Accommodating student learning styles and ...

247

Work 44 (2013) 247–253 DOI 10.3233/WOR-121501 IOS Press

Accommodating student learning styles and preferences in an online occupational therapy course Nancy Wolcott Doyle∗ and Karen Jacobs Boston University, College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Sargent College, Boston, MA, USA

Received 1 January 2011 Accepted 21 January 2012

Abstract. Occupational therapy’s online education must be research-based and inclusive. One way to provide a more inclusive online learning experience is to attend to individual learning styles and preferences. This study uses the best available evidence on learning styles and online education to develop, implement, and study occupational therapy students’ experiences with an online learning module and related assignment. Eight students consented to take an online survey after completing a learning module and related assignment in an online post-professional graduate course in occupational therapy. The survey explored their learning experience and its applicability to clinical work. Data gathered from multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and open-ended questions were descriptively analyzed. Results from this study suggest that students find the study of learning styles and preferences enjoyable and applicable to their clinical work, but are often motivated by factors such as time and technology when selecting the format of a course assignment. Keywords: Inclusive education, research-based education, distance education

1. Introduction Within occupational therapy there are calls to promote both evidence-based [5] and inclusive [21] education. There is also a growing trend of and demand for distance and online learning [1,26,27,36,39,43,45,49, 53,55,56,59,61], an important emerging area of practice in occupational therapy [1]. Occupational therapy must develop research-based and inclusive education in both face-to-face and distance formats in order to advance the work of all students. One way to develop more inclusive education online is to target a variety of student learning styles and learning preferences. Learning styles are defined as “the manner in which individuals choose to or are inclined to approach a learning sit∗ Address for correspondence: Nancy Wolcott Doyle, 149 North Carolina Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003, USA. Tel.: +1 202 675 1081; Fax: +1 831 417 6085; E-mail: [email protected].

uation” [10, p. 420]. Learning preferences are defined as sensory (e.g. aural, visual, kinesthetic) preferences for how learning material is presented [18]. Although the occupational therapy literature indicates that instructors are interested in the learning styles, preferences, and needs of their students [6, 8,13,16,19,23,25,29,30,34,51,52,54,58,60,61], there is limited evidence to help instructors know how to address students’ learning styles and preferences in online courses. Most studies related to online occupational therapy courses have evaluated the professional outcomes of entire programs [46,47]. In contrast, this study looks at pedagogical strategies that aim to improve the learning experience of individuals in a single online occupational therapy course. This study was undertaken to: (1) identify appropriate learning style and preference assessments for online learners, (2) using the best available educational research, design and implement a learning module and related assignment that accommodate for learning styles and preferences

1051-9815/13/$27.50  2013 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

248

N.W. Doyle and K. Jacobs / Accommodating student learning styles and preferences

online, (3) evaluate students’ learning experiences with the online module and assignment, and (4) evaluate the applicability of these learning experiences in relation to students’ future clinical work. Due to the limited amount of information from the occupational therapy literature regarding the use and efficacy of learning style assessments and related instructional methods in online occupational therapy courses, a search for more evidence and best practice methods from the allied health education, health education, and general education literature was conducted. Five articles reviewing learning style assessments were retrieved and analyzed [10,11,24,42,44], and 19 articles reporting on learning-style related instructional methods were pulled and reviewed [3,4,7,9,12,14,15,20,22, 28,31,35,40,41,48,50,57,62,63]. Because of online access, short completion time, and automatic online scoring, the Kolb Learning Style Inventory [32] and the Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic Questionnaire [17] (see the Appendix for information about each tool) were selected as the most cost-effective, time-efficient, and accessible options for online students to self-administer during a seven-week post-professional online graduate course. This selection was made with full understanding of the psychometric criticisms of both assessments [11,33], a concern which permeates the majority of the learning style field [11,42,44]. The selection was also made acknowledging that both assessments have frequently been used in occupational therapy for both student [19,23,29,30, 51,52,58] and client [37] assessments of learning style. The 19 articles focusing on learning-style related instructional methods looked at (1) the learning style characteristics of students enrolled in online courses [3, 7,14,15,31,41,57,63], (2) whether learning style and instructional style need to match to support successful academic performance [3,4,12,15,22,28,31,35,40,48], and (3) important characteristics and elements of online courses as reported by students and instructors [4,7,9, 12,20,22,28,31,35,41,48,50,62]. Overall, the literature indicated that there is no typical learning style profile of online students. Rather, students with all kinds of learning styles and preferences are taking online courses [3, 7,14,15,31,41,57,63]. Results from three studies [28, 48,50] suggested that the reason to provide a variety of learning-style tailored instruction is not to enhance student academic performance, but rather to improve qualitative aspects such as learner motivation and satisfaction. The research also indicated that quality online courses should include a variety of instructional, assignment, and assessment options [20,48] to engage students and provide them with the possibility of building a larger repertoire of learning approaches [31,35].

2. Case history A pre-existing learning module and related assignment in an online post-professional graduate occupational therapy course were modified, using the best available educational research, to target student learning styles and preferences. They were implemented in the spring (January–March) of 2010 in an online postprofessional graduate course in occupational therapy. The learning module content guided students to explore individual learner characteristics, such as learning styles and preferences. Students were introduced to the constructs of learning styles and learning preferences, learning style models, and learning style assessments. Students were then asked to assess their own learning styles and preferences with the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) [32] and the Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic (VARK) Questionnaire [17]. After completing the learning module, students completed a reflective assignment. Students were asked to discuss their learning style and learning preference assessment results, to compare the assessment instruments, and to consider the usefulness of the learning style and learning preference constructs for their own education and clinical work. Overall, the assignment was intended to heighten students’ awareness of their own learning processes and to consider the learning styles and preferences of their occupational therapy clients. Students had the opportunity to complete the reflective assignment in any of four format options. Examples of each assignment format were provided to encourage students to explore a variety of assignment options [20,48] and to build a larger repertoire of learning approaches [31,35]. The four assignment format options targeted different student learning preferences by matching the formats with the VARK’s [17] four perceptual learning style preferences. A diagrammatic option matched the visual learning preference; a podcast option matched the aural learning preference; a written option matched the read/write learning preference; and a narrated PowerPoint option matched the kinesthetic learning preference. Additionally, the assignment content addressed the four learning components that constitute the Kolb learning styles [32]. ‘Reflective observation’ and ‘abstract conceptualization’ were targeted by asking students to describe their learning style assessment results, to compare the Kolb LSI and the VARK Questionnaire, and to discuss how an individual could learn to broaden one’s repertoire of learning styles and preferences. In addition, ‘active experimen-

N.W. Doyle and K. Jacobs / Accommodating student learning styles and preferences Table 1 Learning style, learning preference, and assignment format selection totals Number of participants in each category Kolb learning style Accommodator Assimilator Converger Diverger

3.5 2 0 2.5

VARK learning preference Visual Aural Read/Write Kinesthetic

1.08 1.58 2.91 2.41

Assignment format selection Diagrammatic Podcast Narrated PowerPoint Written Essay

1 1 1 5

Note: Eight students completed the survey. However, the survey allowed students to report more than one learning style and/or learning preference. When a student reported two styles/preferences, they were scored as having 0.5 in one style and 0.5 in the other; when a student reported three preferences, they were scored as having 0.33 in each category; when a student reported four preferences, they were scored as having 0.25 in each category.

tation’ and ‘concrete experience’ components were addressed by asking students to reflect on how knowledge of learning styles and preferences would affect their work with clients, and to create a role play or case study demonstrating how they would work with clients with different learning styles and preferences. All students taking the course were invited to participate in a survey evaluating the learning experience after completing the reflective assignment. The survey, the invitation to participate in the study, and the informed consent form were all approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. Students had the option of discontinuing participation in the study at any time and were informed that not participating in the study would not affect their grade in the course nor status at the university. Eight students (six female, two male) agreed to participate in the survey. All participants were postprofessional occupational therapy students. A student questionnaire survey, delivered online by Zoomerang [38], measured students’ experiences with the learning module and related assignments. The survey’s first three multiple-choice questions were about students’ learning styles, learning preferences, and assignment format selections (see Table 1). The subsequent 21 Likert-scale questions asked students whether their assignment format selections were related to their learning styles and preferences or related to other factors such as their understanding of different technology.

249

They were also asked about the usefulness of this information for their clinical work and their enjoyment of the learning opportunity. Students were asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale (1 = disagree very much; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = agree very much), and data was analyzed descriptively with mean, standard deviation, median, and mode. A final, optional openended question asked students to share any thoughts or suggestions about the learning experience. Their comments were analyzed qualitatively for common themes and the frequency of occurrences of each theme across the entire sample. 3. Results The learning styles, learning preferences, and assignment format selections are reported in Table 1. Notably, three-quarters of the students agreed that the Kolb Learning Style Inventory [32] and Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic Questionnaire [17] correctly identified their learning styles and preferences, indicating that the Kolb learning styles and VARK learning preferences were generally considered suitable descriptors of their learning approaches. The majority (87.5%) of students agreed that the assignment was an enjoyable learning experience. It is interesting to note that for three students who selected non-written formats for their assignment, all three strongly agreed that they felt success with the learning opportunity and two of the three strongly agreed (the third just expressed agreement) that this was an enjoyable learning opportunity. In contrast, only one of five students who selected the written format strongly agreed that the assignment was an enjoyable learning opportunity, and none strongly agreed that they felt successful with the learning opportunity. In terms of their assignment format selection, students more strongly agreed (i.e., means at or approaching the 4 agreement level) that they used considerations such as ease of completion, familiar technology, and potential for success to select their assignment format. They disagreed (i.e., means at or approaching the 2 disagreement level) that they had selected assignment formats because they were challenging to complete or because selected formats included new technology to learn. Responses were more neutral (i.e., at or close proximity to 3 neutral level) regarding whether selections were made based on an interesting assignment format or because they targeted learning styles and prefer-

250


ences (e.g., dominant or non-dominant learning styles and preferences). The students’ open-ended responses support these findings. All three students who responded to this final question noted an interest in new technologies (e.g., narrated PowerPoint presentation by all three; podcast by one), yet likewise expressed concern with technology (frequency = 5) and time (frequency = 3) in terms of being able to complete the assignment successfully and within the time constraints of the course. In contrast, there was little open-ended discussion of learning styles as factors in selecting assignment formats: only one student mentioned that the format choice (i.e., written) matched his or her VARK perceptual preference (i.e., read/write). This student also noted that the preferred (but unselected) PowerPoint assignment format would have targeted related learning styles (i.e., kinesthetic, aural). However, this student’s overall comments indicate that concerns with time and technology overrode learning style and preference considerations. At least half of students (62.5% of students for the Kolb, 50% for the VARK) agreed that the assignment provided an opportunity to reinforce their understanding of their own learning styles and learning preferences. At least half of students agreed that the assignment provided an opportunity to expand their understanding of learning styles and learning preferences that were different from their own. Overall, 87.5% of the students agreed that the assignment would help them work with clients with different learning styles and learning preferences. 4. Discussion The results provide three key findings regarding the constructs of learning styles and learning preferences in the work of occupational therapy education. First, students agreed that the exploration of their learning styles and preferences was enjoyable; second, students agreed that time and technology considerations, rather than learning styles or preferences, affected their assignment format selections; and third, students agreed that knowledge of learning styles and preferences would be applicable to their clinical work. These findings resonate with much of the best available evidence regarding learning styles in online education and carry implications for occupational therapy education, practice, and future research. First, students agreed that the exploration of their learning styles and learning preferences was enjoyable.

