The model of teaching and learning style presented in this chapter should not be followed blindly as a recipe for success in teaching. While it has a great deal of empirical support and practical experience to back up its recommendations, it must be placed in context with other ideas and approaches to instruction. Our selection of instructional processes always must be based upon an informed choice after considering other alternatives. The process of seeking information about various approaches to teaching is extremely important. Without such inquiry, we effectively have few choices and must rely on past habits.
The Need for an Integrated Model of Teaching and Learning Style
Models in any field emerge for a variety of reasons. New information may fail to fit the ideas of older models, it may not work well in practice, or people simply want something better. Of the three reasons provided, Richard Lahey [1994] argued that our desire for something new is often overlooked or discounted as one of the reasons for seeking new models and theories. Lahey noted that older models of a phenomenon are often replaced because people eventually grow tired of them. Their proponents become weary of fighting a mounting wave of adversity [which is not always based upon data that refutes the model], or the proponents move on to other areas of interest.
A critical mass forms for a better way and the process of model building moves forward a notch.
One example in the field of teaching is the demise of interest in behavioral models of instruction [cf., the description of theoretical models of teaching and learning in pages 118-125 of Chapter 3]. Self-paced instruction, Keller Plans, behavioral objectives for learning, and intriguing methods to reward student achievement have taken a back seat to the cognitive revolution in teaching. Encouraging critical and creative thinking, teaching students to solve problems and to make decisions, developing writing skills to encourage reflection, analysis, and communication, and helping students become self-directed, self-initiated learners are now much more in vogue.
Behavioral approaches have been de-emphasized in spite of evidence that supports the effectiveness of manipulating environmental stimuli to prompt, trigger, encourage, and to reward desirable behavior in the classroom. In fact, behavioral principles continue to be used in educational settings as anyone who employs earning points and grades to motivate students can attest. It is, however, no longer as popular as it once was. The responses to the questionnaire on theoretical positions in Chapter 3 [cf., Figure 3-4] clearly demonstrated that college faculty endorsed cognitive and humanistic views to a much larger extent in their teaching. Those who argued for a strong behavioral component in educational practice had their day and many moved on. Some, in the spirit of if you can’t beat them--join them, decided to merge their ideas with those found in the cognitive revolution. The result is a hybrid model called cognitive-behaviorism.
In line with the themes raised above, I did not set out to develop an integrated model of teaching and learning styles because there were fatal flaws in other approaches.
Other ways of conceptualizing teaching and learning style have empirical support as well as practitioners who use them successfully. I certainly was not exploring an alternate model to create a revolution. My reasons were very modest. I was simply
dissatisfied with certain aspects of current conceptions of teaching and learning style and wanted to suggest a remedy. My areas of dissatisfaction included:
• Most contemporary approaches tended to emphasize either the styles of teachers or those of learners. Most of the models of teaching style described in Chapter 1 share this quality as did my early work with the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales [cf., Table 3-5]. While useful in their own right, it became clear to me that they only offered a one-sided point of view. The relationship between the styles of teachers and students needed to be explored.
• For those models that accounted for the styles of both teachers and students, they were largely descriptive and mildly prescriptive [cf., the discussion of the model based on Carl Jung’s theory of personality described in Chapter 1]. Such approaches, for example, did not specify how various styles of teaching could be adopted or modified or the conditions under which it was appropriate to employ a given style. Associations between the educational practices of individuals with particular styles were simply noted. And in some cases, people were not seen as having a great deal of flexibility in varying their styles. Jung, for example, argued that our dominant preferences for qualities such as introversion or extroversion were inborn. Thus, one did not wake up one morning and decide to change a dominant preference.
Because the dominant preference was pervasive, those subordinate to it could be tinkered with and enhanced, but they always remained in the background. Thus, someone who preferred to gather new information and to explore the world through their senses, possessed a less developed sense of intuitive thinking. Intuition may occasionally emerge on an activity and surprise that person, but usually was subordinate to the sensing preference. Under such conditions, teachers had to rely on their dominate preferences and seek ways to accommodate differences between their styles and those of their students.
Accommodating differences in style is an important part of teaching to diversity. A reliance on this strategy, however, does not allow for periodically creating beneficial mismatches in style.
• I wanted a model that also provided for stretching the styles of students and faculty. If managed well, I knew that informed and well-chosen mismatches in style could provide opportunities for both parties to grow. Matching student and teacher styles up to a point provides a certain amount of satisfaction for both parties.
Unfortunately, when carried to an extreme, matching styles can lead to boredom and satisfaction with the status quo.
• I wanted an approach that was clearly grounded in the classroom.
Some contemporary approaches such as those based on the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, Group Embedded Figures Test and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory use a general assessment of personality that is then related to the classroom. I wanted to assess style using a more direct link. That is, both the formal measures of teacher and student styles, and the characteristics that emerged from them, needed to be grounded in classroom experiences.
There were two reasons for this requirement. One was technical and related to the reliability and validity of devices to measure style.
