Introduction
Stakeholders in the education industry have criticised online education because of various reasons. However, it is emerging that differences in student characteristics may be a significant contributor to the perceived inadequacy of online learning. One trait is student learning styles; if educators learn about the relationship between learning styles and education environment (online or face to face) then they may improve their outcomes.
Relationship between learning styles and education environment (online versus traditional)
The theoretical model of learning style components states that learning styles are dependent on three key factors: student motivation, task engagement and cognitive processing habits (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 233). They describe student motivation as a learner’s condition of motivation when presented by a new task. Sometimes, students may demonstrate independent motivation behaviour or dependent behaviour.
In other scenarios, motivation could be avoidant or participatory. At times, it may be collaborative or competitive. Task engagement is the extent to which a student will pay attention to certain aspects of their education. This may be indicated by their enthusiasm, concentration levels or the way they participate in class. A student’s level of anxiety, their attitude, concentration, scheduling, testing strategies and many other factors illustrate the extent of task engagement (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 236).
Cognitive control is the manner in which a learner processes information. The student usually demonstrates this by their reflective observation, which is one’s ability to think about what they have observed. In certain circumstances, this parameter could be manifested as concrete experience. Abstract conceptualisation is also another way of demonstrating cognitive control, and the opposite end of this spectrum is active experimentation.
It is insightful to know whether online students have a greater preference for reflective observation or concrete experience or whether they prefer to experiment actively in class. The same information is quite useful for traditional students, as well.
Aragon et. al. (2002) carried out an analysis of the differences between online students’ learning styles and traditional students. They found “traditional students were more effective at using supporting materials and techniques than their online counterparts” (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 236). Therefore, study aids are more suitable in face-to-face settings than in online communities.
Additionally, “online students prefer to use reflective observation more than their face-to-face counterparts” (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 237). This means that the extent to which online students learn by seeing and doing is greater than it is among traditional students.
Furthermore, abstract conceptualisation is another mode of instruction delivery that online learners prefer over their face-to-face colleagues. This means that the internet, as a method of teaching delivery, is synonymous with “learning by thinking” (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 237).
Face-to-face learners have a greater preference for active experimentation compared to their online peers. This means that educators in the traditional environment ought to facilitate teaching through doing. Conversely, educators in the online community ought to embrace more reflection (Aragon et. al. 2002, p. 243).
Conclusion
Differences between preferred learning styles in the face-to-face environment versus the online environment prove that students acquire knowledge differently. Therefore, educators must incorporate those preferences in the way they deliver material to their students.
Both settings can yield favourable results if teachers use the right approach. The main difference between the two groups is cognitive control as face-to-face students prefer a hands-on approach while online students do well with reflective thinking.
Reference
Aragon, S, Johnson, S & Shaik, N 2002, ‘A preliminary analysis of the influence of learning style preference on student success in online vs face-to-face environments’, American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 227-243.