Assessment of Visual, Auditory, and kinaesthetic Learning Styles among Postgraduate Management Students

 

Dr. B. Janakiraman

Professor, Department of Management Studies, NITTE Meenakshi Institute of Technology, P.B.No: 6429, Gollahalli, Govindapura, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560 064

 

ABSTRACT:

Learning styles denote the talent of learner to identify and process information in learning situations. The capability to recognize students’ learning styles can escalate the educational outcomes. We take in information through our senses. VAK (Visual, auditory, Kinaesthetic or tactile) learning style is in which students use three of their senses to receive information. This study researches the learning preferences (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) for which the students completed the self-report instrument Learning Style Survey (VAK) Faculty can include these learning styles in their classroom events so that students are made proficient to be successful in their courses. The purpose of this study is to measure Visual, Auditory, and tactile learning style among postgraduate management students. A descriptive study is undertaken.  Data for the study is collected from a sample of 101 postgraduate management degree students out of which were males and were females., Frequencies and Percentage was used for data analysis. The results show that the visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning style is the same order in which the study sample responded (54.5%) (35.6%) and (4.0%), respectively. Male students prefer the visual and auditory learning styles) more than female students, while preference for kinesthetic learning style  was seen predominantly in male students only. From the mean values it can be said that female students preferred the visual learning style more while the male students preferred the tactile learning style. The researcher recommends that management educators learn about students' learning styles and offer a teaching style that includes methods to benefit all the learning styles.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

The learning style is a broad term that plays an important role in educational outcomes. The favorites and the style of the students for their own learning play an important role in the educational consequences and these favorites are taught in different learning styles (Leung and Weng, 2007). Learning is defined as the process by which knowledge is transformed into the transformation of experience.

 

People use learning to adapt to everyday conditions and to reach them in order to arrive at different learning styles. The concept of learning styles has caught  much attention in the realistic texts and various models have been suggested to appreciate the active nature of the teaching (Arthurs, 2007). A variety of learning style theories and frameworks have been developed, accompanied by accompanying tools that construct their learning style (Dunn and Griggs, 2003; Loo, 2004).  Evaluating student learning styles provides an insight into their specific preferences. This awareness can be used to develop, design, and design educational programs and resources that motivate and encourage students to learn, integrate, and apply information and expertise to individualize the lesson. "Understanding styles can improve the planning, production and implementation of educational experiences so that they are more in tune with students' aspirations to improve their learning, retention and retrieval" (Federico, 2000).

Relying on  one’s perspective, Learning styles may be described in many ways, few definitions of learning styles are given below:

 

Brown (2000) defines learning styles as the way in which individuals grasp and cope with information in learning circumstances. He asserts that learning style inclination is one aspect of learning style, and denotes  the choice of one learning situation over the other.

 

Celce-Murcia (2001) describes learning styles as general approaches - for example, global or analytic, auditory or visual - that students employ to be proficient in a new language or to learn another subject. This explains the way in which a learner identifies, interacts with and reacts or responds to the learning situation.

 

According to MacKeracher, 2004 Learning style is sometimes looked at as a characteristic cognitive, affective, social, and physiological behaviours that function as comparatively  stable pointers of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment.

 

General learning styles:

According to LdPride,n.d there are three focal learning styles; visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic.

 

Visual:

Visual learners perceive in pictures and learn well in visual pictures. They rely on the instructor’s or facilitator’s non-verbal signals such as body language to internalise the concept. Sometimes, visual learners prefer occupying the front rows in  the classroom. Descriptive notes is preferred by them  over the information being presented.

 

Auditory:

These individuals learn material presented  through listening and  unravel information by the means of pitch, tone, modulation,  emphasis and speed. These individuals acquire knowledge through reading out loud and may not gain full understanding of written information

 

Kinaesthetic:

Active “hands-on” approach is used by the individuals that are kinaesthetic. Interaction with the physical world is favoured by these learners favour. Most of the time kinaesthetic learners have a difficulty in having a 'focus' and can become unfocused effortlessly.  They prefer doing for learning  and hence they prefer practical experiments than a theory class.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Allinson and Hayes (1988) emphasize that an individual's learning orientation may be the most important determinant of his level of education. For this reason, extensive research has been performed in recent years to analyze learning style preferences. (Reynolds, 1997). Identifying the characteristics of each student is seen as a possible way to improve the course design and learning outcomes of an individual (Butler, 1988).

Dunn R. and Dunn K. (1993) believe that the learning style consists of biological and developmental traits that render some learning environments, methods and resources ineffective, and ineffective for others. The learning style inventory results, which are based on the Dunn and Dunn models, indicate the individual elements of the five basic stimuli that influence a person's ability to master new and challenging academic information and skills. 