I knew from other research I was doing that situation specific tests generally were more reliable and valid than those with a general frame of reference [cf., VanSchoyk & Grasha, 1981; Grasha, 1983].
The other reason was that grounding the measuring devices in instructional processes would make it easier to link the qualities of teachers and students. This could facilitate recommendations for instructional practices. This latter point was one of the forces that led to the development of the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales. It also became part of the rationale for my developing the Teaching Style Inventory described later in this chapter.
With the above issues in mind, I began in 1988 a program of research designed to develop an integrated model of teaching and learning style. My goals were to describe the stylistic qualities of teachers and students, to show how they related to each other, and to offer suggestions for how this information could be used to enhance the nature and quality of classroom experiences. A less detailed version of this model emphasizing the teaching style component was published in a special section on teaching style in the journal College Teaching [Grasha, 1994]. Outside of workshop and conference presentations, this is the first time the complete model has appeared in print. This chapter outlines the major features of the model while the final four chapters of this book highlight specific examples of ways to apply the modeling the college classroom.
The Elements of the Integrated Model:
Teaching Style
While I had a considerable amount of experience working with the independent-dependent; collaborative-competitive; and participant-avoidant student styles, they were only one part of the equation. To develop an integrative model, I needed to conceptualize the styles of teachers in ways that would be compatible with this approach to learning style. Thus, my initial task was to develop a system that would define and identify the styles of college faculty.
I initially turned to analyzing my experiences, held numerous discussions with colleagues and participants in workshops, interviewed people, attended classes, and began reviewing the literature on teaching. While there was a diversity of opinion on the issue, a working definition of teaching style soon emerged. I began to see it as a pattern of needs, beliefs, and behaviors that faculty displayed in their classroom.
It also became clear that the styles of faculty were multidimensional and affected how they presented information, interacted with students, managed classroom tasks, supervised course work, socialized students to the field, and mentored students. [A detailed examination of how such elements occur in various approaches to style was described in Chapter 1.]
Overall, such efforts produced a diverse and rich source of material about how and why people taught in particular ways. I then turned my attention to determining what qualities of faculty were pervasive across a variety of disciplines and classroom environments. A thematic analysis of the information I had gathered from all of the sources mentioned above suggested that five teaching styles were pervasive in the college classroom. They were the styles of Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Model, Facilitator, and Delegator. Table 4-1 describes each one of them along with the advantages and disadvantages they created for teachers.
It would be fair to say that I did not discover the five styles as much as I catalogued what was already there. Together, the styles appear to be prevalent aspects of faculty presence in the classroom. They are not isolated qualities that affect only a few teachers. And because they interact in predictable ways with the learning styles of students, they also help us to understand the nature of teacher-student encounters.
Like Colors on an Artist’s Palette
While it might appear tempting to place teachers into one of five boxes, my initial observations suggested that such attempts at parsimony were premature.
Instead, it quickly became apparent that everyone who teaches possesses each of the five teaching styles to varying degrees. In effect, each individual style was like a different color on an artist’s palette. Like those colors, they could be blended together. In all, four combinations of styles were present in an analysis of how college teachers conducted their classes. These four clusters or blends of teaching styles are listed in Table 4-2.
The clusters were obtained from a thematic analysis of my observations of teachers in the classroom, interviews with college faculty, and the responses of several hundred workshop participants who related the five styles to the instructional processes they employed in the classroom. The order of each style in the cluster [e.g., Personal Model/Formal Authority/Expert] reflects the perceived importance of that style in the blend.
College teachers also use some styles more often than others. Thus, the organization of each cluster in Table 4-2 reflects the fact that certain blends of styles are dominant while others play more of a secondary role. The primary or dominant styles are like the foreground in a painting. They are easily seen and central to understanding the artist’s vision. The other qualities are similar to the background in a painting and support and add texture to what is figural.
When teachers lecture, for example, one sees the expert and formal authority side of them much more easily than the modeling, facilitative, or delegative parts of their styles. The latter lie in the background and often contribute to
Expert
Possesses knowledge and expertise that students need. Strives to maintain status as an expert among students by displaying detailed knowledge and by challenging students to enhance their competence. Concerned with transmitting information and insuring that students are well prepared.
Advantage: The information, knowledge, and skills such individuals possess.
Disadvantage: If overused, the display of knowledge can be intimidating to less experienced students. May not always show the underlying thought processes that produced answers.
Formal Authority
Possesses status among students because of knowledge and role as a faculty member. Concerned with providing positive and negative feedback, establishing learning goals, expectations, and rules of conduct for students. Concerned with the correct, acceptable, and standard ways to do things and with providing students with the structure they need to learn.
Advantage: The focus on clear expectations and acceptable ways of doing things.
Disadvantage: A strong investment in this style can lead to rigid, standardized, and less flexible ways of managing students and their concerns.
Personal Model
Believes in “teaching by personal example” and establishes a prototype for how to think and behave. Oversees, guides, and directs by showing how to do things, and encouraging students to observe and then to emulate the instructor’s approach.
Advantage: An emphasis on direct observation and following a role model.
