Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: A comparative study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the incorporation of multiple learning styles in the design of online courses increased learning potential, and whether the incorporation of these varying learning styles increased student satisfaction. Moallem (2007) selected the learning style model of Felder and Silverman (1988) as the foundation on which to base definitions and assumed relationships between/among learning styles throughout the study (p. 219). The basic learning styles identified for study were sensory, intuitive, visual, verbal, inductive, deductive, active, reflective, sequential, and global, all of which may overlap one another or vary based on subject matter or student preference in a given subject. The intention was not to cater specifically to every student’s preferred style of learning, but rather to incorporate styles that they were most comfortable and familiar with to enhance understanding and satisfaction, while at the same time incorporating methods relying on other learning styles to challenge them to learn in new ways.
Course design included group activity, synchronous/asynchronous discussion, blogging, discussion boards, and reading and research. In the first two units the course was designed based on traditional methodology, that is, based upon meeting course objectives and learning outcomes. The second two units were based on the methodology of incorporating various learning styles. Although students were asked to write and describe their experiences, the majority of the study’s results were represented with quantitative data. The study concluded that student learning results were superior in those units based on the traditional method. However, student satisfaction remained consistent across both course design methodologies.
Although I do not dispute the accuracy of the findings from this study in that higher student learning results were achieved using the traditional method, I do question the reasons why, and I lean toward external factors as having a greater impact upon this than what was discussed within the article. When thinking of the way in which most courses progress, whether in a traditional or distance learning setting, it is commonplace for material to move from relatively simpler, to relatively difficult. Therefore, even though each topic provides a foundation for the next, concepts become increasingly difficult to learn and understand, and the fact that student learning outcomes decreased after the first two units may have had less to do with the instructional method and more to do with the complexity of the material presented. Further, Moalem (2007) specifically indicated that “the first unit introduced students to the course content and its objectives; it provided them with an opportunity to get to know one another and the instructor, and to establish a work routine for the course” (p. 226). It is fairly safe to assume that this unit ranked relatively low on the difficulty scale because students were simply introducing themselves to one another and learning to navigate the website. With the exception of a participation grade, there was little to evaluate, so how high or low could learning outcomes really be?
Moallem (2007) makes an excellent point in noting that online education “can be easily dominated by text based communication” and that it is “the designer’s/teacher’s challenge to produce a course or instructional material that does not have an obvious tilt toward one learning and thinking style” (p. 218). What I find most compelling about this study is the emphasis on incorporating multiple learning styles for every student instead of simply trying to cater to every student’s specific need at all times. It is clear that the focus was not to learn students’ learning styles and adapt to them, but to adapt an entire course to multiple learning styles. This allows for learners to have access to information in ways that they are most comfortable, but also requires course participation in a variety of ways that encourage them to familiarize themselves with other learning styles. This is especially critical when teaching online courses to K-12 learners, as it is in these stages where it seems students’ strengths are identified and encouraged, and they are often given little encouragement toward developing in weaker areas. Thinking back to my elementary and secondary classes, I wish my teachers had taken as much time to encourage me in all subject areas as they had in those they felt were my strengths, as it would have better prepared me as a life-long learner. If we can offer this sort of instruction, not only will we effectively be able to deliver course material, but we will be providing learners greater lessons in ways to learn, and not just material to learn.
Moallem, M. (2007). Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: A comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 217-245. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.