sign in sign up
<<
Home , Education

AND TEACHING STYLES IN [Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]

Author’s Preface — June 2002 by Richard M. Felder

When Linda Silverman and I wrote this paper in 1987, our goal was to offer some insights about teaching and learning based on Dr. Silverman’s expertise in educational and my in that would be helpful to some of my fellow engineering . When the paper was published early in 1988, the response was astonishing. Almost immediately, reprint requests flooded in from all over the world. The paper started to be cited in the engineering education literature, then in the general education literature; it was the first article cited in the premier issue of ERIC’s National Teaching and Learning Forum; and it was the most frequently cited paper in articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education over a 10-year period. A self-scoring web-based instrument called the Index of that assesses preferences on four scales of the learning style model developed in the paper currently gets about 100,000 hits a year and has been translated into half a dozen languages that I know about and probably more that I don’t, even though it has not yet been validated. The 1988 paper is still cited more than any other paper I have written, including more recent papers on learning styles. A problem is that in recent years I have found reasons to make two significant changes in the model: dropping the inductive/deductive dimension, and changing the visual/auditory category to visual/verbal. (I will shortly explain both modifications.) When I up my web site, I deliberately left the 1988 paper out of it, preferring that readers consult more recent articles on the subject that better reflected my current thinking. Since the paper seems to have acquired a life of its own, however, I decided to add it to the web site with this preface included to explain the changes. The paper is reproduced following the preface, unmodified from the original version except for changes in layout I made for reasons that would be known to anyone who has ever tried to scan a 3-column article with inserts and convert it into a Microsoft Word document.

Deletion of the inductive/deductive dimension

I have come to believe that while induction and deduction are indeed different learning preferences and different teaching approaches, the “best” method of teaching—at least below the graduate level—is induction, whether it be called problem-based learning, discovery learning, inquiry learning, or some variation on those themes. On the other hand, the traditional is deduction, starting with "fundamentals" and proceeding to applications.

The problem with inductive presentation is that it isn't concise and prescriptive—you have to take a thorny problem or a of observations or data and try to make sense of it. Many or most would say that they prefer deductive presentation—“Just tell me exactly what I to know for the , not one word more or less.” (My speculation in the paper that more students would prefer induction was refuted by additional sampling.) I don't want 2 instructors to be able to determine somehow that their students prefer deductive presentation and use that result to justify continuing to use the traditional but less effective in their courses and curricula. I have therefore omitted this dimension from the model.

Change of the visual/auditory dimension to the visual/verbal dimension

“Visual” clearly includes pictures, diagrams, charts, plots, animations, etc., and “auditory” information clearly includes spoken words and other sounds. The one medium of information transmission that is not clear is written prose. It is perceived visually and so obviously cannot be categorized as auditory, but it is also a mistake to lump it into the visual category as though it were equivalent to a picture in transmitting information. Cognitive scientists have established that our brains generally convert written words into their spoken equivalents and process them in the same way that they process spoken words. Written words are therefore not equivalent to real visual information: to a visual learner, a picture is truly worth a thousand words, whether they are spoken or written. Making the learning style pair visual and verbal solves this problem by permitting spoken and written words to be included in the same category (verbal). For more details about the studies that led to this conclusion, see R.M. Felder and E.R. Henriques, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second ,” Foreign Language Annals, 28 (1), 21–31 (1995). .

The Index of Learning Styles

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is a self-scoring web-based instrument that assesses preferences on the Sensing/Intuiting, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Global dimensions. It is available free to individuals and instructors who wish to use it for teaching and on their own classes, and it is licensed to companies and individuals who plan to use it for broader research studies or services to customers or clients. To access the ILS and information about it, go to .

And now, the paper.

674 “Professors confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance and dropouts, know that something is wrong.” The authors explain what has happened and how to make it right.

Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education

Richard M. Felder, North Carolina Linda K. Silverman, Institute for the Study of Advanced Development [Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]

Students learn in many ways— by students (making things even worse) interaction with others. The outcome is seeing and ; reflecting and or begin to wonder if they are in the that the material is either “learned” in acting; reasoning logically and right . Most seriously, one sense or another or not learned. intuitively; memorizing and loses potentially excellent A learning-style model classifies visualizing and analogies engineers. students according to where they fit on a and mathematical models; In discussing this situation, we will number of scales pertaining to the ways steadily and in fits and starts. explore: they receive and process information. A Teaching methods also vary. Some 1) Which aspects of learning style model intended to be particularly instructors lecture, others are particularly significant in engi- applicable to engineering education is demonstrate or discuss; some focus neering education? proposed below. Also proposed is a on principles and others on applica- 2) Which learning styles are pre- parallel teaching-style model, which tions; some emphasize memory and ferred by most students and which are classifies instructional methods others understanding. How much a favored by the teaching styles of most according to how well they address the given learns in a class is professors? proposed learning style components. The governed in part by that student’s 3) What can be done to reach stu- learning and teaching style dimensions native ability and prior preparation dents whose learning styles are not that define the models are shown in the but also by the compatibility of his addressed by standard methods of box. or her learning style and the engineering education? Most of the learning and teaching instructor’s teaching style. style components parallel one another.* Mismatches exist between com- Dimensions of Learning Style A student who favors intuitive over mon learning styles of engineering sensory perception, for example, would students and traditional teaching Learning in a structured educa- respond well to an instructor who styles of engineering professors. In tional setting may be thought of as a emphasizes concepts (abstract content) consequence, students become two-step process involving the recep- rather than facts (concrete content); a bored and inattentive in class, do tion and processing of information. In student who favors visual perception poorly on tests, get discouraged the reception step, external in- would be most comfortable with an about the courses, the , formation (observable through the instructor who uses charts, pictures, and and themselves, and in some cases senses) and internal information films. change to other curricula or drop (arising introspectively) become out of school. Professors, available to students, who select the confronted by low test grades, material they will process and ignore * The one exception is the active/ unresponsive or hostile classes, the rest. The processing step may reflective learning style dimension and poor attendance and dropouts, know involve simple or in- the active/passive teaching style dimen- something is not working; they may ductive or deductive reasoning, re- sion, which do not exactly correspond. become overly critical of their flection or action, and introspection or The difference will later be explained.

675

The proposed learning style di- Models of Learning & mensions are neither original nor Teaching Styles comprehensive. For example, the first dimension—sensing/intuition— is one A student’s learning style may be defined in large part by the answers to of four dimensions of a well-known five questions: model based on Jung’s of 1) What type of information does the student preferentially perceive: psychological types,1’2 and the fourth sensory (external)—sights, sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive (in- dimension—active/reflective ternal)—possibilities, insights, hunches? processing—is a component of a 2) Through which sensory channel is external information most effectively learning style model developed by perceived: visual—pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or auditory— Kolb.3 Other dimensions of these two words, sounds? (Other sensory channels—touch, taste, and smell—are models and dimensions of other mod- relatively unimportant in most educational environments and will not be els4’5 also play important roles in considered here.) determining how a student receives 3) With which of information is the student most com- fortable: inductive—facts and observations are given, underlying principles and processes information. The hy- are inferred, or deductive—principles are given, consequences and pothesis, however, is that engineering applications are deduced? instructors who adapt their teaching 4) How does the student prefer to process information: actively— through style to include both poles of each of engagement in physical activity or discussion, or reflectively— through the given dimensions should come introspection? close to providing an optimal learning 5) How does the student toward understanding: sequentially—in environment for most (if not all) continual steps, or globally—in large jumps, holistically? students in a class. There are 32 (25) learning styles in Teaching style may also be defined in terms of the answers to five questions: the proposed , 1) What type of information is emphasized by the instructor: concrete— (one, for example, is the sensory/ factual, or abstract—conceptual, theoretical? auditory/deductive/active/sequential 2) What mode of presentation is stressed: visual—pictures, diagrams, style). Most instructors would be films, demonstrations, or verbal— , , discussions? intimidated by the prospect of trying 3) How is the presentation organized: inductively—phenomena leading to to accommodate 32 diverse styles in a principles, or deductively— principles leading to phenomena? given class; fortunately, the task is not 4) What mode of student participation is facilitated by the presentation: as formidable as it might at first active—students talk, move, reflect, or passive—students watch and listen? appear. The usual methods of engi- 5) What type of perspective is provided on the information presented: neering education adequately address sequential—step-by-step progression (the trees), or global—context and relevance (the forest)? five categories (intuitive, auditory, deductive, reflective, and sequential), Dimensions of Learning and Teaching Styles and effective teaching techniques substantially overlap the remaining Preferred Learning Style Corresponding Teaching Style categories. The addition of a relatively sensory concrete small number of teaching techniques perception content to an instructor’s repertoire should intuitive abstract therefore suffice to accommodate the visual visual learning styles of every student in the input presentation class. Defining these techniques is the auditory verbal principal objective of the remainder of inductive inductive organization this paper. organization deductive deductive active active student processing participation reflective passive sequential sequential understanding perspective global global

