College Teaching

ISSN: 8756-7555 (Print) 1930-8299 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Integrating Teaching Styles and Learning Styles

with Instructional Technology

Anthony F. Grasha & Natalia Yangarber-Hicks

To cite this article: Anthony F. Grasha & Natalia Yangarber-Hicks (2000) Integrating Teaching
Styles and Learning Styles with Instructional Technology, College Teaching, 48:1, 2-10, DOI:
10.1080/87567550009596080

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550009596080

Published online: 25 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1642

View related articles

Citing articles: 58 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vcol20
 Integrating Teaching Styles
and Learning Styles with
Instructional Technology
Anthony F. Grasha and Natalia Yangarber-Hicks
ollege faculty today can choose
among a variety of technological
options, such as videotapes and
DVD disks, to present an array of movies,
instructional programs, and other visual
materials. Computers present information
and organize materials to introduce con-
tent, as well as facilitate student testing.
CD-ROM disks can supplement tradition-
al textbooks and reference books or can
present instructional modules on a variety
of topics.
Web pages allow teachers to post lec-
tures, assignments, and exams in an elec-
tronic format; the World Wide Web and
electronic libraries provide rich sources
of information for almost any discipline.
PowerPoint slides provide interesting
visual presentations, and the telephone
and television bring guest experts from
distant locations into a classroom. Course
information can be accessed from a dis-
tance using television, Web pages, e-mail,
chat rooms, and electronic bulletin
boards.
Promise and Reality
Although this sounds exciting, the use
of technology entails inherent problems.
Keeping students and faculty on the “cut-
ting edge” of the electronic teaching rev-
Anthony F. Grasha is Distinguished
University Teaching Professor, and Natalia
Yangarber-Hicks is a graduate student in
the Department of Psychology, at the
University of Cincinnati in Ohio.
2 COLLEGE TEACHING
olution is an expensive proposition.
Instructional budgets are hard pressed to
provide faculty and students with the
facilities, hardware, and software that
keep them current with advances in tech-
nology. Adding to the problem is the fact
that hardware and software become obso-
lete rather quickly and are expensive to
replace.
Critics suggest that we need a healthy
skepticism about the potential of technol-
ogy. Empirical evidence on its ability to
promote learning is not very robust, and
those promoting technology emphasize
the “delivery of instruction” rather than
the ability of technology to promote a
“learning experience” for students (Neal
1998). In that case, Neal argues, technol-
ogy in the classroom leads to less face-to-
face contact among students and teachers,
which can promote an impersonal atmos-
phere.
The potential for technology users to
create an impersonal mode of relation-
ships is an important problem. Not only is
personal contact with teachers and peers a
vital predictor of student retention, but it
also plays a role in the ability of people to
learn. By themselves, of course, personal
contacts are necessary but not sufficient
for learning to occur. They are often
embedded within other qualities of good
instruction, and the challenge is to see if
electronic-based teaching can capture
them. For example, consider the intellec-
tual excitement, interpersonal concern,
and motivating components of effective
teaching identified in Joseph Lowman’s
( 1 994; 1995) research. Together they are
associated with qualities students appre-
ciate and are related to achievement and
motivation to learn. Whether or not they
can occur to the same degree in electron-
ic formats is something we know very lit-
tle about.
For those willing to experiment with
technology, such problems can be man-
aged if people are willing to evaluate
what they do to identify any shortcom-
ings. Linda Reinhardt (1999) captured
that attitude of experimentation very well
in a recent article. While reflecting upon
her experiences as a new “techno-
teacher,” she illustrates the importance of
evaluating any assumed benefits of tech-
nology. It is not enough, she argues, sim-
ply to use it and then to convince oneself
that there is “value-added’ to the class-
room. Reinhardt notes that an evaluation
of technology should include obtaining a
baseline of student learning in a course
before technology was introduced, as
well as afterward. One would also hope
that teachers would use other kinds of
classroom assessment (cf., Cross and
DeAngelo 1988) to determine the unique
contribution of technology to a broader
range of instructional outcomes.
Teaching Processes in a
Broader Context
There is one concern that will plague
current and future users of technology
regardless of whether or not the problems
mentioned above are solved, and it has
been with us since the cutting edge of
teaching meant using cooperative learn-
ing, problem based learning, Keller
Plans, an emphasis on critical thinking,
service learning, role playing, and class-
room simulation games. It is the instruc-
tional method bias (Grasha 1996,93-95),
a tendency to select teaching processes
because the structural features associated
with them are personally attractive.
Teachers may like the fact that computers
allow them and their students to talk to
each other outside of class. Or, a particu-
lar method may be valued because it per-
mits relevant movies or CD-ROM based
learning modules to be used in a course.
Such motives ignore the fact that tech-
nology based and other teaching process-
es should do more than allow novelty into
the classroom and more than help orga-
nize and structure how time is spent
inside and outside of class. Issues such as
how technology fits into a conceptual
framework of principles for how people
learn or into a broader philosophy of
teaching and learning are seldom raised.
