Heuristic Research in Teaching Styles

A NEW PARADIGM FOR HEURISTIC RESEARCH

TEACHING STYLES '

Grace M. HI Gayle University of Ottawa

j

The need for a paradigm for research and theory in teaching style is substantiated first of all by the relative paucity of refer-ence to teaching style in its own right in the current literature. The concept of teaching style should never be confused with that of learning style for the sake of convenience or through lack of concern for clarity in theory and research. Teaching style should never be treated as a mere corollary to learning style. Teaching/learning styles are distinct, though complementary, and should be studied separately. They bear completely different objectives, goals and criteria. The nature of learning style de-scribes the learner's learning: the nature of teaching style is not to describe the teacher's learning or even primarily the teacher's facilitation of the student's learning; rather, it is to describe the teacher and his or her behavior as a vehicle for teaching. Teach-ing and learning are in essence two completely different pro-cesses.

When properly conceived, the concept of teaching style can-not be treated as a simple choice between alternative sets of strategies, techniques, or teaching acts. If the term teaching style is to contribute in a more meaningful way to research, it must be accepted as a systemic structure of complex, stable behaviors, some of which may be quite idiosyncratic. Teaching style evinces a certain predictability which is ensured by an internal syntax and coherence distinguishable from the purely accidental and deriving its direction from the person exhibiting the style. The concept of person carries prime reference to the individual's religious essence and lifestyle of faith1 (or the absence of this)

1 See, for example, Lee's discussion of faith versus theology and the educational

implications. In Lee 1990 ch. 12.

ReKgious Education Vol 89 Noi Winter 1994

9

10 TEACHING STYLE

and therefore extends well beyond mere religious conviction. Additional to the notion of systemic structure within the person is the assumption of process, which is taken as an inevitable aspect of every living organism or system. Once teaching style is elevated to this level of significance, then at least three descrip-tive aspects must be appreciated before style can be analyzed or its impact on the student understoodthe personhood of the teacher, the gestalt of everything done, encouraged, and facili-tated by the teacher in the classroom, and the processes proper to the dynamics of the structure.

The role of teaching style relative to learning style promises to be a delicate issue in future research. The view is taken here that there must be an interface between the two emphases from both the pedagogical and research points of view. Learning style can never take the ascendancy over teaching style. The insis-tence on the centrality of the teacher in the classroom and the undeniable significance of his or her belief systems and behav-ioral patterns do not necessarily contradict the notion of student-centered classrooms. These emphases are in strict alignment with the well acknowledged facts that students construct their own knowledge (Piaget 1952) but that they do so best when the con-ditions created are optimal (Berlyne I960, Day and Berlyne 1971); that students learn better when their peculiar learning styles and strengths are facilitated (Dunn and Dunn 1978) but that for op-timal long-term student growth and viability, exposure to other styles and compensatory acts on the part of the teacher are nec-essary (Kolb 1984); that the student's natural potential and incli-nations must be respected (Rogers 1951) and his or her private value system protected (Carteledge 1978, Cummins 1981, Gard-ner 1979, Gardner and Lambert 1972) but that on a daily basis he or she requires a strong and faithful sounding board (Ausubel 1977).

Our educational theorizing up to the present time has enthu-siastically insisted on the potential proactivity of the growing child, and it thereby tolerates a reactive/facultative role for the teacher. However, the teacher cannot truly be authentic (Rogers 1951) if his or her role is limited to this. If the student needs to be active and even assertive in his or her interaction with the envi-ronment (Bruner 1966, Kamii 1984) and if this is an index of his or her personal growth, how much more do we need teachers who are themselves models of proactivity and who are capable of as-

GRACE M. H. GAYLE 11

suming an active/acilitative role. At no time should the error be made of deducing what the teacher's style is or ought to be by first enquiring what the student's learning style is. The teacher's teaching style and the students' learning styles are complemen-tary but independent substantial components of classroom inter-action. Without this the classroom relationship will generate a stifling symbiosis. A thorough model of teaching style should al-low for a comprehensive theory of human development capable of recognizing and emphasizing the needs of the child in the classroom but at the same time specifying and locating the teacher as a person in her own right in the developmental scheme. She is more than a cheerleader.

Perhaps in the classroom ball game there are two centers of action, two foci, two goals, and two goalkeepers. The outcome of the game depends just as much on what happens at one end of the field as at the other. The teacher is a person, not an adjunct to the classroom. His or her style has an indelible character and can neither be dictated by the nature of students' learning styles nor recommended solely by their perceived needs.

Educational theory and research studies using process-product designs should never create an unbalanced shift towards the stu-dent. It may be deduced that whether the teacher is a traditional-ist, absolutist, relativist, or progressivist will have widespread repercussions on specific classroom behaviors; whether the class-room instruction/interaction is f ormalized or individualized, dem-ocratic or authoritarian will depend perhaps more on teacher personality than on student disposition; whether the student is heard or not heard, happy or unhappy, active or inactive, indus-trious or unmotivated, ready or reticent will be in part the result of a number of teacher choices and decisions made both before and after his or her entry into the classroomdecisions made not only toith respect to student behaviors but also with respect to the teacher's own needs, professional aims and, above all, per-sonal/religious convictions. In a sense, the relative emphasis given to the three basic components of the teaching/learning process (i.e., the teacher, the student, and the content or skill being taught) is immaterial. Whatever the proportions may be, it is the teacher who has made this decision. This becomes a part of her style. The teachers personality precedes any option and is always a strong, if not the first, causative factor.

Bennett's (1988) model of classroom task processes presents

12 TEACHING STYLE

the view that learning from teaching is not automatic. Bennett insists that "the activities of the learner on assigned classroom tasks should be seen as crucial mediators in converting teaching behaviours into learning behaviours" (p. 24). However, there is no contradiction between his insight and the premise developed in Gayle's (1979) model of teaching where allowance is made for learner behaviors and teacher decisions to be an integral part of teaching style. The conviction of the ultimate inseparability of teacher and learner behaviors is thus maintained in this present paradigm. The learner tasks encouraged by the teacher may be said to reflect either the teacher's preferences or the teacher's viability.

The need for a distinction between the terms classroom inter-action ancj teaching style is recognized. The former refers to the research perspective which takes into account all possible expres-sions of the teaching event. Teaching style, on the other hand, is an attempt to provide a focus on the person and preserves the distinctiveness of the teacher as a separate but responsible agent in the classroom gestalt.

The view is taken here that whether the subject of study is classroom interaction or teaching style, the teacher should be prepared to be the pacemaker in case of need, to be capable of taking the ascendancy, not necessarily as an authoritarian figure but always as the heartbeat and pulse of the classroom organism.

The definition of paradigm adopted in this work is consistent with that of Gage, for whom paradigms are models, patterns, or schemata. "Paradigms are not theories; rather, they are ways of thinking or patterns for research that, when carried out, can lead to the development of theory" (1963,95). Each paradigm has its own world view with which to interpret phenomena. Lakatos (1978) prefers to describe the paradigm as a research program. A research program has a set of shared, temporarily irrefutable as-sumptions or a "hard core" which is sheltered from direct empiri-cal falsification by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses them-selves generated by the hard core. Ideally, a paradigm facilitates the development of and finally accommodates several theories.

It is to be understood then that the paradigm to be discussed provides a broad conceptual framework (beginning with a spec-trum of personal/religious orientations) to be used to generate a number of theories. These in turn will increase the potential for


examining a wide variety of teaching styles, their precise values and forms. This paradigm, then, does not merely encourage an analysis of the various teaching "methods" that may be adopted to teach religion in the captive audiences of religious communi-ties.2 Rather, it seeks to give the issue of religious education a much broader application by insisting that it is the religious intent (positive or negative) present in the teachers personality which becomes the most powerful detonator in any teaching style and in any learning context (religious or secular). The paradigm sup-ports the view that the teaching of any content, religious or oth-erwise, may be more effectively carried out as the teacher's positive religious convictions become the spontaneous directive of his or her teaching style. Further, this paper and the paradigm it presents assume the variable effectiveness of a range of styles with the saving clause that, whatever the style, the teacher should never be totally eclipsed by the student and should always be capable of emitting light.

