Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

CORRELATING COLLEGE STUDENTS LEARNING STYLES AND HOW THEY USE WEB 2.

0 APPLICTIONS FOR LEARNING


Wenhao David Huang Department of Human Resource Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign wdhuang@illinois.edu Sun Joo Yoo Department of Human Resource Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign yoo23@illinois.edu Jeong-Hwan Choi Department of Human Resource Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign jchoi52@illinois.edu

Abstract: This study investigated the relationship between learning styles and utilization level of Web 2.0 applications among college students. 107 individuals participated in this study in Spring 2008. The survey contains 118 items drawn from Gregorc Style Delineator and categories from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Results indicated certain significant correlations between different learning styles (Concrete-Random, Abstract-Random, Concrete-Sequential, AbstractSequential) and the utilization level on six Web 2.0 applications (Blog, WIKI, online social community/Facebook, online video sharing/YouTube, online video & audio conference/Skype, social virtual environment/Second Life). The limitation of the study includes small sample size and other factors influencing participants reporting. Future studies need to further cultivate relationships between learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization level in different contexts.

INTRODUCTION
College students today use Web 2.0 applications more often than ever. Students use blogs, Wiki, YouTube, Facebook, to name a few, to create their own content on the web, contribute and collaborate with others, and develop social network via multiple formats of media and representation (OReilly, 2005). As these activities suggest the possibility of using Web 2.0 applications for instructional purposes, such potential also raises the question of whether or not students can efficiently utilize the same Web 2.0 tools for learning (Huang & Behara, 2007). Even though students already use a variety of Web 2.0 applications on a daily basis, they may not know how to use them effectively for gaining new knowledge or developing new skills. For educator interested in using Web 2.0 applications they also need empirical evidence to help them integrate Web 2.0 tools in various instructional environments. Therefore this study intended to address those issues as an effort to promote the utilization of Web 2.0 applications for enhancing learning experiences. As understanding learning styles is an important first step for educators to design and develop efficient learning environments (Curry, 1987; Marshall, 1987; Federico, 2000) we were specifically interested in how students learning styles influence their utilization of Web 2.0 tools in the context of learning. This study aimed to answer the following questions: Do students with different learning styles prefer different Web 2.0 applications? Are there different attitudes towards using Web 2.0 applications based on their learning styles? What is the empirical relationship between learning styles and utilizations of Web 2.0 applications?

In the following sections we provide a brief overview of learning styles and Web 2.0 applications, methodology of the study, preliminary data analysis and results, and finally we discuss the implications of our finding and how they inform the design of effective Web 2.0-enriched learning environments.

LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING ENVIRONEMTN DESIGN


Learning style is one of many factors impacting the attainment of learning outcome (Moallem, 2007). Although many learning style models have been published and examined (Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Fielder-Silverman, 1988; Gardener, 1983; Gregorc, 1977; Kolb, 1984), each model has its own unique approach in explaining what learning style is. In general learning style explains why people behave, act, and feel differently in various learning environments (Sims & Sims, 1995). Numerous studies have confirmed the relationship between learning styles and various instructional factors such as instructional methods and instructional tools, in order to create efficient learning environments (Butler & Pinto-Zipp, 2007; Harris, Dwyer, & Leeming, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 2006). There is no single instructional strategy that could accommodate all students learning styles and instructional need (Federico, 2000). The best approach is to adapt eclectic instructional approaches to address students diverse individual differences. Therefore understanding students learning styles is important so educators can plan, develop, and operate learning activities for improving learning by supporting students learning preferences (Curry, 1987; Marshall, 1987; Federico, 2000). Students performance also could improve significantly when aligning appropriate teaching and learning approaches based on their learning styles (Hawk & Shah, 2007). Ross (1999; 2002) suggested that different learning styles might induce different levels of performance in computer-aided instructions, which implied the feasibility of customizing learning environment to enhance learning experience. The increased usage of web-based applications for educational purposes further demonstrated how educators enhance learning experiences in web-based instruction by efficiently integrating multimedia components and designing meaningful interactions (Horton, 2006). In other words, the lack of consideration on students learning styles in designing web-based learning environments might impede the learning process (Moallem, 2007). In conclusion, understanding students learning style is a critical first step for designing and developing effective learning environments. Such information is even more important in designing web-based instructional settings since options for delivering information and creating interactivity are less than those available in face-toface environments (Sun, Lin, & Yu, 2008).

WEB 2.0 APPLICATION FOR LEARNING


Web 2.0 is a collective term consisting of a group of web-based technologies that broaden users communication capabilities and options (Anderson, 2007). Available tools include blogs, WIKIs, podcasts, RSS feeds, online video sharing (e.g., YouTube, Crunchyroll), and online social networking sites (eg., MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn). Timothy OReilly (2005), who initially created the term, defines Web 2.0 as an active and open web architecture that values users participation and contribution. McLoughlin & Lee (2007) suggested that Web 2.0 is more personalized and interactive than the first generation Web application (ie., web users only retrieve information from the web). Proactive participation, connectivity, and collaboration are main features of Web 2.0 through users sharing knowledge and opinions. In the context of learning Web 2.0 applications are suggested to be efficient in conducting case studies due to their collaborative nature based on experiential learning approach (Huang & Behara, 2007). One unique factor is that Web 2.0 applications make it possible for users to connect to and collaborate with others in diverse interactions (Selwyn, 2007). Klamma et al., (2007) further suggested that Web 2.0 applications have great potential to facilitate and enhance lifelong learning experience by connecting students in collaborative environments with diminishing boundaries. There is a growing trend that many people are engaged in a wide range of technologies-based informal learning at home and community via Web 2.0 applications (Selwyn, 2007). According to Bryant (2006) Web 2.0 seems to have substantial possibilities for students who have various needs to enhance their learning experiences through enriched interactions (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Safran, Helic, & Gutl (2007) emphasized the potential of Web 2.0 applications because they makes it possible to uphold critical and analytical thinking, facilitate intuitive and associational thinking, support analogical thinking through easily accessing to rich information and interacting various opinions in terms of education.

Boyd (2007) claimed that social aspects of Web 2.0 are able to support three activities that characterize student-centered learning. First is the support for conversational interaction. Second is the support for social feedback. Third is the support for social networks and relationship between people for enhancing education. My Space (www.myspace.com) and Facebook (www.thefacebook.com) are two examples of Social Network Communities (SNCs) that could enrich informal learning by allowing users to self-express themselves freely (Selwyn, 2007). For instance, Facebook has many good facets for education such as reflective elements, peerfeedback with social context of learning (Selwyn, 2007). Some educators have utilized Facebooks capacity for connecting students easily and optimistically (Lemeul, 2006). Second Life, an social virtual community, also has been used for instructional purposes because it supports learning activities such as uploading personal opinions, participating in team work, and sharing knowledge and information made by users (Selwyn, 2007). In short, Web 2.0 allows learners to continuously participate in informal learning by connecting and collaborating with others in interaction-rich social and environments. As a result Web 2.0 applications enable educators to create personalized, active, participatory, and cooperative learning environments for the purpose of enhancing desired learning experiences (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007).

METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in Spring 2008 in a public Midwestern university in the U.S.. Descriptive statistical analysis and correlation analysis were conducted to identify the relationship between learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization levels from 107 participants. All data were collected via voluntary participations by a webbased survey interface. Following sections describe the measurements selected for the study, participants and data collection, and data analysis and results. MEASURING LEARNING STYLES This study selected Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) to measure learning styles. GSD, consisting of 40 items, has been widely used to measure learning styles (Drysdale, 2001; Orr, 1999, Ross, 1999; 2002), which defines learning styles as consisting of distinctive behaviors which serve as indicators of how a person learns form and adapts to his environment (Learning and Skills Research Centre, 2004). This instrument is based on the Gregorc Learning Style Model (Gregorc & Ward, 1977; Gregorc, 1997) and has its roots in experiential learning cycle (Hawk & Shah, 2007). Gregorc Style Delineator uses four bipolar and continuous mind qualities to measure individuals learning styles. The mind qualities are Concrete-Sequential (CS), Abstract-Sequential (AS), AbstractRandom (AR), and Concrete-Random (CR). Each participating individual will receive a score between 10 and 40 on each mind quality. Then the researcher can compare all four scores and identify the individuals dominant mind quality. It is possible that one individual might have multiple dominant mind qualities when using GSD and they would be categorized as binominal learners. Another critical reason for using GSD to measure learning styles is its ability to allow college level educators to translate college students learning styles into feasible instructional interventions (Gentry & Helgesen, 1999). In other words, GSD is helpful in assisting instructors devise effective instructional interventions in college classrooms. See Table 1 for detail descriptions of the GSD. MEASURING UTILIZATION LEVEL OF WEB 2.0 This research team targeted six Web 2.0 applications: blog, WIKIs, online social community(eg., Facebook), online video sharing (eg., YouTube), online video & audio conferencing tools, and social virtual environment (eg., Second Life). To investigate the utilization level of Web 2.0 applications, the research team created 78 survey items based on selected items from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). UTAUT is the synthesis of eight other models (ie., theory of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behavior, model of PC utilization, innovation diffusion model, and the social cognitive theory), which measures an unified technology acceptance level expressed by individuals or organizations. The research team used 7-point Likert Scale (1:Strongly Disagree ~7: Strongly Agree) to develop 11 survey items for each Web 2.0 tool based on the following relevant categories in UTAUT: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude, social influence, and anxiety. See Table

2 for survey items on Web 2.0 utilization. Additionally two more items were added to each Web 2.0 tool asking (1) how often per week they use the tool and (2) how much time they spend every time they use the tool. Therefore each Web 2.0 tool had 13 survey items to measure the utilization level. Table 1. Style Comparison by Gregorc Style Delineator
Frame of reference Key word World of reality Ordering ability View of time Thinking processes Validation process CS (Concrete Sequential) Practical Concrete world of the physical senses Sequential step by step linear progression Discrete units of past, present, future Instinctive, methodical, deliberate Personal proof via the senses: accredited experts Material reality; physical objects Product, prototype, refinement, duplication Ordered, practical, quiet, stable Literal meaning and labels, succinct, logical Good, Not Bad Excessive conformity; unfeeling, possessive AS (Abstract Sequential) Probable Abstract world of the intellect based upon concrete world Sequential and twodimensional tree like The present, historical past, and projected future Intellectual, logical, analytical, correlative Personal intellectual formulae; conventionally accredited experts Knowledge, facts, documentation, concepts, idea Synthesis, theories, models, and matrices Mentally stimulating, ordered and quiet, nonauthoritative Polysyllabic words, precise, rational; highly verbal Excellent Opinionated, sarcastic, aloof AR (Abstract Random) Potential Abstract world of feeling and emotion Random web-like and multi dimensional The moment time is artificial and restrictive Emotional, psychic, perceptive, critical Inner guidance system Emotional attachments, relationship, and memories Imagination, the arts, refinement, relationships Emotional and physical freedom; rich,; active and colorful Metaphoric, uses gestures and body language; colorful Super, Fantastic, Marvelous Spacey, overly sensual, smothering CR (Concrete Random) Possible Concrete world of activity and abstract world of intuition Random three dimensional patterns Now: total of the past, interactive present, and seed for the future Intuitive, instinctive, impulsive, independent Practical demonstration; personal proof; rarely accepting of outside authority Applications, methods, processes and ideals Intuition, originality, inventive, and futuristic Stimulus-rich, competitive, free from restriction Informative, lively, colorful; word do not convey true meaning Great, Superior Deceitful, unscrupulous, ego-centric

Focus of attention Creativity Environmental preference Use of language Primary evaluative word(s) Negative characteristics

Table 2. Acceptance of Web 2.0 applications


Categorization Performance expectancy

Questions I would find it useful in my learning tasks Using it enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly Using it increases my productivity

Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Effort expectancy

Learning to use it is easy for me Using it for learning is a good idea It makes learning more interesting Learning with it is fun I like learning with it People who influence my behavior think that I should it I feel apprehensive about using it It is somewhat intimidating to me

Attitude toward using Web 2.0 applications

Social influence

Anxiety

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS


DATA ANALYSIS Based on the research questions this study used both descriptive and inferential statistics for data analysis. First the research team used descriptive statistics to report the distribution of learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization

levels. Then inferential statistics (ie., correlation analysis) was conducted to identify the relationships between participants learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization levels. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA COLLECTION 107 undergraduate students from a public Midwestern university participated in the study. 23 participants datasets were removed from learning style data analysis due to incompleteness or errors while 107 datasets were analyzed for the utilization of Web 2.0 applications. This led to a total of 84 datasets for correlation analysis. Of the 107 completed surveys on Web 2.0 utilization level, 55 of them were male (51.4%) and 52 were female (48.6%). 22(21%) freshman, 13 (12.4%) sophomores, 16 (15.2%) juniors, and 42 (40%) seniors participated in the study. The respondents were also asked to indicate their major. See Table 3 for participants academic major. All participants were recruited voluntarily via emails and on-campus posters. Once participants provided consents to participate in the study, they were redirected to a web-based program to finish the survey. Each survey took no more than 20 minutes to complete and no time limit was posted to the web-based survey. Table 3. Academic major of study participants who completed Web 2.0 utilization level survey
Major Number Business/ Management Chemical / Biology Education Electric / Electronics 7 Liberal Arts / Communication Mechanical / Physics 2 14 11 23 23 Art / Design 1

Other 26

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 84 participants learning styles are identified based on GSD. (See Table 4) Concrete Sequential (CS, n=26) learning style is the predominant one, followed by Abstract Sequential (AS, n=20), Abstract Random (AR, n=17), and Concrete Random (CR, n=13). Furthermore there are eight binomials who have two dominant learning styles. Table 4. Analysis of learning style
Learning Style Number of Participants Percentage CS 26 31 AS 20 23.8 AR 17 20.2 CR 13 15.5 Binomial 8 9.5 Total 84 100%

Usage of Web 2.0 applications (n=107) regardless of learning style suggested that students use online social community most frequently (more than 7 times a week at 47%). Majority of them rarely use social virtual environment (e.g., Second Life). See Table 5 for detail information. Table 5. Usage frequency of Web 2.0 applications per week
Web 2.0 applications I don' know t what this is 36 (34%) 25 (23%) 13 (12%) 8 (7%) 57 (53%) 83 (77%) 1 time 42 (39 %) 22 (20 %) 10 (9 %) 38 (35%) 39 (36%) 17 (16%) 2 - 4 times 16 24 19 32 5 3 (15%) (22%) (18%) (29%) (5%) (3%) 5 - 6 times 3 13 15 12 3 2 (3%) (13%) (15%) (11%) (3%) (2%) More than 7 times 10 23 50 17 3 2 (9%) (22%) (47%) (18%) (3%) (2%)

Blog WIKI Online social community (e.g., Facebook) Online video sharing (e.g., YouTube) Online video & audio conferencing tool Social virtual environment (e.g., Second Life)

Table 7 shows the utilization level of Web 2.0 for learning on all six Web 2.0 tools. In average participants had a more positive attitude towards using WIKI than other Web 2.0 tools. While participants found that Blog is the easiest to use, they felt somewhat intimidated by using Social Virtual Environment. However, the anxiety level associated with using all Web 2.0 tools is relative low on a 7-point Likert scale. INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

See Table 6 for significant correlation analysis results between learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization level. Use codes in Table 2 to identify corresponding survey items in Web 2.0 utilization level survey. Table 6. Correlation coefficients (r2 at p =.05) between learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization level (n=84)
Web 2.0 Tools Blog WIKI Learning Styles CS Online Social Community x Online Video Sharing x Online V&A Conferencing .23(10) .23(11) Social Virtual Environment

.38(9) .24(11)

.25(1) .24(2) .23(3) .24(6) .24(7) -.22(1) -.22(2) -.23(5) -.22(6) -.26(8)

AS

-.27(10)

AR CR

.22(2) x

-.23(9) .24< r < .28 (1~8)


2

.25(11) .25(10)

x x

x x

CONCLUSION
In terms of descriptive statistical analysis it is encouraging to learn that most students found Web 2.0 tools easy to use. CS (Concrete-Sequential) learners were the least intimidated by several Web 2.0 tools particularly they felt confident in using video sharing applications and online community tools such as Facebook; AS (AbstractSequential) learners reported the least positive attitude towards using WIKI; AR (Abstract-Random) learners had the highest anxiety level in participating in social virtual environment (eg., Second Life); CR (Concrete-Random) learners perceived high difficulty level in using several Web 2.0 tools such as online community (Facebook) and online video sharing while felt as ease in using social virtual environment tool. Correlation analysis also generated numerous interesting finding. The results suggested that CS learners were more likely in deciding which Web 2.0 tools to use based on social opinions. They also were intimidated by the online conferencing tools (eg., Skype). Social virtual environments seemed to repel AS learners. Learners with AR orientation felt optimistic in using Blog for learning and their decision in using WIKI was not influenced by their peers. CR learners were suggested to be very welcoming in using WIKI for learning. But they felt somewhat intimidated by the online social community tool.

DISCUSSION
Given the small sample size we need to be cautious when generalizing our findings to different instructional settings. The preliminary results, however, offer three potential research directions for us to continuously improve the study in the future. First, students with different learning styles do perceive and utilize Web 2.0 applications differently for learning purposes. This might be the direct result of their instructional preferences not addressed by GSD (e.g, visual learners, hands-on learners, etc.), or the indirect consequences of available instructional resources and infrastructures. Future research needs to take both factors into consideration. Second, the potential relationship between learning styles and Web 2.0 utilization level is very valuable for educators. Future studies should cultivate such relationship and create a customizable Web 2.0 learning environment design guideline in order to address different learning needs. Finally the research team intends to conduct in-depth task analysis for all six Web 2.0 applications and align them with intended learning outcomes. As a result we will be able to optimize learners performance in Web 2.0-enriched learning environments.

