Teachers' modeling advantage and their modeling effects on college students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes: a case of collaborative teaching in technical courses.

Chiou, Wen-Bin ; Yang, Chao-Chin

Hospitality has been a mainstream service industry in the 21st century. It is also designated as the target industry by the Taiwanese government. Higher education in the hospitality field in Taiwan is managed by the system of vocational education and aims to raise the level of expertise among practicing professionals. In order to maximize efficiency in training professionals, collaborative teaching has been widely adopted. The technical courses are taught by both professionals (as the technical teachers) and the academic instructors (as the lecturing teachers) to the same students simultaneously. The technical teachers are primarily responsible for the demonstration of practical skills, whereas the lecturing teachers are in charge of illustrating the principles and theories underlying those skills.

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) has noted that a considerable amount of learning takes place in the absence of direct reinforcement, either positive or negative, through a process called modeling or observational learning. Modeling, then, is a process through which individuals learn behaviors, attitudes, values, and beliefs by observing others and the consequences of others' actions. In an educational context, teachers are one of the important role models in students' learning processes. If students recognize teachers as role models, teachers will have an impact on what students learn through social learning.

Considering the modeling effects of teachers on students in technical courses, students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes were chosen in the present study because they are both important to learning and career development. Learning styles influence the academic achievement of college students and certain styles may be more effective for particular activities in the classroom environment (Matthews, 1991). Reading-Brown and Hayden (1989) found that, in higher education, college students' learning styles impact their choice in entering a given institution that would meet their needs. On the other hand, occupational stereotypes are important to students in terms of learning, future career development, and life decisions. Recent studies point out that the modeling effects of teachers have a considerable influence on students' occupational stereotypes (Franken, 1983; Reid, 1995; Beall & Sternberg, 1993). Fox and Renas (1977) demonstrated that students' role models had a crucial influence on their vocational roles. Tiedemann (2000) found that the beliefs of teachers were effective predictors of students' gender-role stereotypes. Thus, teachers in the collaborative teaching of technical courses may affect college students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes through their modeling behaviors.

Within the context of collaborative teaching in technical courses, two teachers engage the same students who may exhibit different learning styles, personalities, and missions. It would be interesting to learn, when the two role models are juxtaposed, which may have more impact on students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes. This study attempts to construct a concept of modeling advantage to investigate the relative advantage of competing types of instructors on students' social learning. Modeling advantage is defined as what the student observers perceive to be the advantages of the two individual role models. This can be a dominant factor in learning style as well as the career type.

In this study, we sought to investigate the modeling effects of two kinds of teachers (the technical teachers vs. the lecturing teachers) in collaborative teaching courses on college students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes.

MODELING ADVANTAGE IN COMPETING MODELS

In everyday life, people often learn by observing what others are doing. Through social learning, we do not learn directly, but rather by observing others. Bandura (1977, 1986) and his colleagues have performed numerous experiments showing that social learning is an effective way of learning. In an educational context, teachers are important models for their students. If teachers become role models, their behaviors, professional knowledge, moral standards, values, beliefs, and ideology can be imitated by students and may be internalized.

However, there are competing models in the educational context. For instance, in courses in vocational education, the technical teachers and the lecturing teachers are two potential models from whom students may learn. Thus, it is important to investigate which model will be more influential. In this study, modeling advantage was tentatively offered to shed light on this issue. Modeling advantage depicts the likelihood of a teacher model being imitated by students over other competing models in a particular class. As a result, the teacher with greater modeling advantage will have a higher probability of being imitated. This concept may provide insight into the differential effects of competing models on students' social learning.

A comprehensive analysis of the probable determinants of role models' modeling advantage (Bandura, 1986; Sternberg, 2000) revealed four factors which may increase the likelihood that observers will imitate a given model in social learning: (1) the model stands out in contrast to other competing models; (2) the model is liked and respected by peers (or by others in the industry; (3) the model is perceived to be similar to the observer; and (4) the model's behavior is reinforced. Comparing the differences in modeling advantage between technical teachers and lecturing teachers according to the above factors may provide a solid basis on which to predict the kind of teachers in collaborative teaching settings that will be students' models.

The technical teachers usually possess rich career experiences and technical skills. In the teaching process, their outstanding skills may surpass the illustration of concepts and theories offered by the lecturing teachers and thus attract students' attention. Therefore, technical teachers may be more likely to stand out in collaborative teaching settings and be more imitated as a model than lecturing teachers. Yang (2000) found that most freshmen who majored in hospitality, tourism or culinary arts hope they will become chefs of managers in the hospitality and tourism industry within 10 years after graduation. This suggests that students' occupational roles may correspond to technical teachers more than to lecturing teachers. The technical teachers' skills and achievements in their industrial careers also make students feel they have more in common with technical than with lecturing teachers. Finally, technical teachers with excellent reputations are the ones who can be employed and teach at colleges. In the context of technical courses, students may pay less attention to the academic achievements of lecturing teachers because technical skills are the focus of their learning. The honorary titles won by technical teachers in professional competitions make them more likely to be recognized by students. As a result, technical teachers may have a greater modeling advantage than lecturing teachers when collaboratively teaching the technical courses.

ROLE MODELS AND COLLEGE STUDENTS' LEARNING STYLES AND OCCUPATIONAL STEREOTYPES

The experiences in career training between technical teachers and lecturing teachers are quite different (Yang, 2000). These might lead to differential orientations in learning styles as well as occupational stereotypes between the two kinds of teachers. Haar, Hall, Schoepp, and Smith (2002) demonstrated that teachers' own learning styles influenced their teaching. Therefore, teachers' learning styles could affect student learning. In technical courses, the prior educational experiences of two kinds of teachers may have led them to adopt learning styles in the process of collaborative teaching. It was further predicted that students' learning style preferences would be consistent with the teachers they perceived to have greater modeling advantage.

Fennema (1990) suggested that teachers would bring their stereotypes to teaching. Solomon (1997) found that roles, perspectives, and practices that teachers brought to pedagogy are affected by their gender and professional stereotypes, and students' occupational stereotypes also would be influenced by those stereotypes perceived from teachers. Keller (2001) further demonstrated that teachers' stereotypes significantly affect students' stereotypes after controlling for achievement, interest, and self-confidence. Yang (2000) found that technical and lecturing teachers exhibit different career beliefs and ideas about vocational education. Students' occupational stereotypes would seem to be affected by two kinds of teachers through role modeling. Therefore, it would be important to investigate which kind is more likely to be a role model because role models for college students have considerable impact on career priority (Kirrane & Ryan, 2000), career goals (Nelson, Acker, & Mains, 1996), and career decisions (Fox & Renas, 1977). Based upon the notion of modeling advantage, teachers with advantaged modeling would have greater influence on students' occupational stereotypes.

METHOD

Participants and Design

The sample included freshmen in a four-year bachelor program (Department of Culinary Arts and Department of Baking Technology and Management) at a national hospitality college in Taiwan. One hundred and seventy-four freshmen taking the technical course were recruited to participate in a longitudinal study. In order to examine whether the relationship of students' perceived modeling advantage of teachers and their preferences for learning style would be stable, and students' prior perceived modeling advantage of teachers would be an effective predictor of their subsequent preferences for learning styles, the cross-lagged panel design (Cook & Campbell, 1979) was adopted (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

As shown in Figure 1, "variable A" notes students' perceived modeling advantage of teachers, whereas "variable B" notes their preferences for learning styles. Subtitled numbers signify the timing of measurements: 'T' denotes the pretest and "2" denotes the posttest. The correlations of [A.sub.1][B.sub.1] and [A.sub.2][B.sub.2] are defined as the synchronous coefficients, which are used to determine if the relationship of two test variables is stable over a certain period. The correlations of [A.sub.1][B.sub.2] and [B.sub.1][A.sub.2] are defined as the panel coefficients and are used to explore the mutually predictive relationships of two test variables. More specifically, [r.sub.A1B2] is employed to determine if students' prior perceived modeling advantage of teachers may predict their subsequent preferences for learning styles, whereas [r.sub.A2B1] is employed to examine if individuals' prior preferences for learning styles may predict their subsequent perceived modeling advantage of teachers.

