The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationships between identified faculty learning styles and the retention of content knowledge as measured by online learning activity choice. A total of 17,589 full time faculty were sent an invitation to participate with 165 choosing to be a part of the study. Using a quasi-experimental quantitative research methodology, faculty completed the Cohen, Oxford, and Chi (2006) Learning Styles Survey in an online module. After completing the survey, faculty chose an instructional object that was customized to one of three learning styles: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic. Faculty completed course content in the instructional object and then completed a comprehension quiz. χ2 tests of independence confirmed demographic variables are independent of learning style. An ANOVA test supported the assumption that there is not a stronger learning style for online learning, but that all groups showed the same level of propensity for knowledge retention. A Pearson r correlation analysis supported the idea that completion time is not indicative of a better score on assessments. Finally, independent sample t-tests indicated that there was not a significant difference in matched learning style or unmatched learning style groups for either completion time or comprehension quiz score. The final results of the current study indicated that an online model of faculty development appears to be effective in delivering content to faculty regardless of learning style.
|Commitee:||Davis, Wayne, Kavli, Suzanne|
|School:||Dallas Baptist University|
|Department:||Gary Cook Graduate School of Leadership|
|School Location:||United States -- Texas|
|Source:||DAI-A 81/4(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Higher education, Educational leadership, Teacher education, Educational technology|
|Keywords:||Faculty development, Learning styles, Online learning|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be