Transcript Slide 1
Amber Settle (CDM), joint work with Tom Berry (Commerce) DePaul 2009 Faculty Teaching and Learning Conference April 17, 2009 People vary in the way that they learn and retain information Various instruments to model and measure these differences ◦ Myers-Briggs (personality types related to learning) ◦ Learning Style Inventory (Kolb’s model) ◦ The Index of Learning Styles (Felder-Silverman model) Awareness of learning styles can be beneficial ◦ Purpose is not to teach in a targeted manner ◦ Encourage diverse teaching/learning styles Developed for use on engineering students Four dimensions A disconnect ◦ Correlates well with other learning-style models ◦ Tested for validity and reliability ◦ Developed by Felder and Silverman ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Active – Reflective Sensing – Intuitive Visual – Verbal Sequential – Global ◦ Studies show most students are predominantly Active, Sensing, Visual, and Sequential learners ◦ Finance and programming courses are often lecturebased, which is more helpful for Reflective, Intuitive, Verbal, and Sequential learners Two types of courses ◦ Financial Management (FIN 310) ◦ Introductory programming Java: CSC 211/212 Python: CSC 241/242 C++: CSC 261/262 ◦ Technically- and mathematically-focused ◦ High withdrawal and failure rates Two populations ◦ Faculty (CDM and Commerce) ◦ Students (CDM and Commerce) Survey ◦ Basic demographic information ◦ ILS instrument (44 questions) Winter 2009 Responses ◦ Commerce (solicited in person) 121 students 11 faculty ◦ CDM (solicited by e-mail and completed online) 101 students (29% response rate) 12 faculty (71% response rate) ◦ Grouped together for this presentation ACT Faculty ACT Students 6 2 6 1 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 1B 3B 22 20 3 5B 2 2 7B 9B 11B 1 28 2 2 2 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 1B 3 3B 2 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 3 1 2 1 3 2 3 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 1B 3B SEQ Faculty 5 11A 9A 2 7A 5A 1 3A 3 1A 3 1B 2 5B 5B 7B 2 9B 11B 7B 24 26 4 9B 11B 11A 9A 17 12 7A 5A 3A 1A 1B 3B 11 11 10 5B 7B 9B 11B 7 4 4 5B 7B 9B 11B 1 VIS Students 37 2 5B 1 1 7B 9B 11B 32 37 28 27 16 15 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 14 1B 3B 1 SEQ Students 3 3B 3B 8 45 21 6 2 1B 16 SNS Students VIS Faculty 4 34 8 40 4 29 18 SNS Faculty 3 35 5B 20 2 7B 1 9B 11B 28 27 36 25 31 19 11 11A 9A 7A 5A 3A 1A 1B 3B 12 5B 9 7B 3 1 9B 11B All faculty ◦ ACT: 3B, SNS: 1B, VIS: 1A, SEQ: 3B ◦ Reflective, Intuitive, Visual, Global All students ◦ ACT: 1A, SNS: 3A, VIS: 5A, SEQ: 3A ◦ Active, Sensing, Visual, Sequential Some college-specific differences ◦ Faculty CDM (Reflective, Sensing, Verbal, Global) Commerce (Reflective, Intuitive, Visual, Global) ◦ Students CDM (Reflective, Sensing, Visual, Sequential) Commerce (Active, Sensing, Visual, Sequential) All students ◦ (Active) Study in a group to compensate for a lack of active learning in the classroom ◦ (Sensing) Ask the instructor for specific examples and how the concepts apply in practice ◦ (Sequential) Ask the instructor to fill in missing steps and outline material in a logical order when studying CDM students ◦ (Visual) Find diagrams, schematics, or flow charts to aid understanding of course material The Index of Learning Styles ◦ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder /public/ILSpage.html Survey of learning styles More information about our study: ◦ Felder and Brent (2005), “Understanding Student Differences”, Journal of Engineering Education, 94:1. ◦ http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder /public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf ◦ Amber Settle: [email protected] ◦ Tom Berry: [email protected]