Using Felders

1
Using Felders Index of Learning Styles in the
Classroom
Kay C Dee, Glen A. Livesay
Department of Biomedical Engineering Tulane
University, New Orleans, LA 70118 USA
2
Who, What, Why?
3
We are not here to tell you how you should
teach.
4
The Dark Side of Teaching Well
Of course, this varies with institution and
priorities.
5
You prep for classes your way, Harris, Ill
prep for classes my way.
6
Overview

• Broad Questions
• What are some of the different ways that students
  take in and process information?
• Which learning styles are favored by
• many students?
• the teaching style of many professors?
• What can we do to reach a full spectrum of
  learning styles?

7
Outline
I What is Felders Index of Learning Styles
(ILS)? Where did it come from? II What has the
ILS told us about learning styles so
far? III Lets be fair - are there concerns or
critiques associated with the ILS? IV How can
we use learning style information to make
informed teaching style choices? V Does using ILS
information in the classroom actually make a
difference?
8
Learning Styles
There are several definitions of learning
style. Generally, these definitions include
aspects of

• perception, acquisition, processing, and
  retention of information
• both cognitive and affective behaviors
• individuality
• maximal learning when instruction capitalizes on
  an individuals learning style preferences -
  the matching hypothesis

9
Felders Index of Learning Styles

• Relatively short questionnaire
• Specifically formulated with engineering
  students in mind
• Does not require professional scoring and
  interpretation
• Collected data/publications available 1
• Dimensions well-suited for discussions of
  teaching as well as learning

10
Index of Learning Styles Overview
11
ILS Domains
Visual Verbal

• Pictures
• Diagrams
• Flow charts
• Plots

• Spoken words
• Written words
• Formulas

Show me the systems youre talking about.
Explain whats going on inside the systems.
12
ILS Domains
Active Reflective

• Tends to process information while doing
  something active
• Likes group work
• May start tasks prematurely

• Tends to process information introspectively
• Likes independent work
• May never get around to starting tasks

Lets make sure weve thought this through.
Lets just try it out.
13
ILS Domains
Sensor Intuitor

• Focuses on sensory input - what is seen, heard,
  touched, etc.
• Prefers concrete information facts and data

• Focuses on ideas, possibilities, theories
• Prefers more abstract information theory and
  models

How does this class relate to the real world?
All we did were plug-and-chug assignments.
14
ILS Domains
Sequential Global

• Can function with partial understanding
• Makes steady progress
• Good at detailed analysis

• Needs to see the big picture
• May start slow and then make conceptual leaps
• Good at creative synthesis

I need to focus on one part of the project and
get it done - then I can move onward.
I need to see how this all fits together before
I can start the project.
15
What Were NOT Saying
We dont mean to put people in boxes.
16
What Were NOT Saying
We dont mean to put people in boxes.
Most people, however, have some preferences
(mild, moderate, or strong).
17
Origins of ILS Domains

• Sensor - Intuitor
• Carl Jungs theory of psychological types
• sensing and intuition modes of perception
• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
• sensors and intuitors as problem solvers
• Kolbs experiential learning model
• concrete experience and abstract
  conceptualization

18
Origins of ILS Domains

• Active - Reflective
• Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
• extrovert and introvert
• Kolbs experiential learning model
• active experimentation and reflective observation

19
Kolbs Cycle
Concrete Experience
20
Kolbs Learning Model
Concrete Experience
Reflective Observation
Active Experimentation
Abstract Conceptualization
21
Kolbs Learning Model
Concrete Experience
Diverger
Accommodator
Reflective Observation
Active Experimentation
Assimilator
Converger
Abstract Conceptualization
22
Kolbs and Felders Models
Concrete Experience
Diverger
Accommodator
Reflective
Active
Assimilator
Converger
Abstract Conceptualization
23
Kolbs and Felders Models
Sensor
Diverger
Accommodator
Reflective
Active
Assimilator
Converger
Intuitor
24
Index of Learning Styles Overview
25
Faculty Learning Styles
100
n568 2 (national)
90
80
70
60
Percent of Population
50
40
30
20
10
0
Visual
Active
Sensor
Global
Preferred Learning Style
26
Learning Styles - Tulane
100
n12 (BMEN faculty)
90
80
70
60
Percent of Population
50
40
30
20
10
0
Visual
Active
Sensor
Global
Preferred Learning Style
27
Learning Styles of Other Engineers
100
88
90
80
70
62
60
60
52
Percent of Population
50
40
30
20
10
0
Visual
Active
Sensor
Global
Preferred Learning Style
Tulane, Engr (n255) 3
28
Learning Styles and Gender
Males, Engr (n 692)
100
89
90
Females, Engr (n 135)
80
72
69
70
61
University of Western Ontario 7
59
58
60
Percent of Population
50
40
35
30
25
20
10
0
Visual
Active
Sensor
Global
Preferred Learning Style
29
Learning Styles and Gender
100
91
89
90
84
78
80
72
69
67
70
61
61
59
58
56
60
Percent of Population
50
48
50
40
35
25
30
20
10
0
Visual
Active
Sensor
Global
Preferred Learning Style
University of Western Ontario
Tulane University
Males, Engr (n 692)
Females, Engr (n 135, 16.3)
Males, Engr (n 129)
Females, Engr (n 63, 32.8)
30
Index of Learning Styles Critiques

• Concerns which have been noted regarding the use
  of the Index of Learning Styles
• Doesnt predict academic performance. 8
• The matching hypothesis - just a hypothesis -
  is difficult to prove. 9,10
• Lacks statistical validation. 8
• Buncha hooey. 11

31
Predicting Academic Performance
We found little or no correlation between SAT
score and cumulative GPA at the end of the
sophomore year.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
GPA
2.0
1.5
1.0
Tulane sophomores in Statics, all disciplines,
n98 3
0.5
0.0
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
SAT score
32
Intuitors Outperformed Sensors on SAT
Tulane sophomores, Statics group, n98 3
33
ILS Academic Performance? No.

• Some concerns regarding the ILS appear to arise
  from a misapplication of the inventory
• It was not developed to enable predictions of
  academic performance.
• It was not developed as a selection tool to
  determine who should be an engineer.
• Activities or tests which engage only one
  learning style may not illustrate the true
  potential or abilities of a group of students.

34
Testing the Matching Hypothesis
B f (P, E) Behavior-person-environment
paradigm leads to the idea of optimizing the
instructional environment for optimal
learning. Testing the matching hypothesis is
difficult - there are many learning style schemes
to test, not all easily comparable to each
other. Meta-analyses 9,10 have claimed that a
majority of published studies support the
matching hypothesis.
35
Statistical Validation
Reliability (Precision)
Validity (Accuracy)
36
Statistical Analysis

• SPSS was used to
• Calculate a reliability coefficients for each
  learning style domain.
• a larger a value implies a more internally
  consistent construct.
• Perform item and factor analyses to determine
  which items were most strongly correlated with
  each other and how many factors were present
  within each domain.
• removing poorly correlated items increases a.

37
Reliability (a) of ILS Domains
0.8
achievement
0.7
0.6
attitude12
0.5
Alpha
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
38
Reliability (a) of Core ILS Domains
0.582
0.744
0.679
0.622
0.8
achievement
0.7
0.6
attitude12
0.5
Alpha
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Active- Reflective
Sensor- Intuitor
Visual- Verbal
Sequential- Global
n249
n247
n248
n248
ILS Domain
39
Measures of Reliability

• is commonly used for estimating reliability
  (mean of split halves).
• Challenges
• - low number of questions (11 per domain)
• - mutually exclusive (dichotomous) questions
• - no right answer to questions
• Test-retest reliability is what a is estimating
  to what degree will people obtain the same ILS
  scores if they take the test again?
• Challenges
• - requires multiple administrations
• - if too long between, people may change
• - if too short between, people may remember test
  

40
Test-Retests Are Correlated Over Time
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Correlation Coefficient Between Test - Retest
0.5
?
?
0.4
0.3
0
Four (n24)
Seven (n40)
Twelve (n26)
Sixteen (n24)



Months Between Test - Retest
41
Specific Answers Correlated Over Time
Number of Questions
Students Repeating Original Answers on a Given
Question in Retest
Test-Retest Data (16 month interval, n24)
Out of 44 questions.
42
More Repeatable Questions
Greater than 90 of students answered
test-retest identically on these questions
37) I am more likely to be considered a)
outgoing b) reserved
41) The idea of doing homework in groups, with
one grade for the entire group
a) appeals to me b) does not appeal to me
43) I tend to pictures places I have been
a) easily and fairly b) with difficulty and
without accurately much
detail
Test-Retest Data (16 month interval, n24)
43
Less Repeatable Questions
50 or less of students answered test-retest
identically on these questions
16) When Im analyzing a story or a novel
a) I think of the incidents b) I know the
themes and must and put them together
go back to find the incidents
17) When I start a homework problem, I am more
likely to a) start working on the b)
try to fully understand the solution
immediately problem first
36) When I am learning a new subject, I prefer
to a) stay focused on the b) try to
make connections between subject, learning
as that subject and related subjects
much about it as I can
44) When solving problems in a group, I would be
more likely to a) think of steps in
b) think of possible consequences or
the solution process applications in a
range of areas
Test-Retest Data (16 month interval, n24)
44
Validation Study Summary

• The ILS satisfies general guidelines for a
  reliability across all domains.
• a between 0.54 and 0.72 with all questions.
• a increased in all domains with core
  questions,
• especially visual/verbal, sequential/global.
• Test-retest scores in all domains were
  significantly correlated over various intervals.
• correlation was highest at shortest interval,
  and
• generally reduced with longer intervals.

45
Recommendations
We believe Felders ILS to be a useful,
appropriate, statistically-acceptable tool for
characterizing learning preferences and
discussing teaching methods. There is (as
always) some room for improvement. We encourage
others to test new questions, work on statistical
validation - especially when the ILS is
administered to large numbers of students at one
time - and share their findings.
46
Additional Comments on Validity
The nature of the ILS - to force choices for a
set of individual questions - necessarily spreads
out responses. - Increases in variance are
directly related to lower values for a.
Guidelines for statistical validity developed
for tests of achievement (e.g., a minimum of 0.7)
should not be blindly applied to the ILS.
An instrument is valid if it measures
what it is intended to measure.
47
Dimensions of Teaching and Learning 13
Preferred Learning Style
Corresponding Teaching Style
Visual Verbal
Visual Verbal
Input
Presentation
Active Reflective
Active Passive
Student Participation
Processing
Sensor Intuitor
Concrete Abstract
Perception
Content
Sequential Global
Sequential Global
Understanding
Perspective
48
The Traditional Lecture Format
The traditional engineering lecture format
(teaching style) tends to be (almost exclusively)
VERBAL
PASSIVE
SEQUENTIAL
INTUITIVE
49
Learning Styles and Traditional Lectures
The traditional lecture format does match some
students preferred learning styles, however, the
majority of students tend to prefer VISUAL,
ACTIVE, and SENSING approaches In fact, the
teaching style utilized in the traditional
lecture does not necessarily match the preferred
learning styles of professors!
50
Teach to a Students Style, or Against? 14
The matching hypothesis teaching to a students
learning style provides the best opportunity for
learning. - a student functioning in their
preferred modes is focused on learning and not
on overcoming a barrier. However, should we
teach to the strengths of the student, or work to
help them develop in their areas of weakness
(less preferred modes)? - students will need to
be able to function in different modalities at
different times, e.g. both actively and
reflectively, both visually and verbally, etc.
51
Teach to Many Preferred Styles 14
With the diversity of learning styles in the
classroom, do we teach to a single, preferred
learning style? If so, which one? - teaching to
a single, preferred learning style (or using a
single style to teach) will benefit those FEW
students who prefer that chosen style. The
best solution is likely to utilize a variety of
instructional styles and modes of delivery in a
course. - enable ALL of the students to function
in their preferred modes some of the time, and
also encourage development in less-preferred
modes.
52
Teaching Styles - Reaching Styles
Good news Traditional lecturing does address
several categories of learning styles.
VERBAL, (REFLECTIVE), SEQUENTIAL, and
INTUITOR
Better news Engaging multiple learning styles
does NOT require complete restructuring of a
course, or eliminating traditional lectures.
53
Teaching Styles - Reaching Styles

• Still better news
• Teaching methods that address styles
  short-changed by traditional methods (e.g.
  VISUAL, ACTIVE, GLOBAL, and SENSOR) often
  accommodate multiple styles.
• For example 15
• Motivate theoretical material with prior
  presentation of phenomena that the theory will
  help explain, and problems the theory will be
  used to solve (SENSOR, GLOBAL).
• Balance concrete information (SENSOR) with
  conceptual information (INTUITOR) in all courses.

54
Teaching Styles - Reaching Styles

• Complement oral and written explanation of
  concepts (VERBAL) with extensive use of sketches,
  plots, etc. and physical demonstrations where
  possible (VISUAL).
• Illustrate abstract concepts with at least some
  numerical examples (SENSOR), in addition to
  traditional algebraic examples (INTUITOR).
• Use physical analogies and demonstrations to
  improve students grasp of magnitudes of
  calculated quantities (SENSOR, GLOBAL).
• Demonstrate the logical flow of individual
  course topics (SEQUENTIAL), and also highlight
  connections to other material in the course and
  other courses, in other disciplines, and in
  everyday experience (GLOBAL).

55
Teaching Styles - Reaching Styles

• Provide time in class for students to think
  about material being presented (REFLECTIVE) and
  for active participation (ACTIVE).
• - pause during lecture to allow time for thinking
  and formulation of questions (reflective).
• - assign 1-minute papers, where students write
  the most important point of the lecture and the
  most pressing unanswered question (active and
  reflective).
• - assign brief, group problem-solving exercises
  where students work with neighbors (active and
  reflective).
• Encourage or mandate cooperation on homework, or
  through team projects (ACTIVE).

