The primary aim of the Learnsmartly assessment and feedback reports is to  help learners and educators optimise their learning and teaching styles for significantly improved results.

Learners Discover how to approach learning in ways that align with your optimal learning style.

Educators Discover how to use a ‘multi-brain quadrant’ teaching style that engages learners’ whole brain.

Explore the 4MAT system or UDL scheme in designing learning experiences, or a combination of these two.

These methods stretch learners to become adept at accessing more of the brain during the learning process and enhance their learning capability.

Starting with Connect, each stage follows sequentially in a clockwise direction. By applying these steps, learners are exposed to experiences and tasks that engage all four quadrants of their brain, which ensures that even those with a strong single quadrant preference benefit.  Engaging all the quadrants has the further benefit of stretching the learners to operate in modes that are initially sub-optimal but, with practice, increases their versatility because of neuroplastic changes in their brain connections. 

Once again, this is not limited to the learners but applies equally to educators who may find themselves challenged by having to use techniques associated with their least used or even avoided quadrant   Yet, even if educators do not have the naturally versatile style required to seamlessly implement four-quadrant teaching, the skills required can be learned and their style adapted.

The Universal Design for Learning framework was developed in the early 1990s by the Harvard based organisation, CAST, and based on neuroscientific research, cognitive psychology and the learning sciences.  Neuroscience research indicates that there are three key networks of the brain which require stimulation for us to learn effectively and that these networks are stimulated in different ways in different people.

CAST took this research and mapped it to supporting research in the learning sciences to develop three key principles calling on educators to provide the following (Ryder, 2019)

•      Multiple Means of Engagement – The ‘Why’ of Learning relating to the Affective Networks of the brain

•      Multiple Means of Representation – The ‘What’ of Learning relating to the Recognition Networks of the brain

•      Multiple Means of Action and Expression – The ‘How’ of Learning relating to the Strategic Networks of the brain

It has gained considerable international recognition and provides a lesson planning technique for educators. 

In many respects it seems very similar to 4MAT. However, the underlying neurology it uses is broader and less functionally specific.  To its advantage, it has a strong alignment with inclusive pedagogy and strives to make learning more widely available (Shi, 2018).

The extended Jungian four-functional theory defines thinking style, learning style and teaching style adequately, even suggesting teaching methods.  And it’s all verified by research

In the same way that learners have preferred styles, educators have preferred ways of teaching and these, too, may be traced back to the four thinking styles.  Grasha (1994) describes these. 

Grasha’s theory raises a number of speculations. Educator-centred approaches are located in the left hemisphere and are best suited to factual subject matter that relies on logic, analysis and established procedures.  The learner-centred approaches, conversely, are right-hemisphere based and suit subject matter that requires intuition, imagination and perception of subtle non-verbal cues.  

This suggests that the specific subject matter plays a part in determining the optimal teaching style.  This could also suggest that educators with a specific style preferentially elect to teach certain types of subjects. 

Grasha’s teaching styles are described in terms that relate to Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).  Elements of Telling, Selling, Participating and Delegating are clearly present.  It may suggest that this is actually a Situational Teaching Style model with multiple parameters combining to determine the optimal teaching style in any situation. 

Lastly, it raises the issue of a teacher as a leader, which is consistent with the Latin root that becomes education in English: Educere, meaning to lead out. This suggests that the ability to inspire and lead is an indispensable quality in a successful educator.

THINKING:  Lecturer or Authoritative Style

The authoritative teaching style follows the traditional teacher-centred approach, often characterised by lecture sessions or one-way presentations. In this approach (also called the “chalk and talk” style), students are expected to pay attention, absorb the information, take notes and ask questions.

SENSING:  Demonstrator or Coach Style

Often used in mathematics, science and music, the demonstrator style involves more “showing” rather than “telling” with teachers more likely to support the information with examples or experiments, demonstrations or multimedia presentations.

FEELING: Delegator or Group Style

Well-suited for curriculums that include or emphasise group activities, the delegator style of teaching shifts much of the responsibility for learning onto the students, who are encouraged to work together in projects connected to the lesson themes (think science labs, debates, etc.). In this style, the teacher is an active observer working to guide students in the right direction.  

INTUITION: Facilitator or Activity Style

The facilitator/teacher is focussed on promoting self-learning and helping students develop critical learning and thinking skills. A student-centred approach, it involves creating learning plans and classes that require students to explore and discover the course content in creative and original ways.

Grasha’s styles align closely to the four-quadrant model, seamlessly adding the third level to this conceptual model.  Bear in mind that it is unlikely that an educator would show enhanced activity in only one of the quadrants and is more likely to use a mixture of styles in teaching. To accommodate this, he added a fifth style.

VERSATILE: Hybrid or Blended Style

The hybrid approach may integrate elements of the styles discussed above, often blending the teacher’s personality and interests with those of the students. While this method is considered inclusive, enabling teachers to tailor their styles to student needs within the subject matter, some educators believe it risks diluting the learning process by placing less emphasis on in-depth study than when following a single, focused approach.

In dismissing these misgivings, Grasha asserts that teachers often use a blend of several teaching styles. Effective teachers are flexible and are able to change their teaching style to suit the circumstances and the students’ learning requirements (Grasha, 1994).   

Yet, subsequent research suggests that faculty members in higher education initially adopt a teaching style that reflects either their own learning style or an effective teaching method they experienced during their own education (Hawk & Shah, 2007).This approach results in faculty members who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with incorporating a variety of learning style models into their curricula.  This may need to be addressed during educator training or become an established policy in institutions.