Not only did they agree that this exploration was enjoyable, they also agreed that the assignment provided an opportunity to reinforce their understanding of their own and others’ learning styles and preferences. These findings resonate with results from other studies [28, 31,35,48,50] that point to the qualitative benefits of exploring learning styles and preferences within the context of education. Results from this study show that students enjoy exploring the constructs of learning styles and preferences; others have shown that students prefer learning activities that match their learning styles and preferences [28,48,50]; while additional research indicates that learning opportunities can influence learning style [35], and that influencing students to broaden their learning style repertoire may positively affect student performance [31]. The implication of this first key finding is that educational programs may find, for example, that providing opportunities to assess and reflect on learning styles and preferences may positively engage students at the start of an academic program. Positive engagement may affect student motivation, an important component to online education [12]. A second key finding from this study is that students were more likely to agree that time and technology considerations, rather than learning styles or preferences, affected their assignment format selections. This is true even in an assignment where students were focusing on learning styles and preferences. This contrasts with Rinaldi and Gurung’s [48] findings that on-campus students preferred learning activities that matched their learning style and found matched assignments easiest to complete. However, in this study, students were provided with alternate assignment formats for just one assignment; in the Rinaldi and Gurung study [48], students were required to complete four distinct assignments, each in a different format. It seems that when assignment format is an option, students may opt for a less time-consuming and technologically-challenging selection even if it does not match their learning style or preference. The considerations of students in this study implies that there is no need to provide a variety of format options, theoretically linked to different learning styles, for each assignment within a course. Rather, research indicates that students benefit most from having a variety of assignment and assessment options throughout the duration of the course to engage and stimulate students’ learning [20]. Another implication related to the students’ considerations is that when completing an assignment in a new or unfamiliar format, students may benefit from additional resources (e.g., written in-


structions, tutorials, live assistance) from technology support staff, instructors, or facilitators. The third key finding is that students agreed that knowledge of learning styles and preferences are applicable to their clinical work. That is, students agreed that they would be able to use their understanding of different learning styles and preferences when working with clients with different learning needs. For example, although an occupational therapist may prefer active experimentation herself, after having learned more about learning styles and preferences in general, she may more effectively work with a client who prefers reflective observation. When introducing new adaptations (e.g., for one-handed cooking), this therapist may explain or demonstrate a variety of options in one session, allow the client to reflect on these options, and then make adaptation selections in a follow-up session. This third finding has important implications for occupational therapy education, practice, and research. It indicates that occupational therapists are interested in how to better engage with and educate their clients. This is not surprising considering the emphasis occupational therapy places on the therapeutic relationship, client education, and therapist-client collaboration [2]. However, it implies that occupational therapists may be eager to learn more about how best to develop these aspects of clinical practice. Educators, researchers, and practitioners all can contribute to this effort by investigating, reporting, and teaching one another about client learning characteristics in an evidence-based manner. This study had several challenges to implementation and evaluation. First, the theoretical links between learning style assessments and the course assignment components were created by the first author and have not otherwise been tested empirically. Second, the examples of each assignment format option were limited by the technological capabilities of the first author, and were not enhanced by a professional online course development specialist. Third, the study of this learning module was limited because it relied on students’ consent and election to participate. Students’ time, motivation, and energy to explore their learning styles and preferences may have been affected by the short duration of this one-week module, the full assignment schedule of the course, and the seven-week duration of the online course. Fourth, the study was limited by the time available for this project, which was carried out in one course in one semester. This resulted in a small number of study participants and no control group, limiting the results’ generalizability to other online learners. Finally, this study was limited because it was based

251

on subjective student self-report. Future studies could compare self-report with observation of the students’ actual performance on their academic assignments or clinical education techniques in order to provide more definition about the efficacy and usefulness of instructional methods that accommodate students’ different learning styles and preferences. 5. Summary This study provides an example of research-based pedagogy that focuses on inclusively accommodating for different student learning styles and preferences in an online post-professional graduate course in occupational therapy. It explored students’ experiences with learning style assessments, a reflective assignment on learning styles, and assignment format options tailored to different learning styles and preferences. Overall, this study found that students enjoy investigating learning styles and preferences and find these constructs applicable to their clinical work. In addition, the study found that students are motivated by time and technology considerations, rather than learning styles and learning preferences, when completing course assignments. These findings highlight the students’ needs and desires for their own online learning as well as their understanding of clients’ learning needs in the workplace. References [1]

[2] [3]

[4] [5] [6]

[7]

American Occupational Therapy Association. [website on Internet]. Distance learning: 2011 [cited September 26, 2011]. Available from http://www.aota.org/Practitioners/Practice Areas/EmergingAreas/Education/Distance.aspx. American Occupational Therapy Association. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. 2nd ed., Am J Occup Ther. 2008; 62: 625-638. Aragon SR, Johnson SD, Shaik N. The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-toface environments. Am J Distance Educ. 2002; 16: 227-244. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1604 3. Battalio J. Success in distance education: Do learning styles and multiple formats matter? Am J Distance Educ. 2009; 23: 71-87. doi:10.1080/08923640902854405. Bondoc S. Occupational therapy and evidence-based education. Educ Spec Interest Section Q. 2005; 15(4): 1-4. Brown T, Cosgriff T, French G. Learning style preferences of occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech pathology students: A comparative study. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2008; 6(3): 1-12. Butler TJ, Pinto-Zipp G. Students’ learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. J Educ Technol Syst. 2005–2006; 34: 199-221. doi:10.2190/8UD2-BHFU4PXV-7ALW.

252 [8]


Cahill R, Madigan MJ. The influence of curriculum format on learning preference and learning style. Am J Occup Ther. 1984; 38: 683-686. [9] Carnwell R. Community nurses’ experiences of distance learning: Implications for autonomy and dependence. Nurse Educ Today. 1998; 18: 610-615. doi:10.1016/S02606917(98)80057-9. [10] Cassidy S. Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educ Psychol. 2004; 24: 419-444. doi: 10.1080/0144341042000228834. [11] Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre; 2004. [12] Cook DA, Gelula MH, Dupras DM, Schwartz A. Instructional methods and cognitive and learning styles in web-based learning: Report of two randomised trials. Med Educ. 2007; 41: 897-905. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02822.x. [13] Davidson LF, Corcoran MA, Marr D, Lin S, McGreevy C. A hybrid approach to OT entry-level professional education. OT Pract. 2008; 13(6): 12-16. [14] Diaz DP, Cartnal RB. Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. Col Teach. 1999; 47: 130-135. [15] DiBartola LM, Miller MK, Turley CL. Do learning style and learning environment affect learning outcome? J Allied Health. 2001; 30: 112-115. [16] Emery LJ, Scoggin AE. Learning styles of university students in a Hispanic-serving institution. Occup Ther Health Care. 2006; 19(4): 83-96. doi:10.1300/J003v19n04 06. [17] Fleming ND, Bonwell CC. [questionnaire on the Internet]. VARK questionnaire, version 7.0; 2006 [cited September 15, 2009]. Available from: http://www.vark-learn.com/ english/page.asp?p=questionnaire. [18] Fleming ND, Mills C. Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Improve Academy. 1992; 11: 137-146. [19] French G, Cosgriff T, Brown T. Learning style preferences of Australian occupational therapy students. Aust Occup Ther J. 2007; 54: S58-S65. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00723.x. [20] Gaytan J, McEwen BC. Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. Am J Distance Educ. 2007; 21: 117-132. doi:10.1080/08923640701341653. [21] Hansen RH, Hinojosa J. Occupational therapy’s commitment to nondiscrimination and inclusion. Am J Occup Ther. 2009; 63: 819-820. [22] Harris RN, Dwyer WO, Leeming FC. Are learning styles relevant in web-based instruction? J Educ Comput Res. 2003; 29: 13-28. doi:10.2190/YHL4-UP7P-KOGD-N5LJ. [23] Hauer P, Straub, C, Wolf S. Learning styles of allied health students using Kolb’s LSI-IIa. J Allied Health. 2005; 34: 184189. [24] Hawk TF, Shah AJ. Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decis Sci J Innov Educ. 2007; 5: 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00125.x. [25] Herzberg GL. The successful fieldwork student: Supervisor perceptions. Am J Occup Ther. 1994; 48: 817-823. [26] Hollis V, Madill H. Online learning: The potential for occupational therapy education. Occup Ther Int. 2006; 13: 61-78. doi:10.1002/oti.209. [27] Jedlicka JS, Brown SW, Bunch AE, Jaffe LE. A comparison of distance education instructional methods in occupational therapy. J Allied Health. 2002; 31: 247-251. [28] Johnson GM. Learning style under two web-based study conditions. Educ Psychol. 2007; 27: 617-634. doi:10.1080/ 01443410701309159.

[29]

Katz N. Problem solving and time: Functions of learning style and teaching methods. Occup Ther J Res. 1990; 10: 221-236. [30] Katz N, Heimann N. Learning style of students and practitioners in five health professions. Occup Ther J Res. 1991; 11: 238-244. [31] Kinshuk, Liu T-C, Graf S. Coping with mismatched courses: Students’ behaviour and performance in courses mismatched to their learning styles. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2009; 57: 739-752. [32] Kolb DA. Kolb learning style inventory, Version 3.1. Boston: Hay Group; 2005. [33] Leite WL, Svinicki M, Shi Y. Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK: Learning styles inventory with multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010; 70: 323-339. doi:10.1177/ 0013164409344507. [34] Linares AZ. Learning styles of students and faculty in selected health care professions. J Nurs Educ. 1999; 38: 407-414. [35] Liu Y. A comparative study of learning styles between online and traditional students. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2007; 37: 41-63. doi:10.2190/TJ34-6U66-8L722825. [36] Liu L, Cook A, Varnhagen S, Miyazaki, M. Rehabilitation professionals’ satisfaction with continuing education delivered at a distance using different technologies. Assist Technol. 2004; 16: 104-115. [37] Lofland S. Determining learning styles to increase client participation. OT Pract. 2009; 14(15): 13-17. [38] MarketTools, Inc. [website on Internet]. Zoomerang online software program; 2010 [cited July 13, 2010]. Available from http://www.zoomerang.com/. [39] Mitcham MD, O’Shea BJ. Using audioteleconferencing to link occupational therapy graduate students in the United States and Canada. Am J Occup Ther. 1994; 48: 619-625. [40] Moallem M. Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning environments: A comparative study. J Res Technol Educ. 2007; 40: 217-245. [41] Neuhauser C. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Am J Distance Educ. 2002; 16: 99113. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602 4. [42] Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci in the Public Interest. 2009; 9: 105-119. [43] Penman M, Lai K-W. Synchronous communication and higher-order thinking in a tertiary course in occupational therapy. J Interact Learn Res. 2003; 14: 387-404. [44] Peterson ER, Rayner SG, Armstrong SJ. Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future? Learn Individ Differ. 2009; 19: 518-523. doi:10.1016/ j.lindif.2009.06.003. [45] Pui MV, Liu L, Warren S. Continuing professional education and the Internet: Views of Alberta occupational therapists. Can J Occup Ther. 2005; 72: 234-244. doi:10.2182/cjot.05.0006. [46] Richardson P. Student development in an online postprofessional master’s program. Occup Ther Health Care. 2004; 18: 107-116. doi:10.1300/J003v18n01 11. [47] Richardson PK, MacRae A, Schwartz K, Bankston L, Kosten C. Student outcomes in a postprofessional online master’s– degree program. Am J Occup Ther. 2008; 62: 600-610. [48] Rinaldi C, Gurung R. Should teaching and learning styles match? Teach Forum [Internet]. 2008 Oct 26 [cited 2009 Nov 3]. Available from: http://www.uwosh.edu/programs/ teachingforum/public html/?module=displaystory&story id= 648&format=html.

N.W. Doyle and K. Jacobs / Accommodating student learning styles and preferences [49]

Rodger S, Brown GT. Enhancing graduate supervision in occupational therapy education through alternative delivery. Occup Ther Int. 2000; 7: 163-172. doi:10.1002/oti.117. [50] Sahin S. The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in web-based courses in higher education. Turk Online J Distance Educ. 2008; 9: 123-138. [51] Sandmire DA, Boyce PF. Pairing of opposite learning styles among allied health students: Effects on collaborative performance. J Allied Health. 2004; 33: 156-163. [52] Sandmire DA, Vroman KG, Sanders R. The influence of learning styles on collaborative performances of allied health students in a clinical exercise. J Allied Health. 2000; 29(3): 143149. [53] Simons DF, Baron JA, Knicely KS, Richardson JS. Online learning: Perspectives of students and faculty in two disciplines – occupational therapy and teacher education. Occup Ther Health Care. 2002; 14(2): 21-52. doi:10.1300/J003v 14n02 02. [54] Stafford EM. Relationship between occupational therapy student learning styles and clinic performance. Am J Occup Ther. 1986; 40: 34-39. [55] Stanton S. Going the distance: Developing shared web-based learning programmes. Occup Ther Int. 2001; 8: 96-106. doi: 10.1002/oti.136. [56] Steward B. Technological dreams: The implications of new technologies for occupational therapy education and evidence-based practice. Occup Ther Int. 2001; 8: 145-150. doi:10.1002/ oti.142. [57] Terrell SR. The effect of learning style on doctoral course completion in a web-based learning environment. Internet and High Educ. 2002; 5: 345-352. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516 (02)00128-8. [58] Titiloye VM, Scott AH. Occupational therapy students’ learning styles and application to professional academic training. Occup Ther Health Care. 2001; 15: 145-155. doi:10.1300/ J003v15n01 14. [59] Trujillo LG. Distance education pedagogy and instructional design and development for occupational therapy educational programs. Occup Ther Health Care. 2007; 21: 159-174. doi:10.1300/J003v21n01 12. [60] Watson J, Chapman J, Adams J, Nila UH. Occupational therapy students’ approaches to learning: Considering the impact of culture. Br J Occup Ther. 2006; 69(12): 548-555. [61] Weiss PL, Schreuer N, Jermais-Cohen T, Josman N. An online learning course in ergonomics. Work. 2004; 23: 95-104. [62] Williams SL. The effectiveness of distance education in allied health science programs: A meta-analysis of outcomes. Am J Distance Educ. 2006; 20: 127-141. doi:10.1207/ s15389286ajde2003 2.

[63]

253

Zapalska L, Brozik D. Learning styles and online education. Campus-Wide Inf Syst. 2006; 23: 325-335.

Appendix The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb LSI; [32]) is a tool that assesses individuals’ preferences for both grasping and transforming information from learning experiences. These preferences are based on the Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) proposed by David A. Kolb [32]. ELT describes a process of learning where experience is grasped through concrete experience (CE) or abstract conceptualization (AC) and then transformed through reflective observation (RO) or active experimentation (AE). These processes help an individual convert an experience into knowledge. Ideally, learners will cycle through experience, conceptualization, observation, and experimentation to optimally learn from experience. However, Kolb states that learners may have preferences for one way of grasping experience and one way of transforming experience, resulting in four different learning styles. These are: Diverging (CE and RO), Assimilating (AC and RO), Converging (AC and AE), and Accommodating (CE and AE). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory [32] is a 20-question multiple-choice inventory that helps determine an individual’s preferred learning style; results are scored automatically in the online version. The Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic Questionnaire (VARK Questionnaire; [17]) assesses individuals’ preferences for taking in and putting out information in four different perceptual modes. Fleming and Bonwell propose that most individuals have preferences for one (or more) of the visual (e.g., pictures, diagrams), aural (e.g., audio recordings, lectures), read/write (e.g., texts, notes, essays), or kinesthetic (e.g., active manipulation of learning materials) modes when learning new information. The VARK Questionnaire is a 16-item multiple-choice inventory that is used to determine these preferences. The inventory is scored automatically in the online version.

Copyright of Work is the property of IOS Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.