Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2014 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

Learning Styles And Satisfaction In Distance Education

Pages
112–129
Publication Date
2014-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Educators should saturate DE courses with as much variance as feasible given technology and cost limitations to account for possible learning style differences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although complex, controversial, and contradicting, learning styles is highly influential.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This correlational research study was conducted to determine if there is any evidence to incorporate learning styles in DE.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Educators should saturate DE courses with as much variance as feasible given technology and cost limitations to account for possible learning style differences.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Distance Education · Learning Styles · Satisfaction

Abstract

Although complex, controversial, and contradicting, learning styles is highly influential. Distance education (DE) has experienced tremendous growth in the last few decades. The popularity of learning styles and DE necessitates research. This correlational research study was conducted to determine if there is any evidence to incorporate learning styles in DE. The following is the research question for this study. Are students’ learning styles based on the visual, auditory, tactile model correlated to satisfaction of course format in an online undergraduate course? The participants of this study were students enrolled in three sections of the Contemporary Worldviews course at a private higher education institution (HEI). Learning styles were determined by a variant of the visual, auditory, read/write, and kinesthetic (VARK) framework. Satisfaction of course format was determined from one composite question with responses based on a Likert scale. The response rate was 53.5%. Statistical analysis determined that learning styles was not correlated to satisfaction of course format in this current study. There are implications from this study that curriculum can be designed for a single course that leaves students highly satisfied. Educators should saturate DE courses with as much variance as feasible given technology and cost limitations to account for possible learning style differences.

🔖

Cite This Article

WU, D. C. (2014). Learning Styles And Satisfaction In Distance Education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 112–129. https://ajindex.com/articles/140506

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Battalio, J. (2009). Success in distance education: Do learning styles and multiple formats matter? American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 71-87.
  2. Beaumaster, S., & Long, J. A. (2002). Pedagogy, technology and learning styles— their effect on the online learner. Proceedings from National Conference on Alternative and External Degree Programs for Adults ’02, Pittsburg, PA, 80-97. Retrieved from http://ahea.org/files/pro2002beaumaster.pdf
  3. Beyth-Marom, R., Saporta, K., & Caspi, A. (2005). Synchronous vs. asynchronous tutorials: Factors affecting students’ preferences and choices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 245-262.
  4. Bowen, T. (2006). Designing curricula to ensure student completions (DECA-25). Retrieved from http://www.detc.org/downloads/publications/25%20- %20Designing%20Curricula%20-%20Bowen.pdf Bozkaya, M. (2001). Effects of instruction administered through written and visual symbol systems on the achievement of formal and distance education students. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED470071) Buboltz, W., Wilkinson, L., Thomas, A., & Jenkins, S. (2001). Learner styles and potential relations to distance education. In J. Price, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2001,
  5. Chesapeake, VA (pp. 144-148).
  6. Norfolk, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.org/p/16665
  7. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. Combs, L. (2001). Planning for e-course success. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Tampere, Finland, June 25-30, 2001, 317-321. http://www.editlib.org/p/15746
  8. Cook, D. A., Gelula, M. H., Dupras, D. M., & Schwartz, A. (2007). Instructional methods and cognitive and learning styles in web-based learning: Report of two randomized trials. Medical Education, 41(9), 897-905. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 292007.02822.x Deka, T. S., & McMurry, P. (2006). Student success in face-to-face and distance teleclass environments: A matter of contact? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1), 1-16.
  9. Drago, W. A., & Wagner, R. J. (2004). Vark preferred learning styles and online education. Management Research News, 27(7), 1-13. doi:1108/01409170410784211 Eaton, J. S. (2001). Distance learning: Academic and political challenges for higher education Acc