Complete thesis - Murdoch University

individual preferred learning styles, disadvantage to students. The research suggests thatthese mismatches lead to lack of motivation and interest in students, affecting students’ success(UWA, 1996; Felder, 1996; Zywno and Waalen, 2001). This study supports these findings,and indicates the importance of additional alignment – teacher to learning environment.ProfilingStudies of Engineering students indicate a dominance of the Rationalist temperament (NT),intrigued by systemic entities (machines and organisms) and their complexity, and highlyskilled in strategic analysis. Variants are Architects (INTP) who enjoy figuring out structure,build, configuration, spatiality of things); Masterminds (INTJ) who take on directiveactivities such as contingency planning or organising role, with an inclination to take charge;Inventors (ENTP) who are functional Engineers, with a tolerance for and enjoyment of complexproblems; Fieldmarshals (ENTJ) who work best at situational organisation: able tocommunicate their vision to others.Felder and Silverman (1988, p 680) sum up the situation:Learning styles of most engineering students and teaching styles of most engineeringprofessors are incompatible in several dimensions. Many or most engineeringstudents are visual, sensing, inductive, and active and some of the most creativestudents are global; most engineering education is auditory, abstract (intuitive),deductive, passive, and sequential. These mismatches lead to poor student performance,professorial frustration, and a loss to society of many potentially excellentengineers.This results in between 20 and 40% of student intake to Engineering lost through not cateringfor students with strengths in communications and team work or creative problem solving,synthesis and design (Lumsdaine and Lumsdaine, 1995). It would seem probable that studentswith characteristics not catered for in traditional Engineering education models maybe self-selecting out of Engineering due to an ‘inhospitable learning climate’ (Lumsdaine andLumsdaine, 1995). The figures for 4th Year Engineering students in Table A.1 could be seento support this.Flexibility and creativity for lifelong learningThe focus of Engineering education has changed to include equipping graduates for lifelonglearning as well as providing a broader education with a wider range of backgrounds. Thischange was advocated in the mid 1990s (IEAust, 1996), and is an acknowledgement that the412