Learning styles of most engineering students and teaching styles of most engineering professors are incompatible in several dimensions.
Many or most engineering students are visual, sensing, inductive, and active, and some of the most creative students are global; most engineering education is auditory, abstract (intuitive), deductive, passive, and sequential. These mismatches lead to poor student performance, professorial frustration, and a loss to society of many potentially excellent engineers. Although the diverse styles with which students learn are numerous, the inclusion of a relatively small number of techniques in an instructor's repertoire should be sufficient to meet the needs of most or all of the students in any class. The techniques and suggestions given on this page should serve this purpose.
Professors confronted with this list might feel that it is impossible to do all that in a course and still cover the syllabus. Their concern is not entirely unfounded: some of the recommended approaches-particularly those that involve the inductive organization of information and opportunities for student activity during class-may indeed add to the time it takes to present a given body of material. The idea, however, is not to use all the techniques in every class but rather to pick several that look feasible and try them; keep the ones that work; drop the others; and try a few more in the next course. In this way a teaching style that is both effective for students and comfortable for the professor will evolve naturally and relatively painlessly, with a potentially dramatic effect on the quality of learning that subsequently occurs.
A class in which students are always passive is a class in which neither the active experimenter nor the reflective observer can learn effectively. Unfortunately, most engineering classes fall into this category.
1. Lawrence, G., People Types and Tiger Stripes: A Practical Guide to Learning Styles, 2nd edit., Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, Fla., 1982.
2. Lawrence, G., "A Synthesis of Learning Style Research Involving the MBTI," J. Psychological Type 8, 2-15 (1984).
3. KoIb, D.A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984.
4. Dunn, R., T. DeBello, P Brennan, J. Krimsky, and P. Murrain, "Learning Style Researchers Define Differences Differently," Educational Leadership, Feb. 1981, pp. 372-375.
5. Guild, P.B. and S. Garger, Marching to Different Drummers, ACSD, 1985.
6. Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1971. (Originally published in 1921.)
7. Myers, lB. and Myers, PB., Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo Alto, Calif., 1980.
8. McCaulley, M.H., "Psychological Types of Engineering Students- Implications for Teaching," Engineering Education, vol. 66, no. 7, Apr. 1976, pp. 729-736.
9. McCaulley, M.H., E.S. Godleski, C.F. Yokomoto, L. Harrisberger, and E.D. Sloan, "Applications of Psychological Type in Engineering Education," Engineering Education, vol. 73, no. 5, Feb. 1983, pp. 394-400.
10. Yokomoto, C.E and J.R. Ware, "Improving Problem Solving Performance Using the MBTI," Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference, College Station, Tex., 1982, pp. 163-167.
11. Godleski, E.S., "Learning Style Compatibility of Engineering Students and Faculty," Proceedings, Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 362.
12. Godleski, E.S., "Faculty-Student Compatibility," Presented at the 1983 Summer National Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Denver, Aug. 1983.
13. Barbe, WB. and M.N. Milone, "What We Know About Modality Strengths," Educational Leadership, Feb. 1981, pp. 378-380.
14. Barbe, WB., R.H. Swassing and M.N. Milone, Teaching Through Modality Strengths: Concepts and Practices, Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, Oh., 1979.
15. Bandler, R. and J. Grinder, Frogs into Princes, Real People Press, Moab, Ut., 1979.
16. Dunn, R. and K. Dunn, Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach, Reston Publishing Division of Prentice-Hall Publishers, Reston, Va., 1978.
17. Waldheim, G.P, "Understanding How Students Understand," Engineering Education, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 306-308.
18. Richardson, J., Working With People, Associate Management Inst., San Francisco, Calif., 1984.
19. Barbe, W.B. and M.N. Milone, "Modality Strengths: A Reply to Dunn and Carbo," Educational Leadership, Mar. 1981, p. 489.
20. Dunn, R. and M. Carbo, "Modalities: An Open Letter to Walter Barbe, Michael Milone, and Raymond Swassing," Educational Leadership, Feb. 1981, pp. 381-382.
21. Stice, J.E., "Using KoIb's Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning," Engineering Education, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 291-296.
22.Taba, H., Teaching Strategies and Cognitive Functioning in Elementary School Children, U.S.O.E. Cooperative Research Project No. 2404, San Francisco State College, San Francisco, Calif., 1966.
23. McConnell, T.R., "Discovery Versus Authoritative Identification in the Learning of Children," Studies in Education, 2(5), 13-60 (1934).
24. Swenson, E.J., et al., "Organization and Generalization as Factors in Learning, Transfer, and Retroactive Inhibition," Learning Theory in School Situations, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn., 1949.
25. Lahti, A.M., "The Inductive-Deductive Method and the Physical Science Laboratory," Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 24, 1956, pp. 149-163. Cited in MeKeachie, W. J., Teaching Tips (7th edit.), Heath, Lexington, Mass., 1978, p. 33.
26. Kagan, J., "Impulsive and Reflective Children: The Significance of Conceptual Tempo," in J. Krumboltz, Ed., Learning and the Educational Process, Rand McNally, Chicago, Ill. 1965.
27. Chomsky, N., Language and Mind, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1968.
28.Piaget, J., Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child, Orion Press, New York, 1970.
29. Felder, R.M. and L.K. Silverman, "Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education," Presented at the 1987 Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, Nov. 1987.
30. Kolb, op. cit., ref. 3, p. 86.
31. Felder, R.M., "Creativity in Engineering Education," Chemical Engineering Education, 1988, in press.
32. Silverman, L.K., "Global Learners: Our Forgotten Gifted Children," Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Salt Lake City, Ut., Aug. 1987.
33. Felder, R.M., "On Creating Creative Engineers," Engineering Education, vol. 77, no. 4, Jan. 1987, pp. 222- 227.
34. Hoffman, J.L., K. Waters and M. Berry, "Personality Types and Computer Assisted Instruction in a Self- Paced Technical Training Environment," Research in Psychological Type 3, 81-85 (1981).