Learning and Teaching Styles Inductive and Deductive Learners
Felder, R.M., and Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engr. Education, 78(7), 674-681.
http://www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching
Induction is a reasoning progression that proceeds from particulars (observations, measurements, data) to generalities (governing rules, laws, theories). Deduction proceeds in the opposite direction. In induction one infers principles in deduction one deduces consequences.
Induction is the natural human learning style. Babies do not come into life with a set of general principles but rather observe the world around them and draw inferences: “If I throw my bottle and scream loudly, someone eventually shows up.” Most of what we learn on our own (as opposed to in class) originates in a real situation or problem that needs to be addressed and solved, not in a general principle; deduction may be part of the solution process but it is never the entire process.
On the other hand, deduction is the natural human teaching style at least for technical subjects at the college level. Stating the governing principles and working down to the applications is an efficient and elegant way to organize and present material that is already understood. Consequently, most engineering curricula are laid out along deductive lines, beginning with “fundamentals: for sophomores and arriving at design and operations by the senior year. A similar progression is normally used to present material within individual courses: principles first, applications later (if ever).
Our informal survey suggests that most engineering students view themselves as inductive learners. We also asked a group of engineering professors to identify their own learning and teaching styles: half of the 456 professors identified themselves as inductive and half as deductive. To the extent that these results can be generalized, in the organization of information along inductive deductive lines – as in the other dimensions discussed so far- a mismatch thus exists between the learning styles of most engineering students and the teaching style to which they are also invariably exposed.
One problem with deductive presentation is that it gives a seriously misleading impression. When students see a perfectly ordered and concise exposition of a relatively complex derivation they tend to think that the author/instructor originally came up with the material in the same neat fashion, which they (the students) could never have done. They may then conclude that the course and perhaps the curriculum and the profession are beyond their abilities. They are correct in thinking that they could not have come with that result in that manner; what they do not know is that neither could the professor nor the author the first time around. Unfortunately, students never get to see the real process – the false starts and blind alleys, the extensive trial-and error efforts that eventually lead to the elegant presentation in the book or on the boards. An element of inductive teaching is necessary for the instructor to be able to diminish the students’ awe and increase their realistic perceptions of problem-solving.
Much research supports the notion that the inductive teaching approach promotes effective learning. The benefits claimed for this approach include increased academic achievement and enhanced abstract reasoning skills, longer retention of information, improved ability to apply principles, confidence in problem-solving.
Inductive learners need motivation for learning. They do not feel comfortable with the “Trust me- this stuff will be useful to you some day” approach: like sensors, they need to see the phenomena before they can understand and appreciate the underlying theory.
How to teach both deductive and inductive learners: an effective way to reach both groups is to follow the scientific method in classroom presentations: first induction, then deduction. The instructor precedes presentations of theoretical material with a statement of observable phenomena that the theory will explain or of a physical problem the theory will be used to solve; infers the governing rules or principles that explain the observed phenomena; and deduces other implications and consequences of the inferred principles. Perhaps most important, some homework problems should be assigned that present phenomena and ask for the underlying rules. Such problems play to the inductive learners’ strength and they also help deductive learners develop facility with their less-preferred learning mode. Several such exercises have been suggested for different branches of engineering.”
