Morgan Stierman

Eng 405
The Role of Variable Teaching Approaches in Domain Specific Work
Zhang, L. (2008). Preferences for teaching styles matter in academic
achievement: Scientific and practical implications. Educational
Psychology, 28(6), 615-625.

In this study, Zhang hypothesized that students preferred teaching

styles would predict academic achievement, and that particular teaching
styles would be more conducive to higher achievement in a particular
subject (2008). Through the work done, it was found that across both
university and high school level students, type I teaching styles (aiding in
generation of creative thinking and cognitive complexity) were preferred
over type II styles (monotonous and without need for collaboration).
Additionally, it was found that conservative teaching styles (teaching
according to established rules and procedures, and oligarchic styles (placing
the same importance on all subject matter) were both correlated with poor
academic performance, providing evidence that these styles may be
obsolete in many domains. This study provided mixed results in regards to
the relationship between teaching styles and domainspecificity; however, it
was found that external teaching styles (involving collaboration on all fronts)
were correlated positively with achievement scores in a multitude of
academic domains. The findings of this study are in stasis with much of the
material that has been presented within this class, reiterating the need to

avoid a uniquely directive approach, which is seen in the aforementioned

conservative teaching style. Additionally, this study provides evidence that
tutors should help students identify which pieces of evidence or arguments
are most crucial in a paper, to avoid oligarchic methodology, in addition to
promoting collaborative efforts where the student can brainstorm with the
tutor and receive feedback and critique on their ideas.
Kahtz, A. W., & Kling, G. J., (1999). Field-dependent and field-independent
conceptualizations of various instructional methods with an
emphasis on CAI: A qualitative analysis. Educational Psychology,
19(4), 413-428.

This research by Kahtz and Kling focused on learning differences

between field-dependent students (preferring to work in a group situation
with emphasis on collaboration) and field-independent students (preferring
to work on their own). The study additionally emphasized the focus on
computer assisted instruction (CAI), in order to determine if there are
quantifiable differences between types of students utilizing CAI resources.
The research done provided a variety of interesting findings, including
evidence for an increase in field-dependent collaboration when presented
with ambiguous or abstract topics. In addition to the findings regarding fielddependent collaboration, it was found that students using the CAI program
consistently reported a high level of satisfaction when using aspects of the
program that allowed for a side-by-side comparison of material, a finding
supported by anecdotal accounts provided via interviews. In applying this to

tutoring situations, the study provides evidence that when students are
writing or brainstorming about a topic that is more abstract in nature, such
as a creative writing assignment or an assignment discussing theoretical
aspects of a domain, a more collaborative or discussion oriented approach
may be useful in aiding the student. This study also provides some insights
for potential techniques that may help resolve grammar or genre issues
within a paper. As the side-by-side juxtaposition of material was shown to be
significantly favored by the sample within this study, it is possible that this
could be extrapolated and used in modeling-like instructional methods within
the writing center. This could be applied via modeling grammar structures or
conventions of a particular genre with online resources, and directly
comparing these models to the students work to allow them to gain insights
on areas of potential improvement.
Graupner, M., Nickoson-Massey, L., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating
knowledge-making spaces in the graduate curriculum: Developing
and sustaining multimodal teaching and research. Computers and
Composition, 26, 13-23.

This article, written by Graupner, Nickoson-Massey, and Blair,

presented a case study of a graduate program in composition and rhetoric at
Bowling Green State University in order to discuss the need for multimodal
approaches to teaching involving the usage of technology and collaboration
between students and faculty. This case study drew conclusions emphasizing
the assimilation to new technological resources necessary for both faculty

and students alike to better communicate and discuss information within

their field. The authors also discussed an ideal classroom space where power
is shared between students and faculty, an idea that was toyed with within
an earlier journal article presented in this 405 class that discussed the merits
of power balances between tutors and tutees. While amending a graduate
curriculum is vastly different from the work done in the writing center, the
emphasis on assimilating to technological resources and changes is
something that can be carried over to a tutoring setting. Tutors hold a unique
position where it is possible to both share technological resources with
students, as well as learn about new resources from their own tutees. While
there doesnt seem to be evidence for a domain specific application of this, it
would appear that the usage of these technological advances would be most
useful when used in collaboration with traditional tutoring techniques such as
reading aloud and discussion of ideas, providing evidence for the merits of a
multimodal tutoring approach across all domains.
Sahasrabudhe, V., & Kanungo, S. (2014). Appropriate media choice for elearning effectiveness: Role of learning domain and learning style.
Computers & Education, 76, 237-249.

This research done by Sahasrabudhe and Kanungo aimed to decipher

the complex interactions between learning domain and learning styles,
specifically through the use of technological based learning techniques. In
this study, it was found that there is a significant interaction effect between
learning domain and teaching style effectiveness, at least in a technology-

based setting. This research drew connections that showed an enhanced

effectiveness when using styles that mix auditory instruction with written
modeling while teaching subjects in the cognitive domain (those where
theoretical knowledge is gained). Additionally, evidence was provided for the
effectiveness of video based modeling when teaching behavioral information
such as how to preform CPR. The research preformed by these authors
primarily focused on the usage of technology within the aforementioned
domain, but the evidence for domain specific teaching effectiveness can be
applied to all teaching and tutoring settings. Based on this research, it would
seem logical to apply a multimodal approach involving speaking and writing
or modeling when discussing theoretical ideas, such as argument structure
and support for a hypothesis, with a tutee, as opposed to the mono-modal
approaches deemed effective for behavioral tutorials.
Sloutsky, V. M. (2010). Mechanisms of cognitive development: Domaingeneral learning or domain-specific constraints? Cognitive Science,
34, 1125-1130.

In this article, the author discusses the evidence provided by past

studies both for and against domain-specificity in regards to learning styles.
Sloutsky references a 2010 study done by himself which points towards the
use of different learning systems when gaining information from different
categories or fields. In contrast to this, the author additionally cites articles
that provide a more global theory for learning, focusing on the learning
process as a stimulus response interaction that is independent of the

domain. This theory, proposed by Smith, Colunga and Yoshida (2010), states
that learning occurs as a response to predictive cues in a given context, and
the interaction between cues and responses remains stable across all
domains, with the only difference coming in the way the cues manifest
themselves. This counterevidence to domain specificity provides a multitude
of insights into potential tutoring techniques. While domain specific tutoring
styles may have merits in some situations, this evidence points towards the
validation of a basic tutoring style where tutors prompt tutees with questions
designed to get them thinking, and the interaction between the two roles
remains consistent across all domains and genres. In a tutoring setting that
draws from this theory, the prompting style of tutoring would remain stable,
and the only differences would be in the content which is discussed. While
these findings are consistent with viewpoints supporting this non-directive
tutoring style, the lack of external validity presented within this study makes
these findings exploratory at best. Without further evidence supporting the
efficacy of this prompting style of tutoring across all domains, it appears that
adaptive styles that are student and domain-specific are in fact the most
effective.
Archibald, L., & Joanisse, M. F. (2013). Domain-specific and domain-general
constraints on word and sequence learning. Memory and Cognition,
41, 268-280.

This study preformed by Archibald and Joanisse investigated the role of

domain-specific pathways, for example phonological processing, as well as

domain general mechanisms, such as short term and working memory in

learning and language development. In order to test the efficacy of domain
general vs. domain specific learning pathways, the researchers had children
with working memory deficits and children with language deficits (two
separate groups) learn both familiar and novel words. This research provided
evidence for the global role of working memory across domains, and showed
that in both domain general and domain specific teaching styles, retention
was best achieved when associations were learned using already familiar
words, a finding consistent with prior evidence for long term memorys role
in learning. In extrapolating these findings to a tutoring setting, there are a
variety of confounds limiting the external validity. This study utilized children
with cognitive deficits, a demographic well out of the range of the clientele
who comes into the writing center. While there are some issues with the
generalization of this research to an unknown demographic, it is likely that
the usage of familiar terminology to aid in the learning of new associations is
something that can be utilized in tutoring settings. This idea is synonymous
with the colloquially phrased getting on the students level, which involves
the breakdown of previously abstract material or concepts into components
that a novice in the field can understand. This technique is likely most
effective when working with students in introductory courses with which the
tutor is familiar, as the simplification of abstract concepts is something that
usually requires a level of competency with the material.
Conclusion

The following table contains a variety of terms and keywords, with

operational definitions, that are associated with the research used in this
paper. This table was constructed with the goal of synthesizing the main
concepts from the analysis of a variety of different sources, and additionally
includes the implications of these concepts in tutoring settings.
Topic: Domain-specific learning
Subtopics or
Concepts
Uniquely directive
approach

Definition

Tutoring Implications

A teaching approach
that doesnt allow for
much student input, and
is essentially based
solely on the
tutor/teacher telling the
student what is wrong
and how to fix it.

Almost all studies

mentioned in this paper
provided
counterevidence against
the use of a uniquely
directive approach,
leading to the
conclusion that tutors
should utilize an
adaptive style that can
be both directive and
non-directive in nature.
This style was
correlated negatively
with poor academic
performance, which
points towards the
conclusion that tutors
can aid students by
helping them
differentiate between
minor and major issues
(e.g. organization vs.
grammar mistakes).
This approach has
shown to be effective in
creation based domains
(creative writing,
theoretical discussion),
and can likely be used
effectively to aid
students in the creation

Oligarchic methodology

A teaching style which

refrains from
differentiating in the
importance placed on
different concepts.

Collaborative approach

This approach to
learning utilizes
discussion based tactics
to help the student form
and organize ideas.

Multimodal approach

Assimilation to
technology

The use of multiple

teaching techniques
simultaneously to better
construct meaning (e.g.
discussing an idea while
using a diagram as
supplementary
material).
Mastering/becoming
knowledgeable about
current technology
related to fields in
academia.

Cognitive domain

An academic domain in
which theoretical
knowledge is gained.
This knowledge is often
abstract and can be
empirically derived.

Domain-specific

The idea that teaching

styles are specific to
academic domains. For
example, one style may
be more effective in
Math, but less effective
in English.

of their
ideas/arguments.
This approach was
deemed effective across
all domains, providing
evidence for the
benefits of a multifaceted approach in
aiding writing center
students.
Technological resources
can be used to aid
students in a tutoring
setting, and can
additionally be learned
about by the tutor via
the tutee. When used in
combination with
additional tutoring
techniques, these
resources can aid in
providing a multimodal
learning experience.
It was found that
multimodal approaches
to teaching were
effective when teaching
subjects within the
cognitive domain,
providing evidence that
multimodal tutoring
could aid students who
are writing on
theoretical concepts.
This idea implies that
students coming into
the WC with papers
from different
disciplines may require
different tutoring
techniques to best
brainstorm or construct
ideas.