Next Article in Journal
Variations in the Value and Trade-Offs/Synergies of Ecosystem Services on Topographic Gradients in Qinghai Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Key Components of Municipal Solid Waste in Prediction of Moisture Content in Different Functional Areas Using Artificial Neural Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/su142315545
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Learning and Teaching Styles in a Public School with a Focus on Renewable Energies

by
Ramón Fernando Colmenares-Quintero
1,*,
Sergio Barbosa-Granados
1,
Natalia Rojas
2,
Kim E. Stansfield
3,
Juan Carlos Colmenares-Quintero
4,
Manuela Ruiz-Candamil
1 and
Pedro Cano-Perdomo
5
1
Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Calle 50A No. 41-34, Medellín 050012, Colombia
2
Aquatera Ltd., Old Academy Business Centre, Stromness KW16 3AW, UK
3
VOCATE Ltd., Worcester WR1 3HW, UK
4
Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kasprzaka 44/52, 01-224 Warsaw, Poland
5
Institución Educativa María Inmaculada, Transversal 14 #18-70, Puerto Carreño 990001, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(23), 15545; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315545
Submission received: 21 September 2022 / Revised: 23 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 22 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study is to identify teaching styles (TS) and learning styles (LS) in teachers and students in public schools with a focus on renewable energies, with the aim of designing and applying curricular strategies based on active learning in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the same way, it seeks to determine the differences related between TS and LS. The research was developed with a quantitative methodology and a correlational descriptive approach. In addition, a non-experimental, cross-sectional design was used and an intentional non-probabilistic sampling of 125 students and 20 professors from the Maria Inmaculada School of the municipality of Puerto Carreño, Colombia. The results indicate that there is no significant difference between TS and LS. However, it was identified that students prefer a reflective teaching methodology (M = 15.5, SD = 0.75) followed by the active style (M = 14.2, SD = 1.10) and, to a lesser extent, the pragmatic style (M = 11.4, SD = 1.19). In the case of teachers, the most used teaching style is also reflective (M = 25.7, SD = 1.02), followed by individualized (M = 20.1, SD = 0.56) and, to a lesser extent, inquiry (M = 5.3, SD = 1.10). This research allows the generating of new knowledge that contributes to improving educational processes in the school population with a focus on renewable energies, enabling the promotion of strategies towards a sustainable society.

1. Introduction

1.1. Education

Education is a fundamental pillar for the development of the human being [1], since in the knowledge-based societies, innovative and sustainable strategies are promoted for the challenges faced by the modern individual. From this perspective, education provides the capacities and knowledge for the human being to adapt to the transformation of society [2,3]. However, many students are being dropped by an educational system that, from some perspectives, is believed to be in crisis. Consequently, improving educational outcomes requires efforts on many fronts, and its solution involves helping students focus on better-regulated learning using effective learning techniques [4].
Thus, education also presents modifications in its traditional structure, becoming a significant component for the industry as it generates growth in the economic sector [5]. It is also worth mentioning the concern expressed by several countries about the need to modify traditional educational systems to meet the demands of modern society [6]. In recent decades, significant changes have been taking place in learning, in which context is the most important. For its part, the education model focuses on the student and on the new roles of the lecturer focused on teaching and learning styles [7,8,9].

1.2. Education and Renewable Energies

According to international guidelines, the high-quality accreditation of each public school by Colombian Ministry of Education is necessary to achieve the minimum established criteria. In this sense, it is considered necessary to change didactics for the benefit of students. Additionally, highlighting the role of the academic advisor and psychologist as part of the academic feedback mechanism is related to the teaching and learning experience, thus obtaining significant results through proper implementation [10].
Similarly, in Colombia the educational system has shortcomings, reflecting the need to reconceptualize learning and teaching tools. In the country, there are efforts to create teaching methodologies that generate lasting and adaptable critical thinking through student-centered methodologies [11]. However, renewable energy education must be mainstreamed in schools, universities, and other formal and non-formal academic institutions. It is for this reason that the teaching of renewable energies must be taught from an early age, understood as a lifestyle [12,13,14]. In this way, formal academic instruction is usually based on knowledge, which does not allow the transformation of theoretical information into active learning by students and their involvement as subjects of social change related to the understanding of renewable energies [13,15].
Although students are known to have difficulties in achieving the desired learning objectives in relation to the development of enquiry skills and knowledge related to engineering and renewable energies [16,17], the Maria Inmaculada School has been implementing in recent years the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach to education, which allows for the availability of subjects that ensure the early exposure of students to the relevance, perspectives, and implications of science and renewable energy in the global scenario [12]. Thus, this increases the students’ interest and motivation in STEM-based careers, due to their early exposure to basic knowledge [18]. In this regard, there is a need to raise awareness at an early age to motivate students to pursue higher education in renewable energy-related careers [12,13].

1.3. Learning and Teaching Styles

On the other hand, learning styles are understood as the various ways in which individuals perceive and acquire knowledge. In some research, it is proved that factors such as age, gender, and culture influence the preference of learning [19,20,21]. At the same time, there are works that descriptively typify the profile of students based on LS [22,23,24]. In this sense, the optimization of each learning process requires knowledge about the learning style of each student, thus serving as a base input for the design of teaching and learning strategies. The current evidence refers to the fact that the student learns best when he is instructed considering her predominant learning style [25].
For its part, the present study is framed through the approaches of Alonso, Gallego, and Honey [26], which affirm that students, through their problems, solve and apply new knowledge from individual experiences within their learning environment, thus developing preferences that make them appropriate, particularly in certain phases of the educational process, directly influencing success academic. This links directly with the learning styles and motivation of the student to generate autonomy in their knowledge, attitudes, and abilities [23].
Likewise, teaching is understood as a different phenomenon from learning, which is constituted by its dynamics, implying that the teacher acquires skills and competencies that adjust to the demand of the time [27,28]. As to where to provide a quality education, it is necessary to identify how students learn—in this aspect, teachers come to play a crucial role, because they must identify learning styles to provide teaching methods and techniques that facilitate the internalization of knowledge [6,29,30,31]. That is the reason why teachers develop the syllabus, select the content, and design the evaluation to implement teaching methods that are aligned with the LS [32]. In fact, the teacher who knows the learning styles of his or her students will be able to adjust his or her teaching strategies in order to improve the performance of his or her students [33,34].

1.4. Learning from the Sustainable Development Goals

Hence, facing the different social problems of today such as poverty, social inequality, hunger, and climate change is a challenge that requires a paradigm shift, this being interest in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); these are elements that commit the current individual to carry out transformations in sustainable development issues through the goals set out in the 2030 agenda, which promote work from education with renewable energies. Likewise, the design of a comprehensive public policy framework is necessary to determine sustainable development, which is a problem faced by most countries in the world and especially developing nations. It is for this reason that the education sectors require the support of research and planning processes that guarantee the study of renewable energies to guarantee environmental sustainability [35].
Based on the above, the need for schools to implement teaching and learning methods that are adapted to current needs is perceived. Especially, the urgency to transform the traditional education system is manifested. Teachers have the responsibility of designing experiences in which the student builds learning, and for this, it must be considered that individuals think and act differently—that is, they present specific strategies to give meaning to information and to be able to manage to learn [27,36]. In this sense, modern education needs new contemporary teaching and learning practices, which use inclusive learning programmes [37]. Consequently, technology transfer is related to knowledge transfer, supporting growth in the capacity for innovation and invention [38,39]. Bearing this in mind, the new form of validation and use of systems is mediated by virtuality, which resembles a real industrial environment, in which there is a safe place for the student to train before facing a problem in the real world [40]. It is for this reason that the main objective of this study is to identify learning styles and teaching styles in students and teachers at a school with a focus on renewable energies.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study is carried out through a quantitative methodology with a descriptive–correlational scope, which allows establishing the degree of relationship between LS and TS. The purpose of this type of study is to measure the degree of relationship that exists between two or more concepts or variables, and then to quantify and analyze the relationship between variables [41]. In this sense, the research design is non-experimental, of the transversal type. This demonstrates that the study does not manipulate variables and phenomena, which are observed in their natural environment at a single point in time, allowing the analysis to establish patterns of behavior of the school population [41]. A non-probabilistic sampling was used, intentionally selected, to obtain specific data [42]. The population studied is made up of 125 students and 20 professors from the Maria Inmaculada School of the municipality of Puerto Carreño, Colombia.
For the measurement of LS, the Honey and Alonso Questionnaire (CHAEA, in Spanish) [26] was used. It is composed of 80 items in the form of a question, which corresponds to 4 learning styles, which are active, reflective, theoretical, and pragmatic learning. Through a Likert-type scale, it is answered with the statements of agreement or disagreement. The positive sum of each question yields the total score, which is related to the LS (Appendix A). This instrument has been applied in several studies due to its reliability [43,44].
For its part, for the evaluation of TS, the Teaching Styles Scale (ESEE, in Spanish) was used, which consists of 31 statements followed by a scale of estimation of four response alternatives that range from the total agreement, “always”, to total disagreement, “never”, including two intermediate stages, “frequently” and “rarely” (Appendix B). The instrument shows total reliability of the Cronbach’s alpha scale of 0.886, which reflects an adequate internal consistency [45].

2.1. Procedure

The study was carried out at the end of 2021 at the María Inmaculada School in Puerto Carreño, Colombia, within the framework of the workshop on Sustainable Development Goals. The collection of information was carried out through Google Forms, in which the different students attended the computer room and filled out their information. A teacher from the school, who was previously trained by the research team, helped resolve the concerns of the students. Finally, participation in this study was voluntary, and most of the students and teachers were evaluated in the same classroom. The time allocated for the application of the questionnaires was approximately from 15 to 20 min.

2.2. Data Analysis

The data analysis was elaborated with the statistical software SPSS v.25, in which descriptive statistics of frequency (M, SD, and proportion) were used. In the same way, for the comparison of independent samples, the mean test and Anova were used of two factors. At the same time, to explore the fulfillment of the normality assumptions, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit test (KS p > 0.05) and Chi-square were applied.

3. Results

Employing the descriptive statistics used in Table 1, the data indicate that the LS most used by the students is the reflective one (M = 15.5, SD = 0.75), followed by the active one (M = 14.2, SD = 1.10), and the theoretical one (M = 13.4, SD = 0.98). Likewise, it is stated that the lowest score belongs to the pragmatic (M = 11.4, SD = 1.19). Therefore, it is inferred from the results that students have a more reflective interest, in which their activities are more related to exchanging views on renewable energies, working without time pressure, carefully investigating the causes and effects of climate change, collecting detailed information, and making accurate reports to develop the student’s point of view. However, students at Maria Inmaculada School learn less about renewable energy through presentations, have difficulties in solving problems in their context in teams, and constantly need to try something different to solve their concerns.
In the same way, the reflective style is the predominant TS among teachers, as can be seen in Table 2. (M = 25.7, SD = 1.02), followed by the individualized (M = 20.1, SD = 0.56) and the academic (M = 18.6, SD = 1.13). However, it is perceived that the lowest scores were obtained by the cooperative (M = 15.2, SD = 0.85), innovative (M = 9.5, SD = 0.76), and inquiry (M = 5.3, SD = 1.10), as being the TS with less preference among teachers. For this reason, the results determine that the reflective style of the teachers leads to the knowledge transmitted about renewable energies developing critical analysis and autonomous learning in the students. This involves the engagement of students in the learning process, giving more freedom to students in their independence of judgement, and spontaneity in the classroom context. However, teachers at María Inmaculada School make less use of discovery learning and decision-making and have difficulties in transferring real situations to the process of solving problems related to the SDGs.
Finally, in Table 3 the results indicate that there is no significant difference between TS and LS. However, through descriptive statistics, it is observed that the reflective TS is the one that has the greatest relationship with the LS reflective (M = 16.2, SD = 1.3), active (M = 15.5, SD = 1.4), and pragmatic (M = 14.7, SD = 0.9). However, it is also observed that the individualized TS and the reflective learning style (M = 15.9, SD = 0.9) show a descriptive relationship. This shows that the reflective TS is the predominant one, as it is strongly related in a descriptive way to several LS, thus determining the influence of the teachers’ teaching style on the students’ learning style in the context of a school with a focus on renewable energies.

4. Discussion

Societies are in constant transformation, which indicates that education must gradually adapt to current needs, in which the traditional educational model is reformed and innovative strategies are generated in the teaching and learning process. Thus, renewable energies are a permanent imperative that promotes awareness of the importance of incorporating renewable energy sources and promotes, among students and citizens, the development of attitudes and values that contribute to meeting the energy challenges of communities through educationally, socially, and culturally viable practices [46].
For its part, the results show that the LS that predominates in students is reflective. Nevertheless, students develop skills to collect and analyze data before planning or taking any action [44]. This is how different studies account for this, determining that the profile of students presents a trend towards reflective LS [47,48]. In contrast, a study of Malaysian students found that the theoretical learning style has the strongest connection to academic performance, followed by reflective and pragmatic, and the weakest learning style is activist. Likewise, factors such as the classroom environment, delivery of instruction, and student self-efficacy are important predictors of learning [49].
On the other hand, the data show that teachers guide their classes with reflective and individualized methodologies, as well mentioned in teaching practice that it is common to find specific features that characterize an individual or a group in different typologies. Reflective and individualized TS represent characteristic components of active teaching [50,51]. Unlike the above, in a study carried out by Barreiro and Bozutti [52] on teachers, it is pointed out that the resources used by teachers to teach their classes refer to elements used in a traditional education model. Additionally, teachers show a preference for exposure methods, thus demonstrating that there is a difficulty in implementing active student-centered strategies. Additionally, a study carried out with lecturers mostly use a classic teaching style that transmits ancient values, and they determine the subject by themselves without asking the students opinions, and there is no role of the students in the teaching process, who play a passive role [53].
In this sense, the communicative skills of students and teachers are key to the development of learning in the classroom. A study on learning styles in students’ communication skills found that interactions mediated by project-based learning models improve their mathematical skills [54]. In turn, generating communication skills modules based on learning styles is identified as a means of teaching to improve students’ mastery of communication skills [55]. Consequently, the reflective style (predominant style in the present study) is characterized by enhancing students’ critical thinking and autonomy with respect to the written and oral communication of renewable energy knowledge.
Regarding teamwork and leadership skills in relation to teaching and learning styles, the present study does not show any potential in this area, as although group activities are conducted through STEM education, there is no evidence of the potential of teamwork and leadership skills in relation to teaching and learning styles. However, Orsini et al. [56] showed that groups with homogeneous learning styles have lower levels of conflict and higher levels of friendship, associated with higher satisfaction, suggesting that students in social settings can progress at the same rate as the group develops [57].
At the same time, TS and LS show no significant differences. However, at a descriptive level, it is observed that reflective TS is consistent with reflective LS, thus reflecting that teachers use teaching methodologies that are in tune with the way students learn [58]. Now, the fact that teachers and students have similar TS and LS is not a determining factor for the teaching and learning process to be effective [51]. In the same way, the importance of students leaving their comfort zone and being able to test the use of LS different from their own is recognized, which helps them to acquire necessary tools for future performance in their working life [59].
Likewise, a study carried out in the United States identified that students achieved more effective study and higher levels of knowledge due to the alignment of teaching and learning styles in the classroom [60]. It is also understood that a balance is needed between theory and its application during classroom teaching [61]. The influence of the context, the industry, and the case methodology would be useful tools to expose students to the challenges of the corporate sector and its context related to renewable energies [62].
In turn, the relationship between active and reflective styles has been shown to have statistically significant differences for learning related to problem solving and comprehension. In contrast to our work, a study carried out in Colombia determines that the predominance of the pragmatic learning style and the attitude of the teacher is decisive in those students who do not have a professional vision for the future [22,63]. In this sense, the role of the teacher is decisive as a teacher–learner who, in this way, favors the conditions for the student to explore himself (and his self-learning) in a constant way, considering that the ways of learning are not static—they are in movement and in relationship [29].
Consequently, good teaching strategies have a positive impact on students’ learning and teachers’ self-concept [30]. Thus, in relation to professional competences, one study showed that students with a reflective style preferred to continue their studies at the baccalaureate level, determining that students’ learning style is an effective tool for understanding vocational orientation in secondary schools [64]. Therefore, teachers during academic training should ensure that students adopt active-learning strategies in teaching ethics, because they provide the best means of communicating instructions and improving decision-making [65], which impact students’ career development.
However, our study does not predict whether the assessment of renewable energy topics is affected by ST and TL. Naj’iyah et al. [66] determine that creating a design of learning strategies that can be used to accommodate different student styles will enable problem solving, broadening scientific literacy, designing, and creating projects and communicating them. In turn, the use of STEM methodology and project-based learning are effective for the knowledge and evaluation of renewable energy [16,54,67].

