Vark Preferred

Vark Preferred Learning Styles andOnline Educationby William A. Drago and Richard J. Wagner

Abstract

It has become evident that students have diverse preferred learning stylesand effective instructors must design and deliver courses to meet the needsof those students. This study investigates the four physiological learningstyles of visual, aural, read-write and kinesthetic as they apply to online edu-cation. Findings suggest that online students are more likely to havestronger visual and read-write learning styles. Further, read-write learnersand students that were strong across all four learning styles were likely toevaluate course effectiveness lower than other students while aural/read-write learners and students that were not strong on any learning style weremore likely to evaluate course effectiveness higher than other students.

Introduction

Over the past two decades educators and education theorists have been in-terested in the importance of students’ preferred learnng styles and their im-pact on performance in the classroom. Learning style refers to thedifferences that exist between individuals in how they best learn. As notedby Corno and Snow (1986) achieving success in education is dependent onthe ability to adapt teaching to individual differences of students. A teachermust create an environment where the needs of a variety of learners can bemet.

Online delivery of education has become an important component ofhigher education. Online MBA degree programmes have risen from five in1989 to approximately 95 currently (Dolezalek, 2003). Online enrolment inhigher education is approximately 2% of the total and is expected to increaseby 40% annually (Dolezalek, 2003). However, are these quality pro-grammes? While there is growing evidence that there is little or no differ-ence between the quality and effectiveness of online courses in comparisonto traditional ones many remain skeptical. Students have not rushed to on-line degree programmes as quickly as forecasted (Mangan, 2001). On thehiring side, many corporate recruiters and HR professionals seem to ques-tion the credibility of e-degrees (Dolezalek, 2003).

A large research base has developed concerning learning styles in thetraditional classroom. Dimensions of learning styles studied include cogni-tive, affective, physiological and psychological (Dunn, Beaudry, and Kla-vas, 1989). Instructors are encouraged to teach to various learning styles byusing a variety of teaching methods.

Volume 27 Number 7 2004 1

��

�� !"#

Research directed at learning styles and online course delivery is rela-tively undeveloped. Yet this may be found to be an inherent weakness of on-line courses and programmes. Can online courses be designed to meet theneeds of various learners? Is there anything about taking courses through acomputer that ‘teaches’ to some learning styles but does not others? Onlineeducation is here to stay, but if quality education is expected through thismode of delivery, its relationship to various learning styles should be inves-tigated.

This study considers the learning styles of online MBA students inmanagement classes at a large regional university in the Midwestern UnitedStates. The study examines the perceived level of overall effectiveness of acourse based on the physiological preferred learning style of the student todetermine if students with certain physiological learning styles perceivegreater or lesser satisfaction than others through online delivery.

Review

Learning involves remembering and often some type of skilful performanceafter studying (Ross, Maureen, Schultz, 2001). Studying can be seen as aprocess that involves taking information and then processing that informa-tion. How a person learns can be impacted by numerous factors. These fac-tors can be seen as dimensions to the study of learning styles. Learningstyles should be seen as having at least four general dimensions (Dunn,Beaudry and Klavas, 1989). These include:

1) Cognitive – how individuals typically process information as theyperceive, think, solve problems, remember and relate to others.

2) Affective – views learning as it relates to a person’s personality.Considers such characteristics as attention, emotion, motivation,incentive, curiosity, boredom, anxiety and frustration.

3) Physiological – views learning as it relates to biologicalcharacteristics. For instance, what senses (auditory, visual orkinesthetic) are used for learning.

4) Psychological – views learning as it relates to the inner strengthand individuality of the individual.

It is important to teach to a diversity of learning styles. Using variousteaching methods helps maintain students’ interest and meet their individualneeds (Gunawardena and Boverie, 1993). Activities that have been used inthe traditional classroom include lectures, discussions, teamwork activitiesand experiential learning activities (Kemp and Seagraves, 1995;McKeachie, 1994; Magnen, 1989; Sarasin, 1998).

As noted previously, research on the link between learning styles andonline education is underdeveloped. Yet, as enrolment in online courses andprogrammes continue to grow some assurance should be made that online

2 Management Research News

Vark PreferredLearning Styleand OnlineEducation

education will be as good as traditional if not better. Future online studentsshould expect not only high quality education but also a student-centred fo-cus in that the course be designed to meet their individual needs (Diaz andCartnal, 1999).

Do students that enroll in online courses have different learning stylesthan those that enroll in traditional ones? Diaz and Cartnal (1999) found in acomparison of one online course with one traditional course that the onlinestudents were more independent. They preferred to work alone rather thanwith others. This is consistent with Grasha and Yangarber-Hicks’ (2000)view that students interested in technology-based courses are more inde-pendent learners who prefer a more abstract way of thinking. Diaz and Cart-nal (1999) also found that the online students were less dependent on theirlearning styles as learners. In other words, their preferred learning style wasnot as key to the learning process as it was in traditional students.

Very little attention has been given to the physiological dimension ofthe study of learning styles and online education. A popular typology forthis dimension is VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic). Abrief description of these learning styles can be found below:

1) Visual: visual learners like to be provided demonstrations and canlearn through descriptions. They like to use lists to maintain paceand organise their thoughts. They remember faces but often forgetnames. They are distracted by movement or action but noiseusually does not bother them.

2) Aural: aural learners learn by listening. They like to be providedwith aural instructions. They enjoy aural discussions anddialogues and prefer to work out problems by talking. They areeasily distracted by noise.

3) Read/write: read/write learners are note takers. They do best bytaking notes during a lecture or reading difficult material. Theyoften draw things to remember them. They do well with hands-onprojects or tasks.

4) Kinesthetic: kinesthetic learners learn best by doing. Theirpreference is for hands-on experiences. They are often highenergy and like to make use of touching, moving and interactingwith their environment. They prefer not to watch or listen andgenerally do not do well in the classroom.Source: (www.geocities.com/-educationplace)

Research Question

There are two research questions investigated in this study. The first iswhether online programmes attract students with different physiologicallearning styles. Because this is largely an exploratory investigation no spe-cific hypotheses are given. However, the visual and read/write styles seem


Vark PreferredLearning Style

and OnlineEducation

likely to be suitable for online courses. Online courses can be designed tostimulate the visual learner with animation, hypertext and video clicks(Ross and Schulz, 1999). Read/write learners enjoy and learn taking notesand drawing as they listen to lectures or read difficult material. This wouldseem to ‘fit’ a delivery mode where you can sit in on the class on your owntime and place. The aural learning style is also a possibility as most onlinelectures come with audio as well as written notes. However, having madeaudio/visual files for online classes the authors hesitate to say that they arethe equivalent of a classroom experience. Further, online discussions tend tobe in written form which does not fit best with this type of learner. While thekinesthetic learner has a difficult time in the classroom he/she is unlikely todo much better in online classes. The exception may be working students.Online programmes may attract more full time working students who canimmediately apply course content to their jobs.

The second research question asks what is the relationship betweenlearning style and perceived online course effectiveness. Again no specifichypotheses are put forth. Online courses that offer strong visual contentshould lead to higher perceptions of effectiveness by visual learners. Theread/write learner may perceive higher course effectiveness by providing adelivery mode that allows them the ability to take notes and doodle at theirown pace and place. Online courses with strong auditory content would beperceived as effective for aural learners but most courses and programmeshave not reached this point in the development of their courses. Instructorsused to talking in front of a class are not necessarily as strong speaking into amicrophone at their computer. Kinesthetic learners will not gain much fromthe online course alone, but if it can be tied to their work life there could be alarge benefit for these hard to please students.

Research Design

The study was carried out at a large Midwestern university during the falland spring semesters of 2002-2003. This university’s College of Businesshad begun offering online classes six years before and the online courseswere now a large portion of the MBA programme. Of all MBA students tak-ing courses, approximately 2/3 took them online. While it was possible totake the programme completely online, the vast majority of students livedwithin driving distance so that they had a choice of taking classes online orthrough the traditional classroom. Online courses emphasised strong inter-action between students with weekly discussions and group assignments.The instructor was also expected to provide quick feedback, answer studentquestions in a timely manner and participate in discussions. The instructorof an online course developed a CD prior to the class with course content andadministrative content usually in the form of audio/visual files.

Data was collected from students of 11 MBA management courses atthe end of each semester. Eight courses were online while three were tradi-



tional. The survey consisted of two parts. In Part One students were directedto go to http://www.vark-earn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire andtake the VARK learning style survey. The VARK learning style survey pro-vides a rule-of-thumb measure of four physiological learning styles; visual,aural, read/write and kinesthetic. Once the students obtained their scores forthe four learning styles they were directed to go to the questionnaire pro-vided by the authors and then fill in their VARK scores and answer 41 ques-tions concerned with teaching and course effectiveness. Four global oroverall effectiveness questions were included and used in this study. Thesewere: ‘This course contributes to preparation for my professional career’, ‘Iwould recommend this course to friends/colleagues’, ‘I have learned a lot inthis course’, and ‘I have enjoyed taking this course’. Three-hundred andtwenty six questionnaires were returned out of a total of 527 students. Thisrepresented a 61.9% response rate. For comparison purposes 241 responseswere returned from online students out of a total of 431 students (55.9%).For traditional classes 85 of 96 students returned questionnaires (89%).

Some basic statistics on measures of the four learning styles are pro-vided in Table 1.

��

��

$�� #%& �#&'&

"�� #�( %#�%)

*��+�� ' �% (#)� %#%��

,�� ) �� (#�� #&�%

$�� - .��/ ��)

For the VARK survey individuals answer 13 questions. Students cangive multiple answers for each question. Total points possible on each learn-ing style is 13. (www.vark-learn.com) An independent samples t-test forequality of means was used to compare mean responses on each of fourlearning styles of those students taking online courses with those taking tra-ditional ones. These results can be seen in Table 2.

Pearson Correlation coefficients were used to determine associationsbetween learning styles. These results are shown in Table 3.

Respondents were then divided into sixteen categories according tothe type/s of learning style/s they scored above the mean for all respondents.These categories and the mean scores of students on the course effectivenessindex as well as the four single item overall measures of course effective-ness are shown in Table 4. The course effectiveness index was determined



and OnlineEducation

by summing responses of the four individual course effectiveness items. Anindependent samples t-test for equality of means was used to compare meanresponses on course effectiveness of those students that ‘fit’ a particularcategory with those that did not. Significant differences in means are high-lighted.

Results

Table 2 provides the independent samples t-test for equality of means analy-sis to determine if online students had different learning styles than their tra-ditional counterparts. Online students scored higher on three learning styles;visual, aural and read/write. For both the visual and read/write learningstyles the difference was highly significant.

��

�� !"#� �� $��

��$ ��

$�� 0�� %�' %$&'(( �#'�� #��

�� '� �$)*(( �#�&� #�&�

"�� 0�� %�' �#�� %#��% #��'

�� '� %#�� %#��% #%��

*��+�� 0�� %�& &$)&((( %#%)( #�(&

�� '� &$'+((( %#��% #%�&

,�� 0�� %�& (#�� #&�� #��

�� &� (#�' �#)�� #�')

1 2 3 #� 11 2 3 # � 111 2 3 # �

�� %� !��

#�� ,��-.��

/��

$�� 4�� $'*) �# & $��+

!��# .%��/ $')' #%�% $'%)

- �� ' ��)

"�� 4�� # && # ))

!��# .%��/ #�&( ��)

- ��' # ))

*��+�� 4�� $�**

!��# .%��/ $'''

- ��)



Table 3 provides Pearson correlation coefficients for the four meas-ures of learning styles. The learning styles did show some significant inter-actions. The visual learning style was positively correlated with the auraland kinesthetic learning styles while the read/write learning style wasstrongly and negatively correlated with the kinesthetic learning style.

Table 4 shows the distribution of online students across 16 categoriesaccording to the number of learning styles they scored above the mean forall respondents. As can be seen from the table students were fairly evenlydistributed across all 16 categories. Eighty-nine students were found to haveone dominant learning style representing 37.6% of the total. By far the larg-est of this group were the read/write learners which made up 16% of the totalnumber of online students. There were also eight students that failed to scoreabove the mean on any learning style. This represented 3.4% of all respon-dents. Fifty-nine percent of the students scored above the mean on two ormore learning styles. This is consistent with past studies using the VARKinstrument that found approximately 55-70% of students had multi-modallearning styles (www.vark-learn.com)

Of the sixteen categories analysed only four had mean course effec-tiveness levels below the level of their counterparts that did not ‘fit’ that par-ticular category. These included read-write learners, visual/read-writelearners, aural/kinesthetic learners and visual/aural/read-write/kinestheticlearners. In two cases the difference in means was significant. These in-cluded the read-write and visual/aural/read-write/kinesthetic categories. Inonly one instance was the mean global effectiveness index score of a set oflearners significantly higher than those not in the set. That group was theaural/read-write learners. It might also be noted that learners that did nothave a dominant learning style scored significantly higher on the ‘I learned alot’ global effectiveness item.

The same analysis was not performed on the traditional students dueto the small sample size and large number of categories.

Discussion

As noted previously the online programme at this university was approxi-mately six years old at the time of the data collection. Courses had changedover this time through evolution and learning by instructors and administra-tors. Students had likely developed some knowledge of the differences thatexisted between online and traditional courses. Further, the vast majority ofcourses in the MBA programme are available both online and in the tradi-tional classroom. All courses used in the study were available through bothmodes of delivery although not necessarily in the same semester. Approxi-mately two-thirds of the MBA students take both online and traditionalcourses through their MBA programme. While the online programme at-tracts students throughout the United States and internationally the majorityof students live within driving distance of the university or one of its two off



and OnlineEducation


�� &� 0�� 1�� 2��3 �1 ��

11�� 0��

�� 1��!��

4��,��

"�� "��

�5�3��

��5 6�� 6�� 6�� 6��

�� - 6�� !�� !�� !�� !��

$�� % �&#�))& (#%� (#�� (#�� (#%�

*�� %%� ��#�()& (# ( (# � �#�� #��

"�� % �)#(� (#% (#�� (# � (# �

*�� %�& ��#�)&& (# ( (# % (# �#��

*��+�� ' �&$6�7%((( %$+7(( %$7%(( %$77(( %$&+(((

*�� 7$�*�6((( &$��(( &$��(( &$'+(( &$'�(((

,�� )#�)'( (#%� (# � (#�� (#

*�� %�' ��#�&&� (# ( (# � (#� (#�

$�� 7 "�� &#� (# (#� (#� (#�

*�� %%& ��#�) ( (# � (# % �#�' �#��

$�� 7 *��+�� & ��#�&)� (# �#&) �#&) �#)�

*�� %% �)# &%& (# � (# � (# % �#��

$�� 7 ,�� ' �)# ��) (#�� (# (# �#�(

*�� %�� )# () (# � (# � (# �#�%

"�� 7 *��+�� +$)77+( &$&+( &$7'(( (#% &$7'(((

*�� %%% �6$))�*( &$'�( %$**(( �#�� %$))(((

"�� 7 ,�� (#&)�% �#&& �#&& �#)� �#�(

*�� %%( �)# ' ( (# & (# ( (# % �#��

*��+�� 7 ,�� ( �)#&'�& (# & (#�) (#%� (# &

*�� %%� ��#��) (# � (# � �#�� #��

$�� "�� 7 *��+�� ' �)#'&� (#%� (#%� (#%� (#��

*�� %%� ��#�&'% (# ( (# % (# �#�%

$�� "�� 7 ,�� )#�� (#�� (#�� (# �#'�

*�� %%' �)# (( (# � (# � (# �#��

site locations for teaching classes. All of this suggests that many studentshave the knowledge to select the mode of delivery that best suits them andcan meet the physical requirements of either mode of delivery. This makes itpossible for students to decide or choose based on their preferred learningstyle.

Given this choice, the fact that there was a significant difference in themean scores of two learning styles, suggests that perhaps learning styles doplay a part in the decision to take online or traditional courses. The onlinecourses may be attracting visual learners because so much of the content isvisual – coming through the computer screen. As noted previously, onlinecourses may attract read-write learners due to their ability to step into thecourse on their own time and at a place convenient to them. This gives themthe ability to take notes and draw pictures as they study course materials. Itmight also be noted that there were no findings to suggest that traditionalprogrammes attracted a particular learning style over the online mode of de-livery. While the kinesthetic mean for traditional students was slightlyhigher than for online it was not significant.

Online courses and programmes could probably do a better job of at-tracting aural and kinesthetic learners. Innovations in information technol-



and OnlineEducation

�� &� 0�� 1�� 2��3 �1 ��

11�� 0��

�� 1��!��

4��,��

"�� "��

�5�3��

��5 6�� 6�� 6�� 6��

�� - 6�� !�� !�� !�� !��

$�� *��+�� 7 ,��

� �&# (#� (#� (#� (#�

*�� %%& ��#�)(' (# � (# % �#�� #��

"�� *��+�� 7 ,��

& �&�&�(� (#(� (#(� (#(� (#(�

*�� %� ��#��)� (# ( (# % �#�� #��

$�� "�� *��+�� 7,��

�� &$''''(( %$7)( %$&�((( %$&+(( %$&�((

*�� %�' �7$�)%6(( &$')( &$')((( &$'6(( %$*+((

-�� ' �&#'&� (#%� (#)� &$7%( (#�'

*�� %%� ��#�(�% (# ( (# � %$*)( �#��

1 2 3 # � 11 2 3 # � 111 2 3 # �

ogy are making it more feasible to transmit sound as part of the content of thecourse and to use it more in terms of delivery of the course to students. Be-sides offering audio/visual lectures of course material instructors can alsoprovide audio feedback on projects and assignments. It may also be possibleto carry out discussions aurally by having students submit their entries usingsound bits rather than the written word. Attracting kinesthetic learners maybe more difficult. Ross, et al. (1998) suggests creating assignments wherestudents can practice their problem solving skills and encourage them to de-velop creative solutions, brain storming, engaging students in interactiveactivities and doing physical activities are ways to reach the kinesthetic stu-dent. For working students it may be possible to let them somehow bringtheir workplace into the learning process. Perhaps by encouraging them totalk about course material and how it applies to their work.

The associations between physiological learning styles may indicatewhy so many multi-modal learners were found among respondents and inpast studies using the VARK survey instrument. Because all four are linkedtogether (visual was positively associated with aural and kinesthetic whileread-write was negatively associated with kinesthetic) it may be possible toconsider these as one dimension with high visual/aural/kinesthetic on oneend of the continuum and high read-write on the other end. Certainly thestrength of the association between read-write and kinesthetic suggests thatthese be treated as two ends of a continuum. This gives us insight to thesetwo types of learners. Read-write learners were originally described as en-joying hands-on projects. This they had in common with kinesthetic learn-ers. However, as the opposite of kinesthetic perhaps strong read-writelearners like to learn in a vacuum. They do not want to ‘do’ they want to‘know’. They do not want to physically practice. They simply want to un-derstand. Kinesthetic learners are not likely to be able to sit alone and listenquietly and patiently to a lecture whether it is given online or in the class-room.

There is at least one problem area uncovered for online courses interms of satisfying all learning styles. Read-write learners, a group that on-line courses seem to be attracting, tended to view the effectiveness of thecourse lower than others. Perhaps it is difficult to find a good time and placeto take notes and draw while they are ‘in the course’. The vacuum they seek(if they are indeed opposite of kinesthetic learners) may be hard to find asthey log-on during lunch-breaks or while dealing with family issues athome. Perhaps they find that their notes have already been made availableby the instructor yet the learning does not take place because they are not thenote takers.

Another possible problem is that students that are strong in all fourlearning styles tend to view a course as less effective than others. Perhapsthese learners require that needs for all four learning styles must be presentin order to be satisfied. This would possibly explain why their opposite,



learners with no strong learning styles tended to view course effectivenesshigher. If so, students with all four learning styles as dominant are probablypretty critical of most delivery modes including the traditional classroom.

Thirteen of the sixteen categories investigated had mean course effec-tiveness scores higher than those not in the category. This provides some in-dication that online courses do seem to meet the needs of most learner types.Aural/read-write learners perceived significantly greater course effective-ness than others not in the category. So while read-write learners went unsat-isfied with online courses the students with the combination ofaural/read-write learning styles were very satisfied. The combination ofaural and read-write may be a natural combination or a learned learningstyle. Students listen to lecture material, try to make sense of it, take notes toprovide clues to their thinking pattern and learn. Sounds like the perfect stu-dent for a lecture type class. One wonders how this group would perceive atraditional classroom.

Conclusion

The need to teach to diverse learning styles has been stressed in literatureconcerned with providing quality education. As enrolment in online pro-grammes continues to grow some assurance must be made that these coursescan satisfy the needs of various learner types. This study investigated thelink between VARK learning styles and online course delivery. Six impor-tant results of the study are worth restating:

1) Online courses seem to be attracting students with high visual andread-write learning styles.

2) The visual learning style is positively and significantly associatedwith the aural and kinesthetic learning styles.

3) The read-write learning style was strongly and negativelyassociated with the kinesthetic learning style.

4) Read-write learners appear to be less satisfied with onlinedelivery.

5) Students with all four learning styles as dominant were lesssatisfied with online delivery.

6) Aural/read-write learners were highly satisfied with onlinecourses.

There are a number of limitations to this study that should be mentioned.Online education is a relatively new phenomenon. Courses and programmesmay vary considerably from one institution to another. So generalising theseresults to other programmes may be misleading. It is likely that any pro-gramme and even courses within programmes will have their own uniqueassociations with students’ learning styles and should be investigated sepa-rately. Sample size is also a concern. Because the sample is divided into 16



and OnlineEducation

groups to compare means on course effectiveness, several groups had rela-tively few members. A larger sample may have led to more significant rela-tionships. Finally the data may suffer from data loss and sample selectionproblems common to end-of-semester student evaluations. Students whodrop the course are not observed (Becker, 1997).

Further research concerned with the interaction between learningstyles and online education is certainly warranted. If online education is toreach a quality level equal to or even higher than the traditional classroommethods must be developed to satisfy all learners. If this is not possible fu-ture students should be aware of the limitations of the different modes ofeducational delivery in their ability to satisfy their particular learning styles.



References

Becker, W. (1997) “Teaching economics to undergraduates.” Journal ofEconomic Literature 35 (September), pp.1347-1373.

Corno, L. and Snow, R.E. (1986) “Adapting Teaching to Individual Differ-ences Among Learners,” in M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Resourceson Teaching, pp.605-629.

Diaz, David P., Cartnal, Ryan B. (1999) “Students’ Learning Styles in TwoClasses,” College Teaching, Vol. 47, Issue 4.

Dolezalek, H. “Online degrees.” Training, 40(5), pp.26-30.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., Klavas, A. (1989) “Survey Research on LearningStyles.” Education Leadership, 46, pp.50-58.

Grasha, Anthony F., Yangarber-Hicks, Natalia (2000) “Integrating Teach-ing Styles and Learning Styles with Instructional Technology,” CollegeTeaching, Vol. 48, Issue 1.

Gunawardena, C. and Boverie, P.L. (1993) “Impact of Learning Styles onInstructional Design for Distance Education.” Paper presented at the WorldConference on the International Council of Distance Education, Houston.

Kemp, I.J., and Seagraves, L. (1985) “Transferable Skills – Can HigherEducation Deliver?” Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), pp.315-328.

Mangan, K. (2001) “Expectations evaporate for online MBA programs.”Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(6), pp.A31-A32.

Magnen, B. (1989) Practical Tips for Teaching Professors. Madison, Wis.:Magna Publications.

McKeachie, W.J. (1994) Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research and Theoryfor College and University Teachers. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Health.

Ross, Jonathan L., Schultz, Robert A. (1999) “Using the world wide web toaccommodate diverse learning styles, “ College Teaching, Vol. 47, Issue 4.

Ross, Jonathan L., Maureen, T.B., Schultz, Robert A. (2001) “CognitiveLearning Styles and Academic Performance in Two Postsecondary Com-puter Application Courses,” Journal of Research on Computing in Educa-tion, Vol. 33, Issue 4.

Sarasin, L.C. (1998) Learning Styles Perspectives: Impact in the Class-room. Madison, Wis.: Atwood Publishing.(www.vark-learn.com)



and OnlineEducation

Documents

Vark Preferred