Understanding Student Differences

Journal of Engineering Education, Jan 2005 by Felder, Richard M, Brent, Rebecca

Before we look at specific models, we should note that the concept of learning styles is not universally accepted. The simple mention of the term arouses strong emotional reactions in many members of the academic community (notably but not exclusively the psychologists), who argue that learning style models have no sound theoretical basis and that the instruments used to assess learning styles have not been appropriately validated. On the other hand, the studies summarized in the sections that follow paint a clear and consistent picture of learning style differences and their effects on student performance and attitudes. Additionally, instruction designed to address a broad spectrum of learning styles has consistently proved to be more effective than traditional instruction, which focuses on a narrow range of styles. We therefore propose taking an engineering approach to learning styles, regarding them as useful heuristics for understanding students and designing effective instruction, and continuing to use them until demonstrably better heuristics appear.

A. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

People are classified on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator� (MBTI) according to their preferences on four scales derived from Jung's Theory of Psychological Types [15]:

* 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, postpone reaching closure to obtain more data).

Lawrence [15] characterizes the preferences, strengths, and weaknesses of each of the sixteen MBTI types in many areas of student functioning and offers numerous suggestions for addressing the learning needs of students of all types, and Pittenger [16] reviews research based on the MBTI.

Most engineering instruction is oriented toward introverts (lecturing and individual assignments rather than active class involvement and cooperative learning), intuitors (emphasis on science and math fundamentals rather than engineering applications and operations), thinkers (emphasis on objective analysis rather than interpersonal considerations in decision-making), and judgers (emphasis on following the syllabus and meeting assignment deadlines rather than on exploration of ideas and creative problem solving). In 1980, a consortium of eight universities and the Center for Applications of Psychological Type was formed to study the role of personality type in engineering education. Predictably, introverts, intuitors, thinkers, and judgers generally outperformed extraverts, sensors, feelers, and perceivers in the population studied [19,21].