Index of Learning Styles and Learning Difficulties of Engineering and Architecture Students

AUTHOR/S: Albert B. Jubilo, Edicio M. Faller

DATE COMPLETED:  August 1, 2012

KEYWORDS:

ABSTRACT

             The study deals on finding out the index of learning styles and learning difficulties of engineering and architecture students for SY 2011-2012. The study employed descriptive research design. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and presented. The proponents of this study used a standard survey questionnaire developed by Felder and Silverman to determine the index of learning styles. Guide questions were asked during focus group discussions to determine the learning difficulties.

             The main objective of the study is to determine the index of learning styles and learning difficulties of the engineering and architecture students for SY 2011- 2012. The following are the specific objectives:

  1. To determine the profile of the student respondents in terms of:
  • Sex
  • Program/Course
  • Year Level
  1. To determine the Index of Learning Styles of the student respondents in terms of:
    • Processing (Active – Reflective) 
    • Perception (Sensory – Intuitive) 
    • Input (Visual – Auditory) 
    • Understanding (Sequential – Global)
  1. To determine the learning difficulties of the student respondents in mathematics and professional
  2. To determine the index of learning styles of the students when grouped according to:
    • Sex
    • Program/Course
    • Year Level

The data obtained showed the following findings:

  1. There were 59% male student-respondents and 35.41% females. Architecture students accounted to 28.92% of all respondents; civil engineering students – 13.62%; chemical engineering students – 9.60%; computer engineering students – 5.19%; electronics and communication engineering students – 12.19%; electrical engineering

– 5.45%; industrial engineering students – 12.45%; and mechanical engineering students – 12.58%. By year level, first year students had 33.85% of all respondents, second year students – 19.84%, third year students – 19.97%, fourth year students – 11.28% and fifth year students – 15.05%

  1. In the processing dimension of learning, there were 98% active learners and 42.02% reflective learners. In the perception dimension,there were 74.97% sensory learners and 25.03% intuitive learners. Inthe input dimension, there were 88.72% visual learners and 11.28%auditory learners. In the understanding dimension, there were 69.65% sequential learners and 30.35% global learners.
  2. The students had learning difficulties in their mathematics and professional subjects due to several factors and concerns: 3.1 Curricular, Subject Loading/Scheduling and Requirements – Inappropriate course sequencing; Overload of subject projects and requirements; Courses/subjects were not properly scheduled; and Courses/subjects were offered without regard to prior knowledge and skills of the students.                                                                                 3.2 Instructions – Course outlines were not followed; Lessons are not presented in logical manner; Different teachers for the lecture and laboratory subjects/courses – They differ in the presentation of lessons; Teachers had no enough preparations to handle the class; Pre- and post-laboratory discussions were not made; Some teachers heavily based their lectures from the textbooks; Teachers assigned to teach algebra, solid mensuration, analytic geometry and calculus lacked teaching experiences; Some teachers returned corrected test papers too late; some returned during the end of the semester; Some teachers did  not  compute  prelim and  midterm grades; Some topics in the final and departmental examinations were not taught; Some teachers had no clear basis for grade computations; and Lack of or less class consultations.                                                                                                           3.3 Teacher Attitude – Some teachers played favoritisms and prejudices – especially to bright students; Some teachers were  not approachable; Absenteeism and tardiness of some teachers; Some part-time teachers lacked concerns for students; Lack of classroom management; and Some teachers had mood swings.                                       3.4 Student Attitude and Concerns – Students are less motivated because of failures; No support systems among the students within the department; Some students did not manage their time properly; Lack of cooperation among students; More time to their peers or “barkadas”; Some students were forced to enroll courses determined by their parents; Financial problems in the family; Love life; and Lack of study habits.
  1. The following  are  the  indices  of  learning  styles  when  grouped according to profiles:                                                                                             4.1 By Sex – In the processing dimension of learning, male students had 24% active learners while the female students had 55.68% active learners. In the perception dimension, males had 72.29% sensory learners while the females had 79.85% sensory learners. In input dimension, the males had 89.76% visual learners while the females had 86.81%. In the understanding dimension, males had 68.27% sequential learners while the females had 72.16% sequential learners.                                                                                                                          4.2 By Program – In the processing dimension of learning, architecture program had 74% active learners, civil engineering program – 60.95%, chemical engineering program – 60.81%, computer engineering program – 50.00%, electronic and communications engineering program – 56.38%, electrical engineering program – 57.14%, industrial engineering program – 56.25% and mechanical engineering program – 57.73%. In the perception dimension, architecture program had 65.02% sensory learners, civil engineering program – 75.24%, chemical engineering program – 77.03%, computer engineering program – 72.50%, electronic and communications engineering program – 84.04%, electrical engineering program – 69.05%, industrial engineering program – 80.21% and mechanical engineering program – 85.57%. .In input dimension, architecture program had 90.13% visual learners, civil engineering program – 88.57%, chemical engineering program – 82.43%, computer engineering program – 92.50%, electronic and communications engineering program – 88.30%, electrical engineering program – 83.30%, industrial engineering program – 88.54% and mechanical engineering program – 91.75%. In the understanding dimension, architecture program had 66.82% sequential learners, civil engineering program – 65.71%, chemical engineering program – 68.92%, computer engineering program – 75.00%, electronic and communications engineering program – 75.53%, electrical engineering program – 73.81%, industrial engineering program – 67.71% and mechanical engineering program – 73.20%.                                                                                             4.3 By Year Level – In the processing dimension of learning, there were 69% active learners in the first year, 58.82% in the second year, 57.14% in the third year, 50.57% in the fourth year and 55.17% in the fifth year. In the perception dimension, there were 77.78% sensory learners in the first year, 72.55% in the second year, 74.68% in the third year, 73.56% in the fourth year and 73.28% in the fifth year. In input dimension, there were 88.12% visual learners in the first year, 86.27% in the second year, 87.66% in the third year, 93.10% in the fourth year and 91.38% in the fifth year. In the understanding dimension, there were 72.03% sensory learners in the first year, 73.20% in the second year, 67.53% in the third year, 67.82% in the fourth year and 63.79% in the fifth year.

The following conclusions were obtained from the analysis and findings of this study:

  1. Most of the respondents were males, architecture students and in the first
  2. Majority of the student – respondents were active, sensory, visual and sequential
  1. The students had learning difficulties due to several factors such as curricular and subject factors, instructions, teacher attitude and student
  2. When grouped by sex, program and year level, majority of the student

 – respondents were active, sensory, visual and sequential learners.

Based  on  the  findings  and  conclusions of this  study,  the researchers offered the following recommendations:

  1. That a study on the teaching styles of the engineering and architecture faculty be
  2. That a cross-reference study and analysis regarding students  who failed in their subjects/courses be conducted and trending pattern be
  3. That a questionnaire or instrument to determine the learning style index be developed to be utilized in the admission and interview process of the incoming engineering and architecture students and also to determine their appropriate career
  4. That a phenomenological study be conducted in order to recognize the mathematics learning experiences and views of the engineering and architecture

Request for Full Article (Please fill in the needed details. We will promptly respond to your request thru your e-mail.)

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]