4.1. Implications

Within the theoretical implications of the present work, the contrast between LS and TS is highlighted, understanding that each of the styles are different and focused on the population of students (LS) and teachers (TS). However, there are no significant differences between learning and teaching styles, thus proving that teachers and students tend to teach and learn about renewable energies with similar styles, in this case, the reflective style.
The practical implications of this study have repercussions in different fields. The implications in the field of education stand out, which allow us to infer that the teacher is especially important in the formation of the student, because the way in which a teacher teaches will be the same way in which a student learns about renewable energies. Additionally, it has practical implications in the field of educational psychology, since the research findings can determine that primary and secondary students in schools with a focus on renewable energy can learn the issues related to the SDGs in a reflective manner. That is, they are interested in having a critical point of view and are more interested in carefully investigating the causes and effects of climate change.
Finally, the most interesting practical implication of the study is related to Goal 4 of the SDGs called Quality Education. This type of study can help the educational community to make decisions, making it possible to guarantee inclusive and quality education and to promoting teaching and learning opportunities throughout life [68]. It is understood as the constant training and solution of problems related to renewable energies and sustainable development.

4.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Work

Future research can be oriented towards determining the relationship between TS and LS. At the same time, an inferential analysis could be carried out with the variables that influence this dynamic, inviting reflection on existing issues in this phenomenon. Additionally, in future research, a methodological process can be generated with greater rigor and control of the cross-sectional variables in the analysis of the data; a larger and more heterogeneous sample can also be considered, which could include a greater number of students and teachers. In turn, future studies can link the analysis approaches to the ABET learning outcomes, specifically the general criteria for baccalaureate-level programs [69]. Future studies could also assess school contextual factors such as pupils’ interactions in the classroom, the way teachers give instructions in class, and pupils’ motivation towards the topic of renewable energy. Finally, it can be thought that the instruments for measuring the TS and LS variables can integrate and conceptualize the variables that interfere in these processes.
However, the present study has its limitations. Firstly, the number of institutions is limited, because the sample is taken from a single school with a focus on renewable energy in Colombia, which can be extended to other institutions in the country. Secondly, the study can be extended for longitudinal purposes of greater methodological control related to the cross-sectional nature of the measurements in the present study. Third, although the instruments to measure the TS and LS variables are widely used, they have not been without criticism [70,71,72]. Finally, the results could be generalized to students and teachers in Colombian and Latin American schools with a focus on renewable energy.

