Differentiating instruction upon learning styles in higher education: a controversial issue

• Author: Tulbure, C.
• Position: Postdoctoral researcher, Faculty of psychology and educational sciences, University of Bucharest
• Pages: 79-84

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov • Vol. 4 (53) •No. 1 - 2011

Series VII: Social Sciences • Law

DIFFERENTIATING INSTRUCTION

UPON LEARNING STYLES IN HIGHER

EDUCATION: A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE

Cristina TULBURE1

Abstract: Within the frame of this paper we are going to observe the extent

to which differentiated instruction according to the student’s learning styles

has as result the improvement of academic achievement on a higher

educational level. Our study aims at providing support in both theory and

research for differentiated instruction based on students’ learning

preferences. Overall, this study brings arguments to illustrate the idea that

differentiated instruction leads to higher academic achievement compared

with the whole-class teaching-learning approach. Our conclusions provide a

foundation on which research addressing differentiated instruction in higher

education may continue to be built.

Key words: differentiated instruction; whole-class instruction; learning

styles.

1 Postdoctoral researcher, Faculty of psychology and educational sciences, University of Bucharest.

1. Introduction

The implementation of differentiated

instruction in higher education raises two

fundamental issues:

(a) To what extent such an approach to

instruction would be justified in higher

education?

(b) Is it possible to implement this type of

instruction in higher education and if so,

which is the most appropriate way to

differentiate instruction?

(a) The pros of legitimacy regarding

differentiated instruction are represented

by the characteristics and trends in the

present superior education, among which

the most relevant for the matters under

discussion here are the following: the

constant growing in number of people

included in tertiary education; the students’

diversity regarding: age, interests, level of

training, level of aspirations, culture,

ethnicity, level of intellectual, moral, etc.,

development; the intensification of

students’ mobility; the promotion of

student-focused education; the passing

from teaching-centered education to

learning-centered education [16]; the

passing from the professor offering the

masterly discourse to the professor seen as

partner [29]; the designing of the academic

curriculum on the following principles

[16]: the principle of selection and cultural

hierarchicalization; the principle of

functionality and professional adequacy;

the principle of coherence; the principle of

equality of chances; the principle of

flexibility and individualized career path;

the principle of connecting to the social

environment.