ABSTRACT

Student-teacher interaction in the classroom is a key element to the success of the student. This is because the teacher can easily determine the learning style of each student through interaction with that student. In designing CBT and WBT offerings, an Educational Technologist does not have that capability. There should, therefore, be a mechanism that allows the student to determine his or her own learning style. Through the use of an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) this may be a possibility. The design opportunities would be challenging for the designer but the end product would more closely mirror a teacher-led class. There are other applications for a student determinate GUI, which would enhance learning. For example it might be used to increase awareness for physical, mental and language, challenged persons.

INTRODUCTION

In the classroom, the interaction between the students and the teacher will vary according to the needs and learning styles of the students. The teacher's learning style inventory for each student may be formal, derived from a specific instrument such as Myers-Briggs (MBTI), or it may be informal through observation and interaction with the students. The teacher may also use a variety of styles in the classroom during a single lesson to accommodate individual students. For those students that are kinesthetic in nature the teacher may have a group or individualized exercise that is manipulative in nature. This type of project is, of course, aimed at a person strong in areas such as the laboratory sciences, auto shop, woodworking or model building. This particular person will have to be able to verbalize his project with either a classroom presentation or a written report to show competency in language arts. There may also be an exercise where the introvert has a chance to show off a project that requires him to address the class and thus gain confidence and strength in other learning areas. For this reason, the classroom and the interaction of the teacher with the student becomes a dynamic force for learning. There is, however, a new technology for the delivery of educational material to both the individual and the group, Computer Based Training (CBT) and Web Based Training (WBT). This form of education delivery is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a larger, more diverse, foundation of knowledge is made available to the student with the ability to expand horizons and afford an opportunity to become a life long learner. The reverse is the loss of student - teacher interaction and the ability of the instructor to make adjustments in the course material to accommodate for various learning styles. This appears to be the manner, by default, in which CBT and WBT courses are being presented. At this time there appears to be no mechanism for determining learning style when delivering either CBT or WBT. This leads to a student that is both totally confused and bored or one that is very successful. Even if the student is presented the material in their preferred learning style, is this a good thing? In a paper on learning styles and their application in the study of Engineering, Richard Felder (1996) had this to say about learning styles in the classroom.

"If the professors teach exclusively in a manner that favors their students'
less preferred learning style modes, the students' discomfort level may be
great enough to interfere with their learning. On the other hand, if professors
teach exclusively in their students' preferred modes, the student may not develop
the mental dexterity they need to reach their potential for achievement in
school and as professionals."

This statement also applies to the use of CBT and WBT. If there is only one style of learner addressed in the course of the program and it is not the correct style; we may be discouraging some students from learning. At the same time, a lack of multiplicity of styles may be damaging the flexibility of the student, and limiting the depth of education. Two questions then need to be asked. Can an instrument be designed that determines the student's learning style while using a CBT offering? Is it possible to design a CBT offering that is responsive to the individual yet flexible enough to challenge and strengthen the students other learning and coping skills? With the growing popularity of this mode of learning and the infinite opportunities for self-learning at all levels of education utilizing CBT and WBT, these questions must be answered.

DISCUSSION

Before designing an educational offering that either addresses a specific learning style or attempts to address a multiplicity of styles several questions must first be answered.
1. What is a learning style?
2. How is a learning style determined?
3. How can a learning style be implemented?

A learning style is defined as "...the unique collection of individual skills and preferences that affect how a person perceives, gathers, and processes information." (Johnson & Orwig, 1997). All authors of learning inventory instruments use this definition of learning style. The difference in instruments is the interpretation and classification of the responses. The style is determined by asking the learner to answer a series of questions designed to measure a particular personality attribute. These can be either YES/NO answers, as in the MBTI, a best answer from a given set of choices as in Keirsey, or a ranking of responses as in Canfield's Learning Styles Inventory (CLSI). These instruments represent both the extremes and the median in interpretation.

The MBTI, using simple YES/NO answers, classifies the learner using a series of four contrasting classifications. These classifications are extraverts (E)/introverts (I), sensors (S)/intuitors (N), thinkers (T)/feelers (F), and judgers (J)/perceivers (P). This produces 24 distinct personality and learning styles, ranging from ESTJ, typically CEOs, to INFP, artists, and poets. This tends to limit the resources available for the design of lessons for overall populations, but gives the individual greater attention.

In CLSI a series of descriptive statements are assigned a value of decreasing rank with 1 being the highest and 4 being the lowest. These are then manipulated through a complicated rubric to define the learner's style. The definition of style derived from Canfield is much broader than the MBTI and takes into consideration four broad categories; conditions, content, mode and expectancy. CLSI not only classifies an individual learning style but also attempts to predict possible academic outcome. This interpretation of learning style gives a much broader range of possibilities and allows for a course of instruction to be specifically designed which utilizes the students strong style and strengthens the weaker ones.

Between these two extremes are a multitude of instruments for the determination of learning style. In Keirsey's Temperament Sorter II (KTS II) the format of MBTI is maintained but the questions are directed more towards management style and self-evaluation. The questions are direct statements that require a fill in the blank response using one of two given statements. The results are similar to those derived with MBTI with the definitions "softened" a little. Keirsey has replaced Extraversion/Introversion with Expressive/Reserved; Sensing/Intuitive with Introspection/Observation and Judgement/Perception become Schedulers/Probers. This broadens the definition of the learning styles and allows for more leeway than does the MBTI, allowing the course designer to use a larger number of learning styles when designing.
Other style determinant instruments are mainly variations on the original MBTI format. Kolb's Learning Style Model (KLSM) breaks learning styles into four types 1 - 4. These consist of combinations of 4 basic concepts; concrete, abstract, reflective, and active. The combination of these categories are then conceptualized by the questions most likely to be asked by that particular learning type; Why, What, How and What if. Another instrument is the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI). This instrument is designed to map that portion of the brain most used by the learner. The results are then associated with a particular quadrant and activity and a corresponding learning style. These learners are classified as being Quadrant A, B, C or D with the dominant quadrant being the preferred learning style. This definition of style tends to lock the student into a particular style with very little leeway for exercising the other three quadrants. The Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model (F-S LSM) also categorizes learners into five opposing groups that are similar to the MBTI classifications; Sensing Learners/Intuitive Learners, Visual Learners/Verbal Learners, Inductive Learners/Deductive Learners, Active Learners/Reflective Learners and Sequential Learners/Global Learners.

The problem of learning style and its uses in designing course material, especially for the CBT and WBT environment, has also been a subject of educational theorists. H. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences describes a series of learning categories and the style a person in that category is most likely to use. The categories, as paraphrased by E. Winters (1997) are; words, questions, pictures, music, moving, socializing and alone. Gardner's theory also includes the use of cultural context when designing for a specific learning style. These may include attitudes toward dress, food, housing, beauty and justice as well as colors, age and gender variants. According to Jean Piaget's paper on Intellectual Development (1995) in children, the styles of learning change from birth to eleven years. The child progresses with age from learning the structure of the world around them to abstract thinking. Paiget's theory espouses active or discovery learning. At present this is the main theory utilized in the design and implementation of CBT and WBT courses. This form of design, however, is directed at the K-12 learner. It does not address the adult learner. Knowles and Cross discuss the opposite end of Piaget with a theory of adult education. In the Cross and Knowles models the adult learner style is dictated by experience, age limitations and a need to have a hand in the development of their education.

DISCUSSION

Several papers have addressed the use of style in the process of designing multimedia course material. Susan M. Montgomery (1995), in a survey of sophomore chemical engineering students, used Soloman's Inventory of Learning Styles to study the student population. These were compared against an earlier study by Felder and used to design a multimedia program specifically addressing the predominant learning styles of the class. Each component of the offering was designed to address each of the four learning styles discovered in the initial survey. She concludes that it is possible to design a CBT that addresses multiple learning styles, however she is designing for a specific class. John Pelley (1998), concerned with distance learning and teleconferencing and John Dwyer (1996), addressing the classroom environment, stress the importance of proper utilization of learning style and teaching. The conclusion of these authors is clear; learning style is of prime importance and has to be taken into consideration when designing the learning environment. The use of learning styles in these scenarios, where the instruction is face to face or specifically designed, is obvious. The use of learning style in CBT and WBT is not so obvious. The reason for this is the hidden nature of the interaction. In the classroom setting the teacher is able to see and hear the students reactions to the various stimuli being offered. If a group of students is beginning to tire of the lecture the teacher can move quickly to a new or different style of teaching and thus a different style of learning is involved. In the teleconferencing theater several miles separate the students and teacher. Effective learning style may not be as readily or rapidly interpreted. In CBT and WBT there is no instructor as such and therefore no capacity for adjustment of learning style. It is therefore imperative that learning style be established early and maintained throughout the course of the lesson. The question is, how?
To choose, at random, a learning style and stick to it is to court disaster. Only those students with a corresponding learning style will do well in the class. To ask questions at the beginning of the course to decide the learning style is more immediate but tedious and time-consuming which leaves the student frustrated. Once, however, learning style has been determined, the course designer is obligated to accommodate the student in that style. The determination of the proper style of learning, I feel, can be performed painlessly and efficiently through the use of subliminal graphics. This can be done during the opening sequence of student registration using a graphical interface. This information is then stored as part of the program setup and each time the student registers the program switches automatically to the preferred style.
Instructional designers have debated motivation as facets of course design for a very long time. One of the ways to motivate is to make the material, and the design of that material, interesting, absorbing and directed toward that student's learning style preference. Since personality has been associated with learning style in all learning style inventory instruments, and since this is a subliminal part of all activities performed by that individual, the use of this subliminal influence could, theoretically, be used to determine learning style. Studies performed on the use of subliminal techniques to influence and control thought processes have been ongoing since the beginning of the 20th century due to the introduction of multimedia. Edison's gramophone and sequential photographic projection (movies) and later the rise in popularity of television and now the use of a world wide interconnection of computers, has opened a large discussion on the use of subliminal influences on everything from advertising to selling popcorn and cokes during a movie to influencing political outcomes. The main conclusion of these studies has been the receiver of the initial stimulus has to be preconditioned for the subliminal influence to be effective,(Todd Stark,1997 and Sean Draine,1998). Subliminal messaging can be related to Symbol Systems theory by Salomon, 1997 and to some extent Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983). Salomon indicates that all learning through multimedia is conveyed by symbols and influenced by the media being used, whether it is reading, television, movies or computers. Gardner's theory is based on the concept that a person learns best when presented material using the students strongest area of intellect. Each of these can be considered a learning style, which is influenced subliminally. The process of determining a particular learning style as rapidly and as easily as possible should reflect the subliminal and unconscious aspects of the individuals learning style. Theoretically it should be possible to use a Graphical User Interface (GUI) during the registration phase of CBT and WBT programs to determine that learning style preference.

CONCLUSION

In a classroom setting the determination of the strongest learning style for any given student is essential for the educational designer to be able to produce a learning document utilizing the best learning styles of the individual. In the case of a "blind" design, such as CBT and WBT, tailoring for the individual is impossible. Using a system as described above, a designer will be able to develop a lesson that offers a motivational and interesting lesson formulated around the dominant style of an individual learner yet allows for a multiplicity of users. To be able to determine learning style at the beginning of a lesson would offer unique challenges to the Educational Technologist performing the design work. However, if the designer could produce an offering that allowed for the individual to utilize his or her own dominant learning style and supported lesser learning styles, CBT and WBT would more closely resemble the classroom environment as an effective learning resource. The use of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) to determine learning style will enhance the learning experience of the student by providing motivation based on a learning style that is comfortable for the student. Other possible uses for a GUI pre-testing system could include testing of persons with learning disorders, language problems, physical disabilities and low educational levels.

Fig. #1 NAME: FIRST: _______ click on a graphic to proceed
Graphic: Red square
Blue ball LAST: __________ click on a graphic to proceed
Orange triangle Graphic: Person alone
Person in group
Person Leading
AGE: _____ click on a graphic to proceed
Graphic: Clouds
Ocean
Mountains
GENDER: __ click on a graphic to proceed
Graphic: Crowd
Puzzle piece
Lion
CLASS STANDING: ____ click on a graphic to proceed
Graphic: Solar system
Musical instrument ?
Computer
The combination of the graphics; Blue ball, Person leading, Ocean, Puzzle piece and musical instrument would correspond to a generalized learning style and a portion of the program designed for that style of learning. The program would have the value of offering motivation, a "personalized" lesson and a chance to succeed on the student's own level.

Bibliography

Draine, S.C. (1998). Analytic Limitations of Unconscious Processing.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington

Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of Style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18 - 23,
(December 1996)

Pelley, J. W. (1998). Implications of Learning Style for Distance Education Paper presented at VISIONS conference Lubbock, Texas October 21 - 23, 1998