Do Our Teaching Methods Match Student Learning Styles?
A recent study of the Learning Styles of a group of Civil Engineering undergraduates has concluded that our
Teaching Methods are not closely aligned with the way in which our students learn. The study was based on a
specific subject area (Structural and Stress Analysis) which is taught at Levels 1, 2, and 3: this course requires
students to have appropriate skills in applied mathematics or physics.
Reasons for the study
1. The subject of Structural and Stress Analysis is a fundamental component of any Civil Engineering
degree programme: it is the theory of how structures are made and how they behave once they have
been built.
2. Undergraduate students find the topic difficult.
3. A recent study by the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) has investigated the teaching of
Structural Analysis in the UK, surveying students, academics and the requirements of industry [1].
Methodology used in the Leeds study
Level 1, 2, and 3 students were surveyed using questionnaire similar to those in the IStructE work plus a version
of the VARK questionnaire [2]. The samples were small and more work needs to be done. However, initial
findings are consistent with the wider survey plus some interesting results on learning styles.
Results of the IStructE work
1. The Mathematics and Physics syllabi used in schools is causing problems for the Teaching of Structural
Analysis in universities.
2. There is an inverse relationship between “assessment success” and “interest”.
3. Computer aided learning rates poorly for both “assessment success” and “interest”.
4. Students have little enthusiasm for text books.
5. The need to integrate “structural analysis” with “design” is appreciated more by students than by
academics.
6. Students are rarely sought to question the validity of results produced by computer analysis packages: in
the industry a variety of checks are used with smaller organisations relying on the knowledge of a senior
engineer.
Results from the Leeds Study
The data for Learning Approaches from the Leeds study is presented below:
Learning Approach
Use of Internet
Case Studies
Use of Models
Liaison with fellow
students
Problem solving
classes
Qualitative work
Computer analyses
Study of failures
Use of text books
Study of historical
structures
Lectures
CAL
Lab. Tests and
investigations
For Assessment Success
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
2.45
2.14
2.00
2.12
2.26
2.31
2.35
2.71
2.25
2.92
2.84
3.65
IStructE
2.27
2.99
2.78
3.53
For Understanding the Subject
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
2.45
2.46
2.14
2.35
2.84
2.95
2.84
3.87
3.75
2.65
3.09
3.12
IStructE
2.29
3.31
3.91
3.38
3.54
3.64
3.95
4.38
2.12
3.16
2.78
4.14
3.64
2.15
2.45
3.26
2.12
6.41
2.16
2.20
3.14
2.84
3.89
2.14
2.52
3.75
2.32
3.98
3.05
2.63
3.62
2.14
2.87
2.98
3.10
2.56
2.95
2.84
3.61
3.42
2.45
2.89
2.95
3.48
3.24
2.12
2.45
3.98
3.05
3.12
3.42
2.57
3.98
2.12
2.65
2.06
3.10
2.94
3.67
2.64
2.68
4.02
2.73
3.27
3.20
2.42
3.45
2.12
2.24
3.71
2.97
2.35
3.91
3.74
3.08
3.75
1= Not Useful, 5= Very Useful
Key findings are:
1. There are differences between the Learning approaches rated useful for Assessment success compared
to those rated useful for understanding: for example lectures and qualitative work (problem solving
exercises) featured higher in terms of assessment compared to understanding. Not surprisingly,
practical work and modelling rated higher for understanding than for assessment success.
2. Students placed a greater emphasis on “Computer Analysis” skills than the employers who put
“Approximate Analysis” and Conceptual Design” at the top of their preferences
3. CAL (Computer Assisted learning) and use of the Internet were ranked relatively less useful that, for
example, lectures and using text books, for both Assessment Success and Understanding.
4. There are changes between Level 1 and Level 3: for example, Case studies ranked higher at Level 3 for
Understanding compared to level 1.
5. The findings from the Leeds study are consistent with the work of the IStructE.
When it comes to learning styles are determined by using the VARK test, Civil engineering students at Leeds
prefer to “learn by doing”.
Level 1 students
Level 3 students
Key findings:
1. Male civil engineering undergraduates have “learning by doing” as their preferred method of learning
whereas female civil engineering undergraduates have a wider range of learning styles: visual, aural,
read/write, kinaesthetic.
2. There is a shift to a more kinaesthetic learning style as the students progress through their
undergraduate years.
What Are We doing to Enhance our Students’ Learning Experience?
Colleagues are asked to:
a) Think about their own learning styles and how these impact on the way that they teach. Does your
teaching match the learning styles of your students?
b) Identify a specific change they can made to their teaching to improve their students’ learning;
c) Think about the resource implications of making any changes;
d) Consider if using the VLE will help or hinder the learning process.
References
1.
“The Teaching of Structural Analysis, Dr David Johnson and Prof. I.M. May, The Structural
Engineer, 18 November 2008 [also available by the IStructE web site, http://IStructE.org/].
2.
VARK, A Guide to learning Styles (accessed 5 Jan. 2010) http://www.vark-learn.com/.
Acknowledgement: the data collection was carried out by a Level 3 student, Laurence Edwards, as part of his
Level 3 project in the School of Civil Engineering,
Dr Rosemary Creasey
January 2010.