Rosemary Vogt, University of Manitoba

Research examining the influence of learning styles and gender in blended learning service delivery

Learners have the ability to style flex and adapt to new learning situations (1-4 hours)

1-4 hours may not be sufficient time for mature female adult learners with familial responsibilities

Abandon blended learning process during early stages/incompatible cognitive learning style with web based learning tool

Learner flexibility and convenience Mature learners with outside commitments.

Family, work Needs of independent learners Social interaction f2f Blended learning a balance between online

independent and classroom f2f Blended learning opportunities are

increasing Learner attributes merit consideration

Examined college students’ learning style preferences by discipline

105 college students (47 male 58 female) Four disciplines, English, Math, science,

social studies Using Kolb learning style inventory

But not for gender Eighty three (81%) switched learning style

modes for 2 or more disciplines Students are able to adapt to meet

requirements of leaning task Learning styles are subject area sensitive No significant differences in preferred

learning style by gender

Does prior academic experience or type of instruction matter?

Research confirms students have the ability to style flex from preferred learning style to meet learning strategy requirements of other learning situations

Does this study have applicability for blended learning service delivery?

Is it useful data on learner flexibility?

Explored how student learning styles influenced learning in an e-learning environment

Term learning style in study refers to information processing styles based on the work of Curry (1983), Kolb (1985), Felder (2002), Felder & Silverman (1988), Felder & Soloman (1991/1994b)

Using Internet and face to face instruction “How do individuals with different learning

styles adjust themselves in order to be successful in their learning”?

59 completed the survey Learning styles did not influence student

problem solving performance as a whole *There were differences in problem solving

performance among survey groups during first two observations during e-learning

As time passed, differences dissappeared

Reflective learners outperformed the Active learner group during first observation

Neutral group outperformed the active group in second observation

Does sample size matter? Results indicate that students adjust

themselves to new learning environments in a relatively short time

Between 4 and 8 hours after beginning

Are learning styles related to student instructional preferences?

A correlation between learning style and academic performance?

Match learning methods to individual learning styles?

Should we encourage students to adapt to different learning methods?

Are learning styles consistent over time? Do learning styles depend on context?

48 college students preparing for in-class exams using web-based study conditions

Active learners preferred face to face study groups

Visual learners preferred online quizzes rather than online study groups

Study showed decreased achievement in the less preferred study condition

Recommendations for instructional considerations/ web based service delivery

Different cognitive styles in web-based learning Cognitive style plays an important role in

learner interaction Proposes instructor and web-based system

designers provide different support facilities to meet needs of learners with different cognitive learning styles

Adaptive web-based service delivery Recommendations – customized learning

programs to accommodate learner preferences Consider system experience and gender

Examined university faculty member attitudes toward blended learning

Used 107 faculty members/various degree programs

57 female (53.3%) 50 (46.7%) male Ages 31 – 40 Posed questions about gender, age, education

and attitude toward blended learning Women tended to have positive attitudes

toward blended learning Women had positive attitudes towards blended

learning environments as a whole

Surveyed mature women participating in an e-learning postgraduate program in Greece

Were expected to find fulfillment in traditional roles – marriage, motherhood

Lack of support networks Pressures of jobs, family, community Finding a place within the family home for

learning once obligations met Not so dissimilar from global women’s

experiences

Fulfills personal aspirations Break out of imposed domesticity E-learning, or blended learning endeavors

to reach marginalized groups Must consider social conditions of people

who participate Conditions may be unfavorable Studying in physical space of domestic

responsibilities Time frames – pre-existing roles

Developing time management strategies Balancing conflicting responsibilities Resulting stress, pressure, frustration Sacrificed social life Time poverty Lack of self care Support paramount for success

Researched experiences of female graduates of doctoral programs

Advocated the need for practical options for female adult learners

Care-giving, financial support Recommendations to promote women’s

health and well being

Reduces “seat time” – reduces need for child care

Reduces making provisions for family Reduces travel time Incentive for more women to return to

higher education Learner attributes are worth considering Acknowledging and addressing social

conditions which obstruct making education accessible for both genders

Draws attention to research studies acknowledging differences in learning style preferences

Learning styles are subject area sensitive Students have the capability to style-flex Cognitive learning styles may not make a

difference in the long haul Do they make a difference for the mature

female learner experiencing frustration and lack of support with service delivery that is incompatible with personal learning style?

Learning styles influence students perceived satisfaction with the new learning environment within the first few hours (Choi, Lee & Jung, 2008).

Blended learning service delivery needs to ensure that student’s learning style preferences are met within the first few hours

Implications are critical for mature female learners

Bonk, Curtis J., Graham, Charles R., (2006). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Brooks, Lori (2008). An analysis of factors that affect faculty attitudes toward a blended learning environment. Proquest Dissertations & Theses, Retrieved April 25, 2010,

Chen, Ling-Hsiu (2010). Web-based learning programs: Use by learners with various cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 54, 1028-1035.

Choi, I., Lee, S. & Jung, J. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based instruction accommodating students’ diverse learning styles. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 5-25.

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

Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal Quebec. (ED 235185)

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

Felder, R.M. (2002). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education: author’s preface. June, 2002 Retrieved June 13, 2005, http//www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/LS-1998.pdf

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

Felder, R.M. & Solomon, B.A. (1991/1994a). Index of Learning Styles. Retrieved June 13, 2005, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html

Felder, R.M. & Solomon, B.A. (1991/1994b). Learning Styles & Strategies. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html

Fischer, Gerhard (2000). "Lifelong Learning - More than Training" in Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11 (3/4), 265-294.

Ikseon, Choi, Sang, J.J. & Kang, J. (2009). Implementing a case-based e-learning environment in a lecture-oriented anesthesiology class: Do learning styles matter in complex

problem solving over time? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 933-947.

Johnson, Genevieve Marie (2007). Learning style under two web-based study conditions. Educational Psychology, 27, 617-634.

Jones, Cheryl, Reichard, C, & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students’ learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 363-375.

 

Kolb, David A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Toronto: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc.

Kolb, David A. (1995). Learning style inventory. Technical Specifications. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Loo, R. (1997). Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: is there a linkage? EducationalPsychology, 24, 99-108.

Ornstein, R. E. (1977). The psychology of consciousness (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.

Peters, C., Barg, R., & Pomrenke, M.  (2008). Women caregivers earning doctoral degrees: What were we thinking? In The Proceedings of the Canadian Association for  Studies in Adult Education (CASAE), University of British Columbia, BC. Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS).

Ross, Jonathan L., Drysdale, M., & Schultz, R.A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 33, 400-412.

Sadler-Smith, E. & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences. Instructional Science, 27, 355-371.

Vryonides, Marios & Vitsilakis, C., (2008). Widening participation in post-graduate studies in Greece: mature working women attending an e-learning program. Journal of Educational Policy, 23, 199-208.