Analyzing The Effect of Learning Styles and Study Habits of Distance Learners On Learning Performances: A Case of An Introductory Programming Course

Analyzing the Effect of Learning Styles and
Study Habits of Distance Learners on Learning

Performances: A Case of an Introductory
Programming Course
\
(SNn OnlineCourses
Ünal Çakıroğlu
Karadeniz Technical University, TURKEY
Abstract
This study examined the relationships among learning styles, study habits, and learning
performances in an online programming language course. Sixty-two sophomore
students who enrolled in an online introductory programming course participated in the
study. Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was used to measure the students’ learning
styles. Another inventory developed by the researcher was used to determine learners’
study habits. An achievement test was used to put forward their learning performances.
As a result, significant relationships between learning styles, study habits, and learning
performances were revealed. The results present some ideas about distance learners’
learning styles and study habits for instructors who wish to incorporate synchronous
courses and support learners.
Keywords: Learning styles; study habits; learning performances; distance learning;

synchronous settings
Analyzing the Effect of Learning Styles and Study Habits of Distance Learners on Learning Performances: A
Case of an Introductory Programming Course
Çakıroğlu
Introduction
To respond to the diverse distance and time needs of today’s learners, many institutions
offer online courses to expand their teaching methods with distance learning courses.
They work on specializing or adapting the courses according to learners’ needs
(Hamilton-Pennell, 2002). Learners’ needs include different learning styles which can
influence learning performance (Mitchell, 2000; Chen & Lin, 2002; Morris, Finnegan, &
Sz-Shyan, 2005; Hummel, 2006).
Definitions of learning style generally focus on ways of learning. According to Fleming

(2001) learning style is an individual’s preferred way of gathering, organizing, and
thinking about information. It is considered as the behaviors related to the
psychological, cognitive, and affective domains of interaction with learning
environments. Learning style involves learners’ preferred ways to receive, process, and
recall information during instruction which is related to learners’ motivation and
information-processing habits (Aragon, Johnson, & Shaik, 2002).
Research studies on learning styles have shown that learning can be enhanced through
consideration of personal characteristics in design and delivery of the instruction
(Dziuban, Moskal, & Hartman, 2004; Fearing & Riley, 2005). Because some learners
tend to focus on facts, data, or procedures, engaging with theories and mathematical
models is appropriate. Other learners use visual information like pictures, diagrams,
and simulations to understand better, while others can get more from oral and written
information. Researchers have argued that learning style also functions as a useful
indicator for potential learning performance (Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Smith & Ragan, 1999;
Sun et al., 2008). In this context, Dunn and Dunn (1978) stated that students with
different learning styles have distinct preferences during different instructional
activities. Thus, various models have been proposed by theoreticians and used by
educators in order to measure learning styles, and various instruments have been used.
Coffield et al. (2012) provided an extensive report which involved at least 71 learning
style models. The models have some components different from each other related to
the extent that they may change over time for learners. Some popular instruments were
various extensions of Jung’s (1970) psychological types and Gardner's (1993) multiple
intelligences. One of the widely used models in this area was developed by Gregorc and
Butler (1984) which has four combinations of perceptual qualities and ordering
abilities: concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete
random. In this model it is considered that each individual can be strong in one or two
of the four styles. As a contrast to Gregorc (1984), Felder and Silverman (1988) did not
consider learning styles to be constant. According to them, learning preferences may
change due to the time and situation. Fleming’s (2001) VARK inventory, which includes
visual, aural, read-write, and kinesthetic perceptual styles, and the specific inventory of
Felder and Soloman (1997), which measures learning preferences across four bipolar
preferences, active-reflective, sensing-intuitive, visual-verbal, and sequential-global, are
well known examples derived from the models above.
Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 162

Çakıroğlu
One of the popular learning style inventories for determining adults’ learning styles is
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI). It includes four dimensions: concrete experience
(feeling), reflective observation (watching), abstract conceptualization (thinking), and
active experimentation (doing) (Kolb, 1985). Through four dimensions, Kolb
determined four learning styles: accommodative, divergent, convergent, and
assimilative.
Many research studies have been conducted using Kolb’s inventory in order to
determine learning styles. For example, Jonassen and Grabowski (1993) in their study
suggested that the LSI was more suited to having students explore their learning styles
than to predicting their ability to succeed. Terrell (2002) made a comparison of
graduation rate by learning style of 216 students. He found most of the students were
either convergers or assimilators and the comparison was not statistically significant. In
addition, Fahy and Ally (2005) used Kolb’s LSI for two online courses including
asynchronous discussions. Akkoyunlu and Soylu (2008) revealed that students’ views
on the blended learning process, such as ease of use of the web environment, evaluation,
face to face environment, and so on, differ according to their learning styles.
On the other hand, Honey and Mumford (1986) developed a self-development tool
based on Kolb's model by inviting managers to address trainees' learning style
preferences. They used the tool on a wide range of higher education students. In this
instrument they identified four distinct learning styles: activists, theorists, pragmatists,
and reflectors.
Learning Styles in Distance Learning

Some researchers focused on the learning styles of distance learners. In this sense, Allen
et al. (2002) suggested delivering courses in a variety of formats to accommodate
multiple learning styles. Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz (2003) deemed it necessary to
conduct research into the relationship among learning styles, the chosen mode of
delivery, and student success. In another study Liegle and Janicki (2006) investigated
the effect of learning styles on the Internet navigation needs of web based learners,
finding that students as explorers provided a higher number of visits to linked web
pages, whereas observers tended to be more passive. Also a few of the studies focused on
academic performances and learning styles. Akdemir and Koszalkab (2008) determined
the relationships between instructional strategies and learning styles in an online
graduate level course. In the study, although using different kinds of instructional
strategies for various learning styles learners’ performances were equivalent. In another
study, Popescu (2010) studied relationships between web-based educational systems
and learning styles and found that accommodators benefited more than others in the
learning process. Also, Shaw (2012) found that different learning styles were associated
with significantly different learning scores. In addition, Schellens and Valcke (2000)
and Neuhauser (2002) did not find such relationships between learning style and
learning performance in online learning.

Çakıroğlu
Furthmore, some studies were conducted in the distance learning area using Kolb’s
inventory. In one of those studies, Wang et al. (2006) focused on the effects of formative
assessment and learning style on student performances in a web-based learning
environment. The results showed that both learning style and formative assessment
strategy were significant factors affecting student achievement in a web-based learning
environment. Sun et al. (2008) used Kolb’s inventory for investigating the learning
outcomes related to different learning styles in a virtual science laboratory for
elementary school students. Students who used the online virtual lab were not
significantly different from students of different learning styles. Kolb’s LSI was used in
other online learning research studies to measure learners’ preferences and learning
styles (Dringus & Terrell, 2000; Federico, 2000; Fahy & Ally, 2005; Miller, 2005; Liegle
& Janicki, 2006; Wang et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2007) .
Study Habits
Study habits act as another variable connected with distance learners’ performances.
Study habits reflect students’ usual act of studying and also call forth and serve to direct
the learner’s cognitive processes during learning. Study habits includes a variety of
activities: time management, setting appropriate goals, choosing an appropriate study
environment, using appropriate note-taking strategies, choosing main ideas, and
organization (Proctor et al., 2006).
An increasing number of college courses are delivered online, especially with the use of
synchronous technologies, which provides an opportunity for educators to search for the
most suitable learning environments for students’ study habits. According to the
technology used, online settings can meet learners’ needs. A wide variety of videos,
images, animations, texts, audio, and so on can be shared and virtual presentation
media can be created. In this sense, Sharpe and Benfield (2005) reviewed the
experiences and study habits of e-learners in higher education in order to identify areas
worthy of future investigation. They found some connections among habits and
performances and suggested deeper investigation into eliciting the experiences, habits,
and strategies of effective e-learners. So, recent developments in DL technologies have
grabbed the attention of researchers regarding how pedagogical approaches are
required to function within this framework.
Thus, there emerges a need to gain an insight into the requirements, expectations, study
habits, and learning styles of learners before new environments are included in online
courses in higher education.
Purpose of the Study

In their study, Akdemir and Koszalka (2008) reported that effective design of
instruction for online learning is most likely related to the characteristics and study
preferences of the learner, as it is in a classroom. In this context, some studies mostly

Çakıroğlu
focused on attitudes towards learning environments or engagement in the learning

environments (Simpson & Yunfei, 2004; Popescu, 2010). Only a few studies focused on
the preferences and performances of learners (Richmond & Liu, 2005). Thus, the
purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between students’ learning styles
and study habits in accordance with their learning styles in an online distance learning
environment. Sub-problems were related to the connection between Kolb’s learning
styles, study habits of distance learners, and their learning performances. This would
provide an insight into the satisfactory features of a synchronous setting for various
learning styles and study habits and the requirements of the setting for quality
instruction.
The research questions were as follows:
• What is the relationship between learning styles, study habits, and learning
performances in an online learning environment?
• Do learning styles and study habits effect differently learners who have different
learning performances?
This paper also provides suggestions about how Kolb’s learning styles may be used and
how learners’ study habits may be taken into consideration in online learning
environments.
Study Framework
In this study Kolb's learning cycle model was used as a framework for determining
learning styles (shown in Figure 1). These four learning cycles are associated with
learning styles. For instance, a converger favors the learning cycle of abstract
conceptualization and active experimentation.
Figure 1. Kolb's learning cycle model (Kolb, 1985).
Healey and Jenkins (2000) and Manochehr (2006) worked on Kolb’s learning cycle
model and enhanced it with relationships among learning styles, learning conditions,

Çakıroğlu
and conditions where learners can learn best. The learning styles and conditions are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Learning Styles and Conditions (Manochehr, 2006)
Learning style They learn best Condition

through
Diverger Feeling and watching Learn when allowed to observe and
gather a wide range of information
Assimilator Thinking and watching Learn when presented with sound
logical theories to consider
Converger Thinking and doing Learn when provided with practical
applications of concepts and theories
Accommodator Feeling and doing Learn when allowed to gain “hands on”
applications
The four learning styles are as follows:
• Assimilators have abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. They

usually concentrate on the logical validity of theories, rather than focusing on
their applicability.
• Accommodators choose to learn by doing and feeling. They learn best through
concrete experimentation. They are intuitive and often study examples. They
are more likely to be observers than activists.
• Convergers choose to make use of abstract conceptualization as well as active
experimentation. Those who learn in this way are quite able to attain success in
the practical application of ideas and theories, solving problems and making
decisions.
• Divergers learn best through concrete experience and reflective observation.
Their imaginative ability is strong. They tend to be people-oriented and react
with emotions.
This study is based on Kolb’s learning cycle and study habits framework outlined in
Figure 2.

Çakıroğlu
Figure 2. Study framework.
Method
Instruments
In order to meet the research questions, a Turkish version of Kolb’s Learning Style
Inventory (LSI-T), Study Habits Inventory (SHI), and Achievement Test (AT) were used
in this study.
LSI-T: In this study LSI-T was administered before the intervention and after the final
examination. The inventory is a 12 item questionnaire appropriate for teens and
adults. Each item has four answers, which are ranked by the respondents in terms of
best fit on a scale of 1 to 4 (4 = best). It was based on Kolb’s learning styles: converging
(abstract, active), diverging (concrete, reflective), assimilating (abstract, reflective), and
accommodating (concrete, active). LSI was adapted into Turkish and validated by Aşkar
and Akkoyunlu (1993) with the internal reliability high, Cronbach’s alpha between .88
and .73. The LSI was administered to the participants in enough time by giving them the
necessary explanations in advance. Responses were analyzed by organizing them into
two bipolar concepts: concrete experience (CE) versus reflective observation (RO) and
abstract conceptualization (AC) versus active experimentation (AE) (Aragon, Johnson,
& Shaik, 2002). The given scores for CE, AC, RO, and AE were summed and then AE –
RO and AC – CE were calculated to determine learners’ ultimate learning styles. The
scoring ranks of one dimension were dependent on how a participant was measured
relative to scores from other dimensions.
SHI: Study habits of the learners were found with the opinions of students on a five-
point Likert scale. James and Gardner (1995) addressed three important factors about
selecting an instrument for determining learning styles: defining the intended use of the
data to be collected, matching the instrument to the intended use, and selecting the
most appropriate instrument. In the study habits dimension, frequently used
inventories include Learning and Study Skills Inventory (Weinstein & Palmer, 2002)
and Inventory of Learning Processes (Schmeck, Geisler-Brenstein, & Cercy, 1991).
Though they have some common items, they deal with study habits from different

Çakıroğlu
dimensions. Thus with the help of previous studies a new inventory was developed for
this study.
While developing the SHI, the studies (Crede & Kuncel, 2008; Göğüş & Güneş, 2011)
taken as a basis included theoretical considerations, or qualitative analyses of the ways
used by students study habits inventories. Eighty-one learners were asked to identify
their study habits, such as which way of studying helped their understanding and their
activities during the study process. The participants were different ages and from
different socio-cultures. In order to build up the SHI, statements were chosen from the
most commonly used ones. Then the items were classified in Patel’s (1976) study habits
categorization: planning work, reading, note taking, subject planning, concentration,
exam preparation, typical habits, and typical school environment habits.
AT: AT was used for assessing the students’ learning performances. It was conducted as
pretests and posttests with respect to the content of an introductory programming
course. In order to evaluate the students’ achievement scores, mid-term exam scores
and the final projects were graded and calculated. The mid-term score refers to an exam
on the computer that tests the students’ practical programming capability. The final
exam included eight questions regarding introductory programming, including basic
data structures, memory iteration, conditional statements, loops, recursive functions,
procedures, and functions and problem solving. The achievement scores were calculated
using the sum of 20% of the project scores as well as the scores for the mid-term
examinations (30%), and the grades for the final project (50%). In addition, the author
who was also the instructor interpreted his observations during the process in terms of
learning styles and study habits.
Participants
Participants of the study included 66 sophomore students from a Turkish faculty of
education, in a computer teacher training program. At the beginning of the study, LSI-T
was used for categorizing learners’ learning styles, shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Participant’s Learning Style
Gender Total Converger Assimilator Accommodator Diverger

n n % n % n % n %
Female 24 9 37.5 6 25 5 20.8 4 16.6
Male 42 16 38 13 30.9 7 16.6 6 14.3
Total 66 25 37.8 19 28.7 12 18.1 10 15.2

Çakıroğlu
Process
The introductory programming language course was delivered online both in
synchronous and asynchronous settings. The synchronous setting serves desktop
sharing, video sharing, audio, verbal chat, presentation, whiteboard, online survey
functions. Moreover, video records of the courses were saved in the system for
participants to use asynchronously. The instructor presented the content during
synchronous sessions, and discussed students’ questions. Basic problems in the
introductory programming course examples were discussed, and experts’ sample
programming codes were delivered to the students.
Results
The results of this study are presented in two sections: results from LSI-T and results
from SHI with the correlations between learning styles and study habits and learning
performances.
Learning Styles
The findings from descriptive statistics on average scores of the students with different
learning styles are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Average Scores of Four Learning Style Groups
Groups n X sd
Convergers 25 45.32 24.77
Assimilators 19 48.1 22.86
Accommodators 12 67.25 18.78
Divergers 10 68.1 19.88
ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were significant differences among
the average scores of four groups (assimilators, convergers, accommodators, divergers).
The results of ANOVA are provided in Table 4.

Çakıroğlu
Table 4
ANOVA Results between Average Scores of the Four Learning Style Groups
Sum of df Mean square F p

squares
Between groups 6625.878 3 2208.626 4.337 .008
Within groups 31572.379 62 509.232
Total 38198.258 65
It is indicated with p value (< .05) that there is a statistically significant difference
among the average scores of these four groups. In order to determine the source of the
significant differences, the Tukey test was conducted. Results of the Tukey test are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Tukey HSD Test Results among Four Learning Style Groups
Groups Groups Mean Std. error p

difference
Assimilators -2.78526 6.86811 .977
Convergers Accommodators -21.93000* 7.92498 .036
Divergers -22.78000* 8.44349 .043
Convergers 2.78526 6.86811 .977
Assimilators Accommodators -19.14474 8.32092 .109
Divergers -19.99474 8.81617 .117
Convergers 21.93000* 7.92498 .036
Accommodators Assimilators 19.14474 8.32092 .109
Divergers -.85000 9.66226 1.000
Convergers 22.78000* 8.44349 .043
Divergers Assimilators 19.99474 8.81617 .117
Accommodators .85000 9.66226 1.000
The Tukey's HSD test has demonstrated that the accommodators had significantly
higher average scores than those of the convergers. In addition, the divergers had
significantly higher average scores than those of the convergers with a .05 level of
significance. The other comparisons were not found significant. Another analysis was
done according to the average scores. In this analysis the students were separated into
three sub-groups according to the learning performances (poor: 0-45, average: 46-69,
good: 70+), within all of the groups. The average scores of the groups based on their
learning styles is shown in Table 6.

Çakıroğlu
Table 6
Average Scores of Four Learning Style Groups and their Sub-Groups
Converger Assimilator Accommodator Diverger

Sub- n % X n % X n % X n % X
groups
Poor 9 45 15.1 7 35 21.4 2 10 37.5 2 10 37.5
Average 10 40 55.3 7 28 56.1 5 20 62.6 3 12 60.
5
Good 6 28.5 74 5 23. 74.2 5 23. 83.8 5 23. 80.
8 8 8 8
Total 25 37.8 45.3 19 28.7 48.1 12 18.1 67.2 10 15.1 68.1
Study Habits
A survey was provided in order to reveal study habits which ranged from strongly agree
= 5 to strongly disagree = 1. Mean values (X) and the standard deviations (SD) of the
items are provided in Table 7.
Table 7
Study Habits Average Scores and Standard Deviations of Sub-Groups
Study habits Poor (n = 20) Average (n = 25) Good (n = 21)

X SD X SD X SD
Home environment and planning of work 20.6 3.31 23.64 4.32 24.85 4.05
Reading and note taking habit 34.65 2.39 39 3.94 42.52 2.94
Planning of subjects 17.4 2.60 20.52 2.02 21.33 2.3
Habits of concentration 12 1.94 13.08 0.91 15.33 2.3
Preparation for examination 15.7 2.71 17.12 1.74 18.14 1.35
General habits and attitudes 31 6.1 38.32 4.16 45.47 5.42
School environment 39.7 3.85 43.68 3.79 42.80 5.29
Overall study habits 170.2 8.78 196.6 9.53 210.38 7.89
Table 7 shows those “good” students’ habits of concentration, and their reading as well
as note taking habits, and general habits and attitudes are considerably higher than
those of others. The preparation for examination habits of the “poor” and “average”
students were ranked with a higher average score, while the home environment and
planning of work habits of the “average” students feature with a higher score. To
determine whether the three groups (good, average, and poor) have significant
correlations between the study habit items and average scores of the groups, the

Çakıroğlu
correlations between the study habits and average scores are determined and provided
in Table 8.
Table 8
Correlations between Study Habit Scores and Average Scores of the Sub-Groups
Average Scores
All Good Average Poor

Sh# Study habits students students students students
(r) (r) (r) (r)
Sh1 Home environment and planning of work .444* .071 .181 .154
Sh2 Reading and note taking habit .624* .181 .099 .093
Sh3 Planning of subjects .548* .515* .318* .433*
Sh4 Habits of concentration .487* .402* .117 -.523*
Sh5 Preparation for examination .373 .253 .454* .070
Sh6 General habits and attitudes .714* .295* .162 .236
Sh7 School environment .327* .102 .083 .455*
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The Pearson correlation (r) was assessed in accordance with Cohen (1998), classifying
the r values as -1 = perfect negative, 0.75-1.00 = strong positive, 0.5-0.75 = moderate
positive, 0.25-0.5 = weak positive, -0.25-0.25 = no linear association, -0.5 - -0.25 =
weak negative, -1 - -0.75 = strong negative, 1 = perfect negative. The Pearson
correlation coefficient indicates a moderate positive correlation between Sh2, Sh3, Sh6,
and All Students average scores. Hence, as Sh2, Sh3, Sh6 increases, average scores for
all students will also increase. Sh1, Sh4, and Sh7 had a weak positive correlation among
the average scores for all groups. For the “good” students, only Sh3 had moderate
positive correlations with average scores of the good group. There were only two habits
of the average group that have positive correlations with study habits, which are actually
weak, with Sh3 and Sh5. The correlation coefficients between the poor students’ average
scores, Sh3 and Sh7, were weakly positive. Overall habits were calculated by means of
the total habit scores of each study habit category. The correlations between the overall
habits and average scores are provided in Table 9.
Table 9
Correlations between Overall Habits and Average Scores of Sub-Groups
Study habits All Good Average Poor

students students students students
(r) (r) (r) (r)
Overall habits .884* .108 .796* .544

Çakıroğlu
Correlations between the average scores for all students and overall habits as well as
overall habits between the average scores of the “average” students were found to be
strongly positive. Overall habits and good students’ average scores as well as poor
students’ average scores were not significantly correlated.
Discussion
Learning Styles of Distance Learners

It can be suggested that the leading learning style was the convergers, where students
typically choose to learn through practical applications, including solving problems,
trying to make correct decisions, and preferring to work with technical works or
problems, rather than working with social relations. Convergers were followed by the
assimilators, who concentrate on abstract concepts, make reflective observations, and
assimilate them into an integrated explanation. The accommodators and the divergers
were close in that they rarely choose to learn through conducting experiments, taking
risks (accommodators), and producing new ideas, observing the situations from
different perspectives, and bringing different ideas together (divergers). Although the
number of the divergers was the lowest, this group achieved the highest score of average
scores. This is similar to Karademir and Tezel (2010), who found that Turkish
university students are generally accommodators, and divergers are fewer in number
than others.
The divergers had higher average scores and learn better through feeling and watching.
This may be because they watched the samples and they have a good command of the
details of this observation. The results were similar to Daniel’s (1999) finding that
divergers preferred reflective observation (watching), and achieved significantly higher
scores. In fact, it has been stated with respect to the characteristics of divergers that they
“learn when allowed to observe and gather a wide range of information” (Manochehr,
2006). They view concrete situations from many perspectives and adapt those by
observation, rather than by action. In this sense, it can be concluded that, particularly in
a synchronous setting, it contributes to the understanding of their problem solving
styles that they see the programming examples, while the instructor is presenting them.
In addition, students could also follow the records of lesson videos asynchronously
which might have allowed them to bring forward their observation abilities.
The students adopting a “diverger” learning style were followed by the “assimilator”,
“accommodator”, and “converger” learning styles, respectively. In contrast to this study,
Lu, et al. (2007) found no significant effect between Kolb learning styles and learning
outcomes and the study results showed that the mean of learning outcomes of
convergers and assimilators was higher than that of divergers and accommodators. In
this sense, Sun et al. (2008) have observed that the experimental group making use of

Çakıroğlu
the online activities was not considerably different from the students with different
learning styles. They found that the accommodators gained the most significant
achievements. The results of this study are confirmed by some studies but also have
differences from others.
In addition, in this study students usually studied with short size programming
examples which were not difficult to follow. The instructor provided the major
statements related to the subject before presenting the examples and students were
allowed to make reviews on the concrete experiences. In this sense, the description of
programming by means of illustration and exercise showed a positive correlation with
the divergers’ focusing on concrete experiences. Also, students’ cooperative
brainstorming on their assignments or projects shows that there is an emphasis on
social interaction. Looking at their average scores, the divergers were followed by the
accommodators. This group of students learns through “feeling” and “doing”. They were
good at adapting to changed circumstances and they solved the problems in the
homework given by the instructor intuitively. They usually choose to learn through self-
analyzing such as trial and error and discovery learning. Although Shaw (2012) in his
study on learning programming in online forums as well as Wang, et al. (2011) have
emphasized that when learning how to program, it is essential that the practices of the
students verify an important conclusion that actual practice in the programming
language learning is superior to just watching information. The enhanced features of the
synchronous system used in this study might create a monitoring and follow-up
environment far beyond the simple online forum and contribute to the learning
performance of the students. On the other hand, the common feature of “feeling” in the
groups of divergers and accommodators shown in Table 10 indicates that the feature of
“feeling” can be of importance in synchronous settings. The assimilators and convergers
have a common feature of “thinking”. The convergers are those who choose to learn
through practical applications of concepts, and most of the students in the class adopted
this style. These students like decision making, problem solving, and the practical
application of ideas. It is interesting that convergers had lower average scores in the
programming course, which consists of problem solving, although these students
adopted problem solving and learn this way. In addition, the assimilators, who learn
through demonstration, have the lowest average scores; however, a significant number
of students choose this learning style. These students incorporate a number of different
observations and thoughts into an integrated whole. In fact, it is emphasized that
programming can be understood during a lecture; however, writing programming codes
required different features (Robins, Rountree, & Rountree, 2003). Although the
concentration of the divergers and accommodators with higher average scores on the
concrete structures is an important common feature, it is interesting that the
assimilators and the convergers most commonly preferred among the distance learners
focus on abstract structures. The divergers show reflective characteristics, while the
accommodators with a close average to the divergers choose to be actively involved in
learning. Similarly, the assimilators adopt a reflective learning style, while the
convergers adopt an active learning style. In this sense, it is seen that the active

Çakıroğlu
involvement in learning would not have a considerable effect on learningprogramming

in an online synchronous setting. Although Dringus and Terrell (2000) and Lippert,
Radhakrishna, Plank, and Mitchell (2001) in their studies based on Kolbs's LSI found
that learning style had no effect on success in online learning, this study provides some
evidence that styles may be important while benefiting from various online learning
technologies or may be effected by teaching strategies.
In this study, students were separated as poor, average, and good based on the pretest
results. Among the poor students, the average scores of the accommodators and
divergers were equivalent (37.5), and these scores were higher than those of the
convergers (15.1) and the assimilators (21.4). Among the average students, the
accommodators have the highest average scores, while the number of the students in
this group was the lowest. The ranging of average scores as accommodators, divergers,
assimilators, and convergers among the average students was the same for the good
students. Considering all three groups, it is seen that the accommodators and the
divergers had higher average scores than those of the convergers and the assimilators.
At this point, it is quite interesting that the number of students in the groups of the
accommodators and the divergers were low within each of three poor, average, and good
groups.
Especially in the studies conducted among Turkish university students, it can be seen
that the numbers of the divergers and the accommodators have a small share among the
participants involved in the studies (Akkoyunlu & Soylu, 2008). Similarly, this study
addresses some new data which were the same for online learning. The correlations
between the learning styles and the average scores were also an important result of this
study. This relationship is summarized in Table 10.
Table 10
Relationships between Average Scores and Four Learning Styles
Average Features of learning styles

scores
Feeling Watching Thinking Doing
High average Diverger Diverger Accommodator
scores Accommodator
Low average Assimilator Assimilator Converger
scores Converger
The “doing” learning style was associated with nearly the same performance as the
“watching” learning style because the divergers (watching) have higher average scores,
while the average scores of the students adopting another learning style (assimilator)
with watching had a lower average score. Similarly, students adopting the

Çakıroğlu
accommodator learning style featured with “doing” had higher average scores than
other students adopting the “doing” feature.
As a result, in this study, it has been asserted that there is a significant relationship
between the learning style and the average scores as learning performances. In this
sense, Mitchell (2000) concluded that learning style may be an important indicator of
how effectively different instructional strategies can be applied for different types of
learners enrolled in online courses. So, the findings of this study can be considered as
evidence that learning styles can be an indicator for success in online courses carried
out through an online synchronous system as an enhanced version of a DL course.
Study Habits of Distance Learners

Results showed that the average study habit scores (SHS) were all ranged as SHS poor <
SHS average < SHS good . This reflects good students had better SHS scores than those of the
other groups. Only the “school environment” category was ranged as SHS average >
SHS good . In the other categories the students with high scores in study habits had also
high average scores. For “overall habits” consisting of the total of seven study habits, the
“good” students had also the highest SHS, and they were followed by the overall SHS of
the “average” students. Additionally, the SHS of the “good” and “average” students were
higher than those of the “poor” students. The results of the sub-groups’ academic
achievements confirms the idea of Göğüs and Güneş (2011) that academic performances
increased when students used effective study habits in online learning settings. In this
sense, Robinson (2000) also found that certain bad study habits resulted in poor
learning performance.
It is interesting that the average scores and the planning of subjects scores of the “good”
students have a moderate positive correlation, and that there was a moderate negative
correlation between the average habits of concentration scores and average scores of the
“poor” students. A weak or a moderate positive correlation between the planning of
subject and the average scores of each of the three groups (poor, average, good) suggest
that it is also important for the students to plan the subjects in a synchronous setting. As
is generally known, a programming course has a typically inductive conceptual
structure; it is important to study by planning the subjects in order to achieve higher
learning performance. This situation was also the same in the online environment.
There was a positive correlation between the habits of concentration of “good” students,
and a negative correlation between the average scores of the “poor” students. It is
particularly difficult to enable concentration in online synchronous settings because
learners are carefully following the course as they do not know when the instructor will
ask a question and where the instructor will indicate something. In addition, it is known
that there are many factors at home or at work that may disturb the concentration of
distance learners. The missing parts of the lessons can be watched asynchronously
through video records. However the body language of the instructor during the lecture
cannot be felt which is important for the students’ concentration during the lesson. It is
interesting that none of the habits of preparation for the examination, reading and note

Çakıroğlu
taking and home environment, is correlated with the average scores in all groups.
Although note taking is a most usable feature for the programming course in a class
environment, it is not mostly preferred in the synchronous lessons. Maybe students
didnot want to miss the presentation of the instructor by spending extra time to take
notes. Time management is an important issue in DL and some researchers consider it
as a major concern for online students (McEwen, 2001).
Some authors suggest following the examples given during the online courses, rather
than the short-term exam studies, in the programming course (Robins, Rountree, &
Rountree, 2003). In this study, even if there were different exam preparation habits,
they did not affect the average scores. As students follow the course from different
environments (home, work, dorm, etc.) in distance education, naturally there emerge
different environments during the active course hours. Although students’ study
environment at home was different, and they had different family features, the impact of
these features on the learning performances in this course was not significant.
It may be concluded that the impacts of two study habits, planning and concentration,
were prominent. Planning is related to organization and concentration is related to
feeling. Planning is generally about the nature of the course and concentration is about
the nature of the online synchronous setting. Considering all study habits together,
some considerations can be presented that the students with positive study habits have
higher average scores, and some habits may have an impact on the learning
performances in the online synchronous settings, not entirely but in this aspect. It can
be thought that the features (visual, audio, texts, animations, etc.) provided by the
online synchronous settings might affect the development of positive study habits. In
addition, the methods of the instructor’s presentation can be considered as a factor
playing a role in the development of positive habits. Hence Ally and Fahy (2002)
concluded that in the online learning environments e-teachers must provide adequate
support strategies for students with different learning styles.
Conclusions
The results of this study showed significant relationships between the students’ learning
styles, study habits, and performances in online learning, and have offered an insight
into the mode of delivery. The design of effective courses for distance learners is most
likely to be in connection with the characteristics and preferences of the learner, as it is
in the classroom. It was seen that the learners usually show characteristics of
assimilators in online synchronous settings. However, the results have shown that the
“divergers and accommodators” styles were associated with higher learning scores in
synchronous settings. Another common characteristic of the good students was “feeling”
according to the results of this study. So I suggest this for programming language
learning, with online synchronous settings, and the students’ active involvement to have
positive feelings and to improve their learning performances.

Çakıroğlu
It was found that there is a significant correlation between the two study habits
(concentration and planning of subjects). Considering that it is difficult to control
concentration in online synchronous settings, it is deemed necessary for the instructors
and the environment designers to take special measures in this respect. The planning of
work is not an easy task for distance learners to perform. At this point, instructors can
announce their syllabus which may provide support for these students at the beginning
of the terms. Hence, learning performances can be enhanced with measures to easily
bring forward study habits for distance learners. In this study, home environment and
planning of work, reading, and note taking habits do not have a significant correlation
with academic achievement in online synchronous settings. In particular, it is quite
difficult to apply note taking habits due to the nature of the online synchronous setting.
At this point, it may be proper for instructors to highlight the course records and to
direct the students to watch these records.
Learning styles and study habits not only indicate how learners learn, but they can help
an instructor support individual students, so that they might teach successfully (Tseng,
Chu, Hwang, & Tsai, 2008). The results can help instructors get to know and use
different tools for different learning styles and study habits to increase the performance
of the students. As Mupingo, Nora, and Yaw (2006) state some of the online classes may
have an unknown make-up so the characteristics of online students may be unclear
which makes it difficult to develop effective online courses. An instructor should take
into account all the related factors and include the necessary components in the
program when designing a synchronous course to facilitate student learning, through
examination of the learning styles of the distance learners, various learner
performances, and involvement in online environments. Considering the idea of Wolfe
et al. (2006) using videos, chat rooms, whiteboards, discussion boards, and providing
assignments to suit learners’ preferences may enhance learners’ academic
performances.
In addition, Dağ and Geçer (2009) with their review stated that improving academic
achievements in online learning not only involves learning styles but also motivation of
the learner, demographic factors, teaching strategies, and teaching methods. Moreover,
Göğüş and Güneş (2011) pointed out that study skills, time management skills, and
learning habits exhibited strong relations with academic performance in online
learning. Thus, administrating workshops and sessions may help students to develop
appropriate study habits for the nature of the teaching strategies and technologies used.
At the institutional level in particular, institutions that want to transfer some of their
conventional courses onto the web may grasp the differences among students’ learning
styles in creating flexible instructional strategies that allow for synchronous settings.
For future studies, it is recommended that some new correlations can be assessed
between learning styles and study habits, regardless of whether the learning styles may
be effective in controlling study habits in online learning environments.

Çakıroğlu
In conclusion, this study showed that matching learning styles and study habits with
teaching methods will serve academic performance. Some inventories should be
administered at the beginning of the course so that course design and structure may be
designed and implemented accordingly. This study was mostly directed to learning
styles and study habits individually. Future research may examine common effects of
learning styles and study habits together on academic performances.

Çakıroğlu
References
Akdemir, O., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Investigating the relationships among
instructional strategies and learning styles in online environments. Computers
& Education, 50(4), 1451-1461.
Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended

learning environment based on different learning styles. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(1), 183-193.
Allen, M., J. Bourhis, N. Burrell, & E. Mabry. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction
with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-
analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97.
Ally, M., & Fahy, P. (2002, August). Using students’ learning styles to provide support in
distance education. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference on
Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, WI.
Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning style
preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227-243.
Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolb learning style inventory. Education and Science,
15(81), 37-47.
Benbunan-Fich, R., & S. R. Hiltz. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online

courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298–312.
Chen, N. S., & Lin, K. M. (2002, September). Factors affecting e-learning for
achievement. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies ( 9-12).
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2012). Learning styles and
pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and
Skills Research Centre: London.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, P., Collinge, J., & Tabin, Y. (1993). The Learning triad: Parental involvement.
London: University of North London Press.
Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 3, 425-454.

Çakıroğlu
Dağ, F., & Geçer, A. (2009). Relations between online learning and learning
styles. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 862-871.
Daniel, J. A. (1999). Effects of learning style and learning environment on achievement

of physical therapy graduate students in distance education (Doctoral
dissertation). Texas Tech University.
Dringus, L., & Terrell, S. (2000). An investigation of the effect of learning style on
student success in an online learning environment. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 28(3), 231-238.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning
styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning,
and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. Elements of quality
online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for
Online Education.
Fahy, P. J., & Ally, M. (2005). Student learning style and asynchronous computer-
mediated conferencing (CMC) interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 19(1), 5-22.
Fearing, A., & Riley, M. (2005). Graduate students’ perceptions of online teaching and
relationship to preferred learning styles. Medsurg Nursing, 14(6), 383–389.
Federico, P. A. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of
network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 359-379.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Leaming and teaching styles in engineering
education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (1997). Index of learning styles. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK Strategies. Honolulu

Community College.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York: Basic
Books.
Göğüş, A., & Güneş, H. (2011). Learning styles and effective learning habits of university
students:a case from Turkey. College Student Journal, 586-600
Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Gregorc’s style delineator: Development, technical, and

administration manual. Gregore Associates, Inc.

Çakıroğlu
Gregorc, A. F., & Butler, K. A. (1984). Learning is a matter of style. VocEd, 59(3), 27-29.
Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). Getting ahead by getting online. Library Journal, 127(19),

32-35.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Learning cycles and learning styles: the application of
Kolb’s experiential learning model in higher education. Journal of Geography,
99(5), 185-195.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles (2nd ed.). Maidenhead,,
UK: Peter Honey.
Hummel, H. G.-K. (2006). Feedback model to support designers of blended-learning

courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
7(3), 1–16.
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance
learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1995(67), 19-31.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences learning

and instruction. Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1970). Analytical psychology, theory and practice, the Tavistock lectures.
New York: Vintage Books.
Karademir, E., & Tezel, Ö. (2010). Examination of the learning styles of pre-service
elementary teachers in terms of demographic variables. Pamukkale University
Faculty of Education Journal, 28, 129-145.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory: Self Scoring Inventory and

interpretation booklet. Boston: McBer and Company.
Liegle, J. O., & Janicki, T. N. (2006). The effect of learning styles on the navigation
needs of Web-based learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 885-898.
Lippert, R. M., Radhakrishna, R., Plank, O., & Mitchell, C. C. (2001). Using different
evaluation tools to assess a regional internet in-service training. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 28(3), 237-248.
Lu, H., Jia, L., Gong, S. H., & Clark, B. (2007). The relationship of Kolb learning styles,
online learning behaviors and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 10(4).

Çakıroğlu
Manochehr, N.N. (2006). The influence of learning styles on learners in e-learning

environments: An empirical study. Cheer Virtual Edition, 18, 10-14.
McEwen, B. C. (2001). Web-assisted and online learning. Business Communication

Quarterly, 64(2), 98-103.
Miller, L. M. (2005). Using learning styles to evaluate computer-based instruction.

Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), 287-306.
Mitchell, J. L. (2000). The effect of matching teaching style with learning style on
achievement and attitudes for women in web-based distance education course.
Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University.
Morris, K. V., Finnegan, C., & Sz-Shyan, W. (2005). Tracking student behavior,
persistence, and achievement in online courses. Internet and Higher
Education, 8(3), 221–231.
Mupingo, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and
needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189.
Neuhauser, C. 2002. Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to face
instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113.
Patel, B. V. (1976). Study habits inventory. In D. M. Pestonjee, (Ed.), Second handbook

of psychology and social instruments. Concept Publishing Company, New
Delhi.
Popescu, E. (2010). Adaptation provisioning with respect to learning styles in a Web-

based educational system: An experimental study. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 26, 243–257.
Proctor, B. E., Prevatt, F., Adams, K., Reaser, A., & Petscher, Y. (2006). Study skills
profiles of normal-achieving and academically struggling college students. The
Journal of College Student Development, 47, 37-51
Richmond, A. S., & Liu, L. (2005). Student learning styles of traditional courses versus
online distance courses. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J.
Price, R. Weber & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Technology & teacher education annual
(pp. 576-578). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Robins, A., Rountree, J. & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: a
review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13, 137 -173.
Robinson, H. H. (2000). Effective study. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Çakıroğlu
Schellens, T., & M. Valcke. 2000. Re-engineering conventional university education:

Implications for students’ learning styles. Distance Education, 21(2), 361–384.
Schmeck, R. R., Geisler, E., & Cercy, S. P. (1991). Self-concept and learning: The revised
inventory of learning processes. Educational Psychology, 11, 343-362.
Sharpe, R., & Benfield, G. (2005). The student experience of e-learning in higher
education. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, 1(3).
Shaw, R.S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation
types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online
forums. Computers & Education, 58, 111-120
Simpson, C., & Yunfei, D. (2004). Effects of learning styles and class participation on
students' enjoyment level in distributed learning environments. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 123-136.
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (2nd ed.). USA: John Wiley&
Sons, Inc.
Sun, K. T., Lin, Y. C., & Yu, C. J. (2008). A study on learning effect among different
learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students.
Computers & Education, 50(4), 1411–1422.
Terrell, S. (2002). Learning style as a predictor of success in a limited residency doctoral

program. The Internet in Higher Education, 5(4), 345-352.
Tseng, C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive
learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 776–786.
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles and
formative assessment strategy: Enhancing student achievement in Web-based
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207–217.
Wang, T., Su, X., Ma, P., Wang, Y., & Wang, K. (2011). Ability-training-oriented
automated assessment in introductory programming course. Computers &
Education, 56(1), 220–226.
Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory
(LASSI): User's manual (2nd ed.). Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2006). Adolescent risk behaviors: Why teens
experiment and strategies to keep them safe. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

Çakıroğlu

Analyzing The Effect of Learning Styles and Study Habits of Distance Learners On Learning Performances: A Case of An Introductory Programming Course

Uploaded by

Analyzing The Effect of Learning Styles and Study Habits of Distance Learners On Learning Performances: A Case of An Introductory Programming Course

Uploaded by

Analyzing the Effect of Learning Styles and

Study Habits of Distance Learners on Learning

Keywords: Learning styles; study habits; learning performances; distance learning;

Definitions of learning style generally focus on ways of learning. According to Fleming

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 162

Learning Styles in Distance Learning

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 163

Purpose of the Study

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 164

focused on attitudes towards learning environments or engagement in the learning

The research questions were as follows:

Figure 1. Kolb's learning cycle model (Kolb, 1985).

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 165

Learning Styles and Conditions (Manochehr, 2006)

Learning style They learn best Condition

The four learning styles are as follows:

• Assimilators have abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. They

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 166

Figure 2. Study framework.

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 167

Participant’s Learning Style

Gender Total Converger Assimilator Accommodator Diverger

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 168

Average Scores of Four Learning Style Groups

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 169

Sum of df Mean square F p

Tukey HSD Test Results among Four Learning Style Groups

Groups Groups Mean Std. error p

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 170

Average Scores of Four Learning Style Groups and their Sub-Groups

Converger Assimilator Accommodator Diverger

Study Habits Average Scores and Standard Deviations of Sub-Groups

Study habits Poor (n = 20) Average (n = 25) Good (n = 21)

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 171

All Good Average Poor

Correlations between Overall Habits and Average Scores of Sub-Groups

Study habits All Good Average Poor

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 172

Learning Styles of Distance Learners

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 173

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 174

involvement in learning would not have a considerable effect on learningprogramming

Relationships between Average Scores and Four Learning Styles

Average Features of learning styles

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 175

Study Habits of Distance Learners

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 176

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 177

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 178

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 179

Akkoyunlu, B., & Soylu, M. Y. (2008). A study of student’s perceptions in a blended

Benbunan-Fich, R., & S. R. Hiltz. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 180

Daniel, J. A. (1999). Effects of learning style and learning environment on achievement

Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK Strategies. Honolulu

Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Gregorc’s style delineator: Development, technical, and

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 181

Hamilton-Pennell, C. (2002). Getting ahead by getting online. Library Journal, 127(19),

Hummel, H. G.-K. (2006). Feedback model to support designers of blended-learning

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences learning

Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory: Self Scoring Inventory and

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 182

Manochehr, N.N. (2006). The influence of learning styles on learners in e-learning

McEwen, B. C. (2001). Web-assisted and online learning. Business Communication

Miller, L. M. (2005). Using learning styles to evaluate computer-based instruction.

Patel, B. V. (1976). Study habits inventory. In D. M. Pestonjee, (Ed.), Second handbook

Popescu, E. (2010). Adaptation provisioning with respect to learning styles in a Web-

Robinson, H. H. (2000). Effective study. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 183

Schellens, T., & M. Valcke. 2000. Re-engineering conventional university education:

Terrell, S. (2002). Learning style as a predictor of success in a limited residency doctoral

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 184

Vol 15 | No 4 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Sept./14 185

You might also like