5. Conclusions

From this study, it can be concluded that there are no significant differences between teaching and learning styles in a school with a renewable energy approach. However, teachers and students at María Inmaculada School prefer a reflective teaching and learning methodology, which shows that teachers use teaching methodologies that are in tune with the way students learn. In turn, students’ knowledge of renewable energies can develop and motivate future students to develop in STEM fields. Finally, this work is the first to conceptualize the relationship between TS and LS in students and teachers at a public school with a focus on renewable energies in Colombia, and the main value of this research lies in the collection of data that serve as support for the design of curricula based on renewable energies, with proposals aimed at improving educational processes and promoting strategies towards a sustainable society.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G. and P.C.-P.; methodology, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G., M.R.-C. and P.C.-P.; software, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G. and P.C.-P.; validation, R.F.C.-Q., K.E.S., N.R. and J.C.C.-Q.; formal analysis, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G. and P.C.-P.; investigation, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G., M.R.-C. and P.C.-P.; resources, R.F.C.-Q., K.E.S., N.R. and J.C.C.-Q.; data curation, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G. and P.C.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, R.F.C.-Q., S.B.-G. and M.R.-C.; writing—review and editing, K.E.S., N.R. and J.C.C.-Q.; visualization, R.F.C.-Q. and S.B.-G.; supervision, K.E.S., N.R. and J.C.C.-Q.; project administration, R.F.C.-Q.; funding acquisition, R.F.C.-Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering (Grant No. DIA-2022-187—“Distinguished International Associates—Round 2” Call).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of INSTITUCIÓN EDUCATIVA MARÍA INMACULADA (protocol code NA and date of approval 15 October 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This project is funded through Distinguished International Associates—Round 2 Call run by the Royal Academy of Engineering. Project reference # DIA-2022-187 “Towards a sustainable and inclusive Colombia: Engineering business opportunities based on science, technology and innovation”, whose UCC ID is INV3202.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Honey and Alonso Questionnaire

The following is a screenshot of some of the questions asked to the students of Maria Inmaculada School related to the Honey and Alonso Questionnaire (CHAEA, in Spanish) [26]. For more information on the instrument, the reader may consult the documents cited in this paper [26,43,44].
Sustainability 14 15545 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Honey and Alonso Questionnaire. Own source.
Figure A1. Honey and Alonso Questionnaire. Own source.
Sustainability 14 15545 g0a1

Appendix B. Teaching Styles Scale

It presents a screenshot of some of the questions asked to the teachers of Maria Inmaculada School corresponding to the Teaching Styles Scale (ESEE, in Spanish). For more information on the instrument, the reader may consult the document cited in this paper by González-Peiteado et al. [45].
Sustainability 14 15545 g0a2 550
Figure A2. Teaching Styles Scale. Own source.
Figure A2. Teaching Styles Scale. Own source.
Sustainability 14 15545 g0a2

References

  1. Radulović, B.; Gajić, O.; Španović, S.; Lungulov, B. Challenges of Initial Teacher Education in the Context of Hingher Education Reform in Serbia. Educ. Self Dev. 2019, 14, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ferreiro, R. El Reto de La Educación Del Siglo XXI: La Generación N. Apertura 2006, 6, 72–85. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vanden Broeck, P. Beyond School: Transnational Differentiation and the Shifting Form of Education in World Society. J. Educ. Policy 2019, 35, 836–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dunlosky, J.; Rawson, K.A.; Marsh, E.J.; Nathan, M.J.; Willingham, D.T. Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest Suppl. 2013, 14, 4–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Bosio, E.; Torres, C.A. Global Citizenship Education: An Educational Theory of the Common Good? A Conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures Educ. 2019, 17, 745–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Magulod, G. Learning Styles, Study Habits and Academic Performance of Filipino University Students in Applied Science Courses: Implications for Instruction. J. Technol. Sci. Educ. 2019, 9, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Hernández Pina, F.; Hervás Avilés, R.M. Enfoques y Estilos de Aprendizaje En Educación Superior. REOP Rev. Española Orientación Y Psicopedag. 2014, 16, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sáiz-Manzanares, M.C.; Marticorena-Sánchez, R.; Muñoz-Rujas, N.; Rodríguez-Arribas, S.; Escolar-Llamazares, M.C.; Alonso-Santander, N.; Martínez-Martín, M.Á.; Mercado-Val, E.I. Teaching and Learning Styles on Moodle: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Using STEM and Non-STEM Qualifications from a Gender Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Muñoz-Martínez, Y.; Gárate-Vergara, F.; Marambio-Carrasco, C. Training and Support for Inclusive Practices: Transformation from Cooperation in Teaching and Learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deyasi, A.; Bhattacharjee, A.K.; Mukherjee, S. A Novel Outcome Evaluation Model Blended with Computational Intelligence and Digital Pedagogy for UG Engineering Education. In Intelligent Systems Reference Library; Deyasi, A., Mukherjee, S., Mukherjee, A., Bhattacharjee, A.K., Mondal, A., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2021; Volume 197, pp. 277–293. [Google Scholar]
  11. Serrano, K.; Restrepo, M.; Posada, S. Educación En Ingenierías: De Las Clases Magistrales a La Pedagogía Del Aprendizaje Activo. Ing. Y Desarro. 2012, 30, 125–142. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoque, F.; Yasin, R.; Sopian, K. Revisiting Education for Sustainable Development: Methods to Inspire Secondary School Students toward Renewable Energy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Buldur, S.; Bursal, M.; Yalcin Erik, N.; Yucel, E. The Impact of an Outdoor Education Project on Middle School Students’ Perceptions and Awareness of the Renewable Energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alawin, A.A.; Rahmeh, T.A.; Jaber, J.O.; Loubani, S.; Dalu, S.A.; Awad, W.; Dalabih, A. Renewable Energy Education in Engineering Schools in Jordan: Existing Courses and Level of Awareness of Senior Students. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kandpal, T.C.; Broman, L. Renewable Energy Education: A Global Status Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 300–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kutlu, E.; Bakirci, H.; Kara, Y. STEM Education Effect on Inquiry Perception and Engineering Knowledge. Particip. Educ. Res. 2022, 9, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ruhf, R.J.; Williams, C.T.; Zelinsky, M.; Becho, L.W. Barriers to Collecting Student Participation and Completion Data for a National STEM Education Grant Program in the United States: A Multiple Case Study. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dökme, İ.; Açıksöz, A.; Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. Investigation of STEM Fields Motivation among Female Students in Science Education Colleges. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abdelhadi, A.; Ibrahim, Y.; Nurunnabi, M. Investigating Engineering Student Learning Style Trends by Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Atlasi, M.A.; Moravveji, A.; Nikzad, H.; Mehrabadi, V.; Naderian, H. Learning Styles and Strategies Preferences of Iranian Medical Students in Gross Anatomy Courses and Their Correlations with Gender. Anat. Cell Biol. 2017, 50, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wang, C.C.; Greenwood, K.M. Chinese Nursing Students’ Culture-Related Learning Styles and Behaviours: A Discussion Paper. Int. J. Nurs. Sci. 2015, 2, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Chae, S.J. Medical Students’ Satisfaction on Online Flipped Learning by Learning Styles. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2021, 33, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, J.; Han, S.; Fu, S. Exploring the Relationship between Students’ Learning Styles and Learning Outcome in Engineering Laboratory Education. J Furth. High Educ. 2019, 43, 1064–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Azzi, I.; Jeghal, A.; Radouane, A.; Yahyaouy, A.; Tairi, H. A Robust Classification to Predict Learning Styles in Adaptive E-Learning Systems. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 25, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vidal-Tovar, C.R.; Valle-Fuentes, H.; Rios-Dominguez, I.C.; Castro-Alfaro, A.F. Learning Styles for Algebra Concepts: The Case of Engineering Students at the Universidad de Santander. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA, 29 June 2020; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 844. [Google Scholar]
