
384 387
29.226
Note: A: Activist, T: Theorist, R: Realistic, P: Pragmatist.
1947
