You are here

Improving Distance Courses: Understanding Teacher Trainees and their Learning Styles for the design of Teacher Training Courses and Materials at a Distance

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
Literature on distance education and teacher education seems to show that what we do not know about Distance Teacher Trainees1 ( DTT ) and their learning process involved exceeds what we know about it. As more DTT enroll in distance education programmes globally, distance education providers and institutions will witness trainees coming with different backgrounds and experiences begin to take advantage of this learning opportunities. One important variable in the effectiveness of distance learning is the preference of the distance learner for a particular learning mode. A key to maintaining distance learners participation in learning lies in understanding the Learning Styles Preferences ( LSP ) and the processes involved. This is also true for teacher training. There is much greater variation in the range of LSP and how to address them when preparing distance training materials and courses. The primary purpose of this paper is to propose ways in which individual learning differences should be accommodated when designing instructional learning materials in print for DTTs. Kolb’s ( 1984 )model on learning cycle and styles are discussed to provide instructional design guidelines which accommodate each stage of the learning cycles and individual differences between DTT in processing and presenting information and knowledge. In addition, issues on teacher education, distance learning, individual differences, and ways in which the ‘differences’ can be accommodated when designing learning materials for DTT are also discussed. This paper resonates the idea and belief that if attempts are made to match learning styles of DTTs and andragogy with content to be learned, distance teacher educators ( DTEs )and instructors can develop better instructional materials with greater prospects of success. Getting to know and understand the teacher trainees and their learning process involved must first be addressed to facilitate the diverse needs of the Malaysian teacher trainees.

REFERENCES

References: 

Agogino, A.M. & His, S. (1995). Learning Style Based Innovations to Improve Retention of Female
Engineering Students in the Synthesis Coalition. In ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education 95’
Proceedings, Purdue University. http://fairway.ecn.purdue.edu/asee/fie95/4a2/4a21/4a21.htm
Birkey .R.C. & Rodan J.J. (1995). Adult Learning Styles and Preferences for Technology Programs.
http://www2.nu.edu/nuri/11conf/conf1995/birkey.html: National University Research Institute.
Burt, C. (1970). The Genetics of Intelligence’ in Dockrell, W.B.(ed.) On Intelligence, London:Methuen.
Calder, J. & McCollum,A. (1998). Open and Flexible Learning in Vocational Education and Training,
London: Kogan Page.
Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S. (1997). Understanding Teacher Education.London: Falmer Press.
Curry, L. (1991). Patterns of learning style across selected medical specialties. Educational Psychology, 11,
247-278.
Dewar, T. (1995). Adult Learning Online. http://www.cybercorp.net/~tammy/lo/oned2.html
Edwards, A., Gielroy, P. & Hartley, D. (2002). Rethinking Teacher Education: Collaborative Responses to
Uncertainty. London: RoutledgeFalmer
Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. New York: John Wiley.
Gibson, C.C. (1998). The Distance Learner in Context. In Gibson,C.C. (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher
Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes, Atwood Publishing:Madison,
Wisconsin.
Harper, G. & Kember,D. (1986). Approaches to Study of Distance Education Students, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 17(3):212-22.
Hartman, V.F. (1995). Teaching and Learning Styles Preferences: Transition Through Technology. VCCA
Journal,9(2),pp:18-20. http://www.so.cc.va.us/vcca/hart1.htm
Holmberg,B. (1995). Theory and Practice of Distance Education. New York: Routledge.
Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning
environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D. H.
Jonassen, & T. M. Welsh (Eds.), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 87-107).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Litzinger, M. E. &Osif ,B. (1993). Accomodating Diverse Learning Styles: Designing Instruction for
Electronic Information Sources. In What is Good Instruction Now? Library Instruction for the 90s.
ed. Linda Shirato, AnnArbor, MI:Pierian Press.
Mogan, A., Gibbs, G. & Taylor, E. (1980). Students Approaches to Studying the Social Science and
Technology Foundation Courses:Preliminary Studies,Milton Keynes: Institute of Educational
Technology, UK Open University.
Pask, G. (1977). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-48.
17
Ramsden, P. (1984). The Context of Learning, in Marton,F., Hounsell,D. and Entwistle,N. (eds). The
Experience of Learning, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,144-64.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education. Higher
Education, 27, 449-468.
Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive Style and Learning from Multimedia Materials in 11-year
Children, British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43-59.
Schroeder, C.C. (1996). New Students-New Learning Styles.
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/KierseyLearning Styles,html
Squires, D., Conole, G. & Jacobs, G.(eds).(2000). The Changing Face of Learning Technology. Cardiff:
University of Wales Press.
Wong,S.L. (1992). Approaches to Study of Distance Education Students, Research in Distance
Education,11-17.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com