Below in Table 5-7 is a summary of the variables used to test the hypotheses and answer the research question proposed in this study.
Table 5-7: Summary of the variables used to test the hypotheses
As discussed previously, question 2 addresses the research question and is therefore, the main variable that will be focussed on in the results section. Analyses will be carried out between the four groups to examine this. The other questions in the survey will also be analysed to establish other issues such as the user‘s knowledge of learning systems and the ease of use of the system. In addition to the descriptive statistics, analyses will be carried out on the demographic data in order to examine if gender, status or discipline have any effects on the users answers to question 2, i.e. if there are differences between males and females or between lecturers and undergraduates.
Variable Type Description Group Pre-designated randomly by
the system
A = VARK and Honey & Mumford; B = VARK; C = Honey & Mumford; D = No tailoring
Answer to Q2 Self defined Was this lesson more tailored to you? (according to your learning styles?)
Honey & Mumford
System generated dependent upon user interaction
1=Activist; 2=Reflector; 3=Theorist; 4=Pragmatist VARK System generated dependent
upon user interaction
1=Visual; 2=Aural; 3=ReadWrite; 4=Kinesthetic Gender Demographic 0=Male, 1=Female
Discipline Demographic University major or area of expertise
The variables are divided into six comparisons between four different groups
1- ―VARK and Honey & Mumford Group‖ and VARK Group
2- ―VARK and Honey & Mumford Group‖ and Honey & Mumford Group 3- ―VARK and Honey & Mumford Group‖ and No tailoring Group
4- VARK Group and Honey & Mumford Group 5- VARK Group and No tailoring Group
6- Honey & Mumford Group and No tailoring Group
The tested hypothesis is ―There will be a difference between users‘ recognition of a lesson that is presented according to two classifications of learning styles, one and none of the users‘ learning styles‖. If the null hypothesis is approved, then it means that there is no difference between groups (those presented with one or two learning styles) in their recognition that the lesson given is tailored to their learning styles. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then it means that the conclusion for one group or more is different to the other group.
5.5.1 Data analysis
The stored data was coded and analysed using the statistical package SPSS [231]. Values for descriptive data such as means, standard deviations, frequencies and percentages were produced using SPSS. A Factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test [232] was used to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between the users of the four different groups (i.e. VARK, Honey & Mumford, VARK and Honey & Mumford, No tailoring). An ANOVA was also used to discover whether there were significant statistical differences between participants from the two cities (AlBaha and Jeddah – Saudi Arabia). A Pearson‘s correlation test was used to examine the correlations both within and between the different learning styles.
5.5.2 Learning styles
As discussed previously, participants began by logging into the system and registering their demographic information. Following this they answered two sets of questions in order to determine their profile in each learning style – see Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 below. The tables below show the number of participants that scored highest in each sub-section of the two different learning styles.
Table 5-8: Frequency and Percentage of Honey & Mumford learning styles Frequency Percent Valid Activist 38 29.5 Reflector 33 25.6 Theorist 28 21.7 Pragmatist 30 23.3 Total 129 100.0
Table 5-9: Frequency and Percentage of VARK learning styles
Frequency Percent Valid Visual 47 36.4 Aural 45 34.9 ReadWrite 31 24.0 Kinaesthetic 6 4.7 Total 129 100.0
For example, there were 38 participants who received their highest score in the activist section of the Honey & Mumford compared to 28 who received their highest score in the theorist section. Likewise with the VARK, 47 participants received their highest score in the visual section compared to only 6 participants who received their highest score in the kinaesthetic section.
Looking at the values in Table 5-9 it can be clearly seen that there are very few students (only 4.7 percent) who have a kinaesthetic learning style. An important point to raise here is that the last three questions in the VARK questionnaire do not contain a fourth option for the kinaesthetic in the original test of VARK. Up to question number eight, there were four answers, each of which belongs to one of the four learning styles. After question eight in the VARK test, there were only three answers and none belongs to the kinaesthetic learning style. This was beyond my control as it is how the questions are designed within the VARK questionnaire, but it could have contributed to the low number of participants who chose the kinaesthetic option as their preferred learning style.
It may also be that out of the sample (129 participants) there may simply be the possibility that only few of them were actually kinaesthetic learners. It is a human characteristic that people are different. In general, there is no control as to how many participants will fall into each sub-section. Individual differences are part of most experimental studies; a larger sample size may, or may not, have included more users with this type of learning style. In contrast, visual learning is dominant for the majority of participants. This seems to be in line with a previous study indicating that, although it has been found that kinaesthetic learners retain best, they make up only 5 percent of the population whereas visual learners make up 65 percent and auditory learners, 30 percent (Mind Tools 1998).
Another consideration might be the nature of the current study: in the online lessons a screen is used as the main communication medium. This perhaps lead more people to choose visual as their preferred method as the screen is a visual component in the lesson. It is therefore taken as normal that visual learners overwhelm all other learning styles. In Honey & Mumford, this problem does not occur. This could be due to the fact that the four sub-sections are not affected by the mode of presentation.