  26. Alonso, C.; Gallego, D.; Honey, P. Los Estilos de Aprendizaje: Procedimientos de Diagnóstico y Mejora, 6th ed.; Ediciones Mensajero: Bilbao, Spain, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  27. Colmenares-Quintero, R.F.; Benavides-Castillo, J.M.; Rojas, N.; Stansfield, K.E. Community Perceptions, Beliefs and Acceptability of Renewable Energies Projects: A Systematic Mapping Study. Cogent Psychol. 2020, 7, 1715534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abello, D.M.; Alonso-Tapia, J.; Panadero, E. Desarrollo y Validación Del Inventario de Estilos de Enseñanza Para La Educación Superior (IEE). An. Psicol. Ann. Psychol. 2020, 36, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Cabrera Cuadros, V.; Soto García, C. ¿Cómo Aprendemos? El Docente Enseñante y Aprendiz Que Acompaña a Los Estudiantes En Su Exploración Hacia El (Auto)Aprendizaje. Profr. Rev. Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2020, 24, 269–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Han, F. The Relations between Teaching Strategies, Students’ Engagement in Learning, and Teachers’ Self-Concept. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Niens, J.; Richter-Beuschel, L.; Stubbe, T.C.; Bögeholz, S. Procedural Knowledge of Primary School Teachers in Madagascar for Teaching and Learning towards Land-Use- and Health-Related Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ridwan, H.; Sutresna, I.; Haryeti, P. Teaching Styles of the Teachers and Learning Styles of the Students. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1318, 012028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hsieh, S.-W.; Jang, Y.-R.; Hwang, G.-J.; Chen, N.-S. Effects of Teaching and Learning Styles on Students’ Reflection Levels for Ubiquitous Learning. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1194–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Willingham, D.T.; Hughes, E.M.; Dobolyi, D.G. The Scientific Status of Learning Styles Theories. Teach. Psychol. 2015, 42, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zafar, M.W.; Shahbaz, M.; Sinha, A.; Sengupta, T.; Qin, Q. How Renewable Energy Consumption Contribute to Environmental Quality? The Role of Education in OECD Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Colmenares-Quintero, R.F.; Rojas, N.; Kerr, S.; Caicedo-Concha, D.M. Industry and Academia Partnership for Aquatic Renewable Energy Development in Colombia: A Knowledge-Education Transfer Model from the United Kingdom to Colombia. Cogent Eng. 2020, 7, 1829805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chowdhury, R.K. Learning and Teaching Style Assessment for Improving Project-Based Learning of Engineering Students: A Case of United Arab Emirates University. Australas. J. Eng. Educ. 2015, 20, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Benavides-Castillo, J.M.; Carmona-Parra, J.A.; Rojas, N.; Stansfield, K.E.; Colmenares-Quintero, J.C.; Colmenares-Quintero, R.F. Framework to Design Water-Energy Solutions Based on Community Perceptions: Case Study from a Caribbean Coast Community in Colombia. Cogent Eng. 2021, 8, 1905232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Colmenares-Quintero, R.F.; Rico-Cruz, C.J.; Stansfield, K.E.; Colmenares-Quintero, J.C.; Li, Y. Assessment of Biofuels Production in Colombia. Cogent Eng. 2020, 7, 1740041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Macías García, M.E.; Cortés Pérez, A.A.; Izaguirre Alegría, A.R. Cyber-Physical Labs to Enhance Engineering Training and Education. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2020, 14, 1253–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sampieri, R.; Collado, C.; Baptista, P. Metodologia de La Investigacion, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. Barbosa-Granados, S.H.; Amariles-Jaramillo, M.L. Learning Styles and the Use of ICT in University Students within a Competency-Based Training Model. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2019, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Juárez-Lugo, C. Propiedades Psicométricas Del Cuestionario Honey-Alonso de Estilos de Aprendizaje (CHAEA) En Una Muestra Mexicana—Dialnet. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2014, 7, 136–154. [Google Scholar]
  44. Escurra-Mayaute, L.M. Análisis Psicométrico Del Cuestionario de Honey y Alonso de Estilos de Aprendizaje (CHAEA) Con Los Modelos de La Teoría Clásica de Los Tests y de Rasch. Persona 2011, 14, 71–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. González Peiteado, M.; López Castedo, A.; Pino Juste, M. Análisis Psicométrico de Una Escala Sobre Estilos de Enseñanza (ESEE). Enseñanza Teach. Rev. Interuniv. Didáctica 2013, 1, 181–198. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ballesteros-Ballesteros, V.; Gallego-Torres, A. Modelo de Educación En Energías Renovables Desde El Compromiso Público y La Actitud Energética. Rev. Fac. Ing. 2019, 28, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Alducin-Ochoa, J.M.; Vázquez-Martínez, A.I. Estilos de Aprendizaje, Variables Sociodemográficas y Rendimiento Académico En Estudiantes de Ingeniería de Edificación. Rev. Electron. Educ. 2017, 21, 350–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ortiz Ojeda, A.; Canto Herrera, P. Estilos de Aprendizaje y Rendimiento Académico En Estudiantes de Ingeniería En México—Dialnet. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2013, 6, 160–177. [Google Scholar]
  49. Khan, M.R. Learning Styles and Academic Achievement among Form Three Living Integrated Skills Students. ASM Sci. J. 2021, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hagopian, G.; Nohria, R. When the Student Becomes the Teacher: Discovering Individual Teaching Style. Curr. Pharm. Teach. Learn. 2021, 13, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. González-Peiteado, M.; Pino-Juste, M. Los Estilos de Enseñanza: Construyendo Puentes Para Transitar Las Diferencias Individuales Del Alumnado. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2016, 27, 1175–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Barreiro, S.; Bozutti, D.F. Desafíos y Dificultades En La Enseñanza de La Ingeniería a La Generación Z: Un Caso de Estudio. Propósitos Y Represent. 2017, 5, 127–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Ramli, I.; Abdullah, A.G.; Kustija, J.; Sumarto, S. The Investigation of Teaching Style: Electrical Engineering Teachers’ Views in Vocational High Schools. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 830, 042076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pratiwi, G.; Sova, F.; Putra, F.G.; Yunian Putra, R.W.; Kusuma, A.P.; Rahmawati, N.K. The Influence of Project-Based Learning (PjBL) and Learning Style om Mathematics Communication Skills of Junior High School Students. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1467, 012064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kiong, T.T.; Hamid, R.; Ngadiran, N.; Rusly, N.; Puad, F.; Azman, M.; Azid, N. Needs Analysis for Module Development of Communication Skills Based on Learning Styles for Vocational College Students. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 2022, 22, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Orsini, J.; Greenhaw, L.L.; Coleman, B.M.; Stone, W.A.; Bunch, J.C. Experiential Learning Style Grouping Impact on Student Outcomes in Team Leadership Coursework. Small Group Res. 2022, 53, 366–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raes, E.; Kyndt, E.; Decuyper, S.; van den Bossche, P.; Dochy, F. An Exploratory Study of Group Development and Team Learning. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2015, 26, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chiang Salgado, M.; Díaz Larenas, C.; Arriagada Pizarro, P. Estilos de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje: ¿cómo Dialogan En La Práctica?—Dialnet. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz. 2016, 9, 2–24. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gutiérrez Tapias, M. Estilos de Aprendizaje, Estrategias Para Enseñar. Su Relación Con El Desarrollo Emocional y “Aprender a Aprender”. Tend. Pedagógicas 2018, 31, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tyndall, D.M. Bridging the Gap: Aligning Teaching and Learning Styles. Community Coll. J. Res. Pract. 2016, 41, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mainemelis, C.; Boyatzis, R.E.; Kolb, D.A. Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility: Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Manag. Learn. 2002, 33, 5–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Srivastava, D.K.; Shah, H. Do Learning Styles of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students in B-Schools Differ? Insights and Implications. J. Educ. Bus. 2021, 97, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Varela Solano, R. Análisis Del Fracaso Escolar y Su Relación Con Los Estilos de Aprendizaje En Colegio Mayor de Barranquilla y Del Caribe, Colombia | Gestión Competitividad e Innovación. Gestión Compet. E Innovación 2020, 5, 124–135. [Google Scholar]
  64. Antelm-Lanzat, A.M.; Gil, A.J.; Cacheiro-González, M.L.; Pérez-Navío, E.; Fonseca-Pedrero, E. Learning Styles and Vocational Guidance in Secondary Education. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2020, 20, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Okougbo, P.O.; Okike, E.N. Teaching Strategies in Accounting Ethics: A Students’ Assessment of Preferred Teaching Styles. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1950306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Naj’Iyah, A.L.; Viyanti; Suyatna, A. Learning Strategies Design to Accommodate Learning Styles, Initial Knowledge and Reduce the Differences of Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation Performance. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1788, 012031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Walz, K.; Slowinski, M.; Alfano, K. International Approaches to Renewable Energy Education—A Faculty Professional Development Case Study with Recommended Practices for STEM Educators. Am. J. Eng. Educ. 2016, 7, 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Naciones Unidas. La Agenda 2030 y Los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible: Una Oportunidad Para América Latina y El Caribe; Naciones Unidas: Santiago, Chile, 2018; ISBN 978-92-1-058643-6. [Google Scholar]
  69. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2021–2022; Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  70. Papadatou-Pastou, M.; Touloumakos, A.K.; Koutouveli, C.; Barrable, A. The Learning Styles Neuromyth: When the Same Term Means Different Things to Different Teachers. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2020, 36, 511–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rohrer, D.; Pashler, H. Learning Styles: Where’s the Evidence? Med. Educ. 2012, 46, 634–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Pashler, H.; McDaniel, M.; Rohrer, D.; Bjork, R. Learning Styles Concepts and Evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest Suppl. 2009, 9, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Learning styles (students).
Table 1. Learning styles (students).
Learning StylesMSD
Active14.21.10
Reflective15.50.75
Theorical13.40.98
Pragmatic11.41.19
Table
Table 2. Teaching styles (teachers).
Table 2. Teaching styles (teachers).
Teaching StylesMSD
Reflective style25.71.02
Cooperative style15.20.85
Academic style18.61.13
Individualized style20.10.56
Innovative style9.50.76
Inquiry5.31.10
Table
Table 3. Analysis of variance TS and LS.
Table 3. Analysis of variance TS and LS.
ActiveReflectiveTheoricalPragmatictp
MSDMSDMSDMSD
Reflective style15.51.416.21.313.01.114.70.91.1620.238
Cooperative style10.20.815.20.911.81.511.81.81.1680.378
Academic style12.21.515.41.413.70.912.41.41.1500.456
Individualized style13.40.515.90.912.90.614.11.01.5340.578
Innovative style12.51.615.51.312.41.813.70.50.9870.435
Inquiry-based learning style11.80.813.90.511.51.214.11.11.5340.677
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Colmenares-Quintero, R.F.; Barbosa-Granados, S.; Rojas, N.; Stansfield, K.E.; Colmenares-Quintero, J.C.; Ruiz-Candamil, M.; Cano-Perdomo, P. Learning and Teaching Styles in a Public School with a Focus on Renewable Energies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315545

AMA Style

Colmenares-Quintero RF, Barbosa-Granados S, Rojas N, Stansfield KE, Colmenares-Quintero JC, Ruiz-Candamil M, Cano-Perdomo P. Learning and Teaching Styles in a Public School with a Focus on Renewable Energies. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):15545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315545

Chicago/Turabian Style

Colmenares-Quintero, Ramón Fernando, Sergio Barbosa-Granados, Natalia Rojas, Kim E. Stansfield, Juan Carlos Colmenares-Quintero, Manuela Ruiz-Candamil, and Pedro Cano-Perdomo. 2022. "Learning and Teaching Styles in a Public School with a Focus on Renewable Energies" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 15545. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315545

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop