Hi ORS Rao!

Your question is related to the impact of Pedagogy on learning outcomes of different profiles of learners. You went on and I say that you would like to know if there is any objective correlation between pedagogy and the outcomes of the learning.

Your questions may be answered through a long or short answer. As you certainly know there are countless books, chapters, papers, talks, and the like which try to relate teachers'/professors' pedagogical practices to the outcomes of their teaching.  

I know of no study looking for an objective correlation between pedagogy and the outcomes of learning.  Even so, it is more than natural to think that pedagogical practices (e.g., active methods versus traditional and conservative methods) have different learning outcomes. Suffices it to say that in the active methods, teachers are more mentors and organizers of learning situations than simple transmitters of knowledge. When the former is the case, it is more likely that their pupils come to be creative, inventors, and innovators rather than conformist students who passively accept all that is taught to them.

 Piagetian terms, one can say that the active methods are to intellectually and morally autonomous pupils or students, such as the traditional or conservative methods are to intellectually and morally heteronomous individuals. 

Intellectually autonomous students are more likely to be intrinsically than extrinsically motivated (see, for this respect, E. Deci's theory of self-determination and its core distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and more inclined to understand rather than memorize what they learn, be it a physical fact,  logical concept, a social moral, or a moral principle. The opposite is the case with respect to intellectually heteronomous students. Morally autonomous pupils and students are more likely to be guided by a morality oriented to the ideas of equality, cooperation, and mutual respect, whereas morally heteronomous pupils and students are more likely to be oriented to a morality guided by the ideas of fear, coercion and unilateral respect (see, for this respect, Piaget's book on the moral development of the child).

Baumrind's parental styles may be applied to teachers'/professors' styles of teaching. So, we can think of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive teacher/parents. Authoritative figures whoever are demanding and warm; authoritarian figures are demanding but cold; and permissive figures are guided, say, by the slogan laissez faire, laissez passer, laissez aller (let's it go). There is amassing evidence that shows that contrary to authoritative teachers/professors, authoritarian and permissive ones hinder the several types of psychological development (e.g., cognitive, social, moral, emotional, aesthetical, epistemological) of their pupils/students. Suffice it to say that most of one's knowledge and values heavily relies on consistency and rules, which is at the odds with the idea of  permissive teachers/professors.

As for teachers/professors, we can think of those who master/do not master their area of expertise. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that those who master are more likely to be authoritative than authoritarian and permissive teachers/professors. More to the point, a teacher who is not knowledgeable of his/her own area of expertise is no teacher at all.

We can still think of teachers/professors who are/are not well versed in the details of the psychological development of their pupils/students. If the former is the case, teachers/professors are in a good position to teach to their pupils/students material which is well-tuned for their pupils/students to understand. If the latter is the case, they risk (a) "teaching" to their pupils/students material which they already know and, hence, no teaching/learning occurs; (b) "teaching" to their pupils/students material which is much above their cognitive ability to understand.  In Piagetian terms, nor in (a) neither in (b) takes place any cognitive disequilibrium and, therefore, no assimilation/accommodation occurs. As such, no significant teaching/learning takes place again.

Of course, day by day, technology is pervading the whole field of education, and hence of teaching/learning. The role of this technology in the field of teaching/learning is valuable and undeniable: Be that as it may, technology can never dispense with the human presence. Schools of any type without teachers/professors/pupils/students would be, to say the least, a disaster. More to the point, technology is a human product.

At the beginning, I spoke about a short and a long answer to your questions. Needless to say, my answer is a short answer. Even so, I hope that I have got your questions and that this helps.

Best regards.

Reading my doctoral dissertation may help you understand that people change their preferred learning style during each lesson period and each subject discipline of the day. Remember that constructivist reported the learner is responsible to their learning constructing. Read authors such as Howard Gardner, Bernice McCarthy, Karl Jung, and others. In fact, start with 10 pages of references presented at end of my dissertation. 

Hi ORS Rao!

Your question is related to the impact of Pedagogy on learning outcomes of different profiles of learners. You went on and I say that you would like to know if there is any objective correlation between pedagogy and the outcomes of the learning.

Your questions may be answered through a long or short answer. As you certainly know there are countless books, chapters, papers, talks, and the like which try to relate teachers'/professors' pedagogical practices to the outcomes of their teaching.  

I know of no study looking for an objective correlation between pedagogy and the outcomes of learning.  Even so, it is more than natural to think that pedagogical practices (e.g., active methods versus traditional and conservative methods) have different learning outcomes. Suffices it to say that in the active methods, teachers are more mentors and organizers of learning situations than simple transmitters of knowledge. When the former is the case, it is more likely that their pupils come to be creative, inventors, and innovators rather than conformist students who passively accept all that is taught to them.

 Piagetian terms, one can say that the active methods are to intellectually and morally autonomous pupils or students, such as the traditional or conservative methods are to intellectually and morally heteronomous individuals. 

Intellectually autonomous students are more likely to be intrinsically than extrinsically motivated (see, for this respect, E. Deci's theory of self-determination and its core distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and more inclined to understand rather than memorize what they learn, be it a physical fact,  logical concept, a social moral, or a moral principle. The opposite is the case with respect to intellectually heteronomous students. Morally autonomous pupils and students are more likely to be guided by a morality oriented to the ideas of equality, cooperation, and mutual respect, whereas morally heteronomous pupils and students are more likely to be oriented to a morality guided by the ideas of fear, coercion and unilateral respect (see, for this respect, Piaget's book on the moral development of the child).

Baumrind's parental styles may be applied to teachers'/professors' styles of teaching. So, we can think of authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive teacher/parents. Authoritative figures whoever are demanding and warm; authoritarian figures are demanding but cold; and permissive figures are guided, say, by the slogan laissez faire, laissez passer, laissez aller (let's it go). There is amassing evidence that shows that contrary to authoritative teachers/professors, authoritarian and permissive ones hinder the several types of psychological development (e.g., cognitive, social, moral, emotional, aesthetical, epistemological) of their pupils/students. Suffice it to say that most of one's knowledge and values heavily relies on consistency and rules, which is at the odds with the idea of  permissive teachers/professors.

As for teachers/professors, we can think of those who master/do not master their area of expertise. Unsurprisingly, it has been found that those who master are more likely to be authoritative than authoritarian and permissive teachers/professors. More to the point, a teacher who is not knowledgeable of his/her own area of expertise is no teacher at all.

We can still think of teachers/professors who are/are not well versed in the details of the psychological development of their pupils/students. If the former is the case, teachers/professors are in a good position to teach to their pupils/students material which is well-tuned for their pupils/students to understand. If the latter is the case, they risk (a) "teaching" to their pupils/students material which they already know and, hence, no teaching/learning occurs; (b) "teaching" to their pupils/students material which is much above their cognitive ability to understand.  In Piagetian terms, nor in (a) neither in (b) takes place any cognitive disequilibrium and, therefore, no assimilation/accommodation occurs. As such, no significant teaching/learning takes place again.

Of course, day by day, technology is pervading the whole field of education, and hence of teaching/learning. The role of this technology in the field of teaching/learning is valuable and undeniable: Be that as it may, technology can never dispense with the human presence. Schools of any type without teachers/professors/pupils/students would be, to say the least, a disaster. More to the point, technology is a human product.

At the beginning, I spoke about a short and a long answer to your questions. Needless to say, my answer is a short answer. Even so, I hope that I have got your questions and that this helps.

Best regards.

Very interesting question! I looked at the diverse cultural background profile of learners and accommodating for them in teaching that can inform your question.

Best regards,

Debra

Article One Style Does Not Fit All: Facilitating Cultural Difference...

Conference Paper Culturally Responsive ICT Integration into Teaching and Learning

Very interesting your question.

I work with technology-mediated teaching since 2011. In this brief period I was able to evaluate some relationships between the profile of the students and the pedagogical strategies used.

The mediation of teaching through the use of technologies requires the teacher to plan in detail so that the objectives can be achieved.

Active methodologies encourage students to develop cognitively, in addition to arousing their interest in content.

In this sense I try to combine methodologies such as the Arc de Magueres and Problem Solving combined with technology resources in order to involve students in a more pleasant learning.

That is interesting question

regard my experience, I see that in classroom, its okay to have standard in teaching method (like discuss, problem based learning, etc).

But what I think important is how students learn in out classroom

The result will depend on student characteristic.

I don't know if I understand the question. I try to say something based on my experience in education. Rather than speak of teaching I'll speak of learning, and with methods and tools  knowledge centred  and skills centred , I'd also speak of methods  students centred. I would put the focus on teaching methods that must be used to stimulate certain learnings. For example, for learning in the field of communication and relationship, it is very important to use role-playng for complex cognitive learning, it is good to use problem solving or concept maps. for learning skills, it is useful to use situated feducation and bed side training,

So,   I don't put so much focus on the profile of students, as on the proper use of the most suitable methods to the results that you want to obtain

For example, applying learner- centered approach  to learners who are accustomed with teacher- centered approach.  you can guess the confusion and criticism for first few weeks or even months although the new method  may be eventually accepted by the learners. For technology-supported  learning and teaching, it is important to look at learners'  profiles such as educational background if the word "Profile" you have used, could have that  meaning. Based on this, compare IT students vs Social science students.

This is a great question! If all teachers are aware of the relationship between learning outcomes and profiles of students, teaching will become more fulfilling. Yet it will be an extremely hard job for teachers to deal with individual learning styles, for the size of the class is always large in Chinese mainland schools. My son has 59 classmates. I myself teach at tertiary level, where learner-centered teaching remains an under-researched area. Right now I'm thinking about personal involvement in the orientation where I can speak about learning science and help students raise their awareness since Day 1, but setting up a learning center to help students learn how to learn is really what we need.