Abstract
This study develops a tool for identifying students' preferred teaching approaches, with high internal consistency for the scales involved. We examined these preferences in relation to students' approaches to learning and to two academic disciplines with contrasting academic environments. The sample consisted of 175 engineering and education undergraduates at a major university in Israel. Responses to our questionnaire revealed students' preferences for four approaches that correspond to the four main instructional approaches that had been identified in research based on teachers' sources. Students' most favored teaching approach is the lecturer who is organized, clear, and interesting, and the second, with a large gap from the first, is the instructor who provides for students' needs in learning. The two approaches least favored are information-transmission and promotion of self-regulation. Students with different approaches to learning preferred teaching approaches that best served their learning approaches. There were few discipline-related differences in students' preferences, in spite of the very different learning environments. However, all participants preferred teaching approaches that they perceived as beneficial for learning but that they had not often experienced, if at all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Barnes, L. L. B., and Barnes, M. W. (1993). Academic discipline and generalizability of student evaluations of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 34(2): 135–149.
Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 48(3): 266–279.
Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education 8(4): 381–394.
Birenbaum, M. (1995). Hebrew translation of the MSLQ. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, Tel Aviv University [Hebrew].
Domino, G. (1968). Differential prediction of academic achievement in conforming and independent settings. Journal of Educational Psychology 59(4): 256–260.
Domino, G. (1971). Interactive effects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 62(5): 427–431.
Emanuel, R. C., and Potter, W. J. (1992). Do students' style preferences differ by grade level, orientation toward college and academic major? Research in Higher Education 33(3): 394–414.
Entwistle, N. J. (1987). A model of the teaching-learning process. In J. T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck, and W. D. Piper (eds.), Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology, pp. 13–28. London: S.R.H.E./Open University Press.
Entwistle, N. J. (1990). How students learn, and why they fail. Paper presented at a Conference on Talent and Teaching, Bergen, May.
Entwistle, N. J., and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
Entwistle, N. J., and Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education 19(2): 169–194.
Feldman, K. A. (1978). Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't. Research in Higher Education 9(3): 199–242.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement. Research in Higher Education 30(6): 583–645.
Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart (eds.), Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice, pp. 368–395. New York: Agathon Press.
Fox, D. (1983). Personal theories of teaching. Studies in Higher Education 8(2): 141–163.
Good, K. C., and Good, L. R. (1973a). Attitude similarity and attraction to an instructor. Psychological Reports 33(Aug.): 335–337.
Good, K. C., and Good, L. R. (1973b). Assumed similarity and instructor evaluation. Journal of Social Psychology 91(Dec.): 285–290.
Gow, L., and Kember, D. (1993). Does higher education promote independent learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology 63(1): 20–33.
Hativa, N. (1996). A model for clarity in teaching. Unpublished document. Tel Aviv University.
Hativa, N. (1998). Lack of clarity in university teaching: A case study. Higher Education 36(3): 353–381.
Hativa, N., and Marincovich, M. (1995). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 64.
Jones, J. (1981). Students' models of university teaching. Higher Education 10(5): 529–549.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction 7(3): 255–276.
Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of Higher Education 65(1): 58–74.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1966). Attitudes toward education and perceptions of teacher characteristics: A Q study. American Educational Research Journal 3 (May): 159–168.
Kerlinger, F. N., and Pedhazur, E. J. (1968). American Educational Research Journal 5(4): 543–559.
Malaney, G. D. (1986). Characteristics of graduate students in Biglan areas of study. Research in Higher Education 25(4): 328–341.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching research findings, methodological issues, and direction for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11(3) (whole issue).
Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning II—outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46(1): 115–127.
Menges, R. J., and Rando, W. C. (1989). What are your assumptions? Improving instruction by examining theories. College Teaching 37(2): 54–60.
Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style. In R. R. Schmeck (ed.), Learning Styles and Strategies, pp. 83–100. New York: Plenum Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Ramsden, P., and Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 51(3): 368–383.
Rando, W. C., and Menges, R. J. (1991). How practice is shaped by personal theories. In R. J. Menges and M. D. Svinicki (eds.), College teaching: From theory to practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 45.
Schmeck, R. R., Geisler-Brenstein, E., and Cercy, S. P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised inventory of learning processes. Educational Psychology 11 (3–4): 343–362.
Stodolsky, S., and Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal 32(2): 227–249.
Tetenbaum, T. J. (1975). American Educational Research Journal 12(4): 417–433.
Weinstein, C. E., Zimmermann, S. A., and Palmer, D. R. (1985). College and university students' study skills in the USA: The LASSI. In G. d'Ydewalle (ed.), Cognition, Information Processing, and Motivation pp. 703–726. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hativa, N., Birenbaum, M. Who Prefers What? Disciplinary Differences in Students' Preferred Approaches to Teaching and Learning Styles. Research in Higher Education 41, 209–236 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007095205308
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007095205308