676 Sensing and Intuitive Learners for a different reason—their impa- of sensors and intuitors are tience with details may induce them to listed in the summary. In his theory of psychological types, start answering questions before they Carl Jung6 introduced sensing and have read them thoroughly and to Visual and Auditory Learners make careless mistakes. intuition as the two ways in which Most engineering courses other than people tend to perceive the world. laboratories emphasize concepts rather The ways people receive informa- Sensing involves observing, gathering than facts and use primarily lectures tion may be divided into three cate- data through the senses; intuition and readings (words, symbols) to gories, sometimes referred to as mo- involves indirect perception by way of transmit information, and so favor dalities: visual—sights, pictures, the unconscious—speculation, imagin- intuitive learners. Several studies show diagrams, symbols; auditory— sounds, ation, hunches. Everyone uses both that most professors are themselves words; kinesthetic—taste, touch, and faculties, but most people tend to favor intuitors. On the other hand, the smell. An extensive body of research one over the other. majority of engineering students are has established that most people learn sensors,8-10 suggesting a serious In the 1940s Isabel Briggs Myers most effectively with one of the three learning/teaching style mismatch in developed the Myers-Briggs Type modalities and tend to miss or ignore Indicator (MBTI), an instrument that most engineering courses. The existence of the mismatch is information presented in either of the measures, among other things, the 11,12 other two.13-17 There are thus visual, degree to which an individual prefers substantiated by Godleski, who auditory, and kinesthetic learners.* sensing or intuition. In the succeeding found that in both chemical and decades the MBTI has been given to electrical engineering courses intuitive Visual learners remember best what hundreds of thousands of people and students almost invariably got higher they see: pictures, diagrams, the resulting profiles have been grades than sensing students. The one charts, time lines, films, dem- correlated with preferences and exception was a senior in onstrations. If something is simply chemical process and cost aptitudes, styles, learning said to them they will probably forget estimation, which the author styles, and various behavioral it. Auditory learners remember much tendencies. The characteristics of characterizes as a “solid sensing 7 course” (i.e. one that involves facts of what they hear and more of what intuitive and sensing types and the they hear and then say. They get a lot different ways in which sensors and and repetitive calculations by well- out of discussion, prefer verbal intuitors approach learning1,2 have been defined procedures as opposed to studied. many new ideas and abstract explanation to visual demonstration, concepts). Sensors like facts, data, and ex- and learn effectively by explaining While sensors may not perform as things to others. perimentation; intuitors prefer prin- well as intuitors in school, both types ciples and . Sensors like solv- Most people of college age and are capable of becoming fine engineers older are visual13,18 while most college ing problems by standard methods and and are essential to engineering dislike “surprises”; intuitors like practice. Many engineering tasks teaching is verbal—the information and dislike repetition. require the awareness of surroundings, presented is predominantly auditory Sensors are patient with detail but do attentiveness to details, experimental (lecturing) or a visual representation of not like complications; intuitors are thoroughness, and practicality that are auditory information (words and bored by detail and welcome the hallmarks of sensors; many other mathematical symbols written in texts tasks require the , theoretical complications. Sensors are good at and handouts, on transparencies, or on ability, and talent at inspired memorizing facts; intuitors are good at a chalkboard). A second learning/ guesswork that characterize intuitors. teaching style mismatch thus exists, grasping new concepts. Sensors are To be effective, engineering edu- careful but may be slow; intuitors are cation should reach both types, rather * Visual and auditory learning both quick but may be careless. These than directing itself primarily to have to do with the component of the characteristics are tendencies of the intuitors. The material presented learning process in which information two types, not invariable behavior should be a blend of concrete in- is perceived, while kinesthetic learning patterns: any individual—even a strong formation (facts, data, observable involves both information perception sensor or intuitor—may manifest signs phenomena) and abstract concepts (touching, tasting, smelling) and in- of either type on any given occasion. (principles, theories, mathematical formation processing (moving, An important distinction is that relating, doing something active while models). The two teaching styles that intuitors are more comfortable with learning). As noted previously, the symbols than are sensors. Since words correspond to the sensing and intuitive perception-related aspects of are symbols, translating them into what learning styles are therefore called kinesthetic learning are at best they represent comes naturally to concrete and abstract.* marginally relevant to engineering intuitors and is a struggle for sensors. Specific teaching methods that education; accordingly, only visual Sensors’ slowness in translating words effectively address the educational and auditory modalities are addressed puts them at a disadvantage in timed in this section. The processing compo- tests: since they may have to read * Concrete experience and abstract nents of the kinesthetic modality are questions several times before conceptualization are two poles of a included in the active/reflective learn- beginning to answer them, they learning style dimension in Kolb’s ex- ing style category. frequently run out of time. Intuitors periential learning model7 that are may also do poorly on timed tests but closely related to sensing and intuition.

