LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLESIN ENGINEERING EDUCATION[Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]

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

When Linda Silverman and I wrote this paper in 1987, our goal was to offer some insights aboutteaching and learning based on Dr. Silverman’s expertise in educational psychology and myexperience in engineering education that would be helpful to some of my fellow engineeringprofessors. When the paper was published early in 1988, the response was astonishing. Almostimmediately, reprint requests flooded in from all over the world. The paper started to be cited inthe engineering education literature, then in the general science education literature; it was thefirst article cited in the premier issue of ERIC’s National Teaching and Learning Forum; and itwas the most frequently cited paper in articles published in the Journal of Engineering Educationover a 10-year period. A self-scoring web-based instrument called the Index of Learning Stylesthat assesses preferences on four scales of the learning style model developed in the papercurrently gets about 100,000 hits a year and has been translated into half a dozen languages that Iknow about and probably more that I don’t, even though it has not yet been validated. The 1988paper is still cited more than any other paper I have written, including more recent papers onlearning styles.

A problem is that in recent years I have found reasons to make two significant changes inthe model: dropping the inductive/deductive dimension, and changing the visual/auditorycategory to visual/verbal. (I will shortly explain both modifications.) When I set up my website, I deliberately left the 1988 paper out of it, preferring that readers consult more recentarticles on the subject that better reflected my current thinking. Since the paper seems to haveacquired a life of its own, however, I decided to add it to the web site with this preface includedto explain the changes. The paper is reproduced following the preface, unmodified from theoriginal version except for changes in layout I made for reasons that would be known to anyonewho has ever tried to scan a 3-column article with inserts and convert it into a Microsoft Worddocument.

Deletion of the inductive/deductive dimension

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

The problem with inductive presentation is that it isn't concise and prescriptive—youhave to take a thorny problem or a collection of observations or data and try to make sense of it.Many or most students would say that they prefer deductive presentation—“Just tell me exactlywhat I need to know for the test, not one word more or less.” (My speculation in the paper thatmore 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 anduse that result to justify continuing to use the traditional but less effective lecture paradigm intheir courses and curricula. I have therefore omitted this dimension from the model.

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

“Visual” information clearly includes pictures, diagrams, charts, plots, animations, etc.,and “auditory” information clearly includes spoken words and other sounds. The one medium ofinformation transmission that is not clear is written prose. It is perceived visually and soobviously cannot be categorized as auditory, but it is also a mistake to lump it into the visualcategory as though it were equivalent to a picture in transmitting information. Cognitivescientists have established that our brains generally convert written words into their spokenequivalents and process them in the same way that they process spoken words. Written wordsare therefore not equivalent to real visual information: to a visual learner, a picture is truly wortha thousand words, whether they are spoken or written. Making the learning style pair visual andverbal solves this problem by permitting spoken and written words to be included in the samecategory (verbal). For more details about the cognition studies that led to this conclusion, seeR.M. Felder and E.R. Henriques, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and SecondLanguage Education,” Foreign Language Annals, 28 (1), 21–31 (1995).<http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/FLAnnals.pdf>.

The Index of Learning Styles

The Index of Learning Styles is a self-scoring instrument that assesses preferences on theSensing/Intuiting, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Global dimensions. Toaccess web-based and pencil-and-paper versions of the ILS, go to<http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html>.

And now, the paper.

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

Learning and Teaching StylesIn Engineering Education

Richard M. Felder, North Carolina State UniversityLinda K. Silverman, Institute for the Study of

Advanced Development

[Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]

Students learn in many ways— byseeing and hearing; reflecting andacting; reasoning logically andintuitively; memorizing andvisualizing and drawing analogiesand building mathematical models;steadily and in fits and starts.Teaching methods also vary. Someinstructors lecture, othersdemonstrate or discuss; some focuson principles and others on applica-tions; some emphasize memory andothers understanding. How much agiven student learns in a class isgoverned in part by that student’snative ability and prior preparationbut also by the compatibility of hisor her learning style and theinstructor’s teaching style.

Mismatches exist between com-mon learning styles of engineeringstudents and traditional teachingstyles of engineering professors. Inconsequence, students becomebored and inattentive in class, dopoorly on tests, get discouragedabout the courses, the curriculum,and themselves, and in some caseschange to other curricula or dropout of school. Professors,confronted by low test grades,unresponsive or hostile classes,poor attendance and dropouts, knowsomething is not working; they maybecome overly critical of their

students (making things even worse)or begin to wonder if they are in theright profession. Most seriously,society loses potentially excellentengineers.

In discussing this situation, we willexplore:

1) Which aspects of learning styleare particularly significant in engi-neering education?

2) Which learning styles are pre-ferred by most students and which arefavored by the teaching styles of mostprofessors?

3) What can be done to reach stu-dents whose learning styles are notaddressed by standard methods ofengineering education?

Dimensions of Learning Style

Learning in a structured educa-tional setting may be thought of as atwo-step process involving the recep-tion and processing of information. Inthe reception step, external in-formation (observable through thesenses) and internal information(arising introspectively) becomeavailable to students, who select thematerial they will process and ignorethe rest. The processing step mayinvolve simple memorization or in-ductive or deductive reasoning, re-flection or action, and introspection or

interaction with others. The outcome isthat the material is either “learned” inone sense or another or not learned.

A learning-style model classifiesstudents according to where they fit on anumber of scales pertaining to the waysthey receive and process information. Amodel intended to be particularlyapplicable to engineering education isproposed below. Also proposed is aparallel teaching-style model, whichclassifies instructional methodsaccording to how well they address theproposed learning style components. Thelearning and teaching style dimensionsthat define the models are shown in thebox.

Most of the learning and teachingstyle components parallel one another.*A student who favors intuitive oversensory perception, for example, wouldrespond well to an instructor whoemphasizes concepts (abstract content)rather than facts (concrete content); astudent who favors visual perceptionwould be most comfortable with aninstructor who uses charts, pictures, andfilms.

* The one exception is the active/reflective learning style dimension andthe active/passive teaching style dimen-sion, which do not exactly correspond.The difference will later be explained.

675

The proposed learning style di-mensions are neither original norcomprehensive. For example, the firstdimension—sensing/intuition— is oneof four dimensions of a well-knownmodel based on Jung’s theory ofpsychological types,1’2 and the fourthdimension—active/reflectiveprocessing—is a component of alearning style model developed byKolb.3 Other dimensions of these twomodels and dimensions of other mod-els4’5 also play important roles indetermining how a student receivesand processes information. The hy-pothesis, however, is that engineeringinstructors who adapt their teachingstyle to include both poles of each ofthe given dimensions should comeclose to providing an optimal learningenvironment for most (if not all)students in a class.

There are 32 (25) learning styles inthe proposed conceptual framework,(one, for example, is the sensory/auditory/deductive/active/sequentialstyle). Most instructors would beintimidated by the prospect of tryingto accommodate 32 diverse styles in agiven class; fortunately, the task is notas formidable as it might at firstappear. The usual methods of engi-neering education adequately addressfive categories (intuitive, auditory,deductive, reflective, and sequential),and effective teaching techniquessubstantially overlap the remainingcategories. The addition of a relativelysmall number of teaching techniquesto an instructor’s repertoire shouldtherefore suffice to accommodate thelearning styles of every student in theclass. Defining these techniques is theprincipal objective of the remainder ofthis paper.

A student’s learning style may be defined in large part by the answers tofive questions:

1) What type of information does the student preferentially perceive:sensory (external)—sights, sounds, physical sensations, or intuitive (in-ternal)—possibilities, insights, hunches?

2) Through which sensory channel is external information most effectivelyperceived: visual—pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, or auditory—words, sounds? (Other sensory channels—touch, taste, and smell—arerelatively unimportant in most educational environments and will not beconsidered here.)

3) With which organization of information is the student most com-fortable: inductive—facts and observations are given, underlying principlesare inferred, or deductive—principles are given, consequences andapplications are deduced?

4) How does the student prefer to process information: actively— throughengagement in physical activity or discussion, or reflectively— throughintrospection?

5) How does the student progress toward understanding: sequentially—incontinual steps, or globally—in large jumps, holistically?

Teaching style may also be defined in terms of the answers to fivequestions:

1) What type of information is emphasized by the instructor: concrete—factual, or abstract—conceptual, theoretical?

2) What mode of presentation is stressed: visual—pictures, diagrams,films, demonstrations, or verbal— lectures, readings, discussions?

3) How is the presentation organized: inductively—phenomena leading toprinciples, or deductively— principles leading to phenomena?

4) What mode of student participation is facilitated by the presentation:active—students talk, move, reflect, or passive—students watch and listen?

5) What type of perspective is provided on the information presented:sequential—step-by-step progression (the trees), or global—context andrelevance (the forest)?

Dimensions of Learning and Teaching Styles

Preferred Learning Style Corresponding Teaching Stylesensory

perceptionintuitive

concretecontent

abstractvisual

inputauditory

visualpresentation

verbalinductive

organizationdeductive

inductiveorganization

deductive

activeprocessing

reflective

active studentparticipation

passivesequential

understandingglobal

sequentialperspective

global

Models of Learning &Teaching Styles

676Sensing and Intuitive Learners

In his theory of psychological types,Carl Jung6 introduced sensing andintuition as the two ways in whichpeople tend to perceive the world.Sensing involves observing, gatheringdata through the senses; intuitioninvolves indirect perception by way ofthe unconscious—speculation, imagin-ation, hunches. Everyone uses bothfaculties, but most people tend to favorone over the other.

In the 1940s Isabel Briggs Myersdeveloped the Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator (MBTI), an instrument thatmeasures, among other things, thedegree to which an individual preferssensing or intuition. In the succeedingdecades the MBTI has been given tohundreds of thousands of people andthe resulting profiles have beencorrelated with career preferences andaptitudes, management styles, learningstyles, and various behavioraltendencies. The characteristics ofintuitive and sensing types7 and thedifferent ways in which sensors andintuitors approach learning1,2 have beenstudied.

Sensors like facts, data, and ex-perimentation; intuitors prefer prin-ciples and theories. Sensors like solv-ing problems by standard methods anddislike “surprises”; intuitors likeinnovation and dislike repetition.Sensors are patient with detail but donot like complications; intuitors arebored by detail and welcomecomplications. Sensors are good atmemorizing facts; intuitors are good atgrasping new concepts. Sensors arecareful but may be slow; intuitors arequick but may be careless. Thesecharacteristics are tendencies of thetwo types, not invariable behaviorpatterns: any individual—even a strongsensor or intuitor—may manifest signsof either type on any given occasion.

An important distinction is thatintuitors are more comfortable withsymbols than are sensors. Since wordsare symbols, translating them into whatthey represent comes naturally tointuitors and is a struggle for sensors.Sensors’ slowness in translating wordsputs them at a disadvantage in timedtests: since they may have to readquestions several times beforebeginning to answer them, theyfrequently run out of time. Intuitorsmay also do poorly on timed tests but

for a different reason—their impa-tience with details may induce them tostart answering questions before theyhave read them thoroughly and tomake careless mistakes.

Most engineering courses other thanlaboratories emphasize concepts ratherthan facts and use primarily lecturesand readings (words, symbols) totransmit information, and so favorintuitive learners. Several studies showthat most professors are themselvesintuitors. On the other hand, themajority of engineering students aresensors,8-10 suggesting a seriouslearning/teaching style mismatch inmost engineering courses. Theexistence of the mismatch issubstantiated by Godleski,11,12 whofound that in both chemical andelectrical engineering courses intuitivestudents almost invariably got highergrades than sensing students. The oneexception was a senior course inchemical process design and costestimation, which the authorcharacterizes as a “solid sensingcourse” (i.e. one that involves factsand repetitive calculations by well-defined procedures as opposed tomany new ideas and abstractconcepts).

While sensors may not perform aswell as intuitors in school, both typesare capable of becoming fine engineersand are essential to engineeringpractice. Many engineering tasksrequire the awareness of surroundings,attentiveness to details, experimentalthoroughness, and practicality that arethe hallmarks of sensors; many othertasks require the creativity, theoreticalability, and talent at inspiredguesswork that characterize intuitors.

To be effective, engineering edu-cation should reach both types, ratherthan directing itself primarily tointuitors. The material presentedshould be a blend of concrete in-formation (facts, data, observablephenomena) and abstract concepts(principles, theories, mathematicalmodels). The two teaching styles thatcorrespond to the sensing and intuitivelearning styles are therefore calledconcrete and abstract.*

Specific teaching methods thateffectively address the educational

* Concrete experience and abstractconceptualization are two poles of alearning style dimension in Kolb’s ex-periential learning model7 that areclosely related to sensing and intuition.

needs of sensors and intuitors arelisted in the summary.

