European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.

COMPATIBILITY OF TEACHING STYLES WITH

LEARNING STYLES: A CASE STUDY

Saud Aldajah,PhD
Yousef Haik, PhD
Kamal Moustafa, PhD
Department of Mechanical Engineering, United Arab Emirates University,
Al Ain – P.O. Box 15551, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
In order to enhance teaching quality and improve its effectiveness,
attention must be paid to the compatibility of the instructors’ teaching styles
versus the students’ learning styles, which play a vital role in how much
knowledge the students can gain from the material presented in class. This
paper presents the results of a study carried out on the mechanical
engineering students and their instructors at the United Arab Emirates
University. Results showed that the students learning styles are balanced:
active-reflective, intuitive-sensor, visual-verbal and they prefer global over
the sequential learning style. Moreover, the instructor’s teaching styles were
a mix of expert, formal-authority, personal-model and delegator. This
spectrum of teaching addresses most of the students learning methods, which
reflects positively on the learning process. This paper provides
recommendations that instructors can implement in order to furthermore
enhance the teaching process.

Keywords: Teaching styles, Learning styles, Compatibility

Introduction
Students vary in the way they receive and process information; this is
due to the fact that they have different learning styles. Knowledge of
students’ learning styles can assist educators in planning their classes to
ensure reaching each major style with planned activities. “…like all other
teaching tools, knowledge of learning styles can work only if other qualities
of good teaching are also prevalent” Mamchur, 1996.
Learning styles are defined as “a certain specified pattern of behavior
and/or performance, according to which the individual takes in new
information and develops new skills, and the process by which the individual
retains new information or new skills” Sarasin,1999. Learning styles are

50
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

characterized as how people acquire and understand new knowledge and

skills. Thus a student’s learning style is closely related to the way in which
he actually processes and retains the information about that new skill or
knowledge he is given. Students will generally have trouble processing
information in one way and trying to learn or be assessed on that information
in a method that is unsuitable for them. “When a teaching style doesn’t meet
the needs of a particular learning style, not much learning takes place”
Gregorc, 1984.
Instructors develop a teaching style based on their beliefs about what
constitutes good teaching, personal preferences, their abilities, and the norms
of their particular discipline. Some believe classes should be teacher-
centered, where the teacher is the expert and authority in presenting
information, Anthony, 1996. Others take a learner-centered approach,
viewing their role as more of a facilitator of student learning. Although
individuals have a dominant, preferred teaching style, they will often mix in
some elements of other styles.
There are extreme differences in how people process information and
learn. Constructivist, student-centered teaching focuses on teaching for
understanding rather than covering the curriculum. Student-centered teachers
create learning environments (in the classroom or online) which encourage
learners to examine their current beliefs, enable them to explore and be
exposed to new ways of thinking, and include experiences which require
them to re-formulate their understanding. Instructors and designers of
learning experiences should have an awareness of the diversity of learning
styles which allows them to include features that appeal to different kinds of
learners and helps students get the most out of their learning experience. This
approach needs not to be taken to the extreme, but often small modifications
to a basic design can dramatically expand its utility for different learning
styles. Instruction which focuses on development of the "whole brain",
including intuition, sensing, imagination as well as analysis, reason and
sequential problem solving will reach a greater portion of students with
various learning styles.
Carolyn Mamchur, 1996 says, “Understanding individual learning
preferences and differences is an increasingly popular and useful tool,
serving teachers in four ways. First, teachers have a method to teach that is
diverse and adaptive enough to meet the various learning style needs of
students who are not necessarily oriented toward schooling. Second, teachers
can indicate to students that they care about the individuality and integrity of
each learner. Third, because learning style is related to teaching style,
teachers can better understand their own teaching styles strengths and
weaknesses. And fourth, teachers can gain insight into how they work
together in this particular world we call school.”

51
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

Students will gain more knowledge, retain more information, and

perform far better when teaching styles match learning styles, Lage, 2000.
However, it is recognized that it is difficult to match with every learning
style and therefore, a portfolio of teaching styles is recommended, Moallem,
2001.
This paper presents the results of a study on the compatibility of the
teaching and learning styles for the mechanical engineering students and
their instructors at the United Arab Emirates University.

Teaching Styles
Teaching style is the mechanism of how we convey the knowledge
and information to students. Style also reflects what Reinsmith, 1992 and
1994 describes as the instructor's presence and the nature and quality of the
encounter with students. As a result, the efficacy with which we display our
styles as teachers has two effects on students. It may facilitate or hinder their
ability to acquire content and skills and it influences the learning styles our
students adopt.
Teachers’ personal qualities direct the selection of the way they
deliver the substance of the matter. There is a symbiotic relationship among
personal qualities, the instructional processes teachers employ to convey the
content of discipline, and the styles students display as learners, Grasha, A.F.
(1994). .
Teaching styles are viewed as a particular pattern of needs, beliefs,
and behaviors that faculty display in classrooms. The Grasha-Riechmann
teaching style model was used in this study. The five teaching styles as
defined by Anthony, 1994 are shown in the next subsection.

Dimensions of Teaching Styles

Expert: The instructor possesses knowledge that the students need.
He strives to maintain status as an expert among students by displaying
detailed knowledge and by challenging students to enhance their
competence. He is concerned with transmitting information and insuring that
students are well prepared.
Formal Authority: An instructor-centered approach where the
instructor feels responsible for providing and controlling the flow of content
which the student is to receive and assimilate. The formal authority figure
does not concern himself with creating a relationship with the student nor is
it important if the students build relationships with each other.
Demonstrator or Personal Model: An instructor-centered approach
where the instructor demonstrates and models what is expected (skills and
processes) and then acts as a coach or guide to assist the students in applying

52
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

the knowledge. This style encourages student participation and utilizes

various learning styles.
Facilitator: A student centered approach where the instructor
facilitates and focuses on activities. Responsibility is placed on the students
to take initiative to achieve results for the various tasks. Students who are
independent, active, collaborative learners thrive in this environment.
Instructors typically design group activities which necessitate active
learning, student-to-student collaboration and problem solving.
Delegator: A student-centered approach whereby the instructor
delegates and places much control and responsibility for learning on
individuals or groups of students. This type of instructor will often require
students to design and implement a complex learning project and will act
solely in a consultative role. Students are often asked to work independently
or in groups and must be able to effectively work in groups.

Solomon-Felder Model for Learning Styles

Student preferences in the reception and processing of information
formulate the preferred learning style for a student. The compatibility
between the instructor delivery style and the student learning style partially
contributes to the percentage of the learning a student attains in a class. A
mismatch between the instructor teaching style and the student style may
lead to a failure in the learning process, Felder, 2005 and Coffield, 2004.
There are a number of models, assessment tools and methodologies designed
to test the learning styles Felder, 1988. In Engineering and Science
Education two instruments have been widely recognized: Kolb’s Learning
Style Inventory (LSI) Kolb 1983 and Soloman-Felder Index of Learning
Styles (ILS). The styles assessment tool is an opinion survey. In this study,
the ILS assessment tool was used. It consists of 44 multiple-choice
questions. The instrument is conveniently available on the internet,
Soloman, 2008. The ILS model classifies students according to where they
fit on a number of scales pertaining to the ways they receive and process
information. The ILS model classifies learners along four dimensions;
namely, (1) Active-Reflective, based on Kolb model for processing
information, (2) Sensor-Intuitive, based on Jung’s theory of psychological
types, (3) Visual-Verbal, and (4) Sequential-Global. The last two
dimensions are based of dimensions of other models, Grasha, 1994. The
number of the possible different learning styles according to the ILS model is
(24=16).

Dimensions of Learning Styles

In this study, the ILS assessment tool was utilized, Soloman 2008.
This tool is based on responding to 44 multiple-choice questions designed to

53
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

classify a respondent’s learning style along four dimensions active-reflective,

sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal and sequential-global dimensions.

Active-Reflective
This dimension deals with the processing of the perceived
information. An active experimentation learner prefers to experiment with,
discuss, test and explain the perceived information. Active learners prefer
group work. Active learners tend to be experimentalists. Reflective
observation learners prefer to examine and manipulate the information
introspectively. Reflective learners prefer independent work. Reflective
learners tend to be theoreticians. The active learning style is closely related
with the C and D thinking styles, while the reflective learning style is closely
related with the A thinking style.

Sensor-Intuitive
This dimension deals with the perception and organization of
information. Sensing involves observing, gathering data through senses,
intuition involves indirect perception through speculation, imagination and
guessing. Sensor learners prefer facts, data and experimentation, solving
problems using standard methods, memorizing facts. Intuitor learners prefer
principles and theories, challenging new concepts, innovation and dislike
repetition. The sensor learning style is closely related with the B thinking
style, while the intuitive learning style is closely related with the D thinking
style.

Visual-Verbal
This dimension deals with the input of information. Visual learners
prefer information presented in pictures, diagrams, movies, demonstrations
and charts. Verbal learners prefer information said to them. They prefer
verbal discussion and presentation more than that presented by other input
modalities.

Sequential-Global
This dimension deals with the understanding of the information.
Sequential learners prefer an ordered progression in presenting the material
while global learners like to see the whole scheme of the presentation in
order to comprehend the information.
Sequential learning styles are closely related to the B thinking style
while the global learning style is closely related to the D thinking style.

54
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

Results and Discussion

The data for this research has been collected from 40 ME students
from the UAEU. The Solomon-Felder model was utilized in order to assess
the students’ learning styles. A total of 12 instructors participated in the
teaching style survey.
The dominant learning styles for the whole sample was analyzed
statistically, the error in the statistics analysis assumes 5% error. Figure 1
shows the distribution of the four dimensions of learning styles for all
students who participated in the study. For each dimension, the distribution
is shown from strong (9-11) to moderate (5-7) to weak (1-3) scale. Figures 2
a-d show the dominant learning styles for the whole student population at the
mechanical engineering department at the UAEU. The negative notion is
used to present the whole domain on the same figure as was used in Soloman
, 2008. The negative scale is indicated for the first modality in each domain.
For example in Figure 2-a, the negative is indicating a predominant active
domain. Figures 2 a-d show that the majority of students are balanced
active-reflective, intuitive-sensor, visual-verbal and sequential-global
learners. There is however a small skew toward reflective, intuitive, global
and verbal learning styles over active, sensor, visual and sequential learning
styles, respectively.

Figure 1. Mechanical engineering students learning styles at UAEU

55
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

Figure 2. Mechanical engineering students learning styles distribution at UAEU a) active-

reflective, b) intuitive-sensor, c) visual-verbal and d)sequential-global

The teaching style survey results, shown in table 1, revealed that the
ME faculty’s primary teaching styles are expert, formal authority, personal
model and delegator, whereas the secondary teaching style is the facilitator.
Such a combination of teaching styles provides the students with
information, knowledge, and skills that the instructors possess. The focus is
on clear expectations and acceptable ways of doing things. The emphasis is
on direct observation and by following a role model. Furthermore, it helps
the students to perceive themselves as independent learners. However, the
downfall for such a combination is that if the knowledge and the information
the instructors possess are overused, it will be intimidating to less
experienced students. It may not always show the underlying thought
processes that produce answers. If the formal authority teaching style is
strongly applied, it can lead to rigid, standardized, and less flexible ways of
managing students and their concerns. The delegator teaching style may
misread student’s readiness for independent work. Some students may
become anxious when given autonomy.

56
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

Teaching Style Low Moderate High Average Score Remarks

Expert 1.0-3.2 3.3-4.8 4.9-7.0 5.7 High
Formal Authority 1.0-4.0 4.1-5.4 5.5-7.0 5.5 High
Personal model 1.0-4.3 4.4-5.7 5.8-7.0 5.4 Moderate
Facilitator 1.0-3.7 3.8-5.3 5.4-7.0 5.3 Moderate
Delegator 1.0-2.6 2.7-4.2 4.3-7.0 4.7 High
Table 1 Teaching Styles of the ME Faculty

Conclusion
Since the ME students learning style fall within the reflective-active
range it is recommended that the ME instructors provide more discussions,
problem-solving activities; students retain information better when doing
something with it. At the same time, provide time to think about the material,
not just read & memorize; write summaries, devise questions and possible
applications of the content.
40% of the students prefer the intuitive learning style over sensing,
while 57% are in the midrange of intuitive and sensing, therefore, it is
recommended that the ME instructors should focus more on interpretations
and theories which connect facts; provide time to read questions thoroughly
and recheck results.
Most students preferred global learning style to the sequential. For
such students, it is recommended to provide overviews of material before
getting into specifics; show how topics are related to other relevant course
material or knowledge students may have from previous experiences.
73% of the students prefer both verbal and visual leaning styles. It is
recommended to incorporate meaningful pictures, diagrams, charts,
timelines, video, demonstrations whenever possible; concept maps are good
for listing key points and demonstrating relationships and can be color-coded
and to summarize or outline content verbally so that students can transcribe
in their own words; working through ideas in groups can also be effective.

References:
Mamchur, Carolyn. (1996). A Teacher’s Guide to Cognitive Type Theory
&Learning Style. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Publishing.
Sarasin, Lynne Celli. (1999) Learning Style Perspectives, Impact in the
Classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Gregorc, Anthony F. and Butler, Kathleen A. (1984). “Learning is a Matter
of Style.” VocEd, v. 59, p. 27-29.
Anthony F. Grasha and Laurie Richlin (1996). “Teaching with Style: A
Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching and

57
 European Journal of Educational Sciences March 2014 edition vol.1, No.1

Learning Styles”. Alliance Publishers, div. of International ISBN: 978-

0964507111
Lage, M. J.,Platt, G. J. & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A
gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. Journal of Economic
Education.
Moallem, M. (2001). The implications of the research literature on learning
styles for the design and development of a Web-based course.Presented at
the AECT 2001 Annual Conference.
Reinsmith, W.A. (1992). “Archetypal forms in teaching: A continuum”.
Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
Reinsmith, W.A. (1994). “Archetypal forms in teaching”. College Teaching,
42, 131-136.
Grasha, A.F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal
authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching,42,
142-149.
Felder, R. and Spurlin, J. (2005).“Application, reliability and validity of
Index of Learning Styles,” International Journal of Engineering Education,
Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 103-112.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). “Learning Styles
and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review
Learning and Skill Research Center Report, available on line
www.LSRC.ac.uk.
Felder R. M., Silverman L K (1988). “Learning and Teaching Styles in
Engineering Education, Engineering Education Vol 78, No. 7, pp. 674-681.
Kolb, D. (1983). “Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of
Learning and Development”. New York: Prentice Hall.
Soloman, B., and Felder, R. M.. “Index of Learning Styles,”
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder- public/ILSpage.html) [Acessed May 1, 2008].

58