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]