Comparative study on learning styles and educational backgrounds in
engineering
Ni Lar Win1, Koh Yit Yan2, Khin Maung Win3,
nilar@intimal.edu.my, 2koh_yityan@intimal.edu.my, 3khin_maungwin@intimal.edu.my
1
Abstract: This study is to investigate the differences in learning style and educational
background among engineering students from different parts of the world and to compare the
learning style of Malaysian students considered as a homogeneous group and international
students from various countries. Two questionnaires for students’ learning styles and
educational backgrounds are used as instruments. Two samples are selected from students
who are currently studying in the first year and second year of Diploma and Degree Transfer
Programmes (Civil and Mechanical Engineering), in Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
INTI International University College, Malaysia. Samples consist of 17% of international
students from Bangladesh, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Maldives, Nigeria, United
Kingdom and Yemen. From the point of view of educational background, students are
generally better in Mathematics and Physics in comparison to the Chemistry, which form a
strong foundation to engineering subjects. International students studying in both Diploma
and Degree Transfer programmes have their preference on average is visual. The Malaysian
students studying in both Diploma and Degree Transfer programmes have their preferences
on average are sequential, sensing, and visual. The preference of the students in FOEAT is
generally consistent with the engineering students in other universities.
Introduction
As the number of international students studying in Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
INTI International University College (INTI-UC) increases, there is an increase in the diversity
of students’ learning styles and educational backgrounds. Based on the experiences of teaching
engineering students for several semesters, it is observed that most of the international students,
in comparison to Malaysian students, are found to be academically weak in classes since they
have difficulties in basic knowledge of mathematics, physics and chemistry such as unit
conversion, application of trigonometric functions (sine, cosine, similar triangles), calculation of
force, taking moment of a force system about a certain point and balancing the chemical
equations.
Students’ approaches to learning and thus their academic performance depend partly on their
previous experiences and the nature of their interests. Hence it is sometimes difficult to separate
the context of learning and previous experiences in describing learning in its everyday setting
(Ramsden, 1992). In addition, the way in which a student perceives a learning task throughout
the course is partly determined by his or her experiences. This is important from a point of view
of a teacher, as they are not able to correct the student’s past experiences but they can influence
the student’s future approaches.
The diversity in students’ learning styles and educational backgrounds are perhaps a major factor
in determining their academic performance in INTI-UC. This may be viewed from the
conclusion drawn by Felder and Silverman (1988), of which the student learning style are
classified into five categories, namely (i) the type of information that students perceive
(sensory/intuitive), (ii) the sensory channel that the external information is most effectively
perceived (visual/verbal), (iii) the organization of information in a way that is most comfortable
to student (inductive/deductive), (iv) the preferred way of processing information
(active/reflective), and (v) the student’s progress in understanding the information
(sequential/global). Nevertheless, the third style (inductive/deductive) is then removed from the
analysis due to the reason claimed by Felder (2002), that the induction dimension is perhaps the
“best” method of teaching. Hence if student style is more towards the deduction dimension,
which is the traditional teaching method, it may defeat the purpose of modern teaching and
learning. If students possess different learning styles in secondary/high schools in their home
countries, they tend to bring these learning habits to INTI-UC and try to fit these practices into
the learning in INTI-UC, which possibly creates a learning gap in them, leading to the
unsatisfactory academic performance.
In contrast, Malaysian students would possibly have less “cultural shock” in learning styles.
Although the teaching and learning styles may vary between the government and private
secondary schools, the learning style that have been practiced in INTI-UC may have little
variation with the secondary schools generally. That shows that students are easily adapted to
the learning environment here, and their formal educational background and learning styles still
survive with them in higher education. However, this is to be confirmed from the survey to be
carried out in this research.
The objectives of this study are hence twofold: (i) to investigate the learning styles, educational
backgrounds and academic performances of the students in the secondary/high school, and (ii) to
compare the learning style of Malaysian students (who are considered as a homogeneous group)
and the international students from various countries.
Research Methodology
Students are surveyed using two questionnaires for educational background and learning styles.
Based on the answers to the first questionnaire concerning educational background, students’
abilities in basic mathematic, physics and chemistry are identified. Based on the answers to
second questionnaire of Index of Learning Styles, students are able to determine where they fall
on the learning scale. Wirz (2004) mentioned that once they know their learning style, and the
strength of that style, students will understand how they learn best.