Any teaching method has historical
antecedents and is associated with a vari-
ety of theoretical and philosophical issues
about knowledge. And whether or not one
is conscious of such things at a given
moment, the conceptual underpinnings of
the processes we employ are present any-
way. That is not unlike the laws of chem-
istry and physics accompanying-and
influencing-us every time we drive our
cars. Thus, allowing students to engage in
an electronic discussion of course con-
tent, for example, is very much in line
with ideas about how knowledge is
acquired. In that case, the use of interper-
sonal and group dialogue supports the
idea that knowledge is a social construc-
tion (Brufee 1993). By using the tech-
nique we have also implicitly taken a
position on a much deeper philosophical
issue about the nature of knowledge and
how it is acquired.
In a sense, any instructional process
has deeper implications. How and when
it is used reflects our assumptions about
how people learn, our belief in empiri-
cally derived principles of learning, and
our views of human nature. Using sever-
al forms of an exam in an electronic for-
mat in a class, for example, certainly
Vol. 48/No. 1
suggests that we believe people cannot
be trusted.
Reflecting on our practices and their
conceptual base may help us make better
choices about what we want to do now and
in the future. Otherwise, those committed
to teaching and innovation risk being criti-
cized as “purveyors of pedagogy” and as
lacking intellectual substance (Grasha
1996, 93). People will focus on whatever
technique we choose and not see the tech-
nique as embedded in a complex concep-
tual framework. Instead, they will simply
assume that our knowledge “is less com-
plex, less understandable, and less
amenable to scientific study” (Berlinger
1986, 13). What people forget is that
expertise in teaching, as in anything else,
involves domain-specific knowledge.
Because it involves practical knowledge,
however, it is placed lower in the hierarchy
of importance by those pursuing so-called
higher and more complex issues
(Berlinger 1986; Richlin and Cox 1991).
Of course, some teachers only reinforce
such views by emphasizing the technique
rather than the conceptual underpinnings.
A colleague was recently asked why Pow-
erPoint slide shows were used in his class.
He stated, “because I have a new comput-
er program that allows me to present
information in this way, and I just wanted
to try something different.”
What he may not realize is that a Pow-
erPoint slide show aids students with a
visual learning style to process informa-
tion better. It also provides visual novelty
that our cognitive system needs to help us
pay attention for extended periods. And,
by highlighting important concepts, the
slide show enables learners to capture
important points easily. In effect, a Pow-
erPoint slide show has much more con-
ceptual depth than one would imagine.
Yet, “only a small minority of faculty list
conceptual issues or a systematic philos-
ophy of teaching as a justification for
their instructional processes” (Grasha
1996,92).
When the conceptual underpinnings of
teaching processes are clearly stated, a
clear distinction between teaching and
scholarly methods begins to disappear.
Few scholars would select scholarly
methods or procedures (technology based
or otherwise) simply because they are
available. Rather, the choice of method
allows a scholar to answer questions and
investigate issues that often have impor-
tant philosophical and theoretical impli-
cations. When such issues are clearly stat-
ed, they provide in the eyes of the
scholarly and scientific community a
sound rationale for employing certain
methods and procedures. That elevates
the enterprise of scholarship by making it
serve higher order goals and objectives.
We need to ensure that our teaching
serves higher learning by focusing on the
conceptual context associated with our
methods.
Characteristics of Learners
and Teachers
Our focus in this article is on only one
part of the conceptual base for teaching
with technology: the relationship of tech-
nology to our styles as learners and as
teachers. Learning and teaching styles are
part of our personal make-up. They sum-
marize the needs, emotions. motives,
beliefs, and attitudes we possess about
how to learn and how to teach.
Thus, any instructional process that
tries to shape how we learn or teach will
either encourage and reinforce our pre-
ferred styles, or create pressures for us to
modify them. It is important to under-
stand the connection between particular
forms of technology and their effects on
learning and teaching styles. How such
things vary in the presence of technology
is one issue. The other and perhaps more
important one is how to use technology to
enhance learning and teaching. By con-
sidering the stylistic qualities of learners
and teachers, we may be able to improve
the teaching-learning interaction.
Connecting Technology to Learning
Styles
Questioning how a particular type of
technology influences the learning styles
of students and using that information in
designing a course provide a theoretical
justification for the method. And there is
no question that learning styles should be
taken into account when teaching with
technology. Students’ performance when
faced with technology is very much tied to
their particular learning style preferences
(cf., Dille and Mezack 1991 ; Gee 1990).
In a recent article by David Diaz and
Ryan Cartnal (1999), students in a tradi-
3
tional section of a course were compared
with those taking the online version.
Those in the technology section were
more independent and less dependent in
their styles as learners. And the patterns
among different combinations of learning
styles showed that students in each section
expressed their styles differently. As one
example, the online students were more
willing to participate in group activities, if
the teacher created clear guidelines for
participation. That is, the collaborative,
participatory, and dependent aspects of
A student with a concrete-sequentiaI t hinking
style, who prefers linear problem solving,
could benefit from working on an ill-defined task.
their learning styles were interrelated. In
the traditional section, however, students
were willing to work with other students,
but they wanted to be rewarded and rec-
ognized by the instructor for doing so.
Thus, their collaborative and participatory
styles as learners were connected to their
needs to compete successfully for the
incentives a teacher provided.