677

“Inductive learners need to see phenomena before they can understand underlying theory.”

this one between the preferred input whenever possible. applications is an efficient and elegant modality of most students and the pre- way to organize and present material ferred presentation mode of most Inductive and Deductive that is already understood. professors. Irrespective of the extent Learners Consequently, most engineering cur- of the mismatch, presentations that use ricula are laid out along deductive both visual and auditory modalities Induction is a reasoning progression lines, beginning with “fundamentals” reinforce learning for all stu- that proceeds from particulars for sophomores and arriving at design dents.4,14,19,20 The point is made by a (observations, measurements, data) to and operations by the senior year. A study carried out by the Socony-Vac- generalities (governing rules, , similar progression is normally used to uum Oil Company that concludes that theories). Deduction proceeds in the present material within individual opposite direction. In induction one students retain 10 percent of what they infers principles; in deduction one courses: principles first, applications read, 26 percent of what they hear, 30 deduces consequences. later (if ever). percent of what they see, 50 percent of Induction is the natural human Our informal surveys suggest that what they see and hear, 70 percent of learning style. Babies do not come most engineering students view what they say, and 90 percent of what themselves as inductive learners. We 21 into life with a set of general princi- they say as they do something. ples but rather observe the world also asked a group of engineering How to teach both visual and au- around them and draw inferences: “If I professors to identify their own ditory learners: Few engineering in- throw my bottle and scream loudly, learning and teaching styles: half of structors would have to modify what someone eventually shows up.” Most the 46 professors identified them- they usually do in order to present of what we learn on our own (as selves as inductive and half as de- information auditorily: lectures opposed to in class) originates in a real ductive learners, but all agreed that accomplish this task. What must situation or problem that needs to be their teaching was almost purely de- generally be added to accommodate all addressed and solved, not in a general ductive. To the extent that these re- students is visual material—pictures, principle; deduction may be part of the sults can be generalized, in the or- diagrams, sketches. Process flow solution process but it is never the ganization of information along charts, network diagrams, and or entire process. inductive/deductive lines—as in the information flow charts should be used On the other hand, deduction is the other dimensions discussed so far—a to illustrate complex processes or natural human teaching style, at least mismatch thus exists between the algorithms; mathematical functions for technical subjects at the college learning styles of most engineering should be illustrated by graphs; and level. Stating the governing prin- students and the teaching style to films or live demonstrations of ciples and working down to the which they are almost invariably ex- working processes should be presented posed.

678

One problem with deductive tive learner. There are indications that presentation is that it gives a seriously Active learners do not learn engineers are more likely to be active misleading impression. When students much in situations that require than reflective learners.20 see a perfectly ordered and concise them to be passive, and reflective Active learners do not learn much exposition of a relatively complex learners do not learn much in in situations that require them to be derivation they tend to think that the situations that provide no passive (such as most lectures), and author/instructor originally came up opportunity to think about the reflective learners do not learn much with the material in the same neat information being presented. in situations that provide no opportu- fashion, which they (the students) nity to think about the information could never have done. They may then with a statement of observable being presented (such as most lec- conclude that the course and perhaps phenomena that the theory will tures). Active learners well in the curriculum and the profession are explain or of a physical problem the groups; reflective learners work better beyond their abilities. They are correct theory will be used to solve; infers the by themselves or with at most one in thinking that they could not have governing rules or principles that ex- other person. Active learners tend to come up with that result in that plain the observed phenomena; and be experimentalists; reflective learners manner; what they do not know is that deduces other implications and con- tend to be theoreticians. neither could the nor the sequences of the inferred principles. At first glance there appears to be a author the first time around. Un- Perhaps most important, some - considerable overlap between active fortunately, students never get to see work problems should be assigned that learners and sensors, both of whom the real process—the false starts and present phenomena and ask for the are involved in the external world of blind alleys, the extensive trial-and- underlying rules. Such problems play phenomena, and between reflective error efforts that eventually lead to the to the inductive learners strength and learners and intuitors, both of whom elegant presentation in the or on they also help deductive learners favor the internal world of abstraction. the board. An element of inductive develop facility with their less- The categories are independent, teaching is necessary for the instructor preferred learning mode. Several such however. The sensor preferentially to be able to diminish the students’ exercises have been suggested for selects information available in the awe and increase their realistic different branches of engineering.29 external world but may process it perceptions of problem-solving. either actively or reflectively, in the Much research supports the notion Active and Reflective Learners latter case by postulating explanations that the inductive teaching approach or interpretations, drawing analogies, promotes effective learning. The The complex mental processes by or formulating models. Similarly, the benefits claimed for this approach which perceived information is con- intuitor selects information generated include increased academic achieve- verted into can be conve- internally but may process it ment and enhanced abstract reasoning niently grouped into two categories: reflectively or actively, in the latter skills;22 longer retention of in- active experimentation and reflective case by setting up an experiment to 3 formation;23’24 improved ability to observation. Active experimentation test out the idea or trying it out on a apply principles;25 confidence in involves doing something in the colleague. external world with the information— problem-solving abilities;26 and in- In the list of teaching-style catego- discussing it or explaining it or testing creased capability for inventive ries (table 1) the opposite of active is 27 28 it in some way—and reflective thought. ’ observation involves examining and passive, not reflective, with both terms Inductive learners need motivation manipulating the information in- referring to the nature of student for learning. They do not feel trospectively. * An “active learner” is participation in class. “Active” comfortable with the “Trust me—this someone who feels more comfortable signifies that students do something in stuff will be useful to you some day” with, or is better at, active ex- class beyond simply listening and perimentation than reflective ob- approach: like sensors, they need to watching, e.g., discussing, question- servation, and conversely for a reflec- see the phenomena before they can ing, arguing, brainstorming, or re- understand and appreciate the flecting. Active student participation underlying theory. * The active learner and the reflec- thus encompasses the learning pro- How to teach both deductive and tive learner are closely related to the cesses of active experimentation and inductive learners: An effective way extravert and introvert, respectively, of reflective observation. A class in to reach both groups is to follow the the Jung-Myers-Briggs model.1 The which students are always passive is a in active learner also has much in class in which neither the active presentations: first induction, then common with the kinesthetic learner experimenter nor the reflective ob- deduction. The instructor precedes of the modality and neurolinguistic server can learn effectively. Unfortu- presentations of theoretical material programming literature.14,15

679 nately, most engineering classes fall global learners. Since they do not learn into this category. Global learners should be given in a steady or predictable manner they As is true of all the other learning- tend to feel out-of-step with their style dimensions, both active and re- the freedom to devise their own fellow students and incapable of flective learners are needed as engi- methods of solving problems meeting the expectations of their neers. The reflective observers are the rather than being forced to . They may feel stupid when theoreticians, the mathematical they are struggling to master material modelers, the ones who can define the adopt the professor’s strategy, with which most of their problems and propose possible and they should be exposed contemporaries seem to have little solutions. The active experimenters are periodically to advanced trouble. Some eventually become the ones who evaluate the ideas, design discouraged with education and drop and carry out the experiments, and find concepts before these concepts out. However, global learners are the the solutions that work—the would normally be introduced. last students who should be lost to organizers, the decision-makers. How and society. They are to teach both active and reflective the synthesizers, the multidisciplinary learning dictated by the clock and learners: Primarily, the instructor researchers, the systems thinkers, the the calendar. When a body of material should alternate lectures with ones who see the connections no one has been covered the students are occasional pauses for thought else sees. They can be truly tested on their mastery and then move (reflective) and brief discussion or outstanding engineers—if they survive to the next . problem-solving activities (active), and the educational process. Some students are comfortable with should present material that How to teach global learners: Ev- this system; they learn sequentially, emphasizes both practical problem- erything required to meet the needs of mastering the material more or less as solving (active) and fundamental un- sequential learners is already being it is presented. Others, however, derstanding (reflective). An excep- done from first grade through graduate cannot learn in this manner. They tionally effective technique for school: curricula are sequential, course learn in fits and starts: they may be reaching active learners is to have syllabi are sequential, textbooks are lost for days or weeks, unable to solve students organize themselves at their sequential, and most teachers teach even the simplest problems or show seats in groups of three or four and sequentially. To reach the global the most rudimentary understanding, periodically come up with learners in a class, the instructor until suddenly they “get it”—the light answers to questions posed by the should provide the big picture or goal bulb flashes, the jigsaw puzzle comes instructor. The groups may be given of a lesson before presenting the steps, together. They may then understand from 30 seconds to five minutes to do doing as much as possible to establish the material well enough to they apply so, after which the answers are shared the context and relevance of the it to problems that leave most of the and discussed for as much or as little subject matter and to relate it to the sequential learners baffled. These are time as the instructor wishes to spend students’ experience. Applications and the global learners.32 on the exercise. Besides forcing “what ifs” should be liberally Sequential learners follow linear thought about the course material, such furnished. The students should be reasoning processes when solving brainstorming exercises can indicate given the freedom to devise their own problems; global learners make intu- material that students don’t methods of solving problems rather itive leaps and may be unable to ex- understand; provide a more congenial than being forced to adopt the plain how they came up with solu- classroom environment than can be professor’s strategy, and they should tions. Sequential learners can work achieved with a formal lecture; and be exposed periodically to advanced with material when they understand it involve even the most introverted concepts before these concepts would partially or superficially, while global students, who would never participate normally be introduced. learners may have great difficulty in a full class discussion. One such A particularly valuable way for in- doing so. Sequential learners may be exercise lasting no more than five structors to serve the global learners in strong in and minutes in the middle of a lecture their classes, as well as the sequential analysis; global learners may be better period can make the entire period a learners, is to assign creativity at divergent thinking and synthesis. stimulating and rewarding educational exercises—problems that involve 31 Sequential learners learn best when experience. generating alternative solutions and material is presented in a steady bringing in material from other progression of complexity and Sequential and Global Learners courses or disciplines—and to en- difficulty; global learners sometimes courage students who show promise in do better by jumping directly to more 31 33 Most formal education involves the solving them. ’ Another way to complex and difficult material. School presentation of material in a logically support global learners is to explain is often a difficult experience for ordered progression, with the pace of

680

their learning process to them. While Teaching Techniques to Address they are painfully aware of the draw- All Learning Styles backs of their learning style, it is usually a revelation to them that they  Motivate learning. As much as possible, relate the material being also enjoy advantages—that their presented to what has come before and what is still to come in creativity and breadth of vision can be the same course, to material in other courses, and particularly to exceptionally valuable to future the students’ personal experience (inductive/global). employers and to society. If they can  Provide a balance of concrete information (facts, data, real or be helped to understand how their hypothetical experiments and their results) (sensing) and abstract learning process works, they may concepts (principles, theories, mathematical models) (intuitive). become more comfortable with it, less critical of themselves for having it, and  Balance material that emphasizes practical problem-solving more positive about education in methods (sensing/active) with material that emphasizes general. If they are given the fundamental understanding (intuitive/reflective). opportunity to display their unique  Provide explicit illustrations of intuitive patterns (logical abilities and their efforts are inference, pattern recognition, generalization) and sensing encouraged in school, the chances of patterns (observation of surroundings, empirical experimentation, their developing and applying those abilities later in life will be substan- to detail), and encourage all students to exercise both tially increased. patterns (sensing/intuitive). Do not expect either group to be able to exercise the other group’s processes immediately. Conclusion  Follow the scientific method in presenting theoretical material. Provide concrete examples of the phenomena the theory Learning styles of most engineering describes or predicts (sensing/ inductive); then develop the students and teaching styles of most theory or formulate the mod(intuitive/inductive/ sequential); engineering professors are in- show how the theory or modcan be validated and deduce its consequences (deductive/sequential); and present applications compatible in several dimensions. (sensing/deductive/sequential). Many or most engineering students are  Use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches liberally visual, sensing, inductive, and active, before, during, and after the presentation of verbal material and some of the most creative students (sensing/visual). Show films (sensing/visual.) Provide are global; most engineering education demonstrations (sensing/visual), hands-on, if possible (active). is auditory, abstract (intuitive),  Use computer-assisted instruction—sensors respond very well to deductive, passive, and sequential. it34 (sensing/active). These mismatches lead to poor student  Do not fill every minute of class time lecturing and on the performance, professorial frustration, board. Provide intervals—however brief—for students to think and a loss to society of many about what they have been told (reflective). potentially excellent engineers.  Provide opportunities for students to do something active besides Although the diverse styles with transcribing notes. Small-group brainstorming activities that take which students learn are numerous, the no more than five minutes are extremely effective for this of a relatively small number purpose (active). of techniques in an instructor’s  Assign some drill exercises to provide practice in the basic repertoire should be sufficient to meet methods being taught (sensing/active/sequential) but do not the needs of most or all of the students overdo them (intuitive/reflective/ global). Also provide some in any class. The techniques and open-ended problems and exercises that call for analysis and suggestions given on this page should synthesis (intuitive/reflective/global). serve this purpose.  Give students the option of cooperating on homework assignments Professors confronted with this list to the greatest possible extent (active). Active learners generally might feel that it is impossible to do all learn best when they interact with others; if they are denied the that in a course and still cover the opportunity to do so they are being deprived of their most syllabus. Their concern is not entirely effective learning tool. unfounded: some of the recommended  Applaud creative solutions, even incorrect ones (intuitive/global). approaches—particularly those that  Talk to students about learning styles, both in advising and in involve the inductive organization of classes. Students are reassured to find their academic difficulties information and opportunities for may not all be due to personal inadequacies. Explaining to student activity during class—may struggling sensors or active or global learners how they learn indeed add to the time it takes to most efficiently may be an important step in helping them reshape their learning so that they can be successful present a given body of material. (all types). The idea, however, is not to use all

681

A class in which students are C.F. Yokomoto, L. Harrisberger, and tary School Children, U.S.O.E. Co- E.D. Sloan, “Applications of Psycho- operative Research Project No. 2404, always passive is a class in which logical Type in Engineering Edu- San Francisco State College, San Fran- neither the active experimenter cation,” Engineering Education, vol. cisco, Calif., 1966. 73, no. 5, Feb. 1983, pp. 394-400. 23. McConnell, T.R., “Discovery nor the reflective observer can 10. Yokomoto, C.E and J.R. Ware, Versus Authoritative Identification in learn effectively. Unfortunately, “Improving Perfor- the Learning of Children,” Studies in mance Using the MBTI,” Proceedings, Education, 2(5), 13-60 (1934). most engineering classes fall into ASEE Annual Conference, College 24. Swenson, E.J., et al., “Organiza- this category. Station, Tex., 1982, pp. 163-167. tion and Generalization as Factors in 11. Godleski, E.S., “Learning Style Learning, Transfer, and Retroactive In- Compatibility of Engineering Students hibition,” Learning Theory in School the techniques in every class but rather and Faculty,” Proceedings, Annual Situations, University of Minnesota to pick several that look feasible and Frontiers in Education Conference, Press, Minneapolis, Minn., 1949. try them; keep the ones that work; drop ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 25. Lahti, A.M., “The Inductive-De- 362. ductive Method and the Physical Sci- the others; and try a few more in the ence Laboratory,” Journal of Experi- next course. In this way a teaching 12. Godleski, E.S., “Faculty-Student Compatibility,” Presented at the 1983 mental Education, vol. 24, 1956, pp. style that is both effective for students Summer National Meeting of the 149-163. Cited in MeKeachie, W. J., and comfortable for the professor will American Institute of Chemical Engi- Teaching Tips (7th edit.), Heath, Lex- evolve naturally and relatively neers, Denver, Aug. 1983. ington, Mass., 1978, p. 33. painlessly, with a potentially dramatic 13. Barbe, WB. and M.N. Milone, 26. Kagan, J., “Impulsive and Re- effect on the quality of learning that “What We Know About Modality flective Children: The Significance of subsequently occurs. Strengths,” , Conceptual Tempo,” in J. Krumboltz, Feb. 1981, pp. 378-380. Ed., Learning and the Educational 14. Barbe, WB., R.H. Swassing and Process, Rand McNally, Chicago, Ill. References 1965. M.N. Milone, Teaching Through Mo- dality Strengths: Concepts and Prac- 27. Chomsky, N., Language and 1. Lawrence, G., People Types and Mind, Harcourt, Brace and World, Tiger Stripes: A Practical Guide to tices, Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, Oh., 1979. New York, 1968. Learning Styles, 2nd edit., Center for 28. Piaget, J., Science of Education Applications of Psychological Type, 15. Bandler, R. and J. Grinder, Frogs into Princes, Real People Press, and the Psychology of the , Orion Gainesville, Fla., 1982. Press, New York, 1970. 2. Lawrence, G., “A Synthesis of Moab, Ut., 1979. 16. Dunn, R. and K. Dunn, 29. Felder, R.M. and L.K. Learning Style Research Involving the Silverman, “Learning Styles and MBTI,” J. Psychological Type 8, 2-15 Teaching Students Through Their Teaching Styles in Engineering (1984). Individual Learning Styles: A Prac- Education,” Presented at the 1987 3. KoIb, D.A., Experiential Learn- tical Approach, Reston Annual Meeting of the American ing: Experience as the Source of Division of Prentice-Hall Publishers, Institute of Chemical Engineers, New Learning and Development, Prentice- Reston, Va., 1978. York, Nov. 1987. Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984. 17. Waldheim, G.P, “Understanding 30. Kolb, op. cit., ref. 3, p. 86. 4. Dunn, R., T. DeBello, P Brennan, How Students Understand,” Engi- 31. Felder, R.M., “Creativity in En- J. Krimsky, and P. Murrain, “Learning neering Education, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. gineering Education,” Chemical Engi- Style Researchers Define Differences 1987, pp. 306-308. neering Education, 1988, in press. Differently,” Educational Leadership, 18. Richardson, J., Working With 32. Silverman, L.K., “Global Learn- Feb. 1981, pp. 372-375. People, Associate Management Inst., ers: Our Forgotten Gifted Children,” 5. Guild, P.B. and S. Garger, San Francisco, Calif., 1984. Paper presented at the 7th World Con- Marching to Different Drummers, 19. Barbe, W.B. and M.N. Milone, ference on Gifted and Talented Chil- ACSD, 1985. “Modality Strengths: A Reply to Dunn dren, Lake , Ut., Aug. 1987. 6. Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, and Carbo,” Educational Leadership, 33. Felder, R.M., “On Creating Cre- Press, Princeton, Mar. 1981, p. 489. ative Engineers,” Engineering Educa- N.J., 1971. (Originally published in 20. Dunn, R. and M. Carbo, tion, vol. 77, no. 4, Jan. 1987, pp. 222- 1921.) “Modalities: An Open Letter to Walter 227. 7. Myers, lB. and Myers, PB., Gifts Barbe, Michael Milone, and Raymond 34. Hoffman, J.L., K. Waters and M. Differing, Consulting Psychologists Swassing,” Educational Leadership, , “Personality Types and Com- Press. Palo Alto, Calif., 1980. Feb. 1981, pp. 381-382. puter Assisted Instruction in a Self- 8. McCaulley, M.H., “Psychological 21. Stice, J.E., “Using KoIb’s Paced Technical Environ- Types of Engineering Students— Learning Cycle to Improve Student ment,” Research in Psychological Type Implications for Teaching,” Learning,” Engineering Education, 3, 81-85 (1981). Engineering Education, vol. 66, no. 7, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 291-296. Apr. 1976, pp. 729-736. 22. Taba, H., Teaching Strategies 9. McCaulley, M.H., E.S. Godleski, and Cognitive Functioning in Elemen-