Printer Friendly

VARK learning style and student satisfaction with traditional and online courses.

INTRODUCTION

The Sloan Consortium's Eighth Annual Survey of Online Education (Allen & Seaman, 2010) claims online enrollment growth is fueled by economic conditions, budget pressures, and competition from for-profit institutions. Seventy five percent of the colleges and universities surveyed for that study report an increased demand for online courses and programs as a result of the present economic downturn. This most recent Sloan study reports an increase of nearly one million online students in one year (2008 to 2009) with over 5.5 million students enrolled nationwide in at least one online course in the Fall term of 2009 (Allen & Seaman, 2010).

Learning styles in the traditional classroom have been widely researched; however, there is less research on the impact of learning styles in online education. Common learning outcomes include student performance and student satisfaction. Although the relationship between learning styles and student performance has been widely researched, there is less research on the impact of learning styles on student satisfaction.

This paper explores the relationship between learning preferences and student satisfaction with traditional and online learning. The topic of student satisfaction with online courses is especially relevant due to increased efforts to provide online courses at colleges and universities. According to the Sloan Consortium's Five Pillars of Quality Online Education (Sloan, n.d.), "student satisfaction is the most important key to continuing learning." As enrollment in online courses continues to increase in significant numbers, there is a need to understand factors that affect student satisfaction with online learning given its impact on continued learning, retention, and student recruitment efforts.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Learning Style

Learning style describes individual factors that may be relatively stable over time as well as individual preferences that may be affected by motivation or interest (Dunn, DeBello, Brennan, Kreimsky & Murrain, 1981). Dunn, Beaudry and Klavas (1989) define learning style as "a biologically and developmentally imposed set of personal characteristics that make the same teaching method effective for some and ineffective for others" (p. 50).

Various learning styles have been used to explore the relationship between course format (online or traditional) and student performance and student satisfaction. (See Table 1.) Early work in the area of learning style and course format was conducted by Diaz and Cartnal (1999) who compared the learning styles of undergraduate students who self-selected to online or oncampus content-equivalent classes in health education. Diaz and Cartnal selected the GrashaReichmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS) which focuses on the social interaction that occurs between and among the instructor and the students. The GRSLSS characterizes students as independent, dependent, competitive, collaborative, avoidant, or participant learners. The significant finding of this study showed online students had higher scores on the independent learning style scale and lower scores on the dependent learning scales. Diaz and Cartnal (1999) suggest teaching strategies for online classes, specifically that instructors should emphasize independent learning opportunities for online learners.

In similar research, Lu, Yu and Liu (2002) used the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) to explore the impact of learning style, learning patterns, and selected demographic factors on student performance in an online course. Developed by Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox (1977), GEFT identifies learners as field-dependent or field independent. Fielddependent students prefer using fact-based judgment to take an analytical approach to learning, whereas field-independent students prefer using intuitive judgment to take a global approach to learning (NDE, n.d.). Using GEFT, Lu, Yu, and Liu (2002) found learning style had no impact on student achievement (i.e., test scores) in an online course.

In a study on the relationship between learning style and student satisfaction, Downing and Chim (2004) used Honey and Mumford's (2000) Learning Style Questionnaire to compare online and traditional students. Honey and Mumford (2000) describe learners as activists, reflectors, theorists, and pragmatists. Activists prefer immediate experiences; reflectors prefer to observe others. Theorists prefer to analyze and synthesize information, and pragmatists like to act quickly to try out new ideas. In this study, student satisfaction was measured with an online standard course feedback questionnaire. Downing and Chim (2004) found reflectors in online classes had higher student satisfaction while other learning style groups showed no significant relationships between learning style and student satisfaction. They conclude that "the use of online learning significantly improves satisfaction levels for reflectors" (p. 273).

Kolb's (1976) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is popular in research relating to both traditional and online education (Kozub, 2010; Manochehri & Young, 2006; Santo, 2006; Zhang & Bonk, 2008). The LSI (Kolb, 1976) measures learner strengths and weaknesses according to four learning abilities: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Using combinations of these four learning abilities, the LSI defines four dominant learning styles: converger, diverger, assimilator, and accommodator. Convergers are strong in abstract conceptualization and active experimentation, while divergers are strong in concrete experience and reflective observation. Assimilators are strong in abstract conceptualization and reflective observation, while accommodators are strong in concrete experience and active experimentation (Kolb, 1976).

Manochehri and Young (2006) used Kolb's Learning Style Inventory to evaluate differences between web-based and traditional instructor-based course delivery on student knowledge and student satisfaction. Although they found no significant difference in the relationship between learning style and student satisfaction, they report finding a significant difference in student satisfaction based on teaching methodology such that students in the instructor-led classes reported higher satisfaction than did students in the web-based classes. Similarly, they found no significant difference in the relationship between instruction methodology and student knowledge, but report finding a significant difference in student knowledge based on learning style. In this study, student knowledge was measured by the final exam score and student satisfaction was measured by a course evaluation survey instrument.

To consider how learning style affects student performance and student enjoyment in an online environment, Kozub (2010) conducted an experiment in which traditional students were randomly assigned to a web-based treatment group for a required course component. One group used a text-based web module; the second group used a web module with multimedia and interactive components in addition to text. Using Kolb's (1976) LSI, Kozub (2010) found learning style had no impact on student satisfaction or student performance for either type web module. In this study, satisfaction was measured by survey items pertaining to the likeability of the online modules, and performance was measured by test scores on content covered previously in the online module (Kozub, 2010).

Santo (2006) notes there are mixed results on the relationship between learning style and online learning. In a comprehensive review of eight highly regarded learning styles including the GRSLSS, Kolb's LSI, and GEFT, Santo (2004) argues the learning style construct is vague, that learning style instruments tend to be self-assessment that rely on honesty and self-awareness, and that these instruments tend to be low in reliability and validity.

The VARK Questionnaire

The VARK Learning Style Questionnaire was developed by Fleming and Mills (1992) to help students understand and adapt their individual learning preferences. VARK focuses on the sensory modality dimension of learning, that is, the way that information is taken in and processed by a learner: visual, aural, read/write, or kinesthetic. Visual learners prefer graphical and symbolic information. Aural learners prefer lectures, tutorials and discussion. Read/write learners prefer printed information. And kinesthetic learners prefer experience and practice using multiple perceptual modes including sight, sound, and touch (Fleming & Mills, 1992). Leite, Svinicki and Shi (2010) examined the dimensionality of VARK, and conducted multi-trait multi-method confirmatory factory analysis (MTMM-CFA) to validate its internal structure. Their analysis produced reliability estimates of .85, .82, .84, and .77 for the visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic subscales of VARK and validated its use as a diagnostic tool (Leite, Svinicki, & Shi, 2010).

The VARK instrument has become a popular learning style instrument because it is based on real-life situations that users easily relate to (Rogers, 2009) and because it is easy to use (Leite, Svinicki, & Shi, 2010). Additionally, VARK has been used in various ways to explore student preferences for course delivery mode, assessment method, and course effectiveness. Rogers (2009) used the VARK instrument to survey traditional undergraduate students to increase student awareness of individual learning preferences and guide the adaptation of teaching methods to accommodate all learning styles. Zapalska and Brozik (2006) used the VARK instrument to identify the learning styles of online students and suggest instructional strategies for an online environment and expected behaviors for each type of learner. Becker, Kehoe and Tennent (2007) surveyed undergraduate students to find VARK styles do not impact student preference for course delivery methods (face-to-face or online delivery) or preferences for assessment approaches. Boatman, Courtney and Lee (2008) used VARK to classify students and evaluate performance measured as pre-test/post-test score differences. In this study, students with a strong visual preference earned higher scores in an introduction to economics course, a finding the authors claim is not surprising given that the course require students to create and interpret graphs to explain basic economic concepts.

