Understanding Student Differences

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

* Intuitors were three times more likely than sensors to give themselves top ratings for creative problem-solving ability and to place a high value on doing creative work in their careers.

* The majority of sensors intended to work as engineers in large corporations, while a much higher percentage of intuitors planned to work for small companies or to go to graduate school and work in research. Feelers placed a higher value on doing socially important or beneficial work in their careers than thinkers did.

Very few results failed to confirm expectations from type theory, and most of the failures involved type differences that might have been expected to be significant but were not. The conclusion was that the MBTI effectively characterizes differences in the ways engineering students approach learning tasks, respond to different forms of instruction and classroom environments, and formulate career goals.

B. Kolb's Experiential Learning Model

In Kolb's model, students are classified as having a preference for (a) concrete experience or abstract conceptualization (how they take information in) and (b) active experimentation or reflective observation (how they process information) [12, 25]. The four types of learners in this classification scheme are:

* Type 1 (concrete, reflective)-the diverger. Type 1 learners respond well to explanations of how course material relates to their experience, interests, and future careers. Their characteristic question is " Why?" To be effective with Type 1 students, the instructor should function as a motivator.

* Type 2 (abstract, reflective)-the assimilator. Type 2 learners respond to information presented in an organized, logical fashion and benefit if they are given time for reflection. Their characteristic question is "What?" To be effective, the instructor should function as an expert.

* Type 3 (abstract, active)-the converger. Type 3 learners respond to having opportunities to work actively on welldefined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment that allows them to fail safely. Their characteristic question is "How?" To be effective, the instructor should function as a coach, providing guided practice and feedback in the methods being taught.

* Type 4 (concrete, active)-the accommodator. Type 4 learners like applying course material in new situations to solve real problems. Their characteristic question is "What if?" To be effective, the instructor should pose open-ended questions and then get out of the way, maximizing opportunities for the students to discover things for themselves. Problem-based learning is an ideal pedagogical strategy for these students.

Preferences on this scale are assessed with the Learning Style Inventory� (McBer and Company, Boston) or the Learning Type Measure� (About Learning Inc., Wauconda, 111.). Most studies of engineering students based on the KoIb model find that the majority of the subjects are Types 2 and 3. For example, Sharp [26] reports that of 1,013 engineering students she tested, 40 percent were Type 3, 39 percent Type 2, 13 percent Type 4, and 8 percent Type 1. Bernold et al. [27] found that of the 350 students in their study, 55 percent were Type 3, 22 percent Type 2,13 percent Type 4, and 10 percent Type 1.