2003
DOI: 10.1177/154193120304700607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Survey of Learning Styles of Engineering Students

Abstract: This study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 7 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the results obtained, there was a strong preference for the visual category on the ILS. However, there was a good balance in the imagery/verbal dimension [42]. Paterson [43] showed that out of 83 undergraduate engineering students who completed the ILS in a study conducted at Michigan Technological University, 56% were classified as active (ACT) learners (44% were reflective learners, REF), 63% were sensing (SEN) learners (37% intuitive learners, INT), 74% were visual (VIS) learners (26% verbal, VRB), and 53% were sequential (SEQ) learners (47% global, GLO).…”
Section: Current Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the results obtained, there was a strong preference for the visual category on the ILS. However, there was a good balance in the imagery/verbal dimension [42]. Paterson [43] showed that out of 83 undergraduate engineering students who completed the ILS in a study conducted at Michigan Technological University, 56% were classified as active (ACT) learners (44% were reflective learners, REF), 63% were sensing (SEN) learners (37% intuitive learners, INT), 74% were visual (VIS) learners (26% verbal, VRB), and 53% were sequential (SEQ) learners (47% global, GLO).…”
Section: Current Practicementioning
confidence: 99%