Abstract:

This research paper, for the 18th INTED Conference (Valencia, Spain, 4-6 March 2024) examines a way of evaluating the Pedagogical Variation Model (PVM, Rogers 2013) for Learning and Teaching in the context of a Master’s Degree Course in Professional and Technological Education. The methodology of this international collaborative research is survey-based involving the distribution of a specific evaluation questionnaire (Rogers, 2013) regarding the identification of four learning styles to match with four teaching strategies, namely constructivist, self-directed, collaborative, and instructivist, based on a pedagogical leadership paradigm inspired by the two concepts of leadership namely:
(i) Transactional (task-giving) and
(ii) Transformational (empowering / motivational) developed by researchers Avolio, Bass and Jung (2000).

The PVM Evaluation Questionnaire elicits students’ responses to the matching of e-learner teaching preferences according to their preferred learning styles. The sample population included nine (09) students of the Master's degree in Professional and Technological Education, enrolled in teaching and learning theories classes. These were face-to-face classes during the academic semester 2023/2 (from August/2023 to November/2023).The PVM is constructed with a graphical design known as the Boston Matrix consisting of four quadrants. One such Matrix Format, regarding learner characteristics, is based on two variable identifiers, namely:
(i) learner collaborative capabilities and
(ii) learner knowledge construction and practical skills.

A second Boston Matrix Format elucidates pedagogical leadership characteristics of teachers / lecturers, namely:
(i) Transactional (task-giving) and
(ii) Transformational ((empowering / motivational), providing the Master’s degree students with insights regarding transactional pedagogical leadership (i.e. task-giving) in comparison to transactional pedagogical leadership (i.e. empowerment/ motivation).

Several researchers including Armelinni et al. (2021, 2023), Salmon et al. (2017), Bonk (2016), and Wang (2013) recognise the invaluable contribution of online learning environments in Higher Education, yet advocate means of increasing retention rates i.e. by decreasing attrition rates, within such learning spaces. The authors, Rogers, and Nichele (2014-2023) also during their nine years of internationally recognised collaborative research initiatives, provide insights to how the PVM concept may be adapted for different disciplines, world-wide within the variety of multicultural perspectives. The PVM gives e-learners the choice as to whether they (e-learners) are more or less ‘comfortable in a “constructivist learning environment (i.e. student-centred) or vice versa instructivist one (i.e. e-moderator centred). The PVM reaches out to learners from all capabilities, whereby lifelong learning. . .online. . .is made not only enjoyable but also meets the needs of those looking for ways to sustain their ‘cognitive reserve’ and “social capital”, also for health and well-being. Cobo (2023), in his keynote speech at iCERi (International Conference for Education, Research and Innovation, November 2023), warned educational institutions, Schools. Colleges and Universities about their responsibilities in providing appropriate learning spaces for the promotion of lifelong learning schemes for the growing population of nonagenarians and centenarians due to the increasing longevity of the human lifespan.

Keywords:

Innovation, lifelong learning, collaborative, constructivist, self-directed learning, instructivist, pedagogical leadership, transactional, transformational.