Paper Presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lille, 5-8 September 2001

Teachers' teaching styles in the function of pupils' learning and thinking styles in nine-year primary schools

Dr Bogomir Novak

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lille, 5-8 September 2001

Dr Bogomir Novak

Educational Research Institute

Gerbičeva 62

1111 Ljubljana

Slovenia

E - mail:

Abstract

The objective of the research has been to find out to what extent the Slovene nine-year primary schools implement the transformational model by making use of the new teaching, thinking and learning styles. The hypotheses of dependence of teachers' teaching styles on pupils' thinking and learning styles have been partly confirmed on a sample of three eight-year and three nine-year primary schools. The method used has been after only, based on comparison of the curricula of the eight-year schools and the new curricula of the nine-year schools, on observation of the progress of classes on the spot at the three chosen subjects (i. e. mathematics, the Slovene language, social sciences) as well as on interviews and questionnaires.

The result of the research shows that in the nine-year schools in the last two years, the focus turned from teaching suited best for teachers and content oriented curriculum to teaching suited best to pupils' interests, experiences and learning styles and teaching based on the objectives of the curricula of the subject areas studied. However, not many differences have been observed in learning and thinking styles of pupils in nine-year schools.

1. Premise of the concept, hypotheses, objectives and application of the research instrument

This paper1 is an interpretation of observations made in class at one of the subjects of social sciences (history or geography), science (mathematics) and language (the Slovene or the English language) at three eight-year and three nine-year primary schools. The selected eight-year primary schools are the following: the primary school of Prule, of Tone Čufar and of Prežihov Voranc – all three in Ljubljana, whereas the selected nine-year schools are primary school of Savsko naselje, Ljubljana, of Matija Čop, Kranj, and of Tabor II, Maribor – meaning that the latter random sample is smaller. The association of four teaching styles of teachers, three thinking styles and four learning styles of pupils were followed empirically in terms of transformation of school model/paradigm from transmissive to transformational2. This shift is regarded by the critics of the recent curricular reform (the result of which is the nine-year primary school) as a basic problem whereas its founding fathers do not see it as a basic objective of school development. The nine-year primary school is being introduced gradually so that every year there are more schools introducing the programme of the nine-year primary school (For the sake illustration: in 1999 there were 42 nine-year primary schools, in 2000 there were 97, this year there are 161 schools, which means one third of all primary schools).

Under transmissive model pupils mainly passively adapt their method (henceforth style) or style of learning to the teacher's role of knowledge transmitter (Drucker, 2000) – a style of a waiter – whereas in the transformational model2, teachers interactively adapt their different teaching styles to the prevalent learning and thinking styles of pupils. A similar shift can be observed in teachers' lifelong education where methods and styles of work of teacher educators are brought into line with the prevalent learning and thinking styles of teachers. The methods of teaching, learning and thinking are compressed in teaching, learning and thinking styles (Sternberg, 1997)3, comprising also strategies.

In planning evaluation study on didactic improvements of the advanced classes in primary school, the following hypotheses are set:

- the more teachers think independently, critically and creatively in teaching their subject, the more they encourage pupils to think so;

- the more class work concentrates on the higher levels of psychological capabilities, the less it does so on the lower psychological functions of pupils (mechanical learning of contents which do not interest them, repeating, memorizing, wasting time to find unnecessary information) where pupils do not have enough opportunity to creatively co-operate in learning new contents;

- the more teachers include pupils in all class-work activities, the more they help pupils to develop their own learning and thinking styles.

The opposite hypotheses can also be proposed:

-teachers do not offer enough opportunity to pupils for problem solving and creative

learning

-the more teachers make use of the style of transferring knowledge the more pupils choose

the thinking and teaching styles that are alien to them.

These hypotheses were acquired through analysis of the existent educational practise before the curricular reform; however, they are valid even when it has already been implemented. Further in the text we shall establish whether the curricular reform – its objective is undoubtedly to promote educational objectives – is put into practice efficiently. As the curricular reform had been carried out by 1999, i. e. before the start of our research, the method after only (not: before and after) has been applied, meaning that we have compared the curricula of eight-year schools with the new ones of nine-year schools; we also observed the progress of classes on the spot at the chosen subjects (i. e. mathematics, the Slovene language, social sciences), conducted interviews with teachers and distributed to them questionnaires on teaching and thinking styles and on pupils' learning styles.

The development of pluralism of educational interests has been tested by distribution of learning styles – classified by Kolb (Marentič-Požarnik, B, 1995: 77-107) as accommodative, divergent, convergent, assimilative. The questionnaire for pupils – applied in this year's evaluation study – is taken from the adaptation of Kolb's questionnaire on learning styles (Marentič-Požarnik, 1995; 77-101, 103-107). Kolb regards learning as a process whereby knowledge is created through transformation of experience. The criteria to evaluate styles are experience – abstraction, observation – reflection and active testing. Jarvis criticised Kolb's model of experience learning as it cannot be maintained for the mathematical truths. Therefore, we have taken into account other classifications of learning, especially in the interviews with the pupils.

Thinking styles are classified by Rancourt (Marentič-Požarnik, Peklaj, 1995: 109-132) as empirical, rational and noetic. The first one is based on logical inference and argumentation, the second on observation and collection of information and third on the subjective insights. Empirical thinking cannot be regarded as critical as it is not differentiated. Instead it involves, similarly to the basic learning, only memorising; it can become critical at the rational-differentiating and intuitive-associative or synthetic levels.

Even though different classifications of thinking and learning styles are known, the question remains whether or not these styles enable holistic thinking and learning. All of either the Delors's, Kolb's or Rancourt's styles have to be taken into account in order to teach and think with personal enthusiasm. And this could be measured using various instruments.

Psychologists have it that the capacity of rational and logical thinking develops gradually up to the adulthood and in some cases it does not develop at all. Independent, creative and critical thinking entails a combination of all three thinking styles into a holistic and flexible one. To reach this objective, lifelong learning is required and can be achieved at any schooling point just up to a certain degree. A similar observation could be made regarding other capacities conditioning certain styles. Our conceptions regarding association of these styles are only partial and relative because we only know their qualitative properties which enable us to identify and differentiate the styles but we don't know the limit of their development in the eight- and nine-year primary school.

The centralised school system, great expectations of school authorities and of pupils' parents regarding school, the need to preserve the positive self-image of the teachers involved in this evaluation study, the conflicting interests of the participants in education as well as other characteristics of school put, for the purposes of this paper, under elements of its lower transformationality – all this limits the objectivity of our conclusions gained through analysis of data collected with empirical instruments.

The questionnaire on learning styles after Kolb helped us to establish what learning styles pupils have; we have not, however, tried to establish what kind of learning styles they should have or how to present the style to them so that they could make a choice. The questionnaire I for the teachers helped us to establish the frequency of using certain methods in teaching their subject; the questionnaire II for the teachers helped us to establish whether teachers in these methods see, at the given teaching methods, the relation between the transmissive and transformational school models as being dichotomic or central, where both models are considered equally. In observing the process of teaching, the relation between teacher's teaching style and the pupils' learning and thinking styles could be examined whereas the teachers' answers to the questionnaires showed that the actual frequency of usage of a certain method is in compliance with the theoretical frequency.

2. Interdependence between teaching, learning and thinking

The transmissive model of mass school is gradually becoming obsolete as many methods/ styles of carrying out school tasks are gaining grounds. Nevertheless, today teachers in classes of up to 20 pupils do not have time nor perhaps capacity to determine the abilities of individual pupils. All pupils have to do the same exercises in the same time. In observing the process of teaching, we have found out that despite different teaching areas the principle used is the same: one selected teaching style determines one learning style which, in short, could be called reproductive. Pupils have to solve clearly defined problems by finding the missing datum on the basis of the given data and making use of the rules they have previously learnt. Such procedural thinking is in correlation with convergent learning which leads to only one correct answer. Divergent thinking and learning make sense when a teacher admits and positively assesses many correct answers. But this is rarely a case even in social sciences and languages.

The mass public compulsory primary school has not yet been sufficiently oriented toward developing pupil's personality; therefore, it does not teach how to learn. As problem-solving was virtually unknown, memorised facts as a result of mechanic learning prevailed. Thus a pupil does not know nor does he/she select the special learning strategies. On the other hand, the pluralistic teaching, learning and thinking styles are a condition for the transformational school model and thus for a shift from the school with objective being knowledge as a result of learning to the school oriented to the process of learning and communication. Teacher's chosen purpose and the selected didactical means enable relations perceived in the actual process of teaching through the chosen communication strategy. If communication is interactive and dialogical, relations are formed at a high psychological level, otherwise they remain invisible and at a lower level. However, this relation is intrinsic to the very definition of learning: a process of mind leading to changes at various levels, ranging from intrapersonal (in terms of evaluation, norms, views), interpersonal (in terms of relation to others, e.g. cooperation) to a specific educational level of upbringing, knowledge and teaching as a way of getting used to learning.

The following teaching styles can be differentiated:

teaching as a process of transmission (transfer) of knowledge in form adapted to the pupil;
teaching as a process of forming pupils' capabilities and skills;
teaching as a journey or guiding a pupil on the way to his/her goals: the teacher offers the pupil a possibility to be independent and helps him/her to stay on the track;
teaching as encouragement of the pupil's development by giving the pupil various sources, experiences and incentives (Fox, 1983, quoted in Marentič-Požarnik, 1998: 256).

For those four teaching styles metaphors4 are used of a teacher as (1) a waiter or a deliver3y van (2) a constructor or a sculptor (3) an alpine guide and (4) a gardener. On the basis of observation of teaching in three eight-year and three nine-year primary schools, it can be said that the first two types, i. e. (1) a waiter or a delivery van (2) a constructor or a sculptor, prevail over the latter two (an alpine guide and a gardener).

The prevailing first two styles at school indicate the transmissive school model whereas the latter two indicate the transformational one. But only the latter two – i. e. alpine guide and gardener – take into account the pupil's interests. The teacher can choose to teach by using different styles but one of them is his/her favourite. Until recently, teacher's teaching style was guided by the methods used at the faculty and by the transmissive school paradigm to the choice of the styles of a waiter or delivery van. These two make them see as an expert but do not enable them to fully express the educator and human being in them. Teachers and pupils make use of different styles in thinking. One of the styles is their favourite, others have to be learnt while at the same time developing the one they already master. According to the statements of teachers, the empirical style still prevails in primary schools.

The thinking style of pupils, however, does not depend only on teaching style of the teacher and the thinking style the teacher expresses through the teaching process. The questionnaires and interviews with the pupils indicate that some pupils become aware already in the primary school that they change through thinking; they are prepared to learn as this could help them to improve their general level of achievement and in problem solving in their lives. On the other hand, some do not want to develop their thinking capabilities and run away from problems. A similar duality can be observed in the attitude of pupils toward learning. By making use of different teaching styles, teachers try to approach pupils by being as open in their comprehension as possible so that they can take into account their different thinking and learning styles. The incompatibility in the styles of a teacher and a pupil decreases a possibility for their fruitful communication. The pluralism of educational interests can be seen in the variety of styles in nine-year schools. On the basis of the observation of the process of teaching, it can be concluded that the pupils with lower results and less interest find the first two teaching styles better while those with better results – possibly in a higher level group in the nine-year school – the latter two. In a class where pupils are not differentiated into groups with lower/better results, a teacher can less readily and only exceptionally decide to use the styles of an alpine guide or of a gardener and thus promote a creative, mainly noetic thinking.

Be it in social sciences, language or science subjects, pupils think critically and learn creatively when they look for the rules, definitions themselves, when they recognise general patterns in special cases either in a group or individually. In the ex cathedra teaching with the waiter style, the correct thinking is prevalent whereby a question, usually asked by the teacher, can have only one correct answer of the pupils. The ex cathedra style does not develop the variety of teaching and thinking styles and is present to a greater degree in eight-year primary schools. The operational (procedural) thinking and learning precede the understanding when a teacher does the required tasks instead of the pupils with lower results who are reduced to repeating. For the pupils with lower results it can be said that they have a prevalent lower regard for learning and would mainly like a teacher as a transmitter (waiter) of knowledge. It is a pity that they do not see themselves as initiators. They are convinced that they can learn best and achieve satisfying results by memorising, making use of learning by hart and by having superficial interests. It is even worse if these stereotypes are upheld by their parents and by their peers. Group work gives evidence that pupils who are quicker in solving well defined problems than their peers can, on the one hand, solve more problems of the kind or, on the other, they can solve less defined life problems which call for more creativity. The pupils actively participating in the process of teaching and learning pursue a different goal than those who are being just passively informed. Consequently, the active pupils gain, by following the same lectures, different, long-lasting knowledge of high quality. Likewise, good pupils make the teacher gain time so that he/she can pass on the latest developments of the discipline he/she teaches, examines the unsolved problems, relates his/her discipline to others.

Teachers cannot test themselves the progress in the independent thinking of a pupil if they do not choose themselves a style in which they think easiest independently, critically and creatively. Flexibility in choosing the styles entails a great adaptability to the learning styles of pupils. The first two teaching styles are suitable for a professional organisation of the content whereas the second two are adapted to the interests of pupils. The difference between the interest of the discipline and the interest of the pupils can be seen also in differentiation between the old and the new culture of evaluation and assessment. The critical thinking can be recognised by critical questions. In the first two styles, critical thinking is only implicit as it cannot be prominent without new associations to other disciplines and other interests. Therefore, a teacher cannot test nor assess the complexity of the critical, independent and creative thinking without making use of the new culture of evaluation and assessment5 as part of the selected teaching style. This culture enables a teacher to perform the second part of his/her task, i. e. to adjust his/her teaching to the dominant style of pupils who are the target group.