The presentation which follows will be structured in terms of four principal sections: (1) a clarification of the three descriptive aspects of teaching style referred to previously, that is, person-hood, gestalt and process; (2) a discussion of the contribution and limitations of past research to understand teaching style; (3) an outline of specific assumptions or premises which form the theoretical groundwork for a new paradigm for teaching style; and (4) the paradigm itself. In a real way (1), (2) and (3) will constitute a rationale for the paradigm in (4).

Descriptive Aspects of Teaching Style Personhood

The personhood of the teacher is not to be confused with a few idiosyncratic features or individual traits but must be seen as an integrated whole. As used here, the terms personhood and personality are synonymous expressions with primary reference to the individual's religious philosophy in action (or lack thereof) and are inclusive of attitudinal/belief/value systems.

2 See Byrne 1981 ch. 7; reference to J. D. Foster and G. T. Moran's discussion of the

need to "disequilibrate" the learner in Hyde 1990,46; a description of Thomas Groome's method referred to as "shared praxis" in Gillespie 1988, 201-203.

14 TEACHING STYLE

A satisfactory model or theory of teaching style must recog-nize the teacher as the central influence in the classroom dynam-ics even when he or she is temporarily out of sight and must examine the degree to which he or she demonstrates flexibility and variation but above all integration and integrity. What mat-ters most in teaching is not the external garb and appearance but the internal self and what it stands for. Teaching is a revelation of the self more than it is the use of learned postures, it is the stamp of authenticity more than it is the show of authority, it is the ele-ment of trust which goes deeper than fickle and fallacious popu-larity. As the core of classroom business the teacher will affect every transactioncontent, task selection, process, attitudes, dis-cipline, atmosphere, language and even initiativeby his or her presence. To the degree that the core is healthy and alive, to that degree will the peripheral regions of classroom style bear evi-dence of productive growth.

Personhood also includes an enthusiasm for the subject taught and an ability to represent the norms adherent to it, the teacher's current educational approach and the many presage variables (e.g., training, practice-teaching) discussed by Dunkin and Bid-die (1974). Gestalt

Reference in this article to the gestalt of classroom events and their descriptive characteristics insists that the essential structure of style is configurational (See also Gayle 1984a, 1984b), that there is a dynamic dependence among its many interactive parts, and that the total form is greater than the sum of its parts. Usu-ally it is the whole configuration which makes the difference in student output. Often, however, it is a minor theme within the total configuration which attracts attention.

The complexity of teaching style requires a theory with the strength requisite to explain multiple cause-effect relationships, sequences, idiosyncracies, hierarchies, subhierarchies and inter-related subsystems. Such a theory (dealing with teacher behav-iors and choices) must begin with a description of the teacher's level of spiritual development, examine his or her philosophical and other persuasions, explain his or her stage of psychological development, and indicate how, as an individual, what he or she is may be applied to the classroom. The theory will envelop,


therefore, the domains of experience, philosophy, psychology, and applied psychology inter alia. The theory should present an awareness of the obvious but often overlooked fact that behind every psychology of education there is a philosophy of education.

Process The term process may be understood from several points of

view. It is first the interdependency among the several parts of the structure and the multiple cause-effect flows within the struc-ture which produce and/or result from this dependency. This first aspect of process is amplified by further bidirectional cause-effect relationships which bond factors within the system or structure to those outside in the environment. Finally, process may be understood as the developmental changes that accrue to the organism or person as maturity takes place. All three aspects of process are inextricably related to structure in style; that is, the end point of process is always structure. From an analysis of structure, therefore, a great deal may be inferred regarding pro-cess. In fact, it may be said that structure is the more tangible aspect of processthat one may comprehend the result without always understanding the process.

The Contribution of Past Research to Understanding "Teaching Style"

It has been the practice of researchers to refer to almost any-thing, even if remotely connected to the classroom, as teaching style. Reference may range from educational policies in school boards and other concerned institutions to prescribed teaching methodologies which are defined in textbooks and training col-leges to the general dynamics of the classroom customarily de-scribed by the term classroom interaction. The view is taken here, however, that if the term teaching style is to be helpful in research, it must be differentiated from all of the preceding: It must be given less dilute meaning and more specific form. It should be distinguished from teaching as theory and discussed as teaching in practice. Above all, it should be given consistent meaning by the researcher. The distinction made in the introduc-tion between classroom interaction and teaching style, therefore, is preserved in the following discussion.

16 TEACHING STYLE

The intention is, however, that "teaching style," though nar-rower in conceptual structure than "classroom interaction," be understood as broad enough to encompass all subject disciplines.

It is the opinion of the present writer that the research which has occurred over the past three decades on classroom interac-tion out-weighs that on teaching style. In research on classroom interaction, relatively long-lived traditions in the research meth-ods used in the broader educational context and similar but more recent traditions in the second-language learning context are sup-ported by an array of research and theoretical works (e.g., Bel-lack, Kliebard, Hyman and Smith 1966; Cazden 1988; Chaudron 1977; Fanselow 1977; Flanders 1965; Green and Wallat 1981; Hymes 1981; Moskowitz 1967; Naiman, Frhlich, Stern and To-desco 1978; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Swain and Lapkin 1982; Titone 1982). Four research methodologies have contributed to this literaturethe psychometric, interaction analysis, discourse analysis, and the ethnographic approach (Chaudron 1988). In this body of research, however, in spite of sophisticated methods, the teacher's profile is often secondary to and submerged in the welter of detail proper to classroom interaction and its patterns. Further, the emphasis on the learner often outstrips that placed on the teacher. Politzer (1981) reports that the 1970s were clearly the decade of the "focus on the learner." To a large extent this has continued to be so throughout the 1980s.

The research on teaching style, though less developed, has become an additional tradition to be reckoned with, and to some extent it has filled the gaps left by classroom-interaction analysis research. Within the past three decades descriptions of teaching style have taken on a number of different foci. There are works which have given the phenomenon a simple scope, treating style as a mere choice between dichotomous strategies on dimensions which are taken out of context and therefore isolated (Axelrod 1973; Kagan 1960; Bruner, Goodnow and Austin 1956). Other works discuss teaching style in terms of a relatively more com-plex profile of strategy use (e.g., Bostrom 1978; Canfield 1978; Dunn and Dunn 1978; Gregore 1982; Hunt 1971; Kolb 1984; Powell 1984). In many of these models there is a tendency to dis-cuss teaching and learning style concurrently. This is inevitable when style is the subject of consideration. At least two weak-nesses may be detected, however:

1) the tendency for proponents of learning styles to see these


styles as the dominant rather than a contributory factor in the classroom interaction. For example, in their research on learning style, Dunn and Dunn (1978) and Dunn (1988) seem to lose sight of the teacher as a participant in his or her own right and call repeatedly for the teacher's style to be a response to or to reflect the learner's learning style (e.g., 1978 4). This is no doubt an out-come of the present focus on student-centered classrooms, in-spired in part by client-centered therapy (e.g., Rogers 1951) and by the influence of our information-processing age. The teacher is viewed by many who discuss learning style as merely a back-drop, a subtle but not too prominent participant/facilitator, often only a potential reactor to the preferences, strengths, and choices seen in the student's use of strategies. The invitation for the teacher's style to be guided by that of the student can only be wholly valid, however, if the term has not been fully appreciated.

2) the tendency, not unrelated to the first, for proponents of teaching/learning styles to entertain an overwhelming emphasis on the use of strategies and to perpetuate an alarming lack of due mention of the teacher or student as a total person. In the face of this reality, the term style is perhaps often given premature or restricted application.

Works which attend specifically to teaching styles in the second-language learning context, though rare, demonstrate a growing concern for depicting style as a complex gestalt (Gayle 1982, 1984a, Gayle and Frhlich 1978, Papalia 1978). Papalia (1978) defines styles as "habitual, consistent patterns of preferred strategies used by teachers in promoting learning" (p. 9). On sev-eral occasions Gayle (1979,1980,1982,1984a) refers explicidy or implicitly to style as "the configuration of techniques or teacher characteristics identified on specific dimensions of teaching . . ." (1984a, 523) or as the "individualistic set of behaviours or charac-teristics displayed by a teacher that may be considered relevant to learning" (1979,348). Configurations display their own peculiar dominances and nuances which produce correspondingly differ-ent interactive effects and may be used as a precise statement of what the teacher actually does in the classroom. Configurations identified may be derived from any number of dimensions, the more the better (see Gayle 1979). This approach is applicable to any discipline.

In a study published by Gayle (1984a), techniques on the dimension of pedagogical functions were grouped to specify six

18 TEACHING STYLE

major categories or strategies within the configuration described. A number of specific styles (each representing several teachers) were identified based on the peculiar weightings for these strate-gies, and the relative effectiveness of the styles was examined.

Other attempts made so far to understand teaching style have contributed significantly with respect to previously unexplored dimensions. These dimensions, however (e.g., Norton 1986, Pelsma 1987), need to be contextualized within a more compre-hensive treatment of style where the multiple dimensions are recognized to be interactive and dependent. This shortcoming is no doubt due in part to the relative absence of theories or even models which deal with teaching style as a complex interactive structure, immense in its proportions.

There are already a few works in which there is a greater understanding of the complexity of style; moreover, an attempt is made to appreciate the concept of teaching style at the loftier level of personality (e.g., Myers 1962, Royce 1983, Witkin 1977). This represents a step in the right direction. Here again, how-ever, the research is almost consistently characterized by the atti-tude that teaching style is merely a response to learning style. The debate regarding preferable match/mismatch between teacher and student is often entertained. The same dimensions analyzed for the student tend to be applied to the teacher.

Very few publications have dealt with the personhood of the teacher with any degree of seriousness (see for example Bicki-mer 1985, Eble 1980). For this to be achieved, a more deter-mined effort must be made to examine the teacher's profile etched in clearer light. So far, to this writer's knowledge, no empirical research on teaching style has been done emphasizing this most crucial component. The gap remains outstanding in the research covering the vast majority of disciplines. In the litera-ture on second language teaching, however, the need for a por-trayal of personhood has been intimated by Gayle (1979) and discussed in greater detail (Gayle 1989). In general, some inte-gral and inescapable components of personhood are yet to be recognized and explicated.

Unfortunately, research done recently in the United Kingdom on teaching style (see Bennett 1988) takes the view that as a result of the problems inherent in past research, the conception has "outlived its usefulness." The difficulties referred to are de-scribed as follows:


1) The styles, as groups or bundles of teacher behaviors or activities, make it impossible to ascertain the impact of any individual teacher behavior on pupil outcomes.

2) "Within-style" differences in pupil achievement were often as large as "between-style"' differences.

3) Statistical analyses available for developing typologies and for assessing pupil change presented technical limitations.

4) Teaching style cannot, in itself, provide an adequate explanation of dif-ferences in pupil putcomes.

In answer to (1) above, it is believed that once the concept of style is being dealt with in the context of the gestaltwhere the focus is not merely on the presence or absence of individual teacher behaviors but rather on the particular configurations that their frequencies display within a given stylethen the researcher is presumably no longer primarily interested in the impact of a single behavior. Indeed the notion of style was adopted (see for example Gayle 1984b) to convey the conviction that the impact of the single behavior was minimal and that belief in its utility had been put to rest. Whether the individual teacher behavior does in fact affect learning is left to be seen more clearly, but there are many ways of investigating this without sacrificing our interest in style. With reference to (2), "within-style" differences in pupil achievement are quite probably the result of inconsistent, idiosyncratic teacher behaviors directed to particular students. If these are being noted as part of a configuration based on fre-quencies, however, they may easily be unearthed. Bennett ex-presses optimism with respect to (3) above. The accuracy of the statement in (4) is acknowledged. However, this does not require that research on style be abandoned any more than research on the other contributors to learningbe they social experience, motivation, intelligence, age, or any other factor.

In summary, it is the present writer's conviction that research on teaching style has a far way to go, has not yet permeated sig-nificantly beneath the surface, and promises a number of exciting possibilities. This endeavor will require multidisciplinary theory.

The intention in the paradigm to follow is primarily to broaden the perspectives on the study of teaching style by facili-tating a focus on the teacher-person as an entity or complex whole and as a permissive or causative agent rather than to facili-tate the study of style as a numeration of impersonal events or independent strategies. Defined thus, the concept of style takes

20 TEACHING STYLE

the researcher into the analysis of classroom interaction in a most important way to a level which reduces obscurity.

Assumptions The foregoing three descriptive aspects of stylepersonhood,

gestalt, and process suggest the following assumptions or ground rules for the construction of a new paradigm for research.

1) Teaching style must not only demonstrate consonance with student learning style (Dunn and Dunn 1978, Hunt 1971, Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox 1977); it must also be able to compensate for student deficits in the manner recommended by the research on aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) so that it may stimulate balanced growth (Kolb 1984). In fact Canfield (1978), Hunt (1971), and Kolb (1984), among others, question the validity of "matching" teacher and learner styles as the ultimate goal of education and suggest that matching may be inappropriate if the long-term goal of education is developmental.

2) The focus in teaching style is primarily on the configuration of teacher behaviors carried out in the classroom, including all aspects of self-expression. This inpinges on faith.

3) This description of the teacher should be sensitive to what students do or are allowed to do by the teacher (cf. Deming's theory of "participa-tive management"). Obviously, however, the complete picture of the classroom is ultimately achieved only when teaching and learning styles are examined in concert, each in its own right.

4) Both teacher and student act, to varying degrees, on their environments. Neither teacher nor student simply reacts to the other. This is in keep-ing with the "anti-robot" position enunciated by Bertalanffy in systems theory (Gray 1973).

5) The configuration of teaching style is influenced by its essence, or core, which gives it its character. This core epitomizes the individual's manner or philosophy or way of life, which may rest heavily on religious con-viction and practice, is the pith of personality, and controls all changes in the configuration irrespective of their point of entry.

6) In order to be effective, the configuration must have good form "prag-nanz," that is, a degree of systematic coherence.

7) The whole configuration of teacher behaviors/expressive characteristics is greater than the sum of the parts and is irreducible to its separate parts. Among the many parts emphasis exists as a result of dominances and nuances.

8) The whole is greater not only in its present outlay and progressive internal dynamism but also in its ultimate effect on learning.

9) In keeping with (5), the elements in the configuration are based on teacher choices which are NOT haphazard. Style (as personal behav-ior) is extensive in contour, systemic in nature, and best depicted in terms of a hierarchy reflecting the superordinate quality of the inner person. (Were learning style to be discussed, it should properly be de-scribed in terms of its own hierarchy).

GRACE Ai. H. GAYLE 21

10) With regard to process, elements at or near the base of a presumed hier-archy are less important to the vertical or horizontal relationships than components at the apex of the hierarchy; that is, the higher the level within the hierarchy, the greater the influence it exerts on the remaining structure or gestalt.

11) The dependency among the many components of each configuration is such that any change during teaching may be visualized as an effect which reverberates across all levels in the hierarchy and involves all sys-tems and subsystems within each level.

12) Teaching style is to some extent evolutionary in nature. As a system it is open to environmental influence, but, for the sake of its preservation, it is also relatively closed. Style therefore represents a blend between internal developmental processes and environmental influences. Other principles of systems theory such as opposition, defense, polylithy and persistence are operationalized.3

13) It will be impossible to evaluate styles outside the context of specific aims and goals; however, in general, some styles are inherently better than others while some may be definitely ineffective or even counter-productive.

14) The analysis of teaching style should not include discussion of pro-grams or methods in its definition. These are seen as prescriptions for teaching and often prove to be at variance with what is actually done in the classroom. Swaffar, Arens and Morgan (1982) have demonstrated that teachers of supposedly different methodological persuasions in fact acknowledge quite diverse or overlapping behaviors in classroom practice (reported by Chaudron 1988).

