It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Students possess various learning styles and do not respond equally to the same instructional methods. College students today are often uninterested in their current traditional course design. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist in learning styles between students who select a traditional course delivery method versus a technology-enhanced course delivery method. Participants included 113 males and 195 females who were enrolled in a College of Business Principles of Marketing course for non-business majors at a large university in the southeast. The students who were enrolled in the course completed an online questionnaire including the Grasha-Reichmann Student Learning Style Scale (GRSLSS) and demographic questions. The GRSLSS consists of six learning styles: competitive, collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent. A causal-comparative research design was used to identify a cause-effect relationship between the two groups of students.
Data analyses included a factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analyses of variances (ANOVAs). Results from this study indicated a significant difference in course delivery methods and gender across all learning styles and no interactions between course delivery methods and gender. ANOVAs revealed a significant difference between the independent, avoidant, dependent, and participant learning styles between students who enrolled in the traditional and technology-enhanced course delivery methods. Students who enrolled in the traditional course delivery method had more of a dependent and participant learning style and students who enrolled in the technology-enhanced course delivery method had more of an independent and avoidant learning style. Males who enrolled in the course had more of a competitive learning style than females - regardless of the course delivery method. These findings are relevant for a better understanding of why students select a particular course delivery method.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer