Student satisfaction has been of pivotal concern to educators for many decades. The concerns are directed at attrition rates, general disinterestedness towards education, and problems arising out of teaching and learning. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether congruities between students' learning styles and instructors' teaching styles related to student satisfaction. The results indicated that there were no statistical differences in the satisfaction of students whose learning styles were congruent to their instructors' teaching styles as compared to those students whose styles were not.
Increasingly college administrators and faculty are becoming interested in student satisfaction. The general attitude is that satisfied students are more apt to persist in school. Consequently, administrators and faculty have become overly sensitized to issues of how to satisfy students' learning needs. While some faculty members are interested in innovative ways of meeting the learning needs of students, others have succumbed to the pressure of overcompensating for obvious student learning inadequacies (Chen & Chen, 1999; Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 1999). Still others assign inflated grades in anticipation of high student evaluation. For students, the consequences have been inability to perform in the real world, and low performance on standardized test scores (Kane, 1994; Counts, 1992; Kleinfeld, 1992). Clearly, these issues pose tremendous obstacles to the value of higher education.
In the last decade, studies performed on student satisfaction have examined multiple factors associated with teaching and learning across disciplines and cultures. In Astin's (1993) book, What Matters In College, for example, the author found substantial statistical evidence in support of student satisfaction where the following variables were investigated: career development, learning ecologies, student beliefs, values and attitudes that impact student satisfaction in college.
Concerning satisfaction with college environment, Astin maintained two fundamental interests: The first of these was students' satisfaction with their undergraduate experience as a whole, and the second was rating of college environment (p.274). Satisfaction with total undergraduate experience was operationalized to include the following variables: specifics of personal experiences, curriculum, college administration, facilities, quality of instruction, and contacts with faculty; whereas ratings of contextual factors span across areas of the degree of faculty interest in students, students' relationships with administration, and the degree of institutional priority given to issues such as diversity, social change, resource acquisition, and enhancement of institutional reputation (p. 274). Against the backdrop of positive factor “loadings,” Astin points out that the concept of satisfaction cannot be subordinated to any particular index or truncated to variables investigated in his study alone. Astin's satisfaction factor “loadings” are illustrated in Appendix A for inspection.
On the basis of students' perceptions of their instructors' teaching effectiveness, Davis (2000) examined the impact of gender, cognitive learning styles, and computer attitudes on students' course satisfaction. The results indicated three significant statistical effects: (1) significant gender effect in student course satisfaction with females consistently rating instructors higher, (2) and faculty attitude toward technology and computers was also significant as to how students' perceived their instructors' teaching effectiveness and (3) as well, effects of cognitive learning styles was significant, where field-dependent students tended to be more satisfied with their instructors and the course than field-neutral and field-independent students. How these conclusions are applied to learning contexts remains to be seen.
Miglietti and Strange (1998) examined learning and teaching styles and classroom environment variables, and found that student-centered instruction positively impacted students' learning and satisfaction, regardless of their age. A few years back, Wang's (1995) study of Chinese students in American schools revealed that the main source of conflict between teachers and students pivoted around mismatching instructors with culturally different populations. Results of these studies confirm the importance of teaching to satisfy students' learning needs, cultural differences notwithstanding.
With respect to gender, studies demonstrate that females differ in their learning styles from males; and that females require leaders whose styles embody androgynous characteristics to advance their learning proclivities (Johnson, 1990). However, Ammons et al. (1995) found that there are additional factors likely to explain student satisfaction, matched styles notwithstanding: effects of the time-of-day. The authors, therefore, recommended that time-of-day becomes an equally important feature when matching instructional and learning styles.
The dynamics of teaching and learning styles seem to be the mainstay of student satisfaction. Guild (1994) identified salient indicators that make sense for improving instruction and learning. The author discovered that (1) all students can be successful learners (2) all students are successful when learning is channeled through their style preferences, and (3) diverse teaching styles are essential. More (1993) for example, examined the characteristics of teaching and learning effectiveness, and made the following recommendations: identify students' learning styles, match teaching styles to learning styles for tasks considered difficult or easy, and foster instructors' ability to select styles commensurate with the learning needs of their classes. In a Nursing school, Wahl (1992) examined a constellation of learning variables and discovered that specific learning styles were complemented by certain teaching styles, and recommended that faculty members assessed their own teaching styles in order to both satisfy and advance the learning needs of their students.
In general, student satisfaction studies seem to suggest that there are complex sets of variables explanatory of student satisfaction. Studies on teaching and learning styles in postsecondary education have focused on improving student/faculty relationships and achievement (Cook, 1989; Dunn, Deckinger, Withers & Katzenstein, 1990). The purpose of the current investigation was to examine whether congruities in instructors' teaching and students' learning styles relate to student satisfaction. Specifically, the study purports to examine whether satisfaction of students will discriminate between students' learning styles and instructors' teaching styles using the following matched categories: High, medium and no-match. The questions vital to this investigation were as follows:
A convenience sample of 693 students and 25 instructors voluntarily participated in the current investigation. Of the students, 90% were characterized as traditionally aged students (17- 23 years), and the remaining 10% were considered nontraditional (24-up years). The instructors' teaching experience ranged from 1 to 38 years, with an average of 7. The average class size was 24. Participants attended a Midwestern State university and an urban community college. At the university, participants were from Engineering and Rhetoric. At the college, participants were from the following courses: Criminal Justice, Psychology, English, and Social Science courses. Of the 25 faculty-member participation, 6 were females and the remaining 19, males. 17 instructors were from the university, with the remaining 8 from the community college.
Canfield's Learning Style and Instructional Style Inventories (1988) were used. The authors claim that the two instruments can be used to assess instructors' preferred styles and students' learning styles. Both the Canfield and Caffertys' Learning Style Inventory (CLSI) and Instructor Style Inventories (ISI) are self-report questionnaires of 26-30 attitudinal items, describing the modalities of students' preferred learning and instructors' teaching styles. Participants ranked their responses for each item on a four-point ipsative scale, which ranged from (1) for the most liked choice through, (4) the least.
The instrument has eight subscales, which represent conditions for learning (i.e., peer competition, independence), four subscales dealing with areas of interest (e.g., numeric, qualitative, people) and four modes of learning scales (e.g., listening, reading, direct experience). There are additional items for which students are asked to predict their final course grade (A, B, C, or D). The ISI excludes scales dealing with expected course grades. Canfield (1988) reported alpha and test-retest reliabilities for the inventories to have ranged between .87 and .97. In this study, however, the reliabilities for the instruments were found to range between .39 to .86 with majority of the scales falling within .70 and .85. Also, a 27-item Satisfaction scale was derived from a large pool of items, which had been extensively pre-tested and widely used at a Mid- western university to sample students' feelings about their classes. 13 of the items were designed to assess students' satisfaction with instructors and the remaining 14 were for measuring course satisfaction. Reliability coefficients for the Satisfaction scales ranged between .910 and .934. In the current investigation computed reliabilities for the sample was in the upwards of .9608. (See appendix B)
Faculty members at both institutions (i.e., university and community college) were conveniently sampled to include type of courses in which various teaching styles were present. Faculty members were asked to voluntarily participate (or not to), although a decision to participate could improve the interaction between learners and instructors and students' overall attitude. Since there was a need to match styles between instructors and students, where an instructor was reluctant to participate, for example, students in that instructor's course were not allowed to participate. Faculty members who chose to participate, spent less than 10 minutes to complete the instructor style inventory, whereas their students' time was no more than 20 minutes to complete both the learning style inventory and the satisfaction instrument. Students who participated in the study in one class were excluded from participating in another class in which they were, and where additional students were being sampled.
To establish congruence, arbitrary categories were used (high, medium and no- matched groups). However, the principle behind the assignment of categories closely approximated the suggestions made by the authors of the instruments. High-matched group was for the group of students whose learning styles were in the same quadrant as their instructors'. Two or three quadrants (either horizontally or vertically) away from the instructors' styles relative to students' styles was considered the medium-matched group. The category “no- matched” group referred to students whose styles were four or more quadrants away from their instructors' position in the nine possible quadrants. Canfield and Caffertys' (1988) Learning Style and Instructor Style manuals advise against determining style preferences by moving diagonally across the typologies along the nine-type grid.
One-Way analysis of variance and co-variance were performed to determine whether significant relationships existed among learning and instructional style preferences and student satisfaction. The results indicated that there were no statistical differences (F=2.5916, df=2/528, p< .0759).Table 1 illustrates the results of analysis of variance regarding the congruence groups (i.e., high, medium and no-match) with respect to satisfaction.
A further analysis of covariance was performed to determine whether ability in terms of students' ACT score related to satisfaction and, not necessarily congruence of learning and teaching styles. While ACT score was statistically significant to student satisfaction, congruent groups were not. Table 2 illustrates the results of the analysis (F= .909, df = 2/350, p< .404).
The purpose of the current investigation was to investigate whether congruities between instructors' and students' styles related to student satisfaction. The results indicated that student satisfaction did not relate to congruities in styles per se. Since student satisfaction was not found where students' learning styles and instructors' instructional styles perfectly matched, it was palpable to conclude that student satisfaction encompassed indeterminate number of variables. Perhaps, instructors' possessed strong command over the subject of instruction, and knowledge associated with it, and used course content appropriate language, willingness to motivate, enthusiasm, commitment to excellence and general flexibility to adapt to varying needs of students can all lead to student satisfaction. For example, other studies have discovered that relational factors can facilitate student satisfaction.
Friday (1990) found that the democratic style of teaching was seen as producing student satisfaction rather than authoritarian. Foote (1988) also concluded that caring for students had substantial influence on student satisfaction as compared to learning situations in which the instructor was task-driven.
Clearly, there are complex sets of variables important to explaining student satisfaction. The question to ask, however, is why students whose learning styles matched their instructors' teaching styles (in this study at least) did not feel more satisfied in their classes than those who did not? As was evidenced in this study as well, student achievement students whose learning styles matched their instructors' teaching styles achieved higher grades than those who did not (Dunn & Dunn, 1991; Kolb, 1981 & 1985).
On an intuitive level, it would seem convincing for students whose learning styles perfectly match their instructors teaching styles (whether achieving or not achieving) to show satisfaction with their classes. The question then is: What accounts for students' favorable opinion of their classes? Could it be plausible to suppose that students' perceptions of being satisfied are formed regarding their opinions about a given institution? Or could it be argued that instructors' personal characteristics weigh heavily in students' course evaluations; and that is, congruities in instructional and learning styles notwithstanding?
From the foregoing, it is fair to conclude that student satisfaction is an imprecise variable, reduction of which into a cluster of factors might equally overlook significant other factors? If so, then, it appears that student satisfaction will continue to be of a challenge to the teaching and learning process. Future studies need to compare multiple measures of course evaluation and their relationships with student perceptions of teaching styles.
From the results of the current investigation, it should be noted that satisfaction of students can not be induced simply by achieving correspondence between instructors' instructional styles and students' learning styles. Considering the indeterminate nature of satisfaction variables, it may seem appropriate to assume that disentangling indices of student satisfaction from course evaluation could be a daunting task, if not a far-fetched proposition. In course evaluations, perhaps the object of assessment should be on whether a course content area, as instructed, identify with importantly appropriate criteria of course efficacy. Satisfaction for students, therefore, could be ascertained on individual basis and not based on prefabricated institutional expectations on effective teaching materials as may be typical of most student evaluation forms.
Instructors, therefore, need to focus their attention on other elements of teaching effectiveness, short of striking a match between their teaching and students' learning styles. Furthermore, college administrators who advocate diversification of teaching styles should make sure not to conflate diversity of styles with matching styles. To some students, perhaps incongruities in styles between them and their instructors can be imperative for their academic success.
The study focused on a convenience sample of students in Psychology, English, Engineering, Rhetoric and Data Processing from two Mid-western institutions. A broader constellation of sampling might have yielded different results. Rather than a convenience sample, a random sampling of students' and instructors' styles across disciplines could have provided an accurate picture of learning differences across disciplines. The notion of congruence in styles was arbitrarily defined in this study (i.e., that is, the distance between instructors' style grit and that of instructors' preferred style grit, using the information specified in the manuals). Furthermore, the fact that first-year students were sampled in this investigation, after having had one semester of college teaching exposure makes suspect whether the students' learning styles were well formed to be sampled for analysis, or whether the students knew enough about learning styles and its relevance. Perhaps, it would have been more plausible to target second through senior-year students who, by virtue of their exposure to several college courses, may have had a reasonable number of years of exposure to functioning out of a given learning style perspective. Although first-year students were sampled, the college version of Canfield's Learning Style Inventory (Form E) was administered, and not the high school version (Form C).
Allen, J. L., O' Mara, J., & Kathleen, L. M. (1987). The effects of communication avoidance, learning styles, and gender upon classroom achievement. ED 291111
Chen, S., & Chen, D. X. (1992). Remedial education and grading: A case study approach to two critical issues in American higher education. ED 442433.
Cook, L. (1989). Relationships among learning style awareness, academic achievement, and locus of control among community college students (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (3), 217 A.
Dunn, R. Deckinger, E. L., Withers, P., & Katzensttein, H. (1990). Should college students be taught how to do homework?: The effects of studying marketing through individual perceptual strengths. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 26 (2), 96- 113.
Cotterell, J.L. (1982). Matching teachers and learners. A review of the decade of research. Psychology in the Schools,19, 106-112.
Cornett, C. E. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Foundation.
Counts, E. (1992). The impact of participation in an “Extended-Day” program upon academic achievement. A paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association in Knoxville, TN. ED 356562
Davidman, L. (1984). Learning style and teaching style analysis in teacher curriculum: A synthesis approach. ED 249183
Davis, A. M. (2000). Effects of gender, cognitive learning styles, and computer attitude on students' course satisfaction: A preliminary study II. ED 442416
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: their nature/effects. In Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National Association of School Principals.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1991). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston Publishing.
Foote, T. H. (1988, April 5-9). Managerial grid for teachers: Evidence, practical applications, and directions for future research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA).
Friday, R. A. (1990). Faculty training: From group process to collaborative learning. Journal-of-the-Freshmen-Year-Experience; v2 n1 p49-67.
Hunt, D. E. (1974). Matching models in education. Monograph series Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 10.
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kane, T. J. (1994). Race, college attendance, college competition. ED 374755
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In student learning style: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive Styles, learning styles, and transfer skills acquisition. National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Ohio State University.
Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Alaska native education: Issues in the nineties. Alaska Native Policy Paper. ED 345903.
Kolb, A. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston: McBer and Company.
Kolb, A (1981). Learning style and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering and Associates (Eds.). The modern American colleges: Reading to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society (232-255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kruzich, J. M. Friezen, B. J., & Van Soest, D. (1986). Assessment of student and faculty learning styles: Research and application. Journal of Social Work Education, 22, 22-30.
Miglietti, C., & Strange, C. C. (1998). Learning styles, classroom preferences, teaching styles and remedial course outcomes. Community College Review, vol. 26, 1, pp1-19
Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M. (1999). The American freshmen: National Norms for fall. ED 441367.
© Radical Pedagogy