Running head: LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT 1

The Relationship between Lecturers’ Teaching Style and Students’ Academic Engagement

Abdull Sukor Shaaria, Nurahimah Mohd Yusoff, Izam Mohd Ghazali, Rafisah Hj

Osman, and Nur Fatirah Mohd Dzahir

Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

Author Note

Abdull Sukor Shaaria, Universiti Utara Malaysia; Nurahimah Mohd Yusoff, Universiti Utara

Malaysia; Izam Mohd Ghazali, Universiti Utara Malaysia; Rafisah Hj Osman, Universiti Utara

Malaysia; and Nur Fatirah Mohd Dzahir, Universiti Utara Malaysia

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 2

Abstract

This study seeks to distinguish the relationship between instructor’s teaching style and

undergraduates’ intellectual commitment in various institutions in the Local Government of

Cavite. A survey through questionnaires is conducted by this study which is distributed to fifty

(50) undergraduates. The teaching styles dimensions are in conformity with the teaching style of

Grasha (1996). The descriptive statistics based on percentage, mean, and standard deviation

were used in order to identify the correlation of the instructor’s teaching style and

undergraduates’ commitment level in institution. As per findings, both personal model style and

expert style are used by majority of the instructors as their teaching style. On the other hand,

delegator style has the lowest mean. Most of the respondents were discovered to be involved in

terms of intellectual commitment. Also, the results show that there is a positively correlated but

weak relationship between instructors’ teaching style with the undergraduates’ intellectual

commitment.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 3

The undergraduate intellectual excellence is known to be the primary motivation for any

instructive organization and institution. In order to guarantee that intellectual excellence can be

accomplished, it requires activity and participation from all sides. The basic key to teaching and

learning is an engaging environment that also promotes encouragement and enjoyment because

the undergraduates' capacities and eagerness to learn does not only depend upon the understudy

themselves but moreover, lie within the appropriateness of teaching style (Felder & Henrique,

1995).

Most conducted research about undergraduates' improvement occurs that the time and

vitality the undergraduate commit into educationally persuaded exercises is the single best

indicator of their learning and individual improvement (Astin, 1993; Pascarella, 2001). Hence,

institutions that engage their undergraduate more within the assortment of activities' that

contribute a relevant outcome of an institution can claim to be of higher quality in comparison

with other academic institutions.

Newman (1992) in his study revealed that undergraduate commitment is described as the

undergraduates' pyschological speculation and the endeavor directed toward learning,

comprehension, and acing information, abilities, or artworks that intellectual work means to

advance. Something other than the vitality to finish the task, commitment conveys to the

psychological venture that subjectively includes undergraduate in the work they are doing. An

analysis discovered that undergraduate involvement is one of the critical indicators of their

intellectual execution. An undergraduate should progressively be involved with college life to

perform intellectually.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 4

The proposition of Astin (1984) about undergraduates' involvement claims that

undergraduates' intellectual commitment impacts psychological improvement all throughout his

or her journey in college life.

Referring to Grasha and Hicks (2000) proclaims that to be able to fulfill the adequacy of the

teaching and learning progress, it is insufficient to concentrate only on the undergraduates'

learning style. Teaching styles are likewise considered to be a basic fundamental in a lesson. As

reviewed by Grasha, the teaching style used by the instructor marks the conviction, execution,

and conduct when teaching. In this study, there are five types of teaching styles which are expert

style, formal authority style, personal model style, delegator style and facilitator style as

indicated by Grasha (1996).

Many kinds of research contribute to acknowledge the relativity among teaching styles and

undergraduates' accomplishments, for example, the investigation by Zin (2004) and Aitkin &

Zuzovsky (1994). There is also an examination that integrates teaching along undergraduates'

psychological styles (Evans, 2004). Previous examinations on the commitment of undergraduate

analyzed that there is a correlation among undergraduates' engagement and the teaching and

intellectual accomplishment (OECD, 2000). Nonetheless, their studies found that teaching is not

the principal factor influencing the intellectual accomplishment of undergraduates.

Studies with respect to the institutional teaching style are less acknowledged, particularly the

teaching styles that are identified with undergraduates' involvement. Therefore, this research

will respond to inquiries of what is the predominant teaching style polished by institutional

instructors and whether there is a relation between the instructor's teaching style and

undergraduates' involvement.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 5

Review of Related Literature

Good instructors can flatter and motivate although there are strict and emotional instructors.

Researchers have found that most instructors teach based on how they initially learned it (Stitt-

Gohdes, 2001) and how it was taught to them (Bailey, Bergthold, Braunstein, Fleischman,

Holbrook, Tuman, Waissbluth, & Zambo, 1996).

To define teaching styles, various researchers use different definitions. Peacock (2001)

stated that the teaching style is the approach of how someone teaches naturally, habitual,

inclination or perhaps a custom that is used to convey data and skills within the classroom. There

is also a complex mix of beliefs, attitudes, strategies, techniques, drive, personality and control in

one's teaching style, as claimed by Wright (1987). The teaching styles of instructors are visible

in the progress of teaching and learning. The style of teaching depends on personal attitudes and

qualities. As per Gregore (1989), the teaching styles of instructors are their personal conduct and

the media they use are for transmitting information and data to the undergraduates. Grasha

(1996) revealed that teaching styles represent the pattern of instructors' needs, beliefs, and

behavior in the classroom.

Onstein and Miller (1980) have categorized two types of teaching styles, expressive teaching

styles, and the instrumental teaching style. Expressive style includes the warmth, authority,

sympathy, trust, and some emotional aspects the teacher shown to the class. It refers to the

created emotional relationship of the instructor to the undergraduates. The instructor and

undergraduates' interpersonal relationships are part of this teaching style and are linked to

learning attitudes. Expressive teaching style controls the students, manages classroom activities

and positive or negative teaching feelings. In addition, it is also linked to a sense of trust in
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 6

undergraduate and understands the purpose of education in general. Instructors who practice this

style are commonly used as a mentor and can tolerate undergraduates. Instructors also believed

that there are best ways to learn about learning for undergraduate. The instrumental style, on the

other hand, refers to the way instructors perform the task of helping undergraduates, planning the

lesson, setting the classroom standard and ensuring that undergraduates meet the standards set.

Cornsten and Miller (1980) proposed a model based on the expressive and instrumental

teaching styles. In this model, there are four styles categorized with teaching style consisting

task solving style, mastery style, problem solvers and humanist. The expressive dimensions of

this model reflect emotional commitment while the instrumental dimension involves the

behavior of students.

Jarvin (1985) classified three teaching methods:

a) Controlled teaching style through lectures and notes.

b) A Socratic style is when an instructor asks, and students answer.

c) The facilitator style is when an instructor creates the learning interaction and the students are

entitled to their own studies.

The teaching style, as claimed by Kramlinger and Huberty (1990), is also classified from the

point of view of humanism, behaviorism, and cognitivism. Humanism stresses personal

experience in which the teacher pursues undergraduates to share their experiences and

perspectives. Teaching humanism is in line with undergraduates of pragmatism, reflection, and

activism. The behavioral style reinforces the required behavior by rewarding the undergraduates

who can control the desired behavior. Pragmatic and activists' undergraduate suit this style.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 7

Cognitivism is the traditional institutional approach where information is presented logically

through lectures. Theoretical students prefer this style.

Doherty (2003) proposed another teaching style model as:

1. Style A: Order – All decisions are made by the instructor

2. Style B: Drill – Tasks given by the instructor are fulfilled by undergraduate

3. Style C: Reciprocal –Undergraduate complete tasks by pairs

4. Style D: Check yourself – Self-assessment of undergraduate of their own performance

5. Style E: Inclusion – Teacher will plan while undergraduate assess their own work

6. Style F: Guided Exploration –Undergraduates will solve the problem using the guidelines

given and the assistance of an instructor

7. Style G: Divergent –Undergraduate solve problems with an instructor using a guideline given

8. Individual Style –Instructor choose the content of programs while undergraduates plan it

9. Student Initiative Style – Undergraduate plans their own program and the teacher will only act

as an adviser

10. Self-Instructional Style – Undergraduates are responsible for their own learning

Conti (1985) and Ladd (1995) attempted to identify the different natures of teaching, such as

instructors need to have a dominant style of teaching. But some researchers prefer to create their

own indicators to know the differences in teaching styles. In a result of this, there are forms
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 8

produced in the measurement of these distinctness and various definitions of teaching style are

developed (Allen, 1988; Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Grasha, 2003).

To measure the analytic holistic teaching style, Evans (2004) formed the Teaching Style

Questionnaire (TSQ) for trainee instructors of a yearly training program for a postgraduate

certificate in the United Kingdom. Among analytical and holistic style of teaching, analytical

got a higher score based on the questionnaire. The holistic style is more formal, flexible,

interactive, spontaneous and full individual attention. The style is more concerned with

worldwide learning, learning progress and teamwork. An analytical style is also more formal,

controlled, direct, structured, sequential and detailed than holistic. Individuals with this style

prefer to wake up alone and to be more impersonal, more inflexible and more detailed in their

communication with undergraduates.

Peacock (2001) mentioned that the teaching styles depend on the ethnicity of the factors

influencing the style, just as how he found that Chinese instructors avoid auditory styles. The

objective and design of courses, learning institutions' standards, and institutional discipline are

also influenced by the teaching style. For example, the expert style or formal authority was more

preferred in large classes. Gender, seniority, and time also influenced their way of teaching

(Chapman, Hughes, & Wiliam, 2001). In addition, the ideology and beliefs of undergraduate

also influenced the style of teaching of instructors as per Zhorik (1990).

The compatibility of teaching styles also grabs the attention of various researchers. There

are studies that suggest that the teaching styles that parallels with undergraduates' learning style

improve learning, attitudes, behavior, and motivation (Felder and Henriques, 1995; Tudor,

1996). The way an instructor delivers a lesson is based on her communication skills. Using the
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 9

Myers Briggs Inventory, Sturt (2000) analyzed the teaching styles based on personality theories

with sixteen categories. The categories were measured by four groups of Extrovert-Introvert,

Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judgmental-Perception.

Instructors more often use progressive teaching styles in a study by Chia (1997). The study

was in accordance with the developed instrument of Bennet et al (1976). On the other hand,

Noriah and Mohamed (2003) found that during the progress of learning and teaching teachers

prefer being the delegator and facilitator.

Grasha Teaching Style (1996)

Although there are various types of teaching styles, this segment will only look at the

teaching style recommended by Grasha. According to Anthony Grasha (1996), there are five

different teaching styles namely expert style, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and

delegator. He emphasized that these five teaching styles are gathered into four categories. The

first group includes an expert style and formal authority style. The personal model style, expert

style, and formal authority style cover the second group while the third group includes facilitator

style, personal model style, and expert style. Lastly, the fourth group includes delegator style,

facilitator together with expert style.

In the expert style, the instructors who have understanding and mastery in a topic is

highlighted. Instructors who practiced this style strives to motivate their undergraduates to

outshine and teach in a detailed and profundity. Instructors who used this style focused on

delivering knowledge and ensures that undergraduates are well prepared. Formal authority style

is when an instructor provides optimistic and pessimistic criticism of undergraduates. They

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 10

assume that the teaching should be done in a quality, precise and must be recognized by

undergraduates which establish teaching goals, assumptions, and conduct. Instructors prefer

planned teaching with this style.

In a personal model style, teaching shall be accomplished by using personal examples and

act as a prototype to an undergraduate on how to think and act. They guide undergraduates to

visualize things and inspires them to imitate their approach afterward. Facilitator style

accentuates the nature of the relationship between instructor and undergraduates. They give

instructions by asking questions, allow options to improve, suggesting alternatives and give a

basis for choices. Its main goal is to enhance undergraduates' ability to become independent and

disciplined. Instructors prefer using projects and provide support and encouragement in this

style.

Likewise, the delegator style focused on undergraduates' ability to work self-reliant on

projects. If necessary, instructors will help and serve as the main source of information to

undergraduates. However, the possibility to misread undergraduates' preparation to do a task

will lead to disadvantageous of this style because some undergraduates might feel worried when

given autonomy.

Previous Studies on Student Engagement

The undergraduate commitment in the school is divided into two parts. First, the

commitment of undergraduates in learning, while the second is the commitment of

undergraduates in the school community. Studies found that undergraduates' involvement at

school is an important factor of undergraduates' commitment. There are plenty of forms and
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 11

ways of undergraduates' commitment. For instance, they are actively associated with school

exercises, dynamic in the homeroom, adjustment to the culture of the school, build a strongly

bound relationship with instructors and peers. In addition, gender is one of the components that

impact the undergraduates' involvement. In that case, a female is more actively to join in any

school activities and more likely to be studious in the classroom. Studies claimed that coming

from a family with higher education impact undergraduates more progressively involve in school

and it is found that undergraduates who seek to pursue higher education afterward will be

engaged effectively in school. They are known to be prepared for the future. They also often

take part in school activities unlike to those undergraduates who are not interested to pursue their

studies after school. Being comfortable with the environment and culture of the school will be

active learners and their commitment in school will increase and influence their intellectual

performance.

Marcsh (1992) indicated that being active in school activities will have a positive outcome

that will boost undergraduates more in school exercises. It will secondarily affect the

undergraduates' intellectual accomplishment. Additionally, undergraduates will have a

disciplined and committed naturally. In similarity to Gerber's (1996) study conducted by the

National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) to look at whether there is a similarity between

undergraduates' commitment in school and intellectual accomplishment.

As indicated by the OECD Program for International Students (2000), there is relativity

between undergraduates' commitment and intellectual accomplishment in affecting the culture of

the school which comprises devoted instructors, respectful and lively learning surroundings. The

study also discovered that undergraduates who felt his belongingness at the school will change
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 12

the way on how they cooperate in class. Moreover, attitude and behavior are found to be an

indispensable factor that can determine the undergraduates' intellectual commitment. Completing

the appointed task, being attentive and participating in exercises contain the undergraduates'

mentalities. Undergraduates who are not actively participating in school have problems dealing

with society. This is a major problem faced by undergraduates around the world.

Methodology

This correlation study aims to foresee the performance rating and demonstrate the relation of

variables ( Creswell, 2008). It also attempt to analyze the relationship among the variables in a

group of subject (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). Participants of this study are the

undergraduates under twenty-four (24) years of age and instructors from four (4) various

university in the local government of Cavite namely: De La Salle University- Dasmariñas,

Lyceum of the Philippines- Cavite, Cavite State University- Silang Campus, and Far Eastern

University-Cavite. Likert Scale questionnaire is the instrument used in this study. The

questionnaire was formed to interpret the independent variable which is the instuctor’s teaching

style while undergraduates’ intellectual commitment is the depending variable.

The first part of the questionnaire is about the instructor’s teaching style. It is based from

Grasha’s Teaching Style theory (2006) to measure the undergraduates preferencces regarding the

instructor’s teaching style. This questionnaire used Likert Scale with a range from “1” as stongly

disagree to “5” as strongly agree. The components of instructors’s teaching style are the

following:
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 13

a. Expert

b. Formal Authority

c. Personal Model

d. Delegator, and

e. Facilitator

The second part is used to determine the extent of undergraduates’ commitment to academic

practice. The questionnaire is dopted from the National Survey on Student Engagement (2006)

conducted by The College Student Report, Indiana University, USA, to measured the variables.

The key aspect of this study is to measure the undergraduates’ involvement that can influence

their learning and personal progress as an undergraduates. The primary objective of this

questionnaire is to linked the behavior of an undergraduates which has a high relation with

positive learning results and learning habit such as outcomes on examinations, homeworks, and

maximizing educational resources. Each item is answerable from “1” as stongly disagree to “5”

as strongly agree.

Results

Research Question 1: What is your Instructor’s’ Teaching Style?

In relation to this study, students respond to a survey questionnaire regarding the five

teaching style that relates to their respective instructors. The said five teaching style according to

Grasha (2006) includes (a) Expert style, (b) Formal Authority style, (c) Personal Model style, (d)

Delegator style, (e) Facilitator style. Based on the results shown in Table 1, Expert and Personal

Model style got have the highest mean of 4.12, followed by the Facilitator style with a mean of

4.03. Formal Authority style has a higher mean of 4.00 than Delegator which got the lowest
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 14

mean score of 3.78. The results show that among the universities which are the Far Eastern

University-Silang, De La Salle University-Dasmarinas, Cavite State University-Silang, and

Lyceum of the Philippines-Cavite most of its lecturers are using the Expert and Personal Model

style of teaching. Nevertheless, their lecturers are using the Formal Authority, Delegator, and

Facilitator approach of teaching as well.

Research Question 2: What are your Undergraduates Commitment Level in Teaching and

Learning?

The undergraduates answered a total of 31 items of the given questionnaire to measure their

participation and intellectual commitment level. According to the results shown in Table 2, only

less than half of the respondents (40%) like to give their opinion in class but more than half of

them (58.33%) had already experienced presenting their assignments in front of the class.

Almost all the surveyed undergraduates (88.34%) initiate to give their full cooperation with their

other classmates when they have assigned tasks to complete. Furthermore, 75% of the

respondents are not shy about asking questions to their instructors if something is unclear for

them.

Research Question 3: Is there any correlation between instructor’s teaching styles with

undergraduates’ intellectual commitment

Based on the results shown in Table 3, undergraduates’ intellectual commitment level and

instructor’s teaching style were positively correlated, r = .188, p = .655. However, Pearson’s

correlation analysis results show that the undergraduates’ commitment level and instructor’s

teaching style has a weak relationship.

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 15

Discussion
This study distinguished the variables of teaching style and undergraduates’ intellectual

commitment. In line with this, the instructors from different institution namely- De La Salle

University-Dasmariñas, Cavite State University-Silang Campus, Lyceum of the Philippines-

Cavite, and Far Eastern University- Cavite were found to have a variation when it comes to their

teaching style. Also, it is found that each teaching style dimension resulted to a high mean value

which means instructors from different institution has a wide variety of teaching style in

classroom. The teaching styles used by instructors were found to help the students to commit

intellectually.

Furthermore, the difference of the teaching styles between instructors tend to encourage the

undergraduates to learn consistently. According to the findings, expert style and personal model

style are the primary teaching styles used by the instructors. This means that undergraduates’

intellectual committed when a instructors incorporate facts, concepts, and principles through an

appropriate models. On the other hand, delegator were found to be the least teaching style used

by the instructors.

Mergel (1998) stated that it is important in learning to include conditioning and imitation.

The behaviorist learning of Mergel aligns the view of personal model teaching style to be a great

platform for instructors to encourage the undergraduates’ attitude to cooperate and participate in

the process of teaching and learning inside the homeroom. In regards of the findings, Maher, Siti

Haishah and Nur Atikah (2009) supports that the objective of teaching is to exercise effective

teaching. It is best for instructors to portray skills and knowledge to guarantee that their teaching
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 16

style fits with undergraduates’ ability and capacity to learn. This is because learning is a process

of acquiring knowledge, skills, behavior, and values through experiences and lectures. Having

an openminded attitude is a must in order to have a continuous learning in teaching.

In relation to this, lessons are organized which can foster undergraduates’ attitude.

Therefore, instructors should exert systematized approach for them to expand their knowledge

using proper ways in order to bring an productive learning surrounding in the homeroom.

The relationship between instructor’s teaching style and institutional commitment

In this part, the study is divided into two category; instructor’s teaching style and

understudies’ intellectual commitment. According to the findings, instructor’s teaching styles

are positively correlated, but weak relationship between undergraduates’ intellectual

commitment. Through delegator style, undegraduates usually work on their task alone with little

supervision from the instructor. While formal authority style, instructors set a standard for

undergraduates in class. On the other hand, course activities employed by undergraduates that

take initiative and reponsibilitiy in their learning style is highlighted in facilitator style. For

instance, instructors can use problem-solving strategies. This strategy does help the students to

work with others. The study is supported by Ahmad Faris (2008), when he found that by using

problem solving, it improved the undergraduates’ attitude towards science. The primary

identified teaching dimension by the undergraduates are the expert style and personal model

style. In expert style, undergraduates consider instructors as a significant part for their learning

style. Personal Model style, it is more efficient to undergraduates when a instructor portray an

applicable method towards their learning.

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 17

Conclusion

Among college instructors from Far Eastern College-Silang, Cavite State University-Silang,

De La Salle University-Dasmarinas, and Lyceum of the Philippines University-Cavite, results

showed that majority of its lecturers use Expert and Personal Model style of teaching while

delegator style got the lowest mean. The relationship of their undergraduates’ intellectual

commitment level and instructor’s teaching style showed a strongly positively correlated yet

weak relationship. Interpreting the results, it denotes that appropriate teaching style has a

compelling impact to a learner’s commitment. It drives the students to participate more in class

and to willingly take part on extracurricular activities. Although it has an effective influence, the

results conveyed that teaching style and academic commitment has an insignificant relationship.

Instructors of Far Eastern College-Silang and Cavite State University-Silang both mostly use

Expert teaching style. They show authority by displaying their knowledge that the students need

to be fully competent and are expert in their respective subjects that they teach. Instructors of

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Cavite use Expert and Formal Authority teaching style.

Beside from using the Expert teaching approach, they also use Formal Authority approach where

they are concerned about the proper and correct way of doing things. They set rules,

expectations, and learning goals. De La Salle University-Dasmarinas instructors mostly use

Personal Model and Facilitator teaching method. They stood as a role model for their students on

how to think and behave. Teaching their student by being the personal example, their instructors

let the student to have personal interactions with them. They encourage questions and are open

for options and informed choices which develop the student to be independent and responsible.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 18

Further results on the findings show that male undergraduates tend to engage more (M =

3.89) in the classrooms than female undergraduates (M = 3.84) by a slight gap. Male students

enjoy doing challenging work more and like to ask questions to further obtain knowledge about

their lectures in class.

Future possible effects in the teaching and learning process may be expected to

undergraduates, parents, and instructors based on these findings. It encourages the academic

institutions to better understand the undergraduates’ academic participation by applying

appropriate teaching method. It is to rely on the undergraduates that academic participation and

commitment is a motivation for their careers’ successes. Therefore, undergraduates must fit their

instructor’s teaching approach to their own academic commitment style.

The institutions, along with its instructors, must work together to fulfil their responsibilities

toward a better and quality education for their undergraduates. As the first foundation,

institution must equip its undergraduates with excellent training that will strengthen their

commitment skills on and beyond academics. The instructors and the institution must create a

beneficial learning environment where undergraduates can acquire complete knowledge and on-

hand experience. It is their obligation to guide and direct every student to engage activities with

other people and how to present themselves that will definitely make them confident and

competent.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 19

References

Ahmad Faris (2008). The Impact of PBL on the Student's Attitudes Towards Science among

Nine Graders in Hamza Independent School. Unpublished project paper.

Aitkin, M. L, & Zuzovsky, R (1994). Multilevel Interaction Models and their Use in the Analysis

of Large-scale School Effectiveness Studies. School Effectiveness and School Improvement

5, 45-73.

Allen, R. (1988). The Relationship between Learning Style and Teaching Style of Secondary

Teachers in South Central Kansas. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Kansas State

University, Manhattan, KS.

Ary, D., Jacobs, LC, & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to Research in Education (6th ed).

California: Wadsworth / Thomson Learning.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Visited. San Francisco,

Jossey Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Awang Had Salleh. (2000). Default di kalangan guru sebagai pendidik: Sebuah pemerhatian

peribadi. Paper presented at the School of Graduate Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia on

31st January 2000.

Bailey, K. M., Bergthold, B., Braunstein, B., Fleischman, N. J., Holbrook, M. P., Tuman, J.,

Waissbluth, X., & Zambo, L. J. (1996). The Language Teacher's Autobiography:

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 20

Examining the Apprenticeship of Observation. In Bailey, K. M. (1997). Reflective

teaching: Situating our Stories. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 7, 1-19.

Bennett, N., Jordan, B. Long, G., & Wade, B. (1976). Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress.

London: Open Book Publishing Limited.

Chapman, J. K, Hughes, P., & Williamson, B. (2001). Teachers' Perceptions of Classroom

Competencies over a Decade of Change. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29

(2), 171-184.

Chia, K. B. (1997). Professional Self-esteem and Teaching Styles of English Language Teacher

in Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.University of Manchester.

Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1991). Development and Adaptation of the Seven Principles

for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Direction for Teaching and Learning, 80,

75-81.

Chickering, A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Conti, G. J. (1985). Assessing Teaching Style in Adult Education: How and Why? Lifelong

Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 8(8), 7-11.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research (3rd Edition). Pearson International Edition.

Doherty, J. (2003). Teaching Style in Physical Education and Mosston's Spectrum. Sports Media.

Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K.J. (1979). Learning Styles and Teaching Styles: Should they can be

Matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-244.

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 21

Evans, C. (2004). Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Style and Teaching Style.

Educational Psychology, 24(4), 509-530

Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995) Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second

Language Education. Foreign Language Annuals, 28 (1), 21-31.

Gerber, S. B. (1996). Extracurricular Activities and Academic Achievement. Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 30 (1), 42 -50.

Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhance Learning by

Understanding Learning and Teaching Style. College Teaching, 48, 1-12.

Grasha, A. F. (2003). The Dynamics of One-on-One Teaching. Social Studies, 94(4), 179-187.

Grasha, AF & Hicks, N. Y. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning style with

instructional technology. College Teaching, 48 (1), 2-15.

Gregorc, A.F. (1989). Learning Styles and Teaching Styles: Should they can be Match?

Educational Leadership, 36, 234-237.

Jarvis, P. (1985). Thinking Critically in an Information Society: A Sociological Analysis.

Lifelong-Learning, 8(6), 11-14.

Kramlinger, T. & Huberty, T. (1990). Behaviorism versus Humanism. Training and

Development Journal, 4, 1-45.

Ladd, P. D. (1995). The Learning and Teaching Styles of Tennessee Secondary Business

Education Teachers. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 37(1),29-45.

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 22

National survey of student engagement (2006). The College Student Report. Bloomington, In:

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

Newman, P. R. (1992). Conceptual Models of Student Engagement. National Center of Effective

Secondary Schools. University of Wisconsin.

On Stein, A.C., & Miller, H. C. (1980). Looking Into Teaching: An Introduction to American

Education. Boston: Houghton.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Are we even

Close? Change, 33 (3), 19, 23.

Peacock, M. (2001). Match or Mismatch? Learning Style and Teaching Style in EFL.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://searchglobal.epnet.com .

Stitt-Gohdes, W. L. (2001). Business Education Students' Preferred Learning Styles and Their

Teachers; preferred instructional Styles: Do for hire match? Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 43,

137 151.

Sturt, G. (2000). Teaching Styles. Retrieved from http://psychology.colchsfc.ac.uk/gary.htm

The College Student Report (2000). Retrieved November 30, 2011.The OECD Programme for

international student assessment (PISA) (2000).

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-Centerednessas Language Education. United Kingdom: Cambridge

University Press.

Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational Psychology. 6th Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 23

Wright, T. (1987). The Role of Teachers and Learners. Hong Kong: ELBS with Oxford

University Press.

Zahorik, J. A. (1990). Stability and Flexibility in Teaching. Teacher and Teaching Education, 6

(1), 69-80.

Zinn, L. M. (2004). Exploring your Philosophical Orientation. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.). Adult

Learning Methods: A guide for Effective Instruction (3rd edition, Pp.39-74). FL: Krieger

Publishing Company.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 24

Table 1

Domain item distribution of Lecturers’ Teaching Style

Type of Style Mean Standard Deviation

Expert 4.12 .61
Formal Authority 4.00 .71
Personal Model 4.12 .80
Delegator 3.78 .78
Facilitator 4.03 .76

Table 2

Percentage and Frequency of Students Academic Engagement in the Teaching and Learning
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 25

Item Item Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

No. Disagree Agree

1. I always give an 1 5 30 20 4

opinion in class (1.67%) (8.33%) (50%) (33.33%) (6.67%)

2. I have presented 1 4 20 24 11

the assignments in (1.67%) (6.67%) (33.33%) (40%) (18.33%)

front of a class
3. I always follow 0 2 5 29 24

teachers’ (3.33%) (8.33%) (48.33%) (40%)

instructions and

do all the

homework
4. I always give my 0 1 9 32 18

full attention to (1.67%) (15%) (53.33%) (30%)

get the job done

5. I was able to learn 0 2 7 34 17

and complete the (3.33%) (11.67%) (56.67%) (28.33%)

work assigned
6. I go to class 5 18 19 13 5

without being (8.33%) (30%) (31.67%) (21.67%) (8.33%)

completing the

assigned task
7. I always 0 1 6 31 22

cooperated with (1.67%) (10%) (51.67%) (36.67%)

other students to

complete tasks
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 26

assigned
8. I, along with the 3 5 15 28 9

other students, we (5%) (8.33%) (25%) (46.67%) (15%)

do our homework

after school hours

9. I take immediate 0 2 17 29 12

action when task (3.33%) (28.33%) (48.33%) (20%)

is assigned
10. If I have a 0 2 5 35 18

problem, I’ll try to (3.33%) (8.33%) (58.33%) (30%)

solve it
11. I am not easily felt 3 4 23 27 3

disappointed when (5%) (6.67%) (38.33%) (45%) (5%)

difficulties occur

at the early phase

of my work
12. I’ll try to get help 0 2 13 34 11

from people when (3.33%) (21.67%) (56.67%) (18.33%)

I’m in trouble
13. I enjoy doing 0 3 29 21 7

work that is (5%) (48.33%) (35%) (11.67%)

challenging
14. I am committed in 1 3 16 32 8

completing tasks (1.67%) (5%) (26.67%) (53.33%) (13.33%)

even no points are

awarded
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 27

15. I work with high 0 3 24 27 6

concentrations (5%) (40%) (45%) (10%)

16. I like to ask 0 0 12 37 11

questions to gain (20%) (61.67%) (18.33%)

knowledge
17. I am used to be 0 1 16 33 10

independent (1.67%) (26.67%) (55%) (16.67%)

18. I like to do task 0 0 16 29 15

where students (26.67%) (48.33%) (25%)

can choose the

topic than those

not allowed
19. I like to learn new 0 1 11 32 16

things and involve (1.67%) (18.33%) (53.33%) (26.67%)

in meaningful

learning even

without a teacher
20. I will try to avoid 0 9 29 20 2

the difficult work (15%) (48.33%) (33.33%) (3.33%)

21. I continue 0 1 14 36 9

learning even if all (1.67%) (23.33%) (60%) (15%)

tasks have been

completed
22. I used to work 0 3 22 28 7

without (5%) (36.67%) (46.67%) (11.67%)

supervision
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 28

23. I always 0 1 13 36 10

completed the task (1.67%) (21.67%) (60%) (16.67%)

within the

stipulated time by

the lecturer
24. I am not satisfied 2 2 22 28 6

with my (3.33%) (3.33%) (36.67%) (46.67%) (10%)

homework due to

the lack of

understanding and

not because I’m

not working on it
25. I completed my 0 0 3 37 20

work with the (5%) (61.67%) (33.33%)

intention of

obtaining good

results
26. I studied with the 0 0 3 36 21

aim to have more (5%) (60%) (35%)

knowledge in all

subjects
27. My interest in a 0 0 2 32 26

course will (3.33%) (53.33%) (43.33%)

increase if I
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 29

perform well in

the course
28. I can improve my 0 0 5 36 19

performance in a (8.33%) (60%) (31.67%)

course
29. I would be happy 0 0 7 33 20

if I can finish the (11.67%) (55%) (33.33%)

challenging chore
30. I will study hard if 0 1 18 29 12

my ability is (1.67%) (30%) (48.33%) (20%)

recognized by

lecturers
31. I love to ask 0 1 14 38 7

questions if I do (1.67%) (23.33%) (63.33%) (11.67%)

not understand the

teacher
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 30

Table 3

Correlation between Lecturers’ Teaching Style and Students’ Academic Engagement

Academic Engagement
Teaching Style .655*

Note: Correlation is significant at 0.05

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 31

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND

STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT

This study is being done by Ella Justine F. Eder and Justine A. Selma from Far Eastern

College – Silang (FEU Cavite). You were selected to participate in this study. The purpose of

this research study is to identify the relationship between lecturers’ teaching style and students’

academic engagement in selected universities in Cavite.

If you signify your agreement to be a participant in this study, you will be asked to

complete a survey/questionnaire. This survey/questionnaire will ask about your lecturers’ style of

teaching and your academic engagement level as a student. It will take you approximately 10-15

minutes to complete this form.

You may not directly benefit from this research; however, we hope that your participation

in the study may provide a clearer understanding on the dimensions of the lecturers’ teaching

style and students’ engagement level in academic.

We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study, however, as with

any related activity; the risk of a breach of confidentiality is always possible. Your responses will

be treated with utmost confidentiality and all answers will be treated as a whole group and not

individually.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 32

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any

time. You are free to skip any question that you choose.

If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you

may contact the researchers, Ella Justine F. Eder at 09565983175 or email at

eeder0249@feucavite.edu.ph.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 33

Name (Optional): Student Number:

School: Course:

1. What is your Lecturers’ Teaching Style?

(5) Strongly Agree, (4) Agree, (3) Neutral, (2) Disagree, (1) Strongly Disagree

Type of Style
Expert

Possesses knowledge and expertise that students

need. Strives to maintain status as an expert among

students by displaying detailed knowledge and by

challenging students to enhance their competence.

Concerned with transmitting information and

ensuring that students are well prepared.

Formal Authority

Possesses status among students because of

knowledge and role as a faculty member. Concerned

with providing positive and negative feedback,

establishing learning goals, expectations, and rules

of conduct for students. Concerned with the "correct,

acceptable, and standard ways to do things."

Personal Model

Believes in "teaching by personal example" and

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 34

establishes a prototype for how to think and behave.

Oversees, guides, and directs by showing how to do

things, and encouraging students to observe and then

to emulate the instructor's approach.

Delegator

Concerned with developing students' capacity to

function autonomously. Students work

independently on projects or as part of autonomous

teams. The teacher is available at the re quest of

students as a resource person.

Facilitator

Emphasizes the personal nature of teacher student

interactions. Guides students by asking questions,

exploring options, suggesting altering natives, and

encouraging them to develop criteria to make

informed choices. Overall goal is to develop in

students the capacity for independent action and

responsibility.

2. Student Engagement in the Teaching and Learning:

(5) Strongly Agree, (4) Agree, (3) Neutral, (2) Disagree, (1) Strongly Disagree

I always give an opinion in class

I have presented the assignments in front of a class
I always follow teachers’ instructions and do all the homework
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 35

I always give my full attention to get the job done

I was able to learn and complete the work assigned
I go to class without being completing the assigned task
I always cooperated with other students to complete tasks assigned

I, along with the other students, we do our homework after school

hours
I take immediate action when task is assigned
If I have a problem, I’ll try to solve it
I am not easily felt disappointed when difficulties occur at the early

phase of my work
I’ll try to get help from people when I’m in trouble
I enjoy doing work that is challenging
I am committed in completing tasks even no points are awarded

I work with high concentrations

I like to ask questions to gain knowledge
I am used to be independent
I like to do task where students can choose the topic than those not

allowed
I like to learn new things and involve in meaningful learning even

without a teacher
I will try to avoid the difficult work
I continue learning even if all tasks have been completed
I used to work without supervision
I always completed the task within the stipulated time by the

lecturer
I am not satisfied with my homework due to the lack of

understanding and not because I’m not working on it

I completed my work with the intention of obtaining good results

I studied with the aim to have more knowledge in all subjects

My interest in a course will increase if I perform well in the course

I can improve my performance in a course

I would be happy if I can finish the challenging chore
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 36

I will study hard if my ability is recognized by lecturers

I love to ask questions if I do not understand the teacher

Lecturer’s Information

Name (optional):

Required:

Age:

Gender:

Institution:

Subject Specialization:

Degree: _Baccalaureate Degree

_Master’s Degree

_Doctorate Degree

_Others: (please specify)

Academic Rank: _Professor

_Associate Professor

_Assistant Professor

_Others: (please specify)

LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 37

Please respond to questions below by using the following rating scale:

5 = strongly agree | 4 = agree | 3 = neutral

| 2 = disagree | 1 = strongly disagree

Response
1. Facts, concepts, and principles are the most important things that students

should acquire.
2. I set high standards for students in this class.
3. What I say and do models appropriate ways for students to think about

issues in the content.

4. My teaching goals and methods address a variety of student learning

styles.
5. Students typically work on course projects alone with little supervision

from me.
6. Sharing my knowledge and expertise with students is very important to

me.
7. I give students negative feedback when their performance is

unsatisfactory.
8. Activities in this class encourage students to develop their own ideas

about content issues.

9. I spend time consulting with students on how to improve their work on

individual and/or group projects.

10. Activities in this class encourage students to develop their own ideas

about content issues.

11. What I have to say about a topic is important for students to acquire a
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 38

broader perspective on the issues in that area.

12. Students would describe my standards and expectations as somewhat

strict and rigid.

13. I typically show students how and what to do in order to master course

content.
14. Small group discussions are employed to help students develop their

ability to think critically.

15. Students design one of more self-directed learning experiences.
16. I want students to leave this course well prepared for further work in this

area.
17. It is my responsibility to define what students must learn and how they

should learn it.

18. Examples from my personal experiences often are used to illustate points

about the material.

19. I guide students' work on course projects by asking questions, exploring

options, and suggesting alternative ways to do things.

20. Developing the ability of students to think and work independently is an

important goal.
21. Lecturing is a significant part of how I teach each of the class sessions.
22. I provide very clear guidelines for how I want tasks completed in this

course.
23. I often show students how they can use various principles and concepts.
24. Course activities encourage students to take initiative and responsibility

for their learning.

25. Students take responsibility for teaching part of the class sessions.
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 39

26. My expertise is typically used to resolve disagreements about content

issues.
27. This course has very specific goals and objectives that I want to

accomplish.
28. Students receive frequent verbal and/or written comments on their

performance.
29. I solicit student advice about how and what to teach in this course.
30. Students set their own pace for completing independent and/or group

projects.
31. Students might describe me as a "storehouse of knowledge" who

dispenses the fact, principles, and concepts they need.

32. My expectations for what I want students to do in this class are clearly

defined in the syllabus.

33. Eventually, many students begin to think like me about course content.
34. Students can make choices among activities in order to complete course

requirements.
35. My approach to teaching is similar to a manager of a work group who

delegates tasks and responsibilities to subordinates.

36. There is more material in this course than I have time available to cover

it.
37. My standards and expectations help students develop the discipline the

need to learn.
38. Students might describe me as a "coach" who works closely with

someone to correct problems in how they think and behave.

39. I give students a lot of personal support and encouragement to do well in
LECTURERS’ TEACHING STYLE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT 40

this course.
40. I assume the role of a resource person who is available to students

whenever they need help.

Copyright 1976, 1987, 1990, 1996 by Anthony F. Grasha and Sheryl Riechmann-Hruska,

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Oh 45