Applying learning styles in an online course.

Abstract

The paper aims to apply the literature on learning styles to develop a list of assumptions and guidelines that are further used to identify a learning style model for designing and developing a web-based course. It describes the process of integrating the learning style model into the design and development of an undergraduate online course, and provides information on the effects of the course design specifications on students' learning and their attitude and satisfaction.

Introduction

Experienced educators have long supported the notion that individual differences play an important role in learning and instruction. They agree that learners filter instruction through a set of individual lenses (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993) and tend to manipulate perceived information in different ways, and achieve understanding at different rates and in various learning contexts (Barbe & Milone, 1981; Como & Snow, 1986; Felder, 1993; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Pask, 1988). Experimental studies have also confirmed educators' beliefs by showing that students' styles of learning and thinking make a difference in their academic achievement (e.g., Kim & Michael, 1995; Saracho, 1993; Zhang, 2002). This research suggests that learners whose learning styles match with the given teaching or instructional style tend to retain information longer, apply it more effectively, and have more positive attitudes toward the subject of the course than those who experienced clashes in teaching/learning styles (e.g., Dunn, 1995; 1999; Felder, 1993; Riding & Grimly, 1999).

The concept of individual differences presents a profound challenge for educators. Learning style research is of enormous significance with respect to establishing the learner's contexts of application and learning, so that these understandings can be brought into account into the instructional design process. When designing instruction for a universal audience and for an environment that can easily be dominated by text-based communication and heavy reliance on independent learning skills (e.g., in online or Web-based courses), the teacher's challenge is to produce a course or instructional material that does not have an obvious tilt toward one learning and thinking style and is diversified enough to meet multiple learning styles.

This paper aims to: (1) use the literature on learning styles to develop a list of assumptions about the learning style, (2) use the list of assumption to identify a learning style model, (2) describe the process of integrating learning style theory into the design, development and implementation of an online course, and finally (3) provide information on the effects of this approach on students' learning and their attitude and satisfaction.

Learning Styles Research

Review of research on learning style theory does not point to a list of conclusive results. For instance, while some studies show that there may be qualitative changes in the learning style of an individual over time (e.g., Cornett, 1983; Pinto, Geiger, & Boyle, 1994; Price, 1980) others suggest that learning style is stable (e.g., Claxton & Ralston, 1978; Cornett, 1983; Kolb, 1976). Moreover, for each research study supporting the principle of matching instructional style and learning style (e.g., Canino & Cicchelli, 1988; Ford & Chen, 2001; Hudak, 1985; Schmeck, 1988; Witkin, 1978), there seems to be a study rejecting the matching hypothesis (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, 1989; Honey & Mumford, 1982; 1986; Kolb, 1985). Hence, it seems that there still remains much discussion about the nature of the construct of learning style and whether it is more effective to match or mismatch learning style with instructional style. Despite the above controversies in the literature and a variety of learning style approaches, we may develop a list of assumptions underlying the concept of learning styles on the basis of existing evidence. These assumptions that are less debatable can then be used as guidelines for designing flexible instruction.

* Learners exhibit different approaches to acquisition of knowledge (e.g., Kagan, 1976; Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1995; Sternberg, 1998; Witkin, 1978; Zhang, 1999, Zhang & Sternberg, 1998).

* Learning style may be assessed using a questionnaire or psychometric test. (e.g., Biggs, 1992; Gregorc, 1985; Myers, 1980; Myers & McCaulley, 1988; Steinberg, 1997) even though the test may primarily be a measure of time required to learn (Berliner, 1979; Carroll, 1989).

* Alternative theories of styles use a common root word ("style") and cover roughly similar attributes, but with a different label (Steinberg, 1998).

* Learners may alter their learning styles depending on the task (e.g., (e.g., Biggs, 1979; Entwistle, 1981; Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1995).

* By relating research on learning styles to the design of the learning environment, it is possible to study how learners approach their learning (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

* It is possible and desirable to adapt the instruction to accommodate differences in styles or preferences (e.g., Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977; Hudak & Anderson, 1984; Canino & Cicchelli, 1988).

Felder-Silverman Dimensions of Learning Styles: A Conceptual Model

A number of learning style models have been proposed over the last three decades (e.g., Hill's Cognitive Style Mapping, 1976; Kolb's Learning Styles, 1984; Dunn & Dunn Learning Styles, 1978; Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scales, 1996; Gregorc, Learning Styles, 1985; Hermann Brain Dominance Models, 1996; Felder-Silverman, Learning Model, 1988; Howard Gardener's Multiple Intelligence Theory, 1983) and each has been used in constructing courses in classes ranging from K to 16. Given the above-mentioned list of assumptions derived from the literature, the Felder-Silverman Dimensions of Learning Style model (1988) seems to be the most appropriate model for learning styles. Richard M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman developed their learning style model based on a composite of several theories (e.g., Jung's theory of psychological types, information processing). The model combines several dimensions presented in the Myers-Briggs model (Sensing/Intuitive) with Kolb's information processing dimension (Active/Reflective). It also avoids the complexity of the Dunn and Dunn model. The core idea of this model is that we, as instructors, should not teach each student exclusively according to his or her preferences, but rather to strive for a balance of instructional methods. They classify students' learning styles according to the following five questions (Soloman & Felder, 1998).

Question 1: What type of information does the student preferentially perceive? Student Learning Styles: Sensing learners--concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures. Intuitive learners--conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and meanings

Question 2: Through what sensory modality is sensory information most effectively perceived? Student Learning Styles:--Visual learners--prefer visual representations of presented material--pictures, diagrams, flow charts--Verbal learners--prefer written and spoken explanations

Question 3: With which organization of information is the student most comfortable? Student Learning Styles:--Inductive learners--prefer presentations that proceed from the specific to the general--Deductive learners--prefer presentations that go from the general to the specific

Question 4: How does the student prefer to process information? Student Learning Styles:--Active learners--learn by trying things out, working with others--Reflective learners--learn by thinking things through, working alone

Question 5. How does the student progress toward understanding? Student Learning Styles:--Sequential learners--linear, orderly, learn in small incremental steps--Global learners--holistic, system thinkers, learn in large leaps.

Given these five questions, Felder-Silverman (1988) and later Soloman and Felder (1998) developed the Index of Learning Style (ILS). The ILS is a 44 question, self-scoring instrument, which assesses preferences on four dimensions of learning (the fifth dimension, inductive/deductive was removed from the index later) (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, sequential/global).

Integrate Learning Style Model into the Design & Development of An Online Course

In the following section, I will discuss a course that was redesigned to integrate the learning style research. The course is an online undergraduate core course required of all education major students. It expects students to acquire knowledge of theoretical foundations of instructional design and to learn skills of applying the theories in the design practice. The course was designed for the web delivery using WebCT course management system.

The Felder and Silverman learning style model was used to integrate learning style theory into the design of the course. On the basis of this model, the course was designed to balance the learning tasks and activities so that they would accommodate all learners by taking into account five dimensions of the model. By providing balanced instructional strategies, the instructor assumed that students (1) would choose to learn in a manner they prefer, which could lead to an increased comfort level and willingness to learn, and (2) would also be challenged to learn in a less preferred manner, which would provide practice and feedback in ways of thinking and solving problems with which they may not initially be comfortable. It was assumed that this strategy would help students develop their mental dexterity they need to reach their potential for achievement in school and as professionals. The course

instructional units were catered to learning needs of individuals by balancing task design to ensure that it encompassed several aspects.

* A range of activities to help learners with different learning preferences (i.e., in each lesson plenty of examples and exercises were provided for sensing learners while an open discussion environment was created for intuitive learners);

* Alternative tasks and assignments to cater to individual needs (e.g., for each lesson, a problem solving task and a team environment were created in order to help active learners engage in critical analysis of issues while working with others. For the same lesson, an individual assignment provided opportunity for reflective learners to analyze the same issues individually and by thinking and working alone); and

* Complementary models of information presentation (i.e., in each lesson, for visual learners lecture notes that included charts, matrices, images, and maps were created, while for verbal learners, elaborated written and oral explanations and examples were provided).

Both team and individual learning activities were also designed to promote meta-cognition and problem solving skills. For instance, at the beginning of the course, learners were asked to complete Felder-Silverman Learning Styles inventories and analyze the results to become aware of their own learning styles. Team and individual activities also confronted learners with situations and contexts, which were problematic and in need of development of ones' own study skills and management strategies to promote reflection and self-evaluation. To accommodate learners with different modes of progressing toward understanding (sequential/ global), each lesson included an advanced organizer showing the overall structure of the content, an overview of the material, and a detailed and step-by-step procedure for completing each task both in text and in visuals (tables/charts/images).

Students' Responses to the Course Design Specifications

Analysis of 16 students' responses to survey and interview questions, discussion logs, and responses to assignments, activities, and self-assessment quizzes indicated that:

* There was a positive relationship between students' learning styles and the value that they placed on different instructional materials and strategies.

* Students tended to use instructional materials and strategies that were more matched with their own learning styles. For example, visual learners continuously used lecture notes that included charts, matrices, and images while verbal learners frequently used instructor's elaborate explanations for each lesson.

* Students seemed to take advantage of different instructional methods and to use them to enhance their own learning.

* While students with different learning and thinking styles tended to value different instructional strategies they admitted that they benefited from participating in other strategies as well.

* Students thought their learning and thinking styles changed during the course of the semester. For example, while reflective learners reported that they no longer think they learn better on their own, active learners thought they benefited from completing individual assignments.

* Students with different learning and thinking styles tended to indicate different reasons for liking the course when reflecting on their individual learning styles.

* All students indicated that they liked the course. 80% of students thought the course challenged their thinking skills and addressed their needs and learning styles.

Lessons Learned

Although learning styles may not be stable over time, knowledge of student's learning preference provides a good indication of possible strengths and possible tendencies that might lead to better learning experiences and student satisfaction in an online learning environment. As online educators, we should use learning style literature to design activities that address different modes of learning in order to provide significant experiences for each student. In designing online courses, this can best be accomplished by utilizing multiple and alternative instructional strategies as opposed to one strategy. It is often easy for an online instructor to make the mistake of assuming that all online students are self-directed, and autonomous. The results of the learning styles survey should not be over-interpreted. The student should validate the results of a learning styles survey by agreeing with the assessment of his/her learning preferences. Two students in this online course indicated that when completing the ILS they had a hard time choosing among the options for several questions and thought the final result was not quite accurate. These students were the ones who complained about the workload and had problem staying on task and completing their course assignments. Thus, it appears that students' knowledge of and their agreement with their own learning styles play an important role in the students' attitude toward learning and their efforts to strengthen their less-developed abilities.

The results of a learning styles survey is useful if it is used to design an instruction that provides multiple instructional strategies or conditions for a variety of learning styles, and it is not used to label students' suitability or unsuitability for a particular learning activity or condition. Evaluation results of this online course confirm that students seem to be dynamic and open to adaptation to the particular context of learning. Nevertheless, students' learning and satisfaction improve when they have an opportunity to learn in their preferred manner. For example, reflective learners in this online course agreed that they enjoyed and benefited from participating in the team problem solving task even though they thought they learned more when worked on their own on individual assignments. Opposite case was true for those students who identified themselves as active learners. As Grasha (1996) also observed, "instructors of online courses can use learning style data to help them design creative mismatched where students can experience their less dominant learning style characteristics in a less threatening environment" (p. 1.72). Designing collaborative activities for active learners, or individual tasks for reflective learners is appropriate and even necessary. Providing less-preferred learning styles helps students expand the scope of their learning, and become more flexible learners.

In closing, online learning seems to provide a good environment for educators to make many types of material available to students, in a wide variety of ways, thus allowing students to engage with the course in their own preferred manner, and thereby addressing a majority of student learning styles.

References

Barbe, W.B., & Milone, M. N. (1981). What we know about modality strengths, Educational Leadership, Feb. issue, pp. 378-380.