In the study, participants completed the first survey (the pretest) in the beginning of their second semester in college. The survey measured students' perceived modeling advantages of two kinds of teachers, learning style preferences, and occupational stereotypes. Meanwhile, teachers' learning styles and occupational stereotypes were also assessed in order to obtain the data necessary to compute the consistency between students and teachers. At the end of the semester, a second survey was administered (the posttest) to obtain the data that would determine whether the impacts of role models on their learning style preferences and occupational stereotypes were stable.

Measurements

Modeling advantage. Based on the four factors that impact role models' modeling advantage (Bandura, 1986; Sternberg, 2000), the initial survey was designed to examine the differential advantage between two kinds of teachers in collaborative teaching settings. The formal scale consisted of the modeling advantage of technical teachers' subscale (MATT, 9 items) and the modeling advantage of lecturing teachers' subscale (MALT, 8 items). Participants respond to 17 items on a 7-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was .85 for the MATT and .88 for the MALT subscales. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with Structural Equation Modeling was adopted to establish construct validity. The results showed that the overall fitness of the Modeling Advantage Scale was acceptable (GFI = .93, AGFI = .90, NFI = .89, RMSEA = .04). The path coefficients that ranged from 0.45 to 1.04 in the measurement model in CFA were all significant at p < .05 (t-values ranged from 4.09 to 8.36).

With regard to the classification of students' role models, participants whose scores in the MATT were higher than those in the MALT by at least half the standard deviation of difference scores were placed in the "technical-teachers as role models" group, whereas participants who scored higher in the MALT were placed in the "lecturing-teachers as role models" group.

Learning style preferences. In collaborative teaching, technical teachers are in charge of demonstrating practical skills, whereas lecturing teachers are responsible for illustrating principles and theories. Students' learning style preferences can be categorized into two distinct modes. The experience-driven mode denotes the learning style demonstrated by the technical teachers and the theory-driven denotes the learning style emphasized by the lecturing teachers. Thus, the learning style preferences scale consisted of the experience-driven mode subscale (EDM) and the theory-driven mode subscale (TDM). The initial items of this scale were developed according to the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985), the Index of Learning Style (Felder & Silverman, 1988), and included other self-designed items. The formal scale consisted of 7 items in each subscale respectively. Participants were asked to rate their learning style preferences on a 7-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree. The internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was .87 for the EDM and .89 for the TDM. CFA was conducted to examine the construct validity of this scale. The overall model fit index indicated that the factor structure was marginally acceptable (GFI = .91, AGFI = .89, NFI = .88, RMSEA = .05). The path coefficients of the measurement model in CFA ranged from 0.34 to 1.11, and all of them were significant atp < .05 (t-values ranged from 1.89 to 9.59).

Occupational stereotypes. The assessment of participants' occupational stereotypes in this study included gender and professional stereotypes. The scale was developed according to the items that measured gender and professional stereotypes in the Checklist for Career Beliefs in College Students (Ji, 1994). Participants were asked to rate the items on a 7-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally disagree. The formal scale consists of the professional stereotypes subscale (PSS, 8 items) and the gender stereotypes subscale (GSS, 7 items). The internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was .91 for the PSS and .92 for the GSS. Further CFA showed that the overall fitness of the measurement model was satisfactory (GFI = .93, AGFI = .91, NFI = .90, RMSEA = .03). The path coefficients of the measurement model ranged from 0.37 to 1.24 and were all significant at p < .05 (t-values ranged from 1.81 to 7.30).

