Teaching styles and student learning outcomes in elementary social studies

Experimentation Critique

In viewing the field of education, the issue of students' lacking retention of material has long been associated with a teacher's inability to enforce learning materials in such a manner that every student within a class -- despite their own personal learning style -- retains the information presented to them in a way that aids in their academic proficiency, attitude, and memory of the information given them. Deveci (2003) defines the concept of differed learning styles as the difference between how students learn and what they learn, noting that only when different learning styles are utilized within the classroom, will students be able to take on a more individualized approach to their work that will aid in their overall academic achievement and success (Deveci, 2003, p.25).

The experiment presented by Guven and Yazicilar in a recent edition of the Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences aimed to present a solution to this problem by experimenting on the learner attitudes presented within a specific course along with measuring recall level and efficiency of the course at hand. In utilizing a 5th grade social studies course in elementary school, researchers sought to understand the differences between an experimental group and a control group of students in terms of attitude, retention, and overall success in terms of the use of specific teaching styles that were believed to more fully benefit the students at hand.

In utilizing teaching activities within the classroom that take into account the differentiating learning styles of the students at hand, experimenters hypothesized that the experimental group would surpass the control group in their academic proficiency level, in their attitudes toward the course, and in their level of memory storage (Guven and Yazicilar, 2009, p.2579).

Research and Experimentation Method

The experimentation method employed involved a control group pre-test and post-test model as well as an experimental group pre-test and post-test to identify how the application of teaching activities taking into account the visual/auditory and kinesthetic learning styles of the students would influence the students' academic proficiency level, attitudes toward the course and level of memory storage in the class of social sciences (Guven and Yazicilar, 2009, p.2579). The model was applied in two classes at an elementary school, each of which was utilized as the experimental group and the control group respectively.

In order to gauge the students' initial capacity for learning before experimentation, students in each test group were given a 40-question proficiency test including four multiple choice questions based on a briefly-covered unit of their 5th grade social studies textbook entitled "Workers for the Society." In assessing the initial results, researchers then utilized lesson plans in each respective classroom. The control group underwent the standard teaching styles that had been utilized in the school previously, while the experimental group underwent teaching styles that had been modified in a manner that utilized group work and the focus on adapting to each child's learning needs rather than the standardized structure utilized in the control group. Upon completing these models of teaching at the end of the fall term, students were once again tested on the material they had learned. The results indicated that there was a significant difference between the success of the control group and experimental group, with the experimental group achieving a better standard of success within the course along with a better capacity for retention of the material -- both results hypothesized by the experimenters. However, there was little difference between the two groups in terms of general attitude towards the course itself which deterred from the initial hypothesis.

Critique

Though the experimenters pose that the reliability and validity of the experiment is highly solidified through the use of the 40-question unit proficiency tests administered by researchers -- the results of which were tested by researchers based on the acquisition of the unit "Workers for the Society," studied in the 5th grade classrooms -- the broad basis of the experiment itself poses significant questions as to whether the learning materials and activity plans utilized by the experimental group would remain relevant outside of this specific social science setting.

For instance, in developing the learning materials and activities needed for the experimental group, all slated to embrace differed learning styles within the students researched, "visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning materials" were prepared in line with the acquisitions determined (Guven and Yazicilar, 2009, p.2580). Additionally, a personal information form with 13 items prepared by researchers to collect data from participants in relation to their learning style was collected through "the scale of learning style for primary school students" developed by the researchers (Guven and Yazicilar, 2009, p.2581).

In looking at this information, it becomes uncertain as to whether the reliability of the procedure is truly there. As implementing the hypothesized teaching structure in classrooms around the world in many subjects, as the experimenters would hope to do, would center on the validity of the method itself and not in its adaptation of methods based on a data form collected by each student, the standards of the method itself come into question. In reality, Guven and Yazicilar hoped to place their proposed teaching methods into widespread use throughout the country [Turkey] based on the assertion that the model would work on a more broad level. However, the experiment presented in the article cited is one that is extremely narrowed and inconclusive in assessing whether it would work outside of this specific area of experimentation.

Guven and Yazicilar further present a sampling structure that is not entirely random. In grouping students in terms of their previously-determined classrooms rather than placing all of the 5th graders in the school into contention for the experiment, findings can be disputed. In coming into classrooms that had already been established, the researchers were adding on to classroom dynamics that had been in place since the beginning of the school-year rather than starting fresh with newly-formed groups.

Conclusion

While Guven and Yazicilar would note that their experiment proved two points of their hypothesis valid, critics can dispute the reliability of the findings at hand based on the broad scope of the hypothesis presented as well as the broad scope of the experiment itself. While the hypothesis presented proved more than partially correct in this specifically-monitored and manipulated circumstance, the question of whether this experiment would hold up consistently in other fields appears to have the capacity to be answered with a resounding no.