Learning Styles, Study Habits, and Learning Modalities of Mechanical Engineering Students at Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology (BISCAST)

The proposed research is a descriptive study involving an analysis of the learning styles, study habits, choice of learning modality among students of Mechanical Engineering school at Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology (BISCAST) and to propose a policy that address these differneces. The quantitative descriptive design was employed to collect the data which was collected using a structured questionnaire used on students of various year levels. The results show consistency in developmental trends by the students as they go through the program. Reflection, sensing, visual, and sequential learning preferences with a higher preference of face to face teaching and relatively weak study habits are typical of first-year students. However, the senior students have been found to move towards active, intuitive, global, and verbal learning orientations, as well as more sophisticated self-regulated learning styles of effective time management, strategic review, and sustained problem solving practice. Blended and online learning modalities are also more favored by higher year levels, indicating rising learner autonomy, computer skills and confidence in performing complex academic tasks. The correlation analyses also support the strong positive correlation between the active-intuitive learning styles, effective study habits, and preference to use blended or online modalities. These findings imply that learning preferences and behaviors are not predetermined characteristics but they change based on academic requirements and the exposure to instructions. Thus the researchers, proposes a policy advocates for a developmentally scaffolded instructional approach that aligns learning styles, study skills support, and learning modalities with students’ year-level progression to promote autonomous and flexible learning in the Mechanical Engineering program. This paper highlights the significance of scaffolded pedagogical practices whereby the instructional strategies are matched to the stages of development of students favoring the progressive transfer of guided learning to autonomous, integrative, and flexible learning conditions in engineering education.

learning styles; study habits; learning modality preferences; Mechanical Engineering students; self-regulated learning

1. Alhazmi, A. K., & Rahman, A. A. (2022). Self-regulated learning strategies in online and blended learning environments: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 3353–3379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10787-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Binsardi, A., & Ekwall, D. (2023). Quantitative descriptive research in higher education: Trends and applications. Journal of Educational Measurement and Research, 12(1), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Biwer, F. (2025). How undergraduate engineering students regulate their learning strategies across year levels. International Journal of Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2025.2458117 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Broadbent, J. (2021). Comparing online and blended learner engagement and self-regulated learning strategies. The Internet and Higher Education, 50, 100805. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Broadbent, J., & Lodge, J. M. (2023). Self-regulated learning and engagement in blended and online higher education environments. Internet and Higher Education, 56, 100879. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chen, Y., & Huang, S. (2023). Reliability assessment in educational surveys: A practical approach. Educational Research Quarterly, 46(2), 123–136. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Del Rosario, J. R., & Cruz, E. L. (2023). Ethical considerations in student perception research: Guidelines for Philippine universities. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 18(3), 79–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Faza, A. (2025). Self-regulated learning in the digital age: Strategies and impacts on student engagement and study habits. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/8119 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Garcia, F. D., & Santos, M. J. (2024). Contextualized learning analytics for engineering programs in regional institutions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 40(2), 207–219. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Guntur, M., & Purnomo, Y. W. (2024). A meta analysis of self regulated learning interventions studies on learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Online Learning Journal, 28(3), 563–584. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2024). The role of self-regulated learning and digital competence in students’ acceptance of blended learning. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 219–240. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11864-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kintu, M. J., Zhu, C., & Kagambe, E. (2023). Blended learning effectiveness: The relationship between student characteristics, design features, and learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(12), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00382-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 169–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1749680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lim, C. P., Wang, T., & Graham, C. R. (2025). Student readiness and progression in blended learning environments: A longitudinal perspective. Computers & Education, 203, 104851. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.104851 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lima, R. M., Mesquita, D., & Flores, M. A. (2021). Rethinking engineering education through active learning and curriculum innovation. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1825197 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lobos, K. (2024). New challenges for higher education: Self regulated learning in blended learning contexts. Frontiers in Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lopez, A. P., & Tan, R. G. (2025). Stratified sampling in educational research: Ensuring group representation. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational Methods, 9(1), 33–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Luo, R. Z. (2024). The effectiveness of self regulated learning strategies in blended learning in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Martinez, S. F., & Rivera, T. M. (2024). Application of ANOVA in descriptive educational studies. Journal of Education and Development, 11(4), 55–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Martín-Rodríguez, Ó., Fernández-García, A. J., & González-Gómez, D. (2024). University students’ preferences for face-to-face, online, and blended learning: The role of academic experience. Education Sciences, 14(2), 145. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Means, B., & Neisler, J. (2021). Teaching and learning in the time of COVID: The student perspective. Online Learning Journal, 25(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v25i1.2496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Nguyen, H. T., & Park, J. (2025). Reducing social desirability bias in self-reported student surveys. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(1), 88–103. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Prince, M. J., Vigeant, M. A. S., & Nottis, K. (2020). Development of the faculty engagement in teaching survey. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20308 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Smith, K. L., & Lee, J. H. (2024). Evidence-based instructional planning in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 15(1), 89–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Sola-Guirado, R. R. (2024). Enhancing self-regulated learning in engineering education: A review of strategies and outcomes. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cae.22756 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• The Impact Of UI/UX Design on User Trust and Task Completion in Civic Tech Platforms
• Solar Cell Photovoltaic Model Shell Sp 75
• Development of an Intelligent Traffic Management System to Address Visibility Obstruction at Urban Intersections: A Case Study of Ibadan Metropolis
• Optimum Placement of Facts Devices on an Interconnected Power Systems Using Particle Swarm Optimisation Technique
• Assessing Construction Transformation and Implication on Future Production Flow System