RESULTS

Difference of Perceived Modeling Advantage between the Two Role Models

Based on participants' evaluations of modeling advantage, the difference between two kinds of role models was examined (see Table 1). Participants' perceived modeling advantage of two role models was significantly different in the pretest data, F(1,173) = 325.49, p < .001. The modeling advantage of technical teachers (M = 5.70) was greater than that for lecturing teachers (M = 4.18). A consistent pattern was also revealed in the posttest data. The perceived modeling advantage of technical teachers (M = 5.29) was slightly lowered but still significantly greater than that for lecturing teachers (M = 4.20), F(1, 173) = 157.66, p < .001.

Role Models' Modeling Advantage and Students' Learning Styles

The interaction of role models and learning style preferences was not significant between pretest and posttest, F(1,172) = 1.92, ns. Thus, the pretest and posttest data were then respectively submitted to a 2 (learning style preferences: the experience-driven mode vs. the theory-driven model) x 2 (role models: the technical teachers vs. the lecturing teachers) mixed-factorial model (see Table 2). Pretest data indicated a significant interaction of learning style preferences and role models, F(1, 172) = 7.97, p < .01. Further testing of simple main effects (pretest) indicated that the preference scores of the experience-driven mode (M = 36.30) were significantly higher than the theory-driven mode (M = 30.02) for students whose role model was the technical teachers, F(1, 141) = 117.90, p < .001. Those students whose role model was the lecturing teachers also scored higher in the experience-driven mode (M = 34.03) rather than in the theory-driven mode (M = 31.50), F(1, 31) = 5.23, p < .05. These findings reveal that in the pretest data, students' had greater preferences for the experience-driven learning style regardless of their role models. As for the posttest data, students' preferences for the experience-driven learning style were significantly higher than for the theory-driven style (p < .05) regardless of their role models: F(1, 141) = 52.59 for the technical-teachers group and F(1, 31) = 5.94 for the lecturing-teachers group.

The results of the cross-lagged panel analysis for participants' perceived modeling advantage of two kinds of teachers and learning style preferences are shown in Table 3.

As to the cross-lagged panel analysis of the perceived modeling advantage of technical teachers and students' preferences for the experience-driven mode, the synchronous coefficients of the pretest and posttest data were both significant at p < .01, [r.sub.A1B1] = .43 and [R.sub.A2B2] = .66, respectively. These findings indicate that a positive correlation of the modeling advantage of technical teachers and learning style preferences for the experience-driven mode was stable and consistent over a one-semester period. In terms of the panel coefficients, both were significant at p < .01, [r.sub.A1B2] = .36 and [r.sub.B1A2] = .25, respectively. In general, the results reveal that students who perceived higher modeling advantage of technical teachers subsequently had greater preferences for the experience-driven learning style. On the other hand, students who had higher preferences for the experience-driven mode perceived subsequently greater modeling advantage of technical teachers.

With regard to the relationship of the modeling advantage of lecturing teachers and preferences for the theory-driven learning style, the synchronous coefficients and the panel coefficients in Table 3 were all significant at p < .01. In general, results reveal that students who perceived higher modeling advantage of lecturing teachers had greater preference for the theory-driven learning style. Consequently, students who had higher preferences for the theory-driven mode perceived higher modeling advantage of lecturing teachers. The correlations of the modeling advantage of lecturing teachers and students' preferences for the theory-driven mode were quite stable over a one-semester period.

Role Models' Modeling Advantage and Students" Occupational Stereotypes

Both the pretest and posttest data were respectively submitted to a 2 (the consistency with the two role models) x 2 (role models) mixed ANOVA, treating the consistency with the two role models as a repeated factor and the role models as a between-subjects factor. The descriptive statistics of participants' responses are shown in Table 4.

The pretest data showed that a two-way interaction was significant, F(1, 172) = 9.67, p < .01. Further testing of simple main effects revealed that students whose role models were technical teachers showed higher consistency in their occupational stereotypes with technical (M = 12.47) rather than with lecturing teachers (M = 14.73), F(1, 141) = 6.59, p < .05. In contrast, those who identified lecturing teachers as their role models expressed higher consistency in occupational stereotypes with lecturing teachers (M = 12.56) rather than with technical teachers (M = 16.75), F(1, 31) = 4.58, p < .05.

A similar pattern of students' consistency with their role models occupational stereotypes was found in the posttest data. Students' consistency of scores of occupational stereotypes with their role models at posttest were contingent upon which kind of teachers were chosen as role models, F(1, 172) = 6.74,p < .01. For students choosing the technical teachers as role models, the discrepancy (smaller scores represent higher consistency) with teachers (M = 13.48) was significantly less than with lecturing teachers (M = 15.84). On the other hand, students whose role models were lecturing teachers exhibited smaller discrepancy (i.e., higher consistency) with lecturing teachers (M = 11.97) than with technical teachers (M = 15.97), F(1,31) = 6.27, p < .05.

DISCUSSION

This study revealed that participants' perceived greater modeling advantage of technical teachers than that of lecturing teachers in the collaborative teaching of technical courses. Generally speaking, the technical teachers, because of their rich industrial experience, excellent skills, competition titles, and congruity with students' career goals, are likely to enjoy greater modeling advantage over the lecturing teachers. The finding was consistent with the prediction that technical teachers tend to possess greater modeling effects on students' learning styles and career stereotypes over lecturing teachers in the collaborative teaching of technical courses.

The results of the cross-lagged panel analysis showed that those participants who perceived higher modeling advantage of technical teachers expressed greater preferences for the experience-driven mode. The mutual correlation of the technical teachers' modeling advantage and the participants' preferences for the experience-driven learning style was found in this longitudinal study. A similar correlational pattern of the lecturing teachers' modeling advantage and the participants' preferences for the theory-driven learning style was also obtained. These findings echoed Carol's (1991) argument, i.e., teachers' learning styles impact students' learning styles via the modeling process. The results were consistent with the findings of Honigsfeld and Schiering (2004). More specifically, findings in this research suggest that teachers' modeling advantage plays an important role that mediates the modeling effects of teachers' learning styles on students' learning style preferences. The differential model advantage of two kinds of teachers in collaborative teaching could account for students' preferences for specific learning styles. With regard to the modeling effects of teachers' occupational stereotypes on students, the results showed that participants' occupational stereotypes were consistent with those of their role models. The findings were not only congruent with the findings of Keller (2001), but also suggest that college students' occupational stereotypes could be affected by those of their teachers (see also Fennema, 1990; Soloman, 1997).

In general, this article indicates that teachers are role models for college students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes throughout technical courses that are taught collaboratively. Educators and administrators in higher education should pay more attention to the modeling effects of teachers and scrutinize the outcomes of collaborative teaching in technical courses based upon competing models' modeling advantage. The results also suggest that modeling advantage, a brand new concept in social learning theory, can be an effective mediator to explain and predict which role model will exhibit greater modeling effects on students. Since there are several competing models in the context of students' social learning, modeling advantage may provide further insights into differential modeling as an option for students.

It should be noted that there are limitations to the present study. The participants were Taiwanese college students, and Taiwan, like many other Asian countries, is a society marked by collectivism (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Collectivists are more likely to be sensitive and try to meet others' expectations than do other personality types (Kim, 1997). Future research might employ cross-cultural studies to examine if the mediating effect of modeling advantage is contingent upon students' national character. Since the time frame of the cross-lagged panel analysis was one semester, a longer period with more consecutive assessments that examine a longer-term effect and that explore competing models' modeling advantage on students' learning styles and occupational stereotypes as well as the stability of these impacts would be beneficial to those in technical education.

