13.7: How Does E-Teaching Style Affect Design?
-
-
Last updated
-
-
Save as PDF
-
The design team needs to consider the teaching styles promoted by the philosophy of the institution, the styles exhibited by the program’s instructors, and expert knowledge about effective and empowering e-learning and e-teaching theory. Grasha (2002) identified several categories of teaching styles that are relevant when planning online courses. Characteristics of Grasha’s teaching style model are summarized in Table \(\PageIndex{1}\)
Grasha's Teaching Style Characteristics
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\)provides some general considerations for the design of the course environment. Interactivity capabilities are important; the means to give immediate feedback and foster both group and individual interaction and dialogue are also critical to effective teaching; as is the ability for creative and appealing organization of course content. Dynamism can be supported with the inclusion of multimedia and other multi-sensory content. Discussion functions such as forums, journals, chat-rooms and group work areas all need to be robust, reliable, easily accessible, and seamless to support spontaneous as well as planned interaction activities.
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Teacher style characteristics (adapted from Grasha, 2002, p. 24)
|
CHARACTERISTIC
|
DEFINITION
|
|
Analytic/Synthetic Approach
|
The ability to present and discuss theoretical issues and new discoveries from a wide-scope perspective, addressing a variety of views; and contrasting implications of a variety of theories
|
|
Organization and Clarity
|
Course objectives and organization is clear, materials are well-prepared and learner-friendly
|
|
Teacher—Group Interaction
|
Discussions and mutual sharing of ideas are supported within the learning environment
|
|
Teacher—Individual Learner Interaction
|
Teacher is approachable and accessible; lines of communication are seamless and can occur at the learner’s discretion; good feedback mechanisms in place
|
|
Dynamism and Enthusiasm
|
Degree that the teaching is energetic, stimulating, enjoyable
|
|
General Teaching Ability
|
Teacher’s expertise, consistency, adaptability
|
|
Overload
|
Amount of assigned course work, level of difficulty
|
|
Structure
|
Structure Ability to plan lesson details, organize course within milieu
|
|
Quality
|
Expectations for learner work quality and performance
|
|
Learner—Teacher Rapport
|
Nature and quality of interactions; interactivity level of online milieu
|
Grasha (2002) also identified four psychological temperaments that teachers exhibit, which are loosely based on Carl Jung’s (1971) work These four temperaments are summarized in Table \(\PageIndex{2}\) Again, the design team can ensure that all temperaments are supported within the course design.
The four temperaments mentioned in Table \(\PageIndex{2}\) culminate in being expressed within five teaching styles, according to Grasha (2002). These styles include the expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator (see Table \(\PageIndex{3}\) for more detail on how the design team can facilitate the teaching styles of the future instructors who will teach the course.
Table \(\PageIndex{2}\):Teacher psychological temperament and course design (adapted from Grasha, 2002, pp. 44–45)
|
Teacher Psychological Temperament
|
Design Considerations
|
|
Dionysian: Sensation-Perception (SP)
|
Enable group projects, demonstrations, games, multimedia, practical quizzes and tests, spontaneous action, proactive interactivity, chatrooms, forums, journals, seamless emails
|
|
Epimethean: Sensation-Judging (SJ)
|
Enable lecture/text areas, demonstrations, tests and quizzes, high organization, needs structure and control, prefers record of learner activity, outcomes, methodical, Socratic dialogue
|
|
Promethean: Intuitive-Thinking (NT)
|
Promote learner independence, individual projects, reports, high standards and mechanisms for giving formal feedback
|
|
Apollonian: Intuitive-Feeling (NF)
|
Enable small and large group projects, discussions, simulations, self discovery learning experiences, spontaneous personable interaction with learners, workshops, emotional values-focused expression
|
Table \(\PageIndex{3}\):Grasha’s (2002) teaching styles and design team considerations
|
Teaching Style
|
Design Considerations
|
|
Expert
|
Interesting information transmittal venues, robust resources for learning, high standards
|
|
Formal Authority
|
Feedback mechanisms important, high organization and structure, formal evaluation
|
|
Personal Model
|
Stimulating, multi-sensory milieu, spontaneity, demonstrations, observation, simulations
|
|
Facilitator
|
Personable interaction, support learner independence, Group Project work, Flexibility
|
|
Delegator
|
Empowers learner autonomy, independent projects, spontaneous interaction
|
Constructivist Approaches to Design Decisions
Current educational literature purports that a constructivist approach to e-teaching is recommended in order to meet the needs of 21st century learners (Sims, 2006). “Constructivist epistemology assumes that learners construct their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment. Four epistemological assumptions are at the heart of what we refer to as “constructivist learning”:
-
“Knowledge is physically constructed by learners who are involved in active learning.
-
Knowledge is symbolically constructed by learners who are making their own representations of action.
-
Knowledge is socially constructed by learners who convey their meaning making to others.
-
Knowledge is theoretically constructed by learners who try to explain things they don’t completely understand” (Gagnon and Colley, 2001, p. 1)
Colon et al. (2000, p. 9) described how constructivist instructional design can be applied to support this style of teaching and learning. The authors outlined the fundamental creation tasks of the course design:
-
surface characteristics—screen layout, typography, language, graphics, illustrations, sound;
-
interface—look and feel, user interaction, help, support, navigation, metaphors;
-
scenario—sequence of video cases, options/choices, comparisons;
-
supporting hypertext and hypermedia instructional content;
-
instructional strategies—“chunking” of content.
It can be concluded that both e-learning and e-teaching styles are important considerations for the design team to keep in mind as they collaborate to plan the course creation. This is facilitated through attending to the structure and organization of the course content and environment—in other words, in the packaging.