Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Orchestration of Learning and Teaching Methods in Science Education

  • Article
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the complexity of matching approaches to teaching to the preferred learning styles of learners. Differentiation among learners can be undertaken in a growing number of ways and the range of approaches to teaching is expanding. The act of matching cannot have a simple rationale because learners in any one class may be sufficiently diverse that it requires awareness and subtlety to meet their many and various needs. Nor can there be an easy approach to the alignment of curricular goals to learning outcomes: Any one approach to teaching can meet a range of goals and generate numerous outcomes. The need is for an orchestrated approach, which involves knowing and understanding particular groups of learners and appreciating the spectrum of congruent approaches to supporting their learning. The metaphor of the orchestrating learning and teaching is explored for its range of convenience.

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous analysons les problèmes que présente l’harmonisation des méthodes d’enseignement et des styles d’apprentissage des étudiants. Les enseignants qui ont une grande expérience connaissent et utilisent toute une série d’activités pédagogiques capables de favoriser l’apprentissage dans le cadre des cours de sciences. La question soulevée ici est celle des décisions qu’il est nécessaire de prendre dans la planification de l’enseignement lorsqu’on se trouve devant une grande variété d’apprenants et de styles d’apprentissage. Il existe de plus en plus de façons de différencier les apprenants, et les approches pédagogiques sont en constante évolution. L’harmonisation de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage ne saurait être le résultat d’une simple adéquation, car dans toute classe les élèves présentent suffisamment de différences entre eux pour que la variété de leurs besoins requière une bonne part de sensibilité et de subtilité de la part des enseignants. Il n’y a pas non plus de méthode simple qui soit en mesure d’aligner de façon constructive les objectifs des programmes sur les résultats de l’apprentissage, puisque toute approche pédagogique est susceptible d’atteindre de nombreux objectifs différents et de donner toutes sortes de résultats. L’article analyse certaines recherches sur les styles d’apprentissage et se penche sur la nécessité pour les apprenants de se sentir à l’aise dans le cadre des processus d’apprentissage. Nous en concluons qu’il est nécessaire d’orchestrer l’enseignement en adoptant une approche qui se fonde d’une part sur la connaissance et la compréhension de certains groupes d’apprenants, et d’autre part sur une analyse rigoureuse d’un éventail de méthodes pédagogiques susceptibles de favoriser l’apprentissage. Nous explorons plus avant les possibilités qu’offre l’image de l’orchestration des pratiques d’enseignement et d’apprentissage. Comme c’est le cas de toutes les analogies, celle-ci a ses limites, mais à l’intérieur de ces limites, elle est fort utile lorsqu’il s’agit de souligner, grâce à des exemples tirés de la didactique, certains développements dans le domaine de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, S.J. (1999). Individual differences in cognitive style and their potential effects on organisational behaviour: A summary of recent empirical studies. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), International perspectives on individual differences. London: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffard, P.B., & Wandersee, J.H. (1999). Meaningful learning in African American females. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 611–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1988). The role of metacognition in enhancing learning. Australian Journal of Education, 32, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (2002). Aligning the curriculum to promote good learning: The idea and ideals of constructive alignment. A paper presented at Constructive Alignment in Action: An Imaginative Curriculum, Symposium of the Learning and Teaching Support Network, Centre Point Conference Centre, London, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, R. (2002). Constructive alignment in the world of institutional management. Paper presented at Constructive Alignment in Action: An Imaginative Curriculum, Symposium of the Learning and Teaching Support Network, Centre Point Conference Centre, London, November.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N.J. (1997). The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N.J., McCune, V., & Walker, P. (2000). Conceptions, styles and approaches within higher education: Analytic abstractions and everyday experience. In R.J. Sternberg & K. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning and thinking styles. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J.H. (2001). Free choice science education: How we learn science outside of school. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1987). Frames of mind. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, L. (2001). Teaching and learning science: A framework for teacher professional development. In D. Hodson (Ed.), OISEpapers in STSE education (Vol. 2, pp. 159–176). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J., & Allison, C.W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in an organisation. Human Relations, 57(7), 847–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2001). What counts as good science education? In D. Hodson (Ed.), OISE papers in STSE education (Vol. 2, pp. 7–22). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. (Rev. ed.). Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriacou, C. (1998). Essential teaching skills (2nd ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, S.M., & Groat, L.N. (2002). Student learning styles and their implications for teaching. Mimeograph, Centre for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office for Standards in Education. (1995). Good teaching, effective departments. London: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils and parents views of the role and value of the science curriculum: The focus group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford, R.L., & Anderson, N.J. (1995). A cross-cultural view of learning styles. Language Teaching, 28, 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching: Analysis and halfway from an international perspective. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R. (2002). School learning and cognitive style. London: David Fulton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 77, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding, R.J., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C., & Goll, L. (1992). Accelerate your learning. Aylesbury, UK: Accelerated Learning Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Learning styles: Framework and instruments. Educational Psychology, 77(1/2), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeck, R.R. (1988). Learning tstrategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R., & Gray, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 633–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teacher Training Agency. (2002). Qualifying to teach: Handbook of guidance. London: Teacher Training Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D.M., & Alsop, S.A. (2000). Terms of engagement: learners and school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, University of Edmonton, May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Watts, M. The Orchestration of Learning and Teaching Methods in Science Education. Can J Sci Math Techn 3, 451–464 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556582

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150309556582

Navigation