An Investigation on How Mode of Teaching, Location of Educational Institution and Teacher’s Age Affect Teaching Style
Shamala Krishnan1*, Phawani Vijayaratnam2, Shiney John3
1 Institutional Development and Support, Inti International University, Nilai, Malaysia
2 Center of Liberal Arts and Languages, Inti International University, Nilai, Malaysia
3 Faculty of Business, Communication and Law, Inti International University, Nilai, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 1 April 2020 | Published: 15 April 2020
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Teaching styles vary from teacher to teacher. Good teachers must not only be knowledgeable in subject matter, but should also be able to recognize individual differences among students and adjust teaching delivery methods that suit their learners. When students are motivated, the learning process will be facilitated and students will find it easier to internalize subject matter and to perform. Social networking and virtual world platforms have infused the learning landscape and created means to support student learning. The requirements of industry revolution 4.0 and the learning style of millennials have created a new teaching and learning landscape. The purpose of this study is to determine the teaching styles of teachers and to examine the relationship between teaching styles and the age of teachers, their teaching locations and their mode of teaching. The current study was conducted on 236 teachers using the Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching Styles (SETS) questionnaire. These teachers were randomly selected from urban, suburban and rural schools as well as institutions of higher learning in and out of Malaysia. Data was collected and analyzed using SPSS 24. A key finding from this research will show that teaching style can depend on age, mode of teaching and location of institution.
Keywords: Teaching style, Mode of teaching, Location of institution, Age group
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Teaching styles vary from teacher to teacher. As teaching is essentially a human interaction, teaching styles will be influenced by various factors such as diversity of students and teachers, classroom environment, system support and discipline of instruction among others.
Good teachers must not only be knowledgeable in subject matter, but should also be able to recognize individual differences among students and adjust teaching delivery methods that suits their learners. When students are motivated, the learning process will be facilitated and students will find it easier to internalize subject matter and to perform. Social networking and virtual world platforms have infused the learning landscape and created means to support student learning. The requirements of industry revolution 4.0 and the learning style of millennials have created a new teaching and learning landscape. Past research on teaching styles using the Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching Styles questionnaire concentrated on specific departments or done across departments within a university. However, the current research would like to determine the teaching styles of teachers across institutions, age groups and teaching locations and to examine if there is a relationship between teaching styles and the age of teachers, their teaching locations and their mode of teaching.
2. Literature review
According to Clark and Latshaw (2012), teachers build their teaching style based on factors such as the course outcomes, discipline specifications, students, school location etc. Over the years, social networking and virtual world platforms have infused the learning landscape and created means to support student learning. Disruptive technologies from smart phones to Facebook, Twitter, and Google Scholar are regularly used by students because of their ease of use, flexibility and convenience. Research evidence drawn by Jones.C. et al. (2010) and Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. and Vojt,G. (2011) show that students have their own preferred disruptive technologies to support their learning needs and are not homogenous in the use and appreciation of these new technologies.
Howell, W,L (2019) at the recent World Economic Forum asserted that human skills such as creativity, selflessness, flexibility and good collaborating skills will increase students’ value in the Industrial revolution 4.0 age. Hence, the challenge will be for schools and universities to adjust classrooms to better synergize constructive pedagogical approaches with technological innovations and to incorporate the intangible soft skills for graduate productivity and success Tyagarajan,T. (2019); Deng and Tavares (2013); Tartari (2015). In a study using WeChat based blended learning to optimize learning in a network marketing course, it was found that WeChat could cultivate students’ exchange of ideas to promote deep learning and this was not restricted by time or space Zhang et. al. (2019). Flexibility and adaptability of teachers are keys to effective teaching. Teachers can modify their teaching style through understanding which style works best for individuals and groups. With the use of technology, teachers can now manipulate the teaching and learning environment based on learner needs to enable effective classroom delivery. According to Mohanna,et.al.(2007) this adaptability is one of the key skills of a flexible teacher and is demonstrated as differences in teaching style. Differentiated teaching not only ensures a meaningful and successful learning experiences but also leads to a positive job satisfaction. (Park,V. & Datnow, A., 2017).
At school and university, student centered teaching approaches such as flipped classroom and other constructivist approaches facilitate learning activities both face to face and online to allow mastery of important concepts at a deeper level (Stamm, 2011; Yan, Mason, J. &
Hanna G (2017). However, becoming proficient in student – centered teaching requires training and practice on the part of instructors and proficiency grows over time with instructors’ training, teaching experience, age and also commitment (Ghavifekr, S. & Rosdy, W.A.W. (2015). Instructors who consciously and continuously reflect, reinterpret and question the subject matter they teach often veer toward student centered approaches to teaching as compared to teachers who avoid a reflective practice of their subject matter (Trigell 2012). However, research by Shah and Udgaonkar (2018) on student rating in the medical faulty revealed that age was not an important attribute to gauge a teacher. Research by Bodhe,C,D. & Jankar,D,S.(2015) also debunked the positive correlation between age of teachers and their teaching proficiency. Research has proven, nonetheless, that participation in faculty development programs has been associated with junior faculty members shifting their approaches to student centric teaching approaches (Zhang et. al. 2019). It was also observed the positive effect of facilitator development course among junior teaching staff especially in inter-professional teamwork. Kamboj.et.al (2015).
Generally, students whose learning styles are compatible with their teachers’ teaching style have a symbiotic relationship with each other and the classroom becomes a fertile ground for finding meaning, retaining information and applying knowledge more effectively (Felder, M
(1995); Katsioloudis and Fantz (2012). And through an awareness of the preferred teaching style, teachers can reflect on how their teaching style can be changed, modified, or supported to improve their interactions with students. However, interestingly, in a study by Kamboj.et.al.(2015), the researchers concluded that if teachers varied their teaching methods and styles as opposed to finding compatibility with students’ learning styles, learners will be exposed to familiar and unfamiliar ways of learning during the learning process, giving learners multiple ways to excel.
Studies in India done by Vijaya Lakshmi (2005); Sodhi (2010); and Kothawade (2014) have shown that location where a school is situated has a great influence on teaching effectiveness, whereas Tyagi (2013), Pachaiyappan & Ushalaya Raj (2014) found out that location does not significantly influence teacher effectiveness. Additionally, a study by Alordiah, Akpadaka &
Oviogbodu (2015) also shows significant difference in the academic achievement of students in Mathematics in urban and rural children in Nigeria. This was attributed to the unavailability of teachers and students investing more time in farm duties than in studies. A further research comparing teaching styles of Tibetan teachers in rural China with Nanjing teachers in urban cites in China revealed that Tibetan teachers and students demonstrated an inclination for being more conservative and less creative in their learning and teaching.
(Zhang, Fu & Jiao, 2008) This was attributed to extreme poverty, examinations-oriented education policies and a constraining political environment.
Using the Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching styles tool, in a study on 18 Saudi college English instructors who taught linguistic and literary courses to different student levels, it was observed that 38% of the respondents followed Style 1: the all-round flexible and adaptable teaching style. This was followed by style3: the official curriculum styles (11%) and style 4:
straight facts (11%) (Alhussain, 2012). In a separate study on 77 faculty members from the medical school in Pakistan, 36.4% of teachers preferred Style 1:the all- round flexible and adaptable teaching style and this was followed by 24.7% for Style 2: the student-centered, sensitive teacher (Ahmed, S.D.H.& Mubeen,S.M. 2013) Interestingly, a recent study on 29 college instructors across the arts, business and science departments in a Phillipines university revealed that the dominant style of majority of the instructors was Style 6 which is the one-off teacher (Sison, M. & Galvez, R. 2018). The objective of the current study is to identify the teaching style of teachers and to understand whether teaching styles vary depending on age, mode of teaching and teaching location.
3. Methodology
This research employed the survey model to determine the surveyed teachers’ teaching styles.
This study was initially piloted with 35 teachers. Feedback was obtained and some minor changes were made before the actual survey instrument was launched. The survey instrument was created using the google app and a link was created and shared with potential respondents. There was a brief note to the respondents on the purpose of the survey and to assure them on the confidentiality of their responses. To encourage honest responses, the survey allowed anonymity of respondents as there was no requirements for their names or the institutions they are employed in. The survey is a self- administered tool that has 24 items that are rated on a 5 point Likert scale. This tool was used previously by other researchers Alhussain (2012); Ahmed and Mubeen (2013); Sison, M and Galvez,R. (2018). The current research involved 236 teachers randomly selected from urban, suburban and rural schools and also institutions of higher learning in Malaysia as well as countries such as India, China, USA and Canada.
Data collected were inputted and analysed using SPSS 24. Data collected was first measured for its reliability before it was analysed. Cronbach’s Alpha was used to measure the reliability of the instrument. The value of Cronbach’s alpha which is equal to or higher than 0.6 is deemed to have achieved the internal reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha value was 0.716 (Table 1) which means that there is consistency among the items and data is fit for further analysis.
Table 1: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.716 24
Four items relating to each of the styles can be summed up to determine a personal score for each preferred style. The analysis of teaching styles was presented through descriptive statistics, frequencies (f) and percentages (%). Teaching styles were identified based on the calculation of the combined mean scores obtained from the Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching Styles inventory (Wall,D.,2007;Mohanna,K.,Chambers,.& Wall,D.,2008). This inventory of the 24 item questionnaire consists of six types of teaching styles. The questionnaire asks to what extent instructors employ the various teaching techniques and then evaluates the teaching styles according to the following categories:
Table 2: Staffordshire Teaching Style Descriptions Style Description
1 The all-round flexible and adaptive teacher: “can use many different skills, can teach both peers and juniors and is very aware of the whole environment both of teaching and of learners.”
2 The sensitive and student-centered teacher : “ is very learner-centered, teaches in small groups, with emotions to the fore, using role-play and drama and is not comfortable doing straight presentations.”
3 The official formal curriculum teacher: “ is very well prepared, accredited, is very aware of and adheres to the formal curriculum and follows external targets.”
4 The straight facts no nonsense teacher: “likes to teach the clear facts, with straight talking, concentrating on specific skills and much prefers not to be involved with multi-professional teaching and learning.”
5 The big conference teacher: “likes nothing better than to stand up in front of a big audience and does not like sitting in groups or one to one teaching.”
6 The one-off teacher: “ likes to deliver small self-contained bits of teaching on a one to one basis, with no props to help and no follow up.”
4. Findings and Discussions
The current research involved 236 teachers randomly selected from urban, suburban and rural schools and institutions of higher learning in in Malaysia as well as overseas institutions.
There were 166 female and 70 male respondents. This disparity between the gender and overrepresentation of women may be due to the fact that teaching is still considered a suitable occupation for women who are knowingly or unknowingly directed to this vocation. Similar situations prevail in a number of countries and in a study done among graduates of Australian universities, it was found that 97% of the pre-primary teachers, 85% of the primary teachers and 68% of secondary teachers are females. Across the Organization of Economic Co–
operation and Development (OECD) too, it was observed similar large percentages of women teachers (OECD, 2017). In Malaysia, it has been reported that there are fewer males in the teaching profession due to the fact that men find teaching in schools not challenging and attractive (The Star, 2015).
Teaching styles were identified based on the mean scores. Overall, the mean of the respondents or teachers in the current study veered to Style 1, the all-round flexible and adaptive teacher with a mean of 16.3. The one off teacher that is Style 6 was the least preferred with a mean of 10.1. This finding is consistent with the research by Alhussain (2012) and Ahmed and Mubeen (2013). However, the study by Sison and Galvez (2018) had a preference for Style 6 with the least preferred style being Style 1. The current study and the study by Sison,M. and Galvez, R.(2018) are inversely proportional as the most preferred teaching style in this current study was the least preferred in that study.
Figure 1. Staffordshire Hexagon with the six teaching styles.
Mode of teaching, location and age group were other demographic factors used to identify teaching styles. Means were used to compare whether there are any differences in teaching styles among the demographic variables as per Table 3 below.
