Abstract
Textile design is a subject that encompasses both design and technology; aesthetically pleasing patterns and forms must be set within technical parameters to create successful fabrics. When considering education methods in design programmes, identifying the most relevant learning approach is key to creating future successes. Yet are the most suitable teaching methods being utilised? This paper discusses the learning styles of textile and fashion design students at The University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University and identifies their overall learning style biases. It then goes on to compare these two institutional approaches and examines whether the teaching methods used suitably match student learning biases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- HEI:
-
Higher Education Institute
- LSI:
-
Learning Style Inventory
- LSQ:
-
Learning Styles Questionnaire
- MMU:
-
Manchester Metropolitan University
References
Bennett, C., Foreman-Peck, L. & Higgins, C.: 1996, Researching into Teaching Methods in Colleges and Universities, Kogan Page.
Biggs, J.: 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
A. Davies (1996) Exploration of Evaluation and Research Methods for Improving Student Learning in Art and Design G. Gibbs (Eds) Improving Student Learning, Using Research to Improve Student Learning The Oxford Centre for Staff Development Oxford 146–154
A. Duff (2000) ArticleTitle‘Learning Styles of UK Higher Education Students’ Bristol Business School Teaching and Research Review 3 1–17
Entwistle, N.: 1998, An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers and Lecturers, David Fulton Publishers.
N. D. Fleming (1996) VARK Lincoln University New Zealand
J. Hayes C. W. Allinson (1996) ArticleTitle‘The Implications of Learning Styles for Training and Development: A Discussion of the Matching Hypothesis’ British Journal of Management 7 IssueID1 63–73 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00106.x
Honey, P. & Mumford, A.: 1992, The Manual of Learning Styles. Peter Honey.
Hudson, L.: 1966, Contrary Imaginations, Methuen.
B. Jackson (1995) Assessment Practices in Art and Design: A Contribution to Student Learning? G. Gibbs (Eds) Improving Student Learning, Through Assessment and Evaluation The Oxford Centre for Staff Development Oxford 154–167
R. Kelly (2005) 14–19 Education and Skills Department for Education and Skills The Stationary Office Limited
Kolb, D. A.: 1984, Experiential Learning, P. T. R. Prentice Hall.
F. Marton R. Saljo (1976) ArticleTitle‘On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I – Outcome and Process’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 4–11
Reece, I. & Walker, S.: 1997, Teaching Training and Learning. Business Education Publishers.
T. J. Shuell (1986) ArticleTitle‘Cognitive Conceptions of Learning’ Review of Educational Research 56 IssueID4 411–436
J. Wright L. Cushman A. Nicholson (2002) ArticleTitle‘Reconciling Industry and Academia: Perspectives on the Apparel Design Curriculum’ Education and Training 44 IssueID3 122–128
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sayer, K., Studd, R. Matching Learning Style Preferences with Suitable Delivery Methods on Textile Design Programmes. Int J Technol Des Educ 16, 163–176 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-4327-y
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-4327-y