Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Learning Style under Two Web‐Based Study

Conditions

Genevieve Marie Johnson

To cite this article: Genevieve Marie Johnson (2007) Learning Style under Two Web‐Based
Study Conditions, Educational Psychology, 27:5, 617-634, DOI: 10.1080/01443410701309159

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701309159

Published online: 26 Sep 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 389

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
Educational Psychology
Vol. 27, No. 5, October 2007, pp. 617–634

Learning Style under Two Web-Based

Study Conditions
Genevieve Marie Johnson*
Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton, Canada
0GenevieveJohnson
johnsong@macewan.ca
000002007
Educational
10.1080/01443410701309159
CEDP_A_230817.sgm
0144-3410
Original
Taylor
2007
00 and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Francis
Psychology
Ltd (online)

A sample of 48 college students prepared for in-class examinations using two web-based study
conditions. The A condition used web-based study groups and the B condition used web-based
quizzes. The Index of Learning Styles positioned students on four dimensions of learning style
(active-reflective, visual-verbal, sequential-global, and sensing-intuitive). Students who were more
active than reflective expressed a preference for face-to-face study groups rather than online study
groups and for online quizzes rather than pencil-and-paper quizzes. Students who were more
visual than verbal expressed a preference for online quizzes rather than online study groups. Such
preferences were validated by decreased achievement in the less-preferred study condition. At
college level, students are aware of their learning style and understand the conditions that facilitate
their mastery of course content. Instructional applications of web-based technology may provide
mechanisms for more consistently accommodating student learning style in higher education.

Web-based study support is often provided to college students (Crook, 2001; Grabe
& Sigler, 2002; Johnson, 2006a). Online quizzes, for example, are popular forms of
support, reportedly helping students evaluate their learning and focus study effort
accordingly (Fritz, 2003; Itoh & Hannon, 2002; Jensen, Johnson, & Johnson, 2002;
Jensen, Moore, & Hatch, 2002; Killedar, 2002). Derouza and Fleming (2003)
compared undergraduates who completed quizzes online with students who took
traditional paper-and-pencil quizzes. Comparison of in-class examination marks
revealed that students who took the quizzes online significantly outperformed
students who took pencil-and-paper quizzes. Because web-based quizzes provide
immediate performance feedback (Hutchins, 2003), they are commonly recom-
mended as effective tools of study (Kashy, Thoennessen, Albertelli, & Tsai, 2000).
Indeed, via website or compact disc, automated practice tests characteristically

*Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan College, City Centre Campus, Edmonton, Canada
T5J 4S2. Email: johnsong@macewan.ca

ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-5820 (online)/07/050617–18

© 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI 10.1080/01443410701309159
618 G. M. Johnson

accompany introductory undergraduate textbooks (e.g., McGraw-Hill Higher

Education, 2006).
Despite limited evidence of their effectiveness (Johnson, 2006b), web-based peer
study groups are increasingly available to college students (Shale, 2002; Tait &
Mills, 2003). Reportedly, 72% of American institutes of higher education provide
some form of web-based peer tutoring (Miller & Lu, 2003). Luca and Clarkson
(2002) described “how easily and effectively the basic principles of peer tutoring can
be adapted and implemented” in online learning environments (p. 1). Crook (2002)
suggested that new technology “may become a lever on what is otherwise a failure by
students to take advantage of collaborative opportunities” (p. 66), and reported that
when students were assigned to a web-based study group, “71% said that it was
helpful or very helpful” (p. 75). Johnson and Johnson (2005) compared the relative
effectiveness of two study strategies in online groups, reciprocal peer questions, and
mnemonic devices. While there was no significant difference in academic achieve-
ment between students in the two study conditions, “students in the reciprocal peer
questioning group reported higher levels of satisfaction with the virtual study
experience” (p. 2025).
Although web-based learning support such as quizzes and study groups are often
provided to students, evidence for the benefits of such support is not consistent (Bol
& Hacker, 2001; McConnell, 2005; Perlman, 2003). Brothen and Wambach
(2001), for example, described a developmental psychology course in which
students had access to computerized quizzes to prepare for proctored examinations.
“Results indicated that spending more time taking quizzes and taking them more
times was related to poorer exam performance” (p. 293). Grabe and Sigler (2001),
on the other hand, provided students with four web-based study tools: multiple-
choice practice tests, short-answer practice tests, lecture notes, and textbook notes.
Students who frequently accessed multiple-choice practice tests academically
outperformed students who infrequently utilized such web-based study support.
Johnson and Johnson (2006) argued that such contradictory research findings “may
be the consequence of failure to consider individual student differences in relation to
various forms of online learning support” (p. 1861). Since interactive online behav-
iour requires a complex combination of sensory, motor, and cognitive functions
(Johnson, 2006c; Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross, 2001), individual
student differences may be of even greater consequence here than in face-to-face
instructional environments (Loomis, 2000).

Cognitive and Learning Styles

Cognitive style is defined by Riding and Rayner (1998) as an individual’s fixed
characteristics relating to methods of information processing and organization.
There is evidence for a biological basis for cognitive style (Riding, Glass, Butler, &
Pleydell-Pearce, 1997), and longitudinal studies indicate that it is stable over time
(Clapp, 1993). In a comprehensive review of the literature, Riding and Cheema
(1991) identified more than 30 labels associated with cognitive style. They
 Learning Style 619

proposed re-organization in terms of two independent dimensions; wholist-analytic

(the extent to which an individual processes information in wholes versus separate
parts) and verbal-imagery (the degree to which an individual cognitively represents
information in language versus images).
Similar to the construct of cognitive style, learning style refers to “characteristic
cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviours that serve as relatively stable indi-
cators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environ-
ment” (Keefe, 1979, p. 4). “Each person’s style is a combination of various biological
and experiential variables that contribute to learning” (Rochford, 2003, p. 667).
McKeachie (1995) proposed that “learning styles are preferences and habits of learn-
ing that have been learned” and that students “learn strategies that enable them to be
effective when taught by methods that are not compatible with their preferred style”
(p. 2). In this regard, learning style and learning strategies are less stable than cogni-
tive style (Bull & McCalla, 2002). A considerable body of literature has addressed the
instructional utility of learning style, most often recommending an alignment
between student style and instructional presentation (Dunn & Dunn, 1999; Felder &
Brent, 2005; Jones, Reichard, & Mokhtari, 2003; Riding & Rayner, 1998).
Cognitive and learning styles are not equivalent to cognitive and learning ability
(Kossowska & Necka, 1994). Cognitive ability implies aptitude; style implies prefer-
ence and orientation. For example, picking up a pencil reflects a motor ability; pick-
ing up a pen rather than a pencil reflects a personal preference. Cognitive strategies
(e.g., note-taking and concept mapping) are implicated in cognitive and learning
style because they are learned and typically reflect individual preferences and
learning orientations (Heikkila & Lonka, 2006).
A recent review of the literature identified 71 theoretical approaches to learning
style, many associated with tests of individual differences in style (Coffield, Moseley,
Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004). Such tests require students to rate items in terms of their
learning behaviour and preferences. Subsets of test items typically assess elements of
a proposed taxonomy of learning style dimensions or continua. For example, the
Kolb Learning Style Inventory categorizes learners in term of combinations of
active-reflective and abstract-concrete preferences (Kolb, 1985). The Paragon
Learning Style Inventory provides an indication of learning style and cognitive pref-
erence in terms of introversion-extroversion, intuition-sensation, thinking-feeling,
and judging-perceiving (Shindler & Yang, 2003). The VARK Learning Styles Test
identifies preference for visual, aural, reading, or kinesthetic presentation of informa-
tion (Fleming, 2001). The Cognitive Styles Index, developed by Allinson and Hayes
(1996) for business rather than education, measures an individual’s position on a
continuum ranging from intuitive to analytic. The Learning Styles Questionnaire
(Honey & Mumford, 1986) classifies learners as activists (impulsive and enthusias-
tic), reflectors (cautious and thoughtful), theorists (disciplined and rational), or
pragmatists (confident and realistic). A narrowing of dimensions holds theoretical
appeal (e.g., the active-reflective dimension includes both physical activity and social
activity): cognitive and learning styles are typically conceptualized in terms of a
limited number of continua.
620 G. M. Johnson

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) developed by Felder and Silverman (1988) has
established reliability and validity (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). Developed for college
populations (Felder & Brent, 2005), the ILS is freely available online, easily admin-
istered to large groups, and simple to score and interpret. Similar to other measures
of learning style, the ILS classifies students along four continua or dimensions:
1. active (e.g., learns by doing and enjoys working with others) versus reflective
(e.g., learns by thinking and prefers working alone)
2. visual (e.g., prefers to learn with pictures, diagrams, and charts) versus verbal
(e.g., prefers written and spoken explanations)
3. sequential (e.g., linear thinking, learns in small steps) versus global (e.g., holistic
thinking, learns in leaps)
4. sensing (e.g., practical, concrete thinker, oriented toward facts) versus intuitive
(e.g., innovative, abstract thinker, oriented toward theory)
The ILS is a comprehensive measure of learning style, including most dimensions
assessed by other tests. The active-reflective and abstract-concrete dimensions of the
Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985) are represented by two dimensions on
the ILS (active-reflective and sensing-intuitive). Although terminology varies, dimen-
sions of style on the Paragon Learning Style Inventory (Shindler & Yang, 2003)
overlap with dimensions of style on the ILS (introversion-extroversion is similar to
active-reflective, suggesting a social dimension to learning style; intuition-sensation is
equivalent to sensing-intuitive). Further, the two dimensions of cognitive style
proposed by Riding and Cheema (1991), wholist-analytic and verbal-imagery, are
apparent in the ILS. That is, ILS items associated with the sequential-global contin-
uum (e.g., “Once I understand: a) all parts, I understand the whole thing; b) the
whole thing, I see how the parts fit”) reflect the wholist-analytic dimension of cogni-
tive style (the extent to which an individual processes information in wholes versus
separate parts). ILS items associated with the visual-verbal continuum (e.g., “I prefer
to get new information in: a) pictures, diagrams, graphs, or maps; b) written direc-
tions or verbal information”) reflect the verbal-imagery dimension (the degree to
which an individual cognitively represents information in language versus images).
A considerable volume of research has examined student learning style in web-
based instructional contexts (Chen, Margoulas, & Dimakopoulos, 2005).

Learning Style and Web-Based Learning

Research into the importance of learning style in online environments is difficult to
interpret collectively (Johnson & Johnson, 2006). Numerous studies have reported no
significant relationship between student learning style and satisfaction with web-based
instruction (Kearsley, 2000; Kim & Moore, 2005; Stokes, 2003). Other studies,
however, have reported that students’ learning behaviour and course completion are
influenced by their styles (Karuppan, 2001; Sabry & Baldwin, 2003; Terrell, 2002;
Terrell & Dringus, 1999). Bajraktarevic, Hall, and Fullick (2003) found that students
demonstrated better task performance when online activities were matched to their
 Learning Style 621

learning style preferences. Mehlenbacher, Miller, Covington, and Larsen (2000) found
that reflective learners (those who preferred personal introspection and working alone)
were more successful in web-based courses than active learners (those who preferred
to process information through engagement in physical activity and group discussion).
“During the past 10 years, a great number of studies have found that users’ cognitive
styles significantly influence their reaction to the user interface in terms of user control,
multiple tools, and nonlinear interaction” (Chen et al., 2005, p. 71). Based on empirical
data, Graff (2003) recommended designing systems that are less segmented for analytic
individuals and more segmented for individuals who are imagers.
Studies that compare traditional instruction with web-based instruction further
complicate interpretation of the impact of learning style in online environments.
Aragon, Johnson, and Shaik (2002) concluded that although learning style differences
were found between face-to-face and online students, these differences “were not
significantly apparent when student success was controlled” (p. 243). Neuhauser
(2002) compared two sections of the same course, one delivered online and one deliv-
ered face-to-face. Reportedly, there were “no significant differences between learning
preferences and styles and grades in either group” (p. 99). However, Loomis (2000)
concluded that students’ learning styles play a crucial role in success in web-based
courses—“perhaps even a bigger role than their learning styles play in the traditional
classroom” (conclusion, first paragraph). Failure to examine learning style in relation
to specific online applications may explain contradictory research findings (Johnson
& Johnson, 2006); it is not reasonable to conceptualize web-based learning as a single
experience, comparable across all cases. Kim and Moore (2005) concluded, “Further
research is needed to study the relationship between different learning styles and
learning performance and success in Web-based courses” (p. 11).
Johnson and Howell (2006) acknowledged that “investigation of Internet learning
technology requires creative re-interpretation of research methods as researchers
attempt to unravel the complex interplay of learner, curricular, and instructional
forces that unfold in the context of web-based technology for educational purposes”
(p. 282). The current investigation sought to determinate the impact of learning
style on college student preference for and achievement under two specific web-
based instructional conditions—quizzes (the A condition) and study groups (the B
condition). Effectiveness was determined by examination performance. Figure 1
provides a graphical representation of the pattern of web-based learning support and
in-class examinations. The A and B conditions were alternated; each occurred twice.
This time-series design neutralized, at least to some extent, threats to internal
validity such as potential differences in examination difficulty.
Figure 1. Web-based quizzes contrasted with web-based study groups

Methods
Subjects
A sample of 48 college students in an introductory educational psychology course
participated in the study. Students ranged in age from 18 to 33 years (mean 21.3
622 G. M. Johnson

Figure 1. Web-based quizzes contrasted with web-based study groups

years). Approximately 77% of the sample was female, which is characteristic of the
student population in the participating college. Students reported an average of 32
college credits complete (range 0–120) where 30 credits constitutes a full year of study.

Web-Based Learning Support

In preparation for the first and third in-class examinations, students made postings
(i.e., text entries) to online study groups using the WebCT discussion tool. In prep-
aration for the second and fourth in-class examinations, students completed online
quizzes using the WebCT quiz tool.

Web-based study groups. Students were randomly assigned to WebCT online study
groups consisting of eight student-members. Students were informed that study
group postings were not restricted to, but could include, study notes, chapter
summaries, practice test items, questions for reflection, definitions and key terms,
and specific mnemonics. Study group membership did not change throughout the
academic term, although student withdrawal from the course altered group
dynamics in some cases. Study groups opened (i.e., allowed postings) two weeks
prior to the examination and closed on the day of the examination. Students were
individually marked in terms of number of postings, quality of posted study
strategy, and variety of study strategies posted. Study group postings associated
with the first examination contributed 5% to the final course grade and postings
associated with the third examination contributed 10% to the final course grade.
The mean student grade for postings associated with the first examination was
82.5% (range 0–100%); the mean student grade for postings associated with the
third examination was 80.5% (range 0–100%). Within the context of the educa-
tional psychology course, the online study groups served two functions: they
contributed 15% to the final course grade and helped students prepare for two in-
class examinations.
 Learning Style 623

Web-based quizzes. The online quizzes contained true-false and fill-in-the-blank

items that corresponded to the content assessed in the second and fourth examina-
tions. All quiz items were imported into WebCT from the test item bank associated
with the course textbook (Renaud, 2003). Online quizzes became available two
weeks prior to the examination and were unavailable following the examination.
Students were allowed two attempts on each quiz, with only the highest mark
contributing to the final course grade. Four quizzes (i.e., two true-false and two fill-
in-the-blanks) supported learning for the second examination and contributed 5% to
the final course grade. Ten quizzes (i.e., five true-false and five fill-in-the-blanks)
supported learning for the fourth examination and contributed 10% to the final
course grade. The mean student grade for quizzes associated with the second exami-
nation was 91.5% (range 0–100%); the mean student grade for quizzes associated
with the fourth examination was 80.5% (range 0–100%). Within the context of the
educational psychology course, the web-based quizzes served two functions: the
contributed 15% to the final course grade and helped students prepare for two in-
class examinations.

Measures
Three variables were measured. Student preference for web-based study tools was
determined with four questionnaire items. Student learning style was assessed with
40 questionnaire items. Student academic achievement was measured via in-class
examinations. There were no significant differences between males and females on
any of the three variables measured.

Student preference for web-based study tools. Four questionnaire items requiring yes-
no responses assessed student preference for web-based study tools:

1. Two items assessed preference for study in traditional versus web-based format
(i.e., “I prefer face-to-face study groups rather than online student groups”; “I
prefer pencil-and-paper quizzes rather than online quizzes”). It was assumed
that all students had previous experienced with face-to-face study groups and
pencil-and-paper quizzes and thus these conditions were not included in the
research design.
2. Two items contrasted the web-based study tools in terms of perceived benefits
(i.e., “The online study groups helped me more than the online quizzes”; “The
online quizzes helped me more than the online study groups”). The items served
the primary function of determining relative preference and the secondary func-
tion of establishing inter-item reliability (i.e., the rating on one item should
inversely correspond to the rating on the other item).

Yes-no responses allowed for two-group comparisons. Table 1 presents the

students’ responses to these four questionnaire items assessing personal preference
for study tools. Inter-item reliability was established by the two items that contrasted
624 G. M. Johnson

Table 1. Student responses to web-based learning support questionnaire items

Preference questionnaire item Yes No

I prefer face-to-face study groups rather than online study groups 58.3% 41.7%
I prefer pencil-and-paper quizzes rather than online quizzes 45.8% 54.2%
The online study groups helped me more than the online quizzes 37.5% 62.5%
The online quizzes helped me more than the online study groups 60.4% 39.6%

student preference for online quizzes with student preference for online study
groups.

Student learning style. Based on the Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Silverman,
1988), four dimensions of learning style (active-reflective, visual-verbal, sequential-
global, and sensing-intuitive) were measured by 10 questionnaire items each. Ques-
tionnaire items were arranged to minimize biased responding (e.g., preference and
learning style dimension items were not clustered). As is the case in the ILS, each
item had two response options: the first option corresponded to the first learning
style on the continuum (e.g., active) and the second option corresponded to the
second learning style on the continuum (e.g., reflection). To illustrate, the question-
naire item “I understand something better after I” was followed by the two response
options “try it out” and “think about it”, of which the student selected one. Since
students selected a phrase (as opposed to a rating on a rating scale), and given that
both response options are value-free, response set bias was minimized.
Student learning style was determined for each continuum as follows. The
number of first response options selected was summed, indicating orientation
toward the first learning style on the continuum; the number of second response
options selected was summed, indicating orientation toward the second learning
style on the continuum. The second figure was then subtracted from the second
figures: a positive score indicated a tendency toward the first learning style and a
negative score indicated a tendency toward the second learning style. To illustrate,
with respect to the active-reflective continuum, if a student selected the first
response option in five cases and the second response option in five cases, the
student would be neither active nor reflective (i.e., 5 − 5 = 0).
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for the four dimensions of learning style for
the sample of participating college students. Students were not categorized as a type
of learner (e.g., active or reflective); rather, as is the case with most measures of
learning style (Coffield et al., 2004), students were conceptualized in terms of their
relative position on each of the four dimensions of learning style.

Student academic achievement. Student achievement was measured with 24 multi-

ple-choice items on each of three midterm examinations (50 minutes allocated
completion time) and 44 multiple-choice items on the final examination (120
 Learning Style 625

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for dimensions of learning style

Learning style dimension Rangea Mean Standard deviation

Active–reflective −6–10 1.63 4.36

Visual–verbal −9–10 2.23 5.43
Sequential–global −8–8 1.27 4.08
Sensing–intuitive −10–10 0.71 5.39

aA positive score indicates a tendency toward the first learning style on the continuum; a negative
score indicates a tendency toward the second learning style on the continuum.

minutes allocated completion time). While the midterm and final examinations
included case study analyses that contributed to examination marks, due to the
subjective nature of the marking of these items they were not included in any metric
of student achievement. Multiple-choice items were evenly distributed across four
instructional objectives (recall, comprehension, application, and synthesis)
Significant differences in average achievement on these items across the four
examinations (65.4%, 66.3%, 61.3%, and 59.1%, respectively) negated application
of conventional ABAB analysis (i.e., there was a lack of internal validity due to test-
ing differences). The research design was modified, and the threat to internal valid-
ity addressed, by aggregation of achievement relative to each web-based study
condition. The percentage of multiple-choice items answered correctly on the first
and third examinations was averaged to provide a single achievement score for each
student on test items supported by the A condition (online study groups). The
percentage of multiple-choice items answered correctly on the second and fourth
examinations was averaged to provide a single achievement score for each student on
test items supported by the B condition (online quizzes). Mean student achievement
under the A condition was 63.6% (range 35.4–83.3%, SD 9.4%). Mean student
achievement under the B condition was 61.6% (range 42.7–89.7%, SD 9.3%). One-
sample t test analysis revealed no significant difference in average student achieve-
ment across the two study conditions.

Results
With respect to measures of learning style, students who indicated a preference for
face-to-face study groups rather than web-based study groups (i.e., responded in the
affirmative to the relevant questionnaire item) differed from students who did not
indicate such a preference. As presented in Table 3, the sequential-global and sens-
ing-intuitive learning styles were unrelated to preference for real or virtual study
groups. Students who tended to be more active than reflective, however, demon-
strated a significant preference for face-to-face study groups.
On one dimension of learning style, students who indicated a preference for online
quizzes rather than pencil-and-paper quizzes significantly differed from students
who did not indicate such a preference. As presented in Table 4, visual-verbal,
626 G. M. Johnson

Table 3. Learning style differences among students who agreed and disagreed with the
questionnaire item “I prefer face-to-face study groups rather than online study groups”

Learning style dimension Meana df t p

Active–reflective Yes = 3.00 46 2.762 .008

No = −0.30
Visual–verbal Yes = 3.36 46 1.740 .089
No = 0.65
Sequential–global Yes = 1.39 46 0.243 .809
No = 1.10
Sensing–intuitive Yes = −0.21 46 −1.419 .163
No = 2.00

aMean difference between learning style dimensions. Positive scores indicate a tendency toward the

first learning style on the continuum; negative scores indicate a tendency toward the second
learning style on the continuum.

sequential-global, and sensing-intuitive learning styles were unrelated to preference

for paper versus electronic quizzes. Students who tended to be more active than
reflective, however, demonstrated a clear preference for web-based rather than tradi-
tional quiz presentation.
On one dimension of learning style, students who indicated a preference for online
quizzes as opposed to online study groups were significantly different from students
who did not indicate such a preference. As presented in Table 5, active-reflective,
sequential-global, and sensing-intuitive learning styles were unrelated to preference
for one web-based study tool over the other. Students who tended to be more visual
than verbal, however, demonstrated an obvious preference for online quizzes rather
than online study groups. (Analysis of the reverse item, included to assess inter-item
reliability, yielded an identical pattern of differences.)

Table 4. Learning style differences among students who agreed and disagreed with the
questionnaire item “I prefer pencil-and-paper quizzes rather than online quizzes”

Learning style dimension Meana df t p

Active–reflective Yes = −0.18 46 −2.832 .007

No = 3.15
Visual–verbal Yes = 0.95 46 −1.517 .136
No = 3.31
Sequential–global Yes = 1.36 46 0.143 .887
No = 1.19
Sensing–intuitive Yes = 0.27 46 −0.511 .612
No = 1.08

aMean difference between learning style dimensions. Positive scores indicate a tendency toward the

first learning style on the continuum; negative scores indicate a tendency toward the second
learning style on the continuum.
 Learning Style 627

Table 5. Learning style differences among students who agreed and disagreed with the
questionnaire item “The online study groups helped me more than the online quizzes”

Learning style dimension Meana df t p

Active reflective Yes = 0.44 46 −1.471 .148

No = 2.33
Visual–verbal Yes = −0.28 46 2.630 .012
No = 3.73
Sequential–global Yes = 0.67 46 0.791 .433
No = 1.63
Sensing–intuitive Yes =1.11 46 0.398 .693
No = 0.47

aMean difference between learning style dimensions. Positive scores indicate a tendency toward the

first learning style on the continuum; negative scores indicate a tendency toward the second
learning style on the continuum.

