Match and Mismatch between Learning and Teaching Style in the Agricultural Education Process

Teaching and learning processes in universities have not achieved expected outcomes. The mismatch between learning and teaching styles is a challenge in the education process. Instructors should strive to incorporate their teaching style with students’ learning styles in order to ensure effective te...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of agricultural management and development 2020-09, Vol.10 (3), p.233-242
Hauptverfasser: Khaledi, Khoshghadam, Chizari, Mohammad, Abbasi, Enayat, Sadighi, Hasan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Teaching and learning processes in universities have not achieved expected outcomes. The mismatch between learning and teaching styles is a challenge in the education process. Instructors should strive to incorporate their teaching style with students’ learning styles in order to ensure effective teaching and learning process in higher education. The present descriptive-survey study aimed to explainthecompatibility of students’ learning styles using Witkin’s (1976) Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and teachers’ teaching style using van Tilburg and Hamilich’s (1990) test. The target population consisted of students and faculty members at the agricultural college at Razi University, Iran. Results revealed that the majority of males were field-independent and the majority of females were field-dependent learners. Concerning four teaching styles (expert, provider, facilitator and enabler), the instructors tended to use the enabler teaching style. Instructors should consider the characteristics and needs of both field-dependent and field-independent students and use different teaching methods. Recommendations about matching learning and teaching styles are provided based on the results.
ISSN:2159-5860
2159-5860
DOI:10.22004/ag.econ.335128