Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 137–155 | Cite as

Learning Environments and Learning Styles: Non-traditional Student Enrollment and Success in an Internet-based Versus a Lecture-based Computer Science Course

  • John P. Buerck
  • Theodore Malmstrom
  • Elliott Peppers
Article

Abstract

Colleges and universities are increasingly using information technologies to enhance the learning environment. Many educational institutions offer Internet-based on-line courses in an effort to meet the educational needs of students. The primary goal of this research was to determine if there is a relationship between students' preferred learning environment (i.e. face-to-face or on-line) and their learning style. The secondary goal was to determine if there were any differences in the academic success of students in the face-to-face versus on-line sections. Participants were adult (ages 22+ years), non-traditional computer science students given the option to take a face-to-face lecture-based or an on-line Internet-based computer science course. Results revealed that computer science students in the face-to-face learning environment were more likely to have the Assimilator learning-style, whereas computer science students in the on-line Internet-based learning environment were more likely to have the Converger learning-style. Student academic success did not reliably differ as a function of learning environment selection. Implications of these results are discussed in terms of learning style characteristics of computer science students, learning styles and gender differences and implications of student academic success in on-line vs face-to-face environments.

academic achievement computer science Internet-based learning environments learning styles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ahmad, R., Piccoli, G., &; Ives, B. (1998). Effectiveness of virtual learning environments in basic skills business education: A field study in progress. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 20, 352–357.Google Scholar
  2. Bada, E., &; Okan, Z. (2000). Students' language learning preferences. TESL-EJ, 4(3), A—1, 1–15. Retrieved from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej15/a1.htmlGoogle Scholar
  3. Bean, J., &; Metzner, M. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate students attrition. Review of Education Research, 55(4), 485–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belanger, F., &; Jordan, D. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Benbunan-Fich, R., &; Hiltz, S. (2002). Correlates of effectiveness of learning networks: The effects of course level, course type, and gender on outcomes. Proceeding of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences — 2002, 0-7695-1435-9, IEEE. Google Scholar
  6. Blum, K. (1999). Gender differences in asynchronous learning in higher education: Learning styles, participation barriers and communication patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 3(1), 46–66.Google Scholar
  7. Brower, K. A., Stemmans, C. L., Ingersoll, C. D., &; Langley, D. J. (2001). An investigation of undergraduate athletic training students' learning styles and program admission success. Journal of Athletic Training, 36, 130–135.Google Scholar
  8. Champagne, M., V. (1998). Dynamic evaluation of distance education courses. Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Distance Teaching &; Learning, USA, 14, 89–96.Google Scholar
  9. Childers, C., Rizzo, F., &; Bangert, L. (1999). Streaming media for web based training. Proceedings of WebNet 99 — World Conference on the WWW and Internet, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1, 213–218.Google Scholar
  10. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality. in distance learning. CHEA Monographs Series 2002, Number 1. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/Research/Accred-Distance-5-9-02.pdf?pubID=246Google Scholar
  11. Dutton, J., Dutton, M., &; Perry, J. (1999). Do online students perform as well as lecture students? Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 131–136.Google Scholar
  12. Ely, E. E. (1997). The non-traditional student. Anaheim, CA: American Association of Community Colleges 77th Annual Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385316)Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser &; K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Fraser, B. J., &; Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  15. Gadt-Johnson, C., &; Price, G. (2000). Comparing students with high and low preference for tactile learning. Education, 120, 581–585.Google Scholar
  16. Galbraith, M. W., &; James, W. B. (1984). Assessment of dominant perceptual learning styles of older adults. Educational Gerontology, 10, 449–458.Google Scholar
  17. Garner, I. (2000). Problems and inconsistencies with Kolb's learning styles. Educational Psychology, 20, 341–348.Google Scholar
  18. Goh, S. C., &; Fraser, B. J. (1995, April). Learning environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389627)Google Scholar
  19. Hardigan, P. C., &; Sisco, B. R. (2001). An analysis of learning styles among full time undergraduate college students (Report No. HE-033-941). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 451811)Google Scholar
  20. Hassenplug, C., &; Harnish, D. (1998). The nature and importance of interaction in distance education credit class at technical institutes. Community College Journal of Research &; Practice, 22, 591–606.Google Scholar
  21. Herring, S., (1999). The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hickson, J., Land, A. J., &; Aikman, G. (1994). Learning style patterns of middle school pupils. School Psychology International, 17, 59–70.Google Scholar
  23. Jegede, O. J., Fraser, B., &; Fisher, D. (1995). The development and validation of a distance and open learning environment scale. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerka, S. E. (2001). Financial aid for lifelong learning (Report No. ED0-CE-0013). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452365)Google Scholar
  25. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning-style inventory: Self-scoring inventory and interpretation booklet (Rev. ed). Boston: McBer &; Company.Google Scholar
  27. Lau, L. (2000). Distance learning technologies: Issues, trends and opportunities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Leach, K., &; Walker, S. (2000). Internet-based distance education: Barriers, models, and new research. In G. Davies &; C. Owen (Eds.), WebNet 2000 World Conference on the WWW and Internet proceedings (pp. 903–905). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Commuters in Education.Google Scholar
  29. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: Ronald Press Co.Google Scholar
  30. Lewandowski, G., &; Morehead, A. (1998). Computer science through the eyes of dead monkeys: Learning styles and interaction in CSI. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 29, 312–316.Google Scholar
  31. Lockitt, B. (1997). Learning styles: Into the future. London: Further Education Development Agency. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416374).Google Scholar
  32. Luzzo, D. (1999). Identifying the career decision-making needs of nontraditional college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 135–140.Google Scholar
  33. Maor, D. (1999). Teacher and student reflections on interactions in an Internet based unit. In K. Martin, N. Stanley, &; N. Davison (Eds.), Teaching in the disciplines/learning in context (Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum) (pp. 257–261). Perth, Australia: The University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Markel, M. (1999). Distance education and the myth of the new pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 208–222.Google Scholar
  35. Martin. W. (1999). Being there is what matters. Academe, 85(5), 32–36.Google Scholar
  36. McGreal, R. (1997). The Internet: A learning environment. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluate programs (pp. 67–74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Phoha, V. (1999). Can a course be taught entirely via email? Communications of the ACM, 42(9), 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ross, J. L., Drysdale, M. T., &; Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 400–412.Google Scholar
  40. Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., &; Zimmermann, A. (2002). Co-teaching/cogenerative dialoguing: Learning environments research as classroom praxis. Learning Environments Research, 5, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  42. Saunders, G., &; Weible, R. (1999). Electronic courses: Old wine in new bottles? Internet Research, 9(5), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scott, B., &; Hannafin, R. (2000). How teachers and parents view classroom learning environments: An exploratory study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 401–417.Google Scholar
  44. Sherron G., &; Boettcher V. (1997). Distance learning: The shift to interactivity, cause. Colorado, 6–7.Google Scholar
  45. Simon, S. J. (2000). The relationship of learning style and training method to end-user computer satisfaction and computer use: A structural equation model. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 18(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  46. Simpson, O. (2000). Supporting students in open and distance learning. London: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  47. Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Tobin, K., &; Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser &; K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Walberg, H. J., &; Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang, X. C., Hinn, D. M., &; Kanfer, A. G. (2001). Potential of computer-supported collaborative learning for learners with different learning styles. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 75–85.Google Scholar
  51. Weinstein, P. (1997). Education goes the distance. Technology and Learning, 17(8), 24–25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Buerck
    • 1
  • Theodore Malmstrom
    • 2
  • Elliott Peppers
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Science Technology, SPS Building, Room 218St. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Division of Geriatric Medicine, Schwitalla Hall, Room M23BSt. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Academic Resources CenterSt. Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations