LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLESIN ENGI

LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES
IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION
[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 psychology and my
experience in engineering education that would be helpful to some of my fellow engineering
professors. 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 science 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 Learning Styles
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 set 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 school 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
college teaching method 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 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 exactly
what I need to know for the test, 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 lecture paradigm 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” information 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 cognition studies that led to this conclusion, see
R.M. Felder and E.R. Henriques, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second
Language Education,” 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
research 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.

“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 State University
Linda K. Silverman, Institute for the Study of
Advanced Development
[Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]
Students learn in many ways— by
seeing and hearing; reflecting and
acting; reasoning logically and
intuitively; memorizing and
visualizing and drawing analogies
and building mathematical models;
steadily and in fits and starts.
Teaching methods also vary. Some
instructors lecture, others
demonstrate or discuss; some focus
on principles and others on applications;
some emphasize memory and
others understanding. How much a
given student learns in a class is
governed in part by that student’s
native ability and prior preparation
but also by the compatibility of his
or her learning style and the
instructor’s teaching style.
Mismatches exist between common
learning styles of engineering
students and traditional teaching
styles of engineering professors. In
consequence, students become
bored and inattentive in class, do
poorly on tests, get discouraged
about the courses, the curriculum,
and themselves, and in some cases
change to other curricula or drop
out of school. Professors,
confronted by low test grades,
unresponsive or hostile classes,
poor attendance and dropouts, know
something is not working; they may
become overly critical of their
students (making things even worse)
or begin to wonder if they are in the
right profession. Most seriously,
society loses potentially excellent
engineers.
In discussing this situation, we will
explore:
1) Which aspects of learning style
are particularly significant in engineering
education?
2) Which learning styles are preferred
by most students and which are
favored by the teaching styles of most
professors?
3) What can be done to reach students
whose learning styles are not
addressed by standard methods of
engineering education?
Dimensions of Learning Style
Learning in a structured educational
setting may be thought of as a
two-step process involving the reception
and processing of information. In
the reception step, external information
(observable through the
senses) and internal information
(arising introspectively) become
available to students, who select the
material they will process and ignore
the rest. The processing step may
involve simple memorization or inductive
or deductive reasoning, reflection
or action, and introspection or
interaction with others. The outcome is
that the material is either “learned” in
one sense or another or not learned.
A learning-style model classifies
students according to where they fit on a
number of scales pertaining to the ways
they receive and process information. A
model intended to be particularly
applicable to engineering education is
proposed below. Also proposed is a
parallel teaching-style model, which
classifies instructional methods
according to how well they address the
proposed learning style components. The
learning and teaching style dimensions
that define the models are shown in the
box.
Most of the learning and teaching
style components parallel one another.*
A student who favors intuitive over
sensory perception, for example, would
respond well to an instructor who
emphasizes concepts (abstract content)
rather than facts (concrete content); a
student who favors visual perception
would be most comfortable with an
instructor who uses charts, pictures, and
films.
* The one exception is the active/
reflective learning style dimension and
the active/passive teaching style dimension,
which do not exactly correspond.
The difference will later be explained.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

BELAJAR DAN GAYA MENGAJARDALAM TEKNIK PENDIDIKAN[Engr. pendidikan, 78(7), 674 – 681 (1988)]Penulis pengantar — Juni 2002oleh Richard M. FelderKetika Linda Silverman dan aku menulis makalah ini pada tahun 1987, tujuan kami adalah untuk menawarkan beberapa wawasan tentangpengajaran dan pembelajaran berdasarkan keahlian Dr Silverman dalam psikologi pendidikan dan sayapengalaman dalam teknik pendidikan yang akan membantu untuk beberapa teknik saya sesamaProfesor. Ketika karya diterbitkan lebih awal pada tahun 1988, respon adalah menakjubkan. Hampirsegera, permintaan cetak ulang banjir di dari seluruh dunia. Karya mulai dikutip dalamliteratur pendidikan teknik, kemudian dalam literatur pendidikan ilmu pengetahuan umum; ituartikel pertama yang dikutip dalam isu utama ERIC Nasional pengajaran dan pembelajaran Forum; dan ituadalah yang paling sering dikutip kertas dalam artikel yang diterbitkan dalam jurnal pendidikan teknikselama 10 tahun. Berbasis web alat penilaian diri disebut indeks gaya belajaryang menilai preferensi pada skala empat dari pembelajaran model gaya dikembangkan dalam karyasaat ini mendapat sekitar 100.000 hits tahun dan telah diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa setengah lusin yang sayatahu tentang dan mungkin lagi bahwa saya tidak, meskipun itu telah belum divalidasi. 1988kertas masih dikutip lebih dari kertas lain yang saya telah menulis, termasuk karya-karya yang lebih baru padagaya belajar.Masalahnya adalah bahwa dalam beberapa tahun terakhir saya telah menemukan alasan untuk membuat dua perubahan signifikan dalamthe 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 dimensionI 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.Siswa yang ramai atau kebanyakan akan mengatakan bahwa mereka lebih suka deduktif presentasi — "hanya katakan persisapa saya perlu tahu untuk tes, tidak satu kata lebih atau kurang." (Saya spekulasi dalam karya yanglebih banyak siswa lebih suka induksi dipatahkan oleh tambahan sampling.) Saya tidak ingin2instruktur untuk dapat menentukan entah bagaimana bahwa siswa mereka lebih suka deduktif presentasi danGunakan hasil tersebut untuk membenarkan terus menggunakan paradigma kuliah tradisional, namun kurang efektif diprogram studi dan kurikulum mereka. Oleh karena itu saya telah dihilangkan dimensi ini dari model.Perubahan dimensi dimensi visual verbal visual dan pendengaran"Visual" informasi jelas termasuk gambar, diagram, grafik, plot, animasi, dll.,dan informasi "pendengaran" jelas termasuk kata yang diucapkan dan suara lainnya. Satu mediatransmisi informasi yang tidak jelas ditulis prosa. Hal itu dirasakan secara visual dan begitujelas tidak dapat dikategorikan sebagai pendengaran, tetapi juga suatu kesalahan untuk benjolan itu menjadi visualKategori olah itu setara dengan gambar dalam transmisi informasi. KognitifPara ilmuwan telah menetapkan bahwa otak kita umumnya mengubah kata-kata tertulis ke mereka berbicarasetara dan proses mereka dengan cara yang sama bahwa mereka memproses kata yang diucapkan. Kata-kata tertuliskarena itu tidak setara dengan informasi nyata visual: untuk pelajar visual, Gambar benar-benar layakseribu kata, apakah mereka yang dibicarakan atau ditulis. Membuat gaya belajar memasangkan visual danverbal 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)..The Index of Learning StylesThe Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is a self-scoring web-based instrument that assessespreferences on the Sensing/Intuiting, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Globaldimensions. It is available free to individuals and instructors who wish to use it for teaching andresearch on their own classes, and it is licensed to companies and individuals who plan to use itfor broader research studies or services to customers or clients. To access the ILS andinformation about it, go to .And now, the paper.“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 EducationRichard M. Felder, North Carolina State UniversityLinda K. Silverman, Institute for the Study ofAdvanced 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 applications;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 commonlearning 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 theirstudents (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 engineeringeducation?2) Which learning styles are preferredby most students and which arefavored by the teaching styles of mostprofessors?3) apa yang dapat dilakukan untuk mencapai siswagaya belajar yang tidakditangani oleh metode standarpendidikan teknik?Dimensi gaya belajarBelajar di terstruktur pendidikanpengaturan dapat dianggap sebagaidua langkah proses yang melibatkan penerimaandan pengolahan informasi. Dalamlangkah penerimaan, eksternal(diamati melaluiIndra) dan informasi internal(timbul introspectively) menjaditersedia untuk siswa yang memilihmateri mereka akan memproses dan mengabaikansisanya. Mungkin langkah pengolahanmelibatkan menghafal sederhana atau induktifatau penalaran deduktif, refleksiatau tindakan, dan introspeksi atauinteraksi dengan orang lain. Hasilbahwa materi adalah baik "belajar" disatu pengertian atau lain atau tidak belajar.Model gaya belajar mengklasifikasikansiswa menurut mana mereka cocok padajumlah timbangan yang berkaitan dengan caramereka menerima dan memproses informasi. Amodel yang dimaksudkan untuk menjadi terutamaberlaku untuk pendidikan teknikdiusulkan di bawah. Juga diusulkan adalahparalel gaya pengajaran model, yangmengklasifikasikan metode pengajaranBerdasarkan seberapa baik mereka alamatdiusulkan belajar gaya komponen. Thebelajar dan mengajar gaya dimensiyang mendefinisikan model yang akan ditampilkan dalamkotak.Sebagian besar belajar dan mengajargaya komponen sejajar satu another.*Seorang mahasiswa yang nikmat intuitif ataspersepsi sensorik, misalnya, akanmerespon dengan baik untuk instruktur yangmenekankan konsep (abstrak konten)daripada fakta (beton konten); amahasiswa yang nikmat persepsi visualakan paling nyaman denganinstruktur yang menggunakan grafik, Gambar, danfilm.* Satu-satunya pengecualian adalah aktif /reflektif belajar gaya dimensi danaktif/pasif mengajar dimensi gaya,yang tidak persis sesuai.Perbedaan akan kemudian dijelaskan.