Table 7. Analysis of technology acceptance of Web 2.0 applications (7-point Likert scale)
Utilization Level from UTAUT I would find it useful in my learning tasks Performance Using it enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly Using it increases my productivity Effort Expectancy Attitude Learning to use it is easy for me Using it for learning is a good idea It makes learning more interesting Learning with it is fun I like learning with it Social Influence Anxiety People who influence my behavior think that I should it I feel apprehensive about using it It is somewhat intimidating to me Acceptance of Web 2.0 applications Blog WIKI Online social community 2.79 3.4 2.99 5.39 3.82 3.96 4.12 4.15 4.16 2.96 2.48

Online video sharing 5.0 4.24 4.08 5.32 4.63 5.01 5.04 4.98 4.43 2.71 2.53

4.3 3.94 3.86 5.28 4.71 4.68 4.57 4.62 3.94 3.30 2.94

5.45 5.26 4.98 5.45 5.23 5.13 5.13 5.28 4.27 3.10 2.69

Online video & audio conferencing tool 4.28 4.30 4.19 4.62 4.32 4.26 4.26 4.20 4.15 3.49 3.49

Social virtual environment 3.95 3.85 3.88 4.21 3.97 4.08 4.08 4.03 3.96 3.83 3.68

REFERENCES
Butler, T. J., & Pinto-zipp, G. (2006). Students learning styles and their preferences for online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2), 199-221. Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: a review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian College of Health Service Executives. Drysdale, M. T. B., Ross, J. L., & Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in 19 first-year university courses: Successful students versus students at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(3), 271-89. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning style. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Farmer, J. (2004). Communication dynamics: Discussion boards, weblogs and the development of communities of inquiry in online learning evironmnets. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21 st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 274-283). Perth, WA: Univerisity of Western Australia. Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 359-79. Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 67481. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books Inc. Gentry, J.A., & Helgesen, M. (1999). Using learning style information to improve the core financial management course. Financial Practice & Education, 9(1), 59-69. Gregorc, A. F.,&Ward, H. B. (1977). A new definition for individual: implications for learning and teaching. NASSP Bulletin, 401(6), 2023. Gregorc, D. F. (1997). Relating with style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates. Harris, R. N., Dwyer, W. O., & Leeming, F. C. (2003). Are learning styles relevant in web-based instruction? Journal of Computing Research, 29(1), 13-28. Hawk, T. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19. Horton, W. (2006). E-Learning by Design, San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Huang, C.D., & Behara, R.S. (2007). Outcome-driven experiential learning with Web 2.0, Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(3), 329-36. Johnson, G. M., & Johnson, J. A. (2006). Learning style and preference for online learning support: Individual quizzes versus study groups. Paper presented at the 18th Annual World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications (Orlando, FL, Jun 26-30, 2006). Klamma, R., Chatti, M.A., Duval, E. Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. H., Kravcik, M., Law, E., Naeve, A., & Scott, P. (2007). Social software for life-ling learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 10(3), 72-83. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. NJ: Prentice Hall. Learning and Skills Research Centre (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning, UK Marshall, J. (1987). The examination of a learning style typology. Research in Higher Education, 26, 417-29. Moallem, M. (2007). Accommodating individual differences in the design of online learning environment: a comparative study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 217-45. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings of ASCILITE Conference 2007(pp.664-673). Singapore. OReilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved on April 26, 2008 from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. Orr, B., Park, O., Thomson, D., & Thomson, C. (1999). Learning styles of postsecondary students enrolled in vocational technical institutes. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4), 5-20. Ross, J. L., Drysdale, M. T. B., & Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in two postsecondary computer application courses. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 400-12. Ross, J., & Schulz, R. (1999). Can computer-aided instruction accommodate all learners equally? British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 5-24. Safran, C., Helic, C., & Gutl, C. (2007). E-Learning practices and Web 2.0. Proceedings of ICL 2007(pp 1-8). Villach, Austria. Sarasin, L. C. (1999). Learning style perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood Pub. Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning a critical review. Paper for OCEDKERIS expert meeting. Session 6 alternative learning environments in practice: using ICT to change impact and outcomes. Sun, K., Lin, Y.,& Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1411-22. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-78.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen