1. 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. 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).
<http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/FLAnnals.pdf>.
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 <http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html>.
And now, the paper.

3. 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 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 students (making things even worse) interaction with others. The outcome is
seeing and hearing; reflecting and or begin to wonder if they are in the that the material is either “learned” in
acting; reasoning logically and right profession. Most seriously, one sense or another or not learned.
intuitively; memorizing and society loses potentially excellent A learning-style model classifies
visualizing and drawing analogies engineers. students according to where they fit on a
and building 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 student 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 curriculum, 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 memorization 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.

4. 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 theory 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 organization 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 progress 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 conceptual framework,
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— lectures, readings, 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 organization
this paper. deductive
deductive
active active student
processing participation
reflective passive
sequential sequential
understanding perspective
global global

5. 676
Sensing and Intuitive Learners for a different reason—their impa- needs 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
In the 1940s Isabel Briggs Myers sensors,8-10 suggesting a serious
most effectively with one of the three
developed the Myers-Briggs Type learning/teaching style mismatch in
most engineering courses. The modalities and tend to miss or ignore
Indicator (MBTI), an instrument that information presented in either of the
measures, among other things, the existence of the mismatch is
substantiated by Godleski,11,12 who other two.13-17 There are thus visual,
degree to which an individual prefers
found that in both chemical and auditory, and kinesthetic learners.*
sensing or intuition. In the succeeding
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, flow
the resulting profiles have been grades than sensing students. The one charts, time lines, films, dem-
correlated with career preferences and exception was a senior course in onstrations. If something is simply
aptitudes, management styles, learning chemical process design and cost
said to them they will probably forget
styles, and various behavioral estimation, which the author
characterizes as a “solid sensing it. Auditory learners remember much
tendencies. The characteristics of of what they hear and more of what
intuitive and sensing types7 and the course” (i.e. one that involves facts
and repetitive calculations by well- they hear and then say. They get a lot
different ways in which sensors and
defined procedures as opposed to out of discussion, prefer verbal
intuitors approach learning1,2 have been
studied. many new ideas and abstract explanation to visual demonstration,
concepts). and learn effectively by explaining
Sensors like facts, data, and ex-
While sensors may not perform as things to others.
perimentation; intuitors prefer prin- well as intuitors in school, both types
ciples and theories. 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
innovation 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 creativity, theoretical and handouts, on transparencies, or on
complications. Sensors are good at
ability, and talent at inspired a chalkboard). A second learning/
memorizing facts; intuitors are good at guesswork that characterize intuitors.
grasping new concepts. Sensors are teaching style mismatch thus exists,
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.

6. 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, laws, 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 into life with a set of general princi- themselves as inductive learners. We
they say as they do something.21 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 logic 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.

7. 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 work 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 professor 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 home- 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 book 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 knowledge 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
formation;23’24 improved ability to observation.3 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 it in some way—and reflective ries (table 1) the opposite of active is
thought.27’28 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
scientific method in classroom 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

8. 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 teachers. 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 trouble. Some eventually become
periodically to advanced
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 higher education 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 stage.
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 collective 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 convergent thinking 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
Sequential learners learn best when
experience.31 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
Most formal education involves the solving them.31’33 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

9. 680
Teaching Techniques to Address their learning process to them. While
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
their developing and applying those
patterns (observation of surroundings, empirical experimentation, abilities later in life will be substan-
attention 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
visual, sensing, inductive, and active,
 Use pictures, schematics, graphs, and simple sketches liberally
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 writing 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 inclusion 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
present a given body of material.
reshape their learning experiences so that they can be successful
(all types). The idea, however, is not to use all

10. 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-
cation,” Engineering Education, vol. cisco, Calif., 1966.
neither the active experimenter 23. McConnell, T.R., “Discovery
73, no. 5, Feb. 1983, pp. 394-400.
nor the reflective observer can 10. Yokomoto, C.E and J.R. Ware, Versus Authoritative Identification in
“Improving Problem Solving Perfor- the Learning of Children,” Studies in
learn effectively. Unfortunately, Education, 2(5), 13-60 (1934).
mance Using the MBTI,” Proceedings,
most engineering classes fall into ASEE Annual Conference, College 24. Swenson, E.J., et al., “Organiza-
Station, Tex., 1982, pp. 163-167. tion and Generalization as Factors in
this category. Learning, Transfer, and Retroactive In-
11. Godleski, E.S., “Learning Style
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 149-163. Cited in MeKeachie, W. J.,
Summer National Meeting of the
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,” Educational Leadership, 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 Child, 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 Publishing 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, Salt Lake City, Ut., Aug. 1987.
6. Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, and Carbo,” Educational Leadership, 33. Felder, R.M., “On Creating Cre-
Princeton University 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, Berry, “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 Training 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-