In additional research on the relationship between VARK learning style and course effectiveness, Drago and Wagner (2004) classified students in various combinations of visual, aural, read/write and kinesthetic scores to compare learning style with "course effectiveness." In that study, course effectiveness was measured by summed responses to four survey items (reported as an effectiveness score): (1) This course contributes to preparation for my professional career. (2) I would recommend this course to friends/ colleagues. (3) I have learned a lot in this course. (4) I have enjoyed taking this course. Drago and Wagner (2004) report three significant findings: (1) Online students scored higher on three learning styles (V, A, R); (2) The effectiveness index scores for online students with a read/write (R) learning style and those with a multimodal VARK learning style were lower when compared to all other online students; and (3) The effectiveness index scores for online students with a combination Aural and Read/write learning style (AR) were higher when compared to all other online students.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Course effectiveness as measured by Drago and Wagner (2004) can be compared to student satisfaction defined by Sweeney and Ingram (2001) as the "perception of enjoyment and accomplishment in the learning environment" (p. 27). Drago and Wagner note "research on the link between learning styles and online education is underdeveloped" (p. 2). The research reported here seeks to address this gap by exploring the relationship between learning style and student satisfaction in both traditional and online courses. Specifically, this study addresses four research questions:

1. Are there differences in learning styles between students who enroll in a traditional class and those who enroll in an online class?

2. Does learning style significantly impact student satisfaction?

3. Does course delivery format significantly impact student satisfaction?

4. How do the results of this study compare to similar studies conducted at other institutions?

METHODOLOGY

Sample and Data Collection

Participants in this study were undergraduate students in multiple sections of a required junior-level Management Information Systems course in the College of Business at a public state university. The participants included students in face-to-face and Web-assisted (online) sections, taught by the same instructor. All sections utilized a common syllabus; students used the same textbook, completed the same coursework regardless of content delivery mechanism, and took the same in-class or proctored exams.

Survey Questionnaire

At the beginning of the term, students completed the VARK learning preference questionnaire that describes an individual's preference for taking in and putting out information in a learning context. At the end of the term, students completed an online student satisfaction questionnaire. The satisfaction questionnaire was synthesized from previous research in which items from validated survey instruments were reduced by evaluating the first factors and selecting the five highest inter-item correlations of each to create a measure of satisfaction with the course with a reliability of 0.93 (Sinclaire, Simon, Campbell & Wilkes, 2010). Students rated aspects of the course (i.e., course content, instructor, group project, course management system) on a five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. The five satisfaction questions used in this survey were:

1. I was satisfied with the content of this course.

2. Overall, I was satisfied with the course.

3. The instructor was effective for helping me learn the material.

4. The course was effective in facilitating my learning.

5. Overall, this course was very worthwhile.

Table 2 presents demographic information that shows the student subjects were dissimilar across the traditional and online sections. The Web-assist sections had a higher percentage of students in the older age groups as well as a higher percentage of female students. Additionally, differences in employment show the Web-assist students worked more hours per week than did the traditional students in this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research question one: Are there differences in learning style between students who enroll in a traditional class and those who enroll in an online class?

Table 3 shows the results of a t-test for equality of means that found no significant difference in learning styles between students enrolled in the traditional sections and those enrolled in the online sections of the class.

Research question two: Does learning style significantly impact student satisfaction?

Table 4 shows the distribution of traditional students across 16 learning style categories and the mean satisfaction index scores for category and the mean score for each of the five items that comprise the satisfaction index. A t-test for equality of means was used to compare the satisfaction scores of students who evidence a particular learning style category with those that did not. Considering students in the traditional sections, there are two significant findings: Students with a multimodal aural, read/write and kinesthetic (ARK) learning style report lower satisfaction with the course, and students with a multimodal visual, aural, read write and kinesthetic (VARK) score report higher satisfaction with the course.

Table 5 shows the distribution of Web-assist (online) students across 16 learning style categories and the mean satisfaction index scores for each learning style category and the mean score for each of the five items that comprise the satisfaction index. Although findings show two significant differences on individual survey items for two learning style categories, overall there were no differences found in student satisfaction index scores relating to learning style for students in the online sections of the class.

Research question three: Does course delivery format significantly impact student satisfaction?

Table 6 presents means analysis that show a statistically significant difference in satisfaction with the course between traditional and web-assisted that reflect a main effect for learning environment and satisfaction with the course. Students in the Web-assist sections report higher satisfaction with the course than students in the traditional sections.

Research question four: How do the results of this study compare to similar studies conducted at other institutions?

Regarding research question one and the relationship between learning style and course format, using the VARK learning style questionnaire, this study found no differences in learning style when comparing students in traditional and online sections of the same course. This finding is similar to that of Becker, Kehoe, and Tennent (2007) that reports VARK learning style does not influence student preference for course delivery method (i.e., class format). Regarding research question two and the relationship between learning style and student satisfaction, the study presented here found learning style does not impact satisfaction with the course for online students; however, learning style impacts satisfaction with the course for traditional students with multimodal ARK or multimodal VARK learning styles. This finding is inconsistent with the results reported by Kozub (2010) and Manochehri and Young (2006) in which learning style had no impact on student satisfaction for traditional or online students. And it is inconsistent with findings reported by Drago and Wagner that found differences in student satisfaction for online students with R, AR and VARK learning styles.

Regarding research question three and the relationship between course delivery format and student satisfaction, the study presented here found Web-assist students report higher satisfaction with the course than traditional students. This is inconsistent with findings reported by Manochehri and Young (2006) that reports higher student satisfaction with traditional classes.

CONCLUSION

Research presented in this paper examines the relatively unexplored area of learning preference and student satisfaction with online learning. The results of the study indicate that student learning styles are not statistically significant for course delivery mode. In this study, the VARK learning preferences reported by traditional students are not significantly different from the VARK learning preferences reported by web-assist students. This conclusion is consistent with previous findings (Lu, Yu, & Liu, 2002; Becker, Kehoe, & Tennent, 2007) that student learning preferences do not influence student preference for course delivery mode.

This study also found VARK learning preferences to be statistically significant in relation to student satisfaction only for two specific learning preferences in the traditional classroom environment such that students reporting multimodal ARK and VARK learning preference reported higher satisfaction with the course. For online students, learning preference was not significantly important in relation to student satisfaction. These conclusions are inconsistent with findings reported by Manochehri and Young (2006) that found no significant difference for student satisfaction and learning preference in both online and traditional courses.

Additionally, this study found student satisfaction to be higher for students in the web-assist sections. This result is inconsistent with research reported by Manochehri and Young (2006) that found a significant difference in student satisfaction, with greater satisfaction reported by students in a traditional, instructor-led class.

The contribution of this paper is two-fold. First, it presents evidence that learning preference does not affect student satisfaction with online learning. Second, it presents evidence of higher satisfaction with online learning in courses that differ only by method of delivery. This research adds to a growing body of work on the relationship between learning preferences and student satisfaction with online learning. As online programs continue to proliferate, there is a need to understand factors that affect student satisfaction with online learning given its impact on continued learning, retention, and student recruitment efforts.

LIMITATIONS

There are a number of limitations to this study, and generalizing these results to other courses or programs may be misleading. One limitation of this study was the use of a convenience sample of students who self-selected to traditional sections or online sections of a required business course. A second limitation is the use of self-report data. Additionally, using only the VARK instrument to measure student learning preference may result in monomethod bias. Finally, sample size is a concern because several VARK groups had relatively few members.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the College of Business at Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR. The VARK questionnaire was used by permission. [C] Copyright version 7.0 (2006) held by Neil D. Fleming, Christchurch, New Zealand and Charles C. Bonwell, Green Mountain Falls, Colorado 80819 U.S.A.

REFERENCES

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010. Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.sloanconsorium.org/publications/ survey/class_differences.

Becker, K., Kehoe, J., & Tennent, B. (2007). Impact of personalized learning styles on online delivery and assessment. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(2), 105-119.

Boatman, K., Courtney, R., & Lee, W. (2008). See how they learn: the impact of faculty and student learning styles on student performance in introductory economics. American Economist, 52(1), 39-48.

Diaz, D.P., & Cartnal, R.B. (1999). Students' Learning Styles in Two Classes. College Teaching, 47(4), 130.

Downing, K., & Chim, T.M. (2004). Reflectors as online extraverts? Educational Studies, 30(3), 265-276.

Drago, W.A., & Wagner, R.J. (2004). VARK Preferred Learning Styles and Online Education. Management Research Review, 27(7), 1-13.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of Research on Learning Styles. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 50-58.

Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., Krimsky, J., & Murrain, P. (1981). Learning Style Researchers Define Differences Differently. Educational Leadership, 38(5), 372-375.

Fleming, N.D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-146.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kozub, R.M. (2010). An ANOVA Analysis of the Relationships between Business Students' Learning Styles and Effectiveness of Web Based Instruction. American Journal of Business Education, 3(3), 89-98.