The first questionnaire for educational background is structured into three sections: student
background information, educational background on the subjects of mathematics, physics and
chemistry, academic performance in their SPM/STPM for Malaysian students and
Matriculation/’A’ level/’O’ level etc. for international students and student perceptions on
mathematics, physics and chemistry. In the last section, 4-point scales with 9 statements for
mathematics, 6 statements for physics and 7 statements for chemistry are used to measure the
student’s perception. The 4-point scales used in this study for the analysis are: great deal of
confidence, moderately confident, slightly confident and no confidence at all. The analysis of the
response is carried out numerically by marking each of the responses 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
The average mark is obtained by each student for each subject to analyze for their background
education.
As a second questionnaire, the learning styles instrument known as the Felder-Soloman’s Index
of Learning Styles (ILS) (Felder and Soloman, 2003) is used in order to determine the students’
learning styles preferences. The Index of Learning Styles, created by Felder and Soloman, is
designed to assess preferences on four dimensions of a learning style model formulated by Felder
and Silverman (1988). The ILS consists of four scales, each with 11 items: sensing/intuitive,
visual/verbal, active/reflective, and sequential/ global. Felder and Spurlin (2005) summarize the
four scales as follows:
 Sensing (concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or intuitive
(conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and underlying meanings);
 Visual (prefer visual representations of presented material, such as pictures, diagrams,
and flow charts) or verbal (prefer written and spoken explanations);
 Active (learn by trying things out, enjoy working in groups) or reflective (learn by
thinking things through, prefer working alone or with one or two familiar partners);
 Sequential (linear thinking process, learn in incremental steps) or global (holistic thinking
process, learn in large leaps).
Litzinger et al. (2005) suggested that with 11 items on a scale, there is no possibility for an
individual to register a zero preference, and the possible differences between the numbers of
responses for each category allow for a convenient categorization of preference strength as mild
(1, 3), moderate (5, 7), and strong (9, 11). The instrument structured in this manner is
used in this study.
Since the entry requirements to diploma and degree programmes are different, two samples are
taken from the students who are currently studying in the first and second year in Civil and
Mechanical Engineering at Faculty of Engineering and Technology, INTI-UC. Sample one
consists of two groups: 70 Malaysian students and 10 international students from Degree
Transfer Programme and sample two consists of two groups: 24 Malaysian and 9 international
students from Diploma Programme. In this study, the comparison of the leaning styles is made
between Malaysian students (considered as a homogeneous group) and international students for
both samples.
Results
Two questionnaires are given to the students from authors’ classes in May and September 2007
sessions. Total of 113 students (94 Malaysian and 19 international students) are responded to the
questionnaires. International students come from Bangladesh, Canada, China, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Maldives, Nigeria, United Kingdom and Yemen. Based on the findings obtained from the
questionnaires, the study reveals the following:
Background information
About 77 percent of the respondents are between the ages of 19 and 22, with 20% are older and
3% are younger. Female students represent 13% of the respondents. Respondents consist of 62
students from Mechanical engineering and 51 students from Civil engineering disciplines. About
59% of the students came from public secondary schools and the remaining students from private
school.
Academic performance in their secondary/high school
Majority of the Malaysian students obtained SPM (Malaysian Certificate of Education)
certificates (70%) in their secondary school. The others received the certificates of UEC
(Unified Education Certificate) (20%), STPM (Higher Malaysian Certificate of Education) (6%)
and Matriculation British ‘A’ level (4%). International students received Matriculation British
‘A’ level (37%), ‘O’ level 21%, High School certificate (26%) and others (16%). Table 1 shows
the number of students who obtained respective grade in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.
Student results are generally divided into few categories, namely good (including distinction) for
those who obtained A’s and B’s, average for C’s and poor for D’s. Academic performance in
their secondary/high school of the Malaysian students and international students is comparable in
the subjects of Mathematics and Physics and performance of international students is slightly
better in Chemistry.
Table 1. Number of students who obtained respective grade in each subject
Sample 1 (Degree Transfer Programme)
Malaysian students (66)
International students (7)
Subject
A or B
C
D
A or B
C
D
Mathematics
59 (89%)
5 (8%)
2 (3%)
7 (100%)
Physics
41 (62%)
20 (30%)
5 (8%)
4 (57%)
3 (43%)
Chemistry
25 (39%)
29 (45%)
10 (16%)
3 (43%)
4 (57%)
Sample 2 (Diploma Programme)
Malaysian students (23)
International students (9)
Subject
A or B
C
D
A or B
C
D
Mathematics
21 (91%)
2 (9%)
7 (78%)
1 (11%)
1 (11%)
Physics
11 (48%)
12 (52%)
5 (55%)
4 (45%)
Chemistry
8 (35%)
13 (57%)
2 (8%)
5 (55%)
3 (33%)
1 (12%)
Value in parenthesis indicates the percentage in each category.
Student’s perception on the subjects
Based on the response given by each student, an average mark is obtained. Depending on the
average mark, the analysis of the results is divided into 3 categories as follows: average mark
between 1 to 1.75 is considered as the scale of great deal of confidence, 1.75 to 2.75 as
moderately confident and >2.75 as slightly confident. Table 2 shows the analysis of student’s
perception on each subject for both samples.
Table 2. Student’s perception on each subject
Sample 1 (Degree Transfer Programme)
Malaysian students (70)
International students (10)
Subject
Great deal of Moderately Slightly
Great deal of Moderately Slightly
confidence
confident
confident confidence
confident
confident
Mathematics 52 (75%)
18 (25%)
7 (70%)
3 (30%)
Physics
23 (32%)
40 (57%)
7 (10%)
6 (60%)
3 (30%)
1 (10%)
Chemistry
21 (30%)
35 (50%)
14 (20%) 5 (50%)
5 (50%)
Table 2 (Contd.)
Subject
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Sample 2 (Diploma Programme)
Malaysian students (24)
International students (8)
Great deal of Moderately Slightly
Great deal of Moderately Slightly
confidence
confident
confident confidence
confident
confident
22 (92%)
2 (8%)
7 (88%)
1 (12%)
10 (42%)
11 (45%)
3 (13%)
4 (50%)
4 (50%)
6 (26%)
12 (52%)
5 (22%)
1 (13%)
6 (75%)
1 (12%)
It can be seen from Table 2 that percentage of Malaysian students who fall in the category of
‘Great deal of confidence’ is slightly higher than the percentage of international student in the
subject of Mathematics while the percentage of Malaysian students is slightly lower in Physics in
both programmes. For the subject of Chemistry, Malaysian students in Diploma programme are
more confident compared to international students.
Student’s learning styles
The results of this study are used to investigate the learning styles of Malaysian students and
international students. Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 represent the 95% confidence intervals of means of
each scale for each sample, combination of both samples and overall respondents in FOEAT
respectively. The mean is statistically different from zero when the confidence interval does not
include zero.
Table 3. Learning styles of students in Sample 1
LS type
Type of
# Obs.
Mean
students
Std Dev
Active (+)/
Malaysian
70
0.64
3.78
Reflective (-)
International
10
-0.6
4.0
Sequential (+)/
Malaysian
70
0.57
3.97
Global (-)
International
10
0.6
3.37
Sensing (+)/
70
1.44
4.19
Malaysian*
Intuitive (-)
International
10
0.8
2.74
Visual (+)/
70
5.45
4.09
Malaysian*
Verbal (-)
4.2
4.44
International* 10
* indicates that 95% confidence interval does not include zero.
95%
Interval
Lower
bound
-0.24
-3.06
-0.35
-1.49
0.46
-0.9
4.49
1.44
Confidence
Upper
bound
1.53
1.86
1.5
2.69
2.42
2.5
6.41
6.95
Based on the result obtained from Table 3, for the Malaysian students, the means of SensingIntuitive and Visual-Verbal scales are statistically different from zero, so the Malaysian students
in this sample, on average are sensing and visual while the international students on average are
visual.
Table 4. Learning styles of students in Sample 2
LS type
Type of
# Obs.
Mean
students
Active (+)/
Reflective (-)
Sequential (+)/
Global (-)
Sensing (+)/
Intuitive (-)
Visual (+)/
Verbal (-)
Malaysian
International
Malaysian*
International
Malaysian*
International
Malaysian*
International*
24
9
24
9
24
9
24
9
0.54
0
2.04
0.1
4.08
-1.56
5.95
5.2
Std Dev
3.82
4.06
4.06
5.11
3.54
3.7
4.5
3.38
95%
Interval
Lower
bound
-0.99
-2.65
0.41
-3.23
2.67
-3.98
4.14
3.01
Confidence
Upper
bound
2.07
2.65
3.67
3.45
5.5
.87
7.78
7.43
It can be seen from Table 4, for the Malaysian students, the means of Sequential-Global,
Sensing-Intuitive and Visual-Verbal scales are statistically different from zero, so the Malaysian
students in this sample, on average are sequential, sensing and visual. For the international
students in the sample, the means of Sensing-Intuitive and Visual-Verbal scales are statistically
different from zero, so the international students, on average are sensing and visual.
