You are here:

Teaching for Success: Technology and Learning Styles in Preservice Teacher Education ARTICLE

, Northwestern College, United States ; , University of Minnesota, Morris, United States

CITE Journal Volume 12, Number 1, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

This study, using mixed methods design research, examined the achievement of third level preservice teachers when advice in the form of text and resources was provided based on students’ identified learning styles. In this study, Kolb’s learning style inventory was used to identify students’ preferred learning style preferences, and an online module was developed to link prepared advice for the completion of course tasks to particular learning style preferences. Advice was provided for grasping and processing stages of the learning cycle and served as a form of scaffolding through coaching provided via the online module. Data sources used to explore the value of advice specific to learning style preferences included student assessment results from the learning style preference advice module, student reflection journals following use of advice software, and student assignment scores. Data analysis indicated positive effects of advice linked to learning style preferences on student achievement.

Citation

Solvie, P. & Sungur, E. (2012). Teaching for Success: Technology and Learning Styles in Preservice Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 6-40. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved October 17, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2004). The effect of electronic scaffolding for technology integration on perceived task effort and confidence of primary student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 29-43.
  2. Bean, T., & Stevens, L.P. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205-218.
  3. Chen, C., & Bradshaw, A. (2007). The effect of web-based question prompts on scaffolding knowledge integration and ill-structured problem solving. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 359-375.
  4. Chen, C., Toh, S., & Ismail, W. (2005). Are learning styles relevant to virtual reality? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2),123-141.
  5. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator. Retrieved from the 21st Century Learning Initiative Archive: http://www.21learn.org/site/archive/cognitive-apprenticeship-makingthinking-visible/
  6. Devereux, L., & Wilson, K. (2008). Scaffolding literacies across the bachelor of education program: An argument for a course-wide approach. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 121-134.
  7. Ertekin, E., Dilmac, B., & Yazici, E. (2009). The relationship between mathematics anxiety and learning styles of preservice mathematics teachers. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(9), 1187-1196.
  8. Glasser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
  9. Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J.C. Greene& V.J. Caracelli (Eds.). Advances in mixedmethod evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms: New directions for program evaluation (Vol. 74, pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127-143.
  11. Keefe, J. (1985). Assessment of learning style variables: The NASSP Task Force Model. Theory Into Practice, 24(2), 138-144.
  12. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  13. Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.
  14. Kolb, D., & Kolb, A. (2008). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management of learning, education and development. In S.J. Armstrong, & C. Fukami, (Eds.), Handbook of management learning, education and development. London, England: Sage Publications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1)
  15. Komarraju, M., & Karau, S.J. (2008). Relationships between the perceived value of instructional techniques and academic motivation. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35, 70-82.
  16. Lai, G., & Calandra, B. (2010). Examining the effects of computer-based scaffolds on novice teachers’ reflective journal writing. Educational Technology& Development, 58, 421-437.
  17. Larsen, R.E. (1992). Relationship of learning style to the effectiveness and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19, 17-21.
  18. Laske, O. (2004). Can evidence based coaching increase ROI? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 41.
  19. Lightner, S., Bober, M., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 5-18.
  20. Many, J., Dewberry, D., Taylor, D.L., & Coady, K. (2009). Profiles of three preservice ESOL teachers’ development of instructional scaffolding. Reading Psychology, 30, 148174.
  21. Matthews, D., & Jones, M. (1994). An investigation of the learning styles of students in teacher education programs. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(3),234-246.
  22. Meyers, C., & Jones, T.B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  23. Murray, D., & McPherson, P. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for reading the Web. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 131-156.
  24. Pentress, K. (2008). What is meant by active learning? Education, 128(4), 566-569.
  25. Pettigrew, F., & Buell, C. (1989). Preservice and experienced teachers’ ability to diagnose learning styles. Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 187-189.
  26. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Education Tech Research& Development, 58, 399-419.
  27. Sabine Graf, K., & Lieu, T. (2009). Supporting teachers in identifying students’ learning styles in learning management systems: An automatic student modeling approach. Educational Technology& Society, 12(4),3-14.
  28. Shih, K., Hung-Chang, C., Chang, C., & Kao, T. (2010). The development and implementation of scaffolding-based self-regulated learning system for e/m-learning. Educational Technology& Society, 13(1), 80-93.
  29. Sloan, T., Daane, C.J., & Giesen, J. (2004). Learning styles of elementary preservice teachers. College Student Journal, 38(3), 494-500.
  30. Solvie, P., & Kloek, M. (2007). Using technology tools to engage students with multiple learning styles in a constructivist learning environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss2/languagearts/article1.cfm
  31. Solvie, P., & Sungur, E. (2007). The use of concept maps/graphs/trees/vines in the instructional process. World Scientific Engineering Society and Academy Transactions on Communications, 6, 241-249.
  32. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Consequences for students’ perceptions of the learning environment, student learning and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 295-317.
  33. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 393-429.
  34. Tilley, C., & Callison, D. (2007). New mentors for new media: Harnessing the instructional potential of cognitive apprenticeships. Knowledge Quest/Assessing Information and Communication Technology, 35(5), 26-31.
  35. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1934). Author Information Pamela Solvie Northwestern College email: pasolvie@nwc.edu Engin Sungur

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Understanding Diversity and the Teacher's Role in Supporting Learning in Diverse Classrooms: Scaffolding Early Childhood Preservice Teachers' Growth in Initial Placements with Voice Thread

    Pamela Solvie, Northwestern College, United States

    Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (Mar 25, 2013) pp. 1948–1951

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.