Finding the relationship between Instructional strategies and Student Learning Styles in Online learning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33650/ijit.v1i1.3426

Authors (s)


(1) * Our Akemis   (Syracuse University)  
        Turkey
(2)  Koszalka A. Tiffany   (Syracuse University)  
        Turkey
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Researchers investigated differences in learner preferences for different types of instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Results suggested that matches between students’ learning styles and instructional strategies did not affect their perception of their own learning outcomes, level of effort and involvement, and level of interactions in the course. Data also indicated that no single instructional strategy, among three instructional strategies tested, emerged as superior for high and low field dependent online students.

Keywords

instructional strategies, learning styles, online environments



Full Text: PDF



References


Abraham, R. (1985). Field Independence-Dependence and the Teaching of Grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 2. 689- 702.

Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 227- 244.

Centra, J. (1998). The development of student instructional report II. Educational Testing Service.

Claxton, C. S. & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning Styles: Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Evan, F. (1969). The Psychological Differentiation Inventory: A questionnaire measure of field dependence. A Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, PA., April 1969

Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 359-379.

Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). Getting Ahead by Getting Online. Library Journal, 127, 32-35.

Jonassen, D. H., Grabinger, R. S., & Harris, N. D. C. (1990). Analyzing instructional strategies and tactics. Performance and Instruction Quarterly, 3, 29-45.

Jonassen, D. H. & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Locatis, C. & Weisberg, M. (1997). Distributed learning and the internet. Contemporary Education, 68, 100- 103.

Macneil, R. (1980). The relationship of cognitive style and instructional style to the learning performance of undergraduate students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 354-359.

Muir, D. J. (2001). Adapting online education to different learning styles. National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago,

IL. Robles, M. & Braathen, S. (2002). Online Assessment Techniques. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 44, 39-49.

Roblyer, M.D. & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17, 77-98.

Smith, P. L.& Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional Design. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Thurmond, V. A., Wambach, K. & Connors, H. R. (2002). Evaluation of student satisfaction: Determining the impact of a WBE by controlling for student characteristics. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169-189.

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. T., Raskin, E. and Karp, S. A., (1971). Group Embedded Figures Test Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.


Dimensions, PlumX, and Google Scholar Metrics

10.33650/ijit.v1i1.3426


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Our Akemis

Creative Commons License
 

International Journal of Instructional Technology
Published by Lembaga Penerbitan, Penelitian, dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LP3M) of Nurul Jadid University, Probolinggo, East Java, Indonesia.