Introduction:

Design Graphics and CommunicationMech Eng 1006

Professional and Academic Engineering Communication

Major Assignment 1

Various Learning Models and Their Applications for Engineering Teams?

(approximately 3000 words)

Thomas Gregory --------------------------------------------------------------1211645Michael King--------------------------------------------------------------1211510Vincent Kong--------------------------------------------------------------1198916Tinashe Mutandwa--------------------------------------------------------------1210207Natalia Rossomakhina -----------------------------------------------------------1210750Jaco Spagenberg--------------------------------------------------------------1212812James Tran--------------------------------------------------------------1192793

The ability to work within a team is fast becoming an important and necessary attribute required of engineers in industry today. The collaborative environment promoted by a team based structure enables engineers, subsequently the company, to successfully achieve the desired outcome of projects with efficiency. The success of an engineering student in industry can be correlated to the students capacity to work in a team. It is therefore imperative that students gain the interpersonal skills such as communication, to confidently work in teams both within and outside the company. Cohesive teams require each member to understand and accept the differences of each individual and in turn learn to appreciate what each member brings to the group.

However, it is first necessary to know that to fully understand each individual, one must understand how each person learns (Wyrick 2003). Information processing (learning) occurs constantly in every human being, especially when a team engages on a project where members of the team continually generate ideas, learn to use new softwares, gather data and so on (Wyrick 2003). By doing so, misunderstandings can be reduced, fostering stronger bonds amongst team members. This results in teams with higher performance and more flexibility (Wyrick 2003).

There are several different learning styles such as those proposed by David Kolb and Felder and Silverman each describing and classifying varying learning styles and personalities. This paper will discuss the effectiveness of MBTI, Kolbs and Felder Silverman Learning Styles as tools in understanding the learning preferences of students and how they can be used to construct organised, cohesive and well functioning teams in engineering. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs will be examined as a means to provide better understanding of how individuals may satisfy their needs to build stronger team dynamics. By studying these models students can begin to understand and recognise their role within a group, learn to adapt to different team dynamics and develop their interpersonal skills.

Learning stylesThroughout industry and particularly teaching institutions, there are various opinions on the merit of these models as teaching and learning tools. A number of academics argue that these learning style models do not have a robust theoretical foundation and they often question the validity of the tools used to measure these learning styles (Palou 2006). Conversely there is also increasing agreement on the need to recognise and accommodate the different learning styles and personality types to produce graduates that have the required skills to succeed in industry. This is because these learning styles are inevitably present across any engineering cohort and in fact any career path. Furthermore, the studies which have been discussed in the later part of this article, along with other research done, has proven teaching methods which address a wide range of learning styles to be more successful than conventional teaching methods (Felder and Brent 2005). Kolbs Experiential Learning TheoryThe way in which a student prefers to take in and process information is termed that students learning style (Rosati, 1999). In essence, models such as Kolbs, MBTI and Felder Silverman, attempt to define a students learning style according to this definition: Knowledge is created through the transformation of experience (Kolb 1984). Kolb championed ideas which theorised how humans learnt by interpreting their experiences into deeper understanding that could be applied elsewhere. Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) is one of many tools that can be utilised in order to foster better teamwork among engineers. In his 1984 book, David Kolb presented four methods of learning; Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE).

Concrete experience and abstract conceptualization are the two methods of grasping information while active experimentation and reflective observation are the ways of interpreting that information (Kolb, Boyatzis & Mainemelis 1999). According to Kolbs model, there are four stages of the learning cycle. He suggested that the cycle starts from concrete experience, going to reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and finally, active experimentation (Wyrick 2003). At concrete experience, students begin to learn why the material is important. They then learn the fundamental ideas about the subject and subsequently how to solve problems based on knowledge they have acquired. Finally they teach themselves to experiment with previously acquired knowledge (Lee, McCullouch, Chang 2008) thus gaining new experiences and starting the cycle again.

Figure 1 - Visual representation of four learning styles and how they interact (Killian 2009)

A student can enter the cycle at their preferred stage and this is their learning style; Accommodative, Diverging, Convergent and Assimilating. Members of each learning style generally have identifiable traits.Figure 2 - Four styles and associated characteristics. Note that dominant engineering types lack team work. (Lee et al. 2008)

Although there is slight variance at different institutions, roughly 80% of engineers are evenly split between convergent and assimilating learning styles the remaining 20% are accommodative and diverging (Sharp 2001). Predominantly being assimililators and convergers, engineers are able to work in groups but it is not their preferred method of learning. Nonetheless there are still many Diverging and Accommodating engineers who are able to complement the other two types. With fore knowledge of each members learning style it is possible to assign group members to their suited roles allowing for harmonious teamwork. For example Accomodators and Divergers are more likely to be vocal and may well dominate group dynamics; one or two are desirable in a group as they might be able to suggest ideas where Assimilator and Convergers might be reticent at first. Assimilators being logical would perform well in a role where they are given a goal and lead the group to a solution. Convergers might be able to perform practical and other technical tasks. By providing a profile of an individuals learning style, Kolb's ELT is a useful tool to construct teams that will function well.

Myers Briggs Type IndicatorThe Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is another commonly used instrument in industry to find an efficient configuration of members by addressing interpersonal skills such as communication. A large degree of a teams ability to successfully apply inter-organisational teamwork to a project depends on the individual team members working together without conflict or misunderstandings (Missingham, Whitman 2009). It is generally a preference based questionnaire designed to standardize personality types by dividing a persons personality into four different pairs of dichotomies: (E)xtraversion\(I)ntroversion: Interactions with others, (S)ensing\(N)Intuition: Preferred method of processing information, (T)hinking\(F)eeling: Cognitive process, (J)udgment\(P)erception: Orientation with respect to the world.

The assessment provides a four letter code which attempts to encapsulate the personality of the individual. The MBTI outline is known to have strong learning style inferences, and was the main tool used in the 1970s and 1980s for a multicampus study of engineering students (Palou 2006). Engineers are found to be more introverted, rely more on intuition, thinking and are judgers (Wyrick 2003, Felder and Brent 2005).

It should be noted that MBTI only measures preference and is therefore limited to some extent. For example, a person with a preference in judgment is not necessarily judgmental. Nevertheless once understood, MBTI can help individuals identify their strengths and weaknesses when working in a group situation. Awareness of ones own MBTI type as well as the personality types of others may bring understanding of why people behave and perceive things differently from one another (Missingham & Whitman 2009). As a result, MBTI remains a useful tool to fashion efficient and productive groups.

Felder-Silverman ModelFelder-Silverman is a hybrid of both Kolbs and MBTI allowing an alternative method of analysing a students thought process. It conflates the learning style classification of Kolbs ELT with the personality distinction of MBTI to produce a model with greater relevance to engineering. Such an example is the active/reflective dimension on the Felder-Silverman model, which is from Kolbs ELT. The sensing/intuition dimension is adapted from the MBTI. In general, students who preferred a sensing learning preference in MBTI also had correlatable results in the Felder-Silverman model (Palou 2006). They have also observed that students who are extroverts and more perceiving on the MBTI are considered active learners on the Felder-Silverman model.

The Felder-Silverman learning style model is one where a personality type is assigned based on preferences in four dimensions: Sensory-Intuitive Visual-Verbal Active-Reflective Sequential-GlobalThe results are displayed on four scales that show preference to two opposing styles. Looking at these number lines can give significant information about the individual and how they interact with other people in a team environment. These dimensions indicate that individuals learn uniquely to each other and therefore interact differently within group situations. Knowing what style of learning an individual is best suited to can be very useful in increasing a teams productivity.

Figure 3 - Felder-Silverman results note the scale which represents preference (Hoskin, 2003)

In education, results collected are a good basis for engineering instructors to formulate a teaching approach thats addresses the learning needs of all students. (Felder & Spurlin 2005). As proof of its effectiveness, the Felder Silverman model was most frequently cited paper in articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education of a 10-year period. (Felder 2002). In addition, individuals are positively influenced by thoroughly understanding their learning style as it provides motivation to improve teamwork skills. Models such as the Felder Silverman Learning Style enable the construction of teams based on individuals who complement each other therefore creating a highly functional team in industry.

The Felder-Silverman Model: A Case StudyA study recorded by Palou (2006) focused on the consistency of performance and attitude of engineering and food science students with expectations from previous studies done based on the Felder and Silverman (1988) learning style model. This study used the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) as a measurement tool to evaluate the four dimensions on the Felder and Silverman model. It was introduced in 1991 by Richard M. Felder and Barbara A. Soloman from the North Carolina State University. The results for the test range from 1 11 for each learning preference. The figure below shows how the results normally look like and explains the meaning of the numbers.

Figure 4Example of the output received by a respondent of the Index of Learning Styles Instrument of the Felder-Silverman (1988) model

The study was conducted on one engineering course (Engineering Design), two undergraduate food science courses (Food Chemistry and Food Product Design and Development) and two graduate food science courses (Advanced Food Chemistry and Emerging Technologies for Food Processing) in the Universidad de las Amricas, Puebla. Each of these courses emphasised active and cooperative learning in their teaching, as well as inductive presentation of the course material.

Prior to the study, all of the students in each course were required to complete the online test for the ILS to determine their learning styles. The results showed that students who participated were more visual, active, sensing and sequential. Comparing them with results from other studies, they are found to be within range.

Additionally, analysis was also done to explore the possible difference in learning preference between male and female. Significant differences were observed, with females being more sequential and sensing than males. The results were consistent with most studies, except one done by McCaully and others in 1985 whereby male and female were equally sensing or intuitive as males using the MBTI.

Figure 5Distribution of learning styles of theFelder-Silverman (1988) model for students [N = 290]Enrolled in Introduction to Engineering Design, FoodChemistry, Food Product Design and Development,Advanced Food Chemistry, and Emerging Technologies forFood Processing

Table 1Distribution by gender of preferred learning styles of the Felder-Silverman (1988) model for students enrolled in Introduction to Engineering Design, Food Chemistry, Food Product Design and Development, Advanced Food Chemistry, and Emerging Technologies for Food Processing

The study conducted by Palou (2006) was part of a long-term study at the university to investigate if the teaching method used in Palous study would enhance student performance with specific learning preferences. Observations from the study throughout the period have generally been consistent with predictions. The teaching method used has proved to be more effective on active, sensing and global learners, while not disadvantageously affecting the reflective, intuitive and sequential learners.

From the results of the study, possible methods of communication more effectively with engineering team members could be developed. By adapting cooperative and active learning as well as inductive teaching, engineers could be approached better and motivated to participate more within a team. This will result in improved communication within a team, hence creating efficient teamwork.

Maslows Hierarchy of NeedsMaslows Hierarchy of Needs describes basic desires that motivate action and may be applied to teamwork in many situations including the engineering workplace, to increase efficiency and understanding between co-workers. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs was originally introduced in the 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation by Abraham Maslow, exploring the drive behind humans actions (Waterstone 2007). The motivation behind certain actions is described by Maslows Hierarchy of Needs as the progression of desires. These desires are often arranged into five stages, needs, and may be visually represented in the form of a pyramid (Figure 6).

Physiological NeedsSafety NeedsLove and BelongingEsteemSelf-actualisationFigure 6 - Maslows Hierarchy of Needs in pyramid form

Each need should be satisfied to a reasonable degree before succession to the next need may occur as each desire is ongoing and constantly changing over time, thus can never be completely fulfilled. The five needs, in order of priority are often categorised as; physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging, esteem and finally, self-actualisation. The most basic need, the physiological need, describes the need for essential human requirements such as food and shelter. The safety need covers the desire for survival and security, both physical and emotional. Love and belonging portrays ones social interaction and relationships with others, while esteem focuses on the desire for contribution and respect as well as self value. The highest need, self-actualisation, is the need for achievement and realising potential. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs can thus be applied to teamwork as an individuals efficiency within the team can be affected by their satisfaction in accordance to this theory.

A teams productivity is greatly dependent on individual effort, thus an individuals satisfaction should be taken into account. The use of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs in relation to teamwork revolves around the idea that as an individual progresses through the pyramid of needs, improved satisfaction increases motivation, in turn increasing productivity within a group dynamic. This may be evident when considering the stages of Maslows Hierarchy of Needs in relation to a case study.

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs: A Case StudyA study was conducted in 2002 by Ammeter and Dukerich to investigate the factors leading to high performance in project teams. This study consists of two parts: an interview and a survey for team members of a high performance project team. From the interview, a theme list can be generated and reduced, which form the factors leading to high performance. Table 2 - Summary of theme analysis from interviews

The second most important category, the safety need, may be applied to a team situation as each individual should feel secure in their position as a member (Stum 2001). From the study done, it can be seen that 71% of the team members think that the sense of belonging is the main factor that contributes to high performance within a team. Members who feel intimidated within a team may not respond within group discussions, resulting in isolation and lack of participation throughout the project.

The need for love and belonging is closely related to safety as this need can be satisfied by a feeling of acceptance within the group. This is clearly reflected in the study by effective team communication through frequent team meetings and team buildings. Members who feel accepted and pride are more likely to work efficiently to produce satisfactory results to avoid disappointing the team.

This close relationship between members is furthered by the esteem need. The esteem need indicates that members within a group do not only want to be accepted, but also respected and admired within a group. Within a team, this can be achieved by assigning certain positions or jobs that suit the strengths of individuals as well as showing recognition for significant effort. Bonuses for excellence, such as described by the members in the study, are good examples. With a position within the group and acknowledgment, members are able to further the satisfaction of the safety and belonging needs.

As these needs are satisfied individually, the final, highest need becomes easier to attain as the needs begin to interlink, much like the team. This is described by the team members as ownership, where the personal success is directly linked to projects success. As each member works on the project, individuals are able to develop and express creativity and capabilities, feeling secure, integrated and with a function within the group. This allows for an individual to reach their full potential, the self-actualisation need, simultaneously increasing the efficiency of the group dynamic.

Engineers often work within groups in the workplace for a particular objective, it is important that an individual engineers needs are met to allow for better team productivity. This is because teamwork is highly dependent on the effort of individuals involved. Satisfied team members may produce better outcomes, consequently, a better end result for the entire team. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs allows for a better understanding of how individuals may satisfy their needs to construct a stronger team dynamic, thus a better overall outcome.

ConclusionMyers Briggs Type Indicator, Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory and the Felder-Silverman Model are some of the learning style classifications that have been explored in this essay. Engineers are found to be more visual, active, sensing and sequential in the Felder-Silverman model. Teaching methods to address these differences in learning style preferences have been proven effective and do not discriminate against different learning styles. Teaching methods such as those employed by Universidad de las Amricas can be adapted as means to better communicate with team members of an engineering team. High performance within a team is also achieved through the satisfying of desires; addressed using the Maslows Hierarchy of Needs in relation to a case study. It was found from the members of high performing teams that the fulfilments of those needs were their secret to success.

ReferencesAmmeter, AM & Dukerich, JM 2002, Leadership, Team Building, and Team Member Characteristics in High Performance Project Teams, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3-10, accessed on 18/05/2010, Academic Search Premier database.Cunningham, PB 2000, Engineering Management in Technology-Based Organisations, in Proceedings of the 1st Austin Workshop, Austin, Texas, USA, 2000, accessed on 21/09/2010 , http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=897349Felder, RM & Brent, R 2005, Understanding Student Differences, Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 57 72, accessed 04/09/2010, Google Scholar databaseFelder, RM & Silverman, LK 2002, Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, Engineering Education, vol. 78, no. 7, pp. 674 681, accessed on 05/09/2010 , http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.92.774Felder, RM & Spurlin, J 2005 Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles, International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 103 112, accessed on 06/09/2010 , http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/InboundService.do?Func=Frame&product=WOS&action=retrieve&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&UT=000226815600015&SID=T1K9fOnhPIHc7JhOiAK&Init=Yes&SrcAuth=ss_summons&mode=FullRecord&customersID=ss_summons&DestFail=http%3A%2F%2Faccess.isiproducts.com%2Fcustom_images%2Fwok_failed_auth.htmlHoskin, 2003, Affecting increased student achievement in geoscience education by instruction in metacognition: a small class case study,http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/Vol7_no2/CurrentPractice/Affect_student_ach.htm view 09/10/2010

Killian 2009, David Kolb and Learning Styles, accessed 15/09/2010, http://effective.leadershipdevelopment.edu.au/david-kolb-learning-styles/experiential-learning/Kolb, DA 1984, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 138.Kolb, DA, Boyatzis, RE, & Mainemelis, C 1999, Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Dept. of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University, accessed 15/09/2010. http://www.d.umn.edu/~kgilbert/educ5165-731/Readings/experiential-learning-theory.pdf Lee, JH, McCullouch, BG, & Chang, LM 2008, Macrolevel and Microlevel Frameworks of Experiential Learning Theory in Construction Engineering Education, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice,vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 158 164.Missingham, D & Whitman, D 2009, Communicating Teamwork? A Student View of Learning, 20th Australasian Association for Engineering Education Conference, AAEE database, accessed 12/09/10.http://aaee.com.au/conferences/AAEE2009/PDF/AUTHOR/AE090194.PDFMissingham, D & Whitman, D 2010, A Students Perspective on the Effectiveness of Personality and Learning Tools in Engineering Education, in Proceedings of Engineering Education International Conference (EE 2010), Aston University, Birmingham, England, 6 8 July 2010, accessed on 04/09/2010, engsc.ac.uk.Palou, E 2006, Learning styles of Mexican Food Science and Engineering Students, Journal of Food Science Education, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 51 57, accessed 04/09/2010, Google Scholar database.Rosati, P 1998, Academic Progress of Canadian Engineering Students in terms of MBTI Personality Type, International of Engineering Education, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 322 327, accessed on , http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/Vol14-5/ijee1037.pdf

Rosati, P 1999 Specific Differences and Similarities in the Learning Preferences of Engineering Students, 29th Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 12c1-17

Sharp 2001, Teaching Teamwork Communication with Kolb Learning Style Theory, in Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001. 31st Annual - Volume 02,pp. F2C-1-2Stum, DL 2001, Maslow revisited: building the employee commitment pyramid, Strategy & Leadership, pp. 4 9, http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/journals.htm?articleid=872813&show=abstractWaterstone, PX 2007, The Pyramid/Maslows Hierarchy, accessed 06/09/2010, http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=27936695&site=ehost-live&scope=siteWyrick, DA 2003, Understanding Learning Styles to be a More Effective Team Leader and Engineering Manager, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 27 33, accessed 02/08/2010, Academic Search Premier database.