Visual and Auditory Learners

The ways people receive informa-tion may be divided into three cate-gories, sometimes referred to as mo-dalities: visual—sights, pictures,diagrams, symbols; auditory— sounds,words; kinesthetic—taste, touch, andsmell. An extensive body of researchhas established that most people learnmost effectively with one of the threemodalities and tend to miss or ignoreinformation presented in either of theother two.13-17 There are thus visual,auditory, and kinesthetic learners.*

Visual learners remember best whatthey see: pictures, diagrams, flowcharts, time lines, films, dem-onstrations. If something is simplysaid to them they will probably forgetit. Auditory learners remember muchof what they hear and more of whatthey hear and then say. They get a lotout of discussion, prefer verbalexplanation to visual demonstration,and learn effectively by explainingthings to others.

Most people of college age andolder are visual13,18 while most collegeteaching is verbal—the informationpresented is predominantly auditory(lecturing) or a visual representation ofauditory information (words andmathematical symbols written in textsand handouts, on transparencies, or ona chalkboard). A second learning/teaching style mismatch thus exists,

* Visual and auditory learning bothhave to do with the component of thelearning process in which informationis perceived, while kinesthetic learninginvolves both information perception(touching, tasting, smelling) and in-formation processing (moving,relating, doing something active whilelearning). As noted previously, theperception-related aspects ofkinesthetic learning are at bestmarginally relevant to engineeringeducation; accordingly, only visualand auditory modalities are addressedin this section. The processing compo-nents of the kinesthetic modality areincluded in the active/reflective learn-ing style category.

677

this one between the preferred inputmodality of most students and the pre-ferred presentation mode of mostprofessors. Irrespective of the extentof the mismatch, presentations that useboth visual and auditory modalitiesreinforce learning for all stu-dents.4,14,19,20 The point is made by astudy carried out by the Socony-Vac-uum Oil Company that concludes thatstudents retain 10 percent of what theyread, 26 percent of what they hear, 30percent of what they see, 50 percent ofwhat they see and hear, 70 percent ofwhat they say, and 90 percent of whatthey say as they do something.21

How to teach both visual and au-ditory learners: Few engineering in-structors would have to modify whatthey usually do in order to presentinformation auditorily: lecturesaccomplish this task. What mustgenerally be added to accommodate allstudents is visual material—pictures,diagrams, sketches. Process flowcharts, network diagrams, and logic orinformation flow charts should be usedto illustrate complex processes oralgorithms; mathematical functionsshould be illustrated by graphs; andfilms or live demonstrations ofworking processes should be presented

whenever possible.

Inductive and DeductiveLearners

Induction is a reasoning progressionthat proceeds from particulars(observations, measurements, data) togeneralities (governing rules, laws,theories). Deduction proceeds in theopposite direction. In induction oneinfers principles; in deduction onededuces consequences.

Induction is the natural humanlearning style. Babies do not comeinto life with a set of general princi-ples but rather observe the worldaround them and draw inferences: “If Ithrow my bottle and scream loudly,someone eventually shows up.” Mostof what we learn on our own (asopposed to in class) originates in a realsituation or problem that needs to beaddressed and solved, not in a generalprinciple; deduction may be part of thesolution process but it is never theentire process.

On the other hand, deduction is thenatural human teaching style, at leastfor technical subjects at the collegelevel. Stating the governing prin-ciples and working down to the

applications is an efficient and elegantway to organize and present materialthat is already understood.Consequently, most engineering cur-ricula are laid out along deductivelines, beginning with “fundamentals”for sophomores and arriving at designand operations by the senior year. Asimilar progression is normally used topresent material within individualcourses: principles first, applicationslater (if ever).

Our informal surveys suggest thatmost engineering students viewthemselves as inductive learners. Wealso asked a group of engineeringprofessors to identify their ownlearning and teaching styles: half ofthe 46 professors identified them-selves as inductive and half as de-ductive learners, but all agreed thattheir teaching was almost purely de-ductive. To the extent that these re-sults can be generalized, in the or-ganization of information alonginductive/deductive lines—as in theother dimensions discussed so far—amismatch thus exists between thelearning styles of most engineeringstudents and the teaching style towhich they are almost invariably ex-posed.

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

678

One problem with deductivepresentation is that it gives a seriouslymisleading impression. When studentssee a perfectly ordered and conciseexposition of a relatively complexderivation they tend to think that theauthor/instructor originally came upwith the material in the same neatfashion, which they (the students)could never have done. They may thenconclude that the course and perhapsthe curriculum and the profession arebeyond their abilities. They are correctin thinking that they could not havecome up with that result in thatmanner; what they do not know is thatneither could the professor nor theauthor the first time around. Un-fortunately, students never get to seethe real process—the false starts andblind alleys, the extensive trial-and-error efforts that eventually lead to theelegant presentation in the book or onthe board. An element of inductiveteaching is necessary for the instructorto be able to diminish the students’awe and increase their realisticperceptions of problem-solving.

Much research supports the notionthat the inductive teaching approachpromotes effective learning. Thebenefits claimed for this approachinclude increased academic achieve-ment and enhanced abstract reasoningskills;22 longer retention of in-formation;23’24 improved ability toapply principles;25 confidence inproblem-solving abilities;26 and in-creased capability for inventivethought.27’28

Inductive learners need motivationfor learning. They do not feelcomfortable with the “Trust me—thisstuff will be useful to you some day”approach: like sensors, they need tosee the phenomena before they canunderstand and appreciate theunderlying theory.

How to teach both deductive andinductive learners: An effective wayto reach both groups is to follow thescientific method in classroompresentations: first induction, thendeduction. The instructor precedespresentations of theoretical material

Active learners do not learnmuch in situations that requirethem to be passive, and reflectivelearners do not learn much insituations that provide noopportunity to think about theinformation being presented.

with a statement of observablephenomena that the theory willexplain or of a physical problem thetheory will be used to solve; infers thegoverning rules or principles that ex-plain the observed phenomena; anddeduces other implications and con-sequences of the inferred principles.Perhaps most important, some home-work problems should be assigned thatpresent phenomena and ask for theunderlying rules. Such problems playto the inductive learners strength andthey also help deductive learnersdevelop facility with their less-preferred learning mode. Several suchexercises have been suggested fordifferent branches of engineering.29

Active and Reflective Learners

The complex mental processes bywhich perceived information is con-verted into knowledge can be conve-niently grouped into two categories:active experimentation and reflectiveobservation.3 Active experimentationinvolves doing something in theexternal world with the information—discussing it or explaining it or testingit in some way—and reflectiveobservation involves examining andmanipulating the information in-trospectively. * An “active learner” issomeone who feels more comfortablewith, or is better at, active ex-perimentation than reflective ob-servation, and conversely for a reflec-

* The active learner and the reflec-tive learner are closely related to theextravert and introvert, respectively, ofthe Jung-Myers-Briggs model.1 Theactive learner also has much incommon with the kinesthetic learnerof the modality and neurolinguisticprogramming literature.14,15

tive learner. There are indications thatengineers are more likely to be activethan reflective learners.20

Active learners do not learn muchin situations that require them to bepassive (such as most lectures), andreflective learners do not learn muchin situations that provide no opportu-nity to think about the informationbeing presented (such as most lec-tures). Active learners work well ingroups; reflective learners work betterby themselves or with at most oneother person. Active learners tend tobe experimentalists; reflective learnerstend to be theoreticians.

At first glance there appears to be aconsiderable overlap between activelearners and sensors, both of whomare involved in the external world ofphenomena, and between reflectivelearners and intuitors, both of whomfavor the internal world of abstraction.The categories are independent,however. The sensor preferentiallyselects information available in theexternal world but may process iteither actively or reflectively, in thelatter case by postulating explanationsor interpretations, drawing analogies,or formulating models. Similarly, theintuitor selects information generatedinternally but may process itreflectively or actively, in the lattercase by setting up an experiment totest out the idea or trying it out on acolleague.

In the list of teaching-style catego-ries (table 1) the opposite of active ispassive, not reflective, with both termsreferring to the nature of studentparticipation in class. “Active”signifies that students do something inclass beyond simply listening andwatching, e.g., discussing, question-ing, arguing, brainstorming, or re-flecting. Active student participationthus encompasses the learning pro-cesses of active experimentation andreflective observation. A class inwhich students are always passive is aclass in which neither the activeexperimenter nor the reflective ob-server can learn effectively. Unfortu-

679

nately, most engineering classes fallinto this category.

As is true of all the other learning-style dimensions, both active and re-flective learners are needed as engi-neers. The reflective observers are thetheoreticians, the mathematicalmodelers, the ones who can define theproblems and propose possiblesolutions. The active experimenters arethe ones who evaluate the ideas, designand carry out the experiments, and findthe solutions that work—theorganizers, the decision-makers. Howto teach both active and reflectivelearners: Primarily, the instructorshould alternate lectures withoccasional pauses for thought(reflective) and brief discussion orproblem-solving activities (active), andshould present material thatemphasizes both practical problem-solving (active) and fundamental un-derstanding (reflective). An excep-tionally effective technique forreaching active learners is to havestudents organize themselves at theirseats in groups of three or four andperiodically come up with collectiveanswers to questions posed by theinstructor. The groups may be givenfrom 30 seconds to five minutes to doso, after which the answers are sharedand discussed for as much or as littletime as the instructor wishes to spendon the exercise. Besides forcingthought about the course material, suchbrainstorming exercises can indicatematerial that students don’tunderstand; provide a more congenialclassroom environment than can beachieved with a formal lecture; andinvolve even the most introvertedstudents, who would never participatein a full class discussion. One suchexercise lasting no more than fiveminutes in the middle of a lectureperiod can make the entire period astimulating and rewarding educationalexperience.31

Sequential and Global Learners

Most formal education involves thepresentation of material in a logicallyordered progression, with the pace of

Global learners should be giventhe freedom to devise their ownmethods of solving problemsrather than being forced toadopt the professor’s strategy,and they should be exposedperiodically to advancedconcepts before these conceptswould normally be introduced.

learning dictated by the clock andthe calendar. When a body of materialhas been covered the students aretested on their mastery and then moveto the next stage.

Some students are comfortable withthis system; they learn sequentially,mastering the material more or less asit is presented. Others, however,cannot learn in this manner. Theylearn in fits and starts: they may belost for days or weeks, unable to solveeven the simplest problems or showthe most rudimentary understanding,until suddenly they “get it”—the lightbulb flashes, the jigsaw puzzle comestogether. They may then understandthe material well enough to they applyit to problems that leave most of thesequential learners baffled. These arethe global learners.32

Sequential learners follow linearreasoning processes when solvingproblems; global learners make intu-itive leaps and may be unable to ex-plain how they came up with solu-tions. Sequential learners can workwith material when they understand itpartially or superficially, while globallearners may have great difficultydoing so. Sequential learners may bestrong in convergent thinking andanalysis; global learners may be betterat divergent thinking and synthesis.Sequential learners learn best whenmaterial is presented in a steadyprogression of complexity anddifficulty; global learners sometimesdo better by jumping directly to morecomplex and difficult material. Schoolis often a difficult experience for

global learners. Since they do not learnin a steady or predictable manner theytend to feel out-of-step with theirfellow students and incapable ofmeeting the expectations of theirteachers. They may feel stupid whenthey are struggling to master materialwith which most of theircontemporaries seem to have littletrouble. Some eventually becomediscouraged with education and dropout. However, global learners are thelast students who should be lost tohigher education and society. They arethe synthesizers, the multidisciplinaryresearchers, the systems thinkers, theones who see the connections no oneelse sees. They can be trulyoutstanding engineers—if they survivethe educational process.

How to teach global learners: Ev-erything required to meet the needs ofsequential learners is already beingdone from first grade through graduateschool: curricula are sequential, coursesyllabi are sequential, textbooks aresequential, and most teachers teachsequentially. To reach the globallearners in a class, the instructorshould provide the big picture or goalof a lesson before presenting the steps,doing as much as possible to establishthe context and relevance of thesubject matter and to relate it to thestudents’ experience. Applications and“what ifs” should be liberallyfurnished. The students should begiven the freedom to devise their ownmethods of solving problems ratherthan being forced to adopt theprofessor’s strategy, and they shouldbe exposed periodically to advancedconcepts before these concepts wouldnormally be introduced.

A particularly valuable way for in-structors to serve the global learners intheir classes, as well as the sequentiallearners, is to assign creativityexercises—problems that involvegenerating alternative solutions andbringing in material from othercourses or disciplines—and to en-courage students who show promise insolving them.31’33 Another way tosupport global learners is to explain

680

Teaching Techniques to AddressAll Learning Styles• Motivate learning. As much as possible, relate the material being

presented to what has come before and what is still to come inthe same course, to material in other courses, and particularly tothe students’ personal experience (inductive/global).

• Provide a balance of concrete information (facts, data, real orhypothetical experiments and their results) (sensing) and abstractconcepts (principles, theories, mathematical models) (intuitive).

• Balance material that emphasizes practical problem-solvingmethods (sensing/active) with material that emphasizesfundamental understanding (intuitive/reflective).

• Provide explicit illustrations of intuitive patterns (logicalinference, pattern recognition, generalization) and sensingpatterns (observation of surroundings, empirical experimentation,attention to detail), and encourage all students to exercise bothpatterns (sensing/intuitive). Do not expect either group to be ableto exercise the other group’s processes immediately.

• Follow the scientific method in presenting theoretical material.Provide concrete examples of the phenomena the theorydescribes or predicts (sensing/ inductive); then develop thetheory or formulate the mod(intuitive/inductive/ sequential);show how the theory or modcan be validated and deduce itsconsequences (deductive/sequential); and present applications(sensing/deductive/sequential).

• Use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches liberallybefore, during, and after the presentation of verbal material(sensing/visual). Show films (sensing/visual.) Providedemonstrations (sensing/visual), hands-on, if possible (active).

• Use computer-assisted instruction—sensors respond very well toit34 (sensing/active).

• Do not fill every minute of class time lecturing and writing on theboard. Provide intervals—however brief—for students to thinkabout what they have been told (reflective).

• Provide opportunities for students to do something active besidestranscribing notes. Small-group brainstorming activities that takeno more than five minutes are extremely effective for thispurpose (active).

• Assign some drill exercises to provide practice in the basicmethods being taught (sensing/active/sequential) but do notoverdo them (intuitive/reflective/ global). Also provide someopen-ended problems and exercises that call for analysis andsynthesis (intuitive/reflective/global).

• Give students the option of cooperating on homework assignmentsto the greatest possible extent (active). Active learners generallylearn best when they interact with others; if they are denied theopportunity to do so they are being deprived of their mosteffective learning tool.

• Applaud creative solutions, even incorrect ones (intuitive/global).• Talk to students about learning styles, both in advising and in

classes. Students are reassured to find their academic difficultiesmay not all be due to personal inadequacies. Explaining tostruggling sensors or active or global learners how they learnmost efficiently may be an important step in helping themreshape their learning experiences so that they can be successful(all types).

their learning process to them. Whilethey are painfully aware of the draw-backs of their learning style, it isusually a revelation to them that theyalso enjoy advantages—that theircreativity and breadth of vision can beexceptionally valuable to futureemployers and to society. If they canbe helped to understand how theirlearning process works, they maybecome more comfortable with it, lesscritical of themselves for having it, andmore positive about education ingeneral. If they are given theopportunity to display their uniqueabilities and their efforts areencouraged in school, the chances oftheir developing and applying thoseabilities later in life will be substan-tially increased.

Conclusion

Learning styles of most engineeringstudents and teaching styles of mostengineering professors are in-compatible in several dimensions.Many or most engineering students arevisual, sensing, inductive, and active,and some of the most creative studentsare global; most engineering educationis auditory, abstract (intuitive),deductive, passive, and sequential.These mismatches lead to poor studentperformance, professorial frustration,and a loss to society of manypotentially excellent engineers.

Although the diverse styles withwhich students learn are numerous, theinclusion of a relatively small numberof techniques in an instructor’srepertoire should be sufficient to meetthe needs of most or all of the studentsin any class. The techniques andsuggestions given on this page shouldserve this purpose.

Professors confronted with this listmight feel that it is impossible to do allthat in a course and still cover thesyllabus. Their concern is not entirelyunfounded: some of the recommendedapproaches—particularly those thatinvolve the inductive organization ofinformation and opportunities forstudent activity during class—mayindeed add to the time it takes topresent a given body of material.

The idea, however, is not to use all

681

A class in which students arealways passive is a class in whichneither the active experimenternor the reflective observer canlearn effectively. Unfortunately,most engineering classes fall intothis category.

the techniques in every class but ratherto pick several that look feasible andtry them; keep the ones that work; dropthe others; and try a few more in thenext course. In this way a teachingstyle that is both effective for studentsand comfortable for the professor willevolve naturally and relativelypainlessly, with a potentially dramaticeffect on the quality of learning thatsubsequently occurs.

References

1. Lawrence, G., People Types andTiger Stripes: A Practical Guide toLearning Styles, 2nd edit., Center forApplications of Psychological Type,Gainesville, Fla., 1982.

2. Lawrence, G., “A Synthesis ofLearning Style Research Involving theMBTI,” J. Psychological Type 8, 2-15(1984).

3. KoIb, D.A., Experiential Learn-ing: Experience as the Source ofLearning and Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984.

4. Dunn, R., T. DeBello, P Brennan,J. Krimsky, and P. Murrain, “LearningStyle Researchers Define DifferencesDifferently,” 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 in1921.)

7. Myers, lB. and Myers, PB., GiftsDiffering, Consulting PsychologistsPress. Palo Alto, Calif., 1980.

8. McCaulley, M.H., “PsychologicalTypes 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, andE.D. Sloan, “Applications of Psycho-logical Type in Engineering Edu-cation,” Engineering Education, vol.73, no. 5, Feb. 1983, pp. 394-400.

10. Yokomoto, C.E and J.R. Ware,“Improving Problem Solving Perfor-mance Using the MBTI,” Proceedings,ASEE Annual Conference, CollegeStation, Tex., 1982, pp. 163-167.

11. Godleski, E.S., “Learning StyleCompatibility of Engineering Studentsand Faculty,” Proceedings, AnnualFrontiers in Education Conference,ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, 1984, p.362.

12. Godleski, E.S., “Faculty-StudentCompatibility,” Presented at the 1983Summer National Meeting of theAmerican Institute of Chemical Engi-neers, Denver, Aug. 1983.

13. Barbe, WB. and M.N. Milone,“What We Know About ModalityStrengths,” Educational Leadership,Feb. 1981, pp. 378-380.

14. Barbe, WB., R.H. Swassing andM.N. Milone, Teaching Through Mo-dality Strengths: Concepts and Prac-tices, 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 TheirIndividual Learning Styles: A Prac-tical Approach, Reston PublishingDivision of Prentice-Hall Publishers,Reston, Va., 1978.

17. Waldheim, G.P, “UnderstandingHow Students Understand,” Engi-neering Education, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb.1987, pp. 306-308.

18. Richardson, J., Working WithPeople, Associate Management Inst.,San Francisco, Calif., 1984.

19. Barbe, W.B. and M.N. Milone,“Modality Strengths: A Reply to Dunnand Carbo,” Educational Leadership,Mar. 1981, p. 489.

20. Dunn, R. and M. Carbo,“Modalities: An Open Letter to WalterBarbe, Michael Milone, and RaymondSwassing,” Educational Leadership,Feb. 1981, pp. 381-382.

21. Stice, J.E., “Using KoIb’sLearning Cycle to Improve StudentLearning,” Engineering Education,vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 291-296.

22.Taba, H., Teaching Strategiesand Cognitive Functioning in Elemen-

tary School Children, U.S.O.E. Co-operative Research Project No. 2404,San Francisco State College, San Fran-cisco, Calif., 1966.

23. McConnell, T.R., “DiscoveryVersus Authoritative Identification inthe Learning of Children,” Studies inEducation, 2(5), 13-60 (1934).

24. Swenson, E.J., et al., “Organiza-tion and Generalization as Factors inLearning, Transfer, and Retroactive In-hibition,” Learning Theory in SchoolSituations, University of MinnesotaPress, Minneapolis, Minn., 1949.

25. Lahti, A.M., “The Inductive-De-ductive Method and the Physical Sci-ence Laboratory,” Journal of Experi-mental Education, vol. 24, 1956, pp.149-163. Cited in MeKeachie, W. J.,Teaching Tips (7th edit.), Heath, Lex-ington, Mass., 1978, p. 33.

26. Kagan, J., “Impulsive and Re-flective Children: The Significance ofConceptual Tempo,” in J. Krumboltz,Ed., Learning and the EducationalProcess, Rand McNally, Chicago, Ill.1965.

27. Chomsky, N., Language andMind, Harcourt, Brace and World,New York, 1968.

28.Piaget, J., Science of Educationand the Psychology of the Child, OrionPress, New York, 1970.

29. Felder, R.M. and L.K.Silverman, “Learning Styles andTeaching Styles in EngineeringEducation,” Presented at the 1987Annual Meeting of the AmericanInstitute of Chemical Engineers, NewYork, Nov. 1987.

30. Kolb, op. cit., ref. 3, p. 86.31. Felder, R.M., “Creativity in En-

gineering Education,” Chemical Engi-neering Education, 1988, in press.

32. Silverman, L.K., “Global Learn-ers: Our Forgotten Gifted Children,”Paper presented at the 7th World Con-ference on Gifted and Talented Chil-dren, Salt Lake City, Ut., Aug. 1987.

33. Felder, R.M., “On Creating Cre-ative Engineers,” Engineering Educa-tion, vol. 77, no. 4, Jan. 1987, pp. 222-227.

34. Hoffman, J.L., K. Waters and M.Berry, “Personality Types and Com-puter Assisted Instruction in a Self-Paced Technical Training Environ-ment,” Research in Psychological Type3, 81-85 (1981).