Lee, C. K., & Sidhu, M. S. (2015).

Engineering Students Learning Preferences in UNITEN: Comparative Study and Patterns of

Learning Styles. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), 266281.

Engineering Students Learning Preferences in UNITEN: Comparative Study

and Patterns of Learning Styles
Chen Kang Lee* and Manjit Singh Sidhu
Department of Graphics and Multimedia, College of Information Technology, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Selangor,
Malaysia // [email protected] // [email protected]
*
Corresponding author
(Submitted July 8, 2014; Revised October 30, 2014; Accepted February 4, 2015)
ABSTRACT
Engineering educators have been increasingly taking the learning style theories into serious consideration as part
of their efforts to enhance the teaching and learning in engineering. This paper presents a research study to
investigate the learning style preference of the mechanical engineering students in Universiti Tenaga Nasional
(UNITEN), Malaysia by means of the Personality and Learning Styles instruments. Descriptive statistical
method was used to analyze the collected samples (n = 122). The findings of this study revealed that the
preference style for engineering students are more towards spontaneous, pragmatic and concrete style of
learning. This is consistent with the previous research findings on the learning preference for engineering
students in UNITEN using Honey and Mumford Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) and Felder and Silverman
Index of Learning Style (ILS) instruments. Therefore, it is important for the engineering educators to be aware
of the students learning preferences by adjusting the teaching and learning strategies to unleash the learning
potential of the students. Multi-approaches in teaching and learning are recommended to accommodate different
students learning preferences while widening the students learning capabilities in engineering education.

Keywords
Engineering education, Learning styles, Learning preferences, Educational technology

Introduction
In the era of post-capitalist knowledge society, paradigm shift in engineering education is unavoidable in response to
the rapid changes in the global market environment that emphasize on the innovation efforts for competitive
advantage. Many practitioners in the engineering industry look seriously into this issue and did propose for new
paradigms of engineering education in response to the changes in todays increasingly knowledge driven
environment. The details can be found in numerous research papers and reports (Chua, 2014; Froyd et al., 2012;
Mistree et al., 2014; National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2007; National Science Board,
2007; Prados, 1998; Rajala, 2012; Rosen, 2007; Wince-Smith, 2005). In order to further enhance the quality of
teaching and learning in engineering education, the students preference in learning is an important factor that should
raise the attention of the education practitioners. This referred to the learning styles of the students. Learning styles
are defined as the characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable
indicators of how learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment(Keefe, 1991, p. 4). As
the engineering instructors, we should be aware that different students are comfortable with different learning styles
(Felder & Brent, 2005). The understanding of students preferences may contribute to the adjustment of teaching
strategies and the design of learning instructions that will better accommodate for students learning needs (Cavanagh
& Coffin, 1994; Chen & Chiou, 2012; Graf, 2007; Graf et al., 2007; Noguera & Wageman, 2011; Pedrosa de Jesus et
al., 2004).

Overview of learning styles

The research on learning styles has been active since four decades ago (Cassidy, 2004; Pedrosa de Jesus et al., 2004).
There exist various definitions for learning styles. As refer by Campbell et al. (2003), learning styles is defined as a
certain specified pattern of behavior according to which the individual approaches learning experience. While Felder
and Spurlin (2005) defined learning styles as the different ways students take in and process information. Another
popular definition for learning styles refers to individuals characteristics and preferred ways of gathering, organizing
and thinking about information (Fleming, 2005). As noted by Kolb (1983), learning styles are not fixed personality
traits but rather ones adaptive orientation to learning. Felder and Spurlin (2005) shared similar view with Kolb by
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). This article of the Journal of Educational Technology & Society is available under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND-NC
3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For further queries, please contact Journal Editors at [email protected].

266

which they stressed that learning style profiles suggest behavioral tendencies rather than being infallible predictors
of behavior (p. 104). Many of the researchers did agree that individuals may tend to have a preference for one or
two learning styles over others and the preferences can be affected by a students educational experience (Felder &
Spurlin, 2005; Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1983). Therefore, learning styles are relatively stable but are not
immutable (Pedrosa de Jesus et al., 2004, p. 533). Throughout the learning process and based on different
educational experience, the students may discover better way of learning and develop certain learning preferences.
The learning style assessments can benefit both the instructors and students (Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Larkin-Hein &
Budny, 2001). Thus, from the instructors perspective, the identification of the students learning styles may lead to
gain better understanding of learners with different learning styles. This may contribute to assist the design of
teaching and learning instructions to accommodate the different learning needs of students. While from the students
perspective, better understanding of the learning styles may provide ideas on how the students might further improve
on the less preferred styles and overcome the learning difficulties by developing the skills for balance approach in
effective learning.
There are considerable amount of literature regarding the issue of learning styles (Cassidy, 2004; Coffield et al.,
2004a; Coffield et al., 2004b; Deborah et al., 2012; Kolb et al., 2001; Riding & Rayner, 1998; Sadler-Smith, 1997;
Sternberg &Grigorenko, 1997) and various instruments for learning styles measurements throughout all these years
(Cornwell & Manfredo, 1994; Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Fleming, 2005; Gregorc, 1985;
Honey & Mumford, 1992; Kolb, 1983; McCaulley, 2000). As argued by Hawk and Shah (2007), although various
different instruments are available for learning styles measurement, the learning styles instruments or inventories
vary in length, format and complexity, and no single instrument can capture all of the richness of the phenomena of
learning styles.
Recently, engineering educators have been increasingly taking the learning style theories into serious consideration
for classrooms teaching and learning (see, for example, Cagiltay, 2008; Felder, 1996; Felder & Brent, 2005; Felder &
Silverman, 1988; Holvikivi, 2007; Lee & Manjit Sidhu, 2013a; Miskioglu & Wood, 2013; Rosati et al., 1988). In the
literature, there are four widely accepted learning style models in engineering education context, which are the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Kolbs Learning Style Model, Felder-Silverman Model and Honey and
Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaires (Manjit Sidhu, 2006; Ogot & Okudan, 2007). All these learning style
instruments can be used to measure and identify the learners preferences.

Kolbs experiential learning model

Kolb developed the learning style inventory (LSI) in 1976 and revised in 1985 (Tendy & Geiser, 1997). In Kolbs
model, students are classified as having a preference for (a) concrete experience or abstract conceptualization (how
they take information in) and (b) active experimentation or reflective observation (how they process information)
(Cornwell & Manfredo, 1994; Kolb, 1983; Stice, 1987). Figure 1 illustrates the learning styles and learning cycle
based on Kolbs model.

Figure 1. Learning styles and learning cycle based on Kolbs Model (Montgomery & Groat, 1998)
267

The four types of learners in this classification (see Figure 1) scheme are:
Type 1 (concrete, reflective) the diverger. Type 1 learners respond well to explanations of how course material
relates to their experience, interests, and future careers. Their characteristic question is Why?.
Type 2 (abstract, reflective) the assimilator. Type 2 learners respond to information presented in an organized,
logical fashion and benefit if they are given time for reflection. Their characteristic question is What?.
Type 3 (abstract, active) the converger. Type 3 learners respond to having opportunities to work actively on
well-defined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment that allows them to fail safely. Their
characteristic question is How?.
Type 4 (concrete, active) the accommodator. Type 4 learners like applying course materials in new situation to
solve real problems. Their characteristic question is What if?.

Honey and Mumfords Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ)

Honey and Mumford defined learning styles as a description of the attitudes and behaviours that determines an
individuals preferred way of learning (Honey & Mumford, 2000, p. 6). Honey and Mumford proposed a model
similar to Kolbs in which individuals has a mixture of four learning styles, normally with a preference for one or
two of the styles. Honey and Mumfords learning styles questionnaire (LSQ) and Kolbs learning styles inventory
(LSI) are both diagnostic tests to help individuals identify their strengths, weaknesses, and development needs. The
four learning styles, based on Kolbs theory of stages in the learning cycle, are: activist, reflector, theorist, and
pragmatist as shown in Table 1. Through the use of the LSQ instrument, instructors can gain a better understanding
of individual learners attitudes, behaviors and learning processes (Armstrong et al., 2005; Jackson, 2002).
Table 1. The Honey and Mumfords four learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1986)
Learning styles
Strengths
Weakness
Activist(learn best when they are
Sociable, open-minded, welcome
Bored by implementation details and
actively involve in new tasks)
challenge, highly involved,
the longer term, always seeks the
prefers here-and-now
limelight
Reflector (learn best through review Good listener, tolerant, sees
Takes a back seat in meetings, low
and reflect)
different perspectives, postpones
profile, distant
judgement, cautious
Theorist (learn best when they can
Integrates observations with theory,
Perfectionist, detached, impatient
relate new information to concept
rationale, objective, analytical
with subjective and intuitive
& theory)
thinking
Pragmatist (learn best when they
Experimenter, quick to adopt and try Impatient with theory, impatient
see relevance of real life issues)
out new ideas, practival, down-towith open-ended discussion
earth

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

People are classified on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) according to their preferences on four scales
derived from Jungs Theory of Psychological Types (McCaulley, 2000; Pittenger, 2005).
Extraverts (try things out, focus on the outer world of people) or Introverts (think things through, focus on the
inner world of ideas).
Sensors (practical, detailed-oriented, focus on facts and procedures) or Intuitors (imaginative, concept-oriented,
focus on meanings and possibilities).
Thinkers (skeptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules) or Feelers (appreciative, tend to make
decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations).
Judgers (set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data) or Perceivers (adapt to changing
circumstances, postpone reaching closure to obtain more data).

268

As discussed by Felder and Brent (2005), most engineering instruction is oriented toward introverts (lecturing and
individual assignments rather than active class involvement and cooperative learning), intuitors (emphasis on science
and math fundamentals rather than engineering applications and operations), thinkers (emphasis on objective
analysis rather than interpersonal considerations in decision-making), and judgers (emphasis on following the
syllabus and meeting assignment deadlines rather than on exploration of ideas and creative problem solving).

Felder-Silverman Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

The Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model classifies students along four dimensions: sensing/intuitive,
visual/verbal, active/reflective and sequential/global as shown in Table 2 (Felder, 1993; Felder & Silverman, 1988).
Previous studies (mainly undergraduate students in engineering domain) that adopted the Felder-Silverman ILS are
summarized as shown in Table 3.

Learning Styles
Sensory/Intuitive

Visual/Verbal

Active/Reflective
Sequential/Global

Table 2. The four dimensions of Felder and Silvermans learning styles

Descriptions
Sensors prefer facts, data, experimentation, sights and sounds, physical sensations are
careful and patient with details, but may be slow. Intuitions prefer concepts, principles
and theories, memories, thoughts, insights and may be quick but careless.
Visual learners prefer pictures, diagrams, charts, movies, demonstrations and exhibitions.
Verbal learners prefer words, discussions, explanations, written and spoken
explanations, formulas and equations.
Active learners learn by doing and participating through engagement in physical activity or
discussion. Reflective learners learn by thinking or pondering through introspection.
Sequential learners take things logically step by step and will be partially effective with
understanding. Global learners must see the whole picture for any of it to make sense
and are completely ineffective until they suddenly understand the entire subject.

Table 3. Reported learning preferences (adapted from Felder and Spurlin, 2005)
Sampled population
A
S
Vs
Sq
N
Reference
Iowa State, Materials Engr.
63%
67%
85%
58%
129 Constant (1997)
Michigan Tech, Env. Engr.
56%
63%
74%
53%
83
Paterson (1999)
Oxford Brookes Univ., Business
64%
70%
68%
64%
63
Vita (2001)
British students
85%
86%
52%
76%
21
International students
52%
62%
76%
52%
42
Ryerson Univ., Elec. Engr.
Students (2000)
53%
66%
86%
72%
87
Zywno&Waalen (2001)
Students (2001)
60%
66%
89%
59%
119 Zywno (2002)
Students (2002)
63%
63%
89%
58%
132 Zywno (2003)
Faculty
38%
42%
94%
35%
48
Tulane, Engr.
Second-Year Students
62%
60%
88%
48%
245 Livesay et al. (2002)
First-Year Students
56%
46%
83%
56%
192 Dee et al. (2003)
Universities in Belo Horizonte (Brazil)
Sciences
65%
81%
79%
67%
214 Lopez (2002)
Humanities
52%
62%
39%
62%
235
Univ. of Limerick, Mfg. Engr.
70%
78%
91%
58%
167 Seery et al. (2003)
Univ. of Michigan, Chem. Engr.
67%
57%
69%
71%
143 Montgomery (1995)
Univ. of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez
Biology (Semester 1)
65%
77%
74%
83%
39
Buxeda& Moore (1999)
Biology (Semester 2)
51%
69%
66%
85%
37
Buxeda& Moore (1999)
Biology (Semester 3)
56%
78%
77%
74%
32
Buxeda& Moore (1999)
Elect. & Comp. Engr.
47%
61%
82%
67%
?
Buxeda et al. (2001)
Univ. of Sao Paulo, Engr.
60%
74%
79%
50%
351 Kuri&Truzzi (2002)
Civil Engr.
69%
86%
76%
54%
110
Elec. Engr.
57%
68%
80%
51%
91
269

Mech. Engr.
Indust. Engr.
Univ. of Technology Kingston, Jamaica
Univ. of Western Ontario, Engr.
First year engr.
Fourth year engr.
Engr. faculty
Brunel Univ. UK, IS & Computing
Universidad de las Americas, Puebla
California Polytechnic State Univ.
Auckland Univ., Chemical & Materials Engr.
course
Utah State Univ., Mechanical & Aerospace
Engr. course
Beijing Forestry Univ., Civil Engr.

53%
66%
55%
69%
66%
72%
51%
64%
67%
56%
34%

67%
70%
60%
59%
59%
58%
40%
70%
82%
74%
69%

84%
73%
70%
80%
78%
81%
94%
82%
90%
79%
81%

45%
50%
55%
67%
69%
63%
53%
68%
55%
71%
72%

94
56
?
858
499
359
53
148
290
86
29

Smith et al. (2002)

Rosati (1999)
Rosati (1996)
Rosati (1996)
Rosati (1996)
Baldwin &Sabry (2003)
Palou (2006)
Self &Widmann (2009)
Patterson (2011)

42%

89%

89%

69%

61

Fang & Zhao (2013)

55%

80%

76%

55%

71

Fang & Zhao (2013)

Personality and Learning Styles Questionnaire

Personality and Learning Styles Questionnaire is a set of instrument that measures individuals learning styles. The
questionnaire has been designed by Richard Ogden in UK, a professional psychologist based on reliable and valid
psychometric principles (Ogden, 2007). According to Richard, it is primarily intended for those in an academic
environment, although the content will be useful for anyone interested in understanding more about learning and
their own, special personality preferences.
The learning style model explores three key areas, highlighting how the student may prefer to go about learning
things or approaching tasks based on (i) approach to learning (Structured or Spontaneous), (ii) focus on learning
(Pragmatic or Conceptual),(iii) transfer of learning (Concrete or Fluid). The detail descriptions for the three key areas
of learning preferences is listed in Table 4.
Table 4. The detail descriptions of three key areas of learning preferences
Areas
Preference style
Approach to learning
Structured
Spontaneous
(To what extent the
Structured learners are more likely to:
Spontaneous learners are more likely to:
learners need structure
Like well organized environments and
Learn through trial-and-error
and organization during therefore might feel uncomfortable in
Be content with lecturers to give them
learning?)
more ambiguous situations.
loose and brief guidelines and they will be
Prefer their learning to be well
happy to get on with their assignments
structured and formally planned.
Be happy with less structured approaches to
Are good at following step-by-step
learning.
procedures.
Need lots of variety in their day and may get
Be more likely to maintain focus and
bored with routine.
avoid distractions.
Get stuck in; can be impatient with
Prefer to stick with tried-and-tested
instructions or briefings
approaches and methods.
Enjoy spontaneity and are not worried that
Get uncomfortable if things are left too
they dont know what is coming up next.
loose or they do not know what is
coming up.
Focus on learning
Pragmatic
Conceptual
(How interested are the Pragmatic learners are more likely to:
Conceptual learners are more likely to:
learners in the
Focus on practical aspects e.g. how
Enjoy understanding how things work from
underlying concepts
useful, and how can they apply the learnt a theoretical perspective
and workings?)
skills to something?
They are more likely to enjoy complex,
Tend to be focused on concrete, more
theoretical thinking about subjects such as
immediate benefits of learning.
Psychology.
Dont necessarily see the point of being Spend time thinking about concepts and
270

absorbed into the theory or spending time

on conceptual discussions.
Believe in keeping things neat and
simple.
Make their minds up quickly, think on
their feet.
Prefer hands-on practical jobs, perhaps
more suited to vocational education
Be more focused with the task at hand
and not likely to be side-tracked by
conceptual details.
Be seen as down-to-earth, having
common sense and good at getting
things done

Transfer of learning
(Do the learners focus
on a specific problem,
or transfer learning
across situations?)

Concrete
Concrete learners are more likely to:
Take their learning literally i.e., this
learnt skill is used for this specific
situation.
Find it more difficult to adapt what they
have learnt to other similar situations.
Prefer following clear instructions and
to be offered or given solutions.
Need to concentrate on one thing at a
time, working through information in a
step-by-step fashion.
Have less need to review and explore
what they can do with what they have
learnt.

taking it to a deeper level of understanding,

perhaps to appreciate wider possibilities and
related subjects or information.
Appreciate the logic and rationale behind
proposed procedure
Be more curious about how the world
around them works, more likely to ask
why? or how? in their mind.
Carefully weigh things up and therefore on
occasions may find it harder to be decisive
about complex matters, less likely to take a
clear stances towards matters.
Get occasionally engrossed in the things that
personally interest them and may be lose sight
of the practical goals or tasks at hand.
Very high scorers can seem to have their
head in the clouds at times by more
pragmatic people.
Fluid
Fluid learners are more likely to:
Enjoy tackling several things at the same
time
Like exploring the links or connections
between things
Automatically consider widening the
original application after learning what else
can I do with this knowledge?
See if it is possible to transfer and adapt
learning from one situation to other very
different situation.
Boost their learning by drawing on their
own previous experiences, perhaps from
totally different areas.
Be more able to adapt to changing
situations.

Furthermore, as per Ogden (2007), the student learning preference can also be represented using Hemispheric Map
Diagram (see Figure 2). It is a simpler way of representing where the students preferences are, and also shows the
student which side of brain the student may prefer to use when processing information. The left hemisphere
preference and right hemisphere preference both shown different and contrast characteristics as stated in Table 5.

Figure 2. Sample Hemispheric Map diagram indicated a particular students learning preference and the preference
side of brain when processing information
271

Table 5. The characteristics both for left hemisphere preference and right hemisphere preference
Left hemisphere preference
Right hemisphere preference
Likes written information, responds well to spoken
Likes to see things in action, and responds better to
instructions.
demonstrations (prefer demonstrations).
Solves problems in a step-by-step, logical manner.
Solves problems by using gut feel and hunches
Looks for differences and when things dont fit.
Looks for patterns and links
Plans and structures.
Looks for relationships and similarities
Prefers established, more objective types of information
Prefers more subjective, diffuse or elusive information,
e.g., science.
e.g., art, politics.
Likes asking questions, likes things with a clear answer
Happy with ambiguity, explores matters without need for
or predictable outcome
a clear answer.
Less open or valuing of feelings
Responds more to feelings and open with emotions.
Splits things up - makes distinctions
Jumps in, makes things up as go along, chunks things
together
Looks for cause and effect
Interested more in expression than cause and effect.
Each individual learner may be able to identify their learning preference towards using the left side or the right side
of the brain based on the report generated after the questionnaire was submitted through the online form. The report
would provide specific advice to help the learners to balance his/her approach in learning and to learn more
effectively.

Methodology
This research study aimed for two objectives. Firstly is to investigate the learning preference for engineering students
in UNITEN by means of the Personality and Learning Styles instruments. Secondly is to compare the current
research finding with the previous learning styles research on engineering students in UNITEN.
In this study, the personality and learning styles questionnaire was adopted. This is because (i) it is free and easily
available online with prompt response on the students learning styles preference, (ii) it is primarily intended for
those in an academic environment and may suit to engineering education and (iii) provides customized and
constructive feedback for each individual regarding their learning behavior and preferences. The current findings will
be compared with two of the previous research in learning styles (Lee & Manjit Sidhu, 2013a; Manjit Sidhu, 2006)
as discussed in the next section. The personality and learning styles questionnaire is comprehensive and is about 1215 pages long. It is available online without any charges. In the questionnaire, students are asked to respond
themselves against the 76 statements using a five (5) point Likert Scale. Once the student submits the questionnaire
online, an instant report will be generated and provides suggestions on how the student can utilize his/her mind and
adapt their behavior to learn more effectively.
In August 2012, five sections of the 3rd year mechanical engineering students from Universiti Tenaga Nasional
(UNITEN) were invited to participate in this research study and a total of 122 samples were collected through online
questionnaire. The response rate of the survey achieved 81.3% due to the active participation from the students. Two
mechanical academic staff were involved in assisting the students throughout the process. Short briefing was
provided regarding the purpose of this research and the procedures needed to complete the questionnaire before the
students started to fill in the questionnaire. Each student took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the online
questionnaire. The reports generated were collected for analysis purpose using descriptive statistical method.
Two weeks before the actual survey, two of the academic staff and three of the final year students were invited to try
on the pilot questionnaire. The pilot study served two purposes, firstly is to determine the durability for completion
of the questionnaire and secondly is to identify any potential problem(s) with the questionnaire design (layout and
readability). Feedbacks were collected at the end of the pilot study. The questionnaire design (layout and readability)
was found to be professional (simple and clear to understand). The duration for the questionnaire completion was
recommended to be 15 to 20 minutes. The data was collected and the details were analyzed as referred in the
following section.

272

Data analysis and results

Through the reports generated, the students (respondents, n = 122) may be classified as adopting a particular learning
style preference, based on the score obtained on individual scale using the personality and learning style
questionnaire. According to Ogden (2007), the learning model for each student comprises of three key areas, each
split down the middle into two opposite styles (Figure 3). The students response may fall in either side of the key
area and this indicated a type or preference in learning as shown in Figure 3. If the student is not scoring much out
of the middle band for a particular area (the higher the scale scored, the stronger the preference), this showed that the
student does not have a strong preference one way or the other in that area, which means the student is likely to take
a balanced approach.

Figure 3. Sample graph indicated a students learning preference according to three key areas
As referred to Ogden (2007) and discussed in previous section, the model explores three key areas, highlighting how
the student may prefer to go about learning things or approaching tasks. Based on the data collected from 122
students, the learning preference scale score and its distributions are compiled as shown in Table 6.

Key areas
Approach
Focus
Transfer

Table 6. The learning preference scale score of the engineering students (n = 122)
towards
Scale
<----------5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
structured
0
0
3
2
4
15
55
36
7
0
pragmatic
9
19
51
26
10
4
3
0
0
0
concrete
2
13
43
29
28
2
4
1
0
0

towards
----------->
spontaneous
conceptual
fluid

The graph shown in Figure 4 further illustrates the distribution of students learning preference scale score that was
derived from data in Table 6. According to the students learning preference in three key areas, there will be eight
possible combination of learning preferences. A detailed distribution of the engineering students preferences
according to the eight combination of learning preference is compiled and listed as shown in Table 7.
From the 122 respondents (see Figure 4 and Table 7), it can be clearly identified that 77.87% of the engineering
students have the learning preference on spontaneous + pragmatic + concrete style. This is followed by 10.66% of
the engineering students having the learning preference on spontaneous + pragmatic + fluid style. While 4.1% of the
students have the learning preference on the structured + pragmatic + concrete style and spontaneous + conceptual +
concrete style. The remaining 3.3% of the students prefer the learning in structured + conceptual + concrete style.
As discussed in the previous section, the student learning preference can also be represent using Hemispheric Map
diagram (see Figure 2). It is based on the same scales and data as shown in the graph (see Figure 3) previously, but
presents data in an alternative way. The eight possible combinations of learning preferences according to the 3 key
areas can be further categorized into either the left hemispheric preference or right hemispheric preference. Table 8
shows the detailed categorization of students scoring and learning preferences according to the hemispheric map. It
is interesting to know that more than 80% of the students have the left preference side of brain when processing
information. Only 14.76% of the students response indicated for right preference side of brain when processing
information.
273

Figure 4. The distribution of students learning preference scale scores (3 key areas)
Table 7. Detailed distribution of UNITEN engineering students learning preferences (3 key areas)
Learning preferences
Sample (n)
Percentage (%)
Structured + Pragmatic +Fluid
0
0
Structured +Pragmatic + Concrete
5
4.1
Structured + Conceptual + Concrete
4
3.3
Structured + Conceptual + Fluid
0
0
Spontaneous + Conceptual + Fluid
0
0
Spontaneous + Pragmatic + Fluid
13
10.66
Spontaneous + Pragmatic + Concrete
95
77.87
Spontaneous + Conceptual +Concrete
5
4.1
122
100
Table 8. Categorization of students learning preference according to the hemispheric map
Left hemisphere preference
Percentage (%) Right hemisphere preference
Percentage (%)
Structured + Pragmatic +Fluid
0
Structured + Conceptual + Fluid
0
Structured +Pragmatic + Concrete
4.1
Spontaneous + Conceptual + Fluid
0
Spontaneous + Pragmatic + Concrete
77.87
Spontaneous + Pragmatic + Fluid
10.66
Structured + Conceptual + Concrete
3.3
Spontaneous + Conceptual +Concrete
4.1
85.27
14.76

Discussion
Through the research findings, it can be identified that more than 75% of the engineering students prefer the
spontaneous + pragmatic + concrete style and a preference for using the left side of the brain. Spontaneous style
learners get the best out of learning when they are allowed to get stuck quickly and try things for themselves.
Furthermore, they prefer to learn through the trial and error process with sufficient doing activities. They will
easily get bored with routine and will need lot of variety learning activities to keep them focused. Meanwhile,
pragmatic style learners are more focused on the practical, tangible and immediate benefits of learning things. They
learn more with hands-on exercises, easily get bored with learning about theories or concepts that are complex or
less relevant and prefer to keep things simple and easy-to-understand.

274

The strong preference towards spontaneous style and pragmatic style of learning are consistent with the findings in
the previous research (Lee & Manjit Sidhu, 2013a). In the previous findings (see Table 9), engineering students
showed a very strong preference in activist learning style using the Honey and Mumfords LSQ. As known, activist
learners are those learners that learn best when they are actively involve in new tasks. They are highly involved in
tasks, preferred new challenge and likely to learn through the trial and error process. Furthermore, in another
research findings using the Felder and Silverman ILS (see Table 9), engineering students also showed higher
preference in active dimension as compared to the reflective dimension using Felder and Silvermans learning styles
questionnaire. This is also consistent whereby the research findings for engineering students in other universities
reported the same (higher preference towards active dimension - see Table 3).
As defined by Felder and Silverman (1988), active learners learn by doing and participating through engagement in
physical activity or discussion. Thus, Martnez Cartas (2012) recommended the instructors to provide practical
troubleshooting methods or drill exercises to provide practice in order to accommodate the learning preference for
active learners. This clearly provide evidence that the traditional chalk and talk, passive and one way delivery of
the teaching and learning process for the engineering subjects would not fit well with the students learning
preference. More variety of learning activities that actively involved the students in performing new tasks should be
introduced, for example: practical troubleshooting methods and active experimentation.
Table 9. Comparison of three research studies on UNITEN engineering students learning preferences
Learning style
The Felder-Silverman Personality and learning styles
Honey and Mumfords LSQ
instruments
ILS
questionnaire
Survey conducted
(Manjit Sidhu, 2009)
August 2012
(Lee & Manjit Sidhu, 2013a)
Respondents (n)
n = 60
n = 122
n = 104
Findings (Learning
85% geared towards
(1) More than 80% of the
(1) Very strong preference
Preferences)
sensing learners
respondents have the
towards activist learning
100% geared towards
preference to use the left side
style
(2) strong preference towards
visual learners
of the brain for thinking and
theorist and reflector styles
90% geared towards
learning.
(2) Left hemisphere preference:
(3) Likely weak in the
active learners
pragmatist preference
86.7% geared towards (i) solves problems in a step-bystep, logical manner
sequential learners
(ii) prefers established, more
objective types of information
(iii) Likes things with a clear
answer or predictable outcome
(iv) Less open or valuing of
feelings
(v) Looks for cause and effect
With the advancement in ICT, many technologies can be utilized to aid in the formal teaching and learning of
engineering education (Fernandez et al., 2011; Yueh et al., 2014). For example, TAPS (Technology Assisted Problem
Solving) packages (a type of computer aided learning software tool) were developed and used by students to assist
their learning in engineering problem solving. The development of engineering simulation software tool such as the
Desktop Virtual Reality TAPS package (see Table 10) would help the students (with spontaneous and pragmatic
learning style) to experience the operations process of the engineering mechanism through the interaction with 2-D
and 3-D animations. The problem solving mechanism in the engineering software tool provides timely feedback and
assessment directly related to learners interactions. This will lead to exploratory approach in learning and better
visualization of the engineering concepts especially those problems that involves dynamic motion. Other researches
also supports that visualization skill is important in engineering and science (Ault & John, 2010; Pedrosa et al.,
2014).
As for the concrete style learners, they are good at applying their learning to clearly define problems or questions.
They prefer to follow a step-by-step approach to learn a well-defined task or a clear, straightforward subject area.
This finding is consistent with the previous research study that engineering students have higher preferences towards
sequential dimension in Felder and Silverman learning style model (see Table 9).
275

Table 10. Recommended ICT tools to support the learning styles of engineering students
Style of
learning
Spontaneous

Pragmatic

Characteristic

ICT

General outcome and benefits

-prefer to learn through the

trial and error process
with sufficient doing
activities
-easily get bored with
routine and will need lot
of learning activities to
keep them focused.
-prefer to learn more with
hands-on exercises

3-D Desktop Virtual Reality

TAPS package
-employed 2-D graphics, 3-D
geometric model, colors,
sound and tweening
technique to produce
animation
-employed simple expert
system rules to coach user in
a 3-D dynamic problem
solving environment with
dynamic feedbacks
-provide animated and static
stereoscopic images to
enhance visualization

-Allow student to experiment

simulated problem-solving in 3-D
environment for better interaction
and visualization
-With simulations, students are able
to take a more active role in
learning.
-Dynamic representations enable
more efficient communication of
complex engineering concepts
- The problem solving environment
provides timely feedback and
assessment directly related to
users interactions.
- The stereoscopic images and
animated models could create the
great interest and enthusiasm in
learning.
-Coaching is provided to enhance
the users problem solving
experience while performing
complex tasks in 2-D environment
-The problem solving environment
provides timely feedback and
assessment directly related to the
users interactions.
-The feedback helps increase the
users ability to reason and
analyse the problem solving
environment.

-easily get bored with

learning about theories or
concepts that are complex
or less relevant
-prefer to keep things
simple and easy-tounderstand
Concrete

-prefer to follow a
step-by-step approach to
learn a well-defined task
or a clear, straightforward
subject area.

Coach based TAPS package

-employed simple expert
system rules to coach user
through the sequential order
in engineering problem
solving task
- employed 2-D graphics,
colors, sound and tweening
technique to produce digital
learning environment

As described by Felder and Silverman (1988), sequential learners preferred linear thinking process rather than
holistic thinking process and usually will learn through small incremental steps. This indicated that the engineering
students have the preferences to learn and solve the engineering problems through the logical step-by-step approach.
In order to maximize the learning experience for better knowledge absorption, the teaching and learning strategies
should emphasize more on the systematic and sequential step-by-step approach for engineering problem solving.
Currently, it can be clearly identified that the teaching and learning in engineering for problem solving did emphasize
on the sequential step-by-step approach. However, it was found that there was insufficient justification for each of
the step involved throughout the problem solving process especially those sample questions provided in the
engineering textbooks. Although many of the engineering instructors did perform verbal explanations regarding the
steps involved by using the limited sample problems provided in the textbook, many of the students (especially those
slow learners in term of engineering domain) still face the difficulties in gaining the understanding regarding the
steps involved and the justification for it. Thus, it is suggested that coach based interactive Technology Assisted
Problem Solving Packages (TAPS) can be used to aid in the students learning process through the step-by-step
guidance procedure (Manjit Sidhu, 2006, see Table 10). This may enhance the students understanding regarding the
what, why and how for each of the step involved for the engineering problem solving according to their own
learning time and pace. More details regarding the design and development of TAPS packages can be referred to
(Manjit Sidhu, 2006).
From the research findings, it can be identified that more than 80% of the students (see Table 8) have the preference
for using the left side of the brain. For the left brain dominant learners, the students will be more comfortable to learn
and solve problems in a step-by-step, logical manner. This is useful when dealing with complex engineering
276

problems whereby the students will normally break the complex problem into different parts and solve the problem
part by part in a sequential order till the final outcome is achieved. Through this, the students may be able to see the
logical flow of the questions and this is an effective way of solving the engineering problem. The details of the
engineering problem solving approach can be referred to previous research (Lee & Manjit Sidhu, 2013b).
In order to strike a balanced learning approach, the engineering instructors may put in some efforts to guide and train
the students to exercise their right brain by relating the thinking sense in a wider picture. This mean that the students
should be trained to think how to relate a specific problem to the main topic in learning and how does it fit to the
learning outcomes and learning objectives. At the same time, how this particular problem solving may relate to the
real life applications and how does it benefit/contribute to the welfare of the society should also be part of the
concern for the students (as the open ended questions for thought) besides the traditional learning in developing the
problem solving skills. So, in the long run and for developing balanced learning skills, students should be well
equipped with solving the engineering problems both through the bottom-up approach (exercise the use of left brain)
and the top-down approach (exercise the use of right brain). As stressed by Franzoni and Assar (2009), whole brain
learning is known to be a far more effective way to learn.
In order to exercise the right brain, the students may try to think out of the box when solving the engineering
problems by providing the what-if alternative solution. This may train the students to start valuing the problem by
providing not only the standard solution but also some alternative creative ideas for it. Regarding this issue, the
engineering instructors are encouraged to create the opportunity in the teaching space to allow students to think out
of the box and propose new ideas. Ideas are more important and students should be provided with the opportunity
and space to raise their ideas. Creative ideas are the main source for radical innovation that may lead to potential
paradigm shift in the near future. The learning activities such as the brainstorming session in a small group, ideas
presentation should be encourage and embedded in the class especially for engineering design subjects. This provide
the opportunity for the students to express their thoughts, opinions and feeling towards engineering design and at the
same time cultivate their interest to appreciate the previous design and the current design. This is consistent with the
discussion on the new paradigm of engineering education as can be found in Duderstadt (2008).

Conclusions
Through the research findings, it can be identified that engineering students in UNITEN shared a common learning
style preferences that they preferred to learn in sequential, logical way with various hands-on practical activities.
They are open-minded and prefer to try out new forms of learning activities. However, the current teaching and
learning approach may not fully accommodate the learning preference of the students. The efforts on how to shape a
balance learning approach by utilizing the current learning preference and strengthen the less preference way of
learning is a great challenge faced by the engineering instructors. Carefully designed and well structured ICT
software tools that match the learning styles of engineering students could strengthen their problem solving skills.
The lessons from the findings of this research reminded engineering educators that we need to provide multiapproach in teaching and learning in order to accommodate different students learning preferences while widening
the students learning capabilities. Wider learning capabilities will contribute to shape a professional engineer not
only to equip with the technical know-how but also with broadened perspective in serving the human nation for long
term sustainability growth.

References
Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for
investigating teaching and learning: The Use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4), 457469.
doi:10.1080/00131910500279551
Ault, H. K., & John, S. (2010). Assessing and enhancing visualization skills of engineering students in Africa: A Comparative
study. Engnieering Design Graphics Journal, 74(2), 1220.
Baldwin, L., & Sabry, K. (2003). Learning styles for interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 40(4), 325340. doi:10.1080/1470329032000128369

277

Buxeda, R. J., Jimenez, L., & Morell, L. (2001). Transforming an engineering course to enhance student learning. In Proceedings
of
2001
International
Conference
on
Engineering
Education.
Oslo,
Norway.
Retrieved
from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rosa_Buxeda/publication/228772096_Transforming_an_engineering_course_to_enhance_stu
dent_learning/links/02e7e535308c87356f000000.pdf
Buxeda, R. J., & Moore, D. A. (1999). Using learning-styles data to design a microbiology course. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 29(3), 159164.
Cagiltay, N. E. (2008). Using learning styles theory in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(4),
415424. doi:10.1080/03043790802253541
Campbell, L. C., Campbell, B., & Dickinson, D. (2003). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An Overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419444.
Cavanagh, S. J., & Coffin, D. A. (1994). Matching instructional preference and teaching styles: A Review of the literature. Nurse
Education Today, 14(2), 106110.
Chen, B. H., & Chiou, H. H. (2012). Learning style, sense of community and learning effectiveness in hybrid learning
environment. Interactive Learning Environments,22(4), 485-496. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.680971
Chua, K. J. (2014). A comparative study on first-time and experienced project-based learning students in an engineering design
module. European Journal of Engineering Education,39(5), 556-572. doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.895704
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004a). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A Systematic and
critical review (pp. 1182). London, England: Learning and Skills Research Council.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Should we be using learning styles?What research has to say to
practice (pp. 184). London, England: Learning and Skills Research Council.
Constant, K. P. (1997). Using multimedia techniques to address diverse learning styles in materials education. JournalMaterial
Education, 19, 18.
Cornwell, J. M., & Manfredo, P. A. (1994). Kolbslearning style theory revisited. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
54(2), 317327. doi:10.1177/0013164494054002006
Deborah, L. J., Baskaran, R., & Kannan, A. (2012). Learning styles assessment and theoretical origin in an e-learning scenario:
ASurvey. Artificial Intelligence Review, 42(4), 801-819. doi:10.1007/s10462-012-9344-0
Dee, K. C., Livesay, G. A., & Nauman, E. A. (2003). Learning styles of first- and second-year engineering students. In
Proceedings 2003 ASEE/WFEO International Colloquium. Nashville, TN: ASEE.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world A Roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and
education. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
Dunn, R. S., & Dunn, K. J. (1979). Learning styles / Teaching styles: Should they, can they, be matched? Educational Leadership,
36, 238244. Retrieved from http://ascd.com/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197901_dunn.pdf
Fang, N., & Zhao, X. (2013). A Comparative study of learning style preferences between American and Chinese undergraduate
engineering students. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 17041705).
doi:10.1109/FIE.2013.6685128
Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 22(5), 286290.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 1832.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 5772.
doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning styles and teaching styles in engineering education. Journal of Engineering
Education, 78(7), 674681.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 21(1), 103112.

278

Fernandez, V., Simo, P., Ines, A., Maria, A. S., Nuria, S., Amante, B., Enache, M. Bravo, E. R., Albert, S., Daniel, G. A., Manuel,
R., & Federico, G. (2011). Low-cost educational videos for engineering students: A New concept based on video stream and
Youtube channels. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(3), 110.
Fleming, N. D. (1995). Im different; not dumb: Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In A. Zelmer
(ed.),Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia
(HERDSA) (Vol. 18, pp. 308313). Queensland, Australia: Research and Development in Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://vark-learn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/different_not_dumb.pdf
Fleming, N. D. (2005). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies (2nd ed.). Christchurch, New Zealand: The Digital Print
and Copy Center.
Franzoni, A. L., & Assar, S. (2009). Student learning styles adaptation method based on teaching strategies and electronic media.
Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 1529.
Froyd, J. E., Wankat, P. C., & Smith, K. A. (2012). Five major shifts in 100 years of engineering education. In Proceedings of the
IEEE 100(Centennial-Issue) (pp. 13441360). doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190167
Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in learning management systems focusing on learning styles (Doctoral dissertation). Vienna Univeristy
of Technology, Austria.
Graf, S., Viola, S. R., Leo, T., & Kinshuk. (2007). In-depth analysis of the Felder-Silverman learning style dimensions. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 7993.
Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside Styles: Beyond the Basics (pp. 284). Columbia, CT: Gabriel Systems.
Hawk, T. S., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 5(1), 119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00125.x
Holvikivi, J. (2007). Learning styles in engineering education: The Quest to improve didactic practices. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 32(4), 401408. doi:10.1080/03043790701332909
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of learning styles (3 Rev.). Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The Learning styles helpers guide. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey Publications.
Jackson, C. J. (2002). Predicting team performance from a learning process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(1), 6
13. doi:10.1108/02683940210415898
Keefe, J. W. (1991). Learning style: Cognitive and thinking skills. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New York, NY: Financial
Times/ Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R.
J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 227247). London, UK: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Kuri, N. P., & Truzzi, O. M. S. (2002). Learning styles of freshmen engineering students. In Proceedings of the 2002
International Conference on English Education. Arlington, VA: International Network for Engineering Education and Research
(iNEER).
Larkin-Hein, T., & Budny, D. D. (2001). Research on learning style: Applications in the physics and engineering classrooms.
IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 276281. doi:10.1109/13.941000
Lee, C. K., & Manjit Sidhu, S. (2013a). Engineering students learning styles preferences using Honey and Mumford learning
styles questionnaire: A Case study in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science, 9(1),
107114.
Lee, C. K., & Manjit Sidhu, S. (2013b). The Potential of computer aided learning tool to enhance the learning of engineering
students. 2nd COIT Technical Paper Publication, 2(1), 811.
Livesay, G. A., Dee, K. C., Nauman, E. A., & Hites, L. S. (2002). Engineering student learning styles: A Statistical analysis using
Felders Index of Learning Styles. In Proceeding of the 2002 Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering
Education. Montreal, Quebec: ASEE.
279

Lopez, W. M. (2002). ILS -Inventario de aprendizagem de Felder-Solomon: Investigaao du sua validade em estudentes
Universitarios de Belo Horizante [ILS-Inventory of Felder-Solomon Learning Styles: Research validity of students in University
of Belo Horizonte] (Unpublished masters dissertation). Universidade Federal de santa Catarina, Brazil.
Manjit Sidhu, S. (2006). Development and applications of interactive multimedia TAPS (Technology Assisted Problem Solving)
packages for engineering (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Malaya, Malaysia.
Manjit Sidhu, S. (2009). Technology-assisted problem solving for engineering education (pp. 1 425). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-764-5
Martnez Cartas, M. L. (2012). Using an improved virtual learning environment for engineering students. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 37(3), 229241. doi:10.1080/03043797.2012.678985
McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers-Briggs type indicator: A Bridge between counseling and consulting. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 117132. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.117
Miskioglu, E. E., & Wood, D. W. (2013). Learning in style: Correlation of learning styles with problem comprehension and
perceptions in an introductory chemical engineering course. In Proceedings of 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE) (pp. 979981). doi:10.1109/FIE.2013.6684973
Mistree, F., Panchal, J. H., Schaefer, D., Allen, J. K., Haroon, S., & Siddique, Z. (2014). Personalized Engineering Education for
the Twenty-First Century. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum Models for the 21st Century (1st ed., pp. 91111).
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7366-4_6
Montgomery, S. M. (1995). Addressing diverse learning styles through the use of multimedia. In Proceedings Frontiers in
Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century (Vol. 1, pp. 3a2.133a2.21).
doi:10.1109/FIE.1995.483093
Montgomery, S. M., & Groat, L. N. (1998). Student learning styles and their implications for teaching. CRLT Occasional Papers,
10, 18.
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing
America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2007). Moving forward to improve engineering education (NSB-07-122). Retrieved from
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf
Noguera, J. S., & Wageman, J. (2011). Spanish EFL undergraduate students perceptions of learning styles. Nordic Journal of
English Studies, 10(1), 77101.
Ogden, R. (2007). Study: Success! Personality and learning styles questionnaire [Website]. Retrieved August 19, 2011, from
http://www.studysuccess.co.uk/learning_questionnaire.htm
Ogot, M., & Okudan, G. L. E. (2007). Systematic creativity methods in engineering education: A Learning styles perspective.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 566576.
Palou, E. (2006). Learning styles of Mexican food science and engineering students. Journal of Food Science Education, 5(3),
5157. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4329.2006.00006.x
Paterson, K. G. (1999). Student perceptions of internet-based learning tools in environmental engineering education. Journal of
Engineering Education, 88(3), 295304. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00450.x
Patterson, D. A. (2011). Impact of a multimedia laboratory manual: Investigating the influence of student learning styles on
laboratory preparation and performance over one semester. Education for Chemical Engineers, 6(1), e10e30.
doi:10.1016/j.ece.2010.10.001
Pedrosa, C. M., Barbero, B. R., & Miguel, A. R. (2014). Spatial visualization learning in engineering: Traditional methods vs. a
Web based tool. Educational Technology and Society, 17(2), 142157.
Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Almeida, P. C., & Watts, M. (2004).Questioning styles and students learning: Four case studies.
Educational Psychology, 24(4), 531548. doi:10.1080/0144341042000228889
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 57(3), 210221. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Prados, J. W. (1998). Action agenda for systematic engineering education reform: Next steps. In Emst et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
the Conference on Realizing the New Paradigm for Engineering Education, Engineering Foundation Conference (pp. 113).
Baltimore, MD: Engineering Education Centers Division of National Science Foundation.
280

Rajala, S. A. (2012). Beyond 2020: Preparing engineers for the future. In Proceedings of the IEEE 100(Centennial-Issue) (pp.
13761383). doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2190169
Riding, R. J., & Rayner, S. G. (1998).Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and
behavior. London, UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Rosati, P. (1999). Specific differences and similarities in the learning preferences of engineering students. In Proceedings of
Frontiers in Education (FIE)99, 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 12C1/1712C1/22). IEEE.
doi:10.1109/FIE.1999.841625
Rosati, P. A. (1996). Comparisons of learning preferences in an engineering program. In Technology-Based Re-Engineering
Engineering Education Proceedings of Frontiers in Education (FIE)96 26th Annual Conference (Vol. 3, pp. 14411444).
doi:10.1109/FIE.1996.568536
Rosati, P., Dean, R. K., & Rodman, S. M. (1988). A Study of the relationship between students learning styles and instructors
lecture styles. IEEE Transactions on Education, 31(3), 208212. doi:10.1109/13.2313
Rosen, M. A. (2007). Future trends in engineering education. In W. Aung et al. (Ed.), Innovations 2007: World Innovations in
Engineering Education and Research (pp. 111). Arlington, VA: International Network for Engineering Education and Research
(iNEER).
Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Learning Style: Frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 5163.
doi:10.1080/0144341970170103
Seery, N., Gaughran, W. F., & Waldmann, T. (2003). Multi-modal learning in engineering education. In Proceedings of 2003
Annual ASEE Conference. Nashville, TN: ASEE.
Self, B. P., & Widmann, J. (2009). Work in progress - learning styles and performance on the dynamics concept inventory. In
Proceedings of the 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 12). doi:10.1109/FIE.2009.5350822
Smith, N. G., Bridge, J., & Clarke, E. (2002). An Evaluation of students performance based on their preferred learning styles. In
Z. J. Pudlowski (Ed.), Proceedings of UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education (UICEE) Annual Conference on
Engineering Education. Melbourne, Australia: UNESCO International Centre for Engineering Education.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700712.
Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolbs learning cycle to improve student learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 77(5), 291296.
Tendy, S. M., & Geiser, W. F. (1997). The Search for style: It all depends on where you look. National FORUM of Teacher
Education Journal,9(1), 315.
Vita, G. V. (2001).Learning styles, culture and inclusive instruction in the multicultural classroom: A Business and management
perspective. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 165174. doi:10.1080/14703290110035437
Wince-Smith, D. (2005). Innovate America: Thriving in a world of challenge and change. In Proceedings of the Global
Innovation Ecosystem 2007 Symposium. Retrieved from
http://www.jst.go.jp/crds/sympo/gies2007/en/symposium/materials/summary/Summary_DWS.pdf
Yueh, H. P., Chen, T. L., Lin, W., & Sheen, H. J. (2014). Developing digital courseware for a virtual nano-biotechnology
laboratory: A Design-based research approach. Educational Technology and Society, 17(2), 158168.
Zywno, M. S. (2002). Instructional technology, learning styles and academic achievement. In Proceedings of the 2002 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Montreal, Canada: ASEE.
Zywno, M. S. (2003). The Effect of individual differences on learning outcomes through hypermedia-based instruction (Doctoral
dissertation). Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland.
Zywno, M. S., & Waalen, J. K. (2001). The Effect of hypermedia instruction on achievement and attitudes of students with
different learning styles. In Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition. Albuquerque, NM: ASEE.

281

Copyright of Journal of Educational Technology & Society is the property of International

Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS) and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.