Berliner, D. C. (1979). Tempus educare. In P. L. Peterson and H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings and implications (pp. 120-135).

Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, (381-394).

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthron, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Biggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how Hong Kong students learn? Using the Learning and Study Process Questionnaires (Education Paper No. 14). Hong Kong: Faculty of Education. The University of Hong Kong.

Canino, C., & Cicchelli, T. (1988). Cognitive styles, computerized treatments on mathematics achievement and reaction to treatments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4[3], 253-64.

Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25 year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-31.

Claxton, S., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and administration. American Association for Higher Education, Washington D.C. (Higher Education Report, No. 10).

Cornett, C. E. (1983). What should we know about learning styles? Fastback 191, Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Corno, L., & R.E. Snow (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Macmillan, New York.

Dunn, R. (1995). Strategies for educating diverse learners. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation FASTBACK Series #384.32 pp.

Dunn, R. (1999). How children learn: How learning styles impact student achievement. Girls' Fast-Pitch Softball and Education Magazine 1 (1). Lake Charles, Louisiana: National Forum, 1[1] pp.5-8.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning style. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S. & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles, Educational Leadership, 46, pp. 50-58.

Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of teaching and learning: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers, and lecturers. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Crumb Helm.

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

Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college of science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23[5], 286-290.

Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B.A. (1998). Index of learning styles. Online version of the questionnaire available at North Carolina State University [http://www2ncsu.edu/felderpublic/ILSdir/ILSweb.html].

Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/Mismatching Revisited: An Empirical Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32[1], 5-22.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing leaning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh: Alliance Publishers.

Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

Gregorc, A.F. & Butler, K.A. (1984). Learning is a matter of style. Vocational Education, 59[3] pp. 27-29.

Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In Sakloske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 205-230). NY: Plentum.

Hermann, N. (1996) The whole brain business book, New York: McGraw Hill.

Hill, J. S. (1976). Cognitive style interest inventory. (Available from Oakland Community College, 2480 Opdyke Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013).

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Honey.

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Honey.

Hudak, M. A. & Anderson, D. E. (1984). Teaching style and student ratings. Teaching of Psychology 11[3], 177-78.

Hudak, M.A. (1985). Review of Learning Styles Inventory, in: D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds), Test Critiques, Vol. II, pp. 402-410 (Kansas City, Missouri, Test Corporation of America).

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlaum Associates, Pub.

Kagan, J. (1976). Commentary on reflective and implusive children: Strategies of information processing underlying differences in problem solving. Monographs of Society for Research in Child Development, 41[5] Serial No. 168.

Kagan, J. (1996). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24.

Kim, J., & Michael, W. B. (1995). The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and preferred learning and thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 60-71.

Kolb, D. A. (1979). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory: Self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet (2nd ed.). Boston: McBer & Co.

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1988). Manuals: A guide to development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In Schmeck, R. (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (Ch. 4), NY: Plenum Press.

Pinto, J. K., Geiger, M. A., & Boyle, E. J. (1994). A three year longitudinal study of changes in student learning styles. Journal of College Student Development, 35[2], 113-119.

Price, G. F. (1980). Which learning style elements are stable and which tend to change over time? Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 1[3], 1.

Reichmann, S., & Grasha, A. (1974). A rational approach to student learning style scale instruments, Journal of Psychology, 87: 213-23.

Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30[1], 43-59.

Saracho, O. N. (1993). Sociocultural perspectives in the cognitive styles of young students and teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 84, 1-17.

Schemeck, R. R. (ed) (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. NY: Plenum Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European, Journal for High Ability, 6, 201-219.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking styles, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Watkin, H. A. (1978). Cognitive styles in personal and cultural validation of models of student learning. Educational Psychology, 16, 317-327.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.

Zhang, L. F. (1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 165-181.

Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles: Their relationships with modes of thinking and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 22[3], 331-348.

Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking styles, abilities, and academic achievement among Hong Kong University students. Educational Research Journal, 13, 41-62.

Mahnaz Moallem, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Moallem is an associate professor of instructional technology. Her research interests include instructional design models and principles, collaborative online learning, and program design and evaluation.