Barbour, M. K., & Cooze, M. (2003, June). Effects of different learning styles in eLearning environments. Paper presented at the annual Canadian Association for Distance Education conference, St. John's, NL.

1. Learning Styles and Student
Performance in an e-Learning
Environment
Presented By:
Michael Barbour and Morris Cooze

2. Background
• Research was conducted with students
enrolled in Enterprise Education 3205
through the Centre for Distance
Learning and Innovation. (CDLI)
• Students completed the prescribed
curriculum solely through e-Learning.
• 32 of the 44 students completed a
learning styles inventory and agreed
to the release of their marks.

3. Purpose of Research
• In the classroom, we are able to adapt our
instructional approach, our methods, even our
instructional material.
• This is much more difficult to accomplish in an
e-learning environment.
• Does the e-learning environment created by the
CDLI lend itself to one learning style over
another?
• If it does, what can the CDLI do to help learners
achieve in the environment that they have
created?

4. Research Profile
• KB Personal Learning Guide
• Standard learning styles measure
(visual, auditory, tactile)
• Gardner’s multiple intelligences

5. Personal Learning Guide
• Students rate sets of words on how well the words describe
them.
Discriminating Tentative Involved Practical
4 Best characterises
3 Next best
2 Next best
1 Least characterises
• Once the students have rated nine sets, they are asked to add
their responses to certain sets together to give them four totals

6. Personal Learning Guide
• The four totals are plotted on the chart
below to form a kite.

7. Personal Learning Guide
• The Accommodative Learning Style - you have the ability to learn primarily
from hands-on experience. You probably enjoy carrying out plans and
involving yourself in new and challenging experiences. Your tendency may
be to act on intuition and "gut feel" rather than careful analysis. When a
thoughtful approach does not seem to be working out, you will be quick to
discard it and improvise.
• The Divergent Learning Style - you probably have the ability to view specific
situations from many perspectives. For example, you may enjoy
brainstorming and small group discussions. You also like to gather
information and probably have broad interests. Your tendency may be to
watch events rather than participate in them.
• The Convergent Learning Style - you have the ability to find practical
applications for ideas, concepts and theories. In particular you enjoy
situations where there is a single or best answer to a question or problem. You
may usually assume there is one best answer and use technical analysis to
reveal it. You also may usually prefer to deal with technical issues rather than
people issues.
• The Assimilative Learning Style - you have the ability to create theoretical
models (ideas that predict outcomes and descriptions of how different factor
interact). You most likely enjoy inductive reasoning and distil disparate
observations into logical explanations.[1]
[1] David A. Kolb and Richard J. Baker, Personal Learning Guide: A practical
guide to increasing your learning from a training program or workshop,
(Baker & Company: Dallas, TX, 1979-80), pp. 11-17.

8. Personal Learning Guide
Student Accommodator Diverger Converger Assimilator Final Mark
001 43.5% 6.5% 43.5% 6.5% 60%
021 67.1% 21.5% 8.7% 2.8% 50%
002 0.5% 9.9% 85.0% 4.6% 84%
022 27.3% 44.8% 9.5% 18.3% 72%
003 26.2% 30.9% 19.7% 23.2% 65%
023 7.5% 6.2% 47.3% 39.1% 85%
004 21.4% 1.7% 33.9% 27.4% 78%
024 36.9% 4.8% 51.1% 7.2% 53%
005 12.8% 4.9% 59.7% 22.7% 80%
025 3.9% 4.0% 45.5% 46.6% 95%
006 6.4% 1.8% 71.9% 20.0% 78%
026 29.1% 15.3% 36.4% 19.2% 70%
007 26.7% 36.0% 15.9% 21.4% 92%
027 51.8% 48.2% 0% 0% 74%
008 26.0% 14.7% 37.9% 21.4% 56%
028 3.7% 26.6% 10.6% 59.1% 77%
009 47.3% 8.8% 37.0% 6.9% 53%
029 27.6% 48.7% 8.6% 15.2% 63%
010 23.5% 33.6% 17.7% 25.2% 84%
030 33.7% 31.6% 17.8% 16.8% 63%
011 5.5% 35.4% 8.0% 51.1% 94%
031 34.4% 33.7% 16.1% 15.8% 65%
012 9.6% 75.1% 1.7% 13.7% 72%
032 37.0% 39.0% 11.7% 12.3% 53%
013 10.0% 47.1% 7.5% 35.4% 20%
014 15.3% 75.0% 1.6% 8.0% 63%
015 19.0% 59.5% 5.2% 16.2% 82%
016 31.1% 56.5% 4.4% 8.1% 60%
017 23.7% 29.2% 21.1% 26.0% 58%
018 37.2% 62.8% 0% 0% 64%
019 17.7% 33.2% 17.0% 32.1% 50%
020 35.3% 54.9% 3.9% 5.9% 56%

9. Personal Learning Guide
Number of Accommodator Diverger Converger Assimilator
students
Highest 60.8% 63.8% 71.6% 88.7%
number
(n=6) (n=15) (n=9) (n=3)
Above 59.3% 62.6% 76.4% 88.7%
40%
(n=4) (n=10) (n=6) (n=3)
Above 59.2% 66.2% 72.0% 80.2%
30%
(n=11) (n=18) (n=11) (n=6)

10. Standard Measure
• Students were given a statement and asked to give it a rating
I remember information better from lectures with explanations
and discussions.
I chew gum or snack when I study.
3 Often
2 Sometimes
1 Seldom
• After students had responded to 24 of these statements, they
were asked to write the numbers they selected for each
statement into three different columns and total each column.

11. Standard Measure
Visual Learners - you have to see it to believe it
• needs to see it to know it
• strong sense of colour
• may have artistic ability
• difficulty with spoken directions
• over-reaction to sounds
• trouble following lectures
• misinterpretation of words
Auditory Learner - if you hear it, you remember it
• prefers to get information by listening
• needs to hear it to know it
• difficulty following written directions
• difficulty with reading and writing
Tactual Learner - if you can touch it with your hands, you will remember it
• prefers hands-on learning
• can assemble parts without reading directions
• difficulty sitting still
• learns better when physical activity is involved
• may be very well co-ordinated and have athletic ability[1]
[1] Unknown, "Learning Lab - Learning Styles Evaluation," University of Northwestern
Ohio (1998): 3 pages. 08 August 1999 <http://bsd-server.nc.edu/virtcol/ss/learn.html>.

12. Standard Measure
Student Visual Auditory Tactile Final Mark
001 15 14 24 60%
021 20 18 18 50%
002 21 16 14 84%
003 17 13 20 65% 022 20 17 18 72%
004 18 16 22 78% 023 19 12 20 85%
005 17 16 21 80%
024 15 19 22 53%
006 19 15 15 78%
007 21 15 12 92% 025 18 19 16 95%
008 17 19 18 56%
026 20 18 18 70%
009 16 20 20 53%
010 19 16 18 84% 027 16 16 15 74%
011 19 17 16 94% 028 21 16 18 77%
012 13 11 15 72%
029 18 17 18 63%
013 15 17 17 20%
014 11 15 17 63% 030 12 18 11 63%
015 16 19 17 82%
031 14 10 10 65%
016 14 19 18 60%
017 12 14 15 58% 032 12 11 8 53%
018 18 15 19 64%
019 18 19 14 50%
020 17 13 18 56%

13. Standard Measure
Number of Visual Auditory Tactile
students
Highest 73.5% (n=13) 61.4%(n=9) 66.6% (n=14)
number
Above 20 74.2% (n=6) 53.0%(n=1) 67.7% (n=7)
*
Above 18 75.7% (n=15) 63.2%(n=10) 66.2% (n=17)
* Only one respondent

14. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
• Students were given a statement and asked to state if it was
true or false. If the statement was true sometimes and false
sometimes, they were to leave it blank.
2. If I am angry or happy, I usually know why.
8. I pick up new dance steps quickly.
• After students had responded to 35 of these statements, they
were asked to write an X over the numbers that they had
responded “T” to based on the following table:
A 9 10 17 22 30 =
B 5 7 15 20 25 =
C 1 11 14 23 27 =
D 8 16 19 21 29 =
E 3 4 13 24 28 =
F 2 6 26 31 33 =
G 12 18 32 34 35 =

15. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
• Interpersonal Intelligence - Telecommunications programs;
programs which address social issues; programs which include group
presentation or decision making; games which require two or more
players; TV production team approach
• Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence - Software requiring alternate input
such as joystick, mouse, or touch window; keyboarding and word
processing programs; animation programs; programs which allow
them to move objects around the screen; science probeware
• Intrapersonal Intelligence - Computer assisted instruction/ILS labs;
instructional games in which the opponent is the computer; programs
which encourage self-awareness or build self-improvement skills;
any program which allow them to work independently; brainstorming
or problem solving software
• Logical/Mathematical Intelligence - Database and spreadsheet
programs; problem solving software; computer programming
software; strategy game formats/simulations; calculators; multimedia
authoring programs

16. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
• Musical-Rhythmic Intelligence - Programs that combine stories
with songs; reading programs which associate letter/sounds with
music; programs which allow them to create their own song;
constructing presentations using CD audio discs, videodisc player,
and barcode program; sing along videodisc programs that display
work "karaoke" style
• Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence - Word processors that allow voice
annotations; desktop publishing programs; programs with speech
output; programs which encourage them to create poetry, essays, etc.;
multimedia authoring; using videodiscs and barcode programs to
create presentations; tape recorders; telecommunications/electronic
networking
• Visual/Spatial Intelligence - Draw and paint programs; reading
programs that use visual clues such as rebus method or colour
coding; programs which allow them to see information as maps,
charts, or diagrams (i.e. charting capability of spreadsheet program;
multimedia programs; science probeware[1]
[1] Jack Edwards, "Multiple Intelligences and Technology," About Face 10 3 (1995): 4
pages. 08 August 1999 <http://www.firn.edu/~face/about/dec95/mult_int.html>.

17. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
Student Interpersonal Bodily- Intrapersonal Logical- Musical- Verbal- Visual- Final
Kinesthetic Mathematical Rhythmic Linguistic Spatial Mark
001 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 60%
002 4 3 1 4 4 1 5 84%
003 3 5 2 4 2 2 3 65%
004 3 2 2 4 3 4 5 78%
005 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 80%
006 4 3 1 2 2 5 2 78%
007 5 5 3 3 2 5 5 92%
008 4 3 0 4 2 5 2 56%
009 5 5 2 4 5 4 5 53%
010 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 84%
011 1 2 2 3 4 3 1 94%
012 0 2 3 3 2 5 2 72%
013 3 3 0 4 3 4 4 20%
014 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 63%
015 2 2 2 4 4 3 5 82%
016 2 1 2 3 5 5 3 60%
017 2 1 3 3 1 5 3 58%
018 3 5 2 4 5 1 3 64%
019 2 2 0 1 5 5 4 50%
020 3 1 3 3 4 2 2 56%

18. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
Student Interpersonal Bodily- Intrapersonal Logical- Musical- Verbal- Visual- Final
Kinesthetic Mathematical Rhythmic Linguistic Spatial Mark
021 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 50%
022 4 4 2 3 2 5 5 72%
023 4 5 2 5 4 2 5 85%
024 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 53%
025 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 95%
026 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 70%
027 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 74%
028 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 77%
029 2 1 1 3 2 4 4 63%
030 4 4 1 3 5 4 4 63%
031 5 3 0 4 4 3 5 65%
032 2 4 4 4 5 4 5 53%

19. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
Inter- Bodily- Intra- Logical- Musical- Verbal- Visual-
personal Kinesthetic personal Mathematics Rhythmic Linguistic Spatial
Highest 71.6% 70.3% 95.0% 67.7% 60.0% 62.3% 68.9%
Number (n=5) (n=10) (n=1)* (n=7) (n=10) (n=12) (n=16)
Above 4 69.7% 68.1% 74.0% 65.6% 64.8% 57.6% 67.1%
(n=14) (n=12) (n=2) (n=16) (n=15) (n=16) (n=19)
* Only one respondent

20. Trends and Patterns
• Students with the assimilative learning
style (KB) tend to perform better than
students from any of the other three
learning styles.
• Students with the convergent learning
style (KB) tend to perform better than
students from the divergent and
accommodative learning styles.

21. Trends and Patterns
• Students who are visual learners perform
better than students who are tactile learners,
who perform better than auditory learners.
• While there are few differences in student
performance based upon Gardner’s multiple
intelligences, students who have aptitudes for
“Musical-Rhythmic” and “Verbal-Linguistic”
appear to be lower than the other five
intelligences.

22. Ramifications
• When teaching in an e-learning
environment, instructors should provide
more feedback to students, particularly
those with the accommodative learning
style.
• Instructors should also provide
additional opportunities for students to
interact in a verbal (e.g., audio or text-
based) way.

23. Ramifications
• Finally, instructors in an e-learning
environment should consider allowing
students to choose to complete more of
their work in groups.
• In designing e-learning environments,
developers should make sure to include
more audio items.

24. Future Research
• Continue present course of research
with additional students in future years.
• Consider having students complete the
same course in different content shells
that have learning tools suited to one
learning style over another.

25. References
Edwards, Jack. "Multiple Intelligences and Technology." About
Face 10 3 (1995): 4 pages. 08 August 1999
<http://www.firn.edu/~face/about/dec95/mult_int.html>.
Kolb, David A. and Baker, Richard J.. Personal Learning Guide:
A practical guide to increasing your learning from a training
program or workshop. Baker & Company: Dallas, TX, 1979-80.
Unknown. "Learning Lab - Learning Styles Evaluation."
University of Northwestern Ohio (1998): 3 pages. 08 August
1999 <http://bsd-server.nc.edu/virtcol/ss/learn.html>.

26. Contact Information
Michael Barbour
mkb@ncf.ca
Morris Cooze
mcooze@stemnet.nf.ca
Presentation available at:
http://www.ncf.ca/~an650