Exploring the preferred learning style of preservice teachers and how this influences their philosophy of teaching

Heather Young; Bradley Coleman; Carla Jagger; Peyton Sweet Moore; J. C.  Bunch

doi:10.37433/aad.v2i2.131

Authors

Heather Young University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2236-5054
Bradley Coleman University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747
Carla Jagger University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9796-6271
Peyton Sweet Moore University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9974-1698
J. C. Bunch University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131

Keywords:

teaching philosophies, agricultural education, Kolb LSI, mixed methods

Abstract

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to address how preservice teachers’ preferred learning style influences their philosophy of teaching agricultural education. A convergent parallel mixed methods design was used in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then merged for combined analysis. In this study, we identified 17 preservice teachers’ learning style and then assessed how their learning style influenced their philosophy statement. We found 59% of the teaching philosophy statements were similar to the preservice teachers’ learning style, 18% were different, and 23% were deemed inconclusive. It appears the preferred learning style of preservice teachers does carry through into their teaching philosophy. The percentage of inconclusive statements show that teachers will incorporate multiple learning styles to meet the diverse learning needs of their students. When the various learning styles of a class are met, it is suggested that the learning experience will be more effective and beneficial for the learners. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend implementing professional development sessions to help teachers blend their preferred learning style with the needs of their learners. Additionally, further research is needed to compare teachers’ actual practice with their teaching philosophies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baker, M. A., & Robinson, J. S. (2019). The interaction of learning style on measures of successful intelligence in secondary agriculture students exposed to experiential and direct instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(3), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.03014

Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443

Beegle, J., & Coffee, D. (1991). Accounting instructors’ perceptions of how they teach versus how they were taught. Journal of Education for Business, 67(2), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1991.10117524

Brown, B. L. (2003). Teaching style vs. learning style. Myths and realities. ERIC Publications. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482329

Caukin, N. G., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2017). Using a teaching philosophy statement as a professional development tool for teacher candidates. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, (11)2, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110218

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Delahoussaye, M. (2002). The perfect learner: An expert debate on learning styles. Training, 39(5), 28-36.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.46

Hernandez, J. E., Vasan, N., Huff, S., & Melovitz-Vasan, C. (2020). Learning styles preferences among medical students: Kinesthetic learner’s multimodal approach to learning anatomy. Medical Science Educator, 30, 1633–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-01049-1

Hydrie, M. Z. I., & Naqvi, S. M. Z. H. (2021). Assessing learning styles of medical students using Kolb’s learning style inventory and their association with preferred teaching methodologies. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 71(4), 1157¬–1161. https://www.jpma.org.pk/article-details/10601

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2017). Kolb learning style inventory: Workbook version 3.2. Korn Ferry Hay Group.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291046218

Loewenberg Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479

Miller, P. (2001). Learning styles: The multimedia of the mind (ED451340). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED451140.pdf

Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching practices. Higher Education, 68, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Sankey, L. L., & Foster, D. D. (2012). A content analysis of teaching philosophy statements of award-winning colleges of agriculture professors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04124

Schönwetter, D. J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M., & Taylor, K. L. (2002). Teaching philosophies reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching philosophy statements. The International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156501

Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R. A. (1990). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Merrill.

Smith, K. L., & Rayfield, J. (2019). STEM knowledge, learning disabilities and experiential learning: Influences of sequencing instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02222