Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Association Between Lean Manufacturing Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning Preferences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Progress in Lean Manufacturing

Part of the book series: Management and Industrial Engineering ((MINEN))

Abstract

As more companies embrace the concept of Lean Manufacturing (LM), universities should consider changing their curricula since there is a high likelihood that students will participate in some aspects of LM as they begin their professional careers. Thus, it is important to provide appropriate learning experiences to prepare students prior to LM. However, students may learn through several ways and teaching LM has proved to be extremely challenging, especially for engineering students who are not used to abstractions. This paper aims at examining the association between different LM teaching methods and students’ learning preferences to increase their performance in courses. To achieve that, 76 graduate students from Industrial Engineering, who participated in two LM courses with different teaching methods were assessed according to their learning preferences and performance. Each LM course had a specific teaching approach: (i) classroom lectures and exercises (classified as traditional teaching methods), and (ii) problem-based learning (PBL) in real-world problems from companies undergoing an LM implementation. From the eight hypotheses formulated for this study, our results verified four of them, being two for each LM teaching method applied. Further, the effect of the learning dimension “information perception” seems to be more extensive than the others, since students’ performance in both teaching methods is significantly associated with it. The mix between active learning methods and traditional teaching methods may facilitate dialogical learning, encouraging collaboration between students and facilitate the transfer of knowledge on LM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abishova, G., Bostanova, A., Isaev, A., Erimova, A., Salybekova, N., Serzhanova, A., et al. (2014). Teaching practice using interactive methods at the higher educational establishments. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 630–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), 460–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aij, K., Simons, F., Widdershoven, G., & Visse, M. (2013). Experiences of leaders in the implementation of Lean in a teaching hospital-barriers and facilitators in clinical practices: A qualitative study. British Medical Journal Open, 3, e003605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alves, A., Kahlen, F., Flumerfelt, S., & Manalang, A. (2014). The lean production multidisciplinary: From operations to education. In Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Production Research, Americas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariani, D. (2013). Personality and learning motivation. European Journal of Business and Management, 5, 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badurdeen, F., Marksberry, P., Hall, A., & Gregory, B. (2009). Teaching lean manufacturing with simulations and games: A survey and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 4(4), 465–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayram, S., Deniz, L., & Erdoğan, Y. (2008). The role of personality traits in web-based education. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology–TOJET, 7(2), 5–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bédard, D., Lison, C., Dalle, D., Côté, D., & Boutin, N. (2012). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering and medicine: Determinants of students’ engagement and persistence. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell-Holmes, T., & Hoffman, P. (2000). Elicit, engage, experience, explore: Discovery learning in library instruction. Reference Service Review, 28(4), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, T., Scherrer-Rathje, M., & Stuart, I. (2011). Learning to be lean: The influence of external information sources in lean improvements. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(5), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candido, J., Murman, E., & McManus, H. (2007). Active learning strategies for teaching lean thinking. In Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO Conference, Cambridge, MA, June 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the project approach. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 8(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, S., & Miller, R. (2013). Problem-based learning for a lean six sigma course, University of Dallas, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 13(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conger, S., & Miller, R. (2014). Problem-based learning applied to student consulting in a lean production course. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14(1), 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrios, B., Labors, S., Nikolaos, K., Maria, K., & Athanasios, K. (2013). Traditional teaching methods vs. teaching through the application of information and communication technologies in the accounting field: Quo vadis? European Scientific Journal, 9(28), 73–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukovska-Popovska, I., Hove-Madsen, V., & Nielsen, K. (2008). Teaching lean thinking through game: Some challenges. In Proceedings of the 36th European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) on Quality Assessment, Employability & Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emiliani, B. (2013). The lean professor: Become a better teacher using lean principles and practices. LLC, Wethersfield, CT: The CLBM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emiliani, B. (2014a). Teaching survey’s—interim results. The Lean Professor blog post, 5 January. Available at: http://leanprofessor.com/blog/2014/01/05/teaching-surveys-interim-results/. Accessed on June 20, 2017.

  • Emiliani, B. (2014b). What is good quality teaching?—Survey results. The Lean Professor blog post, 13 February. Available at: http://leanprofessor.com/blog/2014/02/13/good-quality-teaching-survey-results/. Accessed on June 20, 2017.

  • Emiliani, M. (2015). Engaging faculty in lean teaching. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 6(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., Felder, G., & Diez, E. (1998). A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and retention versus comparisons with traditionally-taught students. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 469–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., Felder, G., & Dietz, E. (2002). The effects of personality type on engineering student performance and attitudes. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R., & Soloman, B. (2004). Index of Learning Styles (ILS). Available at: www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html. Accessed on May 5, 2016.

  • Felder, R., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, R. (2016). Learning styles: Key to enhance learning among student teachers of the B. ED course. International Education and Research Journal, 2(12), 54–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Melbourne, Australia: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Tatham, R., Anderson, R., & Black, W. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. NJ, Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, F. (2001). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper’s guide. First published on September 2000, revised edition April 2006. Available at: www.peterhoney.com.

  • Hughes, G. (2016). Identifying learning styles: A CPD article improved Grace Hughes’s knowledge of how to identify different learning styles. Nursing Standard, 31(16–18), 72–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Gerstenfeld, A., Zeng, A., Ramos, B., & Mishra, S. (2003). Teaching lean process design using a discovery approach. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahlen, F., Flumerfelt, S., Siriban-Manalang, A., & Alves, A. (2011). Benefits of lean teaching. In Proceedings of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (pp. 12–18).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaliská, L. (2012). Felder’s learning style concept and its index of learning style questionnaire in the Slovak conditions. Grant Journal, 1, 52–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanigolla, D., Cudney, E., & Corns, S. (2014). Enhancing engineering education using project-based learning for lean and six sigma. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(1), 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, C., & Ahlstom, P. (1996). Assessing changes towards lean production. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsioloudis, P., & Fantz, T. (2012). A comparative analysis of preferred learning and teaching styles for engineering, industrial, and technology education: Students and faculty. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatibi, M., & Khormaei, F. (2016). Learning and personality: A review. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 6(4), 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leon, H., Perez, M., Farris, J., & Beruvides, M. (2012). Integrating six sigma tools using team-learning processes. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(2), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker, J., & Meier, D. (2006). The Toyota way field book: A practical guide for implementing Toyota’s 4Ps. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litzinger, T., Lee, S., Wise, J., & Felder, R. (2007). A psychometric study of the index of learning styles©. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens, I., Colpaert, J., & De Boeck, L. (2010). Lean learning academy: An innovative learning concept in engineering curricula. In Proceedings of IHEPI 2010 Conference Paper, Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, L., McCreery, J., & Rothenberg, L. (2012). Facilitating lean learning and behaviors in hospitals during the early stages of lean implementation. Engineering Management Journal, 24(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., & Anderson, L. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24(4), 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManus, H., Rebentisch, E., Murman, E., & Stanke, A. (2007). Teaching lean thinking principles through hands-on simulations. In Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO Conference, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • McParland, M., Noble, L., & Livingston, G. (2004). The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical Education, 38, 859–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murman, E., McManus, H., & Candido, J. (2007). Enhancing faculty competency in lean thinking bodies of knowledge. In Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO Conference, Cambridge, MA, June 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puji, R., & Ahmad, A. (2016). Learning style of MBTI personality types in history learning at higher education. Scientific Journal of PPI-UKM, 3(6), 289–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach at higher education. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rultegde, S. (2016). What do teachers know about differentiated instruction? (Doctoral dissertation, Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Southern University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney, R., & Chason, S. (2005). Human behavior based exploratory model for successful implementation of lean enterprise in industry. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(2), 76–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, G. (2013). The effects of traditional teaching methods, project-based learning, and a blended teaching style on elementary students (Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Trevecca Nazarene, University School of Education).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, J., & Caulkin, S. (2007). Systems thinking, lean production and action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 4(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, R., & Ward, P. (2007). Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 785–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., Sullivan, W., & Shulman, L. (2008). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear, S. (2009). The high-velocity edge: How market leaders leverage operational excellence to beat the competition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear, S., & Bowen, H. (1999). Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Business Review, 77, 96–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stier, K. (2003). Teaching lean manufacturing concepts through project-based learning and simulation. Journal of Industrial Technology, 19(4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez-Barraza, M., & Rodríguez-González, F. (2015). Bringing Kaizen to the classroom: Lessons learned in an operations management course. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(9–10), 1002–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortorella, G., & Cauchick-Miguel, P. (2017). An initiative for integrating problem-based learning into a lean manufacturing course of an industrial engineering graduate program. Production, 27(Special Issue), e20162247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortorella, G., & Fogliatto, F. (2014). Method for assessing human resources management practices and organisational learning factors in a company under lean manufacturing implementation. International Journal of Production Research, 52(15), 4623–4645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tortorella, G., Maroding, G., Miorando, R., & Fogliatto, F. (2015). Learning organisation and human resources management practices: An exploratory research in medium-sized enterprises undergoing a lean implementation. International Journal of Production Research, 53(13), 3989–4000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, H., & Chen, F. (2008). A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying impacts of lean initiatives. International Journal of Production Research, 46(23), 6567–6584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Lean solutions: How companies and customers can create value and wealth together. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Ogan, A., Liu, T., Sung, Y., & Chang, K. (2016). The influence of using augmented reality on textbook support for learners of different learning styles. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), IEEE (pp. 107–114).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zywno, M. (2003). A contribution to validation of score meaning for Felder-Soloman’s index of learning styles. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

    Guilherme Luz Tortorella & Rogério Miorando

  2. Corporación Universidad de La Costa, Barranquilla, Colombia

    Aurora Patricia Piñeres Castillo

Authors
  1. Guilherme Luz Tortorella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rogério Miorando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aurora Patricia Piñeres Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guilherme Luz Tortorella .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    J. Paulo Davim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tortorella, G.L., Miorando, R., Castillo, A.P.P. (2018). Association Between Lean Manufacturing Teaching Methods and Students’ Learning Preferences. In: Davim, J. (eds) Progress in Lean Manufacturing. Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73648-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73648-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73647-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73648-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation