LEARNING STYLES AND STRATEGIES Richard M.

Felder Hoechst Celanese Professor of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University Barbara A. Soloman Coordinator of Advising, First Year College North Carolina State University ACTIVE AND REFLECTIVE LEARNERS

Active learners tend to retain and understand information best by doing something active with it--discussing or applying it or explaining it to others. Reflective learners prefer to think about it quietly first. "Let's try it out and see how it works" is an active learner's phrase; "Let's think it through first" is the reflective learner's response. Active learners tend to like group work more than reflective learners, who prefer working alone. Sitting through lectures without getting to do anything physical but take notes is hard for both learning types, but particularly hard for active learners.

Everybody is active sometimes and reflective sometimes. Your preference for

one category or the other may be strong, moderate, or mild. A balance of the two is desirable. If you always act before reflecting you can jump into things prematurely and get into trouble, while if you spend too much time reflecting you may never get anything done. How can active learners help themselves? If you are an active learner in a class that allows little or no class time for discussion or problem-solving activities, you should try to compensate for these lacks when you study. Study in a group in which the members take turns explaining different topics to each other. Work with others to guess what you will be asked on the next test and figure out how you will answer. You will always retain information better if you find ways to do something with it. How can reflective learners help themselves? If you are a reflective learner in a class that allows little or not class time for thinking about new information, you should try to compensate for this lack when you study. Don't simply read or memorize the material; stop periodically to review

what you have read and to think of possible questions or applications. You might find it helpful to write short summaries of readings or class notes in your own words. Doing so may take extra time but will enable you to retain the material more effectively. SENSING AND INTUITIVE LEARNERS

Sensing learners tend to like learning facts, intuitive learners often prefer discovering possibilities and relationships. Sensors often like solving problems by well-established methods and dislike complications and surprises; intuitors like innovation and dislike repetition. Sensors are more likely than intuitors to resent being tested on material that has not been explicitly covered in class. Sensors tend to be patient with details and good at memorizing facts and doing hands-on (laboratory) work; intuitors may be better at grasping new concepts and are often more comfortable than sensors with abstractions and mathematical formulations. Sensors tend to be more practical and careful than intuitors; intuitors tend to work faster and to be more innovative than sensors. Sensors don't like courses that have no apparent connection to the real world; intuitors don't like "plug-and-chug" courses that involve a lot of memorization and routine calculations.

Everybody is sensing sometimes and intuitive sometimes. Your preference for

one or the other may be strong, moderate, or mild. To be effective as a learner and problem solver, you need to be able to function both ways. If you overemphasize intuition, you may miss important details or make careless mistakes in calculations or hands-on work; if you overemphasize sensing, you may rely too much on memorization and familiar methods and not concentrate enough on understanding and innovative thinking. How can sensing learners help themselves? Sensors remember and understand information best if they can see how it connects to the real world. If you are in a class where most of the material is abstract and theoretical, you may have difficulty. Ask your instructor for specific examples of concepts and procedures, and find out how the concepts apply in practice. If the teacher does not provide enough specifics, try to find some in your course text or other references or by brainstorming with friends or classmates.

How can intuitive learners help themselves? Many college lecture classes are aimed at intuitors. However, if you are an intuitor and you happen to be in a class that deals primarily with memorization and rote substitution in formulas, you may have trouble with boredom. Ask your instructor for interpretations or theories that link the facts, or try to find the connections yourself. You may also be prone to careless mistakes on test because you are impatient with details and don't like repetition (as in checking your completed solutions). Take time to read the entire question before you start answering and be sure to check your results VISUAL AND VERBAL LEARNERS Visual learners remember best what they see--pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time lines, films, and demonstrations. Verbal learners get more out of words-written and spoken explanations. Everyone learns more when information is presented both visually and verbally. In most college classes very little visual information is presented: students mainly listen to lectures and read material written on chalkboards and in textbooks and handouts. Unfortunately, most people are visual learners, which means that most students do not get nearly as much as they would if more visual presentation were used in class. Good learners are capable of processing information presented either visually or verbally. How can visual learners help themselves? If you are a visual learner, try to find diagrams, sketches, schematics, photographs, flow charts, or any other visual representation of course material that is predominantly verbal. Ask your instructor, consult reference books, and see if any videotapes or CD-ROM displays of the course material are available. Prepare a concept map by listing key points, enclosing them in boxes or circles, and drawing lines with arrows between concepts to show connections. Colorcode your notes with a highlighter so that everything relating to one topic is the same color. How can verbal learners help themselves?

Write summaries or outlines of course material in your own words. Working in groups can be particularly effective: you gain understanding of material by hearing classmates' explanations and you learn even more when you do the explaining. SEQUENTIAL AND GLOBAL LEARNERS

Sequential learners tend to gain understanding in linear steps, with each step following logically from the previous one. Global learners tend to learn in large jumps, absorbing material almost randomly without seeing connections, and then suddenly "getting it." Sequential learners tend to follow logical stepwise paths in finding solutions; global learners may be able to solve complex problems quickly or put things together in novel ways once they have grasped the big picture, but they may have difficulty explaining how they did it.

Many people who read this description may conclude incorrectly that they are global, since everyone has experienced bewilderment followed by a sudden flash of understanding. What makes you global or not is what happens before the light bulb goes on. Sequential learners may not fully understand the material but they can nevertheless do something with it (like solve the homework problems or pass the test) since the pieces they have absorbed are logically connected. Strongly global learners who lack good sequential thinking abilities, on the other hand, may have serious difficulties until they have the big picture. Even after they have it, they may be fuzzy about the details of the subject, while sequential learners may know a lot about specific aspects of a subject but may have trouble relating them to different aspects of the same subject or to different subjects. How can sequential learners help themselves? Most college courses are taught in a sequential manner. However, if you are a sequential learner and you have an instructor who jumps around from topic to topic or skips steps, you may have difficulty following and remembering. Ask the instructor to fill in the skipped steps, or fill them in yourself by consulting references. When you are studying, take the time to outline the lecture material for yourself in logical order. In the long run doing so will save you time. You might also try to strengthen your global thinking skills by relating each new topic you

study to things you already know. The more you can do so, the deeper your understanding of the topic is likely to be. How can global learners help themselves? If you are a global learner, it can be helpful for you to realize that you need the big picture of a subject before you can master details. If your instructor plunges directly into new topics without bothering to explain how they relate to what you already know, it can cause problems for you. Fortunately, there are steps you can take that may help you get the big picture more rapidly. Before you begin to study the first section of a chapter in a text, skim through the entire chapter to get an overview. Doing so may be time-consuming initially but it may save you from going over and over individual parts later. Instead of spending a short time on every subject every night, you might find it more productive to immerse yourself in individual subjects for large blocks. Try to relate the subject to things you already know, either by asking the instructor to help you see connections or by consulting references. Above all, don't lose faith in yourself; you will eventually understand the new material, and once you do your understanding of how it connects to other topics and disciplines may enable you to apply it in ways that most sequential thinkers would never dream of. MATTERS OF STYLE Richard M. Felder Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695--7905 Students have different learning styles--characteristic strengths and preferences in the ways they take in and process information. Some students tend to focus on facts, data, and algorithms; others are more comfortable with theories and mathematical models. Some respond strongly to visual forms of information, like pictures, diagrams, and schematics; others get more from verbal forms--written and spoken explanations. Some prefer to learn actively and interactively; others function more introspectively and individually.

Functioning effectively in any professional capacity, however, requires working well in all learning style modes. For example, competent engineers and scientists must be observant, methodical, and careful (characteristics of the sensing style in one of the learning style models to be described) as well as innovative, curious, and inclined to go beyond facts to interpretation and theory (characteristics of the intuitive style in that model). Similarly, they must develop both visual and verbal skills. Information routinely comes in both forms, and much of it will be lost to someone who cannot function well in both of these modes. If professors teach exclusively in a manner that favors their students' less preferred learning style modes, the students' discomfort level may be great enough to interfere with their learning. On the other hand, if professors teach exclusively in their students' preferred modes, the students may not develop the mental dexterity they need to reach their potential for achievement in school and as professionals. An objective of education should thus be to help students build their skills in both their preferred and less preferred modes of learning. Learning style models that categorize these modes provide good frameworks for designing instruction with the desired breadth. The goal is to make sure that the learning needs of students in each model category are met at least part of the time. This is referred to as "teaching around the cycle." FOUR LEARNING STYLE MODELS Before looking at some examples of teaching around the cycle, let's examine four learning style models that have been used effectively in engineering education. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

This model classifies students according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. Students may be:

extraverts (try things out, focus on the outer world of people) or introverts (think things through, focus on the inner world of ideas); sensors (practical, detail-oriented, focus on facts and procedures) or intuitors (imaginative, concept-oriented, focus on meanings and possibilities); thinkers (skeptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules) or feelers (appreciative, tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations); judgers (set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data) or perceivers (adapt to changing circumstances, resist closure to obtain more data).

The MBTI type preferences can be combined to form 16 different learning style types. For example, one student may be an ESTJ (extravert, sensor, thinker, perceiver) and another may be an INFJ (introvert, intuitor, feeler, judger). Engineering professors usually orient their courses toward introverts (by presenting lectures and requiring individual assignments rather than emphasizing active class involvement and cooperative learning), intuitors (by focusing on engineering science rather than design and operations), thinkers (by stressing abstract analysis and neglecting interpersonal considerations), and judgers (by concentrating on following the syllabus and meeting assignment deadlines rather than on exploring ideas and solving problems creatively). Kolb's Learning Style Model This model classifies students as having a preference for 1) concrete experience or abstract conceptualization (how they take information in), and 2) active

experimentation or reflective observation (how they internalize information). The

four types of learners in this classification scheme are

Type 1 (concrete, reflective). A characteristic question of this learning type is "Why?" Type 1 learners respond well to explanations of how course material relates to their experience, their interests, and their future careers. To be effective with Type 1 students, the instructor should function as a motivator. Type 2 (abstract, reflective). A characteristic question of this learning type is "What?" Type 2 learners respond to information presented in an organized,

logical fashion and benefit if they have time for reflection. To be effective, the instructor should function as an expert.

Type 3 (abstract, active). A characteristic question of this learning type is "How?" Type 3 learners respond to having opportunities to work actively on well-defined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment that allows them to fail safely. To be effective, the instructor should function as a coach, providing guided practice and feedback. Type 4 (concrete, active). A characteristic question of this learning type is "What if?" Type 4 learners like applying course material in new situations to solve real problems. To be effective, the instructor should stay out of the way, maximizing opportunities for the students to discover things for themselves.

Traditional engineering instruction focuses almost exclusively on formal presentation of material (lecturing), a style comfortable for only Type 2 learners. To reach all types of learners, a professor should explain the relevance of each new topic (Type 1), present the basic information and methods associated with the topic (Type 2), provide opportunities for practice in the methods (Type 3), and encourage exploration of applications (Type 4). The term "teaching around the cycle" was originally coined to describe this instructional approach. Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) This method classifies students in terms of their relative preferences for thinking in four different modes based on the task-specialized functioning of the physical brain. The four modes or quadrants in this classification scheme are

Quadrant A (left brain, cerebral). Logical, analytical, quantitative, factual, critical; Quadrant B (left brain, limbic). Sequential, organized, planned, detailed, structured; Quadrant C (right brain, limbic). Emotional, interpersonal, sensory, kinesthetic, symbolic; Quadrant D (right brain, cerebral). Visual, holistic, innovative.

Engineering professors on the average are strongly Quadrant A dominant and would like their students to be that way as well, according to Edward and Monika Lumsdaine (see references). Most engineering instruction consequently focuses on left-brain Quadrant A analysis and Quadrant B methods and procedures associated with that analysis, neglecting important skills associated with quadrant C (teamwork, communications) and quadrant D (creative problem

solving, systems thinking, synthesis, and design). This imbalance is a disservice to all students, but particularly to the 20-40% of entering engineering students with strong preferences for C and D quadrant thinking. Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model This model classifies students as:

sensing learners (concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or intuitive learners (conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and meanings); visual learners (prefer visual representations of presented material--pictures, diagrams, flow charts) or verbal learners (prefer written and spoken explanations); inductive learners (prefer presentations that proceed from the specific to the general) or deductive learners (prefer presentations that go from the general to the specific); active learners (learn by trying things out, working with others) or reflective learners (learn by thinking things through, working alone); sequential learners (linear, orderly, learn in small incremental steps) or global learners (holistic, systems thinkers, learn in large leaps).

For the past few decades, most engineering instruction has been heavily biased toward intuitive, verbal, deductive, reflective, and sequential learners. However, relatively few engineering students fall into all five of these categories. Thus most engineering students receive an education that is mismatched to their learning styles. This could hurt their performance and their attitudes toward their courses and toward engineering as a curriculum and career. In the section "Teaching to All Types" I suggest some instructional methods for addressing the learning needs of the full spectrum of learning styles. LEARNING STYLES IN ACTION Here are some ways that engineering educators have applied learning style models to provide students with an education that addresses both their learning strengths and weaknesses. Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator During the 1980s, thousands of engineering students and hundreds of

engineering professors took the MBTI as part of a research study conducted by a consortium of eight engineering schools and the Center for Applications of Pyschological Type. The study examined the effects of psychological type differences on the education and career development of engineering students. Educators have used the results to design methods for improved teaching and advising. For example, Charles Yokomoto, an electrical engineering professor at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, uses the MBTI as a diagnostic tool for students having academic difficulties. He administers the instrument to them, gives them the results, and describes the characteristics of their type. If the descriptions seem accurate to the students Yokomoto helps them devise remedial approaches that not only capitalize on their strengths but also use their weaker modes when doing so is the more appropriate learning approach. Letting the students assess the accuracy of the descriptions is essential. Like all other assessment instruments, the MBTI provides clues, not infallible labels. The student is the ultimate judge of his or her behavior patterns. Working with an ISTJ (introvert, sensor, thinker, judger) student who was failing the introductory course in electrical circuits, Yokomoto speculated and confirmed that the student relied too heavily on memorization and drill (traits of ISTJs) as approaches to problem solving. The professor persuaded his student to add strategies based more on a fundamental understanding of the concepts. The student's performance began to improve: by his senior year he was earning A's, and he subsequently received a master's degree in electrical engineering. In another case, Yokomoto found that an ENTJ (extrovert, intuitor, thinker, judger) student jumped directly into mathematical derivation on every homework and test problem (behavior consistent with extroverted intuition) rather than using routine procedures for routine problems. The resulting demands on the student's time caused problems with assignment completion and test performance. Once the student realized what he was doing, he began to apply his analytical talents when needed rather than using them indiscriminately and inefficiently. As a

result, his performance improved. (For more information about this work, contact Charles Yokomoto,

yokomoto@tech.iupui.edu.)
Applications of the Kolb Model Julie Sharp, an associate professor of technical communications in the chemical engineering department at Vanderbilt University, has administered the Kolb Learning Style Inventory to her technical communication classes and senior chemical engineering laboratory course for the past six years. In the communication class, she gives the students a handout describing ways to communicate effectively to the four different learning types. The students then prepare and give 10-minute presentations designed to appeal to all types. In the laboratory course, the students keep journals in which they describe conflicts and accomplishments within their lab groups, relating them to the group members' learning styles. Sharp has found that teaching students about learning styles helps them learn the course material because they become aware of their thinking processes. More importantly, she says, it helps them develop interpersonal skills that are critical to success in any professional career. (For more information, contact Julie Sharp, sharpje@vuse.vanderbilt.edu.) In 1989 the College of Engineering and Technology at Brigham Young University initiated a faculty training program based on Kolb learning styles. About one-third of the engineering faculty members, all volunteers, were trained in the concepts of the Kolb model and methods of teaching to each Kolb type. The volunteers implemented the approach in their courses, reviewed videotapes of their teaching, and discussed their successes and problems in focus groups. The benefits of the program have been significant. Many faculty members--including some who did not participate in the original training --have redesigned their courses in an attempt to reach the full spectrum of learning styles. They do so by using a variety of teaching methods such as group problem solving, brainstorming activities, design projects, and writing exercises in addition to

formal lecturing. Additionally, discussions about teaching have become a regular part of department faculty meetings; the general level of interest and concern about teaching has increased throughout the engineering college; and several faculty members have become involved in the "scholarship of teaching," presenting and publishing peer-reviewed papers related to engineering education. (For more information, contact John Harb, jharb@caedm.byu.edu, or Ronald

Terry, ron_terry@byu.edu.)
Applications of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument In the early 1990s, Edward Lumsdaine and Jennifer Voitle, then of the University of Toledo's engineering college, studied the HBDI types of the college's students and faculty members. They found that many engineering students and professors were left-brain thinkers--logical, analytical, verbal, and sequential. Their data also indicated a strong attrition rate among right-brain thinkers, with many of them dropping out despite earning top grades in analytical courses. "A dominant reason for their choosing other majors is the inhospitable learning climate in engineering, which does not accommodate their thinking preferences, even though voices in industry are increasingly demanding engineers with precisely those thinking skills," Lumsdaine and Voitle claimed in a 1993 paper on their research. The authors reviewed the existing mechanical engineering curriculum, found it skewed toward left-brained thinking skills, and set out to provide a better balance by introducing more creativity, design, innovation, and teamwork into selected courses. One course, "Introduction to Computing," originally consisted of 20 percent quadrant A activities (structured programming) and 80 percent quadrant B activities ("following the rules" in canned, routine programs). The redesigned version involved approximately 20 percent each for quadrants A and B and 30 percent each for quadrants C and D (student experiments, question formulation, design, modeling, and optimization). Students worked in teams formed by the

professors to provide balance in HBDI types. Student performance levels and attitudes to the course improved considerably because of these changes. These results and results of similar studies led Edward and Monika Lumsdaine to conclude in a 1995 Journal of Engineering Education article that the HBDI can serve several important functions. These include helping students gain insight into their learning styles and formulate successful learning strategies; helping instructors understand students' questions, comments, and answers in the context of their thinking preferences; helping instructors and students form whole-brain teams for optimum problem solving; and assessing the influence of curriculum changes on individual and collective student thinking skills. (For more information, contact Edward Lumsdaine, usfmdnan@ibmmail.com) Applications of the Felder-Silverman Model Along with Barbara Soloman, the coordinator for advising in the First-Year College at North Carolina State University, I am developing an Index of Learning

Styles (ILS) that classifies students on four of the five Felder-Silverman

dimensions (all but inductive/deductive). The ILS is in a beta version, and some professors are already testing it with their students. For example, Peter Rosati, a civil engineering professor at the University of Western Ontario, has used the ILS to assess the learning styles of engineering faculty members and first-year and fourth-year engineering students at his university. Rosati found that faculty members were significantly more reflective, intuitive, and sequential than the students. The results suggest that professors could improve engineering instruction by increasing the use of methods oriented toward active learners (participatory activities, team projects), sensing learners (guided practice, real-world applications of fundamental material), and global learners (providing the big picture, showing connections to related material in other courses and to the students' experience). (For more information, contact Peter Rosati, prosati@charon.engga.uwo.ca .)

At the University of Michigan, Susan Montgomery, an assistant professor of chemical engineering, is developing multimedia instructional modules that address the spectrum of Felder-Silverman preferences. To do this, she assessed her students' learning styles with the ILS and surveyed them to determine the attitudes of the different types toward different features of instructional modules. She reports that sensing and visual learners rated demonstrations highly; sensing learners liked having access to derivations of equations (which they may not have grasped as fully as the intuitors when the instructor first presented the equations in class); and active, sensing, and visual learners preferred movies more than their reflective, intuitive, and verbal counterparts did. (For more information, contact Susan Montgomery,

smontgom@engin.umich.edu.)
In another style-based approach to software instruction, Curtis Carver and Richard Howard, assistant professors at the U.S. Military Academy, have developed a hypermedia package for a computer science course on information systems. The package, which is distributed on the World Wide Web, is based on the Felder-Silverman model. Every lesson starts with a list of objectives and is followed by several different presentations of the lesson material, each geared toward a different learning style. For example, students can learn how to install a hard drive by going through a Harvard Graphics slide show, which is mostly text and appeals to verbal and sequential learners. Alternatively, they can learn the same thing by viewing embedded pictures, animations, and movies, which would appeal to visual and global learners. The hypermedia package allows students to assess their learning styles using an online version of the ILS. The Web interface then provides them the option of having the material presented in a manner compatible with their style preferences, structuring the lesson so that the preferred media elements come first. Students who prefer to organize the presentations themselves without following a particular sequence may do so also. (The hypermedia package can be accessed at

http://www.eecs.usma.edu/cs383/tools.htm. For more information, contact Curtis Carver, carver@eecs1.eecs.usma.edu, or Richard Howard, howard@eecs1.eecs.usma.edu.)
At North Carolina State University, I've used the Felder-Silverman model to design the instruction in a longitudinal study of engineering education. I taught five sequential chemical engineering courses in a way that would appeal to a range of learning styles. I presented course material inductively, moving from facts and familiar phenomena to theories and mathematical models rather than always using the "fundamentals, then applications" approach. I used realistic examples of engineering processes to illustrate basic principles and occasionally provided opportunities for laboratory and plant visits. I stressed active learning experiences in class, reducing the time I spent lecturing. In homework assignments I routinely augmented traditional formula substitution problems with open-ended questions and problem formulation exercises. I used extensive cooperative learning, and tried to get the students to teach one another rather than rely on me exclusively. So far, the results of my study suggest that teaching to the full spectrum of learning styles improves students' learning, satisfaction with their instruction, and self-confidence. (For more information and references to papers on the longitudinal study, contact

Richard Felder, felder@eos.ncsu.edu.)

TEACHING TO ALL TYPES Here are some strategies to ensure that your courses present information that appeals to a range of learning styles. These suggestions are based on the Felder-Silverman model.

Teach theoretical material by first presenting phenomena and problems that relate to the theory (sensing, inductive, global). For example, don't jump directly into free-body diagrams and force balances on the first day of a statics course. First describe problems associated with the design of buildings and bridges and artificial limbs, and perhaps give the students some of those problems and see how far they can go before they get all the tools for solving them. Balance conceptual information (intuitive) with concrete information (sensing). Intuitors favor conceptual information--theories, mathematical models, and

material that emphasizes fundamental understanding. Sensors prefer concrete information such as descriptions of physical phenomena, results from real and simulated experiments, demonstrations, and problem-solving algorithms. For example, when covering concepts of vapor-liquid equilibria, explain Raoult's and Henry's Law calculations and nonideal solution behavior, but also explain how these concepts relate to barometric pressure and the manufacture of carbonated beverages.

Make extensive use of sketches, plots, schematics, vector diagrams, computer graphics, and physical demonstrations (visual) in addition to oral and written explanations and derivations (verbal) in lectures and readings. For example, show flow charts of the reaction and transport processes that occur in particle accelerators, test tubes, and biological cells before presenting the relevant theories, and sketch or demonstrate the experiments used to validate the theories. To illustrate an abstract concept or problem-solving algorithm, use at least one numerical example (sensing) to supplement the usual algebraic example (intuitive). For example, when presenting Euler's method for numerical integration, instead of simply giving the formulas for successive steps, use the algorithm to integrate a simple function like y = x2 and work out the first few steps on the chalkboard with a hand calculator. Use physical analogies and demonstrations to illustrate the magnitudes of calculated quantities (sensing, global). For example, tell your students to think of 100 microns is about the thickness of a sheet of paper and to think of a mole as a very large dozen molecules. Have them pick up a 100 ml. bottle of water and a 100 ml. bottle of mercury before talking about density. Occasionally give some experimental observations before presenting the general principle, and have the students (preferably working in groups) see how far they can get toward inferring the latter (inductive). For example, rather than giving the students Ohm's or Kirchoff's Law up front and asking them to solve for an unknown, give them experimental voltage/current/resistance data for several circuits and let them try to figure out the laws for themselves. Provide class time for students to think about the material being presented (reflective) and for active student participation (active). Occasionally pause during a lecture to allow time for thinking and formulating questions. Assign "one-minute papers" near the end of a lecture period, having students write on index cards the lecture's most important point and the single most pressing unanswered question. Assign brief group problem-solving exercises in class that require students to work in groups of three or four. Encourage or mandate cooperation on homework (every style category). Hundreds of research studies show that students who participate in cooperative learning experiences tend to earn better grades, display more enthusiasm for their

chosen field, and improve their chances for graduation in that field relative to their counterparts in more traditional competitive class settings.

Demonstrate the logical flow of individual course topics (sequential), but also point out connections between the current material and other relevant material in the same course, in other courses in the same discipline, in other disciplines, and in everyday experience (global). For example, before discussing cell metabolism chemistry in detail, describe energy release by glucose oxidation and relate it to energy release by nuclear fission, electron orbit decay, waterfalls, and combustion in fireplaces, power plant boilers, and automobiles. Discuss where the energy comes from and where it goes in each of these processes and how cell metabolism differs. Then consider the photosynthetic origins of the energy stored in C-H bonds and the conditions under which the earth's supply of usable energy might run out.

CONCLUSION A learning style model is useful if balancing instruction on each of the model dimensions meets the learning needs of essentially all students in a class. The four models I've discussed in this article satisfy this criterion. Which model educators choose is almost immaterial, since the instructional approaches that teach around the cycle for each of the models are essentially identical. Whether educators are designing a course or curriculum, writing a textbook, developing instructional software, forming cooperative learning teams, or helping students develop interpersonal, leadership, and communication skills, they will benefit from using any of these models as the basis of their efforts. ADDITIONAL READING For more information on each of the learning style models discussed in this article, check the following sources. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator G. Lawrence, People Types and Tiger Stripes, 3rd Edition. Gainesville, FL, Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 1994. M.H. McCaulley, "The MBTI and Individual Pathways in Engineering Design."

Engr. Education, 80, 537-542 (1990).

M.H. McCaulley, G.P. Macdaid, and J.G. Granade. "ASEE-MBTI Engineering Consortium: Report of the First Five Years." Presented at the 1985 ASEE Annual Conference, June 1985.

Kolb Learning Style Model D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and

Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1984.

B. McCarthy, The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left

Mode Techniques. Barrington, IL, EXCEL, Inc., 1987.

J.E. Stice, "Using Kolb's Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning." Engr.

Education, 77, 291-296 (1987).

J.N. Harb, S.O. Durrant, and R.E. Terry. "Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education." J. Engr. Education, 82(2), 70-77 (1993). Herrmann Brain Dominance Model N. Herrmann, The Creative Brain. Lake Lure, NC, Brain Books, 1990. M. Lumsdaine and E. Lumsdaine. "Thinking Preferences of Engineering Students: Implications for Curriculum Restructuring." J. Engr. Education, 84(2), 193-204 (1995). Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model R.M. Felder and L.K. Silverman. "Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education." Engr. Education, 78 (7), 674-681 (1988). R.M. Felder, "Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education," J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 23(5), 286--290 (1993). Here are some language learning tips for people with each of the four learning types:

MeaningOriented Learners You probably enjoy using the language to build relationships with people. You want to observe and analyze social situations. It is good for you to plan language learning activities around language functions and communication situations. You may be frustrated by a language learning program based on a grammatical syllabus. An approach to language learning you might enjoy is the Relational

Theory-Oriented Learners You may be more interested in how the language works and the theoretical implications of the language to linguistic theory. You may be less interested in using the language as a medium for communication. Achieving communicative competence may be needed in order to achieve something you want to do. You may need to work at activities that will help you develop communication skills and to gain a

Solution-Oriented Learners Your motivation for learning a language is probably to enable you to accomplish something useful or important. You are probably less interested in linguistic theory for its own sake. You probably like a structured and orderly presentation of materials with hands-on learning. You are likely conscientious and work hard. If you know the purpose of an activity that will help you be productive, you will be more motivated to do it. You will

Activity-Oriented Learners You probably are more interested in getting out and doing things with people who speak the language. You may be less interested in studying by yourself. You may enjoy classroom activities that involve action and cooperation, such as games. If you get out and participate in activities where people use the language, you will have fun and learn a lot. You likely relate well to people and enjoy getting to know them.

What is a learning style?

Introduction Language workers must plan many aspects of their program and most will involve learning and teaching activities. Both are affected by your learning style. Knowing your learning style preferences can help you plan for activities that take advantage of your natural skills and inclinations. You can use several learning style inventories to discover aspects of your learning style and create a learning style profile, summarizing and correlating your results. Definition A learning style is the unique collection of individual skills and preferences that affect how a person perceives, gathers, and processes information. Learning style affects how a person

acts in a group learns participates in activities relates to others solves problems teaches, and works.

Benefits Knowing your learning style will help you plan for learning tasks such as language learning. When learning activities in your plan match your learning style preferences,

you will find them satisfying and motivational. If possible, try to choose these kinds of activities. When learning activities do not match your preferences, you are less likely to persevere. If you cannot avoid certain activities that do not match up well with your preferences, look for ways to modify the activities to take advantage of your preferences. See also

How to discover your learning style and create a learning style profile

The Learning Type Test

Introduction The Learning Type Test examines and reports your learning style in terms of the following categories of how individuals gather and process information:

Meaning-oriented learners gather data concretely and process it reflectively o Use senses well to observe life and tend to sit back and consider what they observe o Focus on people o Favorite question is Why?

Theory-oriented learners gather data abstractly and process it reflectively o Begin with a concept or idea and then think around it o Use minds well and think sequentially with logical precision o Favorite question is What?

Solution-oriented learners gather data abstractly and process it actively o Start with a concept or idea, try it out and see if it works, and integrate theory and practice

o o

Focus on results and enjoy finding practical solutions to problems Their favorite question is: How does this work?

Activity-oriented learners gather information concretely and process it actively o Use their senses well to experience life and to apply this information to the world around them o Strength is flexibility and ability to achieve results o Like freedom to act and can be fun-loving and adventurous

Description The learning type test consists of 80 statements that describe beliefs and attitudes about ways to work, think, and interact with people. You indicate your preferences by evaluating how well each statement describes you and by clicking on one of these responses:

Mostly true Mostly untrue Not sure

Result: The program reports your score on the 80 statements in terms of comparative numbers and descriptive words for each of the four learning types. As a further evaluation, you read descriptions of the four types and indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 how you think you match each description. Result: The program will display both scores together and ask you to make subjective adjustments in the results. Finally, the program

gives you a graphic display of your learning type preferences records your results, and combines with the results of the other inventories to report your overall learning style.

Taking the Inventory Click on Learning Type Test to take the inventory now. When you

have finished the inventory, the computer will ask you to type in your name so that it can record your results along with the results of other inventories in your personal learning style profile. To review the results of the inventory at any time, click on Learning Style Profile. To see how your personality type correlates with other learning style factors to make up your overall learning style: See: Your overall learning style

The Analytical Learner

Introduction The motivations, strengths and potential pitfalls of an Analytical Learner are quite different from those of a Relational Learner, and a language learning program needs to take those differences into account. Whether you are organizing a program for other people or for yourself, this module can help you better understand how an Analytical Learner learns best. Motivations Here are some things usually important to an Analytical Learner:

Opportunities to work independently Opportunities to integrate data into theoretical models Opportunities to solve problems Opportunities for intellectual freedom

Strengths Here are some strengths typical of the Analytical Learner:

Good analytical ability Intuition, allowing the grasp of overall systems Critical thinking which can help to solve problems Good self-evaluation

Potential pitfalls Here are some potential pitfalls of the Analytical Learner:

May be unable to meet high personal standards and become discouraged May spend too much time at the desk or computer and not relate to people May be unwilling to speak because of fear of making mistakes or dislike of making mistakes May be less interested in the culture than in the structure of the language

Preferred learning environments Here are some learning environments the Analytical Learner will probably enjoy:

Independent and self-paced work Intellectual stimulation involving problem-solving, reading and research A classroom where the teacher's intellectual ability and command of the subject matter is perceived as superior and worthy of respect

Difficult learning environments Here are some learning environments the Analytical Learner will probably find difficult:

Traditional classroom situations that call for doing things in a rote or mechanical way Classes that call for a lot of unrehearsed activities Unstructured and disorganized environments

Language learning approach To receive a description of an approach to language learning recommended for this type of learner, see: The Analytical approach to language learning.

The

Relational Learner

Introduction A language learning program will be most effective if it takes into account the motivations, strengths and potential pitfalls of the learners. Whether you are organizing a program for other people or for yourself, this module can help you better understand how a Relational Learner learns best. Motivations Here are some things usually important to a Relational Learner:

A chance to develop relationships and understand people and ideas A chance to have variety A chance to help other people develop A chance for personal development and growth A chance to understand underlying meanings

Strengths Here are some strengths typical of the Relational Learner:

Is intuitive, thus good at grasping systems Is adaptable to different situations and cultures Is empathetic with others Is good at judging other people's reactions

Potential pitfalls Here are some potential pitfalls of the Relational Learner:

May be overly sensitive to rejection May be so adaptable that personal identity is lost May be easily distressed by lack of harmony May have a short attention span if the subject or person does not engage interest

Preferred learning environments

Here are some learning environments the Relational Learner will probably enjoy:

Learning while living in a community of people who are accepting and open to relationships and to letting the learner be involved in their activities and lives Learning activities that allow the learner to observe and understand people and their culture Classroom setting that allows the learner to have lots of variety, creativity, group-work and communicative activities

Difficult learning environments Here are some learning environments the Relational Learner will probably find difficult:

Possible cultural or psychological barriers to spending time with people; as when people are naturally reserved or xenophobic Repetitive, unvarying tasks or activities

Language learning approach To receive a description of an approach to language learning recommended for this type of learner, see: The Relational approach to language learning .

The Structured Learner

Introduction The Structured Learner needs an organized and systematic approach to learning a language or anything else. Whether you are organizing a program for other people or for yourself, this module can help you better understand how a Structured Learner learns best.

Motivations Here are some things usually important to a Structured Learner:

A systematic and organized approach to learning A chance to apply concepts in a practical way Accuracy Hands-on activities Practical solutions to problems

Strengths Here are some strengths typical of the Structured Learner:

Perseverance Good planning Thorough and painstaking Systematic and careful

Potential pitfalls Here are some potential pitfalls of the Structured Learner:

May be more concerned with problems or tasks than with people May be so concerned with accuracy they are inhibited from talking May find learning a language in its natural context too chaotic for personal taste May block out input unable to control, thus making it difficult to catch the gist of a conversation May have more difficulty achieving an authentic pronunciation than some other types

Preferred learning environments Here are some learning environments the Structured Learner will probably enjoy:

A typical classroom setting, with a well-ordered syllabus, clearly presented materials, and clear instructions. Hands-on activities Problem-solving activities Exercises and drills

Difficult Learning Environments Here are some learning environments the Structured Learner will probably

find difficult:

Unstructured, disorganized, or chaotic environments Situations with diverse activities and lots of interpersonal interaction Language learning in natural communication settings

Language learning approach To receive a description of an approach to language learning recommended for this type of learner, see: The Structured approach to language learning.

The Energetic Learner

Introduction While the Structured Learner thrives on order and predictability, the Energetic Learner needs freedom. Whether you are organizing a program for other people or for yourself, this module can help you better understand how an Energetic Learner learns best. Motivations Here are some things usually important to an Energetic Learner:

Lots of activity A chance to do things with people Variety Adventure and risk Personal involvement in activities Hands-on activities

Strengths Here are some strengths typical of the Energetic Learner:

Adaptability Willingness to get out into the community and get involved Desire to interact with people Willingness to take risks

Potential pitfalls Here are some potential pitfalls of the Energetic Learner:

May ignore accuracy May act too quickly May be unwilling to take time to plan a program May be satisfied with speaking incorrectly, as long as the message gets across May have gaps in knowledge because of unsystematic language learning

Preferred Learning Environments Here are some learning environments the Energetic Learner will probably enjoy:

Community language setting with opportunity for involvement in their activities Learning activities that can be linked to other enjoyable activities Classroom settings that allow for lots of variety, flexibility, action, groupwork, and field trips

Difficult learning environments Here are some learning environments the Energetic Learner will probably find difficult:

Traditional classroom situations that require spending time alone, doing repetitive exercises, and working with pencil and paper Any program that is rigidly structured and does not allow for variety and spontaneity Possible cultural or psychological barriers to joining in activities with people; as when people are naturally reserved or xenophobic

Language learning approach To see a description of an approach to language learning recommended for this type of learner, see: The Energetic approach to language learning.

The Learning Thinking Styles Inventory

Scott-Shipp Hall, VMI, doctored in watercolor.

Thinking is good. Me.

Return to Functions and Services Return to Developmental Assumptions Return to I R Home Page

Contents
Overview of the Learning Styles

The Axes of Learning Style

Sensory Preference The Concrete-Abstract Continuum The Global-Analytic Continuum Metacognition

The G-Factor vs. Multiple Intelligences

Spearman's G Multiple Intelligences

The Learning Thinking Styles Inventory (LTSI)

Overview of Learning Styles

Stephen RiCharde, the nerd who invented the LTSI.

The concept of learning styles has been batted about for many years in the psychological literature but predominantly among those interested in informationprocessing theory. There have also been numerous efforts to measure various aspects of learning styles depending upon which constructs have waxed popular. In 1988, I began to formulate an instrument that would measure as many of the

robust constructs as possible but still result in a coherent scheme. The instrument I devised was based on several axes of learning styles. Those axes are discussed below.

The Axes of Learning - Thinking Styles

Sensory Preference
Individuals tend to gravitate toward one or two types of sensory input and maintain a dominance in one of the following types:

Sensory Preference

Description of Preference
Those preferring this form of input gravitate toward active, sensorimotor learning. They tend to prefer "learning by doing,"

Tactile/Kinesthetic

preferring the use of psychomotor skills to, say, abstract thinking skills. They tend to have good motor memory and motor coordination. Those preferring this form input gravitate toward visual imagery such as film, graphic displays, or pictures in order to solidify learning. They tend to have good "picture memory," a.k.a. iconic

Visual/Iconic

imagery and attend to pictorial detail. They would rather read a map than read a book. Those preferring this form of input gravitate toward aural input exemplified in the ubiquitous Auditory lecture format. They can attend aurally to details, translate the spoken word easily into the written word, and are not easily distracted in their listening ability. Those preferring this form of input gravitate toward abstract symbolism such as mathematical formulae or the written word. Visual/Symbolic They would rather read a book than a map and would rather read it than hear it. They tend to be good abstract thinkers who do not require practical outlets for learning.

Some theorists (Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget) have asserted that there is a developmental component in the preferential modalities described above. They have provided evidence to support a trend from tactile (enactive in Bruner's model, sensorimotor in Piaget's) in childhood to the visual/symbolic (symbolic to Bruner, formal operations to Piaget) in adulthood. However, others (Robert Sternberg and Howard Gardener)

consider these differential preferences and skills as different types of intelligence. While these researchers are engaged in these attacks on intellectual windmills, the rest of us are stuck to sort out how best to teach today's college students given these individual differences. (In fairness to Gardener I should mention he has put his money where his pencil is and has developed a curriculum based on his model of multiple intelligences at the Key School in Indianapolis.)

The Concrete - Abstract Continuum

This continuum is common to most interpretations of learning style and encompasses the features described in the table below.

Preference Name

Description
Those preferring this learning style attempt to interpret information in terms of practical or immediately useful elements. According to self-reports, these

Concrete/Practical

learners prefer to live in the "real world" and attempt to tie information to external events in that world. They do not value "learning for its own sake" unless such learning has a clearly useful

application. those preferring this learning style are comfortable in a world of abstractions and need not see a practical use for new information. Abstract/Ideal They are comfortable in the world of the ideal or the world of "what could be" vs. "what is." They revel in learning for its own sake and do not attempt to impose world order on abstractions. Some theorists tie this continuum to the concepts of field-

dependence and field-independence. That is, the more a learner internalizes new learning, the more he/she tends toward fieldindependence (independence from external orientations) and the more comfortable these learners tend to be with an abstract world. Of course, the opposite holds true of the field-dependent learner who relies on the practical and concrete.

Global - Analytic Continuum

This continuum is included in most comprehensive models of learning style and most often separates people into those who see the forest and those who see the trees. The chart below elaborates on this distinction.

Preference Name

Description
Analytic thinkers tend toward the linear, step-wise processes of learning. They tend to see finite elements of patterns rather than the whole; they are the "tree seers." They are more comfortable in a world of details and hierarchies of information. Global thinkers are comfortable with non-linear thought and tend to see the whole pattern rather

Analytic

Global

than particle elements. They are the "forest seers" who examine the overall structure and sometimes ignore details.

Several theorists have tied the global-analytic continuum to both

exteroception/interoception and the left-brain/right-brain continua.

Exteroception/interoception is seen in the Rorschach (ink-blot) test in those who respond to the entire pattern as opposed to those who attend to particular elements in the Rorschach patterns. In accord with Roger Sperry's model, the left-brained dominant individual is portrayed as the linear (analytic), verbal, mathematical thinker while the right-brained person is one who is viewed as global, non-linear, and holistic in thought preferences.

Metacognition
The concept of metacognition is viewed as the glue that holds all the thought processes and preferences together. A simple definition of metacognition is thinking about thinking. It implies the selfreflective process which allows one to monitor one's own problemsolving skills and to self-examine learning preferences. Flavell and other researchers have divided metacognition into metacognitive

skills which lead to metacognitive knowledge. It is this selfknowledge that is the goal of undergraduate programs everywhere since it implies not just the "learning of things," but "learning how to learn," which is essential to the goal of "life-long learning." Everyone knows the person who is not self-reflective, who does not seem to know the impact s/he has on others. This form of selfknowledge, of knowing our place in the broader society and the impact of our actions on that society, is the essence of

metacognitive knowledge.

The G-Factor vs. Multiple Intelligences

At the heart of efforts to uncover the various thinking or learning styles is an old argument regarding the nature of intelligence. As seen below, those who adhere to the theory that there are many kinds of intelligences suggest that effective pedagogy is essentially dependent on a consideration of variations in learning

style. In other words, effective teaching and advising must utilized knowledge of learning styles in order to remain inclusive in a diverse world.

Spearman's G
The study of intelligence has historically been dominated by the psychometric

view. This view was perpetuated through increasingly sophisticated methods of

measuring and analyzing data on intelligence. In 1904, Charles Spearman postulated a mulitple-ability, factor model of intelligence. Based upon data he gathered on British soldiers during the Boer War, Spearman asserted that there were two types of factors for intelligence: a single dominant g-factor (g standing for general); and subsidiary s-factors (s standing for specific). According to Spearman, the g-factor represented the dominant proportion of individual intelligence, what he called general intelligence, and was manifested in one's ability to perceive relationships and educe correlatives, that is, the ability to perceive the strength of relationships and to, where appropriate, spot causal connections between ideas or events. The g-factor is still alive and well in psychometric models of intelligence, though in recent years new models of intelligence have arisen to challenge the psychometric theories.

Multiple Intelligences
Beginning with the work of researchers like Jean Piaget in the 1950's and building over time, some psychologists became disenchanted with the traditional, psychometric theories of intelligence. One major issue which seemed to remain elusive to these scientists was that of differential success at activities valued by our culture. For example, how is it that an individual's score on a traditional intelligence test could be blandly average, yet that same individual could excel in artistic expression or in the kinesthetic interpretation represented in dance. Scientists such as Robert Sternberg and Howard Gardener began to postulate the existence of mulitple intelligences. While both these theories have receive

much attention in recent years, we shall focus on the seven-intelligence theory of Howard Gardener. The table below provides an overview of Gardener's model:

Label for Intelligence

Description of Intelligence
Sensitivity to, and capacity to discern, logical or numerical patterns; ability to handle long chains of reasoning:

Logical-mathematical

End States = Scientist/mathematician

Sensitivity to the sounds, rhythms, and meanings of words; sensitivity to the different functions of language:

Linguistic

End States = Poet/ journalist

Abilities to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch, and timbre; appreciation of the forms of musical expressiveness:

Musical

End States = Composer/violinist

Capacities to perceive the visual-spatial world accurately and to perform transformations on one's initial perceptions:

Spatial

End State = Navigator/sculptor

Abilities to control one's body movements and to handle objects skillfully:

Bodily/Kinesthetic

End State = Dancer/athlete

Capacities to discern and respond appropriately to the moods, temperaments, motivations, and desires of other people:

Interpersonal

End States = Therapist/salesperson

Intrapersonal Access to one's own feelings and the ability to discriminate among them and draw on them to guide behavior; knowledge of one's own strengths, weaknesses, desires, and

intelligences:

End States = Person with detailed,

accurate self-knowledge

Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences is related to the concept of learning styles in that theories based upon each imply that new learning should be taught in a variety of ways and from a variety of perspectives. While it may be difficult to find a match for each intelligence in every lesson plan, a central recommendation of multiple-intelligence theory for the classroom is that teachers attempt to include a variety of presentation modes in each lesson to maximize the number of students who are likely to succeed.

The LTSI
After a decade of iterations, my staff and I have come up with an instrument that we believe to be a robust measure of learning-thinking styles. The instrument has proven reliability and validity and has become an essential tool used by our local learning center to diagnose learning orientations and to prescribe interventions. The table below describes the subscales of the LTSI:

General Scale

Subscale
Auditory Kinesthetic Visual Reading

Description of General or Subscale

A preference for receiving information through audition. A preference for receiving information through touch or active manipulation. A preference for receiving information through iconic or visual input. A preference for receiving information through the written word or other symbols. A measure of focused attention or concentration or lack thereof. Highly distractible students are easily diverted from tasks.

Sensory Preference

Selective Attention

Distractibility

Logical Reasoning Probability Estimate ProblemSolving Approach Analytic Thinking Style Analytic-Global Continuum Global Thinking Style

An objective measure of the ability to solve analytic logic problems. An objective measure of metacognitive or selfreflective thinking skills. Students scoring high on probability estimate are able to estimate accurately their performance on cognitive tasks through self-reflection. A measure of the ability to select effective strategies to apply to the solution of logical problems. A measure of preference for analytic thinking. Analytic thinkers tend to focus on details when processing information. These are so-called "tree-seers." A measure of preference for global thinking. Global thinkers try to see the whole picture or an overall pattern in information. These are socalled "forest-seers."

Metacognition

We have been asked to make this instrument available to interested parties and have created a comprehensive technical manual to assist in its use. If you are interested in reviewing the test, feel free to contact any of us through e-mail (see the page entitled Who Are We?)