The impact of teaching styles on students' learning styles and career interests

Abstract

This research aimed to investigate whether or not intellectual styles are value-laden and if they are malleable. This aim was achieved through understanding the types of intellectual styles that teachers and students prefer each other to use in the teaching-learning process. It was further achieved by examining whether or not teaching styles affect students’ learning styles and their career interests. This research employed a mixture of experimental and longitudinal designs as well as a combination of quantitative and qualitative procedures. It was composed of one pilot study and three main studies. The pilot study was intended to evaluate the two inventories (the Preferred Thinking Styles in Learning Inventory, PTSLI, and the Preferred Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory, PTSTI) used in the first study. The purpose of Study One was to identify teachers’ preferences for students’ learning styles and students’ preferences for teachers’ teaching styles. A total of 226 teachers and 268 students participated in Study One. A series of data analyses revealed that the PTSLI and the PTSTI were applicable to Chinese secondary school teachers and students. The pilot study and Study One consistently revealed that teachers and students preferred each other to use Type I styles in learning and teaching, respectively. These findings also indicated that styles are value-laden. Study Two was an experimental study to examine the impact of teaching styles on students’ learning styles and on their career interests. A total of seven teachers and 464 students participated in the control group, whereas the experimental group was composed of six teachers and 219 students. Classroom instruction was implemented in each participating teacher’s school for one semester (6 months). A pre-test and post-test were conducted before and after the classroom instruction. Students’ learning styles were measured by the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II in both tests. At the time of post-test, students also completed the Self-Directed Search that assessed their career interests. In a series of repeated-measures MANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, and paired t-tests conducted in Study Two, changes in students’ learning styles in both the control and the experimental groups were identified. Students in the experimental group demonstrated a trend towards Type I learning styles, whereas students in the control group increased their use of Type II learning styles after the instruction period. Furthermore, teachers’ teaching styles had a direct impact on students’ development of particular types of career interests. Students in the experimental group developed a wider range of career interests than students in the control group. Study Three was a qualitative study conducted among 16 students to explore how and why their learning styles underwent changes. Findings from Studies Two and Three supported the contention that styles are malleable. Results demonstrated that students in the control group showed more features of using Type II learning styles, whereas students in the experimental group gradually increased their use of Type I learning styles after the instruction period. Contributions and implications of the findings are discussed.