Learning Styles of New Engineering Students

8/2/2019 Learning Styles of New Engineering Students

1/46

Appendix I Copy of Survey

Module Assignment: Methods of Educational Enquiry

Learning Styles of New Engineering Students

Tutor: Dennis Sale

An assignment submitted by Ng Hwee Kiat

to the Division of EducationThe University of Sheffield

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for theMaster of Education (Higher Education) Degree

10 April, 2012



2/46


Learning Styles of New Engineering StudentsIntroduction

There has been a growing realisation among lecturers in the Singapore Polytechnic that the

students being enrolled are changing in the way they learn and respond to teaching. This

change has come about through many factors. The shift in emphasis from a technical to

business education as the Singapore economy transits from a manufacturing centre to a

higher value-added business centre is one of the factors causing this shift. More students

are opting to make business studies their first choice of study compared to engineering studies.

In addition, the intake of students to the Polytechnic has increased in the last few years. All

this adds up to make the teaching of engineering courses in the Singapore Polytechnic more

challenging as the better students are channeled to other courses.

One way to handle this challenge is to learn more about the new engineering students; who

they are, how they learn, what are their learning difficulties and what motivate them.

This paper described the study conducted to identify the learning styles of the new engineeringstudents in the Electronics & Communication Engineering Department in the Singapore

Polytechnic. The objective is to enable the lecturers in the department to respond more

effectively with a better understanding of how these new students learn.

Theoretical Framework

The question we as educators often face is why with the same environment, teachers and

teaching methods, some students learn and others do not. There is no doubt that there are

individual differences between our students. These differences can be in ability, personality,

and motivation as well as in the ways the students prefer to learn. In addition, the differences

are further complicated by the 3-way transaction between the student, the teacher and the

learning environment (see Figure 1).

2


3/46


T e a c h i n g C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

D e c i s io nL e v e l

P a c e

S t r u c t u r e

E x p la n a t i o n

E n t h u s i a s m

E m p a t h y

T e a c h in gM e t h o d s

T e a c h i n gA i d s

K n o w le d g ea n d

C o n c e p t io n s

I n t e lle c t u a lA b ili t ie s

C o g n it iv eS t y le s

P e r s o n a l it y

M o t iv a t io n

W o r k H a b i t sa n d S t u d yM e t h o d s

F e e d b a c k

W o r k l o a d

F r e e d o m inL e a r n in g

S t u d y S k il lsS u p p o r t

L e a r n in g

M a t e r ia ls

P r o f e s s i o n a l a n d /o r A c a d e m ic

K n o w le d g e B a s e

P e r c e p t io n s o f M e a n in g &R e le v a n c e

P e r c e p t io n s o f T a s k

R e q u ir e m e n t s

L e a r n in gS t y le

A p p r o a c h t oL e a r n i n g

T e a c h in gS t y le

A s s e s s m e n tP r o c e d u r e s

S t u d e n t C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

D e p a r t m e n t a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

L e a r n in gS t r a t e g ie s & P r o c e s s e s

O u t c o m e s o f L e a r n in g

Figure 1. A heuristic model of the teaching-learning process in higher education(Entwistle 1987, p. 23)

Figure 1 shows that student learning and achievement is a function of many variables of

which interests, expectations, motivations and personality may be a part. Bloom goes as far

as to suggest that cognitive and affective entry characteristics ... account for 60% of achievement. Variables related to quality of instruction account for only about 25% of

achievement outcomes (Bolton 1996b, p. 11). Understanding and responding to the learning

styles of our students can help significantly in improving their achievements.

What is Learning Style?

There are many definitions on learning styles. This study adopts the widely accepted

definition from the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) in the US;

Learning styles are the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of howlearners perceive, interact with and respond to the learning environment.

(Keefe 1979, p. 7)

Cognitive styles are not the same as learning styles. Cognitive styles are intrinsic information-

processing patterns that represent a persons typical mode of perceiving, thinking,

remembering and problem solving. Thus a persons learning style includes his or her

3


4/46


cognitive style. There is also a distinction between learning style and learning strategy that

reflects the approach taken by the learner to cope with the learning situation.

Differences in learning styles do not indicate differences in learning ability or memory.

Learning styles merely indicate the preferences an individual has for perceiving and

processing information and not the ability to learn the material. Thus students with the same

learning abilities but different learning styles may experience different levels of success in the

same environment (Hansen, 1995).

Why Learning Style?

A students learning style profile provides an indication of probable strengths and possible

tendencies that might lead to difficulty in academic settings. Knowledge of learning styles

helps students to understand and relate better with themselves. Studies have shown that

identifying a students learning style and providing appropriate instruction in response to that

style can contribute to more effective learning (Claxton & Murrell, 1987).

Shroeder (1996) pointed out that the typical student learning style profile is changing and

there is much greater variation in the range of learning style preferences to be considered.

This was also realised in the Singapore Polytechnic where lecturers have increasingly

lamented at the decline in the quality of the students enrolled. Knowledge of student

learning styles provides one way of looking at this challenge.

Researchers of learning styles have found that;

1. Students are characterized by significantly different learning styles: they preferentially

focus on different types of information, tend to operate on perceived information in

different ways, and achieve understanding at different rates (Felder 1993, p. 1).

2. Differences in cognitive styles do not indicate differences in learning ability or memory

(quoted in Hansen, 1995).

3. Students with certain learning styles of learning do better in school than those with other

4


5/46


styles (quoted in Sims & Sims, 1995).

4. Students who are aware of their learning styles and how they can adapt their learning

styles to the learning situation can achieve higher grades (quoted in Hansen, 1995;

Claxton & Murrell, 1987).

5. Students have a more positive attitude and learn better when their learning styles are

matched to teaching styles, strategies & materials especially when adjusting to a new

stressful situation (quoted in Sims & Sims, 1995; Taylor, 1997; Blackmore, 1996;

Felder, 1993; Entwistle, 1983)

6. Learning styles becomes more important as level of instruction increases (quoted in

Hansen, 1995).

7. Learning styles can also change over the course of undergoing education as intellectual

development progresses (quoted in Sims & Sims, 1995; Entwistle & Ramsden 1983, pp. 6

to 15)

Literature Review

There are numerous instruments being used by researchers and educators to identify the

different dimensions of learning style. These learning style instruments and models can be

grouped in four layers, seen as the layers of an onion. This 4-layer onion model was proposed

by Curry (Claxton 1987, p. 7) and can be illustrated as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Onion Model of Learning Style Theories

Personality Model traits, being at the core layer, are most stable and thus the least subject to

Personality

Information Processing

Social Interaction

Instructional Preferences

5


6/46


change in response to intervention by the instructor (Claxton 1987, p. 7). As the layers

progress outwards, traits become less stable and more susceptible to change. At the same

time, core layer traits are also less observable compared to the outer layer traits that are more

easily observable. The other layers are Information Processing, Social Interaction and

Instructional Preferences.

Personality Models

Personality Models assess the influences of basic personality on preferred approaches to

acquiring and integrating information. Models include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(MBTI), the Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter (KBTS) and Witkins Field Dependence and

Independence Model. These models offer the students information for personal self-

knowledge and how it relates to learning settings.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was one of the original instruments based on

Carl Jungs theory of psychological types. It groups respondents into one of 16 psychological

types based on combinations of the following four sets of bi-polar preferences; extroversionvs. introversion, sensing vs. intuition, thinking vs. feeling and judging vs. perceiving (Hickox

1995, p. 36). Due to its complexity, it requires a trained practitioner to administer. A

comparison of the personality types of Singapore and American students showed differences

in their MBTI types reflecting the sociological and cultural influences on personality (Lim

1993).

The Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter (KBTS) by Keirsey and Bates (Keirsey & Bates,

1984) is based on the MBTI. It further sorts the 16 MBTI psychological types into four

recognisable and widely accepted temperaments: Sensing-Judging (SJ), Sensing-Perceptive

(SP), Intuitive-Thinking (NT) & Intuitive-Feeling (NF).

The Group Embedded Figures Test and Embedded Figures Test by Herman Witkin are

among the best known learning style indicators. They measure field dependence &

6


7/46


independence (Hickox 1995, pp. 36-37). Field dependence represents the tendency to

perceive and adhere to an existing, externally imposed framework while field independence

represents the tendency to restructure perceived information into a different framework

(Hansen, 1994).

Information Processing Models

Information Processing Models assess the individuals preferred approach to processing

information. Models include Kolbs Experiential Learning Model and Learning Style

Delineator by Gregorc, Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument and Honey & Mumfords

Learning Styles Questionnaire. The results from these models are useful for curriculum and

process planning.

Holistic and Serialistic Learning by Gordon Pask describes two different types of learning

strategies people used. These are the holists or comprehensive learners who use a global, top-

down approach and the serialists or operation learners who use a local, bottom-up approach

(Bolton 1996b, p. 14).

Deep-elaborative and Shallow-reiterative Learning by Schmeck are two opposite different

learning styles. Deep learning seeks understanding whilst surface learning seeks to complete

task assignments. These learning styles can be changed by the use of appropriate teaching and

assessment activities. There is a third learning style/approach called Strategic Learning that

seeks to achieve the best examination results by systematic management of time, effort and

study conditions (Entwistle 1987, p. 16).

The Learning Style Inventory (Kolb 1984, pp. 67-73) focuses on how individuals perceive

and process information and was developed from Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory.

This inventory groups learning styles into two dimensions; the reflective-active and the

abstract-concrete. The combinations of these two dimensions yielded four different groups of

learners; Convergers (abstract-active), Divergers (concrete-reflective), Assimilators (abstract-

7


8/46


reflective) and Accomodators (concrete-active). Ong (1993) conducted a survey of 439

Singapore Polytechnic students from all engineering departments using Kolbs Learning Style

Inventory. The results showed half (50%) of the student population to be divergent learners,

followed by just less that a third (30%) of the students being assimilators. Divergent students

respond well to explanations of how course materials relate to their experience, their interests,

and their future careers. Assimilators respond to information presented in an organized,

logical fashion and benefit if they have time for reflection. What is surprising in this finding

is that these engineering students do not fit into the typical convergent learning style profile of

the engineering alumni investigated by Kolb (1984, p. 186).

The Learning Style Delineator developed by Gregorc (Taylor, 1997) focuses on individuals

perception and ordering. It sorts people into four clusters representing the manner in which

they comprehend and organize perceptions of themselves and the world around them. The

four clusters are Concrete-Sequential, Abstract-Random, Abstract-Sequential and Concrete-

Random.

The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument classifies students in terms of their relative

preferences for thinking in four different modes based on how the brain functions.

The Learning Style Questionnaire is an 80-item questionnaire by developed by Honey and

Mumford for business applications (Honey & Mumford, 1986). It focuses on the observable

learning behaviours of individuals and acknowledges Kolbs Learning Style Inventory as its

theoretical background. Learning styles here are identified as Activists, Reflectors, Theorists

and Pragmatists. The results of the questionnaire show the students in-class learning mode

preferences and would be useful to those involved in curriculum and process planning.

Social Interaction Models

Social Interaction Models address how students behave and interact in the classroom. One

example is the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS).

8


9/46


The Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) is a 90 item self-report

and focuses on student attitudes toward learning, classroom activities, teachers, and peers

rather than the relationship between methods, student styles and achievement. It describes the

student along three bi-polar dimensions; Competitive vs. Collaborative, Avoidant vs.

Participant and Dependent vs. Independent.

Instructional Preference Models

Environment & Instructional Preferences Models addresses the individual's preference for

learning environments and activities. Models include Dunn & Dunns Learning Style Model

and the Canfield Learning Style Inventory. Results from these models are useful for assisting

in decisions regarding learning environment.

The Canfield & Lafferty Learning Style Inventory focuses on attitudinal and affective

dimensions rather than cognitive ones. The purpose of this inventory was to identify learner

preferences for instruction and it aims to measure conditions, content, mode and expectations

of learning (Hickcox 1995, p. 29).

The Learning Style Model (Dunn & Dunn, 1978) focuses on the individuals response to the

5 elements; that is, environmental, emotional, sociological, physical & psychological. The

model is useful to those who are responsible for design of training programs and training

environments. A survey conducted on the learning styles of Singapore Secondary Two

students using this Learning Style Model found that the students differed in the ways they

preferred to learn and in the ways they provided information (Yeap 1987).

All the learning style models above briefly described learning from different vantagepoints.

This is very much like the blind men describing the elephant from their observation of parts

of the elephant. Each of these learning style models can be used to assess the learners

preferences depending on the purpose being served. If we are interested in who our students

are in order to respond to their needs, we should be looking at the psychological types based

9


10/46


11/46


Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to describe the learning styles of new students enrolled in the

Electronics and Communication Engineering Department of the Singapore Polytechnic) andto examine the correlation between entry qualifications and the learning styles of these

students. The purpose is not to classify or label these students through learning styles but to

identify learning styles to allow lecturers in the department to respond to the students

learning styles.

This study seeks to determine;

1. the learning styles profile of new students enrolled in the Electronics and Communication

Engineering (EC) Department of the Singapore Polytechnic using the Keirsey-Bates

Temperament Sorter (Keirsey, 1984) and

2. if students with different entry qualifications exhibit significant differences in their

learning styles.

A secondary objective is to determine if there are any significant learning style differences

between students who chose to read Electronics, Computer & Communication Engineering

and those who did not.

This is a small-scale study limited to First Year Diploma in Electronics, Communication and

Computer Engineering (DECC1) students within the EC Department of the Singapore

Polytechnic (SP).

Methodology

There are five possible methods of assessing learning styles; inventory self-reports, tests,

interviews, observations and analysis of products or behaviour.

An inventory self-report is one of the most common methods to assess learning styles.

Respondents are asked to give direct information about themselves from questions about

11


12/46


preferences. One problem with this method is the respondent may reflect wishful thinking

rather than reality (Hickcox 1995, p. 41). Tests can also be used to assess learning styles. An

example of tests of particular skills or tasks is the Witkins Embedded Figures Test for field-

dependent and field-independent thinking. Tests are usually more objective but are limited to

measurement of the specified skill. Both inventory self-reports and tests rely on rankings and

ratings of things important to the learners. It is left to the respondents to decide the frame of

reference for responding to the questions. However, they are still the most suitable when we

want to describe the collective learning style of a group within a limited time frame.

Interviews based on open-ended questions or on self-inventory report questions can also be

used to assess learning styles. However, both interviewers and interviewees need to be aware

of their affective bias on the results. Observations of students in their task or learning

situations can be another way of identifying learning styles. Again, the observer needs to

acknowledge his/her personal affect on the results. Analysis of products can be achieved by

considering the products of the students behaviour. Interviews, observations and analysis of

products or behaviour are more time consuming and subjective but can generate a more

accurate analysis of the individuals learning style. However with the core layer models of

learning styles, such as those based on personality models, observation can be difficult.

The instrument selected for use must have internal consistency, test-retest reliability, etc. A

fundamental pre-requisite for use of any instrument in learning style analysis is the

demonstration of a significant level of reliability, validity, accuracy and reflective of

trustworthy theory. Both the MBTI and KBTS reflect trustworthy theories (Jungs theory of

psychological type). They are also reliable, valid (i.e., accurately representing the theories)

and accurate (Berens, 1997). Both these instruments of learning styles are based on the

psychological types and are obtained through inventory self-reports.