It is predicted that as light is shed on the abstruse subject of personality, it will be found that style is alive, is greater than method and cannot be equated with methodology.

The PARADIGM The paradigm proposed for research in teaching style is

exhibited diagrammatically in Figure 1, where it is represented by a hierarchical tree. This tree is amplified in part in Figures 2 and 3 and explained in the following subsections. The paradigm is designed to be relevant to the teaching of any subject; how-ever, reference is sometimes specifically made to the field of religious education and the field of second-language teaching by way of illustration.

The paradigm is linked to the relationships existing among five basic factors: the total classroom interaction, teaching style,

3 David Lester (1987) discusses Kenneth Boulding's principles of social and political

organizations and applies them to systems theories of personality. Polylithy denotes the complexity of a megalithic structure made of many stones.

22 TEACHING STYLE

learning style, the teacher, and the student. The concept of classroom interaction is superordinate to both teaching style and learning style. Learning style is not depicted in the present diagram for obvious reasons. The hierarchical tree in Figure 1 is thus the conceptual representation of teaching style as one of two major components of classroom interaction. While teaching style allows for the description of student input and the teacher's reaction to this input, the concept is intended to focus on the teacher, not the student, as person in action. The letters and S refer to the teacher and student, respectively, as they exist prior to the actual teaching event. Though predictive, they remain nonetheless independent of style.

Dimensions or levels presented in the hierarchy are assumed to occur simultaneously, but an attempt has been made to preserve a descriptive progression from the abstract, general, or more important at the apex to the concrete, specific, or less important at the lowest level. The hierarchy accommodates multiple categories and varying values for each category, which will generate different configurations. Figure 1 illustrates some of the reasons why style is not static but an ongoing process. Broken lines are used where the teacher, though aware of influences/effects emanating from the interaction, may or may not act upon them.

Concepts in the boxes and S are explained in an earlier model of teaching by Gayle (1979). Though these concepts provide a context for the discussion of style, definitions are not reproduced for obvious reasons. However, it should be noted that the term "Goals" in box "T" is meant to include the teacher's mental image or self prototype ( Axelrod 1973) of what his or her personal teaching should be like. Axelrod claims that a confused teaching prototype often accounts for ineffective teaching. It is pointed out that the term "Presage Variables," used by Dunkin and Biddle (1974) to indicate factors which may predict teacher behaviors, has been extended here to include student characteristics which may also contribute to the teacher's behaviors during interaction. "Context Variables" (Dunkin and Biddle), not appearing in Figure 1 but discussed in the 1979 model by Gayle, must include influences on teaching style such as societal moods, student culture and shifting values (Norton 1986). It is hypothesized that this model, when complemented by a model on learning styles, will contribute to the full range of factors such as

GRACE M, H. GAYLE 23

achievement and classroom atmosphere which may be discussed under "Product Variables" (see Figure 1).

The following explanations in subsections 1-6 reflect the dimensions set out in the hierarchy of Figure 1 and are aligned to the broader principles in the fourteen assumptions previously explained.

J. The Teacher s Personality The statement that the teacher brings his or her personal-

ity/individuality into the classroom will generally be accepted by most theoreticians. The recognition given by this paradigm to the place of personhood in style as a superordinate controlling factor is supported by Eble (1980), who cites Buffon: "Le style est l'homme mme" ("Style is the man himself). If this is ac-cepted, then two things at least follow: Style is authentic and is not to be mistaken for professional posturing.

Just as change in teaching style is based on choices which are not haphazard, so too choices in personality are not accidental and will tend to adhere to a certain consistency. These choices will be based on the individual's personal philosophy in action. Often, the belief or the quality of the motivation behind the choice is more important than the choice itself.

Definitions of personality are numerous. The view is taken here that personality may be defined as the dynamic (i.e., grow-ing and changing) organization of patterns of attitude, intention, thought, and behavior emanating from the individual. This defi-nition accommodates the view that the health of the personality is significantly dependent on the level of integrity inclusive of the degree of habitual consistency between internal and external events and choices (integration). It is also compatible with the definition of style as the gestalt or configuration of teacher behaviors or characteristics in the classroom. A complete defini-tion of personality, however, must acknowledge the possibility of a heightened refinement of attitudinal and behavioral patterns to the degree that these are subjected to the controls of the per-son at the helm.

In spite of the multiplicity of components within personality (see for example the works of Adler, Allport, Cattell, Eysenck, Jung, Kelly, Maslow), there is an overarching structure which varies from person to person according to the weightings and interpretations assigned to each component of the structure. In

PRESAGE VARIABLES

Selected philosophy of education Orientation to psychology of education Knowledge of subject matter General knowledge Language skills Expectations re: Ss Training Goals Values , }--Attitudes Aptitudes Cognitive style ' Experience Ethnic origin Age , Sex

Pre-planned Strategies, Activities

Susceptibility to change in use of planned

strategies

Unconscious change in attitudes, knowledge

Conscious change in attitudes,

knowledge

TEACHING STYLE AS ONE

COMPONENT OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION

PRESAGE VARIABLES

Teacher's personality I \

Educational philosophy in action

Teacher expertise in applying knowledge

to personal behavior \

Scope and variety of exposure provided for students

Enacted teaching strategies based on teacher/student needs

Teaching techniques

Knowledge of subject Linguistic skills Personality Attitudes Motivation Aptitudes Cognitive styles Learning styles Age, ethnic origin General knowledge Unconscious strategies Conscious strategies mediated by age

h

i

Figure 1: Paradigm for explaining teaching style


this paradigm it is accepted that the structure of person may be indicated by reference to body, mind, and spirit (where spirit is defined generally as the capacity to establish a growing relation-ship with another). It will not be readily agreed, however, what the full nature of this structure, its interpretations, and conse-quences may be. The diversity of opinion has yielded various perspectivessome complementary, others contradictory. In many philosophies this structure may exist purely on the level of the natural/constitutional. For others, for example Judaism, re-generation, largely in the form of symbolic acts such as ritual washings denoting future states, is necessary. In this respect the pristine Christian church is exceptional. It calls the person to the death of the "old man" and to the inner birth of the "new man." It is the opinion here, however, that until the term personality is seen as descriptive of all aspects of the spirit in vertical relation-ship or nonrelationship with its Author, there will be insurmount-able barriers to understanding the full nature of personality structure, its components and processes.

Indeed, for the teacher, it is at this level of style, and not at the level of technique, that discipline (originally derived from the word disciple, discpulos) first enters the picture. Since chil-dren learn as much or more through imitation as they do through exhortation (Bandura 1977), the teacher's own loyalty as a disciple and his or her own temperance and habit of life become the unspoken breath and vehicle of instruction.

Within this paradigm the concept of fulfilment of one's poten-tial is essential and is taken as a total product rather than an ele-ment. It will be the opinion of some, however, that it cannot be adequately discussed if it is viewed through the limited binocu-lars of the natural. It may justifiably be perceived as the sum total of the individual choices made indicating learning achieved, the fulfilment of needs (deficiency and being needs) (Maslow 1970) and the realization of personal expressiveness and creativity. Paramount to fulfilment of potential is the question of relation-ship achieved (both vertical and horizontal), signifying qualita-tive differences in awareness, care, respect, and teacher-pupil rapport. Obviously, potential at the level of the supernatural is greater than that realized by the individual at the level of the natural.

Since the components of personality are ordinarily innumer-able, Figure 2 presents a synoptic view of personality in which superordinate concepts are set out. In this paradigm it is concep-

26 TEACHING STYLE

tualized that changes in personality are operable within and among at least five personality expressions for which Person is the cohesive unit. Person in its ultimate sense defies definition in wholly mundane terms. It is person which provides structure in process and which, as the doer or mover, gives direction to pro-cess. The five personality expressions referred to are described below.