Correlation analysis examined the relationship between student achievement

under the two web-based study conditions and the four dimensions of learning style.
No significant relationships emerged between learning style and student achieve-
ment under the B condition (web-based quizzes). However, with respect to the A
condition (web-based study groups), as students tended toward active learning,
achievement tended to decrease (−.40, p < .01), and as students tended toward
visual learning, achievement tended to decrease (−.29, p < .05).
To explore further the relationship between learning style and achievement,
students were categorized in terms of distance from the mean on each of the four
dimensions of learning style. For example, on the active-reflective continuum,
students more than one standard deviation below the mean (a negative value) were
strongly reflective relative to the sample; students more than one standard deviation
above the mean (a positive value) were strongly active; students within one standard
deviation of the mean were conceptualized as neither extremely reflective nor
extremely active.
One-way analysis of variance compared achievement under the two online study
conditions for students categorized according to learning style. One significant
difference emerged, confirming the learning advantage for reflective learners in the
study group condition. Eight students were extremely reflective, 11 were extremely
active, and 27 showed neither extreme. Average student achievement under the
web-based study group condition was 68.0%, 54.4%, and 61.6%, respectively (F =
6.012, p = .005).

Discussion and Implications for Future Research

In the context of the current investigation, the active-reflective dimension of learn-
ing style emerged as particularly significant. Felder and Silverman (1988)
628 G. M. Johnson

suggested that active learners retain and understand information via discussion and
application. Active learners prefer group work while reflective learners prefer to
work alone. Felder and Silverman recommended that active learners study in
groups in which members take turns explaining different topics to each other.
Active learners in the current investigation expressed a preference for face-to-face
study groups rather than online study groups. The web-based study groups in the
current investigation were asynchronous (i.e., interaction occurred with time
delays, rather than in real time) and in this regard may not have provided the real-
time spontaneous interaction preferred by active learners. Indeed, the instructional
effectiveness of asynchronous communication tools has been attributed to
increased time for student reflection (Johnson, Howell, & Code, 2005; Koory,
2003; Wang, 2004).
In contrast to asynchronous communication, synchronous communication (e.g.,
chat and instant messaging) occurs in real time. A growing body of research has
attempted to clarify the relative learning benefits of synchronous and asynchronous
text-based communication (Johnson, 2006d). Nowak, Watt, and Walther (2005)
concluded that synchronous communication has social advantages while asynchro-
nous communication has cognitive advantages. Volet and Wosnitza (2004),
however, analyzed transcripts of synchronous and asynchronous web-based commu-
nication and found that both interactive media “showed a substantial amount of
social interchange and meaningful learning” (p. 5). Fletcher and Major (2006)
provided evidence that student perception of communication mode effectiveness
was influenced by task–mode interaction. Future research may clarify the learning
benefits of asynchronous and synchronous online study groups in relation to learn-
ing style and, perhaps, recommend that both modes be available to accommodate
active and reflective learners equally.
In the context of the current investigation, active learners expressed a preference
for online quizzes rather than pencil-and-paper quizzes. As illustrated in Figure 2,
the WebCT quiz tool requires more active learner involvement (e.g., item selection)
than conventional paper quizzes (Kerlin, 2005). Felder and Silverman (1988)
acknowledged that active learners are disadvantaged and uncomfortable in tradi-
tional college courses where note-taking is the primary student activity. Future
research may lead to the recommendation that a variety of face-to-face and web-
based activities are used to present course content, provide for skill development,
and assess learning outcomes. Increasing popular hybrid or blended learning
environments (Shale, 2002) combine traditional and web-based teaching methods,
and thus may accommodate the needs of students with various learning styles.
The web-based study tools contrasted in the current investigation required
Figure 2. Web-based quiz graphical user interface

students to read text and, in the case of online study groups, write text. “All forms of
expressive-receptive language (e.g., speak–listen, write–read, sign–view) require
similar neurological processing” (Johnson, 2006c, p. 3045). A comparison of
Figures 2 and 3 reveal the degree to which the language demands made of students
varied as a function of web-based study tool. Additionally, this comparison demon-
strates the variation in visual stimulation across the two conditions.
 Learning Style 629

Figure 2. Web-based quiz graphical user interface

Figure 3. Web-based study group graphical user interface

630 G. M. Johnson

Questionnaire items required students to express a preference for one of the two
Figure 3. Web-based study group graphical user interface

web-based study conditions. In both cases, students who tended to be more visual
than verbal expressed the perception that the online quizzes were more helpful than
the online study groups. According to Felder and Silverman (1988), visual learners
are inefficient processors of verbal information. Such learners retain and compre-
hend pictures, diagrams, flow charts, time lines, video, and demonstrations, rather
than language. In most college classes, limited visual information is provided;
students primarily listen to lectures and read from a screen or board. Subsequent
replication of the current findings may justify the recommendation that college
students be provided with more visual and less verbal presentation of course
content.
Achievement under the B condition (online quizzes) was not related to student
learning style. However, as achievement under the A condition (online study
groups) increased, students tended to be more reflective than active and more verbal
than visual. There are several possible interpretations of the significant inverse rela-
tionships between student learning style and academic achievement under one web-
based study condition but not the other. It may be that reflective and verbal learners
were advantaged by the study groups, while active and visual learners were not.
Asynchronous (time-delayed) text-based postings are compatible with reflective and
verbal learners but incompatible with active and visual learners. An alternative inter-
pretation is that the academic disadvantage of active and visual learners was neutral-
ized by the online quizzes. Immediate (real-time) feedback, a visually stimulating
interface, and minimal language demands may provide active and visual learners
with effective study support. Either interpretation suggests the need for a range of
study tools to accommodate variation in student learning style and maximize student
learning outcomes.
To summarize, active learners expressed a preference for face-to-face study groups
rather than web-based study groups and for web-based quizzes rather than pencil-
and-paper quizzes. Visual learners expressed a preference for web-based quizzes
rather than web-based study groups. These preferences were validated by decreased
academic achievement under the less-preferred study condition. At the college level,
students are aware of their learning styles and understand the conditions that facili-
tate their mastery of course content. Traditional post-secondary instructional
contexts are not always amenable to accommodating variation in student learning
style. Large class sizes, limited resources, and over-burdened teaching faculty are not
conducive to active student involvement in learning processes and stimulating visual
presentation of course content. Instructional applications of web-based technology
may provide mechanisms to accommodate student learning style more consistently
in higher education.

References
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuition–analysis
for organisational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119–135.
 Learning Style 631

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, 227–244.
Bajraktarevic, B., Hall, W., & Fullick, P. (2003). Incorporating learning styles in hypermedia environ-
ment: Empirical evaluation. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/ah2003/
proceedings/paper4.pdf
Bol, L., & Hacker, D. J. (2001). A comparison of the effects of practice tests and traditional review
on performance and calibration. Journal of Experiential Education, 69, 133–151.
Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2001). Effective student use of computerized quizzes. Teaching of
Psychology, 28, 292–294.
Bull, S., & McCalla, G. (2002). Modelling cognitive style in a peer help network. Instructional
Science, 30, 497–528.
Chen, S. Y., Margoulas, G. D., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2005). A flexible interface design for web
directories to accommodate different cognitive styles. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science and Technology, 56, 70–83.
Clapp, R. G. (1993). Stability of cognitive style in adults and some implications: A longitudinal
study of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Psychological Reports, 73, 1235–1245.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Crook, C. (2001). The campus experience of networked learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones
(Eds.), Networked learning (pp. 293–308). London: Springer-Verlag.
Crook, C. (2002). Deferring to resources: Collaborations around traditional vs. computer-based
notes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 64–76.
Derouza, E., & Fleming, M. (2003). A comparison of in-class quizzes vs. online quizzes on student
exam performance. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14, 121–134.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the Learning Styles Inservice System. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering
Education, 94, 57–72.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education.
Engineering Education, 78, 674–681.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning
Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 103–112.
Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Christchurch, New Zealand:
Neil Fleming.
Fletcher, T. D., & Major, D. A. (2006). The effects of communication modality on performance
and self-ratings of teamwork components. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11.
Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/fletcher.html
Fritz, K. M. (2003). Using Blackboard 5 to deliver both traditional and multimedia quizzes on-line for
foreign language classes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482584)
Grabe, M., & Sigler, E. (2001). Studying online: Evaluation of an online study environment.
Computers and Education, 38, 375–383.
Graff, M. (2003). Learning from web-based instructional systems and cognitive style. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 407–418.
Heikkila, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning,
self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 99–117.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, UK: Peter Honey
Associates.
Hutchins, H. M. (2003). Instructional immediacy and the seven principles: Strategies for facilitat-
ing online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6. Retrieved October 15,
2006, from http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/fall63/hutchins63.html
632 G. M. Johnson

Itoh, R., & Hannon, C. (2002). The effect of online quizzes on learning Japanese. CALICO
Journal, 19, 551–561.
Jensen, M., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Impact of positive interdependence during
electronic quizzes on discourse and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 161–167.
Jensen, M., Moore, R., & Hatch, J. (2002). Electronic cooperative quizzes. American Biology
Teacher, 64, 169–174.
Johnson, G. M. (2006a). Optional online quizzes: College student use and relationship to achieve-
ment. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32, 105–118.
Johnson, G. M. (2006b). Online study groups: Reciprocal peer questioning vs. mnemonic
devices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 83–96.
Johnson, G. (2006c). A theoretical framework for organizing the effect of the Internet of cognitive
development. In E. Pearson and P. Bohman (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educa-
tional Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2006 (pp. 3041–3048). Norfolk, VA:
AACE. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED493998.
Johnson, G. M. (2006d). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational
contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50, 46–53.
Johnson, G. M., & Howell, A. J. (2006). The impact of Internet learning technology: Experimental
methods of determination. In B. L. Mann (Ed.), Selected styles in web-based educational research
(pp. 282–301). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Johnson, G. M., Howell, A. J., & Code, J. R. (2005). Online discussion and college student learn-
ing: Toward a model of influence. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14, 61–75.
Johnson, G., & Johnson, J. (2005). Online study groups: Comparison of two strategies. In P.
Kommers and C. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multime-
dia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications (pp. 2025–2030). Norfolk, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Johnson, G., & Johnson, J. (2006). Learning style and preference for online learning support: Indi-
vidual quizzes versus study groups. In E. Pearson and P. Bohman (Eds.), Proceedings of the
World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2006 (pp.
1861–1868). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students’ learning styles discipline specific?
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 363–375.
Karuppan, C. M. (2001). Web-based teaching materials: A user’s profile. Internet Research, 11,
138–148.
Kashy, E. K., Thoennessen, M., Albertelli, G., & Tsai, Y. (2000). Implementing a large-scale on-
campus ALN: Faculty perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4. Retrieved
October 15, 2006, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n3/index.asp
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education: Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Thomson.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Student learning styles:
Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1–17). Reston, VA: National Association of Second-
ary School Principals.
Kerlin, B. A. (2005). Working with quizzes in WebCT CE 4.1. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from
http://www.its.queensu.ca/webct/facultyguide/tools/webctquizzes.pdf
Killedar, M. (2002). Online self-tests: A powerful tool for self-study. Indian Journal of Open
Learning, 11, 135–146.
Kim, K. S., & Moore, J. L. (2005). Web-based learning: Factors affecting students’ satisfaction
and learning experience. First Monday, 10. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://
www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_11/kim/index.html
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Kolb Learning Style Inventory version 3.1. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.
Koory, M. A. (2003). Differences in learning outcomes for the online and F2F versions of “An
Introduction to Shakespeare.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7. Retrieved
October 15, 2006, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v7n2/v7n2_koory.asp
 Learning Style 633

Kossowska, M., & Necka, E. (1994). Do it your own way: Cognitive strategies, intelligence, and
personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 33–46.
Loomis, K. (2000). Learning style and asynchronous learning: Comparing the LASSI model to
classroom performance. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4. Retrieved October 15,
2006, from http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v4n1/v4n1_loomis.asp
Luca, J., & Clarkson, B. (2002, June). Promoting students’ learning through peer tutoring: A case
study. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA World Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia, and Telecommunications, Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED477058)
McConnell, D. (2005). Examining the dynamics of networked e-learning groups and communi-
ties. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 25–42.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education. (2006) Educational psychology online learning center. Retrieved
October 15, 2006, from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070909695/student_view0/
index.html
McKeachie, W. J. (1995). Learning styles can become learning strategies. The National
Teaching and Learning Forum, 4, 1–3. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.ntlf.com/
html/pi/9511/article1.htm
Mehlenbacher, B., Miller, C. R., Covington, D., & Larsen, J. S. (2000). Active and interactive learn-
ing online: A comparison of Web-based and conventional writing classes. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 43, 166–184.
Miller, M. T., & Lu, M. Y. (2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments:
Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Education Media International, 40,
163–169.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 99–113.
Nowak, K. L., Watt, J., & Walther, J. B. (2005). The influence of synchrony and sensory modality
on the person perception process in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/
nowak.html
Perlman, C. L. (2003). Practice tests and study guides: Do they help? Are they ethical? What is ethical
test preparation practice? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480062)
Renaud, R. (2003). Test item file for educational psychology (2nd Canadian ed.). Toronto, ON:
Pearson Education Canada.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive style: An overview and integration. Educational
Psychology, 11, 193–215.
Riding, R., Glass, A., Butler, S. R., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (1997). Cognitive style and
individual differences in EEG alpha during information processing. Educational Psychology,
17, 219–234.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences
in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton.
Rochford, R. (2003). Assessing learning styles to improve the quality of performance of commu-
nity college students in developmental writing programs: A pilot study. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 665–677.
Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning styles. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 443–454.
Shale, D. (2002). The hybridisation of higher education in Canada. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from http://
www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/64/132.
Shindler, J., & Yang, H. (2003). Paragon Learning Style Inventory. Oswego, NY: State University of
New York. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.oswego.edu/plsi/
Stokes, S. P. (2003, November). Temperament, learning styles, and demographic predictors of college
student satisfaction in a digital learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
634 G. M. Johnson

the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED482454)
Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R., Greenfield, P., & Gross, E. (2001). New forms of electronic media:
The impact of interactive games and the Internet on cognition, socialization, and behavior. In
D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 73–99). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tait, A., & Mills, R. (Eds.). (2003). Rethinking learner support in distance education: Change and
continuity in an international context. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Terrell, S. R. (2002). The effect of learning style on doctoral course completion in a Web-based
learning environment, Internet and Higher Education, 5, 345–352.
Terrell, S. R., & Dringus, L. (1999). An investigation of the effect of learning style on
student success in an online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
28, 231–238.
Volet, S., & Wosnitza, M. (2004). Social affordances and students’ engagement in cross-national
online learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in International Education, 3, 5–29.
Wang, M. (2004). Correlational analysis of student visibility and performance in online learning.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://
www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n4/index.asp