I'm Oligarchic, You're Oligarchic

Most teachers are best at teaching children who match their own styles of thinking and learning. We have found, however, that teachers tend to overestimate the extent to which their students share their own styles.

It's natural to think others are more like you than they really are. It becomes a problem, though, when teachers underestimate the abilities and achievements of students simply because their styles are different. And the more students differ from the teacher culturally, ethnically, and socio-economically, the more their styles are likely to differ; thus the more likely it is that these students will be undervalued and even appear to be stupid rather than mismatched.

Conversely, we have found that students do in fact receive higher grades and more favorable evaluations when their styles more closely match those of their teachers. Teachers therefore need to take special care not to undervalue students just because they are different. You don't have to match your students' learning styles, merely expand your methods. As you do, your students will expand their own styles of thinking and learning-the benefit will be mutual.

Our research further shows that students’ styles, at least to some degree, come to match their teachers', just as teachers' styles come to match the predominant style profile at their school. In other words, we come to be like those we are with. As a role model, then, a teacher should exhibit a variety of styles in the classroom. If you want students to be flexible, you must be flexible yourself.

Teachers’ styles not only differ across schools, but across grades and subject matter, demonstrating that the demands of the environment may mold the kinds of people we are. Teachers of younger students need to be more legislative and less executive than teachers of older students. In the ; upper grades, requirements tend to be more rigidly specified because older students in high school must take so many achievement tests for both college admissions and state and local requirements.

Of course, it is possible that the two groups of teachers also have dispositional differences. Both situational and dispositional differences may account, too, for our findings that science teachers tend to be more local (enjoy dealing with details, specifics) than humanities teachers, and that humanities teachers tend to be more liberal than science teachers. We also have found that the longer teachers teach, the more executive, local, and conservative they become.

Groups of students differ as well. For example, the lower the socioeconomic level, the more likely the student will be judicial, oligarchic, locals and conservative (like to judge, do many things at once, deal with specifics and with the familiar). Later-borns are more likely to be legislative (preferring creation, invention) than first-borns.

Clearly, both students and teachers vary widely in their styles. In workshops I have held, teachers are often amazed to find that their peers, whom they previously viewed as a relatively homogeneous group have a very diverse array of styles. If their own peer group is so diverse, imagine how diverse the student body must be!

They've Gotten Smarter!

I must confess that when 1 started teaching psychology, I did all the things that I have accused others of doing. I taught in a way that systematically benefited students with my own style profile (legislative, hierarchic, global, internal, liberal) and tended to devalue the abilities and accomplishments of those who were unlike myself. I now systematically vary my instruction and assessment to meet the needs of more learners. In so doing, I have discovered that I have a lot more able learners than I realized. I suspect this is true of your students as well. They are there, waiting to be discovered and valued - waiting to learn.

Robert J. Sternberg,