A STUDY ON LEARNING STYLES OF UNDERGRADUATE MANAGEMENT STUDENTS’ IN HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS AT KLANG VALLEY, MALAYSIA
RAJANDRAN PERESAMY
University Technical
PROF DR. NANNA SURYANA
University Technical
DR. MARTHANDAN GOVINDAN
VIJAYAKUMAR VENGADASALAM
PARAMESWARI SHUNMUGAM
ABSTRACT
The objective of this research is to identify the learning styles of undergraduate management students at
INTRODUCTION
Learning style is generally defined as a group of attributes and behaviors that determines an individual learner’s preference in learning (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Thus, it is a combination of aspects such as cognitive, conceptualization, affect and behavior which are simplified as seeing, thinking, feeling, and doing (Unlik, 2005). In normal circumstances, each individual will differ in their way of perceiving things and attitudes towards a situation, which also implies in the learning aspects.
Various learning styles models have been developed by researchers in this research area. Kolb (1976) through the Experiential Learning Theory has indicated the research in learning styles by classifying learning styles into 4 types, which are concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, active experimentation, and reflective observation. The concrete experience or abstract conceptualization focuses on how the students take in information, while the active experimentation and reflective observation focuses on how the students internalize the information they received.
The Multiple Intelligence Theory developed by Gardner H. (1983) has focused on the 8 types of information people prefer to process such as linguistic, logical mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligences. Based on this theory, Armstrong and Thomas (1994) proposed that teachers be trained to present their lessons in a variety of ways using music, cooperative learning, art activities, role play, multimedia, field trips, inner reflection, and much more.
The learning style model by Felder-Silvermann (1988) has proposed that there are 8 types of learning styles such as active, reflective, sensing, intuitive, visual, verbal, sequential and global which are related to an individual’s information transfer process.
As according to Bettina L. Brown (2003), although there are benefits to the matching of teaching styles and learning styles, it appears that these alone does not guarantee greater learner achievement and the age, education level and motivation influences each student’s learning so that what was once preferred may no longer be the student’s current learning style.
In brief, many researches has been conducted to identify the learning styles of students for effective learning and the researches were conducted at various levels of study and to various gender levels and demographic aspects. In this study, the respondents are the undergraduate management students from various higher learning institutions (private and public institutions) at
The study adopts Felder’s (1993), Learning Style Model and the instrument used in this research is an adoption on Index Learning Style (ILS) developed by Felder and Soloman (1997). The ILS has been tested and it is proved to be reliable as it has been used in many research studies.
Problem Statement
The undergraduate management students from higher learning institutions at
The courses conducted by the management faculties in these higher learning institutions are similar in terms of content delivery to students but the students’ learning style or preferences in absorbing the knowledge of the content delivered to them may differ. As a result, this would lead to an incomplete learning environment for the students which may not be noticed by the teachers. The teachers may not be equipped with the data on how to overcome this type of student’s learning style issues. Therefore, the main objective for conducting this study is to identify this group of students’ learning styles.
OBJECTIVE
The main objectives of this study is,
a. To identify the learning styles of the undergraduate students of
b. To identify the significant relationship between learning styles, gender, ethnicity and academic
qualification.
METHODOLOGY
The total population of the undergraduate students of Managements in
The instrument used in this study was modified from ILS questionnaire developed by Felder and Silverman (1993). The hard copy of the questionnaire was distributed and the respondents were required to complete and return it. The questionnaire contained with 56 questions of the independent variables. Eight learning styles (active, reflective, sensing, intuitive, visual, verbal, sequential, global ) were included with 6 questions for each with 5 likert scale answers to be selected.
The questionnaires were distributed to students in person and through the lecturers teaching management students. The questions in the questionnaire have been proved to be reliable and valid by Zywmo (2003) as an instrument for students perception or behavioral study.
The respondents learning style preferences were identified by totaling up the learning style in each domain and the differences of the total with the domain was determined. Learning styles with the highest total identified as the preferred style. The data was analyzed in SPSS and the overall respondents learning style was distributed in percentage and mean using descriptive analysis. The mean score differences analysis between learning styles and demographic factors were conducted using ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test, to test and evaluate the hypothesis on significant mean differences.
RESULTS
Out of 850 samples returned by the respondents from various institutions only 703 were accepted for analysis. Out of the total of 703 respondents 330 were male and 373 females. Majority of the students are Malays (63%), Chinese (27.7%), Indians (6.4%) and others (2.8%). In term of academic qualification as per entry into the management program is, Matriculation (43.4%), STPM (35.1%), Diploma (19.1%) and others (2.4%).
As far as the students field of study is concern, 23.2% are in Business Administration, 20.6% in Economics, 19.2% in Accounting, 17.5% in Marketing, 15.4% in Finance/Banking, 2.1% in knowledge management and others 2.0%. From the total of 703 respondents 63.3% are from public institutions and 36.7 % from private institutions.
The Most Dominant Learning Style
The higher the score the higher the preference towards the respective learning style. Based on the cumulative learning style summary score mean the ranking of the dominant learning style that has been identified is shown in Table 1. The results in the mean score shows that the most dominant learning style is visual (3.84), followed by sequential (3.73), reflective style (3.71), sensing (3.68), and the rest.
Table 1. Learning styles mean scores
| Style | Visual | Sequentia | Reflectiv | Sensing | Global | Active | Intuitive | Verbal |
| Mean | 3.84 | 3.73 | 3.71 | 3.68 | 3.66 | 3.64 | 3.53 | 3.42 |
The one way ANOVA procedures was used to test if the mean learning style scores differ by the demography.
Learning Style According to Gender
The gender variables and the learning style variables were tested to see the significant difference in mean to evaluate the hypothesis,
Ho : There are no differences in learning styles between male and
female respondents.
H1 : There are differences in learning styles between male and
female respondents.
Table 2 shows the results of the one way ANOVA test. There is a significance differences in the means of active, intuitive and global learning style scores between the male and female students as the probability value p<0.05.>
Table 2 : Learning styles according to gender
| Style | Gender | Mean | SE | F | p-value |
| Active | Female | 3.61 | 0.021 | 4.396 | 0.036 |
| | Male | 3.67 | 0.023 | | |
| Intuitive | Female | 3.47 | 0.025 | 11.529 | 0.001 |
| | Male | 3.59 | 0.026 | | |
| Global | Female | 3.63 | 0.022 | 4.484 | 0.035 |
| | Male | 3.70 | 0.024 | | |
Therefore we can reject the Ho. The conclusion is that there is a significant difference in the male and females active, intuitive and global learning styles.
Learning Styles According to Ethnic Group
The Tukey’s post hoc test was used to test the significant differences in mean for learning styles and ethnic group to evaluate the hypothesis,
Ho : There is no significant difference in terms of learning style and
ethnic group
H1 : There is significant difference in terms of learning style and
ethnic group.
Table 3 shows the results of Tukey’s post hoc test. It shows the probability value P<0.05 for active, intuitive and global learning styles between at least one pair of student’s ethnic group.
Table 3 : Learning Styles according to Ethnicity
| Style | Race | Mean | S | F | p-value |
| Active | Chinese | 3.50 | 0.39 | 11.418 | <> |
| | Indian | 3.80 | 0.45 | | |
| | Malay | 3.68 | 0.40 | | |
| Intuitive | Chinese | 3.42 | 0.43 | 11.55 | <0.001 |
| | Indian | 3.86 | 0.57 | | |
| | Malay | 3.53 | 0.46 | | |
| Global | Chinese | 3.58 | 0.41 | 6.455 | 0.001 |
| | Indian | 3.85 | 0.50 | | |
| | Malay | 3.67 | 0.43 | | |
The test shows that for active learning style the mean for Chinese is significantly lower comparison to the mean for Indians and others. For intuitive learning styles the mean for Indians is significantly higher in comparison to the mean for the Chinese and Malays. The global learning style mean for Chinese is also significantly lower compared to the mean for the Indians and others. Therefore we can reject Ho again as there is a significant difference in the mean for the three learning styles and at least one pair of student ethnic group.
Learning Styles and the
Again the Tukey’s post hoc test was used to evaluate the hypothesis,
Ho : There is no significant difference between the learning styles and
students academic qualifications.
H1: There is a significant difference between learning styles and
students academic qualifications.
Table 4 shows the results. It shows that the probability value p<0.05>
Table 4: Learning Styles and the
| Style | Qualification | Mean | S | F | p-value |
| Active | STPM | 3.59 | 0.40 | 3.890 | 0.009 |
| | Diploma | 3.73 | 0.41 | | |
| | Matriculation | 3.63 | 0.41 | | |
| Sensing | STPM | 3.67 | 0.42 | 3.072 | 0.027 |
| | Diploma | 3.78 | 0.38 | | |
| | Matriculation | 3.65 | 0.40 | | |
For active learning style the mean for STPM students is significantly lower compared to the mean for diploma students and for sensing learning style the mean for diploma students is significantly higher compared to the mean for matriculation students. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the mean between active and sensing learning styles and at least one pair of academic qualification among STPM, diploma and matriculation students.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The learning styles have been identified as one of the major contributing factor towards effective learning of an individual student. The current study has focused on the learning styles of the undergraduate management students at
The results of the study in summary shows that there are significant differences between the variables studied and the learning styles of students, as per the Felder- Silvermann’s Model on Theory of Learning Style. The major dominant learning styles identified in this research are visual, sequential and reflective.
The study shows that there are significant differences in the mean of the learning styles with gender, ethnic group, and academic qualification. This outcome should be taken into consideration when the teaching modules or subjects content delivery are being prepared by the teachers and also when teaching and learning is conducted using multimedia programs or multimedia learning environment. At the end of this study based on the findings and incorporation of other factors identified a conceptual or theoretical frame work or model will be proposed by incorporating the learning styles into multimedia learning environment. This proposed model will be a good guide for the management, teaching faculty and the multimedia program developers to strategically plan the multimedia learning programs which suits the students learning styles. This will result in an effective learning environment for the undergraduate management students.
REFERENCES
Armstrong & Thomas (1984). Multiple Intelligences:
Curriculum, Educational Leadership.
Bettina L. Brown (2003), Teaching Styles Vs Learning Styles. Myths and Realization no.28. ACVE Publication
Felder, R.M. and Silverman L.K., 1988. Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. Engineering Education, Vol.78, No 7, pp.674-681. Preceded by a preface in 2002 http://www.ncsu.edu/felderpublic/Papers/LS-
1988.pdf (retrieved 25 July, 2008)
Felder, R.M. and Soloman, B.A., 1997, Index Learning Styles Questionnaire.
Retrieved 28 July 2008, from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead
: Peter Honey Publications.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual.
Unlik K. S. (2005). If Advising is teaching, then learning style matters. NACADA
Clearing House of
– from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearing house/advising/issues/Mental-
Health.htm
Zywmo, M.S. (2003). A Contribution to Validation of Score Meaning for Felder- Soloman’s Index of Learning Style. Proceeding of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education,
No comments:
Post a Comment