Learning Styles and the Hybrid Learning: An Empirical Study about the Impact of Learning Styles on the Perception of the Hybrid Learning

Open access

Abstract

Learning style is a crucial element in the academic life of students. It plays a fundamental role in the selection of a suitable teaching method of instruction. The aim of this research paper is the study of the perception of the hybrid learning and students’ learning style. In addition, another objective of the study is to analyze the perception of the hybrid learning in accordance with the learning style. This paper employs quantitative research and the descriptive and comparative methods. The study sample consists of 89 Albanian university students. Data analysis was conducted through SPSS 20 and JASP-0.8.1.2. The statistical analyses utilized in this paper are distribution tables, crossed tabulation, student test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Bayesian Independent Samples T-Test, and One - Way ANOVA. The conclusion of the data analysis shows that most students used the visual learning style in order to study. Students have a positive perception of the hybrid learning. There exists an insignificant statistical correlation between learning styles and the perception of the hybrid learning. The area of study has an impact on the components of the hybrid learning.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ajide O. E. & Tik C. C. (2009). A study on the effectiveness of blended learning. 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-7). Malaysia: INTI University College.

  • Atiyah J. M. El Sherbiny M. M. & Guirguis S. K. (2015). Evaluation of E-Learning Program versus Traditional Education Instruction for Undergraduate. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science Engineering and Technology 2 (7) 776-786.

  • Bidabadi F. S. & Yamat H. (2010). Learning style preferences by Iranian EFL freshman university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 7 219-226.

  • Blankson J. & Kyei-Blankson L. (2008). Nontraditional Students' Perception of a Blended Course: Integrating Synchronous Online Discussion and Face-to-Face Instruction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 3 (19) 421-438.

  • Bonk C. J. & Graham C. R. (2006). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives Local Designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.

  • Bostrom L. & Lassen L. M. (2006). Unraveling learning learning styles learning strategies and metacognition. Education & Training 48 178-189.

  • Boyle T. Bradley C. Chalk P. Jones R. & Pickard P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student suҫess rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media 28 (2-3) 165-178.

  • Collopy R. M. & Arnold J. M. (2009). To blend or not to blend: Online and blended learning environments in undergraduate teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education 18 (2) 85-101.

  • Dobson J. (2010). A comparison between learning style preferences and sex status and course performance. Advances in Physiology Education 34 (4) 197-204.

  • Donnelly R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education 54 (2) 350-359.

  • Dziuban C. D. Moskal P. & Hartman J. (2004). Blended Learning. Colorado: Research Bulletin of Educause Center for Applied Research.

  • Dziuban C. Graham C. & Piҫiano A. (2014). Blended learning: Research perspectives. New York: Routledge.

  • Fleming N. (1995). I'm different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (pp. 308-313). Queensland: HERDSA.

  • Ford N. & Chen S. (2000). Individual differences hypermedia navigation and learning: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 9 281-311.

  • Garnham C. & Kaleta R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today 8 (6) 1-6.

  • Garrison D. R. & Vaughan N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Glazer F. S. (2011). Blended Learning: Across the Disciplines Across the Academy (New Pedagogies and Practices for Teaching in Higher Education). Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

  • Gómez L. & Duart J. (2012). A hybrid approach to university subject learning activities. British Journal of Educational Technology 43 (2) 259–271.

  • Graff M. G. (2003). Cognitive Style and attitudes towards using online learning and assessment methods. The Electronic Journal of E-learning 1 (1) 21-28.

  • Güzera B. & Canera H. (2014). The past present and future of blended learning: an in depth analysis of literature. Social and Behavioral Sciences 4596 – 4603.

  • Lim D. H. & Morris M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society 12 (4) 282-293.

  • López-Pérez M. V. Pérez-López M. C. & Rodríguez-Ariza L. (2011). Blended learning in higher education: Students' perceptions and their relation to outcomes. Computers & Education 56 (3) 818-826.

  • Martinez-Caro E. & Campuzano-Bolarin F. (2011). Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering disciplines: Traditional vs. blended approaches. European Journal of Engineering Education 36 (5) 473–483.

  • Means B. Toyama Y. Murphy R. Bakia M. & Jones K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • Mitchell A. & Honore S. (2007). Criteria for suҫessful blended learning. Industrial and Commercial Training 39 (3) 143–149.

  • Norberg A. Dziuban C. D. & Moskal P. D. (2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon 19 207-216.

  • Osguthorpe T. R. & Graham C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4 (3) 227-233.

  • O’Toole J. M. & Absalom D. J. (2003). The impact of blended learning on student outcomes: Is there room on the horse for two. Journal of Educational Media 28 (2-3) 179-190.

  • Owston R. Wideman H. Murphy J. & Lupshenyuk D. (2008). Blended teacher professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations. The Internet and Higher Education 11 (3-4) 201-210.

  • Owston R. York D. & Murtha S. (2013). Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education 18 38–46.

  • Promsurin S. & Vitayapirak J. (2015). Comparison of e-Learning Blended and Traditional English Teaching Methods: A Case Study of Ban Hong Community Education College. International Journal of Languages Literature and Linguistics 1 (2) 80-86.

  • Sharpe R. Benfield G. Roberts G. & Francis R. (2006). The undergraduate experience of blended elearning: A review of UK literature and practice. York: The Higher Education Academy.

  • Shaw G. & Marlow N. (1999). The role of student learning styles gender attitudes and perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning. Computers & Education 33 (4) 223 - 234.

  • Smyth S. Houghton C. Cooney A. & Casey D. (2012). Students' experiences of blended learning across a range of postgraduate programmes. Nurse Education Today 32 464–468.

  • Thorne K. (2003). Blended learning: how to integrate online and traditional learning. London: Kogan page.

  • Torre J. M. (2013). Variances on Students’ Blended Learning Perception Aҫording. Journal of Education and Practice 4 (20) 160-167.

  • Wang M. Shen R. Novak D. & Pan X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology 40 (4) 673-695.

  • Wehrwein E. A. Lujan H. L. & DiCarlo S. (2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education 31 (2) 153-157.

  • Woltering V. Herrler A. Spitzer K. & Spreckelsen C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students’ satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Science Education 14 725-738.

  • Yari T. (2012). Exploring the relationship between various learning preferences and final results achieved by Iranian EFL learners: A case study. Advances in Asian Social Science 2 (3) 526-531.