56
Teaching Styles - Reaching Styles
Teach the Cycle!
Concrete Experience
Reflective Observation
Active Experimentation
Abstract Conceptualization
(Kolbs Cycle, that is.)
57
Meta-Active Learning
What types of reasons might professors give for
not using these ideas (for example active
learning exercises) in their courses?
58
Fears - Active Learning
TIME-CONSUMING
LOSE CONTROL OF THE CLASS
UNPREDICTABILITY
TOO MUCH EFFORT
How will I cover the syllabus?
59
Active Learning Benefits

• Students cannot be passive vessels -
• they must be engaged with the material
• Clearly informs instructor what students
• understand and what they dont
• Shifts focus from professor to material
• (sage on the stage to guide on the side)
• Increases and personalizes student-
• professor interactions

60
Active Learning Potential Drawbacks

• Students cannot be passive vessels -
• they must be engaged with the material
• Clearly informs instructor what students
• understand and what they dont
• Shifts focus from professor to material

61

• A longitudinal study of chemical engineering
  students has shown that courses designed to
  accommodate a spectrum of learning styles
• increased students confidence in their
  academic preparation 17
• raised overall academic performance 16 (even
  in subsequent courses taught traditionally by
  other instructors 17)
• increased student retention 16
• increased graduation rate 17

62
We have modified several junior-level courses to
address the sensing and active learning
preferences of our students. New lab components
were made possible through a National Science
Foundation Course, Curriculum and Laboratory
Improvement grant. A team of biomedical and
psychology faculty designed an assessment
questionnaire to be used as part of the
evaluation plan.
63
TUBA Model
Tulane University Biomedical Assessment (TUBA)
model
Five constructs 1. My perception of what
happened in the course 2. Laboratory or
laboratory-like experiences 3. How my skills
and abilities were enhanced in the course 4. My
assessment of the course 5. The instructor
Administered to 134 students in Spring 2001, 113
students in Fall 2001, and 77 students in Spring
2002.
64
TUBA Model
53 fill-in-the-blank questions using the
scale 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3.
neutral or undecided 4. agree 5. strongly
agree Example 1. This course included a number
of hands-on projects or exercises. _____
Statistical validation for TUBA model was
conducted using data from the three
administrations. 18
65
Assessing the Impact
Three courses were assessed in Spring 2001 and
Spring 2002. Longitudinal results were assessed
by performing independent t-tests on each
item. The number of items which demonstrated
significant (p lt 0.05) improvement were summed
and reported. No items showed negative
improvement from Spring 2001 to Spring 2002.
66
Results
BMEN 340 - Spring 2001 and Spring 2002
67
What Happened?

• BMEN 340 incorporated no hands-on activities in
  2001 but added three laboratories in 2002,
  teaching students a new skill set (cell culture
  experiments).
• Students in 2002 expressed higher ratings of
  their
• teamwork skills
• interest in conducting research or working in
  the area
• confidence in their abilities
• instructors knowledge of the material

68
I What is Felders Index of Learning Styles
(ILS)? Where did it come from? II What has the
ILS told us about learning styles so
far? III Lets be fair - are there concerns or
critiques associated with the ILS? IV How can
we use learning style information to make
informed teaching style choices? V Does using ILS
information in the classroom actually make a
difference?
69
Wrap-up and Summary
I What is Felders Index of Learning Styles
(ILS)? Where did it come from?
70
Wrap-up and Summary
II What has the ILS told us about learning
styles so far?
Students tend, in general to prefer visual,
active, and sensing learning styles. Not all
populations of students (or faculty) are the same.
71
Wrap-up and Summary
III Lets be fair - are there concerns or
critiques associated with the ILS?
Yes. BUT We believe Felders ILS to be a
useful, appropriate, statistically-acceptable
tool for characterizing learning preferences and
discussing teaching methods. Nothing more,
nothing less.
72
Wrap-up and Summary
IV How can we use learning style information to
make informed teaching style choices?
There are many ways. Start small. Try an
approach more than once before giving up. Tell
students what you are doing and why.

• If you try only two things
• show pictures or models (visual)
• provide short times to think and short times to
  interact (reflective / active)

73
Wrap-up and Summary
V Does using ILS information in the classroom
actually make a difference?
Yes.
74
Thank you.
75
Acknowledgements

• We thank
• The Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, for the
  opportunity to present this material.
• The students who participated in our studies, for
  their time and good will.
• Rich Felder, for mentoring and inspiration.
• The National Science Foundation for support
  provided by awards DUE-0088333,
  BES-9983931, and BES-0093969.

76
(No Transcript)
77
100
70
Lecture with active breaks
Percent Information Retained
20
Lecture
0
10
50
Time Into Lecture When Information Was
Presented (minutes)
R. Brent, R. Felder, J. Stice, National
Effective Teaching Institute, 1998.