Learning Styles and Preferred Web 2.0 Applications as Learning Tools

Gila Kurtz, The Center for Academic Studies, Israel Barry Sponder, Central Connecticut State University, USA

MDE Virtual Conference

Outline:

Introduction – Who are we?

Purpose of the study

Definitions Web 2.0 applications in education Learning style

Methodology

Findings

Question for future discussion & research

Who are we

What we do together

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZdzd9oeZKjtZGZqNWZwODNfODNneDc4enhzMg&hl=iw

Purpose of the study :

To analyze the interactions between students' learning styles and their web 2.0  preferences as learning tools

Web 2.0 applications in education

Generally, refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design that facilitates communications and secures information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the web

Can play an important role in building online learning communities and is useful for motivating and supporting online collaboration

Web 2.0 in the Online Classroom

Video (YouTube)

Web 2.0 in the Online Classroom

Blogs

Learning style:

Based on  Felder -Silverman learning style model (FSLSM).  (Felder & Silverman, 1988)

The FSLSM model is one of the most often used learning style models in technology enhanced learning (Kinshuk et al., 2009). I

Learning style: FSLSM

It is based on  the idea that each learner has a preference on each of the four following dimensions: visual/verbal, sensing/intuitive, sequential/global and  active/reflective.

Each of the four dimensions the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is measured on a scale 1.0 to 2.0 which makes it possible to describe how strong the learners' preference are for a specific learning style.

Learning style: ILS

A.    Visual-verbal -  visual (prefer visual representations of presented material, such as pictures, diagrams, and flow charts) or verbal (prefer written and spoken explanationB.    Sensing-intuitive - sensing concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or intuitive (conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and underlying meanings);C.    Sequential- Global - sequential (linear thinking process, learn in incremental steps) or global (holistic thinking process, learn in large leapsD.    Active-reflective   active (learn by trying things out, enjoy working in groups) or reflective (learn by thinking things through, prefer working alone or with one or two familiar partners);

Methodology

57 graduate students participated: 29 students from the College of Academic Studies in Israel (a blended course), 18  UMUC Students (an exclusively online course) and 10 students from Central Connecticut State University (an on-campus course). ( mean age= 36; 90% female))Online survey learning styles and their preferences for using web 2.0 applications—from a list of 19 applicationsData collection - 2010

URL of questionnaires https://spreadsheets0.google.com/viewform?hl=iw&formkey=dDZod2w3M0NJWWRtcWxObVlzeWVmaUE6MA#gid=0

https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1tP0VUletTCobXRQO0KyxA9-qCNmvDF_dYXYMBzrEZLA/edit?hl=iw#

Findings: learning Style

• No significant differences between groups!

• Strong tendency to active learners

•Tendency to visual learners

•Tendency to sensing learners

•Equal tendency to sequential and global

Findings: Preference for web 2.0 as learning tools (4.0 + score )

Free sites 4.8 Smart record & note 4.7 Presenter 4.6 Google docs 4.3 Discussions 4.3 (NOT web 2.0) Vokis 4.2 Live meeting 4.1 Class site 4.1 (NOT web 2.0)

Findings: Students’ comments

In the nutshell,I will say I am ready to embrace technology,since there are new applications been developed each day and hence must independently study and research more on my own

I believe that the process great for all learner, It all depends on each students and their particular learning styles.

Thank you!

Findings: Correlations web 2.0 preference with ILS

High: intuitives prefer presenterMedium: visuals prefer podcastMedium: actives prefer webquest