LEARNING STYLES AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION: IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND TEAMWORK SKILLS Julie E. Sharp Department of Chemical Engineering Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37235 [email protected] Abstract. This paper presents a rationale and methods for teaching Kolb learning style theory in the technical communication classroom. Specifically, I present Kolb learning style theory and examples of applying it in two different courses, a technical communication course for engineering majors and a combined chemical engineering lab/technical communication course. In these courses, students use learning style theory to devise communication strategies and analyze lab group interaction. Engineering educators, myself included, have successfully used Kolb's theory of learning styles to become more aware of different ways that students learn and to improve teaching [1-4]. We may use Kolb theory to help us recognize our strengths and weaknesses as teachers, recognize our students' preferred styles, use teaching techniques to appeal to all learning styles, and encourage our students to stretch into other styles. I also teach it, however, as part of course content in two technical communication courses so that engineering students can apply it to communicating in the workforce and collaborating in groups. In my technical communication course for all engineering majors, students apply Kolb theory to audience analysis and strategies for writing and speaking. In the other course, a combined chemical engineering lab/technical communication course, which I team teach with a chemical engineering professor, students apply Kolb theory directly to working in their lab groups. In another paper, I have briefly described in general terms my methods [5]. Here I elaborate further and describe applying Kolb theory to engineering education.

Rationale My rationale for including learning style theory as course content is threefold. First, engineering students need to communicate with techniques appealing to all learning styles. Learners usually prefer to send information in the way that they prefer to receive it. Therefore, unless trained, they are likely to limit their communication strategies. By recognizing various learning styles, engineering students can learn to present their message in a variety of ways. By using multiple strategies to present information, students increase the chance that the audience will attend to and will understand the message. Improving communication, in turn, improves the chance of getting their proposals

accepted or their projects funded at work. Knowledge of learning styles, therefore, can help students analyze and target their audience. Secondly, students can apply learning style theory to improving interpersonal communication and teamwork. Since both industry and engineering education stress the importance of working successfully in groups, students can apply learning style training in their teamwork experiences both in college and in the workforce. Students can use Kolb theory to analyze how a group functions. By analyzing strengths and weaknesses of group interaction, they can plan ways to decrease conflict and provide strategies for improved teamwork. Thirdly, if nothing else, students can improve their college experience by understanding their learning style preferences. Learning style theory can help a student better understand learning problems and conflicts with professors. Better understanding often results in finding solutions and resolving learning conflicts. Several points need emphasis to keep this discussion in perspective. First and most importantly, the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is a helpful tool, not the final answer to all communication, teamwork, and educational issues. Other learning and personality theories also have proven helpful to engineering educators [6]. I use the Kolb LSI because it is a respected test, it is easy to use, and it has proven effective in describing my students' learning styles. Secondly, a learning style is a preference, not an absolute. All learners, regardless of preference, can function in all four styles when needed. In addition, one's learning style is influenced by numerous factors, such as academic training, personality type, career choice, current job, and current task. As Kolb states: "All these forces helped shape your current learning style and will continue to shape it, perhaps in different directions" [7]. Finally, differences occur in the scoring patterns of learners within the same style, thus explaining differences in learners within that style. For example, a person whose highest score is in one style may also score almost as high in a second style. One person, therefore, may score highest in the assimilator mode but may also score almost as high in the diverger mode. Another person whose highest score is in the assimilator mode may have a second high score in the converger mode. A third person may score almost totally within the assimilator mode with very low scores in one or more of the other modes. These three assimilators,

therefore, will have some similar traits yet differ in some aspects.

Summary of the Learning Styles David Kolb derived the four learning styles from the ways people perceive and process information. Figure 1 illustrates the theory by superimposing a vertical line representing ways of perceiving information and a horizontal line representing ways of processing information. In perceiving information, learners fall somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes of concrete experience (feeling) and abstract conceptualization (thinking). In processing information, learners fall somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes of active experimentation (doing) and reflective observation (watching) [7-9]. CONCRETE EXPERIENCE (Feeling)

ACCOMMODATORS

DIVERGERS

ACTIVE EXPERIMENTATION (Doing)

REFLECTIVE OBSERVATION (Watching)

CONVERGERS

ASSIMILATORS

(Thinking) ABSTRACT CONCEPTUALIZATION

Figure 1. Kolb Learning Styles. Experience Based Learning Systems, 1981, revised 1985. Developed by David A. Kolb. Used by permission of McBer and Company, Inc., 116 Huntingdon Ave., Boston, Mass. 02116. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory indicates four equally valuable learning styles. The four Kolb learning styles (Figure 1) are divergers, assimilators, convergers, and accommodators [7-9]. Basic premises of Kolb theory are the following: • Learners can operate in all four styles as needed but usually prefer one style more than the others • Learners generally prefer to send information in the way they prefer to receive it In 1979, Bernice McCarthy developed the 4MAT System of learning theory using Kolb's Learning Style

Inventory and Experiential Learning Model. She referred to the four learning styles as "types," with each learning style having favorite questions. The types correspond to the four Kolb learning styles as follows: • Type 1 - Divergers (favorite question: "Why") • Type 2 - Assimilators (favorite question: "What") • Type 3 - Convergers (favorite question: "How") • Type 4 - Accommodators (favorite question: "What If") [10, 11] (McCarthy later created and published another inventory, the Learning Type Measure, to replace the Kolb LSI in her 4MAT System) [12, 13]. Divergers (Type 1) Divergers are so named because they excel at viewing an event or idea from many divergent perspectives and at brainstorming divergent alternatives. They perceive information concretely and process it reflectively. Their favorite question is "Why?" as in "Why should I learn this and why is it important to me personally or to individuals?" They are imaginative learners with the following characteristics: • value harmony and understanding others • are oriented toward feelings and people • judge people by their treatment of others • seek personal meaning and integrate experience with personal values • see many perspectives and imagine implications of ambiguous situations • excel at insight thinking, brainstorming, creativity, and working in groups • learn by sharing ideas and feelings • prefer the instructor/leader to give personal attention and to be a motivator and witness of their learning • may become indecisive and hampered by too many alternatives [5, 7-11, 13] Assimilators (Type 2) Assimilators are so named because they excel at assimilating knowledge into an integrated whole from separate pieces of information. They perceive information abstractly and process it reflectively. Their favorite question is "What?" as in "What are the facts?" They are analytic learners with these characteristics: • value logic and order • require facts, accurate information, and expert opinion • focus on concepts and ideas • will work in groups if assigned but prefer working alone

• tend to be detail-oriented and cautious • learn by reading, observing, collecting data, and analyzing • form theories and procedures • are methodical, deliberate, and structured • excel at integrating knowledge, planning, and creating theories • prefer the instructor/leader to be an authority and enjoy traditional lectures • may sometimes be impractical and too theoretical [5, 7-11, 13] Convergers (Type 3) Convergers are so named because they like to converge quickly to make a decision or to obtain one correct answer. They perceive information abstractly and process it actively. Their favorite question is "How?" as in "How does this work?" or "How can I use this?" They are common sense learners with these characteristics: • value usefulness, productivity, and efficiency • need to know how things work • learn by applying and testing information and following a model • require action and hands-on experience • excel at practical application, strategic thinking, and quick decisions • work well with time lines and hate to waste time • like to get straight to the point and to the "bottom line" • prefer usually to work alone and sometimes see group work, especially group decision-making and discussion, as wasting time • prefer the instructor/leader to act as coach and guide • may act too quickly without enough data, consider important information as non-essential, or appear bossy and impersonal [5, 7-11, 13] Accommodators (Type 4) Accommodators are so named because they excel at accommodating or adapting knowledge to new situations. They perceive information concretely and process it actively. Their favorite question is "What if?" (or just "If. . .?") as in "What if I change this, I wonder what will happen?" They are dynamic learners with the following characteristics: • value variety, flexibility, new experience, and discovery • thrive on risk-taking and change • rely on "hunches" rather than logic to solve problems

• learn by trial and error and by teaching others • excel at creative problem solving, seeking new possibilities, enriching what is, and influencing others • like to be challenged and perform well in crisis situations • dislike strict procedures and schedules • like variety and unstructured settings and openended problems • rely on others for information in solving problems and not on their own technical analysis • work well in groups and enjoy discussion • prefer the instructor/leader to act as a resource and evaluator • may have impractical plans, get behind schedule, be mired in trivial activities, and appear pushy and manipulative sometimes [5, 7-11, 13] Possible Conflicts Among Learners In communication and group work situations, possibilities of conflict arise when differences occur among the four styles. Indeed, learners with opposite styles tend to frustrate each other the most. Although exact opposites have special synergies when their differences complement, they become antagonists when differences conflict. Thus, Types 1 (divergers) and 3 (convergers) tend to complement yet antagonize each other. Similarly, Types 2 (assimilators) and 4 (accommodators) complement each other's strengths and weaknesses but conflict when differences escalate [13]. For example, when communicating with a varied audience, accommodators may present a good idea that assimilators think lacks logical support. Likewise, in the lab, a group member with one learning style preference may at times stifle or frustrate another group member with the opposite style. One person's learning style preference, however, does not have to be exactly the opposite from another's to cause conflict. As long as a difference occurs, there may be problems. For instance, in the lab, assimilators, who want to keep collecting more data to ensure accuracy, often frustrate convergers, who want to finish collecting data quickly to complete the assigned task on time.

Teaching Kolb Theory in Two Courses The following questions indicate issues for students in my two courses to consider although the emphasis differs somewhat in each course: 1. Are your scores on the Kolb Learning Style Inventory good indicators of your learning style? 2. How would you describe the way you learn, including your learning strengths and weaknesses? 3. What kind of environment helps you learn best?

4. 5. 6.

What methods help you learn best? What stifles your learning? Can you give examples of times your style conflicted with or corresponded to the styles of instructors or other students? 7. What are some specific communication techniques for each learning style? 8. What are some strategies for being a better team member or leader in the lab? 9. How can you capitalize on your learning style in communication and teamwork tasks? 10. What communication or teamwork tasks are most likely to cause you problems? 11. How can you more effectively honor all learning styles in communication and teamwork tasks? Technical Communication Course In my technical communication course, although we may briefly discuss using Kolb theory to improve teamwork, students focus on applying Kolb theory to audience analysis and strategies for written and oral communication. They adapt two assignments, one written and one oral, to various learning styles. In preparation, students take the Kolb test, listen to my interactive lectures, discuss concepts, study a lengthy handout, and analyze situations at work and at school. The handout presents information about the four styles, lists possible presentation strategies, and includes some information helpful for teamwork. For analyzing situations, I often use pictures. For instance, students analyze a picture of a male student in class tapping his foot and looking out the window. It is clear that he is not paying attention, but students must discuss the reasons why. I encourage students to guess what actions might be attributed to each style or how different styles might respond to a work or classroom issue. When I created these scenarios, I had a particular learning style in mind for each to illustrate. Any analysis, however, is acceptable as long as it does not contradict Kolb theory (since the purpose is to familiarize students with the theory so that they can later apply it). An incident, therefore, may be attributed to more than one learning style for different reasons. In the picture just described, the student is obviously bored, possibly bored with a speaker who has been lecturing too long. The student could be a converger wanting to get to the lab for "hands-on" work or an accommodator bored by too much detailed procedure. In another example, a picture of students sitting in a circle and busily chatting may be divergers who enjoy sharing ideas or accommodators who also enjoy group discussion. They may, however, be convergers who are doing the assigned discussion task quickly so that they can stop group work and move on to

another task. (Of course, a converger reading this paper may now be frustrated with this ambiguity since convergers like only one correct answer!) We discuss an oral presentation scenario where an engineer is proposing an idea to his or her company. Students analyze how they would present the idea to each of the four learning styles. We discuss what each style values and what techniques would target these values. For example, divergers value harmony and seek personal meaning. They might be attuned to aspects of a proposal that would affect the benefits to employees or to the employees' morale. Assimilators value accuracy, logic, and facts; thus, they might be interested in a logical, organized presentation with precise details about what has been done before or what other companies have learned. Convergers value practicality and getting things done, so they might be most concerned with the actions, cost, and number of people needed to accomplish the project and the usefulness of the project. Accommodators are interested in experimentation and improving things for the future, so they might respond well to an enthusiastic description of a project’s future outcome. Engineers can use these kinds of strategies for tailoring content to the audience in either written or oral communication. Of course, in certain settings, such as training sessions and seminars, engineers can also use various presentation techniques recommended for teachers [7, 14]. After we spend at least two class periods on learning style theory, each student prepares a short persuasive oral presentation (8 to 10 minutes) with visuals, designed to appeal in some way to each of the four styles. Before giving the presentation, each student writes a memo proposal to me requesting topic approval and explaining methods used to appeal to each style. Since I am the sole audience for the proposal, we discuss my learning style and methods for targeting it. Combined Chemical EngineeringLab/Technical Communication Course In the combined chemical engineering lab/technical communication course, I emphasize applying Kolb theory to leadership and interaction of lab group members. Students receive a handout similar to the one in the other course, except that it has more information on teaming and leadership skills. For example, it includes Kolb's information about strengths and weaknesses of each combination of partners (assimilator/converger, converger/diverger, etc.) [7] and also describes leadership styles. I have adapted McCarthy’s descriptions [15, 16] of the four types of leaders, categorizing them as to personal style, goals, response to people, decision-making and problem-solving style, style of authority, sources of motivation and energy, source of inner conflict, and

communication styles. Sometimes the students do freewriting exercises, describing how they learn best and when they learn least. They then apply these ideas to learning in their classes and to working with others. In addition to taking the LSI, students hear lectures and analyze situations, much as the students in the other course do. I point out that although many variables can affect behavior, we are focusing on possible ways that learning style may affect teamwork. We talk about mixing and matching group characteristics and possible consequences. We also discuss possible conflicts and describe past issues. For example, in one lab, two students in the same group had a conflict as they were taking measurements from a multi-stage distillation column two stories high. The student at the top of the column, a converger, was yelling commands to a student at the bottom, a diverger. The converger was concerned with getting something done quickly before the column flooded. He was totally unaware that he was being gruff and insensitive in the opinion of the diverger, who took the incident personally and was, therefore, hurt and angry. The converger was focused on the equipment, time constraints, and getting things done. On the other hand, the diverger was focused on the goal of working together in harmony to complete the task. Throughout the semester, students keep a journal (called a teamwork log) in which they relate events in lab each week and analyze interactions according to Kolb theory. When they first begin the journal, I sometimes give them a few minutes of class time to write. They, therefore, have the opportunity to ask more questions about what they should write and I can clarify the theory. Thereafter they write in their journals outside of class. I collect the journals twice, once at midterm to read and offer suggestions about applying the theory and once at the end. In addition, at the end of the term the students write a memo analysis, interpreting their lab group's interaction and leadership styles in light of Kolb theory. (Since the leadership role rotates, each group member becomes a leader for at least one experiment). They discuss all members of their group, including themselves, and analyze how the group achieved consensus, performed tasks, and resolved conflicts. They also comment on whether they think the Kolb test results do appropriately describe the person or if the person's actions indicate another learning style or combination of styles.

Conclusion My students, for the most part, enjoy trying to apply Kolb theory in technical communication class. Even the skeptics are usually amazed at how well the descriptions of their learning styles fit them. Kolb theory provides a means to discuss differences in people and a basis for devising

effective communication strategies. Engineering students can use Kolb theory in these ways: • to analyze the audience • to deliver oral and written messages to that audience in a variety of ways • to eliminate judgmental attitudes toward those with different learning styles • to develop strategies to increase harmony and productivity when working in teams • to get more from their current college experience and personal relationships For all these reasons, I plan to keep teaching Kolb learning theory as part of my technical communication classes for prospective engineers.

References 1. Stice, J.E., “Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning,” Engineering Education, Vol. 77, No. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 291-296. 2. Felder, R. M., and L. K. Silverman, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education,” Engineering Education, Vol. 78, April 1988, pp. 672681. 3. Harb, J. N., S. O. Durrant, and R. E. Terry, “Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle and the 4MAT System in Engineering Education,” Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 70-77. 4. Sharp, J. E., J. N. Harb, and R. E. Terry, “Combining Kolb Learning Styles and Writing to Learn in Engineering Classes,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 86, No. 2, April 1997, pp. 93-101. 5. Sharp, J. E., “Applying Kolb Learning Style Theory in the Communication Classroom,” Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 2, June 1997, pp. 129-134. 6. Felder, R. M., “Matters of Style,” ASEE PRISM, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 1996, pp. 18-23. 7. Smith, D. M., and D. A. Kolb, User’s Guide for the Learning Style Inventory, Boston: McBer and Co., 1986. 8. Kolb, D. A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984. 9. Kolb, D. A., LSI Learning-Style Inventory: SelfScoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet, Boston: McBer and Company, 1985. 10. McCarthy, B., The 4MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right-Left Mode Techniques, Barrington , Ill: EXCEL, Inc., 1986. 11. Samples, B., B. Hammond, and B. McCarthy, 4MAT and Science: Toward Wholeness in Science Education, EXCEL, Inc., Barrington, Ill.: 1985.

12. McCarthy, B., and C. St. Germain, The Learning Type Measure, Barrington, Ill: EXCEL, Inc., 1993. 13. Hunkeler, D., and J. E. Sharp, “Assigning Functional Groups: The Influence of Group Size, Academic Record, Practical Experience, and Learning Style,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 86, No. 4, October 1997, pp. 321-332. 14. Harb, J. N., R. E. Terry, P. K. Hurt, and K. J. Williamson, Teaching Through the Cycle: Application of Learning Style Theory to Engineering Education at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 1995. 15. McCarthy, B., Individual color-coded sheets distributed with the Kolb Learning Style Inventory: “Type One Learners,” “Type Two Learners,” “Type Three Learners,” “Type Four Learners,” Barrington, Ill: EXCEL, Inc., 1992. 16. McCarthy, B., LBI: Leadership Behavior Inventory, Barrington, Ill., EXCEL, Inc., 1989.