Instrumentation

12


13/46


This study used a survey comprising a two-section questionnaire. The first section of the

questionnaire contains the modified Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter (KBTS) which was

selected as the instrument for determining the learning styles of the students. The KBTS is a

70 item forced choice questionnaire designed to elicit an individuals preference on four bi-

polar scales or dimensions, similar to those originally designed for the MBTI. These four

dimensions describe how a person is energised, what a person pays attention to, how a person

decides and the lifestyle a person adopts (see Table 1). The modification is a simplification of

the scoring process to eliminate the need for complex instructions.

Dimensions/Scale Preference Description

How a person is energised: Extroversion(E)

preference for drawing energy from the outside world of people,activities or things.

(Orientation) Introversion (I) preference for drawing energy from ones internal world of ideas,emotions, or expressions.

What a person paysattention to:

Sensing (S) preference for taking in information through the five senses andnoticing what is actual.

(Perception) Intuition (N) preference for taking in information through a sixth sense andnoticing what might be.

How a person decides: Thinking (T) preference for organising and structuring information to decide in a

logical, objective way.(Decision) Feeling (F) preference for organising and structuring information to decide in a

personal, value oriented way.

Lifestyle a person adopts: Judgement (J) preference for living a planned and organised life.

(Lifestyle) Perception (P) preference for living a spontaneous and flexible life

Table 1. Description of the four dimensions used in the MBTI and KBTS

Specific relationships among the four dimensions lead to the 16 separate MBTI psychological

types described by combining the characters from each dimension, for example, ESTJ, ISTJ,

ENTJ. Keirsey and Bates grouped the scales into four broad temperament groups such as SJ,

SP, NT and NF. The unique characteristics of each psychological type and temperament

group are described in detail by Keirsey & Bates (1984) and Boston (1997).

The second section of the questionnaire contains demographic information including class,

entry qualifications, choice of course and learning style (obtained from the first section). The

entry qualifications are based on the ELR2B2 aggregates of the GCE O level results. The

13


14/46


ELR2B2 aggregate refers to the combined aggregates for English Language (EL), two relevant

subjects (R2) and any two other best subjects (B2). This aggregate based on the ELR2B2 is

the selection criteria used for entry to the Polytechnic.

Design & Procedure

A stratified sample (Cohen & Manion 1994, pp. 87-88) comprising 419 out of the 707

students in the Diploma in Electronics, Communication & Computer Engineering - Year 1

(DECC1) of the EC department was asked to complete the survey through their respective

class tutors. As the first year students in the department have been banded according to their

entry qualifications, the stratified sampling is based on purposive selection of classes to reflect

the distribution of the aggregates. Based on this criterion, 20 classes were sampled out of 34

first year classes. All students in each selected class were asked to complete the

questionnaire. The same sample was used for the determining the effect of choice of course

on the learning style. This is due to the lack of prior information on the distribution of

students based on their choice of courses.

A total of 19 classes completed the questionnaire. The remaining class, which did not return

the survey questionnaire, has an aggregate range of 18-19 points, which was sufficiently

represented in the sample to be omitted without affecting the accuracy of the results adversely.

The returned questionnaires were first checked for completeness and accuracy. 347 responses

were obtained from the 419 students surveyed for a response rate of 83%. There were 12

invalid responses (3%) due to incomplete and duplicated questionnaires resulting in 335 valid

responses (80%). Accuracy of the responses was verified from prior knowledge of their class

band. The data was then entered into a spreadsheet program and analysed.

The learning style profile description resulting from the analysis of the survey results was

presented to all class tutors involved in the survey to validate the profile as described from the

analysis (a copy of this is included in Appendix III). All agreed on the accuracy of the profile

14


15/46


of the students as described based on their personality types.

Statement and Analysis of Results

An overall distribution of the 16 MBTI personality types showed a significantly higher

prevalence of the personality type preferences ESFJ (28%), ESTJ (23%), ENFP (8%), ENFJ

(7%) and ISFJ (9%) among the 97/98 cohort of DECC1 students than that found in the general

population. In contrast, personality types ESTP, ESFP, ISTP and ENTP were lower than

found in the general population (see Figure 3 and Table A1 in Appendix II).

97/98 DECC1 Students by MBTI Types

22.6

2.9

27.6

4.6 2.90.8

6.77.9

4.6

0.4

8.8

3.3

0.4 0.4

2.9 2.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

E S T J

E S T P

E S F J

E S F P

E N T J

E N T P

E N F J

E N F P

I S T J

I S T P

I S F J

I S F P

I N T J

I N T P

I N F J

I N F P

MBTI Types

P e r c e n

t a g e

Total Population

Figure 3. Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by MBTI Types

Data were also analyzed according to Keirsey-Bates Temperament type groupings (see Figure

4 and Table A2 in Appendix II). Overall, the largest represented temperament type was that

of the sensing-judging (SJ=62%) followed by the intuitive-feeling (NF=21%), sensing-

perceptive (SP=13%) and the intuitive-thinking (NT=4%). Both the SJ and NF were also

found to be in higher proportion than the general population.

15


16/46


DECC1

Population

13 62 5 20

38 38 12 12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage

Population

Sample

97/98 DECC1 Students by Keirsey-Bates Temperament Types

SP SJ NT NF

Figure. 4 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Keirsey-Bates Temperament Types

Analysis of the individual personality preferences of the students showed similar preferences

for orientation (75% extroversion) and perception (75 % sensation) as compared to the

general population (see Figure 5 and Table A3 in Appendix II). However, there are more

students with Feeling (66%) and Judging (77%) personality preferences compared to that of

the general population.

75

25

75

25

75

25

50

50

34

66

50

50

77

23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percentage

Extrovert

Introvert Intuition

Sensation Thinking

Feeling

Judging

Perceiving

Personality Type

97/98 DECC1 Students by Personality Type

Population DECC175

25

Figure 5. Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Personality Type Preferences

An analysis of the distribution of the students by enrollment aggregates was also carried out.

The results showed a trend of an increasing proportion (from 9.6% to 14.8%) of SP (sensing-

percepting) types and decreasing proportion (from 19% to 1.8%) of NT (intuitive-thinking)

types as the enrollment aggregates go up (see Figure 6 and Table A2 in Appendix II).

16


17/46


DECC1 Students in Four Temperament Types by ELR2B2 Aggregates

3 10 17 8 37

16

5774 32 179

8

8 29 13 574 6

3 1 14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

19 Overall

Enrolment Aggregate

P e r c e n

t a g e o

f S t u d e

n t s

NT

NF

SJ

SP

Figure 6. Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Enrollment Aggregates

As a measure of learning styles, the students approach to new information can be reflected

from the first two dimensions of the MBTI type, the orientation and perception. These letters

describe four patterns of preferred learning styles: the ES (concrete active), the IS (concrete

reflective), the EN (abstract active), and the IN (abstract reflective). These patterns are not

evenly distributed in the general population. The ES pattern is the most frequent, representing50% of the population; the IN pattern is the least frequent, representing about 10% (Shroeder

1995, RiCharde 1996). The distribution for DECC1 is as shown in Table 2:

Learning Style DECC1 Population(%) (%)

ES Concrete Active 58 50IS Concrete Reflective 18 20EN Abstract Active 17 20

IN Abstract Reflective 7 10Table 2.

In terms of academic achievement, it has been shown that students with the learning type IN

obtain the best results, followed by EN, IS and ES (Shroeder 1995, RiCharde 1996). This is

directly in reverse with DECC1 students when they are sorted according to proportion

indicating that a significantly large proportion of these students are not academically inclined.

There are only slight differences in the KBTS learning styles of student who chose to read

17


18/46


Engineering and Business, whereas learning styles of students in the DECC1 cohort who

preferred other courses such as Mass Communication, Optometry, Information Technology

and Multimedia Design differed significantly from those who chose Engineering (Figure 7).

Out of the 238 valid responses from students enrolled in the EC Department, 144 (61.5 %)

chose engineering related courses, 42 (17.6%) chose business related courses and 52 (21.8%)

chose other courses. The significance here is that nearly 40% of the students surveyed did not

select Engineering as their first choice for course of study!

DECC1 Students in Temperament Types by Choice of Course

27 14 310

154 101 29 24

47 23 915

10 6 1 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Engineering Business OthersChoice of Courses

P e r c e n

t a g e o

f S t u d e n

t s

NT

NF

SJ

SP

Figure 7. 97/98 DECC1 Students in KBTS Temperaments by Course Preferences

Discussion

Out of the sixteen MBTI personality types, the ESFJ and ESTJ personality types accounted for

51% of all DECC1 students included in this study. Students with ESFJ and ESTJ

psychological types prefer organised, linear and structured learning experiences. They learn

through concrete experiences and collaboratively (Boston, 1997).

Out of the 4 KBTS types, the SJ and NF types accounted for 82% of all DECC1 students

surveyed. SJ students, comprising 62% of the DECC1 population, are described as follows by

Keirsey & Bates:

SJ students usually do well with workbooks. They like and need structure and

18


19/46


do best when lessons are presented sequentially in increments that make sense.The SJ student is conscientious and will attempt to do his best as long as hereceives clear instructions so that he knows how to proceed with the task.

(Keirsey & Bates 1984, p. 123)

NF types, comprising 20% of the DECC1 population, are described with the following

learning characteristics:

It is important that his teacher know him by name and that he be recognized,known and acknowledged. He needs personal feedback on the papers he

produces ... The NF student enjoys interaction.(Keirsey & Bates 1984, p. 127)

The dominant personality preferences of the students are Extroversion (75%), Sensing (75%),

Feeling (66%) and Judging (77%). These personality styles have the following learning traits.

Extroverts generally prefer learning approaches that emphasise participation and interaction.

Sensates learning emphasises facts, patterns, rules, procedures, and mastery style of learning.

Feeling mode learning emphasises communications and teamwork. Judging preferences seek

closure, structure and resolution.

In summary, the 1997/1998 cohort of DECC1 students surveyed has the following learning

style profile (a more detailed description is included in Appendix III):

They learn best by co-operative learning and explaining to others. They have a high need for positive feedback and personalism. They preferred an organized, linear sequential and structured learning

environment. They have a preference for concrete learning experience leading to abstract

understanding.

Implications

There are three views on the implication of learning styles in pedagogy. One view is for the

teacher or lecturer to accommodate the different learning styles of the students. This can be

for remedial and diagnostic purposes or even personalisation of learning. Although there has

been much dispute over the research findings on efficacy of matching learning and teaching

styles, matching is particularly appropriate when working with poorly prepared students and

new students (Claxton 1987, p. 73).

19


20/46


Assessing the learning style characteristic of each student and providingteaching and counseling interventions that are compatible with thosecharacteristics resulted in positive change in students academic achievementand attitudes towards school.

(Griggs, 1991)

The second view is that some mismatching is required to help students stretch and learn in

new ways and explore different ways of thinking (Claxton 1987, p. 73).

The third view is to ensure that a variety of teaching styles are used in the classroom (Taylor,

1997). The goal is to make sure that the learning needs of all students are met at least part of

the time, referred to teaching around the cycle (Felder, 1996). This can be done by

addressing each side of the learning style dimension at least some of the time (Felder,

1993).

The implication for the Department resulting from the learning style profile of DECC1

students is the understanding of the students preference for concrete learning experience

leading to abstract understanding. This preference can be met by making use of Kolbs

Experiential Learning approach to begin the learning cycle at the Concrete Experience stage(through instructional activities such as examples, simulations, games, observations) instead

of the traditional Abstract Conceptualisation stage (using lectures and projects) as shown in

Figure 8.

Concrete Experience

readingsexamplesfieldwork

laboratories problem setsobservations

simulation/games Active Experimentation

projectsfield work home work laboratory

simulationscase study

Reflective Observationlogs

journalsdiscussion

brainstormingthought question

rhetorical questions

20


21/46


Abstract Conceptualisationlectures papers projectsanalogies

model building

Figure 8. Instructional activities that support different aspects of the Learning Cycle

(Svinicki & Dixon 1987).

Another implication is that to meet the students learning styles, there has to be a change in

emphasis from a theory-to-practice to the practice-to-theory way to teaching (See Appendix

IV for more detailed description).

A recommendation on the use of learning style approach to cater to the newly enrolled

students in the first year of the course is being made to the Department. This approach will

help to alleviate anxieties and difficulties in a new learning environment. Information on

students learning styles will be gathered in the orientation or first few classes. The preferred

learning style of each individual is identified and the results are shared with the students to

acquaint them with their range of skills, learning preferences and interests. In the subsequent

years, the students can be taught using a variety of teaching styles to help them extend their

range of learning styles. At this stage, both students and lecturers should be prepared to alter

their styles to suit the immediate situation.

Questions not addressed in this study

Is it accurate? Although the scales used in the Keirsey-Bates Temperament Sorter is a range

of values, the results and discussions are based on discrete bi-polar characteristics. This bi-

polar characterisation ignores the degree of the individuals inclination towards each

temperament group. Obviously accounting for this variation would make the Temperament

Sorter more accurate but at the expense of much more complicated interpretation and

analysis.

When is the best time to assess learning styles? If we are interested in the learning style of

new students, then we should assess their learning styles upon enrolment. This is because

21


22/46


there will be changes in learning styles as students attempt to cope or they develop in the

course of learning (Entwistle & Ramsden 1983, pp. 6 to 15). The relationship between

learning style and developmental stages, as proposed by Piaget (Bolton 1996a) and Perry

(Perry 1988, pp. 145-161), has also not been explored nor related to.

How valid and reliable is the learning style instrument in local context? The validity &

reliability of learning style instruments are based on mostly North American and European

samples. In the Singapore Polytechnic context with a pre-dominant Chinese population, the

instrument used may require further scrutiny. Unfortunately, there has not been any research

on the validity and reliability of these instruments in the context of the Singapore culture

where ethnicity is more diverse. A study conducted to compare the personality differences

between Singapore and American students showed that there are indeed personality

differences due to cultural and social influences (Lim 1993).

Would a lack of proficiency in the English Language affect the accuracy and hence validity

and reliability of the survey? Feedback from students (see comments in Appendix II) andstaff who helped conduct the survey reflected that the level of English used is beyond some of

the students ability in certain part of the questionnaire. Most of the students surveyed are not

proficient in English. The questions can be rewritten although great care must be taken to

ensure that the meaning and significances are not lost. This in itself may repudiate the

reliability and validity of the inventory. This problem was overcomed by getting the staff

conducting the survey to explain the some of the more difficult terms used. The consequence

is diminished objectivity of the self-response inventory. At the time of this paper, a shorter,

simpler and updated version of the Keirsey Character Sorter (Keirsey, 1997) has been

released.

Is the learning style instrument used complete by itself? Due to time constraint, the learning

style assessment was done using only the KBTS inventory. Ideally, instruments from each of

22


23/46


the four learning style layers should be used to give a comprehensive picture of the students

learning style. It would be ideal for students to experience at least one instrument for each of

the four learning style layers; personality, information processing, social interaction and

instructional preference (Hickcox 1995, p. 42). In recent years, there has been attempts to

provide a more unified view of learning styles based on a synthesis of existing learning

styles models from at least two to three layers of Currys Onion model. An example is the

Felder-Silvermans Index of Learning Styles (Felder 1993, Felder 1996). This model includes

the students preference for information perception (sensory or intuitive), modality (visual or

verbal), information organisation (inductive or deductive), information processing (active or

reflective) and understanding (sequential or global). Another example is the commercial

4MAT System by Bernice McCarthy that derives its theme from works of Dewey, Jung and

Kolb (Germain, 1996).

What are the limitations of using psychological types as learning style instruments? The

limits of using psychological types must be recognized. Studies have also pointed out that

data about learning styles have to be considered in the context of other information related to

learning such as attitudes, environment and prior experiences (Claxton 1987, p. 54). In

addition, we need to be aware that learning styles can change as a student developed as

suggested by Perry in his description of 9 positions of cognitive development (Perry 1988, pp.

145-161, Entwistle 1983, pp. 6-28).

Conclusion

Although there are many constraints and limitations in this survey, the results are useful when

taken on a general cohort basis rather than on an individual basis. The results provide a clear

indication of how the new engineering students of the department learn and help us as

lecturers to identify their learning difficulties and preferences.

Learning style can play an important role in any move to improve curriculum and teaching in

23


24/46


higher education. It is important for us to be aware of the wide variety of learning styles and

recognise the implications of individual learning styles to be able to make appropriate

responses to teaching or environment. There are probably as many teaching styles as there are

learning styles. One important impact of learning style

is the increase in achievement and self-confidence that comes about whenfaculty and students engage in an ongoing dialog about how the student learns,how the teacher teaches, and how each can adapt to the other in the service of more effective learning.

(Claxton 1987, p. 54)

Learning style approach has not been widely used due to concerns over the accuracy, validity

and reliability of learning style measurements. These concerns arise from the the wide variety

of instruments available covering various dimensions and at the incompleteness of each

learning style instrument. I would contend that any information about the students, however

incomplete, would still be beneficial to the teacher interested in knowing more about his/her

students. Recently there has been a trend towards multi-dimensional commercial instruments,

such as the 4MAT system (Germain, 1996), attempting to integrate the various dimensions of

learning style. With this development, it is hoped that learning style approach to teaching

would take on a recognition that is more in line with its contribution to learning.

Teaching style profile?

24


25/46


References

Berens, L. (1996) Type & Temperament, Bulletin of Psychological Type, Vol. 19, No. 2,Spring 1996, Association for Psychological Type, pp. 8-9.[ONLINE] http://www.aptcentral.org/bulberen.htm

Blackmore, J. (1996) Pedagogy: Learning Styles, Telecommunications for Remote Work and Learning, August 1996, Graduate School of Library and Information Science at theUniversity of Western Ontario.[ONLINE] http://www.cyg.net/~jblackmo/diglib/styl.html

Bolton, N. (1996a) The Psychology of Learning I: Psychological Theory, Module 1, Unit 3,Understanding Learning & the Learner, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education.

Bolton, N. (1996b) The Psychology of Learning II: Learning in the Classroom, Module 1,

Unit 4, Understanding Learning & the Learner, Sheffield, University of Sheffield Division of Education.

Boston, G. (1997) Personal Career Fulfilment Guide, , UK, interCONNECTIONS.[ONLINE] http://www.interconnections.co.uk/Market/PCFG/l_profile.htm

Claxton, C. S. & Murell, P. H. (1987) Learning Styles: Implications for ImprovingEducational Practice, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, Washington, D.C.,Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1984) Research Methods in Education, 4th Ed., London, Routledge.

Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1978) Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: APractical Approach, New Jersey, Reston Publishing.

Entwistle, N. J. & Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning, London, CroomHelm.

Entwistle, N. J. (1987) A Model of the Teaching-Learning Process in Richardson, J. et al(1987) Student Learning: Research in Education and Cognitive Psychology, Stratford, TheSociety for Research into Higher Education & Open Univerversity Press, pp. 13-28.

Felder, R. (1993) Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in CollegeScience Education, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 286-290.[ONLINE] http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Secondtier.htm

Felder, R. (1996) Matters of Style, ASEE Prism, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 1996, AmericanSociety of Engineering Education, pp. 18-23.[ONLINE] http://www.asee.org/publications/html/learning_styles.htm

Germain, C. (1996) Historical Perspective: Major Theories Modeled in the 4MAT System for Teaching Learning and Leadership, Excel, Inc.[ONLINE] http://www.excelcorp.com/ResearchHistory.html

Griggs, S. A. (1991) Learning Style Counseling, ED 341890, Dec 91, Michigan, ERIC

25


26/46


Clearninghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services.[ONLINE] http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed341890.htm

Hansen, J. W. (1995) Student Cognitive Styles in Postsecondary Technology Programs,Journal of Technical Education, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring 1995.

[ONLINE] http://borg.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v6n2/jhansen.jte-v6n2.htm

Hickcox, L. K. (1995) Learning Styles: A Survey of Adult Learning Style Inventory Models,in Sims, R. R. & Sims, S. J. (Ed.) (1995) The Importance of Learning Styles: Understandingthe Implications for Learning, Course Design, and Education, London, Greenwood Press, pp.25-45.

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1986) The Manual of Learning Styles (2nd Ed.), Maidenhead,Berkshire, Ardingly House.

Keefe, J. W. (1979) Learning Style: An Overview in Keefe , J. W. (Ed.) (1979) Student

Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs, Reston, Va., National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Keirsey, D. W. & Bates, M. (1984) Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types,(4th Ed.), Del Mar, CA, Prometheus Nemesis Books.

Keirsey, D. M. (1997) Keirsey Character Sorter, Oct. 1997.[ONLINE] http://keirsey.com/cgi_bin/keirsey/kcs.cgi

Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning &Development, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Lim, T. K. (1993) A Comparison of Personality Types of Singapore and American Students,Centre of Applied Research in Education Research Papers No. 6, July 1993, National Insituteof Education, Singapore, Nanyang Technological University.

Ong, A. C. (1993) How Do Singapore Polytechnic Students Learn?, Journal of TeachingPractice, Vol. 2, Singapore, Singapore Polytechnic.

Perry, W. G. (1988) Different Worlds in the Same Classroom, in Ramsden, P. (Ed.) (1988)Improving Learning - New Perspectives, London, Kogan Page, pp. 145-161.

Richarde, R. S. (1996) Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Office of Institutional Research, VirginiaMilitary Institute.[ONLINE] http://www.vmi.edu/~ir/mbti.htm

Schroeder, C. S. (1993) New Students - New Learning Styles, Change, Vol 25, No. 5,September/October 1993.[ONLINE] http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Academia/KierseyLearningStyles.html

26


27/46


Svincki, M. D. & Dixon, N. M. (1987) The Kolb Model Modified for Classroom Acttivities,College Teaching, Vol 34, No. 4, pp. 141-146.

Taylor, M. (1997) Learning Styles, Inquiry, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1997, Virginia CommunityCollege System, pp. 45-48.

[ONLINE] http://www.br.cc.va.us/vcca/i11tay1.htm

Wicklein, R. C. & Rojewski, J. W. (1995) The Relationship Between Psychological Type andProfessional Orientation Among Technology Education Teachers, Journal of TechnologyEducation, Vol. 7, No. 1, Fall 95.[ONLINE] http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/wicklein.jte-v7n1.htm

Yeap, L. L. (1987) Learning Styles of Singapore Secondary Two Students, unpublishedThesis for the Doctor of Education, Graduate Faculty of the School of Education, Universityof Pittsburg.

27


28/46


Appendix I - Copy of Survey

Survey on the Learning Styles of New Students enrolled in theElectronics & Communication Engineering Department,

Singapore Polytechnic

13th October 1997

Dear EC Department colleagues,

As part of my Master in Education assignment, I am conducting a small-scale study on thelearning styles of first year students in the Electronics & Communication EngineeringDepartment. This study is conducted at the request of Dr Chong (Head of Department).

We have often said that it is getting more challenging to teach each new cohort of students being enrolled into our department. With the wider spread of student entry qualifications, it isinevitable that there may be a shift in learning styles of these students. We would like todescribe the learning styles profile of our students as well as determine if there is anysignificant relationship between learning styles and entry qualifications of our first year students.

You class has been selected as being representative for the survey sample. I appreciate your taking time to conduct the survey with your class on my behalf. Please distribute thequestionnaires on learning styles for the students completion and collect the questionnairesupon completion. This should not take more than 15 minutes of your time.

Your students response is important as it can help us to determine their learning styles andmake appropriate teaching responses. Please assure your students that all responses will bekept confidential.

Please get your students to complete the questionnaire and return the entire questionnaire(both sections) to me by 20th October 1997.

You can contact me at x1448 if you have any queries regarding this survey.

Thank you for your assistance.

_______________ Ng Hwee KiatElectronics & Communication Engineering DepartmentSingapore Polytechnic

Appendix II Results of Survey


29/46


The Keirsey Temperament Sorter

Knowing about the strengths of your learning style is important to your success in learning. With your particular learning style you have certain likes and dislikes in how you learn. Learning style determines how you understandand interpret information, what kind of teacher you work with best, and what kinds of class activities you prefer.

You have certain ways of learning based on your style. There is no one right way to go about learning. Byunderstanding your learning style you can be confident in your ability to learn and use your strengths and thestrategies that work best for you.

This exercise is a chance for you to identify your own style. It is a first step in learning about learning styles. Thereare no right or wrong answers. The accuracy of the results depends on how honest you can be. Read thedescription in each pair and tick the sentence that is most like you.

Tick column E or I to indicate your answer to every question. Please choose only one answer for each question. If both E and I seem to apply to you, choose the one that applies more frequently.

Question E IAt a party do you interact with many, including

strangersinteract with a few, known to you

At parties do you stay late, with increasing energy leave early, with decreased energyIn your social groups do you keep abreast of other's happenings get behind on the newsIn phoning do you rarely question that it will all be

saidrehearse what you'll say

In company do you initiate conversation wait to be approachedDoes new and non-routineinteraction with others

stimulate and energize you tax your reserves

Do you prefer many friends with brief contact a few friends with more lengthycontact

Do you speak easily and at length withstrangers

find little to say to strangers

When the phone rings do you hasten to get to it first hope someone else will answer Are you more inclined to be easy to approach somewhat reserved

Count the ticks in this column. _____ If there are more ticks in this columnyou have an extrovert (E) style.

Count the ticks in this column. _____ If there are more ticks in this columnyou have an introvert (I) style.

Which pattern describes you better, E or I? _____ (If there are equal number of ticks, put an X here)

Extrovert, EE's learn best when they can study with a friend and learn by trying it themselves instead of just watching or listening to others. When they're having trouble they benefit by talking about their ideas with others.E's need to learn to take time to practice the skills they've already learned, to avoid distractions, and to learn howto work independently. They can benefit from practicing their listening skills and taking their time rather thanrushing through a project.

Introvert, II's learn best when they can find quiet places to study and have enough time to reflect on and polish their work,They like to make connections between school work and their personal interests.

I's need to learn how to work with others, become more willing to share ideas with teachers and classmates, andwork on staying focused during group activities. I's can benefit in school by trying to talk and communicate morewith teachers and classmates.


30/46


Tick column S or N to indicate your answer to every question. Please choose only one answer for each question.If both S and N seem to apply to you, choose the one that applies more frequently.

Question S NAre you more realistic than speculative speculative than realisticIs it worse to have your "head in the clouds" be "in a rut"Are you more attracted to sensible people imaginative peopleAre you more interested in what is actual what is possibleIn doing ordinary things areyou more likely to

do it the usual way do it your own way

Writers should "say what they mean and meanwhat they say"

express things more by use of analogy

Facts "speak for themselves" illustrate principlesAre visionaries somewhat annoying rather fascinatingCommon sense is rarely questionable frequently questionableChildren often do not make themselves useful enough exercise their fantasy enoughAre you more frequently a practical sort of person a fanciful sort of person

Are you more likely to see how others are useful see how others seeDo you go more by facts principlesAre you more interested in production and distribution design and researchAre you more likely to trustyour

experience hunch

Do you feel more practical than ingenious more ingenious than practicalDo you prize more in yourself a strong sense of reality a vivid imaginationAre you drawn more to fundamentals overtonesIn writings do you prefer the more literal the more figurativeIs it harder for you to identify with others utilize others

Count the ticks in this column. _____

If there are more ticks in this columnyou have a sensing (S) style.

Count the ticks in this column. _____

If there are more ticks in this columnyou have an intuitive (N) style.

Which pattern describes you better, S or N? _____ (If there are equal number of ticks, put an X here)

Sensing, SS's learn best when they can ask their teacher to explain exactly what is expected and focus on skills andassignments that are important in their lives. They like to use computers, watch films or find other ways to see,hear, and touch what they are learning.S's need to learn how to figure out how to do an assignment on their own, be more accepting of assignments thatdon't seem important or real to them, and ask for help from teachers who move too quickly. In school S's need to

practice using their imagination and problem solving in new ways.

Intuitive, N

N's learn best when they can find ways to be imaginative and creative in school. They prefer to follow their inspiration and understand the big picture before they begin school tasks and projects. N's need to learn how to be more observant and realistic, be patient with teachers that go "too slow," and find away of practicing routine skills. In school N's need to practice taking traditional forms of testing (like multiplechoice and fill-in-the-blank tests), completing projects, and being more specific and concrete.


31/46


Tick column T or F to indicate your answer to every question. Please choose only one answer for each question.If both T and F seem to apply to you, choose the one that applies more frequently.

Question T FAre you more impressed by principles emotionsAre you more drawn toward the convincing touchingIn judging others are you moreswayed by

laws than circumstances circumstances than laws

In approaching others is your inclination to be somewhat

objective personal

Which appeals to you more consistency of thought harmonious human relationshipsAre you more comfortable inmaking

logical judgments value judgments

Are you more often a cool-headed person a warm-hearted personIs it worse to be unjust mercilessIn making decisions do you feelmore comfortable with

standards feelings

Are you more firm than gentle gentle than firmWhich is more satisfying: to discuss an issue thoroughly to arrive at agreement on an issueWhich rules you more: your head your heartWhich is more of a compliment: "There is a very logical person." "There is a very sentimental

person."Do you value in yourself morethat you are

unwavering devoted

Which person is more to becomplimented: one of

clear reason strong feeling

Are you more inclined to be fair-minded sympatheticWhich seems the greater error: to be too passionate to be too objectiveDo you see yourself as basically hard-headed soft-heartedWhich do you wish more for yourself:

clarity of reason strength of compassion

Which is the greater fault: being indiscriminate being criticalCount the ticks in this column. ____ If there are more ticks in this columnyou have a thinking (T) style.

Count the ticks in this column. ____ If there are more ticks in this columnyou have a feeling (F) style.

Which pattern describes you better, T or F? _____ (If there are equal number of ticks, put an X here)

Thinking, TT's learn best when they schedule time to study and put information in a logical order that makes sense to them.They succeed when they can focus on what they already know in order to make connections to new information.T's need to find a way to be more comfortable when emotional issues come up in class and work with teachers

who aren't organized. In school T's need to practice being more thoughtful toward other students when in pairsand doing group work, giving positive feedback to other students, and making decisions "with their hearts."

Feeling, FF's learn best when they can study with a friend, find opportunities to choose topics they care about, and helpothers.F's need to learn how to work alone on activities like worksheets and in computer labs, to take criticism, and tothink logically instead of emotionally. In school F's need to practice worrying less about feelings and more aboutthe project at hand, and accept that conflict in group work is a part of learning.


32/46


Tick column J or P to indicate your answer to every question. Please choose only one answer for each question. If both J and P seem to apply to you, choose the one that applies more frequently.

Question J PDo you prefer to work to deadlines just "whenever"Do you tend to choose rather carefully somewhat impulsivelyAre you more punctual leisurelyDoes it bother you more havingthings

incomplete completed

Do you want things settled and decided unsettled and undecidedWould you say you are more serious and determined easy-goingShould one usually let events occur by careful selection and choice randomly and by chanceDo you feel better about having purchased having the option to buyWhich is more admirable: the ability to organize and be

methodicalthe ability to adapt and makedo

Do you put more value on the definite open-endedAre you more comfortable with work

that is

contracted done on a casual basis

Do you tend to look for the orderly whatever turns upDo you more often prefer the final and unalterable statement tentative and preliminary

statementAre you more comfortable after a decision before a decisionIs it preferable mostly to make sure things are arranged just let things happenIn relationships should most things

berenegotiable random and circumstantial

Which situation appeals to you more the structured and scheduled the unstructured andunscheduled

Are you a person that is more routinized than whimsical whimsical than routinizedDo you prefer the planned event unplanned eventDo you tend to be more deliberate than spontaneous spontaneous than deliberate

Count the ticks in this column. ____ If there are more ticks in this columnyou have a judging (J) style.

Count the ticks in this column. __ If there are more ticks in thiscolumn you have a perceiving (P)style.

Which pattern describes you better, J or P? _____ (If there are equal number of ticks, put an X here)

Judging, JJ's learn best when they set short-term goals, make a study schedule and find out from the teacher exactly what isexpected.J's need to learn how to accept unpredictable events, be more comfortable with open-ended situations, and makethe most of classes that seem too unstructured. In school J's need to practice approaching problems from a more

playful perspective, spend more time considering the process of learning and problem solving, and be moreflexible.

Perceiving, PP's learn best when they find new ways to do routine tasks to spark their interest and study to discover newinformation and ideas. They prefer being involved in projects that are open-ended and don't have firm deadlines.P's need to pay more attention to deadlines, accept learning situations that are structured and programmed, and

participate in projects they have no choice in selecting. In school P's need to practice completing assignments,staying on task with projects, and being more aware of time when they have assignments due.


33/46


Now write your four letters here: ____ ____ ____ ____

Knowing your learning style-your personal strengths-can help you find the best environment andstrategies for you to be successful in many ways. Knowing your learning style helps you to understandwhy you may feel frustrated or uncomfortable in certain situations or have difficulty understandingsome people. Most of all, learning about your own style helps you to understand and accept yourself for the way you are.

Everyone is different. Even people with the same learning style are not exactly the same. By knowingabout learning styles, you are not boxed in to being a certain way. You become more free: free torecognize your strengths and preferences, free to not feel guilty when you can't do something as wellas someone else, free to understand your relationships with others and with yourself, and free todevelop your own potential for growth and success in all areas of your life-success that's right for you.

____________________________________________________

Dear DECC Year 1 Students,

We would like to get a profile of who you are in order to help us provide a better teachingenvironment, which can respond to your learning. Please be assured that the information thatyou provide will be strictly confidential.

Your Class: ____________________Date of completing this survey: _____________

Your Learning Style: __ __ __ __

Your GCE O Level Entry Qualifications based on ELR2B2: ( Please tick only 1 box )

below 10 points 10 to 12 points 13 to 15 points 16 to 18 points 19 to 20 points 21 to 25 points

What was your preferred course of study? ( Please tick only 1 box ) Electrical, Control, Electronics or Computer Engineering Mechanical, Production, Manufacturing, Building or Civil Engineering Business Administration, Accountancy, Banking or Marketing Chemical Process or Biotechnology Others: ___________________ ( please indicate )

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time and co-operation.


34/46


Appendix II - Results of SurveyPopulation Size: 707 Sample Size: 419 (59% of DECC1 Student Population)Total Responses: 347 (83%) Valid Responses: 335 (80% of Sample)Response Rate: 83% Invalid Responses: 12 (3% of Sample)

97/98 DECC1 Students by MBTI Types

22.6

2.9

27.6

4.62.9

0.8

6.77.9

4.6

0.4

8.8

3.3

0.4 0.4

2.9 2.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

E S T J

E S T P

E S F J

E S F P

E N T J

E N T P

E N F J

E N F P

I S T J

I S T P

I S F J

I S F P

I N T J

I N T P

I N F J

I N F P

MBTI Types

P e r c e n

t a g e

Total Populat ion

Figure A1 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by MBTI Types

MBTI Population 1 Overall 2


35/46


DECC1

Population

13 62 5 20

38 38 12 12

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Percentage

Population

Sample

97/98 DECC1 Students by Keirsey-Bates Temperament Types

SP SJ NT NF

Figure A2 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by KBTS Temperament

DECC1 Students in Four Temperament Types by ELR2B2 Aggregates

3 10 17 8 37

16

5774 32 179

8

8 29 13 574 6

3 1 14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19 Overall

Enrolment Aggregate

P e r c e n

t a g e o

f S t u d e n

t s

NT

NF

SJ

SP

Figure A3 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Enrolment Aggregates

Temperamen t 3 Population 4 Overal l 5


36/46


75

25

75

25

75

25

50

50

34

66

50

50

77

23

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

90%100%

Percentage

Extrovert

Introvert Intuition

Sensation Thinking

Feeling

Judging

Perceiving

Personality Type

97/98 DECC1 Students by Personality Types

Population DECC1

75

25

Figure A4 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Personality Type Preferences

Dimension Personality Population 6 Total 7

Preference (%) (%) nOrientation Extroversion 75 75 218

Introversion 25 25 72Perception Sensation 75 75 230

Intuition 25 25 76Decision Thinking 50 34 104

Feeling 50 66 202

Lifestyle Judging 50 77 239Perceiving 50 23 73

Table A3. Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Personality Preference

6 General population type (Kiersey & Bates,1984) included for comparative purposes only.7 Missing data reflects those responses who did not show a preference for one of the two components on a

particular dimension.


37/46


DECC1 Students in Temperament Types by Choice of Course

27 14 310

154 101 29 24

47 23 915

10 6 1 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Overall Engineering Business OthersChoice of Courses

P e r c e n

t a g e o

f S t u d e n

t s

NT

NF

SJ

SP

Figure A5 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students in KBTS Temperaments by Course Preferences

DECC1 Students in Course Preferences by KBTS Types

14101 6

23

3

29

19

10

243 15

0%

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SP SJ NT NF

KBTS Type

P e r c e n

t a g e

Others

Business

Engineering

Figure A6 Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students in Course Preferences by KBTS Types

Temperament Overall 8 Engineering Business Others 9

n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)Artisans, SP 27 11.3 14 9.7 3 7.1 10 19.2Guardians, SJ 154 64.7 101 70.1 29 69.0 24 46.2Rationals, NF 47 19.7 23 16.0 9 21.4 15 28.8Idealists, NT 10 4.2 6 4.2 1 2.4 3 5.8

Total 238 100.0 144 100.0 42 100.0 52 100.0

Table A4. Distribution of 97/98 DECC1 Students by Choice of Course & KBTS Temperament

8 Missing data ( n=97) due to uncertain preferences in one or more KBTS dimensions and incomplete entries inquestionnaire.

9 Other choices includes Hospitality & Tourism, Optometry, Multimedia Design, Mass Communication,Architecture, Junior College, Computer Studies, Information Technology, Software Technology, Design andVisual Communications.


38/46


Unedited Comments from Respondents

Course Related1. I dont like the year long system. It is to slow for me. Can I have the modular 2. No choice but to read Electronics.3. The courses provided are quite limited. Should lnclude Multimedia, Movie Making, Possibly Aeronautical

Engg.4. I am beginning to feel that DECC is not for me!!!5. Wanted to go to the JC, but could not enter the JC of my choice so ...6. Should allow more students to take on what they like rather than to accept what they can be given based on

the results.7. Ill find it different in the way SP taught us with other polytechnics.8. Sometimes the things that what you want and you love is being blocked or over-powered by fact, reality and

present systems. Eg. I wish to do Sport & Wellness Management but due to the job market of the course,I was force to take Electronics.

9. At first I am not very interested in Electronics engg, but after I am more exposed to the course, I felt that itcan be quite interesting.

10. I want to get into Chemical Processing Course!11. A chance to do R&D projects on top of my 1st & 2nd Year here, though there will be a final year project. To

apply what Ive learnt and doing something out of the schools syllabus.12. I hope to have lecturers who can speak clear english and a better method of teaching style. For example:-

Sen Gupta (Structured Programming)

Survey Related1. Is it really necessary to know your own learning style? If its necessary, what can we tell from the four

letters?2. This survey is rather lengthy. Would be more pleasant has it been shorter.3. Survey found to be quite lengthly4. I would like to say that this survey is difficult to answer as the words use are unrecognizable to us- as the

students.5. Please limited your questionnaire. Your English is very deep. Next time I complain U. Be careful.6. Is it accurate?7. The English is too difficult.8. Dont mind. please use simpler English for the conveniency of surveyors. Thank You!9. lousy exercise10. Although it help knowing what to strengthen on, I still think it does not help in improving for better grades.

Some may still be a weakness regardless of effort to be made.11. I realise what kind of a person I am thru this survey. For letting me know myself I thank you.12. Dont really understand what the questions are looking for.13. Dont really know what the questions are asking. The English used is not easy enough to let all understand.14. Ha! Ha! funny to try. interesting, ridiculous, soo fun!!15. The English used are quite difficult.16. The English used is too profile.17. This ...... (whatever it is) is stupid.18. None, Thanks for giving me this survey!

Others1. Should have a more balanced sex ratio (I mean the EC dept)2. School has too few ECAs & not publicized.3. An entertaining class is good as the student will look forward in attending the class thus study harder.4. To have freedom of choice and doing everthing in my own quiet way. Be fair and just.5. Travelling to Singapore Polytechnic is quite tiring & stressful. The journey itself will make you get tired of

your life.


39/46

Appendix III Learning Profile of the 97/98 Cohort of DECC1 Students

Appendix III A Summary of the Learning Profile of the 97/98 Cohort of DECC1 Students

Based on the results of the survey and analysis of the learning style profiles, the majority (51%) of the DECC1students exhibit the following personality types; Extroversion, Sensation, Feeling & Judging (ESFJ) andExtroversion, Sensation, Thinking & Judging (ESTJ). The learning profile of these students is described below:

LecturesThese students prefer organized, linear and structured lectures. They tend to get lower grades in lecture courses.They prefer direct, concrete experiences, moderate to high degrees of structure and linear sequential learning. Problem SolvingThey like to solve problems using well-established procedures, dont mind detail work, and dont like unexpectedtwists or complications

Concrete ExperienceThey prefer concrete learning experiences on which they can build toward an abstract understanding. They prefer facts and observations and often need to know why before doing something. They have difficulty with complex

concepts, low tolerance for ambiguity and are uncomfortable with abstract ideas. They learn best when given factsand procedures.

StructureThe students also appear to need a great deal of structure. Knowing precisely what is required of them and whenenables them to gain confidence to attempt the challenge of learning. These students find security in bothstructure and clarity. They often request specific information on the length of writing assignments, the content of examinations and what they should know from lectures.

LinearityThey prefer sequential learning tasks - building a linear concept rather than having a global concept presented atonce.

ChallengeThese students may find open-ended assignments, independent projects, or self-learning situations to beextremely challenging. Too much diversity in ideas, classroom environment, or assignments can cause thestudents anxiety.

Human TouchThese students prefer a high degree to personalism. They often lack confidence in themselves and require a greatdeal of feedback from their lecturers. They are often less independent in thought and judgement and moredependent on the ideas of those in authority.

Collaborative LearningThey adapt quite well to group activities and collaborative learning. These students enjoy working in groups,especially harmonious groups. The students learn by explaining to others. They do not know if they understandthe subject until they try to explain it to themselves or others.

SummaryThey are more dependent on immediate gratification and exhibit more difficulty with basic academic skills suchas reading and writing. Their path to educational excellence is usually via a practice-to-theory route, not the moretraditional theory to practice approach.

ReferencesBrightman, H. J. (1997) GSU Master Teacher Program: On Learning Styles, Georgia State University.[ONLINE] http://www.gsu.edu/~dschjb/wwwmbti.htm

Appendix IV TEACHING TO ALL TYPES


40/46


The Learning Style Profile of the 1997/1998 Cohort of DECC1 Students

ESFJ Learning Style (28% of 97/98 DECC1 Students)

ESFJs learn best by experiencing, memorising and sharing ideas.

They prefer to learn in an orderly manner, and so enjoy traditional teaching in which tasks and exercises are presented in a structured manner, and in which there is a formal relationship with a teacher. They needinformation to be presented sequentially and instructions to be given clearly, and dislike loose teaching thatrequires little supervision or that involves a high degree of independent creativity. They are conscientious aboutcompleting exercises and projects, and being set (and achieving) regular targets maintains their interest and showsthem that they are making steady progress.

They enjoy interacting with other learners and gain much by discussion, sharing information, as well as questionand answer sessions. Their thought processes are clarified by the act of verbalising them, so talking is a vital partof their learning. They are sensitive to both positive and negative feedback, with the former acting as a motivationto learn.

Well thought-out training programmes, practical workshops and formal classroom teaching work well for ESFJs,as do demonstrations and practical examples.

As learners, ESFJs:

learn well in a structured or formal setting are conscientious and hard working respond well to clearly presented information are more interested in practical knowledge that has benefit for other people than in abstract theories prefer proven ideas and methods to untried ones prefer to work towards a clear goal or end-product, such as a certificate benefit from developing judgement, criticism and objectivity learn best with others rather than on their own respond to hands-on training, demonstrations and real-world examples

ESFJs are most comfortable learning when:

engrossed in short 'here and now' activities such as competitive teamwork tasks, role-playing exercises they are in the limelight or a position of high visibility e.g. they can 'chair' meetings, lead discussions, give

presentations involved with other people e.g. discussing ideas, solving problems as part of a team there is an obvious link between the subject matter and a problem or opportunity on the job shown techniques which achieve obvious practical benefits, e.g. in saving time, making a good first

impression, dealing with awkward people they can try out and practise techniques with coaching and feedback exposed to a model they can copy, e.g. a respected boss or an expert with a proven track record

ESFJs are least comfortable when:

involved in a passive role, e.g. listening to lectures, , explanations, statements of how things should be done,reading, watching

required to assimilate, analyse and interpret lots of data required to engage in solitary work, e.g. reading, writing, thinking on their own the learning is abstract and theoretical and not related to an immediate need or practical benefit expected to act without clear guidelines or opportunities for planning or practice they can't see sufficient benefit from the learning activity, i.e., shorter meetings, standardisation, greater

efficiency.


41/46


ESTJ Learning Style (23% of 97/98 DECC1 Students)

ESTJs learn best by experiencing, analysing and memorising.

They prefer to learn in an orderly manner, so enjoy traditional teaching in which tasks and exercises are presented in a structured manner, and in which there is a formal relationship with the tutor. They need

information to be presented sequentially and instructions to be given clearly, and dislike loose teaching thatrequires little supervision or that involves a high degree of independent creativity.

Structured training programmes and courses, and high quality coaching work well for them. Being set (andachieving) regular targets ensures that they maintain interest and gives them the feedback they need in order to show them that they are making steady progress.

They enjoy learning facts and figures, but may be less good at conceptualising and abstract reasoning.

As learners, ESTJs:

value knowledge that has practical application learn best with others rather than on their own enjoy analysing rather than linking ideas together are good at focusing and concentrating respond to hands-on training, demonstrations and real-world examples dislike theory, abstraction or conceptualisation prefer to work towards a clear goal or end-product are motivated by personal achievement, enhanced status and recognition. have a strong need for evidence or proof when learning new facts prefer proven ideas and methods to untried ones benefit from taking the time to refl

Documents

Learning Styles of New Engineering Students