The Kansei Design Characteristics towards Learning Style

The individuals possess unique ways of how they learn. Based on this perspective, each of individuals will approach the general learning experiences in a personal and individualized way related to his/her performance and behavior. This study is to analyze the characteristics of product design using Kansei Engineering approach towards the student learning style based on Felder and Soloman's theory. Using the 8 (eight) spectacles designs proposed comparing the emotional feeling towards design of product, the study involved 100 students who are using spectacles as the respondents. Focusing on the perception and input dimensions of the Felder-Soloman learning styles comprised in 22 questions and the Crane cognitive alert styles in 9 questions, the result of study shows that the students who are using spectacles are dominated by “the visual” type of Felder-Soloman learning styles. In addition, based on the using of Kansei Engineering, this study also found that the respondents tend to interpret the rimless design of spectacles as “fragile,” “unattractive,” “old-fashion” product, while the design with thicker frame as “durable,” “attractive,” cool,” “ergonomic” product. In this study, there are also the significant correlations proved against the preferences of product design based on quality affective (Kansei Engineering) using learning styles and cognitive alert styles.

[1]  Carolyn Cropper.  Teaching for Different Learning Styles , 1994 .

[2]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[3]  R. Dunn,et al.  Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education , 2000 .

[4]  C. Cornett.  What You Should Know About Teaching and Learning Styles , 1983 .

[5]  Student Performance: Conduct and Behavior Concerns. , 2009 .

[6]  Chun-Chun Wei,et al.  Applying Kansei Engineering to Decision Making in Fragrance Form Design , 2011 .

[7]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Learning Styles , 2008, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[8]  Tony Grasha,et al.  The Naturalistic Approach to Learning Styles , 1990 .

[9]  K. Dunn,et al.  Learning Styles/Teaching Styles: Should They ... Can They ... Be Matched?. , 1979 .

[10]  R. Felder,et al.  Understanding Student Differences , 2005 .

[11]  Jean Choi,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships among Cognitive Abilities, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preferences in Students Enrolled in Specialized Degree Courses at a Canadian College. , 2011 .

[12]  T. Saaty.  Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[13]  Paul R. Drake,et al.  Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Engineering Education , 1998 .

[14]  G. Pask.  STYLES AND STRATEGIES OF LEARNING , 1976 .

[15]  Raffaello Seri,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[16]  Ru-Chu Shih,et al.  An AHP-Based Weighted Analysis of Network Knowledge Management Platforms for Elementary School Students , 2011 .

[17]  Elizabeth Boyle,et al.  The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance , 2004 .

[18]  SeungHee Lee.  Pleasure with Products : Design based on Kansei , 2000 .

[19]  Maleika Heenaye,et al.  Analysis of Felder-Solomon Index of Learning Styles of Students from Management and Engineering at the University of Mauritius , 2012 .

[20]  Eugene Sadler-Smith,et al.  Learning styles: a holistic approach , 1996 .

[21]  S. Cassidy,et al.  Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures , 2004 .

[22]  Harvey F. Silver,et al.  Learning Styles and Strategies , 1996 .

[23]  L. Curry,et al.  Patterns of Learning Style Across Selected Medical Specialties , 1991 .