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.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLESIN ENGINEERING EDUCATION[Engr. Education, 78(7), 674–681 (1988)]Author’s Preface — June 2002by Richard M. FelderWhen 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 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 memecahkan masalah ini dengan mengizinkan lisan dan tulisan kata-kata untuk dimasukkan dalam samaKategori (lisan). Untuk rincian lebih lanjut tentang studi kognisi yang mengarah pada kesimpulan ini, lihatR.M. Felder dan er Henriques, "belajar dan mengajar gaya dalam asing dan keduaPendidikan bahasa"bahasa asing Annuals, 28 (1), 21-31 (1995)..Indeks gaya belajarIndeks gaya belajar (ILS) adalah alat berbasis web penilaian diri yang menilaipreferensi pada Sensing Intuiting, Visual Verbal, aktif termenung dan Sequential Globaldimensi. Hal ini tersedia gratis untuk individu dan instruktur yang ingin menggunakannya untuk mengajar danpenelitian di kelas mereka sendiri, dan hal ini dilisensikan kepada perusahaan dan individu yang berencana untuk menggunakannyauntuk lebih luas penelitian atau layanan untuk pelanggan atau klien. Untuk mengakses ILS daninformasi tentang hal ini, pergi ke .Dan sekarang, kertas.