Attitudes are defined as basic dispositions and are given fun-damental importance in this paradigm. In addition to the atti-tudes usuaDy discussed in the literature on personality and its development (e.g., the personality types of introversion/extro-version described by Eysenck, Jung, etc.) and in the humanistic literature on classroom teaching (e.g., Avila, Combs, and Pur-key, etc.), this model includes within the framework of attitudes the personal quality of belief, faith, or trust. Belief here is under-stood as transcending the intellectual and as emanating from the heart. It is therefore spiritual in impact and as such is capable of surpassing the levels of mere natural emotion and encountering the depth, power and purity of the agape.

Even at the level of spirit, attitudes are conceptualized as having three basic components: the affective, the cognitive, and the behavioral. This is in keeping with the earlier proposition (Katz and Stotland 1959) regarding the structure of attitudes. It is also argued here that whereas the teacher's use of strategy and technique may be adequate to affect positively the student's intellectual development, the higher-order character of attitudes, together with their complex structure, render them paramount as precedents requisite to the student's emotional and personal or religious growth.

The principal concepts to be considered under the heading Moral Development are the individual's value system and the development of autonomy and justice as opposed to convention-alism. Moral development is best understood, however, through the concept of integrity as well as the complementarity of exter-nal behaviors with internal convictions and affects. As such, there is unmitigated connection with Person and with Spirit. Also related to moral development and a strong influence on teacher comportment is the belief in the existence/nonexistence of abso-lutes.

Enthusiasm relates to a broad motivational orientation denot-


ing interest and zeal. It includes general industry and initiative. Because of its root meaning (en + theos), it has been accorded a superordinate position in this paradigm and relates to a number of emotions including hope, joy, anticipation, and the passion of mission referred to as fervor. In a religious education setting it relates the twentieth-century concern for "pedagogical process" as a content4that the way in which something is taught forms a large part of what is taught. In a second-language teaching con-text it may refer to a readiness and faculty on the part of the teacher to use either or both languages as the need arises.

The term Identity is intended to convey any aspect of self perception which filters directly through the individual's self-report system. It therefore connotes "ego identity" as discussed by Erikson (1956) or Loevinger (1976), and as such it is under-stood as a requisite for moral development. If applied to the teacher of a second language, it could highlight connotations of self-concept, self-esteem (Brodkey and Shore 1976), language ego (Guiora, Brannon, and Dull 1972), culture, culture shock and social distance (Schumann 1976). Indeed, even in second-lan-guage teaching, one's concept of self in relation to God is engaged.

Noesis has been chosen to describe aspects of personality pertaining to intellectual or rational activity. It summarizes pro-cesses and constructs within perception, cognitive style, judg-ment, intelligence, memory, aptitudes and, the like. Any one of these variables is multifactorial, but special reference must be made to the process of perception since it is basic to all behavior. Teaching style envisages a discussion of the teacher's perception of events as observable phenomena. As a result of the responsi-bility inherent to the teacher's role, however, it must also allow for perception based on inferences and intuitionsperceptions of his or her own reactions and those of others, including percep-tions of how students are reacting.

None of the superordinate concepts discussed in preceding paragraphs may be regarded as independent of the others. To a large extent most of the general literature on personality is in accord that personality structures are not independent.

4 See Lee 1990, 266. Lee also points out that the way in which something was taught

often has "a more powerful and long-lasting effect on learners than the material which was taught." On this point he cites, inter alia, Crome 1986.

28 TEACHING STYLE

REGULARITIES IN REHAVIORAL PATTERNS Process ^ Structure Change (gradual or sudden) in habits

The end point of Process: seen in types, traits,

idiosyncracies

Attitudes Moral Development Enthusiasm

PERSON Body Mind Spirit (Enthusiasmos)

Constitution/Regeneration Personal Philosophy In Action Truth/Justice/Wl/Faith/Love

Relationshipvertical/horizontal Potential fulfilled

Identity Noesis

Types

Figure 2. A synoptic perspective of personality

An alternative and potentially more summative mode of de-scription for the components of personality outlined is the refer-ence to "Types/' defined as a clustering of traits (observed or inferred on a long-term basis). The lower-level trait is defined as a consistency of individual response to a variety of situations.

2. Educational Philosophy in Action In keeping with assumptions 5 and 9 it is expected that the

teacher's personality (See Figure 1, level 1) will command the selections made at level 2 of the hierarchy; that is, his or her per-sonal philosophy of life will always tend to be reflected in the educational approach operationalized. These two levels do not constitute a progression but are merely different facets of the same process or of the person in action. Figure 3 illustrates that choices occurring at the practical level where educational options are put into effect are not unrelated, accidental events. These


choices, premeditated or otherwise, are preconditioned by the teacher's particular personal philosophy and philosophy of educa-tion, which acquire more concrete expression through the perspec-tives offered by one or more theories of educational psychology. The compatibility of the latter theories is such that often a com-bination of different schools of thought may be used to support the interests of each philosophical orientation.

The overall prediction is that educational practice which emanates from, for example, humanistic philosophy, and which ultimately yields the anthropocentric viewpoint, will demonstrate dependency on the self. Where the ultimate goal of education is truly theocentric, educational practice will exhibit dependence on the Creator. It is anticipated that the tenets of these two denominators and their subdivisions originate at the level of per-sonality and permeate all alternatives at all levels of Figure 1 to varying degrees. All styles together will therefore allow for para-digmatic affirmation of personality structure as described. The present writer strongly anticipates variable effectiveness of styles since the fact of pluralism does not necessarily predicate equality. Obviously, the two basic denominators, humanism versus theo-centrism, will yield not only subdivisions but possible subsub-divisions both in configurations described and in the products they support. For example, within Christianity alone, as a subdi-vision of theocentrism, it will no doubt be possible to find a diversity of configurations depending on cultural background, preparedness, and personal commitment. These departures will exist until the adherent comes "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ"5 (in virum perfectum, in mensurara aetatis plenitudine Christi).

A few general strategies may be incorporated even at this level since they appear to be more directly influenced by per-sonality. These include didactic versus evocative teaching modes (Axelrod 1973) and the use of communicator styles that "give form to content" by exploiting one or more of many dimensions (e.g., dramatic, open, animated, relaxed, attentive, friendly, etc.) (Norton 1986). Norton claims that consistently recurring patterns of communication set up expectations which are in themselves form-giving.

5 See the Epistle to the Ephesians 4:13.

PERSONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY IN ACTION

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

THE NATURAL ORDER Humanism

Realism Idealism Behavioral

Experimentalism

etc.

THE SUPERNATURAL (THEISTIC) ORDER

Christianity Judaism

Islam etc.

\ s Psychological Theory

Cognitivism Behaviorism Neo-behaviorism

Social learning theory etc.

EDUCATIONAL CHOICES

k Anthropocentric education Theocentric education

[Dependence on the self] [Dependence on the Creator]

LEVEL OF MOTIVE IN MAKING SPECIFIC CHOICES

IN ACTION Figure 3: Educational philosophy in actionthe relationship of philosophy to educational practice.


3. The Teachers Expertise in Applying Knowledge (Learned or Acquired) to Personal Behavior.

Essentially, the proving ground for effective communication by the teacher occurs within the previous dimensions of the hier-archy, where aspects of personhood are more prominent. Al-though all levels of the hierarchy representing teaching style are necessarily imbued with "practical knowledge" or knowledge-in-action (e.g., Sternberg and Wagner, 1989), it is at this level of consideration, however, that we become fully alert to these phe-nomena as they are actualized in the teacher's behavior. Knowl-edge, as discussed here, has the broadest connotation and includes several types and levels, not the least of which are the "deep structures" of religious judgement (Oser and Gmnder 1991,33) to be contrasted with "knowledge structures."

The following types of knowledge should be applied in the teacher's own behavior.

Knowledge of Subject Matter. The teacher must be able not only to teach content but also to practice its application during interaction with students. For example, his or her knowledge of ethics should be demonstrable in personal speech and behavior. In religious education the teacher's modelling6 is paramount. The view of the present author is that the teacher's example, in addi-tion to his or her involvement in prayer, is more important than formal religious knowledge per se or even use of proven method-ology or strategy.

Knowledge of Sociolinguistics. This paradigm suggests the teacher may or may not convey the principles of sociolinguistics to the class as content, depending on the subject being taught; however, to some extent at least, he or she should be capable of projecting the norms of the culture in personal speech and de-portment. This will include skills such as the use of nonverbal, paralinguistic, kinesic, and proxemic behaviors appropriate to the language in use (Kramsch 1981, Scheflen 1975), appropriate syntax of movement in gesticulation (Scheflen 1975), and the ability to make the linguistic utterance appropriate to die setting, the hearer, and the topic (Green and Wallat 1981, Halliday 1973,

6 Also relevant to religious education is Mary Elizabeth Moore's (1983,166) concept

of the "community's modelling ability."

32 TEACHING STYLE

Hymes 1972, Labov 1972). This author believes that these dimen-sions complement the teacher's religious orientation as well as psychological, biological, and social phenomena discussed in pragmatics (Levinson 1983). In a mixed society, the teacher per-haps facilitates learning even more if he or she is sufficiendy bi-lingual for the norms of a second-language culture to be seen as the essence of his or her own person, or further, if the teacher is capable of adjusting personal speech to exemplify a variety of patterns or dialects in the second language. Finally, facility with discourse options (Kramsch 1985) that may be usefully applied in the social microcosm of the classroom where individuals nego-tiate and compete for attention should also be significant to style.

Knowledge of Students and Their Needs. No less important than linguistic skill in the classroom is the teacher's professional under-standing of students and their needs. The notion of "culturally responsive teaching" is properly understood as including a non-abrasive sensitivity to the needs of students from other religious orientations. The demand for this increases as classrooms become more and more heterogeneous. The teacher's knowledge of stu-dent needs is also partially indicated in his or her ability to relate new content to the student's experience and general knowledge base (Piaget 1952); to adapt the classroom experience for the benefit of special groups, for example, ethnic minority groups (Cummins 1981); to provide comprehensible input (Krashen 1982); to be sensitive to student idiosyncracies in metacognition and strategic processing (e.g., Borkowski 1989, Flavell 1985), in learning style (Dunn and Dunn 1978), in the use of visual imag-ery, in thinking style (Thompson 1990), and in the still highly controversial issues surrounding hemispheric preferences in brain function (Dunn 1990, Goc-Karp 1990, Gregore 1982, Levy 1982, Restak 1982,1984). The teacher's rapport with different students will necessarily involve a number of problem areas which are situation specific but which are sufficiently similar to benefit from his or her general knowledge of human need patterns.

Knowledge of Communication Management. The teacher's knowl-edge of communication skills, if used effectively, may enhance the classroom interaction. Observation will disclose, among other behaviors, the number and type of communication channels allowed by the teacher (Scheflen 1975), his or her sensitivity to the

GRACEM.H.GAYLE 33

communication flow in terms of what has or will be said (Kendon, Harris, and Key 1975), his or her ability to anticipate the student's capacity to receive the message, the reduction of "noise" which would blur the clarity of the message (Hills 1979), the use of juncture behaviors during speech, and his or her ability to orga-nize the classroom and to clarify behavioral rules and routines. Attention must also be given to relational skills (e.g., ability to control degrees of openness and self-disclosure or the ability to initiate and encourage meaningful dialogue) (DeVito 1986), the proper use of humor (Civikly 1986), nonverbal (immediacy) be-haviors (Anderson 1986), absence of communication apprehen-sion (fear of communication) (Daly 1986), alternative strategies for managing conflict (Hocker 1986), and leadership patterns during discussions (Classman 1980, and cf. Sarah Trenholm 1991).

Application of General Knowledge. Classroom interaction is often stereotypical and unreal because of too much focus on the specific content. Utilizing general knowledge for creative pur-poses other than teaching it as content can create an exciting mise-en-scne to enhance style.

4. Scope/Variety of Exposure Provided for Students The general principle that content, skill, and practice acquired

by students should be both intensive and extensive is propounded by many, notably Ausubel (1967). A cardinal aspect of this is the variety and appropriateness of the learning tasks and materials provided by the teacher as processes mediating between learn-ing and teaching (Doyle 1986). In the less-obvious matter of lan-guage use, in religious or any other content area, certain artifices may be introduced in classrooms to f acutate the special needs of specific types of students (e.g., students in "sheltered courses," exceptionally slow or bright students, students of ethnic origins present in the minority, etc.). Measurement of this may focus on behavior patterns relevant to vocabulary, syntax, phonology, ar-ticulation, stress, pauses, speech rate, prosody, intonation, expla-nations, framing moves, markedness, subordination, length of utterance, sentence-type distribution, self repetitions (Chaudron 1988). Adjacent to this but quite distinguishable is the scope of the language used habitually by the teacher, which provides greater experience for students; that is, does the teacher show

34 TEACHING STYLE

enterprise or industry in creating opportunities for extensive or elaborate use of language or does the teacher tend to use lan-guage sparingly? The need for variety in the presentation of reli-gion is eminently desirable. Spiritually there are common needs, but there are differences in purpose, function, and treatment. (Paul planteth, Apollos watereth but God giveth the increase.) What appeals to one person may not appeal to another.

5. Enacted Teaching Strategies Based on Teacher/Student Needs Strategies are defined as conscious and deliberate plans of

action designed for specific purposes. It is assumed that they will justifiably reflect both the teacher's and student's needs.

Strategies often differentiate the various personality types and include both high-inference and low-inference variables (Powell 1984). Those which are meaningful within any classroom setting include the use of practice versus analysis, advanced organizers (Ausubel 1967), in-depth processing (Craik and Lock-hart 1972), reinforcement schedules (Skinner 1957), organization (Atkinson and Shiffrin 1968), metacognitive strategies (Flavell 1985), intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (Day and Berlyne 1971) and competition versus cooperation. Strategies which are pecu-liar to the second-language-learning situation include those de-scribed by Stern (1983) (for example, the formal functional, im-plicit/explicit, intra-lingual/cross-lingual) and those described by Bosco and DiPietro (1970) and Gayle (1984a). Other possible second-language learning strategies are feedback versus error correction (Chaudron 1988) and modelling versus problem solv-ing and hypothesis formation (Ervin-Tripp 1974). An attempt is made in this model to regularize the lines of demarcation to be drawn between strategies and techniques while making allow-ances for the perspectives of different authors.

6. Teaching Techniques Teaching techniques may be subsumed by strategies and are

therefore seen as the lowest level of observable classroom be-haviors in teaching style. Obviously, teaching techniques cannot be enumerated fully here. They would normally be expected to include behaviors directed toward classroom management, dis-cipline, duration of instruction (Weil and Murphy 1982), group-ing arrangements (Barr and Dreeben 1983), and techniques de-


scribing the instructional meaning of the oral behavior involved (e.g., requests for repetition, rephrasal, etc.) (Fanselow 1977, Gayle 1980, Papalia 1978) as opposed to its sentence-semantic meaning (linguistic function) or its utterance-pragmatic meaning (sociolin guis tic function). These minuscule teaching acts are present in all classrooms. It is suggested here, however, that even these apparently mundane options will be colored by the teacher's religious persuasion in ways that are subtle and almost imper-ceptible, but potent.

Concluding Remarks The paradigm will be assessed briefly in terms of its purpose,

its power, and proposed research procedures.

Purpose

The purpose of the paradigm was to provide a general frame-work for the generation of theories and research on teaching styles defined as gestalts based primarily on teacher personhood. It is believed this has been achieved. The next phase in the generation of such theories must be supported by the specifica-tion of comprehensive categories on each level of the hierarchy. Also proper to this next phase are the construction, validation, and application of appropriate descriptive research instruments.

Power of the Model Style, when viewed as the total configuration or the whole

which is greater than the sum of its parts, enhances rather than reduces the explanatory power of research on teaching and learn-ing. Examination of the relationship between isolated variables in teaching and learning regularly leaves the major portion of the variance in learning unexplained. Gestalt or configuration in style is expected to remove much of this unexplained variance. When accompanied by a theory which has person, including personal conviction and orientation, as its point of origin, then style has a structure, a character, a causative power. Explanations are there-fore certain to be of superior quality.

It was envisaged that styles eventually identified would be evaluated largely on the basis of the degree to which they af-fected learning positively. It is believed that the paradigm pro-vides for this by its depth and scope. The general hypothesis

36 TEACHING STYLE

favored here is that though students do have needs with varying degrees of specificity, the styles which will have the greatest effect on achievement for any group of students must include certain characteristics of which the most important is a positive relationship with the Divine who, although not authoritarian, yet speaks with authority. This statement stands on the basic prem-ise of the omniscience and omnipotence and love of the Divine. It is supported by the religious argument (e.g., Dykstra 1981) and the biblical view that though God cannot be understood, He must yet be obeyed. For the purpose of this paper, the author prefers the statement to rest not on mere theological dialectic but on the higher theological enclave of faith, which cannot be argued. If, as a shortfall of this, the goal is merely teacher con-formity or popularity, then the ability to perceive what is wanted as opposed to what is needed will probably be the major crite-rion. If, however, the goal is student growthachievement of character, personality, industrythen the teacher's personhood and his or her religious persuasion and commitment become the first questions of concern. Their power is mediated through the "hidden curriculum."

This paradigm should show, when properly utilized, that if the breath of religious animation is impacted in the teacher's per-sonality, style becomes a powerful tool differentially affecting the students' learning. This impaction should not be regarded as an illicit adventure into territory which is reserved or is off-limits. At the same time, the religious directive is not an aggressive drive which borders on or can be confused with fanaticism or cultism. It is a positive, benign experience for both teacher and student and may prove to be the compelling factor enabling both pupil and pedagogue to appreciate the place in which each stands.

Proposed Research Procedures Gayle (e.g., 1984a) points out that a cluster analysis of teachers

of a second language, based on percentage frequencies in the use of discrete categories of discourse functions, yielded several distinct teaching styles (configurations) which appear to be sig-nificantly different in terms of their effect on student second-language-learning aptitudes and attitudes. The study has been abstracted in Language Teaching, The International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers and Applied Linguists. Though

GRACEM.H.GAYLE 37

this description of teaching style was limited to the application of a single research instrument, the Language Teaching Record Scheme (LTRS), on the single dimension of teaching techniques, the research methodology (including the use of the cluster analysis technique) was encouraging and promises further advances based on the continued conceptualization of style as gestalt.

It is envisaged that before static configurations of die breadth and scope outlined in this paradigm may be identified or the interactional processes implicit to structure in style may be explained, many instruments may need to be constructed and validated as tools for implementing the research. These instruments will necessarily demonstrate a number of research approaches, data types and collection procedures. No doubt a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods will need to be employed. This will be necessary since some dimensions of style described will be more intangible, others more concrete, but each will contribute significantly to the portrait of the teacher in the classroom.

Grace M. H. Gayle is Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. 1986. Instructor nonverbal communication: listening to our silent messages. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 26:41-50.

Anderson, L. W. and R. B. Burns. 1989. Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching and instruction. N.Y.: Pergamon.

Atkinson, R. and R. Shiffrin. 1968. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. . W. Spence and J. T. Spence. N.Y.: Academic Press.

Ausubel, D. 1967. Learning theory and classroom practice. Toronto: OISE. Ausubel, D. 1977. Theory and problems of adolescent development. N.Y.: Grane and

Stratton. Axelrod, J. 1973. The university teacher as artist. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A. 1977. A social learning theory. N.J.: Prentice Hall. Barr, R. and R. Dreeben. 1983. How schools work. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago. Bellack, ., . Kliebard, R. Hyman, and F. Smith. 1966. The language of the classroom.

N.Y.: Teacher's College Press, Columbia University. Bennett, N. 1988. The effective primary school teacher: the search for a theory of peda

gogy. Teaching and Teacher Education 4:19-30. Berlyne, D. 1960. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill. Bickimer, D. 1985. Prehensive teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly 12:1-13. Borkowski, J. G., M. T. Estrada, M. Milstead, and C. A. Hale. 1989. General problem

solving skills: relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly 12: 57-70.

Bosco, F. and R. DiPietro. 1970. Instructional strategies: their psychological and linguistic bases. IRAL 8:1-19.

38 TEACHING STYLE

Bostrom, B. 1978. Learning style inventory. In Handbook of group processes, ed. J. W. Pfeiffer and J. E. Jones. Calif.: University Associates.

Brodkey, D. and H. Shore. 1976. Student personality and success in an English Language program. Language Learning 26:153-159.

Bruner, J. 1966. Toward a theory of instruction. Mass.: Harvard Univ. Bruner, J., J. Goodnow, and G. Austin. 1956. A study of thinking. N.Y.: Wiley. Byrne, H. W. 1981. A Christian Approach to Education. Milford, Mich.: Mott Media. Canfield, R. 1978. Instructional style inventory. Ann Arbor: Humanities Media. Carteledge, G. 1978. The case for teaching social skills in the classroom: A review. Review

of Educational Research 1:133-156. Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Ports-

mouth, N.H.: Heinemann. Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of

learners' errors. Language Learning 27: 29-46. Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Civikly, J. 1986. Humor and the enjoyment of college teaching. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning 26:61-70. Craik, F. and R. Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: a framework for memory research.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 11: 671-684. Crow, M. 1980. Teaching as an interactive process. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning 1: 41-55. Cummins, J. 1981. The role of primary language development in promoting educational

success for language minority students. In Schooling and Language Minority Stu-dents: a Theoretical Framework, ed. Calif. State Dept. of Education. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Daly, J. 1986. Communication apprehension in the college classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 26: 21-32.

Day, H., and D. Berlyne. 1971. Intrinsic motivation. In Psychology and Educational Prac-tice, ed. G. S. Lesser. Dl.: Scott, Foresman.

De Vito, J. 1986. Teaching as relational development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 26:51-60.

Deming, W. et al. 1992. The new economics: For education, government, industry. In Instituting Dr. Deming s Methods for Management of Productivity and Quality. Los Angeles: Quality Enhancement Seminars. Notebook used in seminar.

Doyle, W. 1986. Classroom organization and management. In Handbook of research on teaching, d. M. C. Wittrock, N.Y.: Macmillan. Reported in Anderson and Burns, Research in classrooms.

Dunkin, M. J. and B. J. Biddle. 1974. The study of teaching. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dunn, R. 1988. Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, Va.: Natl. Ass. of Secondary School Principals.

Dunn, R., R. I. Sklar, J. S. Beaudry, and Jean Bruno. 1990. Effects of matching and mis-matching minority developmental college students' hemispheric preferences on mathematics scores. Journal of Educational Research 83: 283-288.

Dunn, R. and K. Dunn. 1978. Teaching students through their individualized learning styles. Va.: Preston Publishing.

Dykstra, C. 1981. Understanding the place of "understanding." Religious Education 76: 187-194.

Eble, K. E. 1980. Teaching styles and faculty behaviour. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1:1-7.

Erikson, E. 1956. The problem of ego identity. Journal of American Psychoanalysis Asso-ciation 4: 56-121.


Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly 8: 137-44.

Falvey, M. A. 1983. Some thoughts on the relationship between teacher attitudes and teacher styles. Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching 7:18-43.

Fanselow, J. F. 1977. Beyond RASHOMON: Conceptualizing and describing the teaching act. TESOL Quarterly 11:17-39.

Flanders, N. A. 1965. Teacher influence, pupa attitudes and achievement. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare.

Flavell, J. 1985. Cognitive development. N.J.: Prentice Hall. Cage, N. L. 1963. Paradigms for research on teaching. In Handbook of Research on

Teaching, ed. . L. Cage. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cardner, R. C. 1979. Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In

Language and Social Psychology, d. H. Cues and R. N. St. Clair. Oxford: Blackwell. Cardner, R. C. and W. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language

learning. Mass.: Newbury House. Cayle, Crace M. H. 1979. A model of second language teaching. The Canadian Modern

Language Review/la Revue canadienne des langues vivantes 35: 348-365. Gayle, Grace M. H. 1980. A descriptive analysis of second language teaching styles in the

oral approach. Ottawa: Univ. of Ottawa Press. Cayle, Crace M. H. 1982. Identifying second language teaching styles: a new approach to

an old problem. The Canadian Modern Language Review/la Revue canadienne des fongues vivantes 38: 254-261.

Gayle, Grace M. H. 1984a. Effective second language teaching styles. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes 40: 525-541. Abstracted in Language Teaching, the International Abstracting Journal for Lan-guage Teachers and Applied Linguists, 1985,18,264. Abstract No. 85-375.

Gayle, Grace M. H. 1984b. Second language teaching styles: making or breaking atti-tudes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 30:49-67.

Gayle, Grace M. H. 1989. In furtherance of second language teaching style. The Cana-dian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des fongues vivantes 45 (4): 631-640.

Gayle, Grace and Maria Frhlich. 1978. The description and analysis of observable teach-ing behaviours in second language learning settings. TESL Talk 9: 32-35.

Gillespie, V. Bailey. 1988. The experience of faith. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Educa-tion Press.

Glassman, E. 1980. The teacher as leader. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1: 31-40.

Goc-Karp, Grace and Diane Walker. 1990. Comparison of processing style and instruc-tional style observed in physical educators and dance educators. Perceptual and Motor SktOs 70(1): 122.

Cranrose, J. T. 1980. Conscious teaching: helping graduate assistants develop teaching styles. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1: 21-30.

Gray, W. 1973. Ludwig von Bertalanffy and the development of modern psychiatric thought. In Unity Through Diversity, ed. W. Gray and N. Rizzo. N.Y.: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

Greene, J. and C. Wallat. 1981. Ethnography and language in educational settings. N.J.: Alex Publishing.

Gregore, Anthony. 1982. Learning style/brain research: Harbinger of an emerging psy-chology. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behaviour. Reston, Va.: NASSP.

Grome, T. H. 1980. Christian religious education. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Grome, T. H. 1986. Walking humbly with our God. Bruggman, W., Parks, S. and

Grome T. H. eds. 1986. To Act Justly, Love Tenderly, Walk Humbly. N.Y.: Paulist Press.

40 TEACHING STYLE

Halliday, . A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.

Hensley, R. 1987. Nonverbal behaviour analysis instrument. Clearing House 60:199-201. Hills, P. 1979. Teaching and learning as a communication process. N.Y.: John Wiley. Hocker, J. 1986. Teacher-student confrontations. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning 26: 71-82. Hunt, D. 1971. Matching models in education: The coordination of teaching methods

with student characteristics. Toronto: OISE. Hyde, Kenneth. 1990. Religion in childhood and adolescence. Birmingham, Ala.: Reli

gious Education Press. Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in

Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication, ed. J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hymes, Dell. 1981. Ethnographic monitoring. In Culture and the Bilingual Classroom, ed. H. T. Trueba, G. P. Guthrie and K. H-P Au. Mass.: Newbury House.

Kagan, J. et al. 1960. Conceptual style and the use of affect labels. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 6: 261-278.

Kamii, Constance. 1984. Autonomy: the aim of education envisioned by Piaget. Phi Delta Kappan 65: 410-415.

Katz, D. and E. A. Stotland. 1959. A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In Psychology: A Study of Science, ed. S. Koch, vol. 3. .Y.: McGraw-Hill.

Kendon, ., R. Harris, and M. Ritchie Key. eds. 1975. Organization of behaviour in face-to-face interactions. Paris: Mouton.

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Kramsch, C. 1981. Discourse analysis and second language teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Kramsch, C. 1985. Classroom interaction and discourse options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7:169-183.

Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Per-gamon Press.

Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. Lakatos, 1.1978. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge: Cam

bridge Univ. Press. Reported in Anderson and Burns, Research in classrooms. Lee, James Michael, ed. 1990. Handbook of faith. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Educa

tion Press. Lester, David. 1987. Systems theories of personality. Psychology: A Quarterly Journal of

Human Behaviour 24 (3): 44-46. Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Levy, Jerre. 1982. Children think with whole brains: myth and reality. Student Learning

Styles and Brain Behaviour. Va.: NASSP. Loevinger, J. 1976. Ego development. Washington: Jossey-Bass. Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and personality. N.Y.: Harper and Row. Moore, Mary Elizabeth. 1983. Education for Continuity and Change. Nashville: Abing

don. Moskowitz, G. 1967. The Flint System: An observational tool for the foreign language

class. In Mirrors for Behaviour: An Anthology of Classroom Observation Instruments, ed. Anita Simon and E. Boyer, Vol. 3, Section 15,1-5. Philadelphia: Temple University.

Myers, I. B. 1962. The Myers-Briggs type indicator manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Guiora, A. Z., R. Brannon, and C. Y Dull. 1972. Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning 22: 111-130.


Naiman, N., M. Frhlich, H. H. Stern, and A. Todesco. 1978. The good language learner. Toronto: OISE.

Norton, R. 1986. Communicator style in teaching: giving good form to content. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 26:33-40.

Oser, Fritz and Paul Gmnder. 1991. Religious judgement: A developmental approach. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Education Press.

Papalia, A. 1978. Inventory on teaching styles: A self profile for self-analysis. Language Association Bulletin 29:9-17.

Pelsma, D. 1987. Managing the classroom: a matter of style. Techniques 3: 42-50. Piaget, J. 1952. The origins of intelligence in children. N.Y.: Norton. Phoenix, C. 1987. Get them involved: styles of high and low-rated teachers. College

Teaching 35:13-15. Politzer, R. 1981. Effective language teaching: Insights from research. In The second

language classroom: Directions for the 198ffs, ed. J. Alatis, H. Altman and P. Alatis. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.

Powell, J. 1984. Objectivity, subjectivity and value judgments in the context of classroom observation of teaching styles. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri-can Education Research Association, 23-27 April, New Orleans, La.

Restak, Richard. 1982. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behaviour. Reston, Va.: NASSP. Restak, Richard. 1984. The brain. Toronto: Bantam. Rogers, C. 1951. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Royce, J. 1983. Theory of personality and individual differences. N.J.: Prentice Hall. Scheflen, A. 1975. Models and epistemologies in the study of interaction. In Organization

of behaviour in face-to-face interaction, ed. A. Kendon, R. Harris and M. Ritchie Key. Paris: Mouton.

Schmker, M. J. and R. B. Wilson. 1992. Total quality education: Profile of schools that demonstrate the power of Deming's management principles. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Schumann, J. 1976. Social distance as a factor in second language acquisition. Language Learning 26:135-143.

Sinclair, J. McH. and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford Univ. Press.

Skinner, B. F. 1957. Schedules of reinforcement. N.Y.: Appleton, Century, Crofts. Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Press. Sternberg, Robert and Richard Wagner. 1989. Individual differences in practical knowl-

edge and its application. In Learning and Individual Differences, ed. P. Ackerman, R. Sternberg and R. Glaser. .Y.: W. H. Freeman.

Swaffar, J., K. Arens, and M. Morgan. 1982. Teacher classroom practices: redefining method as task hierarchy. Modern Language Journal 66: 24-33.

Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1982. Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Thompson, S. V. 1990. Visual imagery: a discussion. Educational Psychology 10 (2): 141-167.

Titone, Renzo. 1982. Interaction in the language classroom: Theories and research models. Rassegna Italiana di linguistica applicata 14:1-16.

Trenholm, Sarah. 1991. Human communication theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Weil, M. and J. Murphy. 1982. Instruction processes. In Encyclopedia of Educational Research (5th ed) ed. H. E. Mitzel. N.Y.: Free Press.

Witkin, . ., C. A. Moore, D. R. Goodenough, and P. W. Cox. 1977. Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research 47:1-64.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Heuristic Research in Teaching Styles

Documents