Gardner (1993) suggested that there are different intelligences that different learners have in varying quantities. According to him, the lessons should focus on the specific intelligence of the students. Students' learning styles must first be measured and then adapted to individual student preferences.

Sims and Sims (1995)deliberate in the book "The Importance of Learning Styles: Understanding the Implications for Learning, Course Design and Education" on models of various learning styles, tools for evaluating learning styles and the prospects of learning style research and its implications for improving learning in higher education institutions.

Zhicheng (1997) conducted a study to examine the validity of the inventory of learning styles and to examine students' learning and thinking styles. The study showed significant major effects on academic and academic success in students' learning and thinking styles.

Garcia et al. (2007) investigated whether student learning styles and thinking styles were interdependent and whether they could predict academic performance. The study showed a moderate relationship between the two types of styles and that students 'academic performance was related to students' thinking styles.

Bada and Okan (2000) noted that teachers need to consider learners' abilities and assumptions and their learning preferences so that students can achieve effective learning.

Hardigan and Sisco's (2001) research also supports the idea that students’ preferred learning styles differs.

Hawk and Shah (2007) showed in their study that students can nurture their abilities that are not in their normal modes and preferences. This is only possible if they know that learning styles exist in individuals and that not all individuals learn in the same way.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

1.    To assess postgraduates management students’ preferred learning styles.

2.    To identify the relationship between some characteristics of postgraduate students with visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning styles like their gender and education background.

 

Design of the study:

A non-experimental study was conducted during the odd semester. In this study,  a descriptive design was used to examine the visual, auditory , and kinesthetic learning styles among management students

 

Data analysis:

Data is prepared, organized; Various statistical methods were used to analyze the data in this study. Frequency and percentage of variables were used. The Chi-square test was used as a significance test to determine the presence of an association between variables.

 

Sample size of the study:

The sample size in the current study was  (101) one hundred one students .. Table 1.1 describes the distribution of students by gender and  their learning styles.  Table 1.2 describes the distribution of students by their educational background and their learning styles.

Tools of the study:

To collect the study information, a self-administered VAK learning style questionnaire given by Nelson and Quick was used. It consists of two parts: - Part One: - This part contain (2) elements that focus on the demographic characteristics of students such as  gender and background study.

Second part: - VAK learning style questionnaire. A self-administration questionnaire consisting of  23 Likert scale  questions. 

Reliability:

The reliability of the questionnaire was determined by the test-retest approach

Reliability Analysis

 

Table No.1.Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N of Items
.717	23

 

The reliability test was carried out with Cronbach alpha in this study. The value of the entire learning style inventory was 0.717. This showed that the reliability of the pre-test questionnaire for learning styles reached the position required by George and Mallery's estimation standards.

Data collection method:

The data collection process was started by inviting students to participate in the study, and only those who agreed were included in the study.  Students were given the VAK Learning Style questionnaire, which took about 20-25 minutes to complete the questionnaire during the study.

Data Analysis:

 

Table No. 2 Gender wise Mean Values of Learning Styles

	Visual	Auditory	Tactile
Female	3.90	3.71	2.91
Male	3.86	3.77	3.08

 

Figure No. 2 Gender wise Mean Values of Learning Styles

Table No.3 Gender * Learning Styles Cross-tabulation

			Learning Styles						Total
			A	A and T	T	V	V and A	V and T
Gender	Female	Count	16	0	0	25	1	2	44
		% within Gender	36.4%	0.0%	0.0%	56.8%	2.3%	4.5%	100.0%
	Male	Count	20	1	4	30	2	0	57
		% within Gender	35.1%	1.8%	7.0%	52.6%	3.5%	0.0%	100.0%
Total		Count	36	1	4	55	3	2	101
		% within Gender	35.6%	1.0%	4.0%	54.5%	3.0%	2.0%	100.0%

 

From the above gender-wise analysis it is seen that girl students are using visual learning style more whereas the boys are using auditory and tactile styles.

 

 

There are no female students strong in using the tactical style and 4 male students are primarily tactile learners.  Dual learning styles like Auditory and Tactile (1 male) and Visual and Tactile (2 females) Visual and Auditory (1 female and 2 males) are also seen.

 

Table no.4  Educational Background * Learning Styles Cross-tabulation

			Learning Styles						Total
			A	A and T	T	V	V and A	V and T
Edu Background	BE	Count	1	0	0	2	0	0	3
		% Within EduBackground	33.3%	0.0%	0.0%	66.7%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
	B.Sc	Count	0	0	0	2	1	0	3
		% Within EduBackground	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	66.7%	33.3%	0.0%	100.0%
	B.Com	Count	32	1	4	42	2	2	83
		% Within EduBackground	38.6%	1.2%	4.8%	50.6%	2.4%	2.4%	100.0%
	BBA	Count	3	0	0	5	0	0	8
		% Within EduBackground	37.5%	0.0%	0.0%	62.5%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
	BCA	Count	0	0	0	4	0	0	4
		% Within EduBackground	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%	100.0%
Total		Count	36	1	4	55	3	2	101
		% Within EduBackground	35.6%	1.0%	4.0%	54.5%	3.0%	2.0%	100.0%

 

It is observed from the above analysis 55 students (54.5%) prefer visual learning styles.  Visual learning style is preferred by most of the students irrespective of their educational background.  This is followed by auditory learning style (35.6%).  The multi-modal learning styles are sparingly preferred.  It is noteworthy to observe all the students with BCA background preferred visual learning style.

 

Hypothesis testing:

Null Hypothesis:   There is no significant difference between the selected independent variable gender and dependent variable learning styles.

 

H1 : There is  significant difference between the selected  independent variable  gender and dependent variable learning styles

Table no. 5 Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.227a	.052	.042	.50104	.052	5.395	1	99	.022
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender

 

Table No.6. ANOVA^a

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	1.354	1	1.354	5.395	.022b
	Residual	24.853	100	.251
	Total	26.207	101
a. Dependent Variable: tactile
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender

 

It is observed from the above analysis there is a significant difference between the gender and the measured dependent variable of different learning styles.  The gender of the respondents is highly influencing the learning styles preferences by the students.  When the gender varies in the Post graduate management students the learning styles also varies and hence the null hypothesis is rejected.

 

Hypothesis testing:

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the selected independent variable educational background and dependent variable learning styles.

 

H1: There is  significant difference between the selected independent variable educational background and dependent variable learning styles.

 

Table No.7. ANOVA

				Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Visual	Between Groups	(Combined)		1.246	4	.311	1.814	.132
		Linear Term	Unweighted	.964	1	.964	5.615	.020
			Weighted	1.056	1	1.056	6.148	.015
			Deviation	.190	3	.063	.369	.775
	Within  Groups			16.484	96	.172
	Total			17.729	100
Auditory	Between  Groups	(Combined)		.100	4	.025	.129	.972
		Linear Term	Unweighted	.000	1	.000	.000	.994
			Weighted	.001	1	.001	.006	.938
			Deviation	.099	3	.033	.169	.917
	Within Groups			18.622	96	.194
	Total			18.722	100
Kinesthetic	Between Groups	(Combined)		1.500	4	.375	1.457	.221
		Linear Term	Unweighted	.865	1	.865	3.359	.070
			Weighted	.855	1	.855	3.324	.071
			Deviation	.644	3	.215	.835	.478
	Within Groups			24.707	96	.257
	Total			26.207	100

 

On the contrary, there is no statistically significant difference between educational background and their learning styles.

FINDINGS:

1)    The most preferred learning style of management students in our study is Visual, then Auditory and Kinaesthetic.

2)    There is a significant difference between men and women in terms of VAK learning style, male students preferred order of the learning style is visual, kinaesthetic and auditory learning style, while female students preferred learning style order is visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learning style.

3)    Female students use the visual learning style where as boys are using tactile and auditory.

4)    This study found that that students pursuing science and technology based education such as BE and BSc are more receptive towards visual learning style as their studies include higher degree of practical components than compared to commerce and management courses which include more theoretical components. Commerce and management students prefer audio based learning style suitable for theoretical based education.

5)    The preferred choice of learning between the male and female is found to be varying as female students prefer the visual , and audio based learning. Female students seldom use tactical learning style.

 

DISCUSSION:

Usually, the most preferred style is the visual learning style. The visual learning style of students may be easier, more attractive and less energy consuming, while only (4.0%) prefer kinesthetic, The auditory style was preferred by 35.6% of students, they like to sit in a quiet classroom and listen to the teacher. It seems that this conclusion coincides with a study that was conducted by A. Frankel (2009), who reported that visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles were in that order. These results, in turn, are consistent with the Rajshree S. (2013) study of high school students. were in the same order. Leslie's (2007) study also showed that there is preference for visual learning style in adult learners. Of the unimodal learners, 4 students (0.3%) preferred the tactile learning style. 6 students (6%) preferred multimodal learning style. The learning style is different for male and female students. Men tend to be more kinesthetic and visual and require more mobility in a more informal environment than women.

 

According to Raddon (2007), gender is considered one of the most effective factors in learning style preferences. A study by Wehrwin et al. (2007) was conducted to examine the differences between male and female physiology students in terms of learning style preferences. The methods described by Erica A. et al. (2007) found that there are different types of learning styles in the classroom and that gender is an effective factor in the choice of learning styles which is consistent with the present study also.

 

Lincoln et al (2006) examined the differences between 33 male students and 66 female students based on the VAK framework. The study used ANOVA to further confirm that there is a significant difference between the learning style preferences of male and female learners. The result also showed that learners prefer to learn with their auditory senses, while men learn better when they take notes (Tactile). The results of this study are in agreement with the above mentioned study.

SUGGESTIONS:

1)   Learners can be divided into three learners according to the VAK learning style theory: visual learner, auditory learner, kinaesthetic learner. Therefore, the curriculum should include all tools, materials, texts, and activities that fit all student classroom learning styles.

2)   Further studies may be conducted on the learning styles of management students in other geographical areas.

REFERENCES:

1.     Akplotsyi, R. and Mahdjoubi, L. (2011). Effects of learning styles on engaging children in school projects. 2011, Bristol, UK. Available at website http://www.arcom.ac.uk/publications/procs/ar2011

2.     Alkhasawneh, I., Mrayyan, M., Docherty, C., Alashram, S., and Yousef, H. (2008).Problem–based learning (PBL): assessing stu-dent learning preferences using vark. Nurse Education Today, 28, pp: 572-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2007.09.012.

3.     Allinson, C. W. and Hayes, J. (1988) `The Learning Styles Questionnaire: An Alternative to Kolb's Inventory?', Journal of Management Studies 25(3): 269-281. Anniversary Edition.New York: Basic Books.

4.     Aqel. F. and Mahmoud, S. (2006). Learning Styles of An-Najah Na-tional University Students in Learning English as a Foreign Lan-guage. An – Najah Research Journal. (20)2, pp: 598-622.

5.     Arthurs, J. (2007). A juggling act in the classroom: Managing dif-ferent learning styles. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2, 2-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.

6.     Bada, E., and Okan, Z. (2000). Students’ language learning preferences. TESL-EJ, 4.(3).

7.     Barbe, W. B., and Milone, M. N. (1981). What we know about modality strengths. EducationalLeadership, 38 (5), 378-380.

8.     Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing Learning: A Matter of Style or Approach? Perspectives onThinking, Learning and Cognitive Styles, R. J. Sternberg, L. F. Zhang (Eds.). Mahwah,Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, N. J., ISBN: 0-8058-3431-1, 276.

9.     Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning, (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

10.  Butler KA (1988). Learning and teaching style: In theory and practice. Columbia, CT: Learner’s Dimension.

11.   Carbo, M. (1983). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 49, 486-494.

12.   Celce-Marcia, M. (2001).Teaching English as a second or foreign language, (3rd ed.).

13.   Coffield, F. (2004).Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning.A Systematic andCritical Review.Learning and Skills Research Centre, London, ISBN: 18533891889781853389184.

14.   Cuaresma, J. (2008). Learning style preferences and academic performance of PHEM majorsat the University of the Cordilleras.Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City. Dewey Publishing Services: NY.

15.   Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (1978).Teaching Students through their Individual Learning Styles.A Practical Approach. Prentice Hall, Reston, VA., ISBN: 10: 0879098082, 336.

16.   Dunn, R., Burke, K., and Whitley, J., (2000) what do know about learning style? A guide for parents of talented children. Parenting for high potential, 8-13. Education, 49, pp. 794-808

17.   Erica A., Heidi L. and Stephen E.,(2007). Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology stu-dents. Advance Physiology Education; (31), pp: 153-157.

18.   Federico, A. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 359-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00021-2.

19.   Felder, R. M., and Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering

20.   Fidan, N. (1986). Learning and Teaching at School, Concepts, Principles, Methods. Ankara:

21.   Fleming, S. (2010). "Undergraduate nursing students' learning styles: A longitudinal study". Nurse Education Today. 31(5): pp: 444-449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.08.005.

22.   Frankel, A., (2009). Nurses’ learning styles: promoting better integration of theory into practice. Nursing Times journal; 105: 2, pp: 24-27.

23.   Garcia, P.; Amandi, A.; Schiaffino, S.; Campo, M. (2007). Evaluating Bayesian

24.   Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of the mind: The theory of multiple intelligences 10th

25.   Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind.The theory of multiple intelligences. New York. Basic Books.

26.   Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think, and how schools should teach.

27.   Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

28.   George, D., and Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4^th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon

29.   Hardigan, P.C., andSisco, B.R., (2001). An analysis of learning styles among full time undergraduate college students. (Report No.HE-033-941). Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 451811).

30.   Hawk TF, Shah AJ. (2007)Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education;, 5(1), 1-19.

31.   Hyland, K. (1993). Culture and learning: a study of the learning style preferences of Japanese students. RELC Journal, 24 (2), 69-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400204

32.   Jones, N. B. (1997). Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction. Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language Learning, Singapore.

33.   Kassaian, Z. (2007). Learning Styles and Lexical Presentation Modes.Estudios de linguisticainglesaaplicada (elia), 7, 53-78.

34.   Kia, M., A. Alipour, A., and Ghaderi, E. (2009).Study of learning styles on their roles in theacademic Achievement of the students of Payame Noor University.http://tojde.andolu.edu.tr/tojde 34/notes, Retrieved June 11, 2009.

35.   LdPride,n.d. (2009). What are learning styles?Retrieved from http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm. Leadership, 40, 20-25.

36.   Leung, K., and Weng, L. (2007). Validation of Kolb’s structural model of experiential learning using Honey and Mumford’s Learn-ing Style Questionnaire. Journal of Medical Education, vol.11,p: 234-243

37.   Lincoln, F., and Rademacher, B., (2006) Learning styles of ESL students in community colleges’. Community Journal of Research and Practice, vol. 30(5), pp: 485-500.

38.   Loo, R., (2004) Kolb's learning styles and learning preferences: is there a linkage? Educational Psychology, vol. 24, 99-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000146476.

39.   MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning, (2nd ed.). Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

40.   McCarthy, B. (1982). Improving staff development through CBAM and 4MAT.Educ.

41.   Melton, C. D. (1990).Bridging the cultural gap: a study of Chinese students' learning style preferences.RELC Journal 21 (1), 29-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368829002100103

42.   Networks’ Precision for Detecting Students’ Learning Styles. Computers and New York: Basic Books.

43.   Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 1-20. Plains, NY: Longman.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00001

44.   Price, G. E., Dunn, R., and Sanders, W. (1980). Reading achievement and learning style characteristics. The Clearing House, 5, 223-226. Publication. ISBN: 975-337-043-1.

45.   Raddon, A. (2007). Distance learners jugging home, work and study. In P, Cotterill, S, Jackson, G, Letherby. (Eds.). Challenges and negotiations for women in higher education (pp. 159-181). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

46.   Rajshree S., (2013). learning style and academic achievement of secondary school students, voice of research, Vol.1 Issue 4, p:2

47.   Ramayah, M., Sivanandan, L., Nasrijal, N., Letchumanan, T., and Leong, L. (2009) Preferred learning style: gender influence on pre-ferred learning style among business students. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(4), pp.: 65-78.

48.   Reid, J. (1999). Affect in the classroom: problems, politics, and pragmatics. In J. Arnold (Ed.) Affect in language learning (pp. 297-306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586356

49.   Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students.TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1), 87-111.

50.   Reynolds, M. (1997), Learning styles: a critique", Management Learning, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 115-133.

51.   Riazi, A., and Riasati, M. J. (2007). Language learning style preference: A students’ case study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 6.

52.   Richards, J., and Rodgers.T. (2001).Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305

53.   Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J.M. Reid ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle,119-25. rtlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true and_andERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ37262 2 and ERIC

54.   Schumann, J. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language. Boston: Blackwell.

55.   Schumann, J. (1999). A perspective on affect.In J. Arnold (Ed.) Affect in language learning (pp.28-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

56.   Shah K., Ahmed J., Shenoy N, Srikant N.,(2013) How different are students and their learning styles? International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, vol. (1) issue (3), 121-215.

57.   Sims, R. R. and Sims, S. J. (Eds.) (1995). The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

58.   Tatarintseva A., (2002). The Influence of the Gender Factor to the Learning styles of Secondary Students in the Process of Language Learning, studies about languages, vol. 2, p: 65.

59.   Victoria, C. and Alan, C.(2005).VAK learning styles self-assessment questionnaire, , from [online] Available from World Wide Web www.businessballs.com.

60.   Wehrwein, E., Lujan, H., and DiCarlo, S., (2007). Gender difference in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology student. Advances in Physiology Education, vol. (31), p: 153-175

61.   Zhang, Zhicheng and Stephen RiCharde, R. (1997). Learning-Thinking Style Inventory: LISREL and Multivariate Analyses.

 

Received on 07.03.2018                Modified on 14.04.2018

Accepted on 28.04.2018           ©A&V Publications All right reserved