This study asked students of non‐traditional age enrolled in an online MBA program to complete a questionnaire for assessing their learning styles, using the well‐known Kolb Learning‐Style Inventory. In addition to the questions about learning style, students were asked to evaluate eight electronic course delivery methods used by their professors. Students were asked to assess those methods using a 6‐point Likert‐type scale. They were also asked how the method could be qualitatively improved, but this research paper does not address those written comments. The following research questions were posed: What are the different learning styles of online MBA students?, What, if any, differences are there in the learning styles of students enrolled in online MBA courses?, and Do online students prefer certain electronic course delivery methods over others? Differences were identified in the learning styles of the students. Students reported preferences in certain course delivery methods over others. There were also significant relationships reported between learning styles and preferred course delivery methods. Implications for instructors are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BergerN. (1999). Pioneering experience in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 23(6), 684–90.
BorgM. O.ShapiroS. L. (1996). Personality type and student performance in principles of economics, The Journal of Economic Education, 27(1), 3–25.
4.
CarnevaleD. (2000). Survey finds 72% rise in number of distance‐education programs, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (16), A57.
5.
CarrellL.MenzelK.E. (2001). Variations in Learning, Motivation, and Perceived Immediacy between Live and Distance Education Classrooms. Communication Education, 50(3), 230–240.
6.
DunnR.DunnK. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
7.
DunnR. S.GriggsA. J.OlsonGorman B.BeasleyM. (1995). A meta‐analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model, Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353–61.
8.
EbelingD. G. (2000). Adapting your teaching to any learning style, Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 247–248.
9.
FarringtonG. C. (1999). The new technologies and the future of residential undergraduate education, Dancing with the devil: Information Technology and the new competition in higher education, San Francisco: Josey‐Bass.
10.
FilbeckG.SmithL. L. (1996). Learning styles, teaching strategies, and predictors of success in corporate finance, Financial Practice and Education, 6(1), 74–85.
11.
FornaciariC.ForteM.MathewsC. (1999). Distance education as strategy: How can your school compete?Journal of Management Education, 23(6), 703–718.
12.
HarrisM. (1999). Is the revolution now over, or has it just begun? A year of the Internet in higher education, The Internet and Higher Education, 1(4), 243–251.
13.
HayesJ.AllinsonC. W. (1996). The implications of learning styles for training and development: A discussion of the matching hypothesis, British Journal of Management, 7(1), 63–73.
14.
HoneyP.MumfordA. (1986). The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead.
15.
KayS. (1998). How employees process information, Supervision, 59(12), 6–7.
16.
Khan and Vega (1997). Cited in Distance Education Report, November 1998, 3.
17.
KillionJ. (2001). Log on to learn, Journal of Staff Development, 21(3), 48–53.
18.
KolbD.A (1993). Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.
19.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
20.
LenznerR.JohnsonS. (1997, March 10). Seeing things as they really are, Forbes, retrieved May 23, 2004 from ProQuest, http:gateway.proquest.comopenurlurl_verZ39.882004&res_datxri:pqd&rft_val_fmtinfo:ofifmt:kev:mtx:journal&genrearticle&rft_datxri:pqd:did000000011131941&svc_datxri:pqil:fmttext&req_datxri:pqil:pq_clntid17038.
21.
MarkelM. (1999). Distance education and the myth of the new pedagogy, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13(2), 208–222.
22.
MottlJ. N. (2000). Learn at a distance, Information week, 767, 75–78.
23.
MumfordA. (1995). Putting learning styles to work: An integrated approach. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27(8), 28–35.
24.
NavarroP.ShoemakerJ. (1999). The power of cyber learning: an empirical test, Journal of Computing in Higher Education.
25.
PeekR. (2000). A distance learning reality check. Information Today, 17(2), 30.
26.
PrenskyM. (1998). Bankers trust: Training is all fun and games. HR Focus, 75(10), 11–12.
RoachS. S.JohnstonM. W.HairJ. F.Jr. (1993,Fall). An exploratory examination of teaching styles currently employed in marketing education: Developing a typology and its implications for marketing students, Journal of Marketing Education, 32–38.
29.
SabaF. (1999). Helping students learn online: Learning how to learn, Distance Education Report, 3(2), 1.
30.
SchulmanA. H.SimsR. L. (1999). T.H.E. Journal, 26 (11), Nova Southeastern University, 54–56.
31.
TaylorJ. (1998). Learning Styles: A practical tool for improved communications, Supervision, 59(7), 18–19.
32.
TomlinsonJ. (1996). Inclusive learning: The report of the learning difficulties and disabilities committee, FFEC, Coventry, England.
33.
TrinkleD. A. (1999, August 6). Distance education: a means to and end, no more, no less. Chronicle of Higher Education, A60.
34.
WadeW. (1999, October 27). Assessment in Distance Learning: What Do Students Know and How Do We Know that They Know It?. T.H.E. Journal, (3), 94–100.
35.
YoungJ. (2000a). Faculty report at University of Illinois casks skeptical eye on distance education, Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(19), A48.
36.
YoungJ. (2000b). Distance education seen as useful as classrooms. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (24), A55.
