From New
Currents 2.1 January 1995
Teaching/learning mini-cases
using student learning style
information
Dr. Bob Schulz
Coordinator
Teaching Development Office
The Gregorc Mind-Styles Delineator has been useful in helping some professors
to connect with students and for some students to connect with professors.
Two key terms from the Gregorc Delineator, Random and Sequential, describe
learning preferences. For example, a quick glance at someone's notes or
office often provides clear distinctions about preferences for Random or
Sequential learning processes.
The two other key terms for the Gregorc Delineator are Concrete and Abstract.
People who prefer learning through concrete examples tend to be inductive
learners. Those who learn best with theory first tend to be deductive learners.
Mini-case 1: Teaching students to stretch
This professor has been a reasonably good teacher in Engineering over the
past 15 years. He was, however, frustrated at not being nominated for teaching
awards and at not being able to get students to study better (and memorize
less.)
After looking at the Gregorc Mind-Styles Delineator data summary for his
highly Concrete Sequential (CS) students, the author described a variation
(what if) technique which could be used to:
- Get students to prepare for class.
- Get students to see generic concepts better.
- Encourage more what if, active, involved class discussions, rather
than passive listening.
- Generate creative problems.
One result was an increase from about 3.3/4.0 to 3.8/4.0 for teaching evaluations
and a first-ever teaching award nomination for this professor.
Mini-case 2: Using practical examples
When first starting to teach about five years ago, this Social Sciences
professor had high, somewhat unrealistic expectations of student performance,
and no formal training in teaching. His teaching evaluations initially were
about 3.4/6.0, but gradually rose to about 4.4/6.0, the departmental average,
for his second-year course. For his fourth-year honours course, the teaching
evaluations were higher (5.2/6.0).
The professor was puzzled about how to improve. He wanted his students to
learn more, and he wanted to achieve higher teaching evaluations. After
completing the Gregorc Mind-Styles Delineator, it was determined that the
professor had Concrete Sequential and
Abstract Sequential (AB) learning preferences. His teaching involved mostly
mathematics, augmented somewhat by graphs.
The specific changes made were:
- Starting each class with a live Concrete example from the newspaper.
- Working out the qualitative analytical aspects of the problem first,
then introducing the Mathematics and graphs.
- Spending more time on more Concrete examples.
- Spending more time on short loops between the theory and the examples.
- Spending less time on mathematical models for one complex example.
- Asking more what if questions.
Overall, student and professor happiness appeared to increase. Student grades
were slightly higher. Teaching evaluations increased only slightly -- 4.3/6.0
to 4.4/6.0 for the subsequent year. In the next year, however, teaching
evaluations jumped to 5.4/6.0 for this course. The professor's additional
comfort with the teaching pedagogy was an important factor. Course preparation
time decreased, because less time was needed to check complex mathematical
models. Finally, it appeared that this professor's students from last year's
class performed much better than expected in the third-year honours courses.
Mini-case 3: Communicating instructions to students on how to learn
When she started teaching as a part-time sessional instructor in Management,
this instructor had no formal training in teaching. She preferred the Abstract
Random (AR) approach to learning and expected students to do likewise. Her
teaching evaluations gradually rose from 3.5/5.0 to the faculty average
of 4.0/5.0, as a result of personal improvement efforts.
However, it was difficult to do better until the Gregorc Mind-Styles Delineator
provided some useful insights. Specifically, the professor tended to emphasize
creative thinking and concepts, which were not always well-received by the
strong CS (50%), AS (35%), and CR (15%) pre-Management students. Within
a year of making changes, her teaching evaluations rose from 4.0 to the
4.7-4.9 range for all sections of third-year students and from 4.3 to 4.8
for her fourth-year course.
The specific changes were:
- Use of a step-by-step process at the start of the term (liked by Sequentials.)
- Greater use of multimedia and live stories from the newspapers
(liked by Concretes.)
- Greater use of day-to-day examples from the students' lives.
- Usually started each class with a practical example and applied the
principles.
- Explanation of the process from the first class and greater stretching
from the given example of what if, which exercised the minds of the
Sequentials to more Random processes.
- Required at least four alternative solutions, but provided a structure
for the Sequentials to become more creative.
- Often generated 10+ strategic alternatives in class.
- More structure for third-year class, less for fourth-year.
- Used more variety -- not every class used the same pedagogy.
- Inductive learning was more fun for the students.
Overall, the grade distribution was similar to past years, even though the
incoming students' grade-point average was slightly lower than for past
years.
Future changes include more real-world experiences, guest speakers, and
live cases. As well, efforts will be made to increase student creativity.
This is particularly difficult for third-year students who want to know
how to get an "A", while fourth-year students are more interested
in finding jobs.
Summary
These are just a few of the specific examples regarding effective use of
the Gregorc Mind-Styles Delineator information for adjustments in teaching.
Departmental workshops are available through the Teaching Development Office and one-on-one discussions are always welcome.
For more information, contact Bob Schulz 220-6591, e-mail: schulz@acs.ucalgary.ca