Table 3: Comparison of Teaching Styles by Mode of Teaching, Age and Location
Mode of teaching Age group Location
Teaching style
Face to
Face Blended 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 above Rural Urban Suburban Style 1 16.38 16.28 14.50 16.52 16.10 16.39 16.73 16.46 16.11 Style 2 15.66 15.38 15.09 15.52 14.95 15.68 15.27 15.60 15.44 Style 3 14.33 13.98 13.73 14.49 13.69 13.86 14.09 14.39 13.85 Style 4 13.78 13.38 12.23 14.00 13.17 13.42 13.00 13.66 13.53 Style 5 14.41 13.72 13.23 13.71 13.86 14.49 13.91 14.01 14.13
Style 6 9.97 10.42 9.82 10.41 10.26 9.72 10.27 10.56 9.70
In the demographic section of the questionnaire, respondents were requested to respond on the mode of teaching they employ in class. There were three options which are the face to face, blended and fully online modes. Findings revealed that 116 respondents were found to be using the face to face mode and 120 responded using the blended mode of teaching. None of the respondents were teaching on a fully online mode. The mean for both styles of teaching veered toward Style 1: All round flexible and adaptable teacher followed by Style 2:
0 5 10 15 20
1 The all-round flexible and adaptive teacher
2 The sensitive and student-centered teacher
1 The all-round
flexible and adaptive teacher
3 The official formal curriculum teacher
4 The straight facts no nonsense teacher 5 The big
conference teacher
6 The one-off teacher
The sensitive and student centered teacher. The least preferred style for both the groups was Style 6: The one off teacher.
Responses of the teachers were also analysed based on the location of their institutions.
Findings revealed that 128 respondents were from urban and 97 from suburban schools. Only 11 respondents were teaching in rural schools. Regardless of the location, it was found that the dominant teaching style of the teachers in this sample was Style 1: The all- round flexible and adaptive teacher. (mean for Rural =16.53, mean for urban 16.46 and mean for suburban 16.11)
Figure 2: Respondents based on Location of Education Institutions
Age group was studied next. The population for the age group 20 -29 is only 9% of the total sample. This is because graduates would only join the workforce in their mid 20s upon graduate study and also the demand for postgraduate qualification for university teaching.
It can be seen that the 20-29 age group slanted towards Style 2: The student centered and sensitive teacher (mean 15.09). Some plausible reasons could be because this Generation Z group have been exposed to student centric teaching approaches at school and undergraduate level or have been trained to adapt to active teaching and learning approaches via reading professional literature or by attending field related conference and workshops at the workplace (Safarie and Tarlanialiabadi, 2014). Based on the Staffordshire approach, the Style 2 teachers employ role play or drama, teach in small groups and avoid straight lectures. But this reasoning cannot be generalized for all other age groups as the dominant style of teaching
11
128 97
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Rural Urban Suburban
Location of Institutions
20-29 9%
30-39 36%
40-49 25%
50 above 30%
Age Group
20-29 30-39 40-49 50 above Figure 3: Breakdown of Teachers Based on Age Groups
in these groups is still Style 1 which is the all- round adaptive and flexible teacher (mean 16.52 for age group 30-39 , 16.10 for age group 40-49 and 16.39 for age group 50 and above).
5. Conclusions and recommendations
In the current study, the overall preferred teaching style is Style 1 and the least preferred style is Style 6. This is a stark contrast as Style 1 teaching style denotes flexibility and adaptability of teachers to their surroundings while Style 6 depicts traditional teacher centered teaching. The findings in teaching styles seem to be mixed and inconclusive, hence more studies are required to understand the phenomena.
An interesting finding is the teaching style in the age 20-29 group. This group veered towards Style 2 depicting the sensitive and student centered teacher. This trend should be further studied in future for two reasons. Firstly, to see if this trend continues with a larger sample size and secondly to check if this trend can be extended to other age groups.
Interestingly, the above findings support the research of Tartari (2015) Zhang et. al. (2019) and Tyagarajan (2019) on the effectiveness of blended learning and disruptive technologies in the learning process and the adjustments made by teachers to aid student understanding of subject matter. In addition, the current study could be replicated after a few years to determine whether the teaching styles change in light of emerging issues in the global education sector with the advent of Industrial revolution 4.0 subject offerings and the trend of institutions of learning moving toward flexible education, massive open online courses (MOOC), work based learning etc. It will be interesting to see how these factors impact the teaching styles.
Note: The authors would like to thank Gary Tan Peng Liang (Ph.D) for introducing them to the Staffordshire Evaluation of Teaching Styles questionnaire and Premalatha Perumal for assistance in data collection and compilation.
References
Ahmed, S. D. H., & Mubeen, S. M. (2013). Exploring teaching style in an undergraduate medical college following traditional curriculum in Pakistan. JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 63(11), 1409-1414.
Alhussain, A. M. (2012). Identifying Teaching Style: The Case of Saudi College English Language and Literature Teachers. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 122-129.
Alordiah, C. O., Akpadaka, G., & Oviogbodu, C. O. (2015). The Influence of Gender, School Location and Socio-Economic Status on Students' Academic Achievement in Mathematics. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(17), 130-136.
Bodhe, C. D., & Jankar, D. S. (2015). Teaching effectiveness: How do students evaluate their teacher. International J. of Healthcare and Biomedical Research, 3(02), 155-159.
Clark, S. D., & Latshaw, C. A. (2012). Effects of learning styles/teaching styles and effort on performance in accounting and marketing courses. World Journal of Management, 4(1), 67-81.
Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students' motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167-176.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign language annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology:
Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.
Howell, W.L. (2019). Why the world needs systems leadership, not selfish leadership. World Economic Forum.
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university?. Computers & education, 54(3), 722-732.
Kamboj, P., & Singh, S. K. (2015). Effectiveness of selected teaching strategies in relation to the learning styles of secondary school students in India. Interchange, 46(3), 289-312.
Kothawade, P. L. (2014). Correlative Study of Teaching Effectiveness & Job Satisfaction of Higher Secondary School Teachers. Indian Journal of Applied Research, Vol. 4, Issue. 7, 116-11
Katsioloudis, P., & Fantz, T. D. (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).
Loh. I. ( 2015,June 5). Fewer men in the teaching profession. THE Star . Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality?
University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & education, 56(2), 429- 440.
Mohanna, K., Chambers, R., & Wall, D. (2007). Developing your teaching style: increasing effectiveness in healthcare teaching. Postgraduate medical journal, 83(977), 145-147.
Mincheonsik. (2001). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (Carol Ann Tomlinson, 1999). Special Education Journal: Theory and Practice , 2 (1), 183-190.
OECD (2019): Women teachers (indicator). doi: 10.1787/ee964f55-en (Accessed on 23 November 2019)
Pachaiyappan1, P., & Ushalaya Raj, D. (2014). Evaluating the Teacher Effectiveness of Secondary and Higher Secondary School Teachers. IOSR Journal of Research &
Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), Volume 4, Issue 1, Ver. V, 52-56
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 000-000.
Safarie, M., & Tarlani-aliabadi, H. (2014). Who practices what? A correlational study of personality type and teaching reflection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1606-1610.
Shah, S. R., & Udgaonkar, U. S. (2018). Influence of Gender and Age of Teachers on Teaching: Students Perspective. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci, 7(1), 2436-2441.
Sodhi, B. (2010). Teacher effectiveness of secondary school teachers of Punjab in relation to school organizational climate.
Sison, M & Galvez, R.(2018). Assessing the Teaching Styles of College Instructors of La Consolacion University Philippines: Implications for Professional Development.
Stamm, L. (2011). Leading the Learner-Centered Campus. Journal of College and Character, 12(4).
Tartari, E. (2015). Benefits and risks of children and adolescents using social media. European Scientific Journal, 11(13).
Trigwell, K. (2012). Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their approaches to teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40(3), 607-621.
Tyagarajan, T. (2019). To prepare for automation, stay curious and don’t stop learning.
Harvard Business Review.
Tyagi, S. (2013). Teaching Effectiveness of Secondary School Teachers in Relation to their Demographic Characteristics. International Journal of Engineering and Innovative Technology (IJEIT), Volume 3, Issue 1, 288- 295
Vijayalakshmi, A. (2005). Teacher effectiveness and job satisfaction of women teachers. Edu Tracks, 4(7), 29-30.
Wall, D. (2007). Developing your teaching style. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253045944_Determining_your_teaching_styl e
Yan, X., Mason, J., & Hanna, G. (2017, February). An exploratory teaching style in promoting the learning of proof.
Zhang, L. F., Fu, H., & Jiao, B. (2008). Accounting for Tibetan university students' and teachers' intellectual styles. Educational Review, 60(1), 21-37.
Zhang, L., Wu, Y., Qian, X., Lv, P., & Zhou, X. (2019). Analysis on WeChat-Based Blended Learning in Network Marketing Course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(17), 86-101.
