This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 13:50Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal ofEngineering EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceee20

Evaluation of a constructivistapproach to studentinduction in relation tostudents' learning stylesN. S. EdwardPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: N. S. Edward (2001) Evaluation of a constructivist approachto student induction in relation to students' learning styles, European Journal ofEngineering Education, 26:4, 429-440, DOI: 10.1080/03043790127518

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043790127518

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Evaluation of a constructivist approach to student induction inrelation to students’ learning styles

N. S. EDWARD†

Increasing class sizes and increasingly complex technology have brought pressureon university staff. Less widely recognized is their effect on freshers, many ofwhom �nd the university a bewildering and remote environment. This paperdescribes an innovative approach to induction in an engineering school. A con-structivist approach was used to involve the students, working in small groupswith a staff facilitator in the investigation of a technical issue. In so doing theylearned the university systems by using them contextually and also immediatelygot to know staff and peers. Their perceptions of the experience were determinedby questionnaire and interview and their learning styles were gauged by a learn-ing style inventory. The aim had been to provide a �exible, supportive experiencefor all learners. Although it was disappointing to �nd no signi�cant correlationsbetween learning styles and perceptions, it is perhaps a measure of our success inachieving this aim.

1. Introduction In common with many engineering departments in the UK the School of

Mechanical and Offshore Engineering in the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen,experienced what was viewed by them as unacceptably high withdrawal rates fromtheir �rst degree courses. This was most acute in the �rst years and many of the with-drawals occurred within the �rst few weeks of the session. A research project fundedby SHEFC investigated the critical factors for success and withdrawal across theUniversity. The most signi�cant factors proved to be inappropropriate course ofstudy, expectations of the course not met and inadequate �nance. Many of thestudents reported that they found the environment impersonal, that they felt disori-entated or they had experienced homesickness. Among the recommendations of theresearch report was ‘During the process of induction students must be activelyinvolved in seeking out the support services available in the University and whatthey provide at the sites of provision. The process should be designed to develop inthe students a sense of belonging to a wider University community and feeling partof a caring organisation’ (Casely and Robertson 1995). Prior to this session under-graduate induction consisted of the entrants being directed en masse to a lecturetheatre where over the course of a day they were addressed by a series of speakerswho informed them of course-related matters, support services provision, studentassociation activities and information service provisions. Little wonder that they felt

EUR. J. ENG. ED., 2001, VOL. 26, NO. 4, 429–440

† The Robert Gordon University, School of Mechanical and Offshore Engineering,Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK. e-mail: n.edward@rgu.ac.uk

European Journal of Engineering EducationISSN 0343-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online © 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/0343379001000878 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

disorientated. Little wonder that they subsequently remembered little of what theyhad been told. It was decided that a radically new approach was needed.

2. Induction—the new approachThe aims are:

(i) to make the students feel comfortable in the university environment;(ii) to inform them about the nature of the engineering course;(iii) to help them understand their responsibilities as students;(iv) to familiarize them with learning support facilities and systems;(v) to help them to get to know fellow students and staff;(vi) to get them to value the idea of being an engineer;(vii) to let them enjoy themselves.

3. Challenge-based learningThe induction was constructed as a contextual challenge, which the teams were

asked to debate and explore, and to report on at the conclusion of the week. Thechallenge asked the students to consider a situation in which Scotland had justbecome an independent nation. The incoming Government, committed as theywere to improving the environment, invited tenders on power generation using arenewable energy source. The approach therefore espoused constructivist prin-ciples in that it was contextual, learner centred and encouraged re�ection andgroup discussion. The emphasis was on leaving as much as possible of the nature,content and management of the investigation in the hands of the students aspossible. The students were immediately divided into groups. A staff member, whosubsequently became the group’s personal tutor, was allocated to each. We recog-nized, however, that the students had little experience either of conducting aninvestigation or of the university systems and needed guidance. It was for thisreason that the staff facilitator role was crucial to success. Staff facilitators had totread a �ne line between avoiding directing the students and leaving them �oun-dering. Key to the role was to encourage the students to plan, to implement theplan as a team and then to evaluate not only their learning but also the effective-ness of their strategies.

A second group of staff acted as ‘experts’. Each had a speci�c role to play withrespect to their background and �eld of expertise. Students therefore could expectdifferent advice from different sources and had therefore to take account of back-ground in evaluating the counsel. To encourage the use of the university’s systemsand to develop communications skills each of these experts could be contacted byone medium only, e.g. interview, e-mail, etc. The week included a visit to a powerstation and talks from invited speakers. It culminated in presentations of �ndings bythe groups and a lighthearted awards ceremony. The awards ‘Bobbies’ were forcategories such as ‘lamest excuse’ rather than for performance in the challenge.Despite there being no formal assessment students were given credits in thecommunications modules of their courses. Throughout the emphases were onparticipation, communications, decision-making, re�ection and above all informal-ity and personal contact. The remainder of this paper describes the results ofresearch into the effectiveness of the programme.

430 N. S. Edward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

3.1. Learning theory Experiential learning, the approach we adopted in the challenge, has been

depicted as a cycle of discrete processes. Kolb’s (1984) was not the �rst and is farfrom the only model, but it is perhaps the best known. That little empirical evidenceexists to validate the model need not detract from its usefulness. He suggests thatexperiential learning can be depicted as a cycle. We commenced by encouraging theteams to plan their approach before continuing by the team seeking information onthe activity but also using the systems and facilities. Facilitators then encouragedthem to re�ect on both their �ndings and their processes. This was followed byconsolidation, during which they attempted to make sense of what they had learnedbefore they proceeded to the next planning stage. Note that a timetable was issued,which while for guidance only, included identi�ed times for each of these stages.Kolb developed models of learning style associated with each of these stages andthese are discussed below.

It might be argued that much of the learning we hoped to foster was largelydeclarative, factual knowledge of arbitrary rules and procedures. Nevertheless, weadopted the constructivist view that learning is a continual process of adding theresults of new experiences to existing mental schema and thereby re�ning, modify-ing or even rejecting some of the ways in which we as individuals interpret reality.Lockhart et al. (1988) showed that ‘conceptual processing operations not merelyinformational content, must be relevant if conceptual transfer is to occur’. Webelieve with Gurney (1989) that knowledge is not a product to be accumulated butan active process in which the learner attempts to make sense of the world. The oldapproach to induction had been passive and acontextual. The new was both activeand in a similar context to that in which the knowledge gained would subsequentlybe applied. Constructivism has different meanings to different people but few woulddisagree that it implies that learning is constructed from experience when the learner,in collaboration with others engages in activities which are realistically situated andincorporate the opportunity to test the new-found knowledge. Our approach soughtto encompass the six principles highlighted. Jonassen (1994) lists eight differentiat-ing criteria. We would hesitate to suggest that we offered multiples contexts but wedo not believe that our scenario over-simpli�ed the context.

We were concerned also to try to accommodate different learning styles. Severalapproaches to categorizing learning styles have been proposed. Felder and Silver-man (1988) address their analysis speci�cally at engineering and this might beconsidered to be the most appropriate model. They propose �ve dimensions oflearning style relating to the learner’s preferences. Does the student preferentiallyperceive sensory or intuitive information? Does the student prefer visual or auditoryinput? Should presented data be organized to favour inductive or deductive analysisand does the student prefer actively or passively to process the material? The �naldimension, understanding , is the same as Entwistle’s (1992) sole dimension distin-guishing between the sequential and the global approach. While we found theconcepts helpful we felt that the implied 32 learning styles precluded its adoption asour model. Kolb (1984) proposed a learning style apposite to each of the stages inhis learning cycle. The model we used was that proposed by Honey and Mumford(1986), �gure 1, which is largely a development of Kolb’s model. Our erstwhileinduction may have suited the re�ector, although the volume of data presentedprobably ensured that very little was retained. Our new approach includedactivity, guidance and hints from facilitators and experts, practical contextual

Student induction 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

demonstrations of techniques and short talks and handouts. It also challenged thestudents to plan how to gain information, to evaluate it and to manage their ownresources of time and abilities. Thus we hoped to provide ‘something for everyone’.What must be recognized is that while these theories suggest that individuals havea preferred style all must be applied progressively to achieve an effective learningcycle. Teams may have the luxury of being able to allow each member to concen-trate on their preferrance but individuals must apply all four. We sought thereforeto encourage all team members to participate in each activity.

We note in passing that we are not altogether convinced by the vogue for learningstyles. Style is but one facet of what we term the learner’s identity. Space does notpermit a full exploration but we consider that the individual has, as part of their self-concept, a concept of themselves as a learner. We suspect that this is usually quite�uid and context dependent. With these reservations we have used learner styleanalysis to help illuminate our evaluation of the programme.

As we noted earlier, one of our aims was to develop the students’ study skills.Blakey and Spence (1990) in a useful paper, de�ne metacognition as managementof thinking by connecting new information to that formerly acquired, deliberatelyselecting thinking strategies and planning, monitoring and (crucially) evaluating thethinking processes. Thus, the facilitators actively encouraged students to try differ-ent approaches and then to evaluate what had worked well for them and how elsethey might have approached the task. Scruggs et al. (1985) have shown that increasesin learning have resulted from direct teaching of metacognitive strategies, anapproach we shall be adopting in our subsequent tutor scheme.

We sought through the use of six experts, each with a de�ned role, to encouragethe students to consider the contextuality of information. Facilitators encouragedthe teams to consider the way in which an expert’s ‘hidden agenda’ might have in�u-enced his response to a question. In adopting this approach we hoped to promote

432 N. S. Edward

a le e

C n ete

tract

a t

e t r

cti ist

eorist

Figure 1. Learning styles (after Honey and Mumford 1986).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

relativism. Perry’s (1970) work with college students led him to propose his modelof intellectual development. He suggests that an individual initially has a dualistview of knowledge as being right or wrong and of experts as being sources ofabsolute truth. This certainty dissolves into a multiplist view where the manycompeting views are all equally defensible. At this stage the student is likely to beconfused by ‘not knowing what is wanted’. From this stage the learner progresses torelativism where the contextuality of knowledge is recognized and �nally to commit-ted relativism where the responsibilities and implications of commitment to a singleview are recognized. It was perhaps over-optimistic to hope that 1-week’s exposureto multiple views each within its own context would move students from the dualismcharacteristic of school leavers to relativism. Although we do not have an objectivemeasure of success, feedback from facilitators and from academic staff during thesubsequent session supports the view that the students are displaying a more rela-tivistic approach.

3.2. Problem-based learningThe challenge was derived from the general principles of problem based learning

(PBL). PBL as a speci�c approach to education dates from the 1970s in the work ofBarrows and Tamblyn (1980) in medical schools. Instead of traditionallecture/tutorial/set examination approaches learning was based on a problem ‘whichthe learner wishes to solve’ (Boud and Feletti 1997) (our italics). The intention wasthat they would not just investigate it in the light of their existing knowledge but thatthey would devise means of remedying their shortcomings in the knowledge neededby self-directed study. The advantages identi�ed were that learning is contextual andtherefore has relevance both to the students’ self-identity and to future applications,it develops reasoning skills and it helps the individual to develop autonomouslearning skills. Although many of the proselytes for this approach would maintainthat it is grounded in constructivist principles there has been little research tosupport this contention (Savin-Baden 2000). In our programme, while we did notset about generating such evidence we deliberately set the challenge in a problem-based context. We also deliberately adopted, as far as we were able, constructivistprinciples. We sought through facilitator intervention to make the students aware oftheir learning strategies and approaches.

Savin-Baden (2000) argues that the underlying assumptions of PBL have not beenfully explored. She suggests some ‘missing elements’, the absence of which would frus-trate the desired outcomes. We have already argued that an individual needs to culti-vate all of the learning styles if he/she is to be an effective learner and that learningstyle is an inadequate de�nition of what we (and, we note, Savin-Baden) have calledthe learner identity. Learner identity is included in the self-concept. It answers ques-tions on where, how and how well one learns. Heppell and Ramondt (1998) maintainthat while learning technology is in a state of �ux constructivist models are not beingdeveloped to take account of the changes. Further, both they and Savin-Baden pointto the dangers of the technology’s leading to learning in isolation, thus omitting oneof the cardinal principles of constructivism. ‘Learners still need to do things, to havea sense of audience for and feedback on what they are doing, to feel progress, to beprovoked and guided in their learning and to celebrate their own capabilities whilstacknowleging those of others’ (Heppell and Ramondt 1998).

Savin-Baden lists �ve approaches to PBL, the characteristics of which depend onthe objectives and desired learning outcomes. We are not altogether sure that our

Student induction 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

approach exactly �ts any of these. Type 3 does have the aims of developing skillswhich transcend the immediate task and are transferrable. It is perhaps implicit inall PBL that affective accommodation will be realized but this, in our case, was aprime objective. We aimed to acculture the student into the university environment.We sought also to encourage students to bond with their peers so that they wouldcontinue their collaborative approach to testing their learning as they proceededwith their studies.

3.3. Analysis of resultsStudent perceptions of the induction programme were canvassed by means of

two questionnaires. The �rst was administered immediately the programme hadconcluded while the second, administered 4 weeks later, was intended to showwhether the activity had resulted in transferable learning. We also administeredHoney and Mumford’s learning styles inventory (LSI) in order to be able to cate-gorize students by their preferred styles. In the �rst questionnaire we canvassed thestudents’ perceptions of the value of the experience and of the skills they had gained.A variety of questions with �ve-point Likert-type response scales asked the partici-pants to rate the challenge on measures such as usefulness, relevance to studies,enjoyment, interest, etc. Internal correlations between measures were high and sowe aggregated the scores into a single overall perception value. Similarly, thestudents’ ratings of speci�c technical, personal and interpersonal skills gained wereaggregated into three measures. There were no signi�cant differences between thetwo classes and so the results were based on the 75 (78%) questionnaires returned.The mean overall student value for perception of the experience was 3.5 and 64respondents (80% after exclusion of missing values) recorded an individual overallmean of greater than 3.0. On the skills measures the results were fairly neutral.Students rated their gain in personal skills at an average of 3.05, with 57% of therespondents having scores between 2.5 and 3.5. Interpersonal skills, for examplecommunications and team-working, etc. aggregated to a mean of 3.15, but technicalskills such as computer work and use of telecommunications produced an aggregatemean of only 2.81. This was disappointing, as development of these skills was a primeintention of the programme.

3.4. Analysis of learning stylesWe have two undergraduate courses—The Higher National Diploma (HND)

and the Bachelor of Engineering (BEng). The groups were not integrated for induc-tion. A total of 28 HND (57%) and 30 BEng (61%) students returned LSI ques-tionnaires. The results have been analysed and comparisons made between classesand between them and the closest norm groups for whom we had �gures. As one ofthese groups was graduate engineers and our groups were freshers caution shouldbe exercised in interpreting the results. The other norm group was 165A’ level/Diploma students, which we believe was not discipline speci�c. We also notethat there was considerable dispersion in the pro�les and so analysis based on meanvalues has to be viewed with circumspection.

Figure 2 is a plot of the HND (H), BENG (B) and norm (graduate engineers,N). Table 1 shows the mean scores for all four groups and the difference scores foreach group on the activist theorist (AT) and re�ector pragmatist (RP) spectra. Table2 shows the differences between each groups’ mean scores and those for the othergroups.

434 N. S. Edward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Student induction 435

Theorist

e e tor

Figure 2. Average learning styles questionnaire scores for the three groups (H = HND, B =BEng, N = Norm).

HND BEng Norm Normengineers A’ level students

Activist 10.9 9.2 8.6 11.1–1.3 –2.4 –3.6 0.9

Theorist 12.2 11.6 12.2 10.2Re�ector 13.9 12.5 14.2 13.7

–0.2 0 1.5 2.5Pragmatist 14.1 12.5 12.7 11.2

Table 1. Mean learning style scores for all groups showing difference scores.

Activist Theorist Re�ector Pragmatist AT RP

HND v BEng +1.7 +0.6 +1.4 +1.6 +1.2 –0.2HND v Grad engineers +2.3 0 –0.3 +1.4 +2.3 –1.7BEng v Grad engineers +0.6 –0.6 –1.7 –0.2 +1.2 –1.5HND v Students –0.2 +2.0 +0.2 +2.9 –2.4 –2.7BEng v Students –1.9 +0.6 –1.2 +0.7 –2.5 –1.9

Table 2. Comparison of our students and norm groups on learning style measures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

We shall compare our students �rst with practising engineers. It is noted that thegraduate engineers tend to be theorists/re�ectors, i.e. favouring abstract represen-tations. On the activist theorist dimension both our classes tended towards thetheorist, but the HND less so than the BEng and both were less than the graduates.It might be expected that engineering would attract individuals who enjoy abstractproblems. The BEng as trainee professional engineers are required to be moretheoretical than the incorporated engineering HND students and it is to be expectedthat the graduates would have developed further this orientation. This comparisonbetween our two classes is misleading, however, as on the single measures ofactivism and theorism the BEng were lower on both scales than the HND, which inconjunction with their re�ector and pragmatist scores suggest that the HND shouldbe better all round learners. We have to admit to a certain amount of scepticismabout this result.

The RP dimension is interesting. Graduate engineers tend to be re�ectors,suggesting they may prefer to work individually when teamwork is often required.On the other hand, it suggests an inclination to investigate problems fully beforemaking a decision. Our BEng students were neutral and our HND students tendedslightly towards pragmatism. Does this suggest that incoming students leaningtowards challenge are dulled by the way they are taught engineering? Surelygraduate engineers are faced with challenge and the need for pragmatism. Perhapsthey have also learned that it is important to work problems through. Impetuosityhas little place in engineering practice. In comparison with the A’ level students theHND students were similar on the activist and re�ector scales but were more prag-matically and theoretically biased. Assuming the norm group to cover all disciplines,the �ndings for our engineers merely serve to con�rm anecdotal evidence of theengineer’s character.

Scatterplots (not reproduced) for the two classes showed quite wide dispersionwith some students in each of the four quadrants. We have based much of ouranalysis on group means and report below on a cluster analysis, but it is import-ant to consider these in the context of this dispersion. Although as we note abovewe tried to ensure all styles were accommodated, the challenge was activityoriented. Certainly the classes were divided into teams and a facilitator wasattached to each. The teams were encouraged to elect a leader and so some whoadopted a leading role may have been more ‘challenged’ than others who mayhave been more passive members. The facilitators deliberately encouraged andquestioned, but did not lead. It is true also that we emphasized that the quality ofthe students’ efforts would not be judged and tried to make the experience enjoy-able. To a 17-year-old fresh from school, in an unfamiliar, possibly threatening,environment suddenly asked to take actions to solve a difficult problem, usingtechnically advanced systems and communicating with people they did not know,is likely to have been quite a challenge. The degree of activity and the challengeled us to predict that students scoring strongly on the activist scale would have hadmore favourable impressions of the experience and that they and the pragmatistswould have gained most in skills. There was such a good degree of coherence inthe measures of perceptions and in the measures of technical, personal and inter-personal skills gains that we aggregated these into single measures. We alsocomputed difference measures for orientation between activist and reflector andbetween pragmatist and theorist. We expected to find a correlation between theperceptions and skills measures and both of these difference measures. In fact

436 N. S. Edward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

there were no significant relationships. We can only speculate as to whether thislack of correlation resulted from our programme design or from the diversity ofstudent learning types.

A K-means cluster analysis was carried out on the two difference measures. Thisresulted in the identi�cation of two groups as shown in �gure 3. Our earliercomments on the dispersion of individual scores are relevant here. The larger groupwas almost neutral on the pragmatist theorist scale but strongly re�ector rather thanactivist oriented. The smaller, about 40% of the students, was almost neutral on thelatter measure but showed an orientation towards pragmatism. It is this latter groupthat might have been expected to have been most favourably oriented towards theinduction experience. Analysis showed slightly higher ratings for this group butperhaps due to the small group sizes none of the difference reached statistical signi�-cance. The group with higher (but not statistically signi�cant) pragmatist scoresreported higher technical and personal skills gains but, surprisingly, lower inter-personal skills gain.

3.5. DiscussionThere is little doubt both from the questionnaire responses and subsequent inter-

views that the majority of the students enjoyed this approach to induction. As wedeliberately avoided assessment we have no immediate measure of its effectiveness.We had hoped that fewer students would experience problems either academicallyor personally in the ensuing session. In fact, the improvement was marginal. Too

Student induction 437

i t

ist r atist

s6 .1

1-1

s 8. 4

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of cluster means.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

many other factors may have in�uenced their progress for us to be able to drawpositive conclusions from results.

In the challenge we have tried to incorporate the 3Cs of Jonassen’s model ofconstuctivist design—context, construction and communications. We are notcomplacent, however, as there were criticisms. Complaints centred mainly on theresource intensiveness of the programme and, in our developments, considerationwill perhaps have to be given to compromise. We were disappointed in the reportedgain in technical skills and have plans to improve our approach—largely by strongerencouragement to make use of the equipment provided and better guidance on itsoperation. We also plan to canvass the support of real experts from external organiz-ations in future years.

A University of Plymouth report on their induction programme quotes onestudent as remarking ‘when you feel lost and bewildered the last thing you want islong lectures’. One of our primary objectives was to give the students a sense ofbelonging as quickly as possible. There are, however, many things that students needto know about systems and procedures and many facilities they need to be able touse if they are to progress successfully through their chosen course. The previous1 day of intensive lecture based information patently did not reduce bewildermentor produce signi�cant learning of systems or gains in skills. The knowledge and skillshave to be applied in the course and so we sought to provide a supportive environ-ment in which they could be learned in the context of a relevant activity. AsGrabinger and Dunlap (2000) have it, ‘the more links there are across related know-ledge structures, the more likely students are to apply it’.

The LSI was administered primarily to provide the students with feedback ontheir learning styles. It has been shown that knowledge about how one learns canlead to more effective learning (e.g. Scruggs et al. 1985, Osman and Hanna�n 1992).The analysis of the scores has been quite revealing in itself. The presence of twoquite distinct clusters presents us with a teaching challenge. The larger group is moststrongly characterized by an orientation towards pragmatism. The teachingapproach suggested by Groat and Musson (1995) is to provide concrete demon-strations and examples. The smaller group is strongly re�ector in orientation andwould bene�t from instruction and explanations. It does not appear that many ofour students would thrive on open-ended problems, whether of an abstract orconcrete nature. Most engineering lecturers would maintain that this is preciselywhat they would expect their graduates to be able to do. This suggests that we shouldbe actively helping our entrants to expand their skills in dealing with challenginglearning environments.

We should perhaps view it as a measure of success that little distinction was foundin the perceptions of the programme, which could be attributed to differences inlearning styles. In terming it ‘The Challenge’ and providing ample scope for activediscovery learning, we deliberately avoided the pressures which judgement of thestudents’ performance would have imposed. The twin emphases were on active useof equipment and on re�ection on the effectiveness of the methods employed.Groups were encouraged to elect a leader who generally emerged without pressure.Thereafter members played more or less active roles as they desired. Some groupshad very active discussion with facilitators while others required covert promptingto action. In essence every effort was made to accommodate individual differences.

There is ‘a dearth of literature on students’ experiences of problem-basedlearning’ (Savin-Baden 2000). Although many works on learning approaches include

438 N. S. Edward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

sections on each, virtually none explore the links between them. Achilles and Hoover(1996) state that PBL ‘was an effective model for addressing varied learning styles’,but elsewhere there seems to be an assumption that because all styles are demandedin the solution of the problem the method should suit all. Savin-Baden devotes anentire chapter to the role of disjunction in constructing knowledge. She notes thatthere are four possible reactions, retreat, temporizing, avoidance and engagement,only the last of which is an effective strategy. Wankowski (1991) reports that manystudents feel threatened by freedom and advocates gradual and supported introduc-tion. This is precisely what we have attempted in the challenge. We do not see it asthe answer to the disenchantment reported among entrants to engineering courses.We do feel that correctly managed it can enhance the educational experience. We setout to create the conditions for constructive learning so aptly expressed by Savin-Baden as ‘enabling student learning because student experience support from staffwho have asked for student opinions and advice while simultaneously encouragingthem to question and explore issues for themselves’ (Savin-Baden 2000).

4. ConclusionsOverall, we believe that the induction programme was successful. Many students,

even when questioned by staff sceptical about the value of the approach, have spokenhighly of the experience. Anecdotal evidence reinforces the questionnaire analysis tosupport the view that students have settled quickly into the system and show morecon�dence in approaching staff. We set out to provide a positive challenge in a secureenvironment where learning was contextual and, above all, fun. Our evidencesuggests we had some measure of success. Our investigation of learning styles did notlead to correlations with the induction programme. The same data will be used whenthe �rst-year performance results are available and may then be illuminating. Induc-tion run as we have done is resource-intensive, but like the University of Plymouthwe strive for the ‘all important moment when they really do feel at home, when theyare using the various learning environments effectively and with con�dence and whenthey are taking full responsibility for their development within the University’.

ReferencesACHILLES, C. M. and HOOVER, S. P., 1996, Problem-based Learning (PBL) as a School-

improvement Vehicle. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401 631.BARROWS, H. S. and TAMBLYN, R. M., 1980, Problem-based Learning: An Approach to Medical

Education (New York: Basic Books).BLAKEY, E. and SPENCE, S., 1990, Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest (ED327218).

Available: http://ericps.ed.uiuc.edu/npin/respar/texts/home/metacog.htmlBOUD, D. and FELETTI, G. (eds), 1997, The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, 2nd edn

(London: Kogan Page).CASELY, V. and ROBERTSON, E., 1995, Critical factors for student success and student with-

drawal. Unpublished Internal Report, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.ENTWISTLE, N., 1992, The impact of teaching on learning outcomes in higher education.

(London: CVCP).FELDER, R. and SILVERMAN, L., 1988, Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.

Engineering Education, 78, 674–681.GRABINGER, R. S. and DUNLAP, J. C., 2000, Rich environments for active learning: a de�nition.

The Changing Face of Learning Technology (Cardiff: The Association for LearningTechnology, University of Wales Press), pp. 8–38.

Student induction 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

GROAT, A. and MUSSON, T., 1995, Learning styles: individualising computer-based learningenvironments. ALT_J, 3, 53–62.

GURNEY, B., 1989, Constructivism and Professional Development: A Stereoscopic View. ERICDocument ED 305 259, pp. 1–28.

HEPPELL, S. and RAMONDT, L., 1998, Online learning—implications for the university forindustry: a preliminary case study report. Journal of Education through Partnership, 2,7–28.

HONEY, P. and MUMFORD, A., 1986, The Manual of Learning Styles (Maidenhead: PeterHoney).

JONASSEN, D. H., 1994, Thinking technology; towards a constructivist design model.Educational Technology, 34, 34–37.

KOLB, D. A., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning Development,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

LOCKHART, R. S., LAMON, M. and GICK, M., 1988, Conceptual transfer in simple insightproblems. Memory and Cognition, 16, 36–84.

OSMAN, M. E. and HANNAFIN, M. J., 1992, Metacognition, a construct with strong empiricaland theoretical foundations, is integral to successful learning. Metacognition Researchand Theory: Analysis and Implicaitons for Instructional Design. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 40, 83–99.

PERRY W. G., 1970, Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: AScheme (New York: Rinehart and Winston).

SAVIN-BADEN, M., 2000, Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories (Bury-St. Edmunds: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open UniversityPress).

SCRUGGS, T., MASTROPIERI, M., MONSON, J. and JORGENSON, C., 1985, Maximising what giftedstudents can learn: recent �ndings of learning strategy research. Gifted Child Quarterly,29, 181–185.

University of Plymouth web site, 1996, Review of student opinion of induction programme.http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/plymouth/main.htm

WANKOWSKI, J., 1991, Success and failure at university. In K. RAAHEIM et al. (eds), HelpingStudents to Learn (Milton Keynes: The Society for Research in Higher Education andthe Open University Press).

About the authorNorrie S. Edward, prior to becoming an academic, worked in manufacturing industry whichhe entered as an engineer and rose to the position of manufacturing manager. He enterededucation some 20 years ago and is now a senior lecturer in mechanical engineering at theRobert Gordon University. He has been active in developing and evaluating educationalresources for most of this time. His interests cover the use of innovative methods to enhancethe educational experience and the process of professionalization which engineers go throughin their formative years. Much of his work has been directed at attempting to establish theimportance of different factors in the effectiveness of educational methodolgies with a viewto optimizing the approach adopted in any given situation.

June C. R. Middleton is a Project Of�cer in the Faculty of Science and Technology. Prior totaking up this post she was employed in the Strategic Development Unit in Engineering in aresearch-based post jointly funded by the University and BP Exploration. She was engagedin research into engineering student and graduate needs and perceptions and the needs of theoffshore oil industry for graduates. Since taking up her current post Ms Middleton has main-tained her interest in educational research and has had a number of papers published on suchtopics.

440 N. S. Edward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

50 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014