Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 1
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to determine the preferred learning style of students at the
Owasso Seventh Grade Center in Owasso, Oklahoma. The learning style survey used was
constructed from the Memletics survey and the VARK test. The testing was given during March
2009 with the results tabulated on pages eighteen and nineteen of this project. The compiled data
was used to determine students learning styles and instruct the students in how to adjust the
information presented by each instructor to increase retention and understanding.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 2
Introduction and Statement of Purpose
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this project was to determine students preferred learning styles at the Owasso
Seventh Grade Center in Owasso, Oklahoma. The Memletics and VARK tests were used and the
testing was given during March 2009 with the results tabulated on pages eighteen and nineteen
of this project. The compiled data were used to determine students’ learning styles and instruct
the students in how to adjust the information presented by each instructor to increase retention
and understanding.
Organizational Context
Setting of the problem. The Seventh Grade Center, located in Owasso, Oklahoma, is
currently the only learning institution in Owasso for seventh grade students, and has been
committed to the basic premise that all students can learn. As stated by Owasso Public Schools
(OPS),
“To support this premise we, at the Seventh Grade Center, will focus on the
development of the basic skills of learning. We will encourage students to engage
in the skills needed to learn by continuing this development in learner-centered,
teacher-directed activities. Students have been encouraged to demonstrate the
necessary skills so that they become responsible citizens who can succeed in the
task of problem solving.”
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 3
History and Background
Owasso Public Schools has been listed as the seventh largest school district in the State of
Oklahoma. The OPS School System has incorporated seventy-two square miles including
territory in Tulsa and Rogers counties and has been located just north of Tulsa, Oklahoma,
divided north to south by Highway 169.
There were 8,756 students enrolled for the 2008-2009 school year, with services provided
by seven elementary schools, 6th Grade Center, 7th Grade Center, 8th Grade Center, Mid High,
Owasso High School and the Owasso Ram Academy.
“In addition to an excellent teaching staff, the Owasso School District
provides excellent physical facilities and equipment to support a quality
program that meets the educational requirements of the students. School
buildings and auxiliary facilities afford maximum safety, protection of health,
and accommodations to the physical conditions of those who use them.
Owasso residents believe that education is the key to their children's
future. Our schools and community are working together to provide the
children with quality educational opportunities that will prepare them for a
prosperous future.”(OPS, 2008)
Scope of the problem
The scope of the study was limited to testing students at the Owasso Seventh Grade Center
using the Memletics and VARK tests to determine each selected students preferred learning
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 4
style. Other factors such as student mood, food and drink consumed prior to testing, health, class
interaction, noise, light, and room temperature were not addressed. The reasons for the factors
not being considered were the inability to control them. There were 130 students from seven
classes included in the study.
Significance of the Project
The learning styles testing project provided considerable benefits to Owasso Seventh
Grade Center and the student’s tested. The tested students have become cognizant of their
preferred learning style, how they can translate an instructors teaching style into their preferred
learning style, and the educational staff has recognized that students do have different learning
styles.
Definition of Terms
Learning Style: A characteristic mode of receiving, processing, and storing information.
Memletics test: A 70 question test to help identify a preferred learning style or styles from a
combination of five different styles.
Psychometric: the field of study concerned with the theory and technique of educational and
psychological measurement.
VARK: (Visual, Audio, Read/Write, Kinesthetic) A questionnaire that provides users with a
profile of their learning preferences.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 5
Review of the Literature
According to Kirby (1979) the term "learning style" came into use when researchers
began looking for ways to combine course presentation and materials to match the needs of each
learner. The terms learning style and cognitive style have often been used interchangeably by
educational researchers. Learning style has been considered as a broader concept that included
cognitive as well as affective and physiological style. Cognitive style can be divided into two
different areas: reception, which describes how an individual perceives and analyzes data, and
concept formation and retention, which deals with memory, processing, hypotheses generation,
and problem solving (Hickson & Baltimore, 1996). Physiological styles concern biologicallybased differences and examples of these are the senses used, time rhythms, amount of mobility
required, need for intake of food or drink while learning, and preferences for environmental
elements such as light, sound and temperature (Dunn, 1988).
Many educational institutions have accepted the concept of the styles in which pupils
learn is an important element to improving education. Everyone differs in how they acquire
information, form concepts, create ideas, process and memorize, judge, and behave (Hickson &
Baltimore, 1996). Each student’s personality factors and motivations affect the way they respond
to education and receive basic educational skills. Instructors have regarded a student's attitude,
application of knowledge, and emotional stability as critical in school achievement (Birrell,
Phillips, & Stott, 1985).
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 6
There has been considerable research in education and psychology toward identifying the
effects of individual differences in learning styles. Theorists in the learning arena agree that
curriculum and classroom strategies should be adapted to accommodate these students’
differences (Burrows-Horton & Oakland, 1997). Furthermore, institutions have been under
increasing pressure to meet higher standards of achievement. Institutions have become aware
that a necessary element in improving student’s academic success has been by recognizing the
best way students learn.
There has been an increase in the number of theories regarding learning style and
definitions offered by researchers over the past 25 years. Some researchers work has been built
upon the theories of earlier learning style researchers, and these works have led to overlap in
some areas. A new theory developed by a researcher has new terms invented to establish
innovation, legitimacy and ownership (Atchison & Brown, 1988). Learning styles have been
thought of as a biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make one
teaching/learning strategy successful for some and unsuccessful for others.
Davidson (1990) and DeBello (1990) suggested that an individual’s learning style
referred to a characteristic mode of receiving, processing, and storing information. Kolb (1985)
asserted that a style of learning was a result of learned behavior, experience, and present
environmental demands combining to produce individual orientations to a range of learning
modes.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 7
An individual’s learning style has been thought of as methods of concentrating,
processing, internalizing, and remembering new and difficult information or skills. A person’s
age, level of achievement, background, gender, and processing style causes variances of learning
styles (Shaughnessy, 1998). Theorists of learning styles have identified and defined student’s
preferred sensory inputs; visual, auditory, tactile, and characteristics that set behavior patterns in
learning situations; such as the need for structure versus flexibility. DeCecco's and Crawford's
(1974) research on conceptual tempo and selection strategies and Kolb's (1978) research on
concrete versus abstract thinking abilities have focused attention on cognitive information
processing patterns.
Even though empirical studies prove considerable progress in learning outcomes by
matching instruction strategies to learning style, Shaughnessy (1998) documents, in his interview
about learning styles with Rita Dunn, that teachers need not adapt to each child’s learning style.
Alternatively, teachers should explain learning styles so there are no inferior or superior styles.
Furthermore, teachers also need to have other instructional methods and resources for a given
curriculum in order to instruct students with different learning styles.
Many researchers caution against oversimplifying the concept of learning styles and
group differences. Concern has been expressed about the danger of using the results from group
learning styles research to generalize or label particular students or groups. Conversely,
researchers agree, responsible use of learning style research could play a significant role in
improving both learning and teaching in the classroom (Claxton & Murrell, 1987; Griggs &
Dunn, 1989; Ramirez, 1982). If an individual preferred style of learning has been identified by
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 8
elementary students, then instructors could use the information gathered to devise classroom
environments and lesson strategies that may potentially enhance the learning of all students.
Methods and Procedures
Hypothesis
The purpose of this study was to show that each of the Seventh Grade Center’s students
has a different preferred learning style. The null hypothesis states there is no significant
difference in the learning styles of the students.
Design
The quasi-experimental method was employed to determine the learning styles of the
students. The dependent variables were the learning styles of the students attending the Owasso
Seventh Grade Center. The students and parents were informed of the intent of the research.
The survey included two quizzes, one quiz measuring seven areas of learning style and a
second quiz measuring four areas of learning style. This survey was designed to correlate the
styles indicated by the two quizzes.
Participants
The participants involved in this study were all students currently attending the Owasso
Seventh Grade Center. The total enrollment for the 2008-2009 school year for the Owasso
Seventh Grade Center was 639. The 130 subjects were selected based upon their attending a
geography class, a required core subject, during the course of a normal school day. This gave
access to the greatest cross section of the student population and included regular classes and
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 9
honors classes. Characteristics such as ethnicity, sex, and enrollment in honors classes or regular
classes did not affect the selection of participants in the study.
Instrumentation
The dependent variables were measured with a survey created from the Memletics
Learning Styles quiz and the VARK Learning Styles quiz adapted for students. A total of seventy
questions were on the Memletics quiz and a total of sixteen questions on the VARK quiz. The
Memletics quiz measured each student’s preferred learning style from a single choice or blend of
seven different available styles. Each question was answered with the range of 0 being “least like
me” to 2 being “most like me”. The answers were calculated and scores given for each learning
area. The range of scoring for each area was 0-20; low scores indicated a slight preference for
that learning style, while high scores indicated a high preference. The VARK quiz measured
each student’s preferred learning style from a single style or blend of four different available
styles. The quiz allowed multiple answers to each question with a total number of 64 possible
responses on the quiz. A low score in a learning style area indicated a mild preference, and
higher scores indicated stronger preferences. A typical Memletics question was: “You have a
personal or private interest or hobby that you like to do alone - 0 1 2”, and a typical VARK
question was:
“I like websites that have:
a. Interesting design and visual effects
b. Audio channels for music
c. Interesting information and articles in print
d. Things I can click on and do”.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 10
The µ for the visual section of the Memletics quiz for all classes combined was 55.04.
The µ for the visual section of the VARK quiz for all classes combined was 25.44. Prior to
distribution of the survey it was reviewed by three parents for constructive analysis and to
guarantee face validity of the survey.
Procedure
The Memletics Learning Styles quiz was combined with a VARK quiz for students into a
survey format. Upon receiving permission from the Owasso Schools administration, a cover
letter was generated asking for the parents to allow the student’s participation in a survey of
learning styles. The Seventh Grade Center’s principal disbursed the surveys to Geography, a core
curriculum class, to get the best cross section of students. The survey was disbursed by the
geography instructor to all geography classes during that day, which included honors and regular
classes. The instructor was present during all periods and monitored the testing, thus ensuring an
acceptable level of accuracy and a presumed level of reliability. The completed surveys were
collected, analyzed, and input into an ANOVA one way test to determine the final results.
Data Analysis
Descriptive analysis. The data were used to determine standard deviation and a mean for
the dependent variables. The critical values, actual values, and standard error of mean were
determined. The data were entered into STATISTICA (Statsoft, 2009) and graphs produced to
reflect differences between the students learning styles.
Inferential analysis. The alternative hypothesis stated that in the sample there is a
significant difference between students learning styles (Ha: µ ≠ µsr ≠ µhn≠ µhe≠ µho). The null
hypothesis has inferred that the subject sample would not show a significant difference (Ho: µ =
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 11
µsr = µhn= µhe= µho). The level of significance was .05 with an ANOVA one way test used for
testing.
Limitations
There is a variety of reasons why a person may not be able to generalize this study’s
conclusions. Since there was not a control group, and the surveys were only given once, this
study’s conclusions should be tentative. Every effort was made to ensure reliability and validity
of the data. However, due to the time constraints of ending the school year, limitations on
retesting ensued.
Summary of Results
The survey was given to a total of 130 students in seven classes at the Owasso Seventh
Grade Center for this quasi-experiment. The sample size was the entire group of 130 students. A
histogram showing the total of the Memletics visual scores can be seen in figure 1, reflecting a
mean score of 55.04 with a standard deviation of 17.17. All values presented in the text part of
this document are rounded to the second decimal place. Figure 2 displays the results of the
regular class visual scores with a mean score of 56.25 with a standard deviation of 17.61. Figure
three reflects Honors – Non ESC mean score of 54.07 with a standard deviation of 18.34. Figure
four displays Honors – ESC mean score of 53.33 with a standard deviation of 10.08. Figure five
reflects Honors ESC opted out mean score of 58.33 with a standard deviation of 7.64. From
comparing all the histogram data, it can be tentatively concluded that there is only a minimal
difference between the classes and between the students.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 12
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet42 1v *130c
Visual = 130*10*normal(x, 55.0385, 17.1687)
35
30
No of obs
25
20
15
10
5
0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Visual
Figure 1. Histogram of all Memletics visual scores
CLASS=Regular
Histogram of Visual
Sheet1 in Graphs_for_Michael[1] 15v*130c
Visual = 56*10*normal(x, 56.25, 17.6133)
16
27%
27%
25%
25%
14
12
No of obs
10
16%
16%
8
13%
13%
6
4
5%
5%
2
2%
2%
5%
5%
5%
5%
2%
2%
0
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Visual
Figure 2. Histogram of Regular class Memletics visual scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 13
CLASS=Hon-Non ESC
Histogram of Visual
Sheet1 in Graphs_for_Michael[1] 15v*130c
Visual = 59*10*normal(x, 54.0678, 18.3471)
14
22%
22%
12
19%
19%
17%
17%
No of obs
10
17%
17%
8
10%
10%
6
8%
8%
4
3%
3%
2
2%
2%
2%
2%
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Visual
Figure 3. Histogram of Honors Non-ESC Memletics visual scores
CLASS=Hon-ESC
Histogram of Visual
Sheet1 in Graphs_for_Michael[1] 15v*130c
Visual = 12*5*normal(x, 53.3333, 10.0755)
6
42%
42%
5
No of obs
4
25%
25%
3
2
8%
8%
1
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
0
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Visual
Figure 4. Histogram of Honors ESC Memletics visual scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 14
CLASS=Opt out ESC
Histogram of Visual
Sheet1 in Graphs_for_Michael[1] 15v*130c
Visual = 3*1*normal(x, 58.3333, 7.6376)
1.2
1.0
33%
33%
33%
No of obs
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Visual
Figure 5. Histogram of Honors ESC opted out Memletics visual scores
In addition to the Memletics data displayed in prior pages, the VARK quiz data were also
calculated. The data are displayed in figures six through ten.
Figure 6 displays a histogram of all classes’ VARK visual scores mean of 25.44 with a
standard deviation of 9.15. Figure 7 reflects the Regular class visual scores mean of 26.5 with a
standard deviation of 9.68. Figure 8 gives the Honors Non ESC classes VARK visual scores with
a mean of 25.56 and a deviation of 8.07. Figure 9 displays the Honors ESC classes VARK visual
score mean of 19.41 with a deviation of 8.91. Figure 10 reflects the Honors ESC opted out
VARK visual scores mean of 18.10 with a standard deviation of 6.94.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 15
Looking at the data from these scores it appeared there was more of a difference between
the classes than between the students. It is possible this result occurred because the VARK quiz
has fewer questions giving them greater weight in the total.
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet43 1v*130c
Visual = 130*5*normal(x, 25.4374, 9.1493)
45
40
35
No of obs
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Visual
Figure 6. Histogram of all classes VARK visual scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
65
70
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 16
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet22 1v*56c
Visual = 56*5*normal(x, 26.5099, 9.68)
20
18
16
No of obs
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
35
40
60
65
70
Visual
Figure 7. Histogram of Regular class VARK visual scores
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet23 1v *59c
Visual = 59*5*normal(x, 25.5555, 8.0729)
18
16
14
No of obs
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
45
50
Visual
Figure 8. Histogram of Honors - Non ESC class VARK visual scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 17
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet24 1v*12c
Visual = 12*2*normal(x, 19.414, 8.9117)
4
No of obs
3
2
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Visual
Figure 9. Histogram of Honors ESC class VARK visual scores
Histogram of Visual
Spreadsheet25 1v *3c
Visual = 3*2*normal(x, 18.0976, 6.9448)
1.2
1.0
No of obs
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Visual
Figure 10. Histogram of Honors ESC opted out VARK visual scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 18
Inferential Data Analysis
In this experiment, the null hypothesis stated that the scores of the tested classes and
students would display no significant difference (Ho: µ = µsr = µhn= µhe= µho). The alternate
hypothesis stated that the scores of the tested classes and students would display a significant
difference (Ha: µ ≠ µsr ≠ µhn≠ µhe≠ µho). The experiment had a level of significance of .05, and
was calculated employing an ANOVA one way test.
The Memletics test had a critical value of 2.60 with 3 degrees of freedom. Since the
calculated value was 0.23 and was less than the calculated value, the null hypothesis could not be
rejected. There was no significance in the scores of the four groups. The plot of means in figure
11 illustrates that there was little variation in the scores of the classes and students and each was
well within overlap of confidence scores of the others.
All Groups
CLASS; Unweighted Means
Current ef f ect: F(3, 126)=.22793, p=.87681
Ef f ectiv e hy pothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 conf idence interv als
85
80
75
70
Visual
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
Regular
Hon-Non ESC
Hon-ESC
Opt out ESC
CLASS
Figure 11. Memletics mean plot of all scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 19
The VARK test had a critical value of 2.60 with 3 degrees of freedom. Since the
calculated value was 2.83 and was more than the calculated value, the null hypothesis could be
rejected. There was a significant difference in the scores of the four groups. The plot of means in
figure 11 illustrates that there was a variation in the scores of the classes and students. While the
Regular class, Honors non ESC class, and the Opted out of ESC class were well within overlap
of confidence scores, Honors ESC displayed a significant difference with the Regular class and
the Honors non ESC class.
All Groups
CLASS; LS Means
Current effect: F(3, 126)=2.8282, p=.04124
Effective hypothesis decomposition
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals
35
30
Visual
25
20
15
10
5
Regular
Hon-Non ESC
Hon-ESC
Opt out ESC
CLASS
Figure 12. VARK mean plot of all scores
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 20
Additional Analyses
There were many more variables collected in the survey, such as male or female, and the
rest of the variables from the Memletics quiz and the VARK quiz such as audio, kinesthetic,
social, solitary, verbal, and read/write.
Figure 13 shows the line plot from the Memletics visual data collected and even though
the null hypothesis was not rejected, it shows that each student holds visual at a different level of
preference and this should prove true for the rest of the variables also.
Line Plot of Visual
Spreadsheet64 1v*130c
100
80
Visual
60
40
20
0
-20
Figure 13. Student scores from Memletics visual data
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 21
In figures 14 through 17, 3-D graphs are displayed showing all the students scores from
both quizzes. These show that students have widely varied preferences in learning styles. Further
analysis of these variables is warranted from this evidence.
3D Sequential Graph
Spreadsheet in Workbook1 11v*56c
>
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Figure 14. All variables from Regular class
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
100
88
68
48
28
8
-12
-32
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 22
3D Sequential Graph
Spreadsheet in Workbook1 11v*59c
> 100
< 88
< 68
< 48
< 28
<8
< -12
Figure 15. All variables from Honors non ESC class
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 23
3D Sequential Graph
Spreadsheet in Workbook1 11v*12c
> 100
< 84
< 64
< 44
< 24
<4
< -16
< -36
Figure16. All variables from Honors ESC class
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 24
3D Sequential Graph
Spreadsheet in Workbook1 11v*3c
> 100
< 92
< 72
< 52
< 32
< 12
< -8
< -28
Figure 17. All variables from Opted out of ESC class
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to test for differences in learning styles of students at the
Owasso Seventh Grade Center. The alternate hypothesis stated that there would be a difference
in the student’s scores by group. The results from the Memletics ANOVA test did not reject the
null, but the VARK ANOVA test did reject the null and inferred there was a measurable
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 25
difference. The difference was that the honors class scored lower on the visual scale for the
VARK. The Memletics visual score did not differ across the groups. It is possible that the
VARK difference was simply a chance difference, or the honors students receive information
more equally across the learning styles and therefore the visual score is lower. More testing
should be done to confirm if there is a difference in the visual scores for honors students.
Further testing of the data and graphing those data (Figures 13 – 17), has shown that there
is a marked difference in learning style preferences by students. This quasi - experiment
however, showed that there were no significant differences in style by group, when the students
were taken as a group and not as individuals. If teachers are treating the students as a group and
not individuals, then the individual preferred learning styles of students would be blurred
together and maximum learning would not take place.
Figures 18, 19, and 20, which show quality control charts for the variable VARK visual,
do not show significant differences between the subgroups. There is much more variation within
each group than between each group. This information, with respect to learning styles, inplies
that the groups are not homogeneous.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 26
Visual for All Groups Combined
SixGraph X-bar and R Chart
X-bar: 11.008 (11.008); Sigma: 3.4560 (3.4560); n: 5.
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Normal Probability Plot
15.644
11.008
6.3710
5
10
15
20
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
25
0.99
0.95
0.85
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.01
-2
0
2
4
6
Range: 8.0385 (8.0385); Sigma: 2.9863 (2.9863); n: 5.
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
10
15
20
8.0385
Within
0.0000
Overall
Spec.
Limits
25
-5
0
5
Individual Plot
X-bar: 11.008 (11.008); Sigma: 3.4560 (3.4560); n: 5.
-3.*S
15.644
11.008
6.3710
10
15
12
14
16
18
20
22
10
15
20
25
Capability Histogram
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
5
10
Within SD: 3.456; Cp: .3312; Cpk: .3312
Overall SD: 3.434; Pp: .3333; Ppk: .3333
LSL: 7.574; Nom.: 11.01; USL: 14.44
16.997
5
8
Capability Plot
20
25
LSL Nominal USL
+3.*S
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Figure 18. VARK Visual Scores for All Groups Combined
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
20
22
24
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 27
CLASS=REG
SixGraph X-bar and R Chart: Visual
X-bar: 11.273 (11.273); Sigma: 3.3222 (3.3222); n: 5.
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Normal Probability Plot
3
15.730
0.99
0.95
0.85
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.01
2
1
11.273
0
-1
6.8155
-2
-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-2
0
2
4
Range: 7.7273 (7.7273); Sigma: 2.8707 (2.8707); n: 5.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
16.339
7.7273
0.0000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
8
10 12 14 16 18 20
Capability Plot
Within SD: 3.322; Cp: .3445; Cpk: .3179
Overall SD: 3.551; Pp: .3223; Ppk: .2975
LSL: 7.574; Nom.: 11.01; USL: 14.44
Within
Overall
Spec.
Limits
11
-5
Individual Plot
X-bar: 11.273 (11.273); Sigma: 3.3222 (3.3222); n: 5.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Capability Histogram
-3.*S
LSLNominalUSL
+3.*S
20
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
15.730
11.273
6.8155
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
-2 0
2
4
6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 19. VARK Visual Scores for the Regular Classroom
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 28
CLASS=Honors - Non ESC
SixGraph X-bar and R Chart: Visual
X-bar: 10.814 (10.814); Sigma: 3.7959 (3.7959); n: 4.9167
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
16.507
Normal Probability Plot
3
0.99
0.95
0.85
0.70
0.50
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.01
2
1
10.814
0
-1
5.1198
-2
-3
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
2
4
Range: 8.7444 (8.7444); Sigma: 3.2849 (3.2849); n: 4.9167
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0.0000
2
4
6
8
10
Within
Overall
Spec.
Limits
-5
0
Individual Plot
X-bar: 10.814 (10.814); Sigma: 3.7959 (3.7959); n: 4.9167
10.814
5.1198
2
4
6
8
10
12
5
10
15
20
25
Capability Histogram
-3.*S
16.507
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Within SD: 3.796; Cp: .3015; Cpk: .2845
Overall SD: 3.669; Pp: .3119; Ppk: .2943
LSL: 7.574; Nom.: 11.01; USL: 14.44
12
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
8
Capability Plot
17.834
7.8147
6
LSL
USL
Nominal
+3.*S
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure 20. VARK Visual Scores for the Honors Classroom
The lack of uniformity within groups and the huge overlaps for the confidence intervals
of these variables, leads one to believe that if the schools are going to gain maximum learning
from each student, then each student needs to have their preferred learning style identified as
well as the teachers.
A teacher’s method of classroom instruction is often the same as their preferred learning
style, and because of this, students with a different preferred learning style sometimes have
difficulties in that class. Since there are many different learning styles present in each class,
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 29
instructors need to begin mastering different teaching styles to help the students reach their
maximum learning potential (Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Gregorc, 1979).
Researchers have theorized that some teaching methods are better suited to a particular
learning style than others. Today we know that, for successful learning, the teaching style must
complement the students' learning style,
A teacher who possesses an understanding of his/her student's preferred
learning styles can present lessons in a variety of ways and offer each
student the opportunity to find the mode that works best for him or her.
The goal is to initiate learning through the strongest modality while
strengthening the weaker ones. (Golubtchik, 2009)
Golubtchik’s statement offers insight into how teachers and students could work together
to get the most out of the classroom and learning experience. The identification of each student’s
learning style would empower the teacher and the student to take active control of their learning
environment.
This type of environment would further be enhanced by the fact that the instructor and
the students would begin to conduct the learning process as a dialogue. Interaction, cooperation,
and the relational aspects of knowledge would be shared between instructor and student thereby
more fully engaging the student. (Montgomery & Groat, 1998)
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study
There were two strengths associated with the experiment. The environment at the school
was consistent in that it was the same classroom, the same instructor giving the survey, and all
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 30
surveys were completed on the same day. The second strength was the cross section of students
given the survey.
The major weakness of the study was the inability to talk to the instructor before the
survey was given to the students. The students might not have understood how to complete some
of the survey. Another possible weakness was the survey only being given to one subject
classroom; geography. It is possible a different subject classroom would make a difference in the
results.
Recommendations
Considering the differences in learning styles found, it appears further study and testing
of student learning styles could be very beneficial to students and instructors. Students would
recognize their learning style preferences and would be able to translate the instructors teaching
style into their preferred learning style. The instructor would recognize the learning styles
present in their class and adapt their teaching style to reach more of the students. This would
increase student retention and class performance.
Suggestions for Future Research
Future studies could follow this original group of participants and determine if their
learning style preferences change as they age and progress through the school system. Other
studies could target the instructors and determine if their teaching style mirrors their preferred
learning style.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 31
References
Atchison, M. K., & Brown, D. M. (1988). The relationship between the learning styles and
reading achievement of sixth-grade students in the state of Alabama. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association (17th, Louisville,
KY. November 9-11, 1988). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300 772)
Birrell, H. V., Phillips, C. J., & Stott, D. H. (1985). Learning style and school attainment in
young children. School Psychology, 6(4), 207-218.
Burrows-Horton, C., & Oakland, T. (1997). Temperament-based learning styles as moderators of
academic achievement. Adolescence, 32(125), 131-142.
Claxton, D. S., & Murrell, P. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational
practices (Report No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Davidson, G. V. (1990). Matching learning styles with teaching styles: Is it a useful concept in
instruction? Performance and Instruction, 29, 36-38.
DeBello, T. C. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning style models: Variables, appropriate
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 32
populations, validity of instrumentation, and the research behind them. International
Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6, 203-222.
DeCecco, J. P., & Crawford, W. R. (1974). The psychology of learning and instruction:
Educational psychology (2nd ed.). Engiewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Dunn, R. (1988). Commentary: Teaching students through their perceptual strengths or
preferences. Journal of Reading, 31(4), 304-309.
Dunn, R.S., & Dunn, K.J. (1979). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they...can they...be
matched? Educational Leadership, 36, 238-244.
Golubtchik, B. (2009). How to: Adjust Your Teaching Style to Your Students Learning Style.
Retrieved April 15, 2010, from Teachers Network:
http://www.teachersnetwork.org/ntol/howto/adjust/c13473,.htm
Gregorc, A.F. (1979a). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them.
Educational Leadership, 36, 234-236.
Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R. (1989). The learning styles of multicultural groups and counseling
implications. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 17(4), 146-155.
Hickson, J., & Baltimore, M. (1996). Gender related learning style patterns of middle school
pupils. School Psychology International, 17(1), 59-70.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 33
Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive style, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition. Columbus, OH:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education, Ohio State University.
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer.
Memletics: High performance learning. (2009). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from
http://www.memletics.com/manual/learning-styles.asp
Montgomery, S. M., & Groat, L. N. (1998). Student Learning Styles and Their Implications For
Teaching. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from CRLT Occasional Papers:
http://edit.uaa.alaska.edu/cafe/newfaculty/upload/CRLT_no10.pd
Owasso Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2009, from Seventh Grade Center:
http://www.owasso.k12.ok.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid
=9&id=33&Itemid=72
Ramirez, M. (1982). Cognitive styles and cultural diversity. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Shaughnessy, M. F. (1998). An interview with Rita Dunn about learning styles. The Clearing
House, 71 (3), 141-145.
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 34
Statsoft. (n.d.). Retrieved Nov 1, 2009, from Statistica: http://www.statsoft.com/
VARK: A guide to learning styles. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.varklearn.com/english/index.asp
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 40
Innovation
novation and Empowerment: SNU
SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Michael Ray Shelton: Determining Student Learning Styles 41
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
VALID_N case 1-56
SUM case 1-56
MIN case 1-56
MAX case 1-56
_25th% case 1-56
_75th% case 1-56
Regular class means Memletics
Visual Verbal Aural Physical Logical Social
56.25 66.071 48.83 57.85714 45.0892 75.892
4286 92857
29
857
8571
55
65
47.5
55
40
80
17.613 16.368 17.24 13.68001 20.3043 14.743
2698
3254 13634
67
003
4775
56
56
56
56
56
56
3150
3700 2735
3240
2525
4250
0
35
20
25
0
35
90
100
85
95
90
100
45
52.5
35
47.5
30
65
70
75
62.5
70
60
85
MEAN case 1-56
MEDIAN case 1-56
SD case 1-56
VALID_N case 1-56
SUM case 1-56
MIN case 1-56
MAX case 1-56
_25th% case 1-56
_75th% case 1-56
Regular class means VARK
Visual
Audio
Read/Write
26.5098815 28.1908041
17.13968
25 27.0979021 16.6666667
9.67996492 10.807852
7.7847157
56
56
56
1484.55336 1578.68503
959.82208
10
6.25
0
62.5
62.5
37.5
20.7614943 21.3541667
12.5
31.25 33.3333333 22.7272727
MEAN case 1-56
MEDIAN case 1-56
SD case 1-56
Kinesthetic
28.1596344
25
8.54754738
56
1576.93953
17.2413793
56.25
23.0564784
31.5340909
VALID_N case 57-115
SUM case 57-115
MIN case 57-115
MAX case 57-115
_25th% case 57-115
_75th% case 57-115
Honors non-ESC class means Memletics
Visual Verbal Aural Physical Logical Social
54.067 68.813 46.61 58.81355 46.0169 73.305
7966
5593 01695
93
492
0847
55
70
50
55
50
75
18.347 17.403 21.36 16.33008 21.5114 15.608
0982
4029 38568
07
176
634
59
59
59
59
59
59
3190
4060 2750
3470
2715
4325
15
30
0
10
0
35
95
100
90
95
90
100
40
55
30
50
35
65
65
80
65
70
60
85
MEAN case 57-115
MEDIAN case 57-115
SD case 57-115
Honors non-ESC class means VARK
Visual
Audio
Read/Write
26.0178458 26.4392845 18.0604412
25
25
18.75
8.29781379 9.79609902
9.7248674
MEAN case 57-115
MEDIAN case 57-115
SD case 57-115
Solitary
43.9285
714
45
20.4208
958
56
2460
0
85
30
60
Kinesthetic
29.4824285
29.6296296
11.3562613
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Solitary
45.5084
746
45
20.0149
71
59
2685
0
90
30
60
VALID_N case 57-115
SUM case 57-115
MIN case 57-115
MAX case 57-115
_25th% case 57-115
_75th% case 57-115
Honors non-ESC class means VARK
Visual
Audio
Read/Write Kinesthetic
59
59
59
59
1535.0529 1559.91779 1065.56603 1739.46328
0
6.25
0
0
43.75
56.25
36
60
21.4285714
20 11.1111111 21.0526316
31.25 31.8181818 25.7142857 37.1428571
VALID_N case 116-127
SUM case 116-127
MIN case 116-127
MAX case 116-127
_25th% case 116-127
_75th% case 116-127
Honors ESC class means Memletics
Visual Verbal Aural Physical Logical Social
53.333 86.666 61.25 47.08333
48.75 69.583
3333
6667
33
3333
55
90
55
47.5
50
75
10.075 8.8762 20.35 14.84133 15.8293 12.873
4728
5365 20158
25
456
2163
12
12
12
12
12
12
640
1040
735
565
585
835
35
70
35
25
20
50
70
100
95
80
70
90
47.5
80
45
37.5
40
57.5
60
92.5
77.5
55
60
80
MEAN case 116-127
MEDIAN case 116-127
SD case 116-127
VALID_N case 116-127
SUM case 116-127
MIN case 116-127
MAX case 116-127
_25th% case 116-127
_75th% case 116-127
Honors ESC class means VARK
Visual
Audio
Read/Write
19.4140366 32.1196267 17.1471566
20.7142857 34.1666667 13.9423077
8.91168184 11.5780414 11.4433387
12
12
12
232.96844 385.43552 205.765879
6.25 11.5384615
5
31.25
50 47.6190476
11.2037037 24.4047619 10.3571429
25.9615385 41.4285714 21.1397059
MEAN case 116-127
MEDIAN case 116-127
SD case 116-127
MEAN case 128-130
MEDIAN case 128-130
SD case 128-130
VALID_N case 128-130
SUM case 128-130
MIN case 128-130
Solitary
55.4166
667
52.5
17.2492
863
12
665
35
90
45
60
Kinesthetic
31.3191801
31.25
10.0568738
12
375.830161
9.52380952
46.1538462
27.2058824
38.75
Honors ESC opt out class means Memletics
Visual Verbal Aural Physical Logical Social
58.333 83.333 38.33 53.33333 56.6666
75
3333
3333 33333
33
667
60
80
40
70
45
80
7.6376 5.7735 12.58 33.29164 24.6644 13.228
2616
0269 30574
06
143
7566
3
3
3
3
3
3
175
250
115
160
170
225
50
80
25
15
40
60
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Solitary
46.6666
667
30
37.8593
89
3
140
20
MAX case 128-130
_25th% case 128-130
_75th% case 128-130
Honors ESC opt out class means Memletics
Visual Verbal Aural Physical Logical
65
90
50
75
85
50
80
25
15
40
65
90
50
75
85
MEAN case 128-130
MEDIAN case 128-130
SD case 128-130
VALID_N case 128-130
SUM case 128-130
MIN case 128-130
MAX case 128-130
_25th% case 128-130
_75th% case 128-130
Honors ESC opt out class means VARK
Visual
Audio
Read/Write
18.0976431 28.2407407 21.8644781
18.1818182 33.3333333 22.2222222
6.94482705 13.9120178 9.56941049
3
3
3
54.2929293 84.7222222 65.5934343
11.1111111
12.5 12.1212121
25 38.8888889
31.25
11.1111111
12.5 12.1212121
25 38.8888889
31.25
Social
85
60
85
Kinesthetic
31.797138
31.25
4.31900011
3
95.3914141
27.7777778
36.3636364
27.7777778
36.3636364
Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1
Solitary
90
20
90