Adapting to student learning styles in a first year electrical/electronic engineering degree module

Abstract

Widening access to higher education (HE) has meant an increasing need for flexibility in teaching and assessment to accommodate students who utilise a variety of approaches to learning. This paper examines the learning styles of students engaged on a first year degree electrical/electronic engineering module at the University of Derby and suggests ways to provide further support for their study. The existing teaching and assessment mechanisms used within the module are investigated in relation to learning style preference bias. The paper describes teaching and assessment amendments that have been made in order to provide better support for students with different learning style preferences. The study utilises Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style to examine the learning styles of students, assess existing teaching and assessment methods within the module and suggest module enhancements that should facilitate a broad range of learning styles.

Introduction

Students in higher education (HE) are driven to learn by distinct motivations such as professional advancement and personal interest, whilst simultaneously managing complications and barriers such as work commitments, self confidence and financial constraints (Eastwood, 2008). As such, widening access in HE has meant increasing need for flexibility in delivery and assessment (Yeo, 2005; Jary and Parker, 1998) while ‘each of us develops a preferred and consistent set of behaviours or approaches to learning’ (Litzinger and Osif, 1993). A key to positively influencing effective learning and student performance is in providing mechanisms that appropriately support these learning approaches (Rutz, 2003).

The adult learning paradigm has seen a shift from a teaching focus towards a learning focus as directed by learning institutions (Diaz and Bontenba, 2001). Teaching methods, assessment policies and practices and the provision of learning resources all have an impact on student learning (HERDSA, 1992). Students learn well when these aspects fit together and support is provided for different learning style preferences throughout teaching and assessment practices (Geertshuis and Fazey, 2006; Wisker and Brown, 1996; Knight, 1998; Brown, Armstrong, and Thompson, 1998). How much a student learns in a classroom environment is governed, in part, by the student’s natural ability and prior preparation, but also by the compatibility of their learning style with the instructor’s teaching style (Felder and Silverman, 1998). Since the quality of student learning is related to the ways in which a student learns, information from a student on their own learning styles can be an important component of evaluation.

Research outline and rationale

A study was undertaken to determine the learning styles of students engaged on a first year electrical/electronic engineering module at the University of Derby. It was hoped that the findings would enable appropriate teaching and assessment mechanisms to be established that would better support the student learning experience. The study was primarily used to ascertain: (i) the learning style preferences of students enrolled on the module and (ii) amendments to existing module delivery and assessment methods that would facilitate different learning styles.

Consideration of different learning style instruments

The selection of a suitable learning style instrument was based on the type and intended use of the data collected and the appropriateness of the instrument to assist administration and data validity during the study.

Different perspectives of learning can be examined depending on the learning style instrument utilised (Fry et al., 2002; Richardson, 2000). For example, the Canfield Learning Style Inventory (CLSI) is considered an appropriate instrument for examining distance learning (Diaz and Cartnal, 1999). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers, 1998) is not conventionally regarded as a learning style instrument since it identifies a person’s type through a psychological or personality profile based on Carl Jung’s typology of conscious functioning. The same can be said for the Personal Style Inventory (PSI), based on the MBTI, which examines divisions in human psyche (Hogan and Champagne, 1999), whereas Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1984) has been regarded as a simpler version of the MBTI.

The Visual Auditory Kinesthetic (VAK) Learning Style by Bandler and Grinder is based on a multisensory approach in terms of visual, auditory and tactile/kinesthetic perceptions (Bandler and Grinder, 1979). The Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) is designed specifically for use with senior high school and college/university students (Riechmann and Grasha, 1974) and has been regarded as more of a social indicator than one of cognitive styles or developmental-stages.

Although the student’s ‘type’ within a social context may have some bearing on how they respond in a classroom environment, the emphasis for the study described in this paper was on the way that they approach learning in their receiving of information and their motivations to learn. For this reason Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style instrument was selected (Honey and Mumford, 1992). This instrument additionally enabled the use of a pre-established questionnaire and facilitated the appending of further questions to gain specific information concerning student entry route and mode of study within the degree programme. Additionally, undertaking a paper-based questionnaire meant that it was possible to maximise the number of respondents by administering the survey during an Electrical/Electronic Principles and Theory (EEPT) module lecture.

