Elsevier

Design Studies

Volume 44, May 2016, Pages 28-51
Design Studies

An inquiry into the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.009Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Design students prefer to learn facts and data instead of concepts and theories.

  • Design students prefer visual information and remember as visual pictures.

  • Design students depict social oriented behaviour and learn best by doing.

  • Significant interactions occur among thinking and learning style scales.

  • Design teaching methods should address students' learning experiences.

This study explores the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students using Felder–Soloman's Index of Learning Styles. Considering the learning and knowledge-building skills of students in design education, this study concludes that the instructor should not only be a conveyor of knowledge but also a facilitator. The findings indicate that design students' preferred learning styles are as follows, in descending order: Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective and Sequential/Global. In the two-way analysis, where the student's design studio grade was the dependent variable, significant effects were obtained for each scale. Furthermore, double interactions were highly significant between the Active/Reflective and Sensing/Intuitive scales and between the Active/Reflective and Sequential/Global scales.

Section snippets

Previous studies related to learning styles in design education

Learning in design is an internal process that is different for each student. A student's preferred method for receiving information in any learning environment is his or her learning style. As evident from the literature, various learning-style models are employed in design education. The most common models are the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Durling et al., 1996, Russ and Weber, 1995), Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI) (Carmel-Gilfilen, 2012, Demirbas and Demirkan, 2003,

Learning and knowledge-building processes in design education

Based on previous studies related to learning styles in design education, this study revised Felder–Soloman's ILS and adapted its usage to determine the learning styles and knowledge-processing acts of interior architecture students. In this study, the four scales of ILS are grouped into two categories: learning styles (knowledge perceiving) and thinking styles (knowledge processing). In this revised model, learning style is displayed by how students perceive information (sensorially or

Interior architecture and environmental design education

The aim of an interior architecture and environmental design program is to graduate qualified and experienced designers who will enhance the function and quality of interior spaces to improve quality of life, increase productivity and protect the public's health, safety and welfare. Design education's main philosophy is to educate students who can synthesize the acquired knowledge and solve design problems from various points of view. Cognizant of the impacts of new technologies and knowledge

Participants

This study was conducted with a sample of 218 students in the Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. The age range was between 18 and 28 years, with a mean of 21.06 years (st. dev. 1.73). The participants comprised 50 males and 168 females in total, with118 first-year (25 males and 93 females) and 100 fourth-year (25 males and 75 females) students. A stratified sampling method was conducted among all students, and they were informed

Learning-style characteristics according to year

Using the ILS, the distribution of the first and fourth year interior architecture students according to the four scales with the relevant mean scores and standard deviations were determined (Table 1). Firstly, it was tested if there was a difference between first- and fourth-year students in the four scales. According to Levene's test for equality of variances, showing the p values for the Active/Reflective scale (p = 0.482), Sensing/Intuitive scale (p = 0.702), Visual/Verbal scale (p = 0.743)

On the distribution of learning scales

This study showed that learning style preference did not differ significantly among the Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal and Sequential/Global scales according to student year of study. However, using the ILS, Mostafa and Mostafa (2010) found that second-year architecture students were more active and reflective than first-year architecture students. The authors concluded that there is shift towards a more active-learning mode as students' progress through university. Since

Implications for interior architecture education

According to the findings, the interior architecture students were balanced on the Active/Reflective and Sensing/Intuitive scales. A moderate to strong preference on the Visual/Verbal scale and a weak preference on the Sequential/Global scale were observed. Felder (1996) noted that since instructional approaches present information in ways that appeal to all types of learning methods, it is important to consider all learning styles in teaching. According to Felder (1993: 289), it is important

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and valuable insights in improving the paper.

References (37)

  • J.Y. Cho et al.

    Does the medium matter in collaboration? Using visually supported collaboration technology in an interior design studio

    International Journal of Technology and Design Education

    (2015)
  • H. Demirkan

    Frameworks for decision-making in design for the aging

  • D. Durling et al.

    Personality and learning preferences of students in design and design-related disciplines

  • R.M. Felder

    Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science education

    Journal of College Science Teaching

    (1993)
  • R.M. Felder

    Matters of style

    ASEE Prism

    (1996)
  • R.M. Felder et al.

    Understanding student differences

    Journal of Engineering Education

    (2005)
  • R.M. Felder et al.

    Learning and teaching styles in engineering education

    Engineering Education

    (1988)
  • R.M. Felder et al.

    Index of Learning Styles

    (2004)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text