education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Education for Chemical Engineers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ece
Impact of a multimedia laboratory manual: Investigating the
influence of student learning styles on laboratory
preparation and performance over one semester
Darrell A. Patterson ∗
Separation and Reaction Engineering, Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
a b s t r a c t
The impact of using a multimedia laboratory manual on preparation, learning, satisfaction and performance in a
mass and energy balance laboratory within a mixed discipline student cohort (Engineering, Science And Technology)
at the University of Auckland was examined with respect to matching teaching styles with student learning styles
over one semester. Learning styles were measured by both the Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning styles
and VARK learning styles instruments.
The multimedia manual was beneficial to the learning styles of the students’ surveyed, as they were mainly sensing, sequential, reflective, visual and read/write learners. The surveyed Auckland Engineering students were more
reflective learners than overseas cohorts, possibly due to differences in culture and/or pre-university teaching styles.
Feedback survey and focus group results suggest teaching and learning benefits that indicate that multimedia
manuals should be used in all laboratory courses. This is because student preparation, satisfaction and learning was
enhanced, with students more easily performing laboratory tasks and producing laboratory reports demonstrating
increased global understanding. This was directly attributable to the multimedia manual matching teaching styles
to a wider range of learning styles than the paper manual.
© 2010 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Index of Learning styles; VARK; Multimedia laboratory manual; Engineering, Science, Technology
1.
Introduction
As the World Wide Web and use of multimedia and hypermedia grows in ever increasing importance, there is a
concomitant increasing need to address the growing diversification of learning styles being used by students as a
consequence of this. Multimedia refers to anything that uses
more than one form of media (videos, text, photos, etc.).
Hypermedia is a subset of multimedia, which specifically uses
hyperlinks, usually within a web page, to create a combination
of media that can be viewed in any order. This work is about
both, so the more general term of multimedia will be used.
(This does not however imply that hypermedia is not relevant,
and this is why it is also covered in the literature review). This
work intends to respond to these needs as the initial phase
of a larger project to incorporate multimedia/hypermedia into
∗
teaching and learning, as well as to improve the teaching and
student learning in the laboratory components in the Bachelor of Engineering (Chemical and Materials) at the University
of Auckland (and possibly beyond). This work also answers
calls for further papers looking at learning styles and online
learning (e.g. Buch and Sena, 2001; Drago and Wagner, 2004;
Zapalska and Brozik, 2006), and in particular to bring learning styles into the multimedia laboratory manual research
and development domain. The research is based within the
context of a second year Chemical and Materials Engineering paper, ChemMat 211-‘Introduction to Process Engineering’;
however a majority of the results may be generalisable to any
course with a laboratory component.
ChemMat 211-‘Introduction to Process Engineering’ is a 15
point, one semester, paper that effectively introduces students
to the basics of mass and energy balances applied to process
Tel.: +64 9 3737999; fax: +64 9 3737463.
E-mail address: darrell.patterson@auckland.ac.nz
Received 10 February 2010; Received in revised form 9 July 2010; Accepted 6 October 2010
1749-7728/$ – see front matter © 2010 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ece.2010.10.001
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
engineering unit operations and outlines the principles of process engineering safety. It therefore covers the following key
concepts (University of Auckland, 2009):
• Material and energy balances with and without chemical
reactions.
• Material and energy balances in multiphase systems
such as crystallisation, evaporation, drying, humidification,
dehumidification, absorption, distillation, extraction and
filtration.
• Chemical and process engineering safety: historical precedents and current framework.
ChemMat 211 is taken by a mixed discipline cohort,
predominantly from students studying for a Bachelor of Engineering (BE) in Chemical and Materials Engineering, Bachelor
of Science (BSc) in Food Science, and Bachelor of Technology (BTech) in Biotechnology. The course is presented over 12
weeks as a series of 36 lectures, 12 tutorials, and two 3 h graded
laboratory sessions. Summative assessment is apportioned as
follows: 70% written final exam, 10% three written tests, 10%
two assignments and 10% for the laboratory component. This
study focuses on an intervention in the laboratory component
only, investigating the influence of learning styles in the student cohort (which contains three different disciplines) on the
impact from and response to a multimedia laboratory manual implemented on one of the three experiments that are
completed by the students: Experiment C1 - mass and energy
balance around a spray tower. The impact and response to
the other two experiments, which will not have a multimedia
laboratory manual, will be used as controls for comparison.
The aim of these laboratory sessions are to a provide practical, real-file and hands-on learning experience of some of
the concepts and unit operations presented in the course
and to apply the theory and calculations used to analyse and
reconcile real data from these processes. Experiment C1 simulates a typical operating chemical plant, in this case a water
spray tower for air humidification, where most energy and
mass flows can be measured directly. Spray towers are used
by industry for humidification, odour and pollution removal
and spray drying. The aim of the experiment is to develop a
mass and energy balance of all inputs and outputs from the
system, when it is at steady state and to reconcile any discrepancies between the measured and calculated (expected)
inputs and outputs. In the experiment, students operate the
spray tower, measure flowrates, wet and dry bulb temperatures, and pressures of the process streams. They then use this
data in appropriate mass and energy balances with psychrometry to compare and reconcile the calculated water mass lost
by the humidification operation to that measured and the rate
of air heating to the rated power of the heater. To complete the
laboratory (and ultimately the course), students must attend
the laboratory session, participate in and complete the experimental work and then correctly completing their laboratory
journal write up and calculations. Approximately one third
of the class will then write up this laboratory experiment as a
formal Engineering report (the remainder will write reports on
the other two laboratory experiments in this course) which is
then marked. This report (and therefore this laboratory teaching and learning experience) was the only marked component
of the laboratory component and therefore worth 10% of the
overall mark for the course.
Although multimedia laboratory manuals are not new (e.g.
Craddock and Chevalier, 2000, 2002 and references within;
e11
Cheatham, 2000; Lee, 2002; Gibbins et al., 2003; Burewicz and
Miranowicz, 2006; Zamri et al., 2008; the Bristol ChemLabS program in Adams, 2009), using a multimedia laboratory manual
is a radical departure from the standard practice within this
course. Previously, students typically prepared for their 3 h
intensive laboratory experiments by reading a black and white
paper copy of the laboratory manual, essentially containing a
few basic diagrams of the equipment and a sequential list of
instructions. This approach would likely favour students who
have a read/write learning style bias. By using this approach,
students are currently under-prepared for the tasks to be done
in the laboratory, i.e. they do not understand what needs to be
done and find it difficult to translate what is described in the
paper manual to the physical tasks and activities they need
to perform. Ideally, there would be a familiarisation and training session for students in the laboratory, so they can actively
visualise how to do the experiment and familiarise themselves with the equipment in preparation for the required
active and kinaesthetic tasks. However, this is impractical, as
like many other universities our resources are finite (Ertugrul,
2000; Powell et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2004; Zamri et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is currently unfeasible and prohibitively expensive to allocate further technician time for laboratory access
outside of the current laboratory sessions, as well as having
the experiments setup for this purpose.
The full range of teaching and learning styles that could
(and should) be catered for to prepare students for the laboratory sessions are currently however being ignored. Many
studies have shown that learning and student achievement is
enhanced when teaching and learning styles are matched (e.g.
Dunn and Dunn, 1979; Felder and Silverman, 1988; Felder and
Brent, 2005; Dunn et al., 1989; Zywno and Waalen, 2001; Carver
et al., 1999). Is this important however? It has been argued
that students worldwide are still adequately educated without
teachers matching teaching styles to their student’s learning
styles. This may be true, however what is proposed here (and
in the cited literature) is that the student learning would be
enhanced in comparison to this status quo if teaching and
learning styles are matched. Consequently, students who do
not have a strong read/write preference may not, as a result, be
as adequately and properly prepared for their laboratories as
if other teaching and learning styles were enabled. It has also
been observed that in these laboratory sessions that students
require constant supervision and help by a laboratory demonstrator, and this mismatch may be a contributing factor. If the
demonstrator is competent and is a good communicator, then
this teaching and learning situation is adequate. If not, then
the current practice is inadequate at best. For the students in
ChemMat 211, ensuring students are properly prepared for the
laboratory is especially important, since they are in their second year of University and for the all the students, it is their
introductory semester into components of the Chemical and
Materials Engineering programme, a crucial time where we
need to support and nurture these students into the culture
of engineering education and (for the engineers especially) the
engineering profession. In the later years of the degrees, it may
be more appropriate to run laboratories in the current manner with just a paper laboratory manual, as this models the
practices that these students will face when working in the
Engineering and/or applied science industries. This point will
be returned to in Section 4.2.4.
In an effort to address these deficiencies, this project
investigates the impact of a new interactive multimedia
laboratory manual on student preparation, learning, satisfac-
e12
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
tion and performance in the laboratory for this particular
laboratory experiment compared to the other experiments
in ChemMat 211 (which do not have a multimedia laboratory manual). The multimedia manual was developed by
the author and was available to participants via a website (http://camlin.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/course/cm211/labC1/).
The website was developed to be compatible with Microsoft
Internet Explorer, however does run on other web browsers
(such as Mozilla FireFox and Google Chrome). It was initially
inspired by the work of Zamri, Koutouridis, Johnson, Abbas
and Kavanagh at the University of Sydney who developed an
excellent website to enhance student understanding prior to
laboratories (see Zamri et al., 2008). The multimedia laboratory
manual in this study was deliberately designed to incorporate elements that activate and encourage a wider range of
learning styles than the current paper laboratory manual (see
Section 2.2.1 for further details) and also to act as a ‘model’
experimental run to assist laboratory demonstrator training.
Representative screenshots from the website are shown in
Fig. 1.
The multimedia features of the website that differed from
the paper manual were:
• Video instructions of the experiment being performed by a
competent, good communicator.
• Labelled colour photos, diagrams and videos of the equipment to help students visualise the experiments before
entering the laboratory.
• Hyperlinks to appropriate pages on the internet which contextualise the experiment globally within the course and
within the world of Chemical Engineering.
• Hyperlinks to key laboratory and course information,
including safety information, laboratory timetables, and the
laboratory book and report writing guidelines.
• A range of different hyperlinked menus and indexes that
allow users to view and learn the information in any order
they wish.
Using this website as the basis of a teaching and learning
intervention over one semester, this study therefore has the
following aims:
1. To determine the range of learning styles that exist within
the population involved with ChemMat 211 (students, laboratory demonstrators and academic teaching staff).
2. To determine if the use of the multimedia manual increases
learning, makes preparation for and write-up of the laboratory experiments easier, and enables more effective
and efficient performance when doing the experiments,
compared to experiments without a multimedia laboratory manual,1 as perceived by the by students, laboratory
demonstrators and teaching staff. Specifically, this will
be studied with respect to how the teaching styles that
are enabled by the multimedia manual are matched with
the different learning styles of these students, laboratory
demonstrators and teaching staff in the course.
1
This is based on previous studies of multimedia and hypermedia learning (see Section 2.2) and on the proven premise that using
teaching styles that are compatible with the learning styles of the
students increases learning, interest in the course and increases
academic success (Gregoric, 1979, 1985; Dunn and Dunn, 1979;
Felder and Silverman, 1988; Fowler et al., 2002; Zywno and Waalen,
2001).
Fig. 1 – Three screenshots from the Experiment C1
multimedia laboratory manual showing: (a) the video
instructions, (b) the labelled colour photographs of the
equipment, (c) the use of hyperlinks to contextualise the
experiment with the wider world of Process Engineering.
To achieve these aims, this paper will first briefly review
learning styles and outline the two learning styles models
used in this work. A review of learning styles in the academic
disciplines present in this cohort will be made, followed by a
brief review of the benefits of online and multimedia learning
and the past work on multimedia and hypermedia laboratory manuals, in order to contextualise the current work.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
The research conducted will then be described, starting with
the research procedures (Section 3), after which the results
and analyses will be presented and discussed, starting by
analysing the learning styles within the ChemMat 211 cohort
and ending with the feedback results on the multimedia laboratory manual. Again note that although this study focuses
on one particular class taught by the Chemical and Materials Engineering Department at the University of Auckland, a
majority of the results may be generalised to any course with a
laboratory component. To the best of the author’s knowledge,
a study investigating the influence of the learning styles of
teaching staff, laboratory demonstrators and mixed-discipline
students on laboratory preparation and performance from
using a multimedia laboratory manual has never been done
before.
2.
e13
of these can be found elsewhere (e.g. De Bello, 1990; James
and Blank, 1993; Hartel, 1995; Irvine and York, 1995; Felder
and Silverman, 1988; Howard et al., 1996; Felder, 1996; Bennett,
2003; Kolb and Kolb, 2005; Felder and Brent, 2005). As a result,
a number of different teaching and learning styles have been
identified. Excellent reviews of the different widely applicable teaching and learning styles can be found in Felder and
Silverman (1988), Felder (1996), Hativa (2000), Reid (2005) and
Sims and Sims (2006). Choosing the appropriate instrument
that covers the most appropriate dimensions and is valid for
these measurements is key to any study. Therefore, the current work will concentrate on only two learning style models
and instruments, which have been shown to be appropriate to
Engineering, Science and Technology students as well as multimedia/hypermedia: the Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of
Learning styles and the VARK learning input styles inventory.2
Literature review
2.1.
Teaching and learning styles in Engineering,
Science and Technology
2.1.1.
Introduction to learning styles
A learning style can be defined as:
“that consistent pattern of behaviour and performance by
which an individual approaches education experiences.
It is the composite of characteristic cognitive, affective
and physiological behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with,
and responds to the learning environment. It is formed
in the deep structure of neural organization and personality molds [sic] and is molded [sic] by human development
and the cultural experiences of home, school and society”
(Keefe and Languis, 1983).
A preferred teaching style is the corresponding instructional method that aids and enhances learning in a particular
learning style. Consequently, teaching and learning styles are
intrinsically connected.
In the above definition, cognitive related behaviours are
how “learners prefer to receive and process information and
experiences, how they create concepts, and how they retain
and retrieve information” (Irvine and York, 1995, p. 484).
Affective related behaviours include “interpersonal skills and
self-perception, curiosity, attention, motivation, arousal, and
persistence” (Irvine and York, 1995, p. 484). Physiological
related issues include “gender, circadian rhythms, nutrition,
and general health” (Irvine and York, 1995, p. 484). Despite
this three domain definition however, cognitive styles have
been the focus of research on learning styles for application
in Education (Irvine and York, 1995). There is some debate on
the appropriateness of this approach however. For instance,
Jarvis (1987, p.109) states:
“Cognitive style and learning style are not synonymous
terms. The cognitive style relates to the thought process,
which are themselves related to the social-culturaltemporal milieu of the thinkers, whereas learning style
relates to the ways in which people endeavour to learn.”
Despite this difference, most Education researchers use
cognitive style and learning style as synonyms. Therefore,
it is this learning style concept that is referred to hereafter
and used in this work. A range of instruments have been
employed, to measure and investigate this particular concept
of learning styles, for which excellent reviews and summaries
2.1.2.
styles
The Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning
There are four dimensions in the Index of Learning styles, each
of which differentiate different types of learners in a continuum between two polar opposite types (Felder and Silverman,
1988; Felder, 1996; Felder and Brent, 2005):
1. Processing: Differentiates active learners (who learn externally, by working with others, practice and doing tasks)
and reflective learners (who learn internally, by thinking
things through and working alone—note that this dimension should not be misinterpreted as passive learning). The
corresponding teaching styles to these could be said to be
learner-centred (active) and teacher-centred (which hopefully
encourages reflective learning, but is usually just passive
teaching, which does not encourage learning).
2. Perception: Differentiates by the type of information a person perceives, on a scale from sensing learners (who are
concrete, practical, and oriented toward facts and procedures, preferring sights, sounds and physical sensations)
to intuitive learners (who are conceptual, innovative, oriented towards abstractions such as theories and meanings,
preferring memories, thoughts and insights).
3. Input: Differentiates visual learners (who are visually oriented, e.g. pictures, diagrams, flow charts, etc.) and verbal
learners (who are speaking and writing oriented).
4. Understanding: Differentiates sequential learners (who favour
linear, orderly, small incremental steps and can work with
only partial understanding of the material) and global learners (who favour holistic, system-wide learning and can
learn in large leaps, but need to know the entire picture
in order to work).
2
Note that although these models differentiate and categorise
students into a range of different learning styles, this does not
mean we should then exclusively teach to this learning style.
Although a students learning style should be acknowledged and
used to ensure their learning strengths are being catered for in
teaching, narrowly focussing on a few characteristic learning
styles are not good – educationally – for the students. This is
because, as Felder and Brent (2005) put it: “[a] goal of instruction
should be to equip students with the skills associated with every
learning style category, regardless of the students’ personal
preferences, since they will need all of those skills to function
effectively as professionals.” (Felder and Brent, 2005, p. 58).
e14
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Table 1 – Average of all published studies on Engineering cohorts using the Index of Learning styles up to 2005 as
compiled by Felder and Brent (2005), and average of all results from the Index of Learning styles website by Soloman (in
Fowler et al., 2002, p. 260).
Population
Number
sampled
Percentage of population with the Index of Learning Style dimension (%)
Processing
Engineering Students
Engineering Staff/Faculty
All students
2506
101
Not
available
Perception
Input
Understanding
Active
Reflective
Sensing
Intuitive
Visual
Verbal
Sequential
Global
64
45
80
36
55
20
63
41
55
37
59
45
82
94
75
18
6
25
60
44
60
40
56
40
Many of these dimensions have direct relationships with
dimensions from other learning style models (Felder and
Brent, 2005). For example, the active-reflective processing
dimension is identical to the Kolb model’s active-reflective
dimension (Kolb, 1981; Kolb and Kolb, 2005) and the MyersBriggs Type Indicator’s extravert-introvert dimension; the
sensing-intuitive perception dimension is also identical to
that dimension in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consequently, results from these dimensions in these models can
and will be directly compared to the results in this work.
The Index of Learning styles was chosen since it has been
shown to be effective in capturing the key learning styles
of Science and Engineering students (Felder and Brent, 2005;
Zywno, 2003). A number of studies have also validated the
Index of Learning styles as an accurate and reliable instrument (e.g. Felder and Spurlin, 2005; Zywno, 2003; Litzinger
et al., 2005, 2007). Most importantly, a large number of studies
have used it to determine the learning styles of Engineering students (e.g. Felder and Spurlin, 2005; Felder and Brent,
2005; Kuri and Truzzi, 2002; Byrne, 2007; Rosati, 1998, 1999;
among others), although these are predominantly surveys of
American and European Engineers. Felder and Brent (2005,
p. 61) compiled a summary all of the published studies
that have used the Index of Learning styles, averaging the
index values for both Engineering students and Engineering
staff (faculty). Furthermore, Fowler et al. (2002) published a
summary of all the results from Barbara Soloman’s website
that hosts the Index of Learning styles online questionnaire
(http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html) giving
an indication of the baseline for all students (academic disciplines unknown). These results are summarised in Table 1,
and will be used as a benchmark to compare to in the current
work.
It is suspected that the results in Table 1 will differ
from the Engineering student population in ChemMat 211.
This is despite the fact that NZ Engineering teaching styles
and disciplinary culture should be similar those of American and European Engineers since Engineering degrees are
professionally accredited, with all the professional accrediting organisations cross-referencing standards and content
between each other. This makes the core material taught
relatively standardised across accredited degrees, with a reasonably uniform teaching and learning culture, expectation
and practice. However, the students in ChemMat 211 have
only been at University for one full year (or less), with most
of the Engineers in a General Engineering first year, and have
only begun socialising into the professional culture of Chemical and Materials Engineering with this course. Their learning
styles will therefore be predominantly influenced by the 12
or 13 years of previous primary and secondary education.
Focussing on the student sectors that will be clearly different
in these cohorts (i.e. the home students rather than the international students), studies show that there are differences
between the cultures and pre-university education systems
in New Zealand and America and Europe (where the majority of these studies were conducted), in particular through
the work of the OECD Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA, www.pisa.oecd.org). Using PISA data, Fuchs
and Wöbmann (2007), for example, showed that variations in
different countries between family backgrounds, home inputs,
resources, teachers and institutions account for a majority
of the overall educational assessment outcome variations
between the different countries. Furthermore, learning styles
vary with culture and ethnicity (Bennett, 2003; Irvine and
York, 1995). Comparing ethnicity information between New
Zealand, U.S.A. and Europe (Levinson, 1998; Statistics New
Zealand, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), shows a distinct
difference in ethnicity and culture in all three parts of the
world. Studies have shown that educational systems differ
to account for these cultural differences: for example in New
Zealand, educational culture, pedagogies and systems have
been instituted to make learning more effective for the Māori
and Pacifica ethnic populations (Benseman et al., 2006; Bishop,
1999, 2003) and effective targeted multicultural teaching practices have been instigated for the needs of specific ethnic
groups in both the U.S.A. and Europe (e.g. Gay, 2001; Irvine
and York, 1995). Therefore, it is likely that the teaching and
learning styles developed by the NZ student cohorts will be
different to those in Table 1.
Teaching and learning styles for Food Science students
from overseas institutions have been studied by a number
of researchers (e.g. Torres and Cano, 1994; Cano, 1999; Palou,
2006), but will not be compared to in this work. This is because
these degrees are not professionally accredited, so what is
taught and how it is taught varies considerably between different institutions, making any comparison with teaching and
learning styles from the literature questionable.
2.1.3.
The VARK learning input styles inventory
The VARK learning input styles inventory (Fleming and
Mills, 1992; Fleming and Baume, 2006) has been chosen
since it extends the input dimension (visual/verbal) of the
Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning styles, capturing additional learning inputs which are important to
web-based multimedia learning. VARK only measures input
learning styles and therefore is not a full learning styles model
(Fleming and Baume, 2006), which is why it was used in conjunction with the Index of Learning styles. The VARK learning
input styles model and instrument measures and compares
four sensory modes: visual, aural, read/write, and kinaesthetic.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Learners can use a mixture of any and all of the four modes,
with one or more being the preferred mode of learning.
2.1.4. Differences in learning styles with academic
discipline
In this work, a mixed discipline cohort is being studied. It is
important to consider if there would be any effect on the range
of expected learning styles due to having students from different disciplines—for example is it necessary to divide the
students in their different disciplinary groups for surveys and
focus groups for comparison to the results in the literature, or
are these students expected to have similar learning styles
anyway making this unnecessary? With so many learning
style models available and so many studies using the corresponding instruments, inevitably the difference in learning
styles between academic disciplines has been studied. These
studies indicate that distinct learning style differences can
exist between different academic disciplines, indicating that
this may be something to account for, especially in comparisons to literature. Kolb (1981, p. 233–234) succinctly explains
the reasons for this:
“For students, education in an academic field is a continuing process of selection and socialization to the pivotal
norms of the field governing criteria for truth and how
it is to be achieved, communicated, and used, and secondarily, to peripheral norms governing personal styles,
attitudes, and social relationships. Over time these selection and socialization pressures combine to produce an
increasingly impermeable and homogenous disciplinary
culture and correspondingly specialized student orientations to learning.”
Neumann and co-workers (e.g. Neumann, 2001; Neumann
and Becher, 2002) and Shulman (2005), further verified this by
demonstrating that there are characteristics forms of teaching
and learning that are established norms within the degrees at
universities (in particular professional degrees such as Engineering, Law and Medicine in the case of Shulman), which
Shulman calls ‘signature pedagogies’. These studies show that
different learning styles are being emphasised and practiced
within different academic disciplines, meaning that the graduates from different disciplines will, on average, have different
learning style preferences that are common across their disciplines. Part of this could be a result of students selecting
courses that suit their learning styles also, as indicated by
Kolb (1981): “the student’s [learning style] dispositions lead to
the choice of educational experiences that match those dispositions, and the resulting experiences reinforce the same
choice dispositions for later experiences.” (Kolb, 1981, p. 245).
Of the many studies quantifying the specific learning style
differences between students from different disciplines, of
particular relevance to this work are the studies by Litzinger
et al. (2005) and Kolb (1981):
1. Litzinger et al. (2005) showed that the Index of Learning
styles can be used to reliably demonstrate learning style
differences between students from different academic disciplines at Penn State University (USA). The students were
from three different colleges–Engineering, Liberal Arts and
Education. The only common preference they found was
visual over verbal learning.
2. Kolb (1981) presents comprehensive results showing that
there are definite measurable differences in learning styles
between different academic disciplines. Of particular rel-
e15
evance is that Kolb shows that under his learning style
dimensions that Engineering and Chemistry students (the
closest discipline to BSc Food Science in this study) are
quite different. Kolb shows that Engineers are convergent
learners (active and abstract1 ), whilst Chemistry majors are
more assimilative (reflective and abstract3 ). In terms of the
learning style models used in this study, this means we
might expect that disciplinary socialised BE students and
BSc students should differ in the ‘Processing’ dimension of
the Index of Learning styles, since the Kolb active-reflective
dimension is the same. Disciplinary socialised BE students
will be more active learners in contrast to the reflective
learning of the disciplinary socialised BSc students.
There has been one study of both Food Science and Engineering students together with the Index of Learning styles
(Palou, 2006). Although Palou makes inferences that Food Science and Engineering students have different learning styles,
it is not substantiated with sufficient evidence. There are no
published studies looking at the learning styles of Technology
or Biotechnology students.
In this work, measurable differences are not expected to
be prominent within the cohort in ChemMat 211, because
(as previously noted) the students in ChemMat 211 have only
been at University for one full year (or less), with this course
(for the Engineers) comprising their first significant exposure to Chemical and Materials Engineering. Therefore, the
socialisation into their disciplinary culture will most likely
be insignificant, compared to the 12 or 13 years in primary
and secondary education. As mentioned, Kolb (1981) however
indicates that students may self select into disciplines that
cater to their learning style strengths, which may mean the
differences above may be present to some extent. Therefore,
students from different disciplines were still identified and
segregated in the surveys and interviewed separately so that
academic discipline could be accounted for in the results and
in comparisons to literature where necessary.
2.2.
Multimedia and hypermedia laboratory manuals
2.2.1.
The benefits of on-line learning
There are many studies which look at how learning styles
are related to different aspects of a multimedia/hypermedia
environment, and that learners benefit from this through
increased learning and performance (e.g. Cordell, 1991; Liu
and Reed, 1994; Montgomery, 1995; Carver et al., 1999; Gomes
et al., 2000; Buch and Sena, 2001). Such studies have shown
that multimedia/hypermedia and on-line learning addresses
learning style differences, since it allows the incorporation of
aspects from the poles of each learning style dimension, to
ensure we are catering for the teaching and learning strengths
of all students. Only then can we create “the optimal learning environment for most (if not all) in the class” (Felder and
Silverman, 1988, p. 657), which is known as ‘teaching around
the cycle’ (Felder, 1996).
The match between multimedia and hypermedia and the
two learning styles models used in this work has also been
studied. The matches to the Index of Learning styles is best
illustrated by Carver et al. (1999), who specifically designed
hypermedia to ‘teach around the cycle’ designed according to
3
Abstract learners rate mathematics as more important over
humanities.
e16
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Table 2 – Hypermedia components and their relationship to the Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning styles as
rated on a scale of 0 (not important) to 100 (vital) by students in a course studied by ). Note that the importance of each of
these components may vary for different courses and disciplines.
Hypermedia component
Graphics
Videos
Audio
Hypertext
Support for each Index of Learning styles dimension on a scale of 0–100
Sensing
Intuitive
Visual
Verbal
Sequential
Global
70
100
60
25
50
50
50
60
90
100
25
25
25
80
100
25
10
40
10
100
40
30
60
40
this learning style model. Carver et al. (1999) demonstrated
that “every learning style may be addressed by hypermedia
courseware and every learning style is addressed by more than
one type of tool.” (Carver et al., 1999, p. 38). He showed the
following matches between the hypermedia components (that
are also used in this study) and the dimensions in the Index
of Learning styles (Table 2).
Carver et al. (1999) shows that the Index of Learning styles
is an invaluable measure and descriptor of how well a multimedia laboratory manual could match the range of teaching
and learning styles of a student cohort, further justifying its
use in this work.
The VARK model is used in this work also because it has
been used by researchers to both effectively design and determine the efficacy of web-based learning (e.g. Amigud et al.,
2002; Higgins and O’Keeffe, 2004; Drago and Wagner, 2004;
Zapalska and Brozik, 2006). In particular, Drago and Wagner
(2004) have found that students with visual and read/write
learning input preferences benefit from online teaching and
learning, whilst kinaesthetic students do not. This is because
the visual and read/write (as well as aural) learning input preferences directly relate to the following multimedia/hypermedia
components, whilst kinaesthetic inputs has none:
•
•
•
•
Videos – visual and aural
Graphics – visual
Audio – aural
Hypertext – read/write
As mentioned previously, the current paper laboratory
manual only really caters for read/write oriented learners.
Therefore, considering the wider range of learning styles that
multimedia/hypermedia matches (as measured by the Index
of Learning styles and VARK instruments), it is expected that
more students in the cohort will have a greater understanding and be better prepared for the laboratory experiments by
using the multimedia laboratory manual.
2.2.2. A brief review of multimedia and hypermedia
laboratory manuals
Due to these advantages, a number of other multimedia and
hypermedia laboratory manuals, similar to that built in this
study, have already been developed and studied (e.g. Craddock
and Chevalier, 2000, 2002 and references within; Cheatham,
2000; Lee, 2002; Gibbins et al., 2003; Burewicz and Miranowicz,
2006; Zamri et al., 2008; the Bristol ChemLabS program in
Adams, 2009). Many multimedia laboratory supplements also
go further and also include virtual pre-laboratory experiments
(e.g. Chen et al., 2004) and/or virtual or remote laboratories,
minimising or even removing the need for students to go into
the physical laboratory (e.g. Ertugrul, 2000; Ma and Nickerson,
2006; Selmer et al., 2007; Rasteiro et al., 2009). However, few
studies have explicitly studied the effect of the fuller pallet
of learning styles enabled by a multimedia laboratory manual (as described above in Section 2.2.1) on the preparation
and performance of the students who used them. Those that
have found mixed results. For example, Gibbins et al. (2003)
studied the learning enhancement of using a multimedia laboratory manual compared to traditional resources (lectures,
paper manual) and used Kolb’s experiential learning style
dimensions (Kolb, 1981; Kolb and Kolb, 2005) to ascertain any
influence from learning styles. They found that learning style
score did not correlate with the enhancement in performance
by students supported by the multimedia laboratory manual.
These studies therefore indicate that further work still needs
to be done in this area.
Most studies have surveyed students for feedback on their
multimedia laboratory manuals and have unanimously found
approval from students. These surveys were also used to determine the impact on preparation for and performance in the
laboratory, like the current work. These studies have provided
mixed results though. For example, Craddock and Chevalier
(2002) found that only 67% of students reported being better
prepared for the laboratory experiments despite 83% reporting
that they would learn more by using it. This could be the consequence the learning styles of the students not matching the
teaching styles enabled by the multimedia manual—however
Craddock and Chevalier had not determined the learning
styles within the class. This is why teaching and learning
styles need to be investigated in conjunction with the impact
of a multimedia manual. Another explanation is given by
Craddock and Chevalier instead: “even though it appears that
this approach enhances student learning, that it requires
some preparation time that not all students are willing to
invest.” (Craddock and Chevalier, 2002, p. 730). Given that time
is universally short in most peoples lives, this explanation is
most likely ubiquitous. In contrast, more positive outcomes
have been found by others (e.g. Nippert, 2001; Burewicz and
Miranowicz, 2006). For example, Chris Nippert with his Virtual Chemical Engineering Laboratory (Nippert, 2001) – albeit
a more advanced version of the multimedia laboratory manual
that has website based versions of the experiments – yielded
positive learning outcomes: “Comparison with the previous
year indicated that the online experiments increased the students’ abilities to perform and complete the experiments with
reduced assistance from the class instructor. A significant
reduction in time for student teams to complete experiments
has been noted.” (Nippert, 2001).
To determine if the Experiment C1 multimedia laboratory
manual in this work can increase student learning and performance in a similar vein, a short term action research case
study was conducted using the following research procedures.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
3.
Methods and materials
This research was approved by the University of Auckland
Human Participants Ethics Committee on 15 April 2009 for
3 years, Reference Number 2009/116. All participant recruitment, distribution of research materials, interviews and
analysis was conducted by the author, who was independent
of the course outcomes (as he did not teach on the course
studied – ChemMat 211 – nor have any influence on the students marks, laboratory demonstrators pay, nor the teaching
staff’s jobs). The author however has taught and will in the
future teach the BE students in this study, which potentially
may have increased the response rate and bias the types of
responses towards the more positive from the BE students.
3.1.
Participant recruitment
All participants were teaching staff, laboratory demonstrators and students from the University of Auckland Chemical
and Materials Engineering course, ChemMat 211-‘Introduction
to Process Engineering’. These three groups were surveyed
and analysed separately, with the student participants separated further into four groups, according to their academic
discipline to enable comparison to the relevant literature data
(which focuses on single discipline cohorts):
• Bachelor of Engineering (BE) Students (predominantly from the
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering).
• BE–Conjoint Students (who are students that are also studying for another degree in conjunction with a Bachelor of
Engineering in the Department of Chemical and Materials
Engineering). Since these students’ second degrees are all
from different departments, their survey results were not
used in comparison to literature for the ‘pure’ academic
disciplines.
• Bachelor of Science (BSc) Students (all studying Food Science,
run by the Department of Chemistry).
• Bachelor of Technology (BTech) Students (all doing a Biotechnology degree, run by the Faculty of Science’s Biology
Department).
There was also one student doing a Certificate of Proficiency, whose survey results was also not used due to lack
of a distinct discipline.
The period studied in this research was from the 2nd of
March 2009 to the 24th of May 2009. At the start of this period,
the multimedia laboratory manual was made available online
to all of the above potential participants, and was used thereafter. Students, teaching staff and laboratory demonstrators
were also given a copy of the regular paper laboratory manual.
Web-counters on the videos (from YouTube.com) and the first
webpage (from freecounters.co.uk) were used to indicate if the
website was being used. The website address was provided
only to those participating in the research or those who had a
vested interest (i.e. students, staff and laboratory demonstrators of ChemMat 211, the author and his research supervisor,
the Head of Department (HOD) and website support personnel
in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, and
HODs from the Food Science and Technology Departments) in
order to try to limit the number of people who accessed it, so
that usage would mainly represent the potential participants.
There was nothing stopping these people also giving the web
address to someone else though—however it is expected this
e17
would have a minor impact on use of the website, since people
outside of this group would find nothing useful on the website
that warranted repeat visits. Also, web-spiders (for example
from search engines) can increase the number of hits counted
on a website. Consequently, these numbers will not be treated
as a definitive number of website usage and users. However, a
comparison of website hits throughout the semester, should
give a qualitative indication of whether or not the website is
being used.
Permission was then obtained from all of the potential participants’ Head of Departments and/or Head of the Degrees to
allow the author to approach students from each of the above
groups to participate in this project. Following gaining this permission (and 8 weeks after the website was made available), all
of the teaching staff, laboratory demonstrators, and students
in ChemMat 211 were approached to participate (through giving informed consent as per the ethics application) in either
or both of the two data gathering components of the research,
which were:
1. Three questionnaires: Inventory of Learning Styles, VARK,
and the multimedia laboratory manual feedback survey.
2. Focus groups: Used to provide more in-depth feedback on
the impact of the multimedia laboratory manual.
The participation and response rates obtained for these
components are given in Table 3 (Questionnaires) and Table 4
(Focus Groups). Everyone who participated in focus groups
also participated in the surveys.
Participation and response rates to the questionnaires were
reasonable for all but the BSc Students. This is understandable, since investing their time in this project yielded less
advantages for them, since the outcomes will (in the immediate future) change teaching practice within the Engineering
Faculty only. Also, despite the high response rate, there are
comparatively few BTech students in the cohort. Therefore,
since there were so few BSc and BTech student participants,
results are not generalised beyond those sampled for these
disciplines. Student participation for all disciplines in the
focus groups was disappointingly low (Table 4): in fact there
was no BSc student focus group as no participants were able
to be recruited. Consequently, the student focus group results
were only used as complimentary data to assist with the interpretation of the questionnaire data.
The data collection from these participants was then conducted as follows:
3.2.
Data Collection and Analysis
3.2.1.
The Questionnaires
All questionnaire component participants were asked to complete three anonymous questionnaires. The first two were the
Index of Learning styles and VARK questionnaires, directly
copied from their respected websites (see below) and given
to the participants to complete on paper. Participants only
identified their job (teaching or laboratory demonstrator) or
degree on these forms as an additional measure to preserve anonymity. These questionnaires were then processed
by the author to determine the learning styles, by manually
inputting the data into the corresponding web based questionnaires:
• Index of Learning styles: http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/
learningstyles/ilsweb.html. Based on the responses, this
e18
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Table 3 – Participation and response to the questionnaires for each of the groups studied.
Group
Total in
class
Participants giving
permission to be
surveyed
Responses to Learning
styles surveys (ILS and
VARK)
Responses to feedback
survey
No. of
participants
No of
participants
No of
participants
% Response
% Response
% Response
BE students
BE-conjoint students
BSc students
BTech students
49
5
35
6
23
4
3
3
47%
80%
9%
50%
20
4
3
2
41%
80%
9%
33%
10
3
2
1
20%
60%
6%
17%
All students
96a
33
34%
29
30%
16
17%
4
3
4
3
100%
100%
3
3
75%
100%
3
2
75%
67%
103
40
39%
35
34%
21
20%
Lab. Demonstrators
Teaching
Total
a
Also includes the one student studying for a Certificate of Proficiency.
Table 4 – Participation in the focus groups for each of the groups studied.
Group
Total in class
Participants giving permission to
be in focus groups
Participants actually attending
focus groups
No. of participants
No. of participants
% Response
% Response
BE students
BE-conjoint students
BSc students
BTech students
49
5
35
6
4
0
0
1
8%
0%
0%
17%
1
0
0
1
2%
0%
0%
17%
All students
96a
6a
6%
2
2%
4
3
4
2
100%
67%
4
2
100%
67%
103
11
11%
8
8%
Lab. Demonstrators
Teaching
Total
a
Also includes the one student studying for a Certificate of Proficiency.
less of the strength of their preference to that dimension.
So, for example, for the Index of Learning styles, participants
attributed as being active learners, included the entire range
from weak active learners (−1 in the scale) to strong active
learners (−11 in the scale).
After the ChemMat 211 laboratory programme had finished
(week 12 of the study), all participants were asked to complete a third questionnaire: a brief feedback survey to both
quantitatively and qualitatively determine the impact of the
Experiment C1 multimedia laboratory manual. This had 20
yes/no and Likert Scale tick box questions on the impact of
the multimedia laboratory manual on learning and laboratory
performance compared to the paper laboratory manuals, as
well as four open-ended questions so participants could elaborate on their responses (the actual questionnaire is available
from the author by request as ‘Additional Information A’). The
‘Yes/No’ and Likert scale answers to the questionnaire were
inputted into MS Excel and analysed quantitatively. In order
to match different learning styles, results will be presented
web page gives a participant’s preference to each dimension
in the following scales (Fig. 2).
• VARK:
http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=
questionnaire. Based on the responses, this web page gives
each input style (visual, aural, read/write and kinaesthetic)
a score from 0 to 16, and the relative difference between
the scores is used to determine the participant’s preferred
learning input styles. If two or more input style scores are
similar, the participant is deemed multimodal in these
respective input styles.
For analysis, the learning styles results were inputted
into an MS Excel spreadsheet, grouped (staff, laboratory
demonstrator and students by degree), and the mean and percentage of participants in each group with each learning style
dimension was calculated and compared to determine any significant overall trends and/or differences between the learning
styles. Note that in order to compare to previous literature, a
participant was similarly attributed to a dimension regard-
Strongly active
Strongly sensing
-11
9
-7
Strongly visual
Strongly sequential
Weakly active
Weakly reflective
Weakly sensing Weakly intuitive
-5
-3
-1
Weakly visual
Weakly seq.
+1
+3
+5
Weakly verbal
Weakly global
Strongly reflective
Strongly intuitive
+7
+9
+11
Strongly verbal
Strongly global
Fig. 2 – The scales between the poles of each dimension in the Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning styles.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
as a graphical comparison and as a basic statistical analysis of the Likert scale data (the mean and standard deviation
(s.d.) were calculated by attributing the following numerical values to the Likert scale: strongly disagree, 1; disagree,
2; neutral, 3; agree, 4; strongly agree, 5; not applicable, not
used). However, since the graphical analysis provided richer
and more immediate detail on the feedback, this statistical
analysis will be discussed only when it adds further evidence
to this. The open-ended questions were analysed using a qualitative method: a basic thematic analysis as outlined in Braun
and Clarke (2006). This involved looking for recurring phrases
and themes, in order to determine the common overall reactions, themes and opinions. The combined quantitative and
qualitative results were then reconciled in terms of the teaching styles enabled by the multimedia and paper manuals and
learning styles in each of the groups studied (students, laboratory demonstrators and teaching staff).
3.2.2.
The focus groups
Following the return and analysis of the feedback survey, four
different focus group discussion sessions were run to obtain
more detailed feedback and further explore the themes developed. Due to low student participation (Table 4), these were
only for the following groups:
•
•
•
•
BE students (who have completed Experiment C1)
BTech students (who have completed Experiment C1)
Laboratory demonstrators
Teaching staff
Focus group discussions were conducted in a ‘neutral’
meeting room at the University of Auckland and lasted
between 20 and 60 min. The discussions were audio-recorded
and transcribed by an external party. The transcript was then
sent to the participants for an opportunity to correct any mistakes, exclude any item and/or clarify anything in it they said.
Furthermore, in all but the teaching focus group, writing was
used in addition to the normal questioning technique to obtain
feedback using both aural and read/write learning styles (as
befitting a study of different learning styles). The resulting
transcripts and written material were analysed using the basic
thematic analysis outlined above. As a consequence of the
poor student participation, student focus group results were
only used to further illustrate the themes that were developed in the feedback survey. In contrast, teaching staff and
laboratory demonstrator focus groups (which had high participation) yielded unique and valuable information, that was
again reconciled in terms of the teaching and learning styles
(as above).
4.
Results, analyses and discussion
4.1.
Learning styles of the students in ChemMat 211
4.1.1. Learning styles as measured by the Index of
Learning styles
Table 5 summarises the results from the Index of Learning
styles survey. A wide range of learning styles are present in the
student cohort (as well as the laboratory demonstrators and
teaching staff), which means that the wide range of learning
styles that the multimedia laboratory manual caters for (by the
features outlined in Section 2.2.1) should enable better learning and pre-laboratory preparation from more of the students
than is currently catered for by the paper laboratory manual.
e19
Table 5 shows that the main learning styles used by
the different groups where: students – reflective, sensing,
visual, sequential; laboratory demonstrators – reflective, intuitive, visual, sequential; teaching – reflective, intuitive, visual,
global. The fact that a majority of the students are sensing
(oriented towards oriented toward facts and procedures, preferring sights, sounds and physical sensations) and visual in
particular indicates that the multimedia aspects of the website (especially the procedural videos and the colour labelled
photos) are likely to enable better learning.
When comparing the Engineering students results (since
this is the only grouping with a large number of participants)
to the literature (e.g. Table 1), the NZ-based BE students in
this class have a more reflective rather than active learning style. Thus, as expected (see Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.4
for explanation), the learning styles of this NZ Engineering
cohort is different to the published ‘engineering norm’ which
is predominantly based on American and European learners (Table 1). These NZ engineers are more reflective learners
and this means that the learning styles of these students are
better matched with their teacher’s reflective teaching styles
than the ‘engineering norm’. The other dimensions are mismatched similarly to previous literature (comparing Table 5 to
Table 1).
4.1.2. Learning input style as measured by the VARK
questionnaire
As outlined in Section 2.2.1, VARK input learning preferences
relate directly to multimedia features (other than for kinaesthetic learners, who are not catered for by these multimedia
manuals). Therefore, VARK results give an indication of what
should be useful to students in the multimedia laboratory
manual. The results (Table 6) show that for the students
surveyed, the aural learning style was the least preferred,
indicating that the videos (visual), hypertext and hyperlinks
(read/write) and labelled photos and graphics (visual) should
enable improved learning.
4.2.
Feedback on the multimedia laboratory manual
Using this learning style data and trends, all of the student responses were then analysed together (regardless of
discipline) and compared with those from the laboratory
demonstrators and teachers and literature (where possible).
4.2.1.
Use of the multimedia laboratory manual
All of the students that responded to the feedback survey
had completed Experiment C1 and had used the multimedia
laboratory manual to prepare for this laboratory experiment.
The web counter and YouTube video use tracking further confirmed that the Experiment C1 multimedia laboratory manual
was being accessed. Over the period of interest in this research
(2nd March 2009 to 24th of May 2009) there were 278 unique
hits on the multimedia manual website out of 604 total hits.
