TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 1 of 13
[ Teaching and Learning Forum 2001 ] [ Proceedings Contents ]
End user computing: Learning style differences as
a predictor of training outcomes
Raj Gururajan
School of Computer and Information Science
Edith Cowan University
Prior studies in end user computing (EUC) have indicated that learning styles play a crucial role in
determining training outcomes. An experiment was conducted to verify the influences of two
training approaches - instruction and exploration - along with four user learning style preferences
to determine training outcomes. Results of the experiment indicated that individuals using
instruction approach were efficient in terms of time in completing a given task exploration were
better in terms of score. Also in contrast to previous studies, there was no significant difference
between the four learning styles in determining training outcomes. In addition to this, training
approaches were not significant in determining training outcomes.
Introduction
Studies in EUC training have focused on traits, especially the impact of experience and cognitive style
variables in their design and use (Bohlen & Ferrat, 1997; Davis & Bostrom, 1993; Sein, Olfman,
Bostrom, & Davis, 1993). However, studies that have considered cognitive and learning style variables
have failed to produce the theoretical foundation on which training outcomes were explained. This has
resulted in studies failing to defend the importance of these variables and resulted in contradictory
outcomes.
Despite few studies, a number of studies in EUC training studies have ignored these variables in a
training environment. Suggestions by scholars such as Robey (1982) have invoked little response in
EUC community to investigate these variables. The Bostrom's (1990) framework was an attempt to take
the suggestions and despite such attempts only few studies have investigated this aspect of individual
differences. Since 1997 only Bohlen (1997) has considered this aspect in his study. Even he has failed to
explain the theoretical background in reporting his outcomes. This study examines user individual
differences of learning in a training environment.
Individual differences
Prior studies in EUC have focused on individual difference variables associated with descriptive traits
such as anxiety, attitudes, reasoning etc. Barring learning styles, these individual difference variables
haven't been able to serve the role of consistent predictor of learning outcomes. The exploratory nature
of prior studies has clearly indicated that learning style is a consistent predictor and an important
variable in the context of learning software applications.
Studies in EUC training have established that learning style variable is an important predictor of
performance, both by itself and in interaction with training methods (Bostrom, Olfman, & Sein, 1990, p.
106). The learning style is defined as the knowledge of skills and cognitive factors that individuals
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 2 of 13
possess during a learning sequence (Presland, 1994). It has been an accepted fact that individuals change
their learning styles during a course of a learning sequence (Honey & Mumford, 1992). The dimensions
along which such changes occur have been studied in learning theory. In training domain, to study such
changes, one should first identify learner characteristics and then plan their training settings to
accommodate changes. Studies in instructional psychology have demonstrated that it is necessary to
adapt instructional methods and teaching strategies to accommodate key individual differences
(Bostrom, Olfman, & Sein, 1990). EUC studies (Bohlen & Ferrat, 1997; Davis & Bostrom, 1993) have
recommended that individual learning styles be determined before training is provided in order to
measure outcomes.
There are multiple competing learning style theories available. The single learning style continuum
argues that each individual can be placed somewhere on a bipolar scale. Examples of such fields are
field independent/dependent scales (Witkin & Goodenough, 1988). The definite learning style model
proposes that each person has one of finite number of learning styles. Examples of this are
serialist/holist classification (Pask & Scott, 1972). The situational learning style model postulates that
individuals are able to select from a number of possible learning styles, depending on the learning task
at hand. Examples are surface/deep processing tasks (Marton, 1976). The multidimensional learning
style model specifies that each person has a different degree of combination of styles. Examples are
analytic/intuitive dichotomy (Pask & Scott, 1972). The current state of this theoretical development
suggests that there is no clear agreement on a universal learning style theory or measurement.
In order to measure learning styles in EUC training studies, two instruments have been widely used. The
first instrument is Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (KLSI). The instrument is based on experiential
learning. The theory views learning as a discovery process that incorporates the characteristics of
problem solving and learning. Ruble and Stout (1993) criticised Kolb's instrument for its validity in
EUC training studies. The criticism was laid on the poor psychometric properties of KLSI. In answering
to the criticisms, Bostrom et al. (1990) have accepted this fact. Further, it appears that many studies that
have used KLSI were conducted in a tertiary setting where there is time for change in learning styles.
However, in short training studies, such changes may not happen. So, it is possible to assume that
learning style is stable for the duration of study in a short training program.
The other instrument used is Honey and Mumford's Learning Cycle. Honey & Mumford (1986)
modified Kolb's approach and produced a model called the learning cycle. In this model, the learners are
classified according to their strengths and weaknesses compared to their preferences. The model
suggests four contrasting stages of a learning cycle.
Honey and Mumford (1986; 1992) modified Kolb's approach into learning cycle and classified learners
in terms of their strengths and weaknesses for each stage of the cycle. They suggest four contrasting
stages of a learning cycle. Activist are people who involve themselves in new experiences, tackling
problems by brainstorming, and moving from one task to the next as the excitement fades. Reflectors are
cautious and thoughtful people who like to consider all the possible angles before making any decisions
and whose actions are based on observations and reflections. Theorists are people who integrate their
observations into logical models based on analysis and objectivity. Pragmatists are practical people who
like to apply new ideas immediately, and get impatient with an over emphasis on reflection. A wholly
effective learner has the abilities characteristic of all four stages. However, such ideal learners are rare.
It is mentioned that no one particular style is better than the other.
Training approaches and outcomes
Previous studies in EUC reveal that learning is facilitated through training (Borgman, 1986; Bostrom,
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 3 of 13
Olfman, & Sein, 1990; Carnevale & Carnevale, 1994). In EUC, training approaches have been used to
integrate existing knowledge with previous knowledge to derive new knowledge. However, few studies
in the early 1990s attempted to rectify this problem by using a research framework where a link to
training is provided by mapping via training (Bostrom, Olfman, & Sein, 1990; Davis & Bostrom, 1993;
Sein, Olfman, Bostrom, & Davis, 1993). These studies suggested that learners learn by either exploring
the features of application software or learn by following the instruction given in a step by step manner.
These two approaches are classified as the exploration oriented training approach and the instruction
oriented training approach.
These two training approaches represent radically different users. While the exploration oriented
training approach facilitates users to trial and error features, the instruction oriented approach provides
little user control. The two approaches also feature deductive and inductive orientations respectively.
Previous studies clearly indicated that the issue of suitability of training approaches for EUC training is
yet to be resolved. While certain studies advocate the supremacy of the exploration oriented approach
(Black, Carrol, & McGuigan, 1987; Carrol, Smith-Kerker, Ford, & Mazur-Rimetz, 1987; Kamouri,
Kamouri, & Smith, 1986), other studies have established that the instruction oriented approach is
effective in EUC training (Davies, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Gomez, Egan, & Bowers, 1986). These
studies reveal that there is no agreement regarding training outcomes.
Despite the disagreements in EUC training outcomes agreement, some studies have agreed that the
primary role of training approaches in EUC training should be to provide meaningful learning through
the integration or assimilation of new information in short term memory and knowledge from long term
memory (Davis & Bostrom, 1993). However, in order for this process to occur, learners must actively
work with both prior knowledge and new information. So, training materials, which support this process
should be considered in training approaches. Studies have emphasised the importance of training
materials in defining and deciding upon which training approaches to use.
To assist training approaches, preparation of training materials should be considered in terms of three
components: concepts, procedures and usage of a given software application. The preparation of training
materials should focus on the features of application software in EUC training (Gentry, 1994). The
training material features considered in the previous studies can be classified under two categories:
process features and structural features. The above discussion highlights the need for proper construction
of training materials. The process and structural features will elaborate three further components:
concepts, procedures and usage. In this study, the usage component refers to both the functional
elements of software packages as well as the interfaces for measurement purposes. Hence, these features
will be provided in terms of instruction orientation and exploration orientation. These two orientations
will constitute the training approaches variable. Studies conducted by Bostrom (1990), Davis (1993),
Bohlen (1997), Davies (1985) and Olfman (1994) have clearly indicated that there is a link between
training approaches, user differences and training outcomes.
Research methodology
The previous studies have indicated that learning preferences have an influence on training outcomes.
Studies have insisted and recommended that EUC studies extract learning style preferences prior to the
commencement of the experiment as these styles serve as the predictor of training outcomes (Bohlen &
Ferrat, 1997; Davis & Bostrom, 1993). Therefore, it is safe to assume that the learning style preferences
are a determinant to EUC training outcomes. This leads to the following research question:
Research Question 1:
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 4 of 13
Are end user training outcomes affected by different user learning styles when users learn
software (using short training programs)?
The literature review indicates that the learning style preferences affect outcomes. However, there is
very little evidence available as to which learning style is superior in a given situation. Very little
experimental research has been done to verify that end user training outcomes are related to method of
instruction and learning styles. If training outcome are affected by method of instruction and learning
style as suggested by Bostrom (1990); Davis (1993) and Sein (1999), then these factors should be
considered while training end users. Therefore, to address the first research question, the following null
form of hypotheses are generated and stated in the following hypotheses.
1. There will be no difference in effectiveness due to learning style preferences.
2. There will be no difference in efficiency due to learning style preferences.
Previous studies have established that training approaches determine training outcomes (Davis &
Bostrom, 1993; Sein, Bostrom, & Olfman, 1999). While certain studies advocate instruction oriented
approach, others advocate exploration oriented approach. Despite the disagreement in the approaches,
EUC studies agree on the fact that training approaches play a crucial role in determining training
outcomes. This leads to the following research questions:
Research Question 2:
Are end user training outcomes affected by training approaches when users learn software
(using short training programs)?
As indicated earlier, the two training approaches - instruction and exploration - accommodate radically
different styles. The instruction approach supports inductive approach and the exploration supports
deductive approach. The learners will be expected to possess different styles for these two approaches.
While the instruction approach supports learners who depend upon complete set of instructions,
exploration supports learners who would like to experiment with the available functions in a software
application. Therefore, to address the second research question, the following hypotheses are stated:
3. There will be no difference in effectiveness due to training type.
4. There will be no difference in efficiency due to training type.
Previous studies have also indicated that training approaches interact with user styles in determining
training outcomes. This is especially true for information processing needs. In other words, the
interaction between learning styles and training approaches has an influence in determining training
outcomes. This leads to the following two hypotheses:
5. There will be no difference in effectiveness due to the interaction of training type and learning
style preference.
6. There will be no difference in efficiency due to the interaction of training type and learning style
preference.
To test the hypotheses, an experiment was conducted. To categorise users into learning styles, Honey &
Mumford's instrument was used. The following paragraphs explain the experimental procedure.
Experimental procedure
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 5 of 13
The research was conducted in a classroom setting. 180 subjects participated in the study. The subjects
were administered with Honey & Mumford's questionnaire to assess their learning preferences. The
research design was a two factor experimental design. Learning style is one factor, while the training
approach is the other. Subjects were classified into one of the four categories of Honey and Mumford's
learning style preferences. The subjects in each of the category were asked to choose their preferred
training approach based on their experience.
Participants
The participants of the research were tertiary end user computing students enrolled in a computer
science program. The participants possess limited IT knowledge. They range from 18 years to 40 years
in age. Participants were drawn from Computer Science, Information Technology, Mathematics, Food
Science, Aviation, Software Engineering and Sports Science courses. Participants have sufficient
knowledge of PC operations. The participants were administered with Honey and Mumford's Learning
Style Questionnaire (LSQ) to categorise them into learning style groups. The grouping is to establish a
relationship between types of learning preferences. The participants filled in a set of questionnaires to
determine their level of knowledge and experience prior to the LSQ.
Training outcomes
Effectiveness
Based on previous studies, effectiveness is defined for this experiment in terms of "score" gained by the
number of steps used to conduct a task, number of errors committed and the number of backtracks in
completing a step (Davis, 1993, p34; Bohlen, 1997 , p17; Olfman, 1995 p.344). To be effective,
participants would use minimum number of steps with precision. It is difficult to predefine the minimum
and maximum scores for given tasks as participants may opt to conduct a step in a task in any arbitrary
manner leading to a varying combination of keystrokes. Therefore, the measure is mentioned as a
function of various types of strokes. The effectiveness could be mathematically defined as:
Effectiveness = function (correct strokes, icon access, menu access, dialogue box interaction, errors,
backtracks)
This could be mathematically shown as
Effectiveness = f(CS, IA, MA, DB, BTRK, ERR)
Efficiency
Based on previous studies, efficiency is defined for this experiment in terms of "time" taken to a
complete a task (Bohlen and Ferrat, 1997, p17; Bostrom, 1990, p19; Sein, 1993, p343). The factor time
is directly proportional to the number of keystrokes. It could be mathematically defined as:
Efficiency = function (keystrokes, time)
This could be shown mathematically as Efficiency = f(KS, T)
Experiment
As mentioned previously, 180 undergraduate students from an introductory computer science course
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 6 of 13
volunteered to participate in the study. The students were selected on the basis of having had little or no
previous experience with a project management software application. Also, all the students reported that
they are conversant with PC operations.
The experiment was organised into 4 sessions of about 30 minutes each. The first session was a briefing
session and the Learning style preference questionnaire was filled in by users. The second session was
used for training. The third session was used for a 12 task hands on exercise. The fourth session was
used for filling in the satisfaction questionnaire.
The students were provided with training manuals. The training manuals were prepared based on
Wood's (1990, p164) task complexity model. The training manual was examined by two independent
judges for suitability and approved for the purpose of this research. The training manual consisted of
actions for both icon and menu operations. So, students were able to choose either one of the styles. To
guide students to follow steps either with icons or with menus, a number of verbal and imagery type of
clues were provided.
In addition to various guiding instructions, the training manuals provided a number of information cues
to students. Whenever students committed an error, a provision to recover from the error was given in
the manuals.
During the training phase, subjects were allowed to work on the training manual for 45 minutes. The
time restriction was to comply with various administrative procedures. In addition to this (45 minutes),
subjects were given with another 45 minutes to work with various examples. These two sessions were
held on different days in order to meet administrative procedures in booking computer laboratories.
Once the training and the example exercises were completed, subjects were administered with a hands
on exercise. The hands on exercise consisted of 12 tasks of a project management schedule. Solutions to
the tasks were recorded using Lotus ScreenCam program for playback and recording. The hands on task
was recorded using a Lotus ScreenCam software. The entire hands on task was recorded and the average
size of the file was about 4 MB. Replaying the file collected the responses. This operation took about 45
minutes per participant.
Subjects were asked to playback their solutions and record the number of accesses to menus, icons,
number of keystrokes activated, correct keystrokes, backtracks, erroneous strokes and any interaction
with dialogue boxes. These were used to compute the effectiveness. The time was recorded using the
computer clock and was used to compute efficiency.
Data analysis
The Learning Cycle questionnaire was derived from Honey and Mumford (1992, p265). The
questionnaire consisted of 80 items. Participants have to answer either "yes" or "no" by placing a tick or
a cross for each item. Honey and Mumford (1992, p265) have provided a scoring mechanism to
determine the learning style of participants and this was applied to derive individual learning style
preferences. Prior to determination of learning styles, the Learning Cycle questionnaire was tested for
reliability (for overall questionnaire) and an alpha of over 0.90 was obtained, indicating that the
questionnaire was reliable.
When the data was initially analysed, it was found that some students had failed to complete the tasks or
failed to save the files properly. This has resulted in an elimination of 20 students from the data analysis.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 7 of 13
Initially the data was tested for normal distribution and was found to be normal. When the regression
analysis was performed, it was found that he variables also correlated well. This was established by
performing a regression analysis with training type and learning style preferences as two variables (this
is not shown in this paper). The data was then analysed to examine various trends.
Efficiency
It can be seen from the box plot in Figure 1 (given below) that the mean value of exploration group is
higher for every learning style. It was mentioned that the efficiency is calculated in terms of time and the
higher means show that the groups consumed more time for exploration orientation that instruction
orientation. The theorists style and pragmatists have scored almost equal means. Activists and reflectors
have scored considerably different means. This indicates that instruction group is efficient in terms
completing the given task in terms of time components.
Figure 1: Box plot for efficiency
Effectiveness
From the box plot in Figure 2, it can be noticed that exploration group has scored a higher mean for the
three learning styles - activist, reflector and theorist. The pragmatists have scored lower means for
exploration orientation. This indicates that the exploration orientation is effective in terms of obtaining
higher scores.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 8 of 13
Figure 1: Box plot for effectiveness
Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation values for the training outcome efficiency and
effectiveness respectively. The mean values for the outcomes efficiency and effectiveness are
comparable for training orientations and learning styles. In addition to these, the variances are also
comparable. When, a regression analysis was performed for both effectiveness and efficiency, a normal
curve was yielded asserting the data is normal (this is not shown in the paper). This collective trend was
interpreted as the existence of strong evidence for a univariate analysis.
Table 1: Mean and SD for training outcome efficiency and effectiveness
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predicto... Page 9 of 13
The results of analysis of variance (shown in Tables 2 and 3) indicate that none of the effects (training
type, learning style preference and the interaction) were significant at 0.10 level. The analysis performed
reveals the nature of the main effects and the interaction effects. The analysis shows relatively small Rsquare values for efficiency and effectiveness. These small R-square values indicate that the models did
not account for a good deal of variation in these dependent variables.
Table 2: Efficiency
Source
df
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
7
.969
.456
Intercept
1
1304.738
.000
TRGTYPE
1
.691
.407
LSTYL
3
.671
.571
TRGTYPE * LSTYL
3
.764
.516
Error
152
Total
160
Corrected Total
159
Table 3: Effectiveness
Source
df
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
7
.516
.821
Intercept
1
1046.018
.000
TRGTYPE
1
.888
.348
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predi... Page 10 of 13
LSTYL
3
.425
.736
TRGTYPE * LSTYL
3
.434
.729
Error
152
Total
160
Corrected Total
159
a. R squared = .023 (adjusted R squared = -.022)
The F test performed indicates that the main effects and interaction effects are not significant. For
efficiency outcome, the F-values are F(Training approach, 1) = 0.691; F(Learning style, 3) = 0.671. For
effectiveness outcome, the F-values are F(Training approach, 1) = 0.888; F(Learning style, 3) = 0.425.
All the values are well over the significant levels and this is an indication that the null hypotheses cannot
be rejected. This is confirmed by the p-values over the level of significance for every hypothesis.
{
{
{
{
{
{
Hypothesis 1, dealing with the effectiveness of learning style preferences and their influence on
outcomes was not rejected due to the significant value level (p = 0.736).
Hypothesis 2, dealing with the efficiency of learning style preferences and their influence on
outcomes was not rejected due to the significant value level (p = 0.0.571).
Hypothesis 3, dealing with the effectiveness of training type and their influence on training
outcomes was not rejected due to the significant value level (p = 0.348).
Hypothesis 4, dealing with the efficiency of training type and their influence on training outcomes
was not rejected due to the significant value level (p = 0.407).
Hypothesis 5, dealing with the effectiveness of interactions between training type and learning
preferences and their influence on training outcomes was not rejected due to the significant value
level (p = 0.729).
Hypothesis 6, dealing with the efficiency of interactions between training type and learning
preferences and their influence on training outcomes was not rejected due to the significant value
level (p = 0.516).
Discussion
Despite that there is no statistical evidence to reject the hypotheses, there is clear evidence that
instruction training is superior in terms of efficiency. The learning style preference groups - activists and
reflector - have scored significantly lower mean values than the theorists and pragmatists. This is
translated as the time taken to complete the hands on tasks is much lower for the two groups mentioned
previously.
In terms of effectiveness, the exploration groups have scored significantly higher means for activists,
reflectors and theorists groups. Pragmatists have scored lower average. This can be translated as the
exploration training treatment yielding significantly better results compared to the instruction group in
terms of scores.
This also supports the proposition of Assimilation Theory. Subjects used their previous knowledge to
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predi... Page 11 of 13
derive new knowledge in order to achieve meaningful learning. Theorists who have undergone training
can recall their conceptual knowledge to reduce their time in performing given tasks. On the other hand,
people who have explored the application, found it difficult to complete the tasks in short time duration
because of the lack of previous knowledge. The exploration group found it difficult to arrive at a
meaningful learning which was essential to conduct the tasks quickly. This is shown in the outcome
efficiency. Subjects have taken considerable time to absorb the new knowledge when it comes to
exploration. The instruction approach has provided conceptual models to subjects. The conceptual
models provided a context in which thinking is facilitated for reasoning purposes. In the case of
instruction training type, subjects are provided with assimilative contexts with set of instructions and
step by step procedures reflecting the functions of the application. Previous studies have confirmed this
trend.
The exploration, on the other hand, allowed users to carry out a task based on the semantic distance. In
other words, the semantic distance, which is relationship between a user's conceptualisation of an
operation and the mechanisms that the training type provides to carry it out, is facilitated through the
deduction process. In this study, the instruction training closely represents the user's conceptual model
and hence semantically direct. Exploration training based subject were not able to do this because of the
number of steps involved and the complex conceptual model provided by the deductive process.
It should be noted that the study supports the concept of using instructions to train end users when the
application software is difficult to learn. A number of previous studies have supported this concept.
However, there are studies, which have shown that this is not the case. The differences could be
attributed to the lack of classification followed in this study. Further, the study did not categorise the
tasks into simple and complex as defined by Mayer and hence this could have an impact in the disparity
of the result.
Another aspect that is worth noting is the task itself. Despite the fact that the tasks are evaluated for
appropriateness, and the model followed to create the tasks was Wood and Campbell's model, the tasks
were not evaluated for their complexity. It appears that there are no universal guidelines available for
such a purpose. This could have influenced the outcome of training to some extent.
Limitations and conclusion
It was mentioned that the subjects were drawn from an entry level course in tertiary settings. However,
this study did not make an attempt to extract the background information regarding the computing
experience and usage to a greater depth. It was assumed that the subjects were accustomed to a
structured environment. However, the validity of such assumption can be questioned in end user
computing studies, as most of the end users were self taught. Another aspect that could be debated was
the duration of training. This study allocated a 45-minute duration for training and hands on tasks
testing. Literature provides evidence that this ranges from 30 minutes to 8 hours. This aspect could be
one influencing factor in assimilation of knowledge. Further research needed in this area.
References
Black, J. B., Carrol, J. M., & McGuigan, S. M. (1987). What kind of minimal instruction manual is the
most effective? Paper presented at the Human factors in computing systems, New York.
Bohlen, G., & Ferrat, T. (1997). End user training: An experimental comparison of lecture versus
computer based training. Journal of End User Computing, 9(3), 4-27.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predi... Page 12 of 13
Borgman, C. L. (1986). The user's mental model of an information retrieval system. International
Journal of Man Machine Studies, 24(1), 47-64.
Bostrom, R. P., Olfman, L., & Sein, M. K. (1990). The importance of learning style in End User
Training. MIS Quarterly, 14(1), 101-119.
Carnevale, A., & Carnevale, E. (1994). Growth pattern in workplace training. Training and
development, 48, 22-28.
Carrol, J. M., Smith-Kerker, P. L., Ford, J. R., & Mazur-Rimetz, S. A. (1987). The minimal manual.
Human Computer Interaction, 3(2), 123-153.
Davies, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Communications of the ACM, 35(8), 982-1003.
Davis, S., & Bostrom, R. (1993). Training end users: An experimental investigation of the roles of the
computer interface and training methods. MIS Quarterly, (March), 61-79.
Gentry, C. G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development: Process and technique. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gomez, L. M., Egan, D. E., & Bowers, C. (1986). Learning to use a text editor: Some learner
characteristics that predict success. Human Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1-23.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles. Maidenhead-Berkshire: Peter Honey.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead-Berkshire: Peter Honey.
Kamouri, A. L., Kamouri, J., & Smith, K. (1986). Training by exploration: Facilitating the transfer of
procedural knowledge through analogical reasoning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24
(2), 171-192.
Marton, F. (1976). What does it take to learn? Some implications on an alternative view of learning. In
N. J. Entwistle (Ed), Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education, 200-222.
Pask, G., & Scott, B. C. E. (1972). Learning strategies and individual competence. International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies, 4, 217-253.
Presland, J. (1994). Learning Styles and Continuous Professional Development. Educational Psychology
in Practice, 10, 179-184.
Robey, D., & Taggart, W. (1982). Human information processing in information and decision support
systems. MIS Quarterly, 6(1), 61-73.
Ruble, T. L., & Stout, D. E. (1993). Factors of success for end user computing: An unwanted leap in
faith. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 115-118.
Sein, M. K., Bostrom, R. P., & Olfman, L. (1999). Rethinking end user training strategy: applying a
hierarchical knowledge level model. Journal of End User Computing, 11(1), 32-39.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005
TL Forum 2001: Gururajan - end user computing: Learning style differences as a predi... Page 13 of 13
Sein, M. K., Olfman, L., Bostrom, R., & Davis, S. (1993). Visualization ability as a predictor of user
learning success. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 599-620.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. (1988). Cognitive Styles, Essence and Origins: Field Dependence and
Field Independence. New York: International University Press.
Author: Raj Gururajan, School of Computer and Information Science, Edith Cowan
University. r.gururajan@cowan.edu.au
Please cite as: Gururajan, R. (2001). End user computing: Learning style differences as a
predictor of training outcomes. In A. Herrmann and M. M. Kulski (Eds), Expanding
Horizons in Teaching and Learning. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Teaching Learning
Forum, 7-9 February 2001. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
[ Abstract for this article ] [ TL Forum 2001 Proceedings Contents ] [ All Abstracts ] [ TL Forums Index ]
HTML: Roger Atkinson, Teaching and Learning Centre, Murdoch University [rjatkinson@bigpond.com]
This URL: http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
Last revision: 8 Feb 2002. © Curtin University of Technology
Previous URL 22 Dec 2000 to 8 Feb 2002 http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/confs/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2001/gururajan.html
7/30/2005