Leite, W.L., Svinicki, M. & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted Validation of the Scores of VARK: Learning Style Inventory with Multitrait-Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 323-339.

Lu, J., Yu, C., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns, and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course. Information & Management, 40(6), 497-507.

Manochehri, N. (2008). Individual Learning Style Effects on Student Satisfaction in a Web-Based Environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(2), 221-228.

NDE (n.d.). Nebraska Department of Education. Witkin's Embedded Figures Test. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://nde.ne.gov/

Ramayah, M., Sivanandan, P., Nasrijal, N.H., Letchumanan, T., & Leong, L.C. (2009). Preferred learning style: Gender influence on preferred learning style among business students. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(4), 65-78.

Rogers, K.M. (2009). A preliminary investigation and analysis of student learning style preferences in further and higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 13-21.

Santo, S. (2006). Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(3), 73-88.

Serwatka, J.A. (2005). Improving retention in distance learning classes. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved October 16, 2010, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article06.htm

Sinclaire, J.K., Simon, J.C., Campbell, C.J., & Wilkes, R.B., (2010). "Does Relational Communication Training Improve Student Satisfaction with Web-Assisted Courses?" Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 148-162.

Sloan (n.d.). The 5 Pillars of Quality Online Education. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.old.sloanconsortium.org/5pillars

Sweeney, J.C., & Ingram. D. (2001). A Comparison of Traditional and Web-Based Tutorials in Marketing Education: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 55-62.

VARK (n.d.). A Guide to Learning Styles. Retrieved May 11, 2011 from http://www.varklearn.com

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.

Zapalska, A., & Brozik, D. (2006). Learning styles and online education. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(5), 325-335.

Zhang, K., & Bonk, C.J. (2008). Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2).

About the Author:

Jollean K. Sinclaire is an Assistant Professor of Computer and Information Technology at the College of Business at Arkansas State University. Her doctorate is from the University of Memphis. Her research interests are in IT risk management, information privacy and security, distance learning, and social media.

Jollean K Sinclaire

Arkansas State University
Table 1

Summary of Sample Studies on Learning Style and Course Delivery Mode

                                        Learning
Author       Title                      Style Model

Becker,      Impact of personalized     VARK
Kehoe, &     learning styles on
Tennent      online delivery and
(2007)       assessment

Boatman,     See how they learn: the    VARK
Courtney &   impact of faculty and
Lee (2008)   student learning styles
             on student performance
             in introductory
             economics

Diaz &       Students' Learning         Grasha-
Cartnal      Styles in Two Classes      Reichmann
(1999)                                  scale
                                        (GRSLSS)

Downing &    Reflectors as online       Honey and
Chim         extraverts?                Mumford's
(2004)                                  LSQ

Drago &      VARK Preferred             VARK
Wagner       Learning Styles and
(2004)       Online Education

Kozub        An ANOVA Analysis          Kolb's LSI
(2010)       of the Relationships
             between Business
             Students' Learning
             Styles and
             Effectiveness of Web
             Based Instruction

Lu, Yu &     Learning style, learning   Group
Liu (2002)   patterns, and learning     Embedded
             performance in a           Figures Test
             WebCT-based MIS            (GEFT) to
             course                     categorize
                                        students as field-
                                        independent or
                                        field-dependent

Manochehri   The Impact of Student      Kolb's LSI
& Young      Learning Styles with
(2006)       Web-Based Learning or
             Instructor-Led Learning
             on Student Knowledge
             and Satisfaction

Rogers       A preliminary              VARK
(2009)       investigation and
             analysis of student
             learning style
             preferences in further
             and higher education

Santo        Relationship between       Review of LS
(2006)       Learning Styles and        models:
             Online Learning: Myth      * Grasha-
             or Reality?                Riechmann
                                        * Chellens &
                                        Valcke
                                        * Kolb's LSI
                                        * 4MAT
                                        * GEFT

Zapalska &   Learning styles and        VARK
Brozik       online education
(2006)

Author       Class Format               Dependent Variable

Becker,      Traditional and            Preference
Kehoe, &     online under-              for course
Tennent      graduate.                  delivery
(2007)       N=891

Boatman,     Traditional                Learning
Courtney &   undergraduate.             Performance
Lee (2008)   N=119                      (pre-test
                                        post-test
                                        score
                                        difference)

Diaz &       Traditional and            Learning
Cartnal      online under-              style
(1999)       graduate with
             equivalent
             content.
             N=108

Downing &    Traditional and            Student
Chim         online under-              Satisfaction
(2004)       graduate.
             N=32 matched
             pairs

Drago &      Traditional and            Perceived
Wagner       online graduate.           online
(2004)       N=316                      course
                                        effectiveness
                                        score
                                        (comparable
                                        to student
                                        satisfaction)

Kozub        Traditional                Student
(2010)       undergraduate              Satisfaction
             with web                   (enjoyment)
             component.                 and
             N=159                      performance

Lu, Yu &     Web-based                  Learning
Liu (2002)   graduate.                  Performance
             N=76                       (Learning
                                        effectiveness
                                        based on test
                                        scores)

Manochehri   Traditional and            Knowledge
& Young      online under-              (final exam
(2006)       graduate.                  grade) and
             N=94                       Student
                                        Satisfaction

Rogers       Traditional                Learning
(2009)       undergraduate.             style

Santo                                   Theoretical
(2006)                                  paper
                                        explores
                                        relationship
                                        between
                                        learning
                                        styles and
                                        online
                                        learning

Zapalska &   Online                     Learning
Brozik       undergraduate.             style
(2006)       N=25

Author       Findings

Becker,      Learning style does
Kehoe, &     not influence student
Tennent      preference for course
(2007)       delivery methods or
             assessment methods

Boatman,     Students with strong
Courtney &   V preference had
Lee (2008)   higher performance.

Diaz &       Online students had
Cartnal      higher scores on
(1999)       independent LS scale
             and lower scores on
             dependent LS scale.

Downing &    Online reflectors
Chim         report higher SS than
(2004)       traditional reflectors.

Drago &      Online more likely
Wagner       to be V and R; Online
(2004)       Multimodal VARK
             and Strong R rate
             effectiveness lower;
             AR rate effectiveness
             higher.

Kozub        Learning style has no
(2010)       impact on SS.

Lu, Yu &     Learning style had no
Liu (2002)   impact on learning
             performance.

Manochehri   No significant
& Young      difference for
(2006)       relationship between
             LS and SS. LS
             impacts knowledge in
             online class.
             Instructor-led class
             had higher SS.

Rogers       Identifies learning
(2009)       preferences to
             (1) promote student
             awareness of LS and
             (2) adapt teaching
             methods to all LS.

Santo        Concludes the
(2006)       learning style
             construct is vague;
             LS instruments tend
             to be self assessments
             and require honesty
             and self-awareness;
             and LS instruments
             tend to have low
             reliability and
             validity.

Zapalska &   Offers teaching
Brozik       strategies for each
(2006)       learning preference

Table 2

Participant Demographics

                                 Traditional   Web-assist
                                 N=161         N=137

Age          18-24                 73%           54%
             25-34                 20%           30%
             35 & older             7%           16%

Gender       Female                47%           60%
             Male                  53%           40%

Employment   1 to 20 hrs/week      32%           20%
             21 to 40 hrs/week     62%           62%
             over 40 hrs/week       6%           18%

Table 3

                    Group Format   Statistics N   Mean

Visual score        Web-assist         137        4.51
                    Traditional        161        4.48
Aural score         Web-assist         137        5.52
                    Traditional        161        5.70
Read/write score    Web-assist         137        6.99
                    Traditional        161        6.42
Kinesthetic score   Web-assist         137        6.75
                    Traditional        161        6.73

                    Group Format   Std. Deviation

Visual score        Web-assist        3.056
                    Traditional       2.777
Aural score         Web-assist        2.573
                    Traditional       3.050
Read/write score    Web-assist        3.341
                    Traditional       3.152
Kinesthetic score   Web-assist        2.812
                    Traditional       3.102

Table 4

Traditional Students: Independent Samples T-test for Equality of Means

                                          Satisfaction
                                          Index          Q1

Category                           N      Index Mean     Mean Score

Visual                             5      20.000         4.20
Remainder                          156    19.013         3.88
Aural                              9      17.333         3.56
Remainder                          152    19.145         3.91
Read/write                         17     18.412         3.76
Remainder                          144    19.118         3.91
Kinesthetic                        21     18.619         3.67
Remainder                          140    19.107         3.93
Visual & Aural                     6      19.000         4.00
Remainder                          155    19.045         3.89
Visual & Read/write                4      20.000         4.25
Remainder                          157    19.019         3.89
Visual & Kinesthetic               6      19.333         4.00
Remainder                          155    19.032         3.89
Aural & Read/write                 3      21.667         4.33
Remainder                          158    18.994         3.89
Aural & Kinesthetic                6      16.833         3.67
Remainder                          155    19.129         3.90
Read/write & Kinesthetic           6      18.167         3.50
Remainder                          155    19.077         3.91
Visual, Aural & Read/write         13     19.846         3.85
Remainder                          148    18.973         3.90
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        14     20.429         4.21
Remainder                          147    18.912         3.86
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   0      --             --
Remainder                          161    19.044         3.89
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    3      13.333 **      2.33 *
Remainder                          158    19.152 **      3.92 *
Visual, Aural, Read/write          25     20.760 *       4.36 *
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          136    18.728 *       3.81 *
None                               23     18.174         3.78
Remainder                          138    19.188         3.91

                                   Q2           Q3

Category                           Mean Score   Mean Score

Visual                             4.20         3.80
Remainder                          3.83         3.88
Aural                              3.22         3.44
Remainder                          3.88         3.91
Read/write                         3.53         3.94
Remainder                          3.88         3.88
Kinesthetic                        3.71         3.86
Remainder                          3.86         3.89
Visual & Aural                     3.83         3.67
Remainder                          3.84         3.89
Visual & Read/write                4.25         3.75
Remainder                          3.83         3.89
Visual & Kinesthetic               4.17         4.17
Remainder                          3.83         3.87
Aural & Read/write                 4.67         4.67
Remainder                          3.82         3.87
Aural & Kinesthetic                3.33         3.33
Remainder                          3.86         3.90
Read/write & Kinesthetic           3.50         3.67
Remainder                          3.85         3.89
Visual, Aural & Read/write         4.00         3.92
Remainder                          3.82         3.88
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        4.07         4.29
Remainder                          3.82         3.84
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   --           --
Remainder                          3.84         3.88
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    2.67 **      3.67
Remainder                          3.86 **      3.89
Visual, Aural, Read/write          4.24 *       4.12
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          3.76 *       3.84
None                               3.78         3.65
Remainder                          3.85         3.92

                                   Q4           Q5

Category                           Mean Score   Mean Score

Visual                             4.00 *       3.80
Remainder                          3.79 *       3.63
Aural                              3.67         3.44
Remainder                          3.80         3.64
Read/write                         3.76         3.41
Remainder                          3.80         3.66
Kinesthetic                        3.76         3.62
Remainder                          3.80         3.64
Visual & Aural                     4.17         3.33
Remainder                          3.78         3.65
Visual & Read/write                4.00 *       3.75
Remainder                          3.79 *       3.63
Visual & Kinesthetic               3.50         3.50
Remainder                          3.81         3.64
Aural & Read/write                 4.33         3.67
Remainder                          3.78         3.63
Aural & Kinesthetic                3.33         3.17
Remainder                          3.81         3.65
Read/write & Kinesthetic           3.50         4.00
Remainder                          3.81         3.62
Visual, Aural & Read/write         4.08         4.00
Remainder                          3.77         3.60
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        4.00         3.86
Remainder                          3.78         3.61
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   --           --
Remainder                          3.80         3.63
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    2.67 *       2.00 *
Remainder                          3.82 *       3.66 *
Visual, Aural, Read/write          4.00         4.04 *
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          3.76         3.56 *
None                               3.57         3.39
Remainder                          3.83         3.67

* p< 0.01   ** p< 0.05

Table 5

Web-Assist Students: Independent Samples T-test for Equality of Means

                                          Satisfaction
                                          Index          Q1

Category                           N      Index Mean     Mean Score

Visual                             5      22.200         4.60
Remainder                          132    20.205         4.21
Aural                              16     19.000         4.00
Remainder                          121    20.446         4.26
Read/write                         13     19.462         4.23
Remainder                          124    20.363         4.23
Kinesthetic                        16     20.938         4.56
Remainder                          121    20.190         4.18
Visual & Aural                     2      18.500         4.00
Remainder                          135    20.304         4.23
Visual & Read/write                7      22.571         4.71
Remainder                          130    20.154         4.20
Visual & Kinesthetic               3      20.667         4.33
Remainder                          134    20.269         4.22
Aural & Read/write                 2      22.000         4.50
Remainder                          135    20.252         4.22
Aural & Kinesthetic                3      17.000         3.67
Remainder                          134    20.351         4.24
Read/write & Kinesthetic           4      19.250         3.75
Remainder                          133    20.308         4.24
Visual, Aural & Read/write         4      19.500         3.75
Remainder                          133    20.301         4.24
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        9      17.889         3.78
Remainder                          128    20.445         4.26
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   11     19.818         4.18
Remainder                          126    20.318         4.23
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    7      21.571         4.57
Remainder                          130    20.208         4.21
Visual, Aural, Read/write          20     20.900         4.20
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          117    20.171         4.23
None                               15     21.333         4.27
Remainder                          122    20.148         4.22

                                      Q2           Q3

Category                           Mean Score   Mean Score

Visual                             4.40         4.40
Remainder                          4.13         3.96
Aural                              3.81         3.50 **
Remainder                          4.18         4.04 **
Read/write                         4.00         3.85
Remainder                          4.15         3.99
Kinesthetic                        4.50         4.06
Remainder                          4.09         3.97
Visual & Aural                     3.50         4.00
Remainder                          4.15         3.98
Visual & Read/write                4.71         4.43
Remainder                          4.11         3.95
Visual & Kinesthetic               4.33         4.00
Remainder                          4.13         3.95
Aural & Read/write                 4.50         4.50
Remainder                          4.13         3.97
Aural & Kinesthetic                4.00         3.00
Remainder                          4.14         4.00
Read/write & Kinesthetic           3.75         4.00
Remainder                          4.15         3.98
Visual, Aural & Read/write         4.25         4.00
Remainder                          4.14         3.98
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        3.67         3.44
Remainder                          4.17         4.02
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   3.82         4.18
Remainder                          4.17         3.96
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    4.29         4.29
Remainder                          4.13         3.96
Visual, Aural, Read/write          4.30         4.05
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          4.11         3.97
None                               4.20         4.20
Remainder                          4.13         3.95

                                   Q4           Q5

Category                           Mean Score   Mean Score

Visual                             4.20         4.60
Remainder                          3.94         3.96
Aural                              3.94         3.75
Remainder                          3.95         4.02
Read/write                         3.69         3.69
Remainder                          3.98         4.02
Kinesthetic                        3.75         4.06
Remainder                          3.98         3.98
Visual & Aural                     3.50         3.50
Remainder                          3.96         3.99
Visual & Read/write                4.43         4.29
Remainder                          3.92         3.97
Visual & Kinesthetic               4.00         4.00
Remainder                          3.95         3.99
Aural & Read/write                 4.00         4.50
Remainder                          3.95         3.98
Aural & Kinesthetic                3.33         3.00
Remainder                          3.96         4.01
Read/write & Kinesthetic           3.75         4.00
Remainder                          3.95         3.98
Visual, Aural & Read/write         3.75         3.75
Remainder                          3.95         3.99
Visual, Aural & Kinesthetic        3.44         3.56
Remainder                          3.98         4.02
Visual, Read/write & Kinesthetic   3.82         3.82
Remainder                          3.96         4.00
Aural, Read/write & Kinesthetic    4.00         4.43
Remainder                          3.95         3.96
Visual, Aural, Read/write          4.20         4.15
  & Kinesthetic
Remainder                          3.91         3.96
None                               4.40 **      4.27
Remainder                          3.89 **      3.95

* p< 0.01   ** p< 0.05

Table 6
Group Statistics

                                               Std.
                Format        N     Mean       Deviation

Satisfaction    Web-assist    137   4.078 **     .821
  with Course
                Traditional   161   3.809 **     .764

** p< 0.05
COPYRIGHT 2012 International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sinclaire, Jollean K.
Publication:International Journal of Education Research (IJER)
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2012
Words:5779
Previous Article:Measuring the acceptability of French language as a second language by Nigerians.
Next Article:Business skills education and training needs for law firms.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |