learning style preferences of external degree students

11
Learning Style Preferences of External Degree Students Lynn H. Willett and Frank G. Adams ABSTRACT: Thirty learning style preferences are profiled for a group of adult male students enrolled in an external degree program. The Canfield Learning Style In- ventory was used to assess the adult students' learning styles. These external degree students had eleven significantly different learning preferences compared to Canfield's norm group. Correlations between learning styles and traditional learning en- vironments also were examined. Implications of the results, strengths and limitations in the research are discussed. Introduction The research interest in cognitive and learning style mapping has generated a range of instruments and methods for assessing students' thinking and learning tendencies. This interest stems from the recognition that students display great differences in learning rates and learning strategies. While much of the research interest has focused on instrumentation, there has emerged research interest in analyzing groups of students in different learning environments. Knowles (1978) and Cross (1976) have found that adults, contrasted with 18-21 year old youth, bring major learning, attitudinal and ex- periential differences to the classroom. Of particular interest is the examination of learning styles in groups of adults found in non- traditional educational settings. This study identifies the learning style preferences of a group of male adult learners in an external un- dergraduate degree program. Review of Literature A number of studies have been completed on student preferred learning styles. These studies can be reported from two perspectives: the relationship of student learning preferences to instructional set- ting and the relationship of learning styles to student academic per- formance. No specific studies were found on learning preferences of adults in a nontraditional external degree program. Research on the relationship between learning styles and in- 55 5; 1985 Human Sciences Press

Upload: lynn-h-willett

Post on 10-Jul-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Learning style preferences of external degree students

Learning Style Preferences of External Degree Students

Lynn H. Willett and Frank G. Adams

A B S T R A C T : Thir ty learning style preferences are profiled for a group of adult male s tudents enrolled in an external degree program. The Canfield Learning Style In- ventory was used to assess the adult s tudents ' learning styles. These external degree s tudents had eleven significantly different learning preferences compared to Canfield's norm group. Correlations between learning styles and tradit ional learning en- v i ronments also were examined. Implications of the results, s t rengths and l imitations in the research are discussed.

Introduction

The research interest in cognitive and learning style mapping has generated a range of instruments and methods for assessing students' thinking and learning tendencies. This interest stems from the recognition that students display great differences in learning rates and learning strategies. While much of the research interest has focused on instrumentation, there has emerged research interest in analyzing groups of students in different learning environments. Knowles (1978) and Cross (1976) have found that adults, contrasted with 18-21 year old youth, bring major learning, attitudinal and ex- periential differences to the classroom. Of particular interest is the examination of learning styles in groups of adults found in non- traditional educational settings. This study identifies the learning style preferences of a group of male adult learners in an external un- dergraduate degree program.

Review of Literature

A number of studies have been completed on student preferred learning styles. These studies can be reported from two perspectives: the relationship of student learning preferences to instructional set- ting and the relationship of learning styles to student academic per- formance. No specific studies were found on learning preferences of adults in a nontraditional external degree program.

Research on the relationship between learning styles and in-

5 5 5; 1985 Human Sciences Press

Page 2: Learning style preferences of external degree students

56 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

structional settings ranged from studies on non-credit programs to graduate level experiences. Humphrey {1974} found that adults in non- credit courses had strongest preferences for control of educational planning of overall course goals. Humphrey (1974} also found that students who were studying issues desired more control than those who were learning skills. Ommen t1979) examined learning style preferences in a community college setting. He found that students 25 years or older preferred more structure than their younger coun- terparts. Smith and McCaulley (1973} examined differences in ap- proaches to self-paced instruction and students' preferred mode of per- ceiving and judging. Using the Meyers-Briggs Personality Inventory, the authors found a variety of personality types in the self-paced program. Payton, Hueter and McDonald (1979) studied graduate students in a physical therapy program. They found that these stu- dents preferred a high amount of course organization and structure. Letteri t1980) has shown that individual cognitive profiles can be developed across seven cognitive dimensions. Letteri showed that he could separate seventh and eighth grade students into significantly different achievement groups.

The second research perspective examines styles and academic out- comes. Cavanaugh (1981) utilized a Canfield learning style inventory in a secondary school system in Ohio. Cavanaugh used the inventory to assess students' preferences for learning in their immediate classroom environment, compared with the students' emotional traits, sociological needs and physical needs. Cavanaugh reported a suc- cessful implementation of learning styles inventory into the teaching process and was able to achieve a variety of significant positive academic achievements throughout the entire school system. In another effort, Boylan (1981) found that students who are given their preferred learning style treatments tended to perform better in the classroom. He found consistently a positive correlation between teacher characteristics interacting with learning characteristics in such a way that matching enhanced learning. Canfield (1977) reports research conducted in a Florida community College where teachers and students were matched on the basis of expectancy in locus of respon- sibility. This matching achieved positive academic results. Koscier- zynski (1980) found that a collective cognitive style existed for high school vocational students but found no correlation between achievement of these students and the degree to which the individual cognitive style matched with the group norm. Also, no significant relationship was found between achievement and the cognitive style. Copenhauer (1979) found that students did not change their learning style as they moved from one subject area to another. Copenhauer

Page 3: Learning style preferences of external degree students

LYNN H. W I L L E T T AND FRAN K G. ADAMS 57

(1979) found that students did not recognize the need for using a dif- ferent learning style to achieve academic success. Shuntich and Kirkhorn (1979) found that learning style data was used by both students and faculty to increase academic motivation. Griflin {1979) examined use of learning style data in a graduate level course. He found that when the data was used better student-teacher un- derstanding and higher student motivation resulted. Hunter {1980) examined relationships between learning styles, grades, and student ratings of instruction. He found a significant relationship existed be- tween course grade and the student's dependency on teacher-initiated activities, course organization and detail and on the student's grade expectation. Hunter also found no significant difference between the students' preferred teaching style and their learning style.

No research has been reported on the learning style preferences of adults who study in nontraditional settings. A research understanding of the learning style preferences of these nontraditional students will provide insight into obstacles and supports which can be used to enrich the instructional environment for external degree programs. The purpose of this study was to describe the learning style prefer- ences of a group of undergraduate adults pursuing a bachelor's degree in an off-campus setting.

Methodology

Sample

The sample studied in this analysis was a group of male students enrolled in a midwestern state university external degree program of- fered in a large metropolitan area. Sixty-two students were enrolled in the program and complete data were collected on forty-one of the students. At the time of the research these students were completing the last year of a bachelor's degree in a life-safety curriculum. The ex- ternal degree program has been designed as a "capstone program" which requires that students complete their first two years at a com- munity college before they are admitted into the upper-division studies. The students' upper-level studies were offered in concentrated modules of five to eight consecutive weekends. The students take one course at a time but are also required to complete a year-long in- dependent study project concurrently with the classes.

Demographic analysis of the study group revealed that 30% were married, and 15% divorced. Forty-three percent of the students re- ported having families with children. All of the students were male.

Page 4: Learning style preferences of external degree students

58 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

Students were asked to report the number of miles which they com- muted to class. The one-way mileage ranged from two to ninety-nine miles each (twenty-five miles was the median}. Students' number of years of experience at their current position ranged from one to twen- ty-eight years (five years was the median}.

Instrument and Variables

Learning style preferences were collected using Canfield's (1977) Learning Style Inventory. Canfield developed twenty scales {See Table 1) using four major categories: learning conditions, learning content, preferred mode of learning and performance expectation. He developed two instrument forms: a long form of thirty items and a shortened in- ventory of twenty-five items. The long form was used in this study.

Reliability data on the long form as reported by Canfield (1977) ranges from .52 to ,92. He reports preliminary validity work on the scales utilizing persistence in college as a predictive variable. Many of the Canfield scales correlated significantly with college persistence.

Table I

CANFIELD INSTRUMENT SCALES

Conditions Content Peer Organization Goal Setting Competition Instructor Detail Independence Authority

Numeric Qual i tat ive Inanimate People

Mode Listening Reading Iconic Direct Experience

ExpectaUon Outstanding or superior Above average or good Average Be|ow Average

Page 5: Learning style preferences of external degree students

LYNN H. WILLETT AND FRANK G. ADAMS 59

Data Collection and Analysis

All of the data were collected using a self-administered Canfield in- ventory during a supervised class session. The data collected in this study were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson product moment correlation and z-test techniques. Correlation and z-test statistics utilized an .05 level for determining statistical significance.

Results

Results from this analysis will be looked at from three different per- spectives: First, rank order of the scale score means for the external degree student; Second, comparison of the external degree student mean scores with the Canfield norm group; and finally, a comparison of the mean scores of the external degree students with other variables, using correlational analysis.

Table 2 displays the rank orders of the scales within each of the Can- field learning style categories. For Conditions category these scale items reflect student concerns for instructional dynamics. Instructor, peer and competition all received high mean scores. "Concern for in- structor" meant having a mutual understanding and liking for the in- structor; "peer" related to having good relations with other students; and "competition" was a need to compare with others and needing to know how one is doing compared with others. The Content category had four items related to the curriculum content of the material which students were experiencing. Students rated "qualitative" with the highest mean score. This involved working with words or language, writing, editing and talking. The second highest Content category was "people," which involved interviewing, counseling, selling and helping.

Of the four scales in the mode category, "Reading" was rated with the highest mean score. The Reading scale asked students' preferences for the written word, reading text, pamphlets.

Expectations category dealt with the student's anticipated level of performance in course. The highest mean score was "below average." The second highest ranked was "average" level. "Outstanding" and "above average" received low rankings for performance expectations.

Table 3 displays the z-test scores. A total of eleven significant dif- ferences resulted between the sample group and the Canfield norm group. Four of the significant differences were found in the Condition category. The sample group had a higher mean score than the norm group for "Competition" and instructor. The sample group also had a

Page 6: Learning style preferences of external degree students

60 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

significantly higher mean score for "goal setting" but the sample had a significantly lower mean score for "detail." Three out of four content scales had a significant difference between the sample group and the norm group. The sample group had a significantly higher mean score for "qualitative" content, a significantly higher score for "people" than the norm group and a statistically significant lower score for "inanimate objects." In the Mode category only one significant dif- ference resulted which was the "reading" scale.

The remaining significant differences occurred in the "Expectation" area. The group had a statistically significant lower expectation for doing "outstanding" or "superior work." The sample group also had a significantly higher expectation of doing "average" or "un- satisfactory" work.

Table 2

RANK ORDER BY SCALE CATEGORIES

RANK CONDITIONS MEAN

1 Instructor 17.83

2 Peer 17.54

3 Competition 17.12

4 Authority 16.61

5 Independence 15,73

6 Goal Setting 15.24

7 Organization I0.39

8 Detail 9.78

RANK CONTENT MEAN

1 Qualitative 17.88

2 People 15.51

3 Numeric 14.73

4 Inanimate II.38

RANK MODE MEAN

1 Reading 19.90

2 Iconics 14.24

3 Listening 12.98

4 Direct Experience 12.85

RANK EXPECTATION MEAN

1 Below Average 23.17

2 Average Level 15.54

3 Outstanding II.78

4 Above Average 9.39

N= 41

Page 7: Learning style preferences of external degree students

LYNN H. WI L L E T T AND FRANK G. ADAMS 61

Table 3

COMPARISON OF SAMPLE WITH NORM GROUP MEAN SCORE MALE EXTERNAL MALE NORM

VARIABLE

Conditions-Instructor 15.73

Conditions-Peer 17.54

Conditions-Competition 17.12

Conditions-Authority 16.60

Conditions-lndependence 17.83

Conditions-Goal Setting 15.24

Conditlons-Organization IO.39

Conditions-Detail 9.78

Content-Numeric I4.73

Content-Qualitative 17.88

Content-lnanimate II.98

Content-People 15.51

Mode-Listening 12.98

Mode-Reading 19.90

Mode-lconics 14.24

Mode-Direct Experience 12.85

Expect-Outstanding II.78

Expect-Above Average 9.39

Expect-Average 15.54

Expect-Unsatisfactory 23.17

STUDENTS MEAN GROUP MEAN

14.OO

17.OO

18.OO

17.10

17.00

2.00

l.OO

3.00

6.00

5-93

4.13

3.59

4.40

6.77

5.O7

3.77

5.23

0.08

3.53

21.19

z-TEST

3.21

1.23

-2.00*

-o.7o

1.58

2.77*

-1.28

-6.84*

-6.84*

2.98*

-2.79*

2.51"

-1.45

5.30*

-1.24

-1.41

-5.O6"

-1.88

3.54*

7.23*

*Significant at the .O5 level of significance

Page 8: Learning style preferences of external degree students

62 INNOVATIVE H I G H E R EDUCATION

Table 4 displays correlations between the learning styles inventory scale scores and five other learning environments which students were asked to rate using a Likert scale of "strongly disliked" to "strongly liked." The five environments tvariables) were:

�9 High school experiences �9 Job training at work �9 Community college experiences �9 Independent study at home �9 Personal learning proj ects

A total of six statistically significant correlations were found between the variables. Students' preferences for learning through reading were positively correlated with their high school and community college ex- periences. Students' rating of high school experience was negatively correlated with the learning mode of "iconics" but positively correlated with "detail." The only significant correlation coefficient with job training was on the learning style content variable of "qualitative." This was a negative correlation of -.264. Students' rating of their community college experience produced three significant coefficients. The students' learning style preference of Qualitative "content" was significant for the community college variable. The content for "inanimate" was negatively correlated with the community college rating. The independent study and the personal learning projects' ratings did not have any significant correlations with the learning styles variables.

Discussion

The external degree student presents a number of significant teaching-learning challenges. While these students prefer to set their own instructional goals, the goals which the nontraditional student sets are in many cases very present-day oriented and usually job- specific. The off-campus instructor will need to balance student goals with program priorities. These students also desired to have a mutual understanding between themselves and the instructor. This goal in many situations is impossible because of the commuting nature of the students and the instructor. Design for increased interaction must be built into the instructional strategy. Also, instructional planning must be specific to take into account student needs for detail on assign- ments, requirements, rules, etc. These nontraditional students preferred working with words or language rather than numbers,

Page 9: Learning style preferences of external degree students

LYNN H. WILLETT AND FRANK G. ADAMS 63

Table 4

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEARNING STYLE SCALE SCORES AND

OTHER LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Learning Style Variable

Conditions- Peer

Conditions- Instructor

Conditions- Organization

Conditions- Detail

Conditions- Goal Setting

Conditions- Independence

Conditions- Competition

Conditions- Authority

Content- Numeric

Content- Qualitative

Content- Inanimate

Content- People

Mode- Listening

Mode- Reading

Mode- Iconics

Mode Direct Exp.

Expect- Outstanding

Expect- Above Average

Expect- Average

Expect- Unsatisfactory

Other Learning Environments

H.S. Job Community Independent Personal Experience Trainin 9 College Study Learning

-.023 .030 -.221 .083 .121

-.067 .063 -.202 .]II .059

-.If9 .022 .220 -.243 -.Ill

�9 277" -.084 -.165 .211 -.012

-.I13 .023 -.181 .I00 .095

-.05B .099 .249 .175 .048

.169 .069 .069 .029 .I02

-.020 -.172 -.133 -0.176 -.208

.742 .224 -.043 .126 .lOl

-.043 -.264. .388* -.231 .027

-.181 .032 -.281' .175 .071

-.045 -.03] -.077 -.I02 -.177

-.059 .I03 .214 -.085 -.202

.258* -.249 .364* -.211 -.I04

-.281. -.105 -.25] .20B .205

.065 .203 -.224 .050 .080

.148 .043 -.098 .013 .181

-.001 .O98 .021 .I06 .098

-.163 -.152 .067 -.060 .165

-.069 -.051 .160 -.072 .124

I

*Statistically significant at the .05 level. N=41

Page 10: Learning style preferences of external degree students

64 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

inanimate objects, or people. Instructors desiring to match these preferences should utilize writing, editing, talking and language-based experiences.

Consistent with the need for qualitative content was the expressed preference for the reading mode of learning. Visual, listening or direct experience learning activities will not relate to this group of learners. These adults most probably view learning as studying rather than drawing on their own or others' experiences. These adults also suffer from low academic success expectations. Most of these adults probably did not do well academically in high school and thus delayed their progress into college. The community college and external degree programs attract underachieving and late maturing students. The in- structor should recognize that adults in nontraditional programs do not have a high positive academic self-regard of themselves.

A number of limitations exist in this research study. First, the study involved male students and it would be interesting to compare male students with female students in nontraditional academic settings. Secondly, the sample group of male students came from a health life science curriculum. These students are homogeneous in terms of previous kinds of training in fire science as well as community college experiences. Third, students in the sample completed the inventory at the end of the last class session, so they may have been influenced in their responses to the learning style scale by the particular teaching strategies which had been used in that particular class.

Future research studies should continue to focus on the non- traditional student found in external degree programs. Nontraditional learning is a growing trend and these students bring to the in- structional setting different learning expectations and learning styles needs to which the program developer as well as the instructor should respond. Also, research should be conducted on whether students can increase their achievement levels if they are matched in terms of learning styles, with a specific instructional teaching style or whether they work better if there is a contrast between the learning style and teaching style. Other research efforts should focus on comparing the learning styles of a group of nontraditional adults in external degree settings with on-campus residential students. Correlational studies should be run between nontraditional students' preferred learning style preferences and the type of course content which they are ex- periencing at the time of the assessment. Also, length of class, ex- pectations of the class in terms of critical thinking required, and the students' previous academic experiences may reveal significant fin- dings.

In conclusion, what emerged from this analysis was that the non- traditional external degree program attracted a group of traditional learning adults whose learning styles preferences require a structured,

Page 11: Learning style preferences of external degree students

LYNN H. WILLETT AND FRANK G. ADAMS 65

well-organized, language4ntensive instructional strategy. This finding seems to contradict the emphasis on using andragogical teaching strategies proposed by Knowles or the learning-how-to-learn move- ment summarized by Smith (1982) for the adult learner.

References

Boylan, G. (1981). Interview with A1 Canfield. Journal of Developmental and Remedial Education, Vol. 4, Winter.

Canfield, A.A. (1977). Learning Styles Inventory Manual. Plymouth: Humanics Inc. Cavanaugh, D.P. (1981). Student learning styles: a diagnostic/prescriptive approach to

instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, Nov. Copenhauer, R. (1979). The consistency of learning styles. Teacher Education, Vol. 15,

Winter. Cross, K.P. (1976). Accent on learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Griffin, V. (1979). Self-directed adult learners and learning. Learning, Vol. 2, No. 1-6-8. Humphrey, C. A Study of Adults' Preference for Control of Modes of Learning Ac-

tivities. Paper read at the Adult Education Research Conference, April 1974 in Chicago, Illinois, (Eric Document Number 094 103).

Hunter, W. (1980). Relationships Between Learning Styles, Grades and Student Ratings of Instruction. Community~Junior College Research Quarterly, 5(1), Oct- Dec.

Knowles, M. (1978). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (Second Edition), Gulf Publishing, Houston.

Koscierzynski, R. (1980). Educational cognitive style mapping of vocational industrial students. Man, Society and Technology, Vol. 39, May-June, 1980.

Letteri, C.A. (1980). Cognitive profile: basic determinants of academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research, March-April.

Ommen, J. (1979). Learning preferences of younger and older students. Community College Frontiers, 8.

Payton, O., Hueter, A., & McDonald, M. (1979). Learning style preferences in physical therapy students in the United States. Physical Therapy, Vol. 59.

Shuntich, M. & Kirkhorn, J. (1979). Learning styles inventory and self-instructional modules in dental auxiliary education, Lexington, Ky., University of Kentucky, College of Allied Health Professions, August.

Smith, I. & McCaulley, J. (1973). Self-Paced Instruction and College Student Per- sonalities. Engineering Education, Vol. 63, No. 6, March.

Smith, R. (1982). Learning how to learn. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company.