Questionnaire design and implementation

A questionnaire was used to survey the learning styles of students engaged on a first year EEPT module. The questionnaire primarily comprised tick boxes to minimise completion time and to facilitate analysis (Fink, 2005; Oppenheim, 1992). An initial pilot questionnaire was distributed to two members of academic staff and four students engaged in the second year of their electrical/electronic degree programmes. The purpose of the pilot questionnaire was to identify any problems with the questionnaire design (layout and readability), to determine timing for completion and to gain an interpretation of results from both student and academic viewpoints. The findings indicated that it would be practical to get each student to score their own questionnaire, enabling each student to get an instant indication of their learning style preferences. Additionally, student anonymity was recommended to maximise returns by removing any uneasiness in providing responses. Allowing anonymity meant that the opportunity to explore correlations between academic performance and learning style preference was precluded.

The learning style survey was distributed to all first year students during an EEPT lecture to allow uninterrupted access, minimise administrative difficulties and ensure that all questionnaires were completed and returned during the lecture (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Gill and Johnson, 2002). This maximised returns and prevented students from being ‘self selecting’ in responding to the questionnaire, thus minimising bias.

Initially, ten minutes were spent explaining the rationale for the survey and providing a brief description of the exercise to ensure that students were aware of how to complete the questionnaire in order to minimise ‘spoilt’ questionnaires and to alleviate student concerns. Emphasis was placed on using the questionnaire as part of a personal development tool (Honey and Mumford, 2000). In addition, students were informed that providing their names on the questionnaire meant that they could receive details of their individual learning style preferences together with a summary of the findings at the end of the study.

The questionnaire comprised two sections. Section A covered general mode of study, programme and entry route questions and Section B contained the actual learning style questionnaire and a summing up table and was used as a basis for examining the different learning styles of students enrolled on the EEPT module and to determine any modifications necessary to support learning within teaching and assessment.

Findings and evaluation

Honey and Mumford’s scoring norm for science and engineering graduates (1992) was used to reach an interpretation of the data (Table 1). The numbers relate to the survey scores with a higher score suggesting a greater area of preference.

• Activists are ‘hands-on’ learners and prefer to have a go and learn through trial and error. They tend to act first and consider the consequences later.

• Reflectors are ‘tell me’ learners and prefer to be thoroughly briefed before proceeding. They like to stand back and ponder experiences and observe them from many different perspectives. They consider data from all sources before coming to any conclusions.

• Theorists are ‘convince me’ learners and want reassurance that a project makes sense. They adapt and integrate observations into complex but logically sound theories. They consider problems in a step-by-step logical way. They are keen on basic principles and theory.

• Pragmatists are ‘show me’ learners and want a demonstration from an acknowledged expert. They are keen on trying out ideas, theories and techniques and positively search out new ideas.

Learning styles of students enrolled on the module

A total of 46 out of a cohort of 79 students completed the questionnaire. There was no indication that students deliberately ‘spoiled’ their questionnaire with inaccurate information. A range of learning style preferences was determined when considering individual student scoring. This variation in learning style preferences across the student cohort indicated that no one learning style proved dominant for the students engaged on the EEPT module (Table 2).

On interpreting the data, a student response that showed a low to very low preference indicated that the student would not easily learn from teaching and assessments that had a bias towards that particular learning style. However, analysis of preferences revealed that each individual student had a moderate or greater preference towards at least one learning style. Indeed, any students that demonstrated a below moderate preference for one or two particular learning styles had at least a moderate preference for the other remaining learning styles.

Table 1 Scoring norm for science and engineering students as defined by Honey and Mumford (1992)

Preference	Activist	Reflector	Theorist	Pragmatist
Very strong	13–20	18–20	16–20	16–20
Strong	11–12	16–17	14–15	14–15
Moderate	6–10	12–15	11–13	11–13
Low	4–5	9–11	8–10	9–10
Very low	0–3	0–8	0–7	0–8

Table 2 Summary of learning style preferences for EEPT module students

Preference	Number of students with particular learning style preference
Activist	Reflector	Theorist	Pragmatist
Very strong	11	5	4	3
Strong	6	10	7	10
Moderate	23	17	16	18
Low	4	9	11	8
Very low	2	5	8	7

The overall findings indicated that teaching and assessment mechanisms used within the module would need to support a broad range of learning styles. Indeed, it is important for learners to become proficient in all learning styles since no one learning style has an advantage over another, each having their own strengths and weaknesses depending on the situation (Felder, 1993; Coffield et al., 2004).

Teaching and assessment methods associated with learning styles

A summary of learning environments associated with the four learning styles, based on science and engineering disciplines, is provided in Table 3. By dividing the summary into how a student is best and least supported for each learning style it is possible to determine preferred environments for teaching and assessment.

In addition, the learning style questionnaire was completed by the author to examine any trends between learning style preferences and current teaching and assessment methods (Table 4). The findings implied that although the author had a broad range of learning style preferences the pragmatist learning style was not favoured. This bias was apparent when examining the existing teaching and assessment mechanisms used within the module (Table 5).

Table 3 Learning environments referenced with learning styles

Learning style	Best supported	Least supported
Activist	New experiences, problems or opportunities. Able to generate ideas without constraints. Have high limelight/visibility - chair meetings etc. Are thrown in at the deep end with challenging tasks. Are involved with other people.	Passive roles - having to listen to lectures, read or watch. Required to engage in solitary work - reading, writing, thinking on their own. Asked to assess beforehand or appraise afterwards what they have learnt.
Reflector	Allowed to watch or think about activities. Stand back and listen or observe. Have the opportunity to review what they have learnt. Can reach decision in their own time without pressure and tight deadlines.	Forced into limelight. Involved in situations that require action without planning. Given insufficient data on which to base a conclusion. Worried by pressures of time.
Theorist	Have time to explore methodically the interrelationships between ideas, events and situations. Are in a structured situation with a clear purpose. Can listen or read about ideas and concepts that emphasise rationality or logic and are well argued.	Pitchforked into doing something without a context or apparent purpose. Are involved with unstructured activities with open-ended problems. Asked to decide or act without a basis in policy, principle or concept. They doubt the subject matter is methodologically sound. They feel themselves out of tune with other participants.
Pragmatist	There is an obvious link between subject matter and a problem or opportunity. Are shown techniques for doing something with obvious practical advantages -how to save time etc. Try out and practice techniques with coaching/feedback from credible experts. Are given immediate opportunity to implement what they have just learnt.	Learning is not related to an immediate need or relevance. No practice or clear guidelines on how to do something. There is no apparent reward from the learning activity.

Table 4 Author’s learning style preferences

	Activist	Reflector	Theorist	Pragmatist
Score	9	14	12	10
Preference	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low

Implications of findings

It is important not to pigeonhole students on the basis of expected learning styles, since a vast range of individual differences is evident within any demographic group (Montgomery and Groat, 1998). This is certainly true for first year degree EEPT module students. Since there was no dominant learning style preference, the existing teaching and assessment mechanisms for the EEPT module were examined to determine any bias towards particular learning styles and to ascertain any enhancements/modifications that would facilitate the learning experience for all four learning styles.

Feedback to students

Feedback was provided to each named survey respondent detailing their individual learning style preferences and providing literature to aid their understanding of the implications. Emphasis was placed on encouraging students to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses and build upon their skills. The hope was that supporting students to understand how they naturally take in and process information would aid them to become life-long learners. In addition, students were encouraged to broaden their learning style preferences by stimulating them into thinking about the ways in which they learn from experiences (Coffield, 2004; Randall et al., 1995).

After providing the student feedback, students were asked to suggest changes to the existing module teaching and assessment methods that they felt would benefit their learning experience. Anonymous written responses were received from ten students and these suggestions were considered whilst the existing module was reviewed.

Existing teaching and assessment

Ashcroft and Palacio’s process for mapping tasks (1996) was adapted to review the teaching and assessment mechanisms within the EEPT module in relation to providing support for learning style preferences. The teaching and assessment methods already used within the module included a reasonable amount of hands-on experience and practical worked examples. Indeed, the review showed that three different activity types were currently used within the existing teaching and assessment of the module, already providing some variety in learning style support. Table 5 summarises the mapping found. Mismatches in teaching style and student learning style preferences can have a noticeable effect on student learning and interest in course material (Felder, 1993). The review highlighted limited support for the pragmatist learner and indicated that more variation in the approach and scope of teaching and assessment activities could provide better support for all four learning styles. For example, the existing unseen exam did not provide support for pragmatists and provided only limited support for activist, reflector and theorist.

Modifications to existing teaching and assessment

In practice it was not possible to provide equal opportunities for all four learning styles because of constraints in the nature of the discipline taught, resource implications and university regulations. For example, theoretically the inclusion of an open-book test as the ‘unseen examination’ assessment should better support reflectors and theorists where they could read, review and evaluate solutions. However, practically speaking, such an assessment uses mechanisms not currently in place within the department and would require further in-depth evaluation of its feasibility. Despite such constraints, modifications made to existing teaching and assessment methods to support a broader range of learning styles are shown in Table 6. Although the overall module structure has been maintained within the assessment and teaching areas, the approaches taken during each session have been significantly altered. These alterations include (i) more case studies, application-specific examples within lectures, tutorials and assessments, (ii) further inclusion of pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches before, during and after verbal presentations, (iii) providing time during teaching to allow students to reflect on what they have been told, (iv) more group and paired discussions during teaching, (v) providing detailed feedback to students during tutorials and (vi) directing students to further reading whenever possible. These alterations have been made to provide a good spread of activities for each learning style preference.

Feedback gathered from students who have experienced the amended teaching and assessment methods has been extremely encouraging. Responses provided by students in their anonymous end of module feedback questionnaires indicated that they appreciated the mechanisms used to widen module delivery and assessment. Indeed, some students indicated that they were beginning to realise the need to broaden their own learning style preferences:

’…I’m realising that I need to widen my learning styles preferences because not all modules cater for my preferences and I’d have to adapt in the real world anyway.’

Table 5 Key teaching and assessment methods within the EEPT module

Assessment
Task description	Activist learning	Reflector learning	Theorist learning	Pragmatist learning
Individual assignment Reading, writing individual essay and calculation	Problem solving.	Work in own time. Time to review and research their work. Read about concept and ideas.	Clearly defined assignment with set goals. Time to explore interrelation between concepts and ideas. Can analyse and generalise concepts.	Time to think about how to apply learning.
Unseen examination Written individual essay and calculation	Thrown in at deep end.	Guidelines given on topics covered within exam.	Clearly defined assignment with set goals. Guidelines given on topics covered within exam.
Paired laboratory Practical, hands-on, paired work	Hands-on. New problems and experiences. Involved with others.	Workbook handed out early for preparation to review and research.	Workbook handed out early for preparation to review and research. Can analyse and generalise concepts.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages.
Teaching
Lectures Listen and observe, some discussion and interaction.	Mostly passive, not good for activists.	Able to stand back, listen and observe. Can review what has been learnt in own time.	Structured lectures with clear purpose. Can analyse and generalise concepts in own time.	Real examples.
Tutorials Hands-on, solving tasks, discussions and calculations.	Active role, solving tasks and calculations. Challenging tasks.	Can review what has been learnt and work at own pace.	Defined activities with purpose and real examples.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages. Interactive. Immediate feedback from expert.
Worked example lectures Listen and observe, some hands-on, discussing scenarios and calculations.	Partly active role, solving tasks and calculations.	Guided through examples and calculations, able to stand back, listen and observe, able to review what has been learnt in own time.	Guided through examples and calculations. Structured lectures with clear purpose.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages.

Table 6 Modifications to teaching and assessment methods

Assessment
Task description	Activist learning	Reflector learning	Theorist learning	Pragmatist learning
Individual assignment Reading, writing individual essay and calculation based on real-life problem or situation.	Problem solving. Pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches provided where possible.	Work in own time. Time to review and research their work. Read about concept and ideas.	Clearly defined assignment with set goals. Time to explore interrelation between concepts and ideas. Can analyse and generalise concepts.	Time to think about how to apply learning. ‘Real’ problem situation makes it possible to see relevance and practical benefit.
Unseen examination Written individual essay and calculation based on real-life problem or situation.	Thrown in at deep end. Pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches provided where possible.	Guidelines given on topics covered within exam.	Clearly defined assignment with set goals. Guidelines given on topics covered within exam.	‘Real’ problem situation makes it possible to see relevance and practical benefit. Case study-based scenarios.
Paired laboratory Practical, hands-on, paired work.	Hands-on. New problems and experiences. Involved with others.	Workbook handed out early for preparation to review and research. Paired discussions.	Workbook handed out early for preparation to review and research. Can analyse and generalise concepts.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages.
Teaching
Lectures Listen and observe, some discussion and interaction.	More pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches before, during and after verbal presentations. Group discussions.	Able to stand back, listen and observe. Can review what has been learnt in own time. Provide intervals in teaching for students to think about what they have been told.	Structured lectures with clear purpose. Can analyse and generalise concepts in own time. Directing students to further reading outside the lesson.	Real examples. More pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches before, during and after verbal presentations.
Tutorials Hands-on, solving tasks, discussions and calculations.	Active role, solving tasks and calculations. Challenging tasks. Group discussions.	Can review what has been learnt and work at own pace. Provide intervals for students to think about what they have been told. Feedback on progress.	Defined activities with purpose and real examples. Directing students to further reading outside the lesson.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages. Interactive. Immediate feedback from expert. Discussions about real problems.
Worked example lectures Listen and observe, some hands-on, discussing scenarios and calculations.	Partly active role, solving tasks and calculations. More pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches before, during and after verbal presentations. Brainstorming. Group discussions.	Guided through examples and calculations, able to stand back, listen and observe, able to review what has been learnt in own time. Provide intervals for students to think about what they have been told.	Guided through examples and calculations. Structured lectures with clear purpose. Directing students to further reading outside the lesson.	Real examples. Shown practical advantages. More pictures, schematics, graphs and sketches before, during and after verbal presentations.

Conclusions and implications for future learning, teaching, and assessment

This research has made it possible to examine the learning styles of students engaged in the EEPT module and to consider how best to support their learning styles in teaching and assessment. This has led to the amendment of teaching and assessment methods for the EEPT module to consider a wider variety of student approaches to learning. However, aligning teaching and assessment mechanisms with learning styles will not solve all classroom conflicts, with factors such as classroom climate, previous educational background, motivation, gender and multicultural issues additionally influencing the learning process (McKeachie, 1995).

Indeed, Randall et al. (1995) suggest that although it may be an advantage to modify teaching styles to fit a broader range of students, it may also be beneficial to those same students to gradually introduce class activities that substantially expand their learning style preferences. In this way students can be assisted in stretching their capabilities to accommodate greater variety. Although this task would be vast, involving all academic staff who teach students, progress has been made using survey feedback to help students understand the implications of their own learning style preferences and to encourage them to broaden them.

Further developments from this research have included the consideration of each learning style during curriculum development to ensure that support is automatically ‘built-in’ during module validation and revalidation. This support includes the incorporation of different methods of delivery in teaching and assessment that broaden existing learning style support wherever practical.

In addition, further survey analysis has been made to examine any correlations between learning style preference and student degree entry route, programme of study and mode of full or part-time study. The results of this analysis are also to be published.