Disadvantage: Some teachers may believe their approach is the best way leading some students to feel inadequate if they cannot live up to such expectations and standards.
Facilitator
Emphasizes the personal nature of teacher-student interactions. Guides and directs students by asking questions, exploring options, suggesting alternatives, and encouraging them to develop criteria to make informed choices. Overall goal is to develop in students the capacity for independent action, initiative, and responsibility. Works with students on projects in a consultative fashion and tries to provide as much support and encouragement as possible.
Advantage: The personal flexibility, the focus on students' needs and goals, and the willingness to explore options and alternative courses of action.
Disadvantage: Style is often time consuming and is sometimes employed when a more direct approach is needed. Can make students uncomfortable if it is not employed in a positive and affirming manner.
Delegator
Concerned with developing students’ capacity to function in an autonomous fashion. Students work independently on projects or as part of autonomous teams. The teacher is available at the request of students as a resource person.
Advantage: Helps students to perceive themselves as independent learners.
Disadvantage: May misread student’s readiness for independent work. Some students may become anxious when given autonomy.
Table 4-1
Five Teaching Styles
Table 4-2
Four Clusters of Teaching Styles
* The percentage of faculty whose primary styles fell within each of the clusters [ Grasha, 1994].
Cluster 1 [38%]*
Primary Teaching Styles: Expert/Formal Authority
Secondary Teaching Styles: Personal Model/Facilitator/Delegator Cluster 2
[22%]
Primary Teaching Styles: Personal Model/Expert/Formal Authority Secondary Teaching Styles: Facilitator/Delegator
Cluster 3 [17%]
Primary Teaching Styles: Facilitator/Personal Model/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Delegator
Cluster 4 [15%]
Primary Teaching Styles: Delegator/Facilitator/Expert Secondary Teaching Styles: Formal Authority/Personal Model
the nuances in someone’s approach to lecturing. Some lecturers use personal examples of how the material affected them or demonstrate how to use particular skills. Others employ Socratic questioning strategies or simply ask, “What do you think?” In the latter cases, parts of the personal model, facilitator, and delegator styles begin to appear.
Teaching styles are more than interesting qualities people possess. They also serve an important function in the college classroom. Once again, consider the metaphor of an artist creating a painting. Colors on a canvas are blended and organized to make a statement or to create a mood. In much the same way, each of the four clusters of teaching styles depicted in Table 4-2 makes a statement about “Who I am as a person.” They also help to create a particular mood or emotional climate in class.
For example, an emphasis on the Expert/Formal Authority blend sends a message to students that “I’m in charge here.” It also creates a neutral or “cool” emotional climate. As normally practiced, lectures are vehicles for transmitting information where students become relatively passive participants. In this atmosphere, the expression of emotions is usually held in check except for those rare instances a lively debate occurs.
In contrast, an emphasis on the Delegator/Facilitator/Expert blend creates a different picture. It sends a message to students that “I’m here to consult with you on the projects and issues you are exploring.” The nature and quality of the interactions are different. Teachers and students work together, share information, and the boundaries between teacher and student are not as formal.
The emotional climate is relatively warmer. Also, there are more opportunities for participants to openly express how they feel about tasks and, perhaps, about each other.
Constraints on the Expression of Teaching Style
An artist’s imagination, her propensity for taking risks, the subject matter, and the colors available on the palette place limits on artistic expression. In much the same way, several factors appear to confine the expression of the five teaching styles described in this chapter.
When asked the question “What influences your teaching style?” 560 college teachers in various workshops and seminars I conducted frequently listed the following items:
• Course was required or not required or the class was available only for majors or was open for non-majors.
• Size of the class
• The subject matter [e.g., hard sciences versus humanities]
• Grade Level of the students [e.g., first-year, seniors, graduate]
• How much they liked the class
• Time pressure
• Need to prepare students for standardized exams
• Information about alternate ways to teach
• Willingness to take risks
• Not wanting to deviate from department and college norms for teaching
Participants reported that the Expert/Formal Authority approach to teaching was popular when classes were large, required in the major, the students were mostly freshmen and sophomores, there was time pressure to cover a large amount of material, or they had to prepare their students for taking standardized exams in their fields. They also indicated that the Expert/Formal Authority blend was preferred because it provided an acceptable way to “go through the motions” of teaching courses they disliked. In addition, it was popular because it helped them to easily meet the expectations of colleagues
for “how I should teach.”
In contrast, participants using a Delegator/Facilitator/Expert blend of styles reported they were more willing to take risks. They also stated they were more likely to employ such styles in upper- level undergraduate and graduate courses.
Instructional Strategies Associated with Each Cluster of Teaching Styles
Classroom observations suggested that faculty falling within each of the clusters in Table 4-2 were more prone to use particular teaching methods.
My initial list of these instructional processes was shared with participants in my workshops and seminars. I was interested in whether others concurred with my observations and if their experiences suggested that instructional
My initial list of these instructional processes was shared with participants in my workshops and seminars. I was interested in whether others concurred with my observations and if their experiences suggested that instructional