The implication of the work on learn-
ing styles and technology is that students
who prefer, and benefit from, learning in
technologically based courses are differ-
ent from those who prefer more tradition-
al courses. Studies noted in this article,
for example, suggest that the students
interested in technology based courses
are independent learners who prefer a
more abstract way of thinking. Such
characteristics, however, do not represent
the majority of college students.
Research using the Grasha-Riechmann
Student Learning Style Scales and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, for exam-
ple, shows that the majority of college stu-
dents do not have well-developed inde-
pendent or abstract-thinking learning
styles. Their interests and energy are cen-
tered on the world of “people, objects, and
events” and not on the exploration of
4 COLLEGE TEACHING
ideas (Grasha 1996; Lawrence 1982).
That is particularly true of students
attending large urban universities and
less-elite, small liberal arts colleges. Thus,
teachers employing technology need to
understand the learning styles of their stu-
dents when designing course activities.
And those promoting technology in cours-
es must recognize that not every student
will easily benefit from its use.
The latter comments do not mean that
learning style alone determines students’
interest or that only certain types of peo-
ple will benefit from courses using tech-
nology. The reality is that people possess
a number of characteristics to different
degrees. Styles are not like boxes into
which people are sorted. Rather, different
learning styles are like the colors on an
artist’s palette. All of the colors are pre-
sent within our personality, but some
blend more readily, and some are more
dominant than others.
Thus, students possess a variety of
learning styles, but not every style is pres-
ent to the same degree. Some students
may be more independent and less depen-
dent, or the competitive or collaborative
aspects of their styles may dominate. In
effect, because of their genetic make-up
and life and educational experiences,
some learning styles are better developed
and more likely to be preferred. The oth-
ers are somewhat dormant, in need of
exercise, and ready to surface-with suf-
ficient justification and support.
That sets the stage for a middle ground
on the appropriate relationship between
technology and learning style. This mid-
dle ground is illustrated in the work of
Jonathan Ross and Robert Schulz (1999)
on the relationship of learning style to
Web-based learning. They report that the
way course information is presented and
assignments are structured on the World
Wide Web can cater to different sensory,
social, and thinking styles of students.
They provide numerous illustrations of
how an online course might structure
information to make it compatible with
the needs of various types of learners.
Because it would be impractical to design
a course for only one learning style, a bet-
ter option is using an electronic format
with variety in how information is pre-
sented or assignments are structured.
Taking the adage “Variety is the spice
of life” as a guide at different points dur-
ing a course, students would have infor-
mation presented in ways that matched
their learning styles. But when the pre-
sentation of information or the structure
of assignments was not compatible, stu-
dents would have to work on the under-
developed aspects of their learning styles.
Thus, the independent learners might
have to collaborate and work in teams on
a World Wide Web research project. The
visual learners might need to explore
their kinesthetic style by learning how to
draw images and charts on a computer. A
learner with a concrete-sequential think-
ing style, who prefers linear problem
solving, could benefit from working on
an ill-defined task in order to find a new
way to think about issues. If such assign-
ments were done in a thoughtful manner,
and with the support and encouragement
of the teacher, the teaching-learning
process would be enriched.
ConnectingTechnology to
Teaching and Learning Styles
A focus on learning style alone is not
enough. Teaching styles need attention, as
well. The classroom is like a dance in
which one partner leads, and the other fol-
lows. As in a dance, the person leading is
not completely in control; how a dance
partner responds affects the next move of
the person leading. Good dancing partners
make needed adjustments to accommo-
date each other, and the exchange of sig-
nals allows a creative and artistic expres-
sion of movement and form to occur.
Similar dynamics are present in the col-
lege classroom. Within the parameters of
an integrated model (Grasha 1994; 1996),
expressions of teaching and learning
styles are mutually dependent. To better
understand how that happens, examine the
five styles of teaching and the six learning
styles in this model, which are briefly
described in tables 1 and 2 . Remember
that all of the styles are present to varying
degrees within teachers and students, like
colors on an artist’s palette. Also remem-
ber that some combinations of styles o r
blends of colors are more likely at a given
moment than are others.
Which combination of learning and
teaching styles appears does not depend
only on the experiences or preferences of
each participant, although they play a role.
What occurs is like a dance that has been
transposed to the college classroom. A
teacher may lead with a more facilitative-
delegative approach to a course or part of
a class, and the students may neatly step in
line and follow. One colleague teaching an
introductory biology class had students
read questions about course topics that
were posted on a Web site she constructed
for the class. Student responses were post-
ed on the site and were also used as a part
of e-mail discussions with classmates. Stu-
dents allowed the participatory and collab-
orative sides of their learning styles to
emerge to complete the task.
Overestimating Students ’ Capabilities
with Technology
Sometimes, however, students resist
our departure from traditional ways.
Another colleague asked students in his
geology class to organize what they con-
sidered to be important course concepts
and principles using a chart o r diagram
that was produced in an electronic for-
mat. Students with a more dependent and
less-participatory set of learning styles
initially resisted this activity. They argued
that the assignments took too much time
for those unfamiliar with the computer
program and that more structure was
required. When faced with resistance, my
colleague backed off and offered an alter-
native assignment for those students. As
in a dance, resistance from a partner was
met with a change in direction.
In courses emphasizing the use of
instructional technology. we must guard
against overestimating what students are
capable of doing. Another temptation is
to assume that students need less and not
more time from the teacher. Craig Nelson
(1989), for example, notes that college
Vol. 48INo. 1
Table 1.-Six Learning Styles
Competitive Students who learn material in order to perform better than others
in the class. Believe they must compete with other students in a
course for the rewards that are offered. Like to be the center of
attention and to receive recognition for their accomplishments in
class.
Collaborative Typical of students who feel they can learn by sharing ideas and tal-
ents. They cooperate with teachers and like to work with others.
Avoidant Describes students who are not enthusiastic about learning content
and attending class. Do not participate with students and teachers in
the classroom. They are typically uninterested and overwhelmed by
what happens in class.
Participant Try to be good citizens in class. Enjoy going to class and taking
part in as much of the course activities as possible. Typically eager
to do as much of the required and optional course requirements as
they can.
Dependent Show little intellectual curiosity and learn only what is required.
View teacher and peers as sources of structure and support and look
to authority figures for specific guidelines on what to do.
Independent Students who like to think for themselves and are confident in their
learning abilities. Prefer to learn the content that they feel is impor-
tant and would prefer to work alone on course projects than to work
with other students.
~~
Table 2.-Five Teaching Styles
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 compe-
tence. Concerned with transmitting information and insuring that
students are well prepared.
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.
Personal model Believes in “teaching by personal example” and establishes a proto-
type 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.
Faci 1itator Emphasizes the personal nature of teacher-student interactions.
Guides and directs students by encouraging cooperative as well as
independent learning activities. Good at questions, exploring
options, suggesting alternatives, and encouraging students to make
informed choices. Overall goal is to develop in students the capaci-
ty for independent action, initiative, and responsibility. Works with
students on projects in a consultative fashion and tries to provide as
much direction, support, and encouragement as possible.
Del egator Concerned with developing students’ capacity to function in an
autonomous fashion. Interested in having people become self-
directed, self-initiating learners. Students work independently on
projects or as part of autonomous teams. The teacher is available at
the request of students as a consultant and resource person.
5
faculty are able to provide academic chal-
lenges for students, but they may fail to
give students the support they need. Fur-
thermore, in some instances teachers do
not perceive students as novices but
assume that they are less-competent ver-
sions of themselves (Walvoord 1990).
One consequence is that teachers may
find themselves disappointed with the
outcomes of students’ efforts. As often
happens, we may overlook our own con-
tributions to the problem.
On the other hand, both Barbara
Walvoord and Craig Nelson note that
teachers can do three things to lessen the
chances of disappointing results: We
must recognize that students will need
more help and set time aside for their
concerns and questions. We must also
take time to shape the learning process
and the final outcome of technology
based assignments. Students should work
on projects in small steps, and we should
critique each part and modify as needed.
Many ways exist to develop the com-
patibility of teaching styles and learning
styles in technology courses. Research
(Grasha 1996) suggests four major ways,
each forming a particular cluster of teach-
ing and learning styles. Within each clus-
ter, particular blends tend to dominate.
The general implications of each cluster
are briefly outlined below. For a complete
description of forty teaching processes
associated with each of the four clusters
discussed below, the interested reader is
referred to other discussions of the model
(Grasha 1994; 1996).
1. Teaching Styles:
Expert/Formal Authority
Learning Styles Reinforced:
DependenVParticipanVCompetitive
Technology is effective in allowing
information to be presented to remote
locations through television or online
classes. Thus, teachers with a more
expert/formal authority approach will find
the information transmission capabilities
useful. But, unless we take care to involve
students in the material and establish a
two-way dialogue, we may reinforce a
passive-dependent learning style. Stu-
dents will become more passive and act as
receivers of information. Having students
answer questions, challenge what they
6 COLLEGE TEACHING
hear and see in writing, and communicate
their thoughts during class time or
through e-mail helps get them involved.
2. Teaching Styles:
Personal ModeVExpertlFormal
Authority
Learning Styles Reinforced:
ParticipanVDependenVCollaborative
The abilities to coach, guide, and
model how to do things are strongly rep-
resented in this cluster, and they are well
suited to technology. Whether instruc-
tional technology is used to illustrate and
create something in an architecture or
graphics design course, or to demonstrate
medical or other technical procedures via
television, CD-ROM modules, or com-
puter programs, students can be coached
and shown by an expert what to do. Com-
puter technology, for example, would
allow teachers to provide immediate
feedback and modifications to students
working in an architecture or graphic
design class. After they watch a medical
or technical procedure demonstrated on
television or a computer screen, an
instructor could easily coach students
through the same procedure. The coach-
ing and role modeling can occur in a
classroom or clinic, or even in a virtual
environment. The result is that learners
observe, plan, and execute actions in
which the independent, collaborative, and
dependent aspects of their learning styles
can be reinforced.
3. Teaching Styles:
Facilitator/ Personal ModelVExpert
Learning Styles Reinforced: Collabo-
rative/Participant/lndependent
Here teachers create activities, facili-
tate interactions, and direct instructional
processes to encourage active learning.
They also maintain what William Rein-
smith labels an “abiding presence” (Rein-
smith 1992; 1994). In this case, that
“presence” is more real than symbolic,
and teachers use their expertise to design,
organize, and direct. In the process, they
spend much time clarifying information,
answering questions, promoting critical
thinking about issues, and overseeing the
work students are doing. The emphasis
here is on finding ways to actively
involve learners by helping them find
ways to explore information and help
each other acquire skills.
Some of the best teaching strategies in
this cluster include case studies, research
projects, problem-based learning assign-
ments, small-group discussions, role play-
ing and simulations, and activities in
which students learn information and then
teach their peers. The participatory, col-
laborative, and independent sides of stu-
dents’ learning styles are encouraged and
reinforced by the activities that we design.
Although the teaching strategies in
Cluster 3 are well known to those who
promote cooperative learning in tradition-
al classes, they are easily adapted to elec-
tronic formats. For example, students
may design or even work on a case study
using the resources of the Internet. A col-
league has students in his finance class
investigate the financial health of a com-
pany using Web-based resources. He
poses a number of questions for them to
explore, and outside-of-class discussions
are held in a special class chat room.
4. Teaching Styles:
Delegator/ Facilitator/Expert
Learning Styles Reinforced: Indepen-
denVCollaborative/Participant
Here teachers adopt the roles of consul-
tants and resource people to students
working alone or in small groups. The
instructor waits in the background to pro-
vide help when needed and is more of
what Reinsmith would describe as a sym-
bolic presence. Students take the initiative
to shape and direct their learning tasks.
The work in this cluster might involve lit-
erature searches on the Web or through
electronic databases. Drafts of research
projects, term papers, and classroom pre-
sentations may be developed and present-
ed to the teacher or peers in chat rooms or
through special e-mail contacts.
In one of my advanced courses, for
example, I have pairs of students read the
same online version of an article. Their
task is then to use e-mail connections with
each other to pose three closed and two
open-ended questions about the article’s
content. This is not designed as a Q-and-A
session but as a way to encourage a
dynamic interchange of ideas among
learners. People are required to respond to
the answers their partner provides. They
are told to reflect, challenge, and-when
appropriate-to affirm their partner’s
ideas. What ensues is a dialogue, with an
electronic record of all of the initial
responses and replies. The latter are turned
in to me as part of a portfolio of course
activities. And, of course, I am available to
comment on and to help clarify issues that
were particularly troublesome.
Initial Outcomes from a New
Research Program
The literature on the connections of
technology to teaching and learning
styles is not well developed. Very little is
known about the influence of instruction-
al technology. It may modify or reinforce
particular teaching and learning styles,
and there is some reason to believe that it
does. The work of David Diaz and Ryan
Cartnal mentioned earlier suggests that
students with particular styles are predis-
posed to choose either a technology- or
nontechnology-based section of a course.
But what about students who do not have
much choice in the matter? They may
find themselves in the only section of a
class in which the teacher has decided to
use instructional technology as a domi-
nant part. Whether the presence of tech-
nology affects the students’ learning
styles, and the implications for the teach-
ing styles we adopt have not been exam-
ined in the literature.
We did an exploratory study of faculty
members who used a variety of forms of
instructional technology in their courses.
At that point in the research program, we
were not interested in how specific types
of instructional technology used in isola-
tion might affect teaching and learning
styles. That question is certainly impor-
tant but difficult to address within the
reality of the college classroom. Most
courses that use technology use several
types. For example, a distance learning
course might involve an interactive televi-
sion discussion, videotaped materials,
Powerpoint slide shows, and interactive
e-mail discussions. Similarly, Web-based
courses normally use more than a static
Web site.
Consequently, what appears in the cur-
rent literature on the efficacy of technol-
ogy typically represents the joint effects
of more than one form of instructional
technology such as distance learning or
VOl. 48MO. 1
Web-based learning. The specific forms
of technology involved are not isolated,
nor are their effects on teachers and stu-
dents examined independently of each
other. Although research eventually
needs to address the latter issue, it was
not our intent to do so in this study.
Rather our goals were less ambitious.
Our primary question of interest was
whether the presence of instructional
technology in the classroom was associ-
ated with variations in teaching and
learning styles. To do this, how teaching
W e examined how teaching and learning
styles varied within both a traditional
and a technology-dominant course taught by the
same instructor.
and learning styles varied within both a
technology-dominant and a traditional
course taught by the same instructor
were examined.
Research Process
Two samples of college faculty mem-
bers were used, and they were people
who had shown great interest in using
technology in the classroom. One group
consisted of forty presenters from a
regional conference on the uses of tech-
nology in higher education. They
described their approach to teaching
courses using a variety of forms of
instructional technology. Survey instru-
ments were mailed to each of the forty
presenters, and nineteen returned them
(47.5 percent). Of those returned, five
were eliminated from the analysis
because they were incomplete.
The second group was a random sam-
ple of 200 individuals chosen from 1 .OOO
participants attending a national confer-
ence on the uses of technology in higher
education. Twelve of the questionnaires
were not delivered because of invalid
addresses, and forty-five of the remaining
188 questionnaires were returned (23.9
percent). Of these, ten were eliminated
from the analysis because the respon-
dents did not finish all of the parts as
instructed. In all, fourteen participants
from the first sample and thirty-six from
the second sample ( n = 50) provided all
of the information requested on a total of
100 different courses.
Identical questionnaires were mailed to
each sample, with each person asked to
evaluate a course in which they empha-
sized technology plus another course they
taught in a more traditional mode. The
latter course was defined as one in which
“instructional technology plays a minor
role in the conduct of class sessions and
course activities.” (People contacted were
asked to complete the survey only if they
had classes that met both criteria.)
The questionnaire also was compre-
hensive and took approximately forty-
five minutes to complete. Specific ques-
tions dealt with identifying both the
technological and traditional teaching
processes used, level of satisfaction from
teaching each course, the grade distribu-
tions for their technology-based and tra-
ditional courses, and their general atti-
tudes and beliefs about teaching and
learning. As part of the survey, everyone
also completed the Teaching Styles
Inventory (Grasha 1996) and a short form
of the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learn-
ing Styles Scales (Grasha 1990, 1996;
Hruska-Reichmann and Grasha 1982).
Thus, faculty members’ perceptions of
their teaching styles and of their students’
learning styles as a group in each of the
courses were assessed.
Simple Relationships among Variables
The two samples of faculty members
had equivalent scores on all of the mea-
sures used in this study for both their
7
technology and their more traditional
courses. There were no statistically reli-
able differences between the two samples
on the following variables: the teaching
styles of faculty; teachers’ perceptions of
their students’ learning styles within each
course; overall rating of satisfaction with
their classes; and the percentages of A, B,
C, D, and F grades assigned in each
course. Because the two samples did not
differ on the variables of interest, all fur-
ther analyses are based on the total sam-
ple of fifty participants.
Listed below are the nine types of
instructional processes that faculty
reported using in their technology driven
classes, along with the percentage of the
faculty members that reported using each
of them.
E-mail discussions and contacts among
class participants (85 percent)
World Wide Web activities (83 per-
cent)
VideotapeKD-Rom presentations, films,
and materials (83 percent)
PowerPoint slides (63 percent)
Audio-based materials (35 percent)
Distance learning (30 percent)
Electronic classroom (30 Percent)
News groups (28 percent)
Multimedia-controlled teaching podi-
um (26 percent)
On average, the college faculty mem-
bers in this sample reported using four
different types of instructional technolo-
gy in their courses. The number of differ-
ent types used by any one person was as
few as two and as many as nine. Faculty
who reported using the World Wide Web
used an average of four more forms of
technology, and those who relied on dis-
tance learning used an average of five
others. These data support the earlier
observation that teachers tend to use clus-
ters of instructional technology in their
courses.
Table 3 presents the average scores on
the expert, formal authority, personal
model, facilitator, and delegator teaching
styles for the technology courses and for
the more traditional. Corresponding data
for the perceptions of students’ learning
styles appear in table 4. Teachers were
remarkably uniform in their perceptions
of their teaching styles in the two types of
courses. There were no statistically reli-
8 COLLEGE TEACHING
able differences in the average teaching tional sections of the course were per-
style scores between courses for each of ceived as having similar needs as learn-
the five teaching styles. Thus, whether or ers. This uniformity in teachers’ percep-
not they used instructional technology, tions of their students may be one reason
the college teachers in this study per- there was no statistically significant dif-
ceived that they did not modify their ference in the reported grades for the two
teaching styles. courses. The grade distributions for the
Along similar lines, only the variations technology (T) and nontechnology (NT)
in the competitive learning style between courses were as follows: A: T, 33 percent,
the two types of courses was statistically NT, 34 percent; B: T, 37 percent, NT 35
significant ( t = 2.96, p < .01). Teachers percent; C: T, 2 1 percent, NT 2 1 percent;
perceived the students in their nontech- D: T, 5 percent, NT 6 percent; F: T, 4 per-
nology classes to be somewhat more cent, NT 4 percent.
competitive. Thus, for the most part, stu- Finally, on a rating scale ranging from
dents in both the technology and tradi- 1 = vety satisjied to 5 = dissatisjied, there
~~
Table 3.-Mean Teaching Style Scores on the Teaching
Styles Inventory
Styles Technology courses Traditional courses
Expert 4.80 4.7 I
Formal authority 5.35 5.56
Personal model 5.23 5.18
Facilitator 5.27 5.23
Delegator 4.79 4.53
Note: The average scores on the Teaching Styles Inventory are shown for the SO technology-based
courses and for a corresponding set of SO courses taught in a more traditional manner by the same
teachers. The inventory is a 40-item assessment instrument and has eight items for each of the five
teaching styles. A seven-point scale is used, and people indicate the extent to which they agree or
disagree with each item. The higher the score on the inventory, the more someone agrees with the
statements about that style.
Table 4.-Mean Learning Style Scores on the Grasha-Riechmann
Student Learning Style Scales
Teaching styles Technology courses Traditional courses
Competitive 2.66 2.98*
Collaborative 3.91 3.83
Avoidant 2.00 2. I4
Participant 3.87 3.80
Dependent 2.8 1 2.75
Independent 3.21 3.oo
Note: The average scores on the short form of the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales
(GRSLSS) are shown for the SO technology-based courses and for a corresponding set of SO cours-
es taught in a more traditional manner by the same teachers. Thia version of the GRSLSS presents a
comprehensive definition of each style and teachers rate the extent to which it applied to their class-
room group. Thus, the scores shown represent faculty perceptions of the learning styles of the class-
room group and not of any specific individual. A seven-point rating scale is used and people indicate
the extent to which they agree or disagree that the learning style describes the group of students in
the course. The higher the score on the inventory, the more that style is seen as being present with-
in the group. This version of the GRSLSS has proven to be a reliable way to assess perceptions of
learning style in surveys conducted for this purpose.
*The differences in mean scores on the competitive learning style were statistically significant at p
< .OS.
were no statistically reliable variations in
how satisfied the teachers were with each
class. The average rating for the technol-
ogy courses was 1.86, and the average for
the more traditional classes was 2.10.
Patterns in the Relatioriships umong
Variables
In addition to variations in average
scores between the two courses, we also
examined the patterns among the variables
of interest. How various combinations of
the variables studied occurred among par-
ticipants was explored by calculating the
correlation coefficients associated with
different combinations of the factors stud-
ied. As an aid to interpreting the informa-
tion that follows, we remind the reader that
a correlation coefficient varies from -1,O,
to + I , and that the degree to which it devi-
ates from zero in either direction reflects
the strength of the relationship between
the two variables. Also, a positive correla-
tion coefficient shows that, as scores on
one measure increase, scores on the other
measure increase as well. A negative cor-
relation coefficient indicates that increases
in the scores on one measure are associat-
ed with a decrease in scores on the other.
Only those correlation coefficients that
were statistically reliable are summarized
below and all reported r's are associated
with p values < .05.
Variations in patterns of how different
learning styles combined with the per-
centage of grades assigned in the two
types of courses were observed. Faculty
members reported the percentage of each
type of grade that they assigned in each of
the two courses. Thus, the correlation
coefficients obtained represent the rela-
tionship of learning and teaching style
scores to variations in the percentages of
each grade that participants reported for
each course. This allowed us to assess not
only what learning styles were associated
with each grade but the relative strength
of the relationship when the same style
was correlated with more than one grade
in a course.
The specific grades assigned in the tra-
ditional courses showed a relationship to
the dependent learning style. That rela-
tionship was totally absent in the technol-
ogy courses. Students who received A's in
the traditional courses were less depen-
dent as learners ( r = -.43), and those
VOl. 48/NO. 1
receiving grades of C , ( r = +.56) D, ( r =
+.37) and F ( r = +.37) possessed a more
dependent style. It appeared that a depen-
dent learning style in a technology-based
course was of little value to students. In
this respect, the information here is com-
patible with findings mentioned earlier
showing that the people who do well in
technology based courses tend to need
less structure and are more abstract in
their thinking.
In both courses, the competitive learn-
ing style was not related to any of the
grades obtained, but students with high
collaborative styles were more likely to
receive A's both in the technology based
courses ( r = +.30) and in the traditional
courses ( r = +.40). If anything, having a
more collaborative style was a little more
helpful in receiving an A in the tradition-
al course than in the technology courses.
Again, this may reflect the fact that those
who can work alone have an advantage in
technology courses.
Students with high participant learning
styles were less likely to receive grades of
C or lower in both types of courses (aver-
age r = -.41). Thus, being a good class-
room citizen and doing what was expect-
ed help in both arenas.
Teaching styles i n the technology
courses were not correlated with the
grades assigned in those classes. Howev-
er, in the courses where technology was
not emphasized, just the opposite was the
case. The personal model ( r = +.33) and
facilitator styles ( r = +.59) were positive-
ly correlated with the percentage of A's
assigned. Faculty with higher scores on
the formal authority teaching style gave
more grades of D ( r = +.44), and those
with personal model and facilitator teach-
ing styles were less likely to assign
grades of c or lower (average r = -.44)
One possibility for the lack of relation-
ship between teaching style and the
grades assigned in the technology courses
is that the technology is more dominant
than the stylistic qualities of the teacher in
how and what students learn. As noted
earlier, faculty used on average four dif-
ferent forms of technology in their cours-
es, and one would expect it to be a figural
component of students' experiences.
Also, in the traditional courses, the
quality of the students' products is likely
to be more difficult to judge. There may
be more ambiguity in judging term
papers, essay exams, and other student
projects. Thus, grades in these courses are
affected much more by the stylistic dif-
ferences among teachers. In effect, this
finding is reminiscent of the debate in the
field of psychology about the conditions
under which personality is dominant and
those in which situations control our
actions. The conclusion from that work
was that when situations provide clear
and unambiguous cues about what people
should do, personality characteristics fall
into the background (Mischel 1990).
The presence of technology failed to
affect the way particular learning styles
combined. The patterns in the associations
among the learning style dimensions and
the magnitude of the correlation coeffi-
cients were not significantly different. In
both types of courses, the independent
learning style was not associated with any
of the other styles. The collaborative style
was negatively correlated with avoidance
(average r = - S O ) and dependence (aver-
age r = -.45) and had a positive relation-
ship to the participant style (average r =
+.55). And in both courses, students with a
more dependent learning style also tended
to be more avoidant (average r = +.60).
The findings with regard to the dependent
style suggested that in both courses stu-
dents would do what was expected if
course activities were structured. More-
over, it appears that in both classes, stu-
dents' need for a great deal of structure
contributed to their wanting to avoid
course demands.
Patterns in the relationships among the
teaching and learning styles were related
to whether or not technology was used.
Within technology-based courses, we
observed two significant relationships.
Students with high competitive styles
tended to have teachers who were more
expert in their teaching styles ( r = +.39).
Further, students with a more avoidant
style tended to have faculty members for
whom the formal authority style was
dominant ( r = +.31). It is interesting that
in the technology classes, the only two
teaching styles associated with the learn-
ing styles of students were the expert and
the formal authority. Presumably, other
styles of learning were affected more by
the specific types of technology used than
by specific characteristics of the teacher.
9
 In the traditional courses, students with observed. Such data suggest that intro- learning styles. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Alliance
a more collaborative style tended to have ducing instructional technology into the Publishers.
teachers for whom the facilitator (r = +.a) classroom likely affects the patterns in Hruska-Riechmannp s.9 and A. F. Ckasha.
1982. The Grasha-Riechmann student
and delegator (r = +.36) teaching styles the relationships among variables associ- learning style scales: Research findings and
were very important. In addition, the stu- ated with teaching and learning. More applications. In Student learning styles and
dents with a participant style tended to work is certainly needed on such issues brain behavior; ed. J. Keefe. Reston, Va.:
have teachers for whom the personal as we enter the year 2000, as we expect NASSP.
model (r = +.47) and facilitator (r = +SO) increased interest in technology inside as Lawrence, G. 1982. People types and tiger
stripes. 2nd ed. Gainesville, Fla.: CAPT.
styles were dominant in the classroom. well as outside higher education.
Lowman, J. 1994. Professors as performers
Thus, in traditional courses, faculty who and motivators. College Teaching
coach, guide, and direct students’ activities REFERENCES 42: 137-41.
encourage students to participate. Berliner, D. C. 1986. In pursuit of the expert . 1995. Mastering the techniques of
pedagogue. Educational Researcher teaching. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-
Conclusions 15:5-13. Bass.
Bruffee, K. A. 1993. Collaborative learning: Mischel. W. 1990. Personality disposition
We have raised a number of issues con- Higher education, interdependence, and the revisited and revised: A view after three
cerning the use of technology in the col- authority of knowledge. Baltimore, Md. The decades. In Handbook of personality: The-
lege classroom. Besides noting several Johns Hopkins University Press. ory and research, ed. L. A. Pervin. New
problems in bringing a wide range of fac- Cross, K. P., and T. A. Angelo. 1988. Class- York: Guilford.
room assessment techniques: A handbook Neal, E. 1998. Using technology in teaching:
ulty to “buy in” to using technology, our for faculty. Ann Arbor, Mich.: National
major concerns relate to the need for fac- We need to exercise healthy skepticism.
Center for Research to Improve Post-sec- Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 June.
ulty to develop a conceptual rationale for ondary Teaching and Learning.
Nelson, C. 1989. Skewered on the unicorn’s
using it. That is, faculty need to think Dim, D., and R. B. Cartnal. 1999. Student
horn: The illusion of the tragic trade-off
about how technology fits into their phi- learning styles in an online course and an
between content and critical thinking in the
equivalent on-campus class. College Teach- teaching of science. In Enhancing critical
losophy of teaching and learning. In par- ing 47(4): 130-5.
ticular, the way technology affects how thinking in the sciences, ed. L. Crow. Wash-
Dille, B., and M. Mezack. 1991. Identifying
ington, D.C.: Society of College Science
and what people learn and its relationship predictors of high risk among community
Teachers.
to learning and teaching styles need to be college telecourse students. The American
Reinhardt, L. 1999. Confessions of a “techno-
explored further. Several suggestions Journal of Distance Education 5( 1): 24-35.
Gee, D. G. 1990. The impact of students’pre- teacher.” College Teaching 47:48-50.
were made here for researching those ferred learning style variables in a distance Reinsmith, W. A. 1992. Archetypal forms in
issues in the context of an integrated education course: A case study. Portales: teaching: A continuum. Westport, COM.:
model of teaching and learning. Eastern New Mexico University. (ERIC Greenwood Press.
The outcomes from our initial research Document Reproduction Service No. ED . 1994. Archetypal forms in teaching.
358 836) College Teaching 42: 131-6.
into the issues suggest that the simple Richlin, L., and M. D. Cox. 1991. The schol-
Grasha, A. F. 1990. Using traditional versus
effects of technology on teaching style, naturalistic approaches to assessing learn- arship of pedagogy. Journal on Excellence
learning style, grades obtained, and ing styles in college teaching. Journal on in College Teaching 2: 1-8.
course satisfaction may not be very Excellence in College Teaching 1:23-38. Ross, J., and R. Schulz. 1999. Using the World
robust. On the other hand, when the pat- . 1994. A matter of style: The teacher Wide Web to accommodate learning style
as expert, formal authority, personal model, diversity in the college classroom. College
terns in the relationships among vari- Teaching 47(4): 123-9.
facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching
ables in technology and traditional cours- 42: 142-9. Walvoord, B. 1990. Thinking and writing in
es are examined, effects of the presence . 1996. Teaching with style: Enhancing college. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of
or relative absence of technology can be learning by understanding teaching and Teachers of English.

10 COLLEGE TEACHING