As to future directions, whether teachers' learning styles could impact on students' academic achievement is worth further investigation because many studies have demonstrated that students' leaning styles are closely related to their achievements (e.g., Cassidy & Eachus, 2000; Collinson, 2000; Snyder, 2000). However, Bacon (2004) found that the relationship of students' learning styles to their achievements would be underestimated if internal consistency reliability of the scale was low. Thus, satisfactory reliability of the scale for measuring learning styles should be established before examining their effect on achievement. Fox and Renas (1977) found that role models would affect students' vocational roles. Besides occupational stereotypes, future studies may examine if teachers who are chosen as their role models also affect students' career beliefs, career goals, or career decisions. By doing so, the influences of teachers on students' career development could be further understood.

This research found that college students exhibited greater preferences for the experience-driven mode as their choice of role models. It will be interesting to learn if this preferred learning style spills over to the learning process in other courses. If so, we might establish that the fitness between teachers' teaching and students' learning styles critically impact students' learning achievement (also see Hayes & Allinson, 1996). Based on the notion that achievement is higher when instructional strategies utilize methods consistent with students' preferred learning styles (Horton & Oakland, 1997), future studies may test the hypothesis to examine the effect of teachers' modeling advantage on the interplay of their instruction and students' learning styles.

This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Contract No. NSC 92-2516-S-328-003).

REFERENCES

Bacon, D. R. (2004). An examination of two learning style measures and their association with business learning. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 205-208.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beall, A. E., & Steinberg, R. J. (1993). The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.

Carol, M. (1991). Teachers' learning styles: How they affect student learning. The Clearing House, 64(4), 225-227.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief system, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 307-322.

Collinson, E. (2000). A survey of elementary students' learning style preferences and academic success. Contemporary Education, 71(4), 42-46.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, I. K. (1988). Learning styles and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.

Fennema, E. (1990). Teachers' beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennema & G. C. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169-187). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fox, H. W., & Renas, S. R. (1977). Stereotypes of women in the media and their impact on women's careers. Human Resource Management, 16(1), 28-31.

Franken, M. W. (1983). Sex role expectations in children's vocational aspirations and perceptions of occupation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 59-68.

Haar, J., Hall, G., Schoepp, P., & Smith, D. H. (2002). How teachers teach to students with different learning styles. The Clearing House, 75(3), 142-145.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1996). The implications of learning styles for training and development: A discussion of the matching hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 7(1), 63-73.

Honigsfeld, A., & Schiering, M. (2004). Diverse approaches to the diversity of learning styles in teacher education. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 487-508.

Horton, C. B., & Oakland, T. (1997). Temperament-based learning styles as moderators of academic achievement. Adolescence, 32(125), 131-140.

Ji, X. Y. (1994). An investigation on the career types and beliefs among college students [in Chinese]. Master's dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Republic of China.

Keller, C. (2001). Effect of teachers' stereotyping on students' stereotyping of mathematics as a male domain. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 165-173.

Kim, U. (1997). Asian collectivism: An indigenous perspective. In H. S. R. Kao & D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 147-163). New Delhi, India: Sage.

Kirrane, M., & Ryan, A. (2000). Career expectations of the new workforce: New beginnings or enduring stereotypes. Management Research News, 23(9), 93-94.

Kolb, D. A. (1985). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Matthews, D. B. (1991). The effects of learning styles on grades of first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 32(3), 253-267.

Nelson, T. E., Acker, M., & Manis, M. (1996). Impressible stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(1), 13-14.

Reading-Brown, Margery, S., & Hayden, R. R. (1989). Learning styles--liberal arts and technical training: What's the difference? Psychological Reports, 64(2), 507-518.

Reid, G. M. (1995). Children's occupational sex-role stereotyping in 1994. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 1155-1165.

Snyder, R. F. (2000). The relationship between learning styles/multiple intelligences and academic achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 83(2), 11-20.

Solomon, R. P. (1997). Race, role modeling, and representation in teacher education and teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 394-410.

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Pathways to psychology (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.

Tiedemann, J. (2000). Parents' gender stereotypes and teachers' beliefs as predictors of children's concept of their mathematical ability in elementary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 144-151.

Yang, C. C. (2000). Affective domain in the teaching of vocational education. Paper presented at the 2000 Technological and Vocational and Education Conference Cross Straits, Taipei, Republic of China.

Wen-Bin Chiou, General Educational Center, National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Chao-Chin Yang, Department of Chinese Culinary Arts, National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, No. 1, Sung-Ho Rd., Kaohsiung 812, Taiwan, ROC. E-mail: gin@mail.nkhc.edu.tw Table 1. Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Perceived Modeling Advantages of Role Models Time of Measurement Role Model's Modeling Pretest Posttest Advantage Technical teachers 5.70 (0.79) 5.29 (0.84) Lecturing teachers 4.18 (0.77) 4.20 (0.75) Note. Participants' ratings on the perceived modeling advantage of two role models ranged from 1 to 7. Participants perceived significantly greater modeling advantage of technical teachers at both pretest and posttest (p < .001). Table 2. Means (and Standard Deviations) of Students' Learning Style Preferences by Their Role Models Role Models Group Learning Style Preferences Technical Teachers Lecturing Teachers (n = 142) (n =32) Pretest Experience-driven mode 36.30 (6.44) 34.03 (6.45) Theory-driven mode 30.02 (5.90) 31.50 (4.58) Posttest Experience-driven mode 35.46 (6.64) 33.68 (6.34) Theory-driven mode 30.79 (4.98) 30.53 (4.48) Note. Participants' preferences for each learning style were rated on a 7-point scale, and the scores of each subscale ranged from 7 to 49. Table 3. Students' Perceived Modeling Advantage of Role Models and Their Preferences for Corresponded Learning Styles Variables A1 B1 A2 B2 Technical teachers' modeling advantage and students' preferences for the experience-driven mode A1. Modeling advantage of technical teachers at pretest -- B1. Preferences for the .43 (a) -- experience-driven mode at pretest A2. Modeling advantage of technical .52 (b) .25 (c) -- teachers at posttest B2. Preferences for the .36 (c) .32 (b) .66 (a) -- experience-driven mode at posttest Lecturing teachers' modeling advantage and students' preferences for the theory-driven mode A1. Modeling advantage of lecturing teachers at pretest B1. Preferences for the theory-driven .35 (a) -- mode at pretest A2. Modeling advantage of lecturing .54 (b) .21 (c) -- teachers at posttest B2. Preferences for the theory-driven .30 (c) .27 (b) .44 (a) -- mode at posttest Note. Variables' subtitled number "1" denotes the pretest and "2" denotes the posttest based on the cross-lagged panel analysis (also see Figure 1). All coefficients were significant at p < .01. (a) the synchronous coefficients. (b) the test-retest reliability coefficients. (c) the panel coefficients. Table 4. Means (and Standard Deviations) of the Consistency Scores of Students' Occupational Stereotypes by Role Models Role Models Group Consistency with Role Technical Lecturing Models Teachers Teachers Pretest Consistency with the 12.47 (7.93) 16.75 (10.39) technical teachers Consistency with the 14.73 (8.53) 12.56 (8.76) lecturing teachers Posttest Consistency with the 13.48 (6.97) 15.97 (6.90) technical teachers Consistency with the 15.84 (10.15) 11.97 (9.22) lecturing teachers Note: The "technical-teachers as role models" group consisted of 142 participants, whereas the "lecturing-teachers as role models" group consisted of 32 participants. The consistency scores (absolute value) were computed between the teachers and the students' ratings on occupational stereotypes. Smaller scores represent lower discrepancy (and higher consistency) between students' occupational stereotypes and their role models.