Table 5. Learning styles of both samples
LS type
Type of
# Obs.
students
Active (+)/
Reflective (-)
Sequential (+)/
Global (-)
Sensing (+)/
Intuitive (-)
Visual (+)/
Verbal (-)
Malaysian
International
Malaysian*
International
Malaysian*
International
Malaysian*
International*
94
19
94
19
94
19
94
19
Mean
0.62
-0.32
0.95
0.37
2.12
-0.32
5.58
4.68
Std Dev
3.77
3.91
4.02
4.17
4.18
3.37
4.19
3.9
95%
Interval
Lower
bound
-0.14
-2.08
0.13
-1.50
1.27
-1.83
4.73
2.92
Confidence
Upper
bound
1.38
1.44
1.76
2.24
2.96
1.2
6.43
6.44
It can be concluded from Table 5 that for Malaysian students who are studying in engineering,
on average are sequential, sensing, and visual since the means of Sequential-Global, SensingIntuitive and Visual-Verbal scales are statistically different from zero while the entire
international students on average are visual. Kamasah et al. (2005) studied the learning styles of
1120 first year engineering students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and indicated that there are
high percentages on moderate and strong preferences on visual over verbal for all the
respondents.
Table 6. Learning styles of respondents in FOEAT
LS type
# Obs. Mean
Std Dev
Active (+)/Reflective (-)
Sequential (+)/Global (-)
Sensing (+)/Intuitive (-)
Visual (+)/Verbal (-)
113
113
113
113
0.46
0.85
0.71
5.43
3.8
4.03
4.14
4.14
95% Confidence Interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
-0.24
1.16
0.10
1.59
0.94
2.47
4.67
6.20
Based on the result obtained from Table 6, for the entire sample, the means of Sequential-Global,
Sensing-Intuitive and Visual-Verbal scales are statistically different from zero, so the students in
this sample, on average are sequential, sensing and visual. The Malaysian students in the sample
have the same characteristics as the overall sample, that is, their preferences on average are
sequential, sensing and visual. The preference of the students in FOEAT is generally consistent
with the engineering students in Litzinger et al. (2005) study.
Conclusions
This study has attempted to reveal the learning styles and education backgrounds of the students
in engineering as follows:






Academic performance of the Malaysian students is comparable to the international
students in their examinations in secondary/high schools.
From the point of view of educational background, students are generally better in
Mathematics and Physics in comparison to the Chemistry, which form a strong
foundation to engineering subjects.
In the context of students’ perception on the science subjects, Malaysian students are
more confident in Mathematics and Chemistry than international students.
International students studying in both Diploma and Degree Transfer programmes have
their preference on average is visual.
The Malaysian students studying in both Diploma and Degree Transfer programmes have
their preferences on average are sequential, sensing and visual.
The preference of the students in FOEAT is generally consistent with the engineering
students in other universities.
References
Felder, R. M. and Silverman, L. K. (1988). ‘Learning and teaching styles in engineering
education’, Engineering Education, 78 (7), 674-681.
Felder, R. M. (2002). Preface - ‘Learning and teaching styles in engineering education’,
Engineering Education, 78 (7), 674-681.
Felder, R. M. and Soloman, B. A. (2003). Index of learning styles questionnaire. Retrieved
October 10, 2003 from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html.
Felder, R.M. and Spurlin, J. (2005). ‘Reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles: a
Meta-analysis’, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Kamsah M.Z., Abu, M. S. and Idris A. K., (2005). ‘The First Step of Being an Effective
Engineering Educator: Know Your Students' Learning Styles’, Centre for Teaching and
Learning, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Litzinger, T.A., Lee, S.H., Wise, J.C. Felder, R.M. (2005). ‘A study of the reliability and validity
of the Felder-Soloman Index of Learning Styles’, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering
Education.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd edn), Great Britain,
RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor and Francis Group.
Wirz, D. (2004). ‘Students’ learning styles vs. professors’ teaching styles’, Inquiry, Vol. 9, No.
1, Virginia Community College System.