This is more than the total number of participants, most
likely because of the impact of web-spiders as well as the fact
that students use different computers (at home, at university, etc.) which will register as a different unique hit rather
than there being a large number of non-participant users. The
web counter data however indicated that the website was used
with the most intense use during periods when Experiment C1
was running, indicating that real usage can be distinguished
above the background of website hits from web-spiders and
hits from people external to the course. It is reasonable to
e20
Table 5 – Percentage of participants in each group with each Index of Learning styles dimension.
Group
No. of participants
Total in class
% of participants with Index of Learning styles dimension
Perception
Active
Input
Reflective
Processing
Sensing
Intuitive
Understanding
Visual
Verbal
Sequential
Global
20
4
3
2
49
5
35
6
40
25
33
0
60
75
67
100
89
0
100
0
11
100
0
100
83
75
100
50
17
25
0
50
85
50
67
0
15
50
33
100
All students
29
96a
34
66
69
31
81
19
72
28
3
3
4
3
33
33
67
67
33
33
67
67
67
100
33
0
100
33
0
67
Lab. Demonstrators
Teaching
a
Also includes the one student studying for a Certificate of Proficiency.
Table 6 – Percentage of participants in each group with each VARK learning input dimension.
Group
No. of participants
Total in class
% Multimodala
% of participants with each VARK Dimension
Visual
Aural
Read/write
% Using all four
VARK dimensions
Kineasthetic
BE students
BE-conjoint students
BSc students
BTech students
20
4
3
2
49
5
35
6
75
50
100
0
60
50
67
0
80
75
100
100
70
50
100
0
85
75
100
0
40
25
67
0
All students
29
96b
57
46
69
54
74
38
3
3
4
3
67
67
67
33
100
67
67
33
67
33
67
33
Lab. Demonstrators
Teaching
a
b
Multimodal means students who use two or more of the VARK learning styles according to the VARK survey results.
Also includes the one student studying for a Certificate of Proficiency.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
BE students
BE-conjoint students
BSc students
BTech students
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
assume that students would not make this use of the multimedia laboratory manual unless it helped enhance their learning
by better meeting their learning styles and interests. Fig. 3a
(feedback survey, question 7) shows that a majority of those
students surveyed found the multimedia laboratory manual
more interesting than the paper laboratory manual, indicating
that this may be the case. Overall, the remaining results show
that teaching staff, students and demonstrators also found the
multimedia laboratory manual more useful; the rationale for
this relate to their learning styles and a case for this will be
made using the remaining feedback data.
Firstly, the response from all students to question 13 in the
feedback survey (‘I watched and read all of the content on the
multimedia laboratory manual’) is shown in Fig. 3b. This indicates that not all of the website was actually used, which is to
be expected considering the mixture of learning styles present
in the class. Which components were used and deemed useful then? Based on the feedback from students in both the
feedback survey and the focus groups, the labelled diagrams
and the videos were the two most useful components. This
can be related directly to student learning styles, since the
students have a visual learning input preference in both the
Index of Learning styles and VARK results. This preference was
also articulated many times by students, and is illustrated by
the following representative quotes from students in reply to
open ended question 1 in the feedback survey–“What parts (if
any) of the multimedia laboratory manual were most useful
for your preparation for and performance in the laboratory?
Please explain the reason(s) for this”:
“The pictures and diagrams – made it clear what we were
going to do.” BE-conjoint student A.
“The videos describing the equipment & how the experiment works. Made it a lot easier to understand what was
happening and the tasks required in the experiment.” BEstudent B.
Question 16 of the survey (‘I watched all of the videos on the
multimedia manual website’: results in Fig. 3c) indicates that
not all the videos were watched by all users. ‘YouTube Insight’
tracking of the use of the videos was used to see which were
the most popular (and by implication, which were the most
useful). This showed that the first five videos were viewed
the most (i.e. the introduction, experimental aim and equipment overview videos). Since web spiders are likely to access
all videos equally, this can be considered a valid result. The
open-ended survey responses (as above) and feedback from
teaching staff and students in the focus groups also confirmed
this result—the equipment overview videos were the most
useful. The videos that went stepwise through the experimental instructions were less used and less valued. The reasons
for this are revealed by the learning students derived from the
multimedia laboratory manual.
4.2.2.
Learning from the multimedia laboratory manual
Fig. 4 shows the students’ results from the feedback survey
related to the impact on learning from using the multimedia laboratory manual. Overall, students perceived that they
had an enhanced experience by using the multimedia laboratory manual. This is based on the fact that a majority
(88%) of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the
multimedia laboratory manual increased their learning (question 14, Fig. 4a), and students unanimously agree that the
multimedia laboratory manual contributed to a better under-
e21
standing of the experiment than the paper manual (question
5, Fig. 4b). This again can directly related to the fact that they
are sensing and visual learners and the website’s enhanced
visual elements therefore improved learning and understanding. For example, students revealed that the website’s pictures
enhanced learning for the following reasons:
“The advantage of having it on a website so say it’s in colour,
on paper it would have to be in black and white so really if it
is in black and white it’s better to have a line diagram, that
makes it less confusing yeah.” BE-student K (focus group).
“[The labelled photos] allowed to me construct a “visual
map” of the layout of equipment and dicern [sic] the purposes of the experiment.” BE-J (feedback survey).
Despite being unique to the website, the learning value of
the videos was however less clear to the students surveyed.
Although a majority agreed (88% agreed or strongly agreed)
that the website’s videos helped explain the experiment more
clearly than the paper laboratory manual (feedback survey
question 18, Fig. 4c), 13% of students surveyed were positive
that the videos did not increase their understanding of the
experiment (question 9, Fig. 4d; with only 69% disagreeing or
strongly disagreeing to this question). If it is assumed that this
result is not due to an erroneous reading of this question by
some of students (question 9 was deliberately designed to be
a negative ‘did not’ question in contrast to the positive ‘did’
type questions which comprised most of the feedback survey in order to determine if the participants were answering
the questions deliberately or not), this result indicates that
although the videos are better at explaining the experiment
than the paper manual, they still do not sufficiently match
student learning input styles to enhance everyone’s understanding. In addition to the unavoidable problems of personal
taste (some students probably just did not like the format
and/or presentation of the videos and so did not watch them),
this could help explain why the videos were not well used (as
examined above): many students do not learn as effectively
aurally and but have a strong visual learning style preference,
therefore found that the labelled colour pictures were either
sufficient or more suitable to enhance their understanding
and therefore did not bother with the videos. This finding was
elaborated upon by a BE student in a focus group:
“I didn’t really find the videos very useful because someone
that talks and points at something I found it very difficult to
remember what they say whereas I see a picture, it’s easier
for me to understand pictures.” BE-student K (focus group).
Watching television and videos can be a passive process
that people equate with relaxation, so perhaps these results
show that videos represent a passive mode of learning in
this instance. This result is also related to another theme
that came out of both the feedback surveys and focus groups:
the impression by many that the videos took too much time
to watch. In fact some students and teaching staff explicitly
stated that they were too long, and so this is being rectified
in the next version. Also, other information methods, such as
the pop-ups used by Zamri et al. (2008) could be used instead.
If many of the students who used the website had this opinion and were like one of the students interviewed in the focus
groups who looked at the website only briefly before performing the laboratory experiment, and given that many of the
students are sequential learners (as per Table 5), it is understandable that many of the videos later on in the website
e22
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
100%
90%
100%
90%
a
mean = 2.1
s.d. = 1.1
80%
70%
I watched and read all of the content on the multimedia
laboratory manual website (Q13).
b
mean = 3.8
s.d. = 1.7
70%
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
80%
The multimedia laboratory manual was less interesting than
the paper laboratory manual (Q7).
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
0%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Response
100%
90%
% of Respondents
80%
I watched all of the videos on the multimedia laboratory
manual website (Q16).
c
mean = 3.8
s.d. = 2.2
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Fig. 3 – Overall student feedback survey response to Likert scale questions related to website interest and use.
were not viewed as much as the earlier ones. These findings
exactly mirror the findings of Craddock and Chevalier (2002)
who found that despite students understanding the potential
benefits of a multimedia laboratory manual, not all students
were willing to invest the time to gain them (Craddock and
Chevalier, 2002, p. 730). That said, a majority (69%) of students
surveyed still found that the videos increased their understanding of the experiment, confirming their worth to the
wider student cohort.
Another component that is unique to the website compared to the paper manual are the hyperlinks, which in theory
enable a more global picture of the experiment to be built up
compared to that afforded by a paper manual (see Section
2.2.1). These links to course content, laboratory timetables and
laboratory instructions most likely being primarily responsible
for zero students disagreeing that the multimedia laboratory
manual allowed them to better relate the laboratory to the
course content than the paper manual (feedback survey question 17, Fig. 4e). The worth of these hyperlinks is further
emphasised by the result that 62% of those surveyed agreeing or strongly agreeing that ‘the links to industry spray tower
applications in the website helped to explain the purpose of
the experiment more clearly’ (feedback survey question 12,
Fig. 4f). This is more than double the 28% global learners in
the survey (Table 5), showing that learning style is not the only
determinant of who will appreciate learning through a wider
contextualisation of the laboratory. A laboratory demonstrator even found these hyperlinks to be the most useful feature
of the website:
“‘The uses of Spray Towers in Industry’ – this enhances my
understanding and helps me to explain to the students the
relevant (sic) of experiment C1 to the “real world”. – so that
the students can “see” the “importance” and “significance”
of doing the experiment rather than just performing it for
the sake of passing the paper!” – Laboratory demonstrator
A (feedback survey).
Despite all these positives, the multimedia laboratory manual was not the main aspect of the Experiment C1 experience
that contributed the most to student learning. Instead, open
ended question 2 in the feedback survey (‘What aspect of your
experience of doing Experiment C1 contributed the most to
your learning and why?’) revealed the most valuable aspects
to learning were related to the experience of doing the labora-
e23
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
90%
% of Respondents
80%
100%
The multimedia laboratory manual increased my learning
(Q14).
90%
a
mean = 4.1
s.d. = 1.1
80%
% of Respondents
100%
70%
60%
50%
40%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
% of Respondents
80%
The website’s videos helped explain the experiment more
clearly than the paper laboratory manual (Q18).
90%
c
mean = 4.1
s.d. = 1.4
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
80%
The videos did not increase my understanding of the
experiment (Q9).
d
mean = 2.1
s.d. = 1.3
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
100%
90%
The multimedia laboratory manual allowed me to better
relate the laboratory to the course content than the paper
manual (Q17).
90%
e
mean = 3.9
s.d. = 1.4
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
100%
70%
80%
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
80%
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
100%
% of Respondents
90%
Agree
Response
Response
100%
b
mean = 4.5
s.d. = 1.4
70%
30%
0%
The multimedia laboratory manual contributed to a better
understanding of the experiment than the paper manual (Q5).
60%
50%
40%
30%
70%
f
mean = 3.5
s.d. = 2.0
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
The links to industry spray tower applications in the website
helped to explain the purpose of the experiment more
clearly (Q12).
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Fig. 4 – Overall student feedback survey response to Likert scale questions related to the impact on learning from the use of
the multimedia laboratory manual.
tory, such as conducting the experiment (kinaesthetic learning
which is an important learning input style to these students
– Table 6), performing the calculations on the real system,
and the help from the demonstrators. This is not surpris-
ing, since the first two reasons are why these laboratories are
done in conjunction with the lecture course in the first place.
Fortunately, the multimedia laboratory manual enhances this
learning experience (as demonstrated above), which is directly
e24
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
a result of the matching of teaching and learning styles it
enables. However, does this increased learning translate into
benefits to laboratory preparation and performance?
4.2.3.
Laboratory preparation and performance
The preparation and performance related results from the
feedback survey (Fig. 5) and the student and laboratory demonstrator focus groups unanimously show that students were
better prepared for the experiment when they used the multimedia laboratory manual compared to experiments where
there was not one available. In terms of results, 88% of the students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the multimedia
laboratory manual better prepared them for the experiment
than the paper laboratory manual (feedback survey question
6, Fig. 5a). Students attributed this directly to their use of multimedia laboratory manual in focus groups. The reason for this
relates to the increased learning and understanding the multimedia components enabled. This outcome is well summarised
by the following focus group extracts:
“. . .in the three hours I wasn’t having to like understand all
the equipment in the experiment, like I could see it beforehand so when I was actually doing the experiment I could
just focus on that.” BTech student A (focus group).
“[Using the multimedia laboratory manual] I actually
understood, before I went to the lab I actually understood
a bit more of what actually I’m required to do whereas for
the other labs I sort of just copied down the method and
then went to the lab and had to have an explanation from
the supervisor of what was required.” “Usually for the other
labs I just went through the description of the experiment
and it was a bit vague what they want to do.” BE-student K
(focus group).
This result is in line with the performance increases
obtained through the use of multimedia manuals by Nippert
(2001) and Burewicz and Miranowicz (2006) and better than
that obtained by Craddock and Chevalier (2002), where only
67% of students reported being better prepared for the experiments. The excellent preparation of students in the current
study may be related to the aforementioned good match of
learning styles to the website content: the sensing and visual
learning enabled by the website is preferred by a majority
of students (Tables 5 and 6). This hypothesis is further substantiated by further feedback survey results: 94% of students
surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the website’s labelled
diagrams better prepared them for the experiment than the
labelled diagrams in the paper manual (feedback survey question 8, Fig. 5b).
This better preparation translated into better performance
perceived by students in the laboratory also: 75% of students
surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the multimedia laboratory manual helped them to more easily perform the tasks
in Experiment C1 (feedback survey question 15, Fig. 5c). This
however did not necessarily mean that the student’s needed
the laboratory demonstrator’s help less however: 56% of the
students surveyed did not think that they needed the laboratory demonstrator’s help less because of the multimedia
laboratory manual (feedback survey question 11, Fig. 5d). This
is despite the fact that the laboratory demonstrators reported
that students were more focussed, confident and on task in
Experiment C1 compared to different laboratory experiments:
“[In Experiment C1] they already know in their mind what
they want to use and they know that it’s about temper-
ature - that is the most important thing that they have to
measure all the time right for their experiment.” Laboratory
demonstrator (focus group).
This increased level of preparation does not necessary
translate into a need for less guidance however: for example
a laboratory demonstrator also reported that the increased
student confidence also lead to more procedural mistakes
from students operating the equipment without confirmation
from the demonstrators. The continued need for help from
laboratory demonstrators can also be reconciled in terms of
the learning styles within the student cohort—since many
students are sensing learners (Table 5), as well as being kinaesthetic learners (Table 6), live demonstrations and interactions
are an important and vital part of the laboratory teaching
and learning process for them. Therefore, laboratory demonstrators will always be needed and we will never be able to
make good on the suggestion from the laboratory demonstrator focus group that a well designed multimedia website could
replace demonstrators.
In terms of the use of the multimedia manual beyond
preparation for the laboratory experiments, only 75% of those
surveyed had used it to complete their compulsory laboratory
journal write-up and only 69% used it to write up their formal laboratory report. This latter result may however mostly
reflect the fact that not all students were required to complete
a formal laboratory report for this experiment. Overall though,
use after the laboratory was lower than use for preparation
before the experiment, which perhaps indicates that some
students perceived it as a preparation tool only. Better advertising of its full range of uses is therefore recommended for
any multimedia manual. Additionally, the student response to
question 10 in the feedback survey (Fig. 5e) showed that this
lack of after laboratory use could also be because many students did not find it useful for this: although 63% of students
agreed or strongly agreed that it was the best form of help in
writing up the laboratory journal and/or report, 31% of those
surveyed did not. The response to this question also gave the
widest spread of answers (a large standard deviation of 2.7,
compared to the typical standard deviation of 1.4), confirming
that the student opinion was split. This may be because for
some students other forms of help were more useful (e.g. laboratory demonstrators and course notes), or perhaps because
many of the multimedia elements did not easily translate into
the read/write learning style used for writing up the work.
However, despite these results and the lower reported after
laboratory usage, the use of the multimedia manual before
and/or after the laboratory did have a noticeable beneficial
effect on the laboratory reports. Both a laboratory demonstrator and member of the teaching staff reported in focus groups
that the reports for Experiment C1 were of a higher standard
than the other reports (therefore getting better marks), with
the students appearing to have a better understanding of the
theory and the laboratory work they had done. There were
three reasons for this (which were extracted from both the
student and laboratory demonstrator responses in the focus
groups and to the feedback survey open-ended question ‘How
did you use the C1 multimedia laboratory manual in your postlaboratory write-up?’):
1. Students were able to use the website as a reference to
refresh their memory of the laboratory experience in an
immediate and visual way.
2. The hyperlinks to additional content allowed students to
more easily access background and course information for
e25
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
90%
% of Respondents
80%
100%
The multimedia laboratory manual better prepared me for
the experiment than the paper laboratory manual (Q6).
The website’s labelled photos better prepared me for the
90% experiment than the labelled diagrams in the paper manual
(Q8).
b
mean = 4.6
80%
a
mean = 4.3
s.d. = 1.4
s.d.
% of Respondents
100%
70%
60%
50%
40%
= 1.4
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
100%
90%
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
100%
The multimedia laboratory manual helped me to more
easily perform the tasks in lab C1 (Q15).
90%
c
80%
mean = 3.8
s.d. = 1.6
70%
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
80%
Agree
60%
50%
40%
30%
I needed the laboratory demonstrator’s help less
because of using the multimedia laboratory manual
(Q11).
d
mean = 3.4
s.d. = 1.5
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
100%
90%
% of Respondents
80%
70%
The multimedia laboratory manual was the best form of
help in writing up the laboratory journal and/or report
(Q10).
e
mean = 3.8
s.d. = 2.7
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Strongly Disagree Neutral
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Fig. 5 – Overall student feedback survey response to Likert scale questions related to the impact on preparation and
performance in the laboratory from using the multimedia laboratory manual.
the report content. The links to the real world applications
also allowed them to more easily bring a more global picture to the report.
3. The labelled pictures provided students with a model
of how to visually summarise the experimental setup,
without resorting to having to painstakingly (and less effectively) describe it. In other words, students learnt how to
more effectively communicate using a wider range of learning styles through using the website. In fact one student
transposed this learning to other laboratory experiments:
e26
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
“After using the C1 multimedia lab manual, I liked the diagrams so for one other lab I brought camera along so I could
do the same (make my “own version” of multimedia lab
manual).” BE-student K (feedback survey).
The multimedia laboratory manual also had an unfortunate additional negative outcome on reports too. As a
consequence of having more information readily available in
the website, it was reported that plagiarism (perhaps unintentional) increased in the reports on Experiment C1 compared
to reports on the two other experiments (without multimedia
manuals available). The plagiarism was because several students copied and pasted some of the text unique to the website
verbatim without referencing it. Since this did not occur as
prominently with text from the printed and pdf version of the
laboratory manual and in the reports based on the other experiments, this could perhaps indicates that some students do
not treat text on the internet as sacrosanct as they do text on
a pdf or printed page. It may also be because it is slightly easier
to copy and paste text from a website than to type it in from
the printed manual or copy and paste from a pdf version of the
manual. This is a behaviour that has been observed elsewhere
(e.g. Scanlon and Neumann, 2002).
4.2.4.
Overall user satisfaction
Overall, there was almost universal satisfaction with the multimedia laboratory manual in the feedback survey and focus
groups (question 19, Fig. 6a). Teaching staff and laboratory
demonstrators were the most positive groups, with 100%
agreeing or strongly agreeing they were satisfied with the C1
multimedia laboratory manual. Students were slightly less
satisfied with 6% neutral but still 94% agreeing or strongly
agreeing, perhaps reflecting the expected larger range in attitudes from this larger population. A majority of students
however were positive and teaching staff related this in their
focus group:
“. . .when I asked the class in the beginning did you enjoy
the labs and they say yeah the labs are fantastic and I was
quite shocked to hear that because normally labs people
think labs are dreary and boring . . .. they say they loved the
website so because they went to the lab and understood
what they were going to be doing, because it was such an
easy way to understand the material . . .. so they actually
understood why they were doing the lab and therefore I
think it became more worthwhile for them.” Teaching staff
A (focus group).
Teaching staff also commented on why they thought the
multimedia laboratory manual was superior to the paper laboratory manual:
“Well in principal I think the students love to have the multimedia and they find it more enjoyable. In addition to the
clarity I did see the video presentation and the diagrams
and things and I think it did describe things in a more
pleasant way than the manual.” Teaching staff B (focus
group).
This satisfaction and enjoyment is likely related to the
multimedia laboratory manual’s matching of teaching and
learning styles, which here, like in previous studies, has
lead to enhanced student learning, increased interest in the
course and (for the report writing) increased academic success (Gregoric, 1979, 1985; Dunn and Dunn, 1979; Felder and
Silverman, 1988; Fowler et al., 2002; Zywno and Waalen, 2001).
Staff were also satisfied by the additional uses beyond
helping just students. Since all laboratory demonstrators are
postgraduate students, a new set of laboratory demonstrators needs to be trained every 2–3 years. In focus groups,
both the laboratory demonstrators and the teaching staff indicated that multimedia laboratory manual was an invaluable
tool for training the laboratory demonstrators and for getting consistent laboratory demonstration and running of the
experiments for year to year. The multimedia laboratory manual is effective as a ‘model’ experimental run for training and
for mediating the effect of varying laboratory demonstrator
competencies (as originally mooted in Section 1). A similar outcome was also mentioned by Craddock and Chevalier
(2002) for their multimedia laboratory manual.
The ultimate test of satisfaction with the multimedia laboratory manual is whether or not it should be used more.
Overall, 80% of students, laboratory demonstrators and teaching staff agree or strongly agree that a multimedia laboratory
manual should be provided for all experiments (feedback survey question 20, Fig. 6b). However, this does not mean the
paper manual should be discontinued, as requested by one
BSc student:
“The multimedia lab manual is fantastic, but the paper
manual is useful too and can’t be replaced. It’s better to
have both!! ” BSc-student A.
The students in Craddock and Chevalier’s (2002) study of a
multimedia manual also wanted to retain the paper manual.
This is therefore probably a common theme and is most likely
because a majority of the students surveyed (in this work at
least) have read–write and visual learning style preferences
and because paper manuals are easier to carry around and
use in the laboratory (where there are insufficient computer
resources to allow all students to access the multimedia laboratory manual whilst performing the experiments).
Although these results seem overwhelming positive, there
was some dissatisfaction with the multimedia laboratory
manual as it stands. In particular, in the teaching focus
group, there was concern about the possible loss in learning
opportunities created by the greater amount of guidance the
multimedia laboratory manual gives to the students compared
to the more constructionist discovery-learning approach for
students to learn in the laboratory when provided with a
minimalistic printed laboratory manual. However, a constructionist discovery-learning approach is unfortunately currently
not feasible in many teaching laboratories across the world
(including this one), due to the high cost and consequent timeconstraints placed on the ensuring the laboratories are well
utilised across the degree to justify these costs (similar sentiments can be found in Ertugrul (2000), Powell et al. (2002)
and Chen et al. (2004). Furthermore, there is evidence that a
guided approach to learning, such as that facilitated by the
multimedia laboratory manual, enables greater student learning and achievement (Kirschner et al., 2006 and references
within). Consequently, a more guided approach, which in this
case arises largely as a consequence of matching teaching and
learning styles, is both necessary and pedagogically justifiable.
A further point of potential dissatisfaction (although not
raised by any participant in this work) is the notion that multimedia manuals could facilitate inappropriate training for
Engineers, Scientists and Technologists. This is because it can
also be argued that teaching in Engineering, Science or Technology (or any discipline) should prepare a student for good
practice in these disciplines, and since multimedia manuals
e27
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
100%
90%
90%
a
mean = 4.4
s.d. = 1.6
80%
A multimedia laboratory manual should be provided for all
experiments (Q20).
b
mean = 4.2
s.d. = 2.1
70%
70%
% of Respondents
% of Respondents
80%
100%
Overall, I was satisfied with the C1 multimedia lab manual (Q19).
60%
50%
40%
30%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Not
Agree Applicable
Response
Fig. 6 – Combined teaching staff, laboratory demonstrator and student feedback survey response to Likert scale questions
related to overall satisfaction from using the multimedia laboratory manual.
are not widely used (if at all) by practicing Engineers, Scientists or Technologists, using them will ill prepare students for
the reality of their working lives after University. To a certain
degree this is true (although there are roughly similar types of
systems, such as 3D CAD and photographic representations of
process plants routinely used to safely introduce staff to new
equipment and processes)—we have a responsibility to ensure
our students are able to cope with the realities of their working
life after University. However, as put by Kirschner et al. (2006):
“the epistemology of a discipline should not be confused with
a pedagogy for teaching or learning in it. The practice of a
profession is not the same as learning to practice the profession.” (Kirschner et al., 2006, p. 83). Therefore, to effectively
learn, students need to use methods that encourage their
learning, and this study has shown that the multimedia laboratory manual is one such method. In order to bridge the need
for preparation for the profession and the need to encourage
deep and long lasting learning, the author suggests that multimedia laboratory manuals be used in the earlier years of a
degree, such as in the first and second years, when students
are still being cultured into their discipline. The final years
of the degree, when students are closer to having to build a
bridge between their education and their working life, is when
models of professional practice should be emphasised more.
Therefore, this is when more minimal instruction using limited teaching and learning styles – like those matched by paper
laboratory manuals – should be used. In fact, the teaching staff
in their focus group stated that in third and fourth year laboratories that a less guided, more constructionist approach
is necessary for this same reason, confirming that this is a
sensible strategy. As a consequence of this argument, it can
be confidently said that the multimedia laboratory manual
used in this study is being used in an appropriate place in
all three of the degrees studied (BE, BSc and BTech), since
ChemMat 211 is a introductory course for all of these degrees.
This could all change in the future however, because multimedia manuals may be used by practising Engineers, Scientists
and Technologists in the future. So using them now could
be providing an additional educational benefit, as we could
effectively be ‘future-proofing’ our student’s skills sets and
expectations.
4.3.
Implications to all courses with a laboratory
component
Combining all of the above results gives a clear mandate for
an extension of this work to a larger project to incorporate
multimedia/hypermedia into teaching and learning, but not
only in the Bachelor of Engineering (Chemical and Materials) at the University of Auckland, but for all courses with
a laboratory component. This is because most laboratories
are still predominantly taught through using paper laboratory manuals, which the above study has shown can limit
the learning, understanding, performance and potentially the
academic success of a cohort of students that have a range of
different learning styles. Commonsense, experience and evidence from a wide range of studies (e.g. Kolb, 1981; Felder and
Silverman, 1988; Fowler et al., 2002), indicates that most (if not
all) student cohorts contain a mixture of different learning
styles. It therefore stands to reason that multimedia laboratory manuals would be beneficial in the laboratory component
of any course.
Further work is continuing looking at the impact of multimedia laboratory manuals over several semesters and also
across a wider range of laboratory experiments and Chemical
Engineering courses.
5.
Conclusions
The impact of using a multimedia laboratory manual
(http://camlin.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/course/cm211/labC1/) on
preparation, learning, satisfaction and performance in a mass
and energy balance laboratory within a mixed discipline
student cohort (Engineering, Science and Technology) at the
University of Auckland was examined over one semester
with respect to matching the teaching styles to those present
within the student cohort. Learning styles were measured by
the Felder–Silverman–Soloman Index of Learning styles and
the VARK learning styles instruments. This study determined
the following:
• A wide range of learning styles exists within the population
studied, indicating that student learning will benefit from
e28
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
the greater range of teaching styles enabled by the multimedia laboratory manual. The main learning styles used by
the different groups where:
◦ Students: Index of learning styles – reflective, sensing,
visual, sequential; VARK – visual and read/write.
◦ Laboratory demonstrators: Index of learning styles –
reflective, intuitive, visual, sequential; VARK – read/write.
◦ Teaching: Index of learning styles – reflective, intuitive,
visual, global; VARK – visual and read/write.
• The Auckland Engineering students surveyed in this course
(with a 41% response rate in the Learning Styles surveys) were more reflective learners than overseas cohorts
reported in prior literature. This result also indicates that
the learning styles of these students are better matched
with their teacher’s reflective teaching styles than the
international ‘engineering norm’. Since this is only these
student’s first semester in the Department Chemical and
Materials Engineering (and for most after only one year in
a General Engineering first year), compared to the overseas
cohorts this difference is most likely due to differences in
culture and/or pre-university education teaching styles that
will have dominated the influence on their learning styles.
This is because there has been insufficient time for them to
have socialised into the accreditation moderated teaching
and learning culture of Engineering.
• Feedback survey and focus group results showed that
overall there was almost universal satisfaction with the
multimedia laboratory manual from students, laboratory
demonstrators and teaching staff. Through using the
multimedia laboratory manual, understanding and learning in student preparation for the laboratory increased,
with students more easily performing laboratory tasks
and producing laboratory reports demonstrating increased
understanding and global learning. This is attributable to
the multimedia manual matching the teaching styles to a
wider range of learning styles than the traditional paper
manual. The two features that those surveyed attributed to
increasing learning and understanding beyond that enabled
by a paper manual were the laboratory labelled photos and
the equipment description videos, which are the sensing
and visual learning style related features (which are learning styles a majority of the students favour). An additional
reason for why these features were favoured is that they
enhanced student understanding by having to invest the
least amount of time.
• Student performance in the summative formal report part
of the laboratory assessment was increased by the multimedia lab manual: the reports for Experiment C1 were
reported to be of a higher standard (with correspondingly
higher marks) than the other reports. Students appeared to
have a better understanding of the theory and the laboratory
work they had done. There were three reasons for this: students were able to use the website as a reference to refresh
their memory of the laboratory experience in an immediate
and visual way, the hyperlinks to additional content allowed
students to more easily access background and course information for the report content and the students learnt how to
more effectively communicate using a wider range of learning styles (in particular by using labelled photos) through
using the website.
Overall, 80% of students, laboratory demonstrators and
teaching staff agree or strongly agree that a multimedia laboratory manual should be provided for all experiments. The
success of this finding indicates that similar types of multimedia laboratory manuals should be used in any and all
laboratory components of courses around the world in order
to better match a wider range of teaching and learning styles
and therefore increase learning and academic success.
Acknowledgements
Firstly, thank you to J. Kavanagh, D. Zamri, P. Koutouridis,
P. Johnson and A. Abbas at the University of Sydney,
whose Chemical Engineering laboratory website work initially inspired the multimedia manual that was studied in
this work. A special thank you to my ACADPRAC 706 project
supervisor Matiu Ratima, whose advice support, help and
encouragement saw me through this sometimes tortuous
but ultimately rewarding introduction into academic practice
research. Thanks also to Dr. Barbara Grant, whose invaluable
help (in conjunction with Matiu) enabled me to put my ethics
application together, and to Dr Ian (Manchester United) Brailsford, for the use of his audio recorder for the focus groups and
being always available for feedback, advice and encouragement. Thank you to Jan Rhodes at Audio Transcribing Service
Ltd, who quickly and accurately transcribed all of the focus
groups, and to Dr. Chris Smail who kindly and selflessly passed
on her contact details. Thanks also to Dr. Emma Patterson, for
being the willing star of the multimedia website videos and Dr.
Michael Hodgson for hosting the website on the Chemical and
Materials Engineering servers. Finally, an extra special thank
you to all of the heads of departments and degrees, course
coordinators and participants in this research: without you,
this study would not have been possible.
References
Adams, D.J., 2009. Current trends in laboratory class teaching in
university bioscience programmes. Bioscience Education 31,
1–14 (available from
www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol13/beej-133.pdf).
Amigud, Y., Archer, G., Smith, J., Szymanski, M., Servatius, B.,
2002. Assessing the quality of web-enabled laboratories in
Undergraduate Education. In: Proceedings of the 32nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston MA,
USA, November 6–9, F3E-12–F3E-16.
Bennett, C.I., 2003. Comprehensive Multicultural Education
Theory and Practice, Fifth ed. Pearson Education, Boston, USA.
Benseman, J., Coxon, E., Anderson, H., Anae, M., 2006. Retaining
non-traditional students: lessons learnt from Pasifika
students in New Zealand. Higher Education Research and
Development 25 (2), 147–162.
Bishop, R., 1999. Investigating Culturally Relevant Pedagogies for
Māori. In: Innovations for Effective Schooling Conference: The
New Zealand Experience, Lakeside Convention Centre,
Auckland, 25–28 August, pp. 1–26.
Bishop, R., 2003. Changing power relations in education: Kaupapa
Mäori messages for ‘mainstream’ education in Aotearoa/New
Zealand [1]. Comparative Education 39 (2), 221–238.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101.
Buch, K., Sena, C., 2001. Accommodating diverse learning styles
in the design and delivery of on-line learning experiences.
International Journal of Engineering Education 17 (1), 93–98.
Burewicz, A., Miranowicz, N., 2006. Effectiveness of multimedia
laboratory instruction. Chemistry Education Research and
Practice 7 (1), 1–12.
Byrne, E.P., 2007. Teaching & learning styles in engineering at
UCC. In: International Symposium for Engineering Education,
Dublin City University, Ireland, 17–19 September, pp. 167–172.
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
Cano, J., 1999. The relationship between learning style, academic
major, and academic performance of college students. Journal
of Agricultural Education 40 (1), 30–37.
Carver Jr., C.A., Howard, R.A, Lane, W.D., 1999. Enhancing student
learning through hypermedia courseware and incorporation
of student learning styles. IEEE Transactions on Education 42
(1), 33–38.
Cheatham, T.J., 2000. A Web-based lab manual for CS, 1 an
experiment. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 32 (1), 105–108.
Chen, C.-S., Hsieh, S.-H., Chuang, S.-C., Lin, S.-S., 2004. A pre-lab
tutoring system for strength of materials experiment.
Computer Applications in Engineering Education 12, 98–104.
Cordell, B.J., 1991. A study of learning styles and
computer-assisted instruction. Computers & Education 16 (2),
175–183.
Craddock, J.N., Chevalier, L.R., 2002. Development and formative
assessment of web-based multimedia labware for an
environmental engineering laboratory. International Journal
of Engineering Education 18 (6), 725–731.
Craddock, J.N., Chevalier, L.R., 2000. Web based laboratory
manuals in civil engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2000
International Conference on Engineering Education, Taipei,
Taiwan, August 14–16, pp. 1–5.
De Bello, T.C., 1990. Comparison of eleven major learning styles
models: variables, appropriate populations, validity of
instrumentation, and the research behind them. Reading &
Writing Quarterly 6 (3), 203–222.
Drago, W.A, Wagner, R.J., 2004. Vark preferred learning styles and
online education. Management Research News 27 (7), 1–13.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S., Klavas, A., 1989. Survey of research on
learning styles. Educational Leadership 46 (6), 50–58.
Dunn, R.S., Dunn, K.J., 1979. Learning styles/teaching styles:
should they. . .can they. . .be matched. Educational Leadership
36, 238–244.
Ertugrul, N., 2000. Towards virtual laboratories: a survey of
LabVIEW-based teaching/learning tools and future trends.
International Journal of Engineering Education 16 (3), 1–10.
Felder, R.M., Brent, R., 2005. Understanding student differences.
Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1), 57–72.
Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K., 1988. Learning and teaching styles in
engineering education. Engineering Education 78 (7), 674–681.
Felder, R.M., Spurlin, J., 2005. Applications, reliability and validity
of the index of learning styles. International Journal of
Engineering Education 21 (1), 103–112.
Felder, R.M., 1996. Matters of style. ASEE Prism 6 (4), 18–23.
Fleming, N., Baume, D., 2006. Learning styles again: VARKing up
the right tree! Educational Developments 7 (4), 4–7.
Fleming, N.D., Mills, C., 1992. Not another inventory, rather a
catalyst for reflection, to improve the academy 11, 137–155.
Also see www.vark-learn.com.
Fowler, L., McGill, D., Armarego, J., Allen, M., 2002. Quantitative
learning conversations: constructivism and its application to
learning in an engineering environment. In: Proceedings of
the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Higher
Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
(HERDSA), Perth, Western Australia, 7–10 July, pp. 254–262.
Fuchs, T., Wö␤mann, L., 2007. What accounts for international
differences in student performance? A re-examination using
PISA data. Empirical Economics 32, 433–464.
Gay, G., 2001. Effective multicultural teaching practices. In: Diaz,
C.F. (Ed.), Multicultural Education for the 21st Century.
Longman, New York, USA, pp. 23–41.
Gibbins, S., Sosabowski, M.H., Cunningham, J., 2003. Evaluation of
a web-based resource to support a molecular biology practical
class-does computer-aided learning really work?
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 31 (5), 352–355.
Gomes, V.G., Choy, B., Barton, G.W., Romagnoli, J.A., 2000.
Web-based courseware in teaching laboratory-based courses.
Global Journal of Engineering Education 4 (1), 65–71.
Gregoric, A., 1985. Inside Styles. Beyond the Basics. Gregoric
Associates, Columbia, CT, USA.
Gregoric, A.F., 1979. Learning/teaching styles: potent forces
behind them. Educational Leadership 36, 234–236.
e29
Hartel, R.W., 1995. Teaching and learning styles in food science.
Food Technology 4, 96–109.
Hativa, N., 2000. Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher
Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Higgins, K., O’Keeffe, D., 2004. An online digital engineering
module companion using biomedical applications. In:
Proceedings of EdTech 2004: Fifth Annual Irish Educational
Technology Users Conference, Tralee, Ireland, 3–4 June, pp.
1–3.
Howard, R.A., Carver, C.A., Lane, W.D., 1996. Felder’s learning
styles, Bloom’s taxonomy, and the Kolb learning cycle: tying it
all together in the CS2 course. In: Proceedings of the
twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer
science education, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 15–17 February, pp.
227–231.
Irvine, J.J., York, D.E., 1995. Learning styles and culturally diverse
students: a literature review. In: Banks, J.A., Banks, C.A.M.
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education.
Macmillan Publishing, New York, USA, pp. 484–497.
James, W.B., Blank, W.E., 1993. Review and critique of available
learning-style instruments for adults. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education 59, 47–57.
Jarvis, P., 1987, Adult Learning in the Social Context. (Croom
Helm, Sydney, Australia) (Cited in Pasikale, 1996).
Keefe, J.W., Languis, M., 1983. Learning Stages Network
Newsletter 4(2), 1 (Cited in Swisher and Schoorman, 2001).
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E., 2006. Why minimal
guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the
failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational
Psychologist 41 (2), 75–86.
Kolb, A.Y, Kolb, D.A., 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces:
enhancing experiential learning in higher education.
Academy of Management Learning & Education 4 (2), 193–212.
Kolb, D.A., 1981. Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In:
A.W. Chickering and Associates (Ed.), The Modern American
College. Responding to the New Realities and a Changing
Society. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, pp. 232–255.
Kuri, N.P., Truzzi, O.M.S., 2002. Learning styles of freshmen
engineering students. In: Proceedings of the 2002
International Conference on Engineering Education,
Manchester, England, 18–22 August, pp. 1–5.
Lee, H.P., 2002. Comparison between traditional and web-based
interactive manuals for laboratory-based subjects.
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 30
(4), 307–314.
Levinson, D., 1998. Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference
Handbook. Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ, p. 436.
Litzinger, T.A., Lee, S.H., Wise, J.C., Felder, R.M., 2005. A study of
the reliability and validity of the Felder–Soloman Index of
Learning Styles© . In: Proceedings of the 2005 American
Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, Portland, Oregon, USA, 12–15 June, pp. 1–13.
Litzinger, T.A., Lee, S.H., Wise, J.C., Felder, R.M., 2007. A
psychometric study of the Index of Learning Styles© . Journal
of Engineering Education 96 (4), 309–319.
Liu, M., Reed, W.M., 1994. The relationship between the learning
strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment.
Computers in Human Behaviour 10 (4), 419–434.
Ma, J., Nickerson, J.V., 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote
laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing
Surveys 38 (3), 1–24.
Montgomery, S.M., 1995. Addressing diverse learning styles
through the use of multimedia. In: 1995 Frontiers of Education
Conference, 1–4 November, Session 3a2, Paper 13, pp. 1–10.
Neumann, R., Becher, T., 2002. Teaching and learning in their
disciplinary contexts: a conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher
Education 27 (4), 405–417.
Neumann, R., 2001. Disciplinary differences and university
teaching. Studies in Higher Education 26 (2), 135–146.
Nippert, C.R., 2001. Using web based supplemental instruction for
chemical engineering laboratories. In: Proceedings of the 2001
e30
education for chemical engineers 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) e10–e30
American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA,
24–27 June, Session 2213, pp. 1–7.
Palou, E., 2006. Learning styles of Mexican food science and
engineering students. Journal of Food Science Education 5,
51–57.
Pasikale, A., 1996. Seen But Not Heard: Voices of Pacific Island
Learners. Pacific Islands Education Unit, Education & Training
Support Agency, Wellington, New Zealand.
Powell, R.M., Anderson, H., Van Der Spiegel, J., Pope, D.P., 2002.
Using web-based technology in laboratory instruction to
reduce costs. Computer Applications in Engineering
Education 10 (4), 204–214.
Rasteiro, M.G., Ferreira, L., Teixeira, J., Bernardo, F.P., Carvalho,
M.G., Ferreira, A., Ferreira, R.Q., Garcia, F., Baptista, C.M.S.G.,
Oliveira, N., Quina, M., Santos, L., Saraiva, P.A., Mendes, A.,
Magalhães, F., Almeida, A.S., Granjo, J., Ascenso, M., Bastos,
R.M., Borges, R., 2009. LABVIRTUAL—a virtual platform to
teach chemical processes. Education for Chemical Engineers 4
(1), e9–e19.
Reid, G., 2005. Learning Styles and Inclusion. Paul Chapman,
London, UK.
Rosati, P., 1998. The learning preferences of engineering students
from two perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual
Frontiers in Education Conference, Volume 01, November 4–7,
Temp, AZ, USA, pp. 29–32.
Rosati, P., 1999. Specific differences and similarities in the
learning preferences of engineering students. In: Proceedings
of the 1999 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, 10–13 November, pp. 12c1-17–12c1-22.
Scanlon, P.M., Neumann, D.R., 2002. Internet Plagiarism among
college students. Journal of College Student Development 43
(3), 374–385.
Selmer, A., Kraft, M., Moros, R., Colton, C.K., 2007. Weblabs in
chemical engineering education. Education for Chemical
Engineers 2 (1), 38–45.
Shulman, L., 2005. Signature Pedagogies in the professions.
Dædalus 134 (3), 52–59.
Sims, R.R., Sims, S.J. (Eds.), 2006. Learning Styles and Learning: A
Key to the Accountability Demands in Education. Nova
Science Publishers, New York, USA.
Statistics New Zealand, 2006, QuickStats About Culture and
Identity. http://www.statisticsnz.govt.nz/Census/2006Census
HomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/cultureand-identity.aspx.
Swisher, K., Schoorman, D., 2001. Learning styles: implications
for teachers. In: Diaz, C.F. (Ed.), Multicultural Education for the
21st Century. Longman, New York, pp. 55–70.
Torres, R.M., Cano, J., 1994. Learning styles of students in a
college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Education 35 (4),
61–66.
University of Auckland, 2009. The University of Auckland
Calendar 2009. The University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ, p.
551.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Population Profile of the United States:
2000 (Internet Release).
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popprofile/files/2000/chap02.pdf.
Zamri, D., Koutouridis, P., Johnson, P., Abbas, A., Kavanagh, J.,
2008. Supporting experiential learning: an integrated website
for chemical engineering laboratories. In: Proceedings of
Chemeca 2008, Newcastle, Australia, 28 September–1 October,
pp. 1–6.
Zapalska, A., Brozik, D., 2006. Learning styles and online
education. Campus-Wide Information Systems 23 (5),
325–335.
Zywno, M.S., Waalen, J.K., 2001. The effect of hypermedia
instruction on achievement and attitudes of students with
different learning styles. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American
Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and
Exposition, Session 1330, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June
24–27.
Zywno, M.S., 2003. A contribution to validation of score meaning
for Felder–Solomans’s Index of Learning styles. In:
Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Nashville, TN,
USA, 22–25 June, Session 2351, pp. 1–16.
Dr Darrell Alec Patterson is currently a Senior Lecturer in
Chemical and Processing Engineering at the University of
Auckland, New Zealand. Darrell began lecturing in August
2005, and since then has taught on at least 10 different courses
and received the Early Career Excellence in Teaching Award
from the University of Auckland Faculty of Engineering in 2008.
His current research interests concern aspects of green (sustainable and environmental) process engineering, including
catalytic reactor engineering, tuneable membrane fabrication and separations, conversion of waste into value-added
products, enhanced natural product extractions, and related
aspects within Engineering teaching and learning.
ID
178555
Title
Impactofamultimedialaboratorymanual:Investigatingtheinfluenceofstudentlearningstyleson
laboratorypreparationandperformanceoveronesemester
http://fulltext.study/journal/100
http://FullText.Study
Pages
21