J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol.

37(1) 41-63, 2007

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF LEARNING

STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE AND
TRADITIONAL STUDENTS*†

YULIANG LIU
Southern Illinois University , Edwardsville

ABSTRACT
This comparative study was designed to investigate how online and tradi-
tional face-to-face (FtF) students used different learning styles in a graduate
educational course. A nonequivalent control group design was employed. The
study involved 19 students in an experimental group (online section) and
25 students in a control group (FtF section) in a graduate course in the
Fall semester of 2004. Although no significant statistical differences were
detected in learning styles at pretest, significant statistical differences were
found in many learning style subscales at posttest between experimental and
control groups. Specifically, at the end of the course, online students seemed
to have a higher preference for peer interaction, competition, interaction
with the instructor, details of the course materials, independence, authority,
reading, direct experiences, and clear goal setting than their counterparts in
the FtF section. No significant statistical differences were detected in learning
performance between both groups. Implications resulted from the study.

INTRODUCTION
Online education has grown exponentially every year all over the world. Online
education has positively influenced many aspects of education both directly and
indirectly (CEO Forum, 2000; Kozma, 1994; Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, &

*This study was sponsored by the Funded University Research internal grant at Southern Illinois
University Edwardsville in 2004.
†
An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Education Research Association
(AERA) annual conference in San Francisco, California, USA in April 2006.

41

Ó 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

42 / LIU

Zvacek, 2006; Tabs, 2003; Waits & Lewis, 2003). Much current research focuses
on learners’ achievement and course evaluations as related to online education
(Kearsley, 2000; Kelly & Schorger, 2002; Lim & Morris, 2004-2005; Liu, 2005a,
2005b, 2006; Russell, 2000). However, there is not much attention paid to the
effects of online instruction on learners’ psychological characteristics such as
learning styles.

The Literature Review

There have been mixed results concerning the effects of computing tech-
nology on online learners’ psychological characteristics and learning per-
formance. Although there has been a growing body of research about online
instruction, not much is known about the characteristics of learners who enroll
and succeed in online instruction (Kelly & Schorger, 2002; Navarro &
Shoemaker, 2000; Saba, 2000; Saba & Shearer, 1994; Schlosser & Anderson,
1994; Smith & Dillion, 1999). In addition, according to Harris, Dwyer, and
Leeming (2003), the relationship between individual learning styles and Web-
based instruction has received very little attention in the research literature.
Thus, it has been suggested that future distance education research take the
“always on” distance learners’ unique characteristics and needs into consideration
(e.g., Baird & Fisher, 2005-2006; Melton, 2003). Based on recent research in
this area, many researchers have consistently recommended considering online
students’ learning styles in both course design and delivery of online courses
(Arsham, 2002; Daughenbaugh, Ensminger, Frederick, & Surry, 2002; Doherty
& Maddux, 2002; Drennan, Kennedy, & Pisarki, 2005; Grasha & Yangarber-
Hicks, 2000; Keller & Suzuki, 2004; Kelly & Schorger, 2002; Kickul & Kickul,
2006; Kirkwood & Price, 2005; Lim & Morris, 2004-2005; Liu & Ginther,
1999; Lo & Shu, 2005; Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006; Papp, 2001; Pittman,
Rutz, & Elkins, 2006; Schmidt & Brown, 2004; Valenta, Therriault, Dieter, &
Mrtek, 2001; Vincent & Ross, 2001).
In recent years, some studies have started to investigate online students’
psychological characteristics. However, a majority of such studies are descriptive
survey studies. In order to find the causal relationship between online instruction
and learning styles, experimental studies seem necessary in this field. There is
still not enough literature regarding the experimental effects of online instruction
on online students’ learning styles. Limited recent studies regarding learning
styles in online courses have consistently found that a preference for an active
learning style has a positive effect on students’ performance in online learning.
Bozionelos (1997) found that online students preferring the active experi-
mentation model were more comfortable and performed better on learning tasks
than their counterparts with other learning styles. Garland (2003) also found
significant differences in learning styles between online and traditional students.
In addition, Buerk, Malmstrom, and Peppers (2003) found that traditional students
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 43

tended to have the Assimilator learning style while their online counterparts
tended to have the Convergent learning style. But these results seem inconsistent
with other studies. For instance, Wang, Wang, Wang, and Huang (2006) found
that online students with a Divergent learning style performed the best, followed
by other styles including Assimilator, Accommodator, and Converger.
Halsne and Gatta (2002) found that online students were predominantly visual
learners while the traditional learners were primarily auditory or kinesthetic
learners. Downing and Chim (2004) found that students with the Reflector
learning style tended to be Extraverts in the online courses while they might be
considered Introverts in the traditional classrooms. According to Downing and
Chim, the major reason is that “the additional time for reflection offered by online
delivery makes this group more likely to contribute to online discussion, report
higher satisfaction levels and generally behave more like online Extraverts”
(p. 265). Smith (2005) identified that online students tended to have two major
learning styles or readiness for successful online learning: a) self-management
of learning; and b) comfort with e-learning. Butler and Pinto-Zipp (2005-2006)
identified the three strongest preferences of the online learners: convenience, time
management, and interactivity.
However, some recent studies have found no significant results in learning
performance resulting from students’ learning styles. Aragon, Johnson, and
Shaik (2000) found no significant differences in learning styles and learning
performance between online and traditional graduate students. Seiler (2004)
also did not find any difference in learning styles between participants who had
online learning experience or not. Harris and colleagues (2003) conducted an
experimental study to examine the impact of learning styles on online learning
performance in a Web-based undergraduate psychology course. Harris and col-
leagues found that students’ learning styles and online course module (text-based
vs. multimedia-based) had no impact on students’ mean test scores or their
reactions to the online course module.
In addition, some research studies (Ching, 1998; Clariana, 1997) found that
students’ learning styles changed when students were exposed to computer-
assisted courses within several weeks. Jordanov (2001) found that: a) students
preferred different learning styles when using the Internet than when learning in
general situations; b) students moved toward more active learning styles when
using the Internet; and c) active learning styles had a positive impact on students’
attitudes toward and performance on computer-based learning tasks. It’s clear
that Jordanov’s results further supported previous research findings in this area
as described previously.
There were several studies investigating online and traditional students’
learning styles using the Canfield Learning Style Inventory (CLSI) (Canfield,
1992). Tucker (2001) conducted a quasi-experimental study to assess the
effectiveness and learning styles in online versus traditional FtF instruction
among undergraduates majoring in business communications. Tucker found no
44 / LIU

significant difference in final course grade between online and traditional groups.
Regarding learning styles, Tucker found that: a) there was a similar preference
for “Organization” and “B-Expectation” for course grade in both online and
traditional groups; b) both groups least preferred the “Numeric”; c) online students
preferred “People” (e.g., working with team members) and “Direct Experience”
(e.g., hands-on or performance situations) while traditional students preferred
“Inanimate” (e.g., things) and “Iconic” (e.g., slides, illustrations); and d) online
students’ least preferred style was “Authority” and “Listening” while traditional
students’ least preferred style was “Independence” and “Reading.” In addition,
Keri (2002-2003) investigated community college and university undergraduates
using Canfield’s Learning Style Inventory to examine learning style differ-
ences between traditional and nontraditional students. Keri’s results indicated
that Canfield’s instrument could not differentiate between the learning styles of
traditional and nontraditional students.
As described previously, most recent studies have indicated that a student’s
learning style is a very important factor in learning and instruction. Some
researchers and the instructional designers have advocated that it will be very
helpful to design and adapt instruction to meet students’ learning styles in order
to achieve high quality and effective instruction including online courses (e.g.,
Valenta et al., 2001). As researchers of online instruction and learning, we need
to make the online option more attractive and viable for different groups of
learners. Thus, there is a need to investigate: a) the similarities and differences
in learning styles between online and traditional students; and b) how online
instruction could shift students’ learning styles.
The present study was designed to replicate Tucker’s (2001) study to see
whether similar results can be achieved so that important implications for the
best possible instructional strategies for both online and traditional students can
be proposed. The major replication method in the present study was to use the
same Canfield’s Learning Style Inventory in two sections of a graduate course:
one online section and one traditional FtF section, simultaneously taught by the
author in the Fall semester of 2004.

Research Hypotheses

Based on related literature as described previously, four major research

hypotheses in this study were derived as follows:
H1: There are no significant statistical differences in learners’ mean
scores in learning styles between the online section and the tradi-
tional section at the beginning of the course.
H2: There are significant statistical differences in learners’ mean scores
in learning styles between the online section and the traditional
section at the completion of the course.
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 45

H3: There are significant statistical differences in learners’ mean scores

in learning styles in the online section between the beginning and
the completion of the course.
H4: There are no significant statistical differences in learners’ mean
scores in learning performance, as measured by final grades,
between the online section and the traditional section at the com-
pletion of the course.

METHODS

Participants and Course

All students who self-selected to enroll in EDUC501 (Educational Research)

in both online and traditional sections in the fall semester of 2004 were solicited
for participation in this project during the initial campus meeting. The online
section had 19 students (the department capped each online section to 20) and the
FtF section had 25 students. There was full participation in both sections. All
participants were asked to complete consent forms and demographic surveys
related to this study. Participants’ major nine demographic variables including
gender, job type, highest degree earned, ethnicity, academic major, years of
teaching experience, age, years after highest degree, and perceived computer skills
in both sections are presented in Table 1.
Pretests of course performance and learning styles in both sections were then
administered. The pretest of course performance had 10 objective multiple choice
questions prepared by the instructor. The pretest of learning styles was measured
using the CLSI (Canfield, 1992). Pretest results revealed no overall significant
statistical differences in course performance using the independent samples t test
(p = .92) or learning styles (see Results section for details in Table 3) between
both sections and indicated that both groups were equivalent at the beginning
of the semester.

Instruments

Many learning style models exist. In this study, the students’ cognitive and
learning styles were measured using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory
(Canfield, 1992). The CLSI was chosen primarily because the CLSI is able to
allow learners to “describe what features of their educational experiences they
most prefer” (p. 1). This inventory was designed for adolescents through adults
and focuses on motivational and environmental factors present in formal instruc-
tional environments. The CLSI has a strong research base, uses clear lan-
guage, and helps students and their instructors understand learning preferences.
Most importantly, Canfield divides learning styles into useful applications for
46 / LIU

Table 1. Participants’ Major Demographic Information (N = 44)

Frequency (Percentage) Frequency (Percentage)

Experi- Experi-
Demographic mental Control Total Demographic mental Control Total
variables (n = 19) (n = 25) (n = 44) variables (n = 19) (n = 25) (n = 44)

1. Gender 6. Years of
Male 3 8 11 (25%) Teaching
Female 16 17 33 (75%) Experiences
0-1 year 1 1 2 (5%)
2-5 years 7 10 17 (39%)
2. Job Type 6-9 years 5 3 8 (18%)
School teacher 16 17 33 (75%) 10 or more 4 4 8 (18%)
Other 3 8 11 (25%) years
Missing 9 (21%)
3. Highest cases
Degree Earned
Bachelor 19 24 43 (98%) 7. Age
Master 0 1 1 (2%) 20-29 years 8 14 22 (50%)
30-39 years 7 3 10 (23%)
4. Ethnicity 40-49 years 4 6 10 (23%)
Caucasian 17 23 40 (90%) 50 or older 0 2 2 (4%)
Native 1 1 2 (5%)
American 8. Years After
African 1 1 2 (5%) Highest
American Degree
1-5 years 7 13 20 (45%)
5. Academic 6-9 years 8 4 12 (27%)
Major 10-15 years 4 2 6 (14%)
Elementary 6 2 8 (18%) 16-20 years 0 3 3 (7%)
education 20 or more 0 3 3 (7%)
Secondary 2 1 3 (7%) years
education
Special 1 6 7 (16%) 9. Perceived
education Computer
Educational 5 7 12 (27%) Skills
administration Beginning 3 4 7 (16%)
Instructional 2 1 3 (7%) level
technology Intermediate 16 18 34 (77%)
Other 3 8 11 (25%) level
Advanced 0 5 3 (7%)
level
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 47

distance/distributed learning. The CLSI is a self-report inventory that measures

learning preferences and can be completed in just 15-20 minutes.
According to Canfield (1992), the CLSI is a 30-item assessment using a 4-point
rank order procedure for each item. Students ranked these choices in the order
that best described their preferences. Each item was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4,
with 1 equaling the most preferred choice and 4 equaling the least preferred
choice. A ranking process was used to obtain the raw scores. Thus, the lower the
score, the stronger the preference. On each of the subscales, the lowest possible
score is 6, and the highest possible score is 24. Ranking of the four responses on
each item is equal to six paired comparison items in which the student chooses
one item from each pair. For example: Peer, Organization, Goal Setting, and
Competition are each ranked on a total of six items within the inventory (1, 6,
11, 16, 21, 26). For instance, Item 1 is listed below.
1. Rank the following in terms of how well they describe the classes you’ve
liked most.
1 2 3 4 ___ a. I enjoyed the other students and we shared our ideas and
feelings with each other.
1 2 3 4 ___ b. The course was well organized and the topics followed one
another in a meaningful sequence.
1 2 3 4 ___ c. I more or less set my own goals and studied the things of most
interest to me.
1 2 3 4 ___ d. I knew how my work compared with others and the best work
was fairly recognized.

According to Canfield (1992), the CLSI has 20 subscale variables that are
divided into the following four major categories:

(1) Conditions for Learning. There are eight major types of conditions for
learning for different learners. These include Peer, Organization, Goal
Setting, Competition, Instructor, Detail, Independence, and Authority
which constitute about two-fifths of the items in the inventory and measure
“the dynamics of the situation in which learning occurs” (Canfield, 1992,
p. 19).
(2) Areas of Interest. There are four major areas of interest for different
learners. These include Numeric, Qualitative, Inanimate, and People,
which measure students’ preferred subject matter or objects of study.
(3) Modes of Learning. There are four major types of learning modalities for
different learners. These include Listening, Reading, Iconic, and Direct
Experience, which concentrate on identifying the specific modality
through which students learn best.
(4) Expectation Types. There are four major types of learner expectations for
Course Grades which (A, B, C, D) are designed to predict the failure or
success of a learner. The A through D expectation scales indicate
anticipated performance level.
48 / LIU

Only the first three dimensions are used to create a learning typology describing
the learning style. The last dimension—course grade type—is self-contained and
not incorporated into the learning typology. According to Canfield (1992), the
CLSI is not a test and has no right or wrong answers. Split-half reliability obtained
for each of the scales ranged from .96 to .99 and was higher than those for the
analyses of individual items. In addition, “a number of researchers have reported
evidence of the power of the CLSI to discriminate meaningful group differences
in learning style preference and the value of matching instructional methods
to characteristic individual student preferences” (p. 38). According to Canfield,
the validity of the instrument indicates that students who were taught through
techniques congruent with their learning style preferences performed better in
most learning tasks.

Experimental Design and Procedure

This study employed a nonequivalent control group design which involved an

experimental group and a control group. In both the experimental group (online
section) and the control group (traditional section), the dependent variables—
learning performance and learning styles—were pretested and posttested. The
independent variable was the instructional environment which involved two
treatment levels: online vs. traditional classroom instruction. The experimental
group (online section) was delivered completely on WebCT. The control group
was taught in a traditional FtF format. The dependent variables were students’
learning styles and learning performances. The learning styles instruments were
administered in both groups in the first week as a paper-and-pencil-based pretest
to measure participants’ initial state. In addition, the posttest was administered in
the final week in both sections to measure the participants’ developmental state of
the above dependent variables affected by online instruction over the semester,
online in the experimental group and paper-and-pencil-based in the control group.
Student’s final course grade included a combination of individual and group
assignments.
There were two major similarities between both groups in this study: a) both
groups were simultaneously taught by the author; and b) in order to be as
equivalent as possible, the instructional content and objectives as well as course
assignments were kept the same in both groups. However, there were several
major differences between both groups, including scheduling, accessibility to the
instructor, instructional media, class location, and instructional methods. Online
students virtually met with the instructor almost every weekday on WebCT and
on the Internet while traditional FtF students met with the instructor in the
traditional classroom only once per week. In the control group, the instructor also
used PowerPoint for lectures and presentations and used WebCT only for posting
instructional materials. The major online instructional strategies in the experi-
mental group included, but were not limited to: online presentations, bulletin
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 49

board discussions, individual weekly essays, online quizzes, peer critiques, and
collaborative research proposals (Liu, 2003). The major instructional strategies
in the control group included, but were not limited to: lectures, students’ pre-
sentations, classroom discussions, individual weekly essays, quizzes, peer
critiques, and collaborative research proposals. In addition, in order to reduce
learners’ learning anxiety and to maximize learning, one FtF meeting was
scheduled on campus in the first week of class for the experimental group.

RESULTS

Participants’ demographic information, as well as pretests and posttests of

learning styles were coded and analyzed using SPSS 13.0. Although CLSI is
divided into four major categories described previously, according to Canfield
(1992), the present study analyzed all single individual subscale variables in order
to understand the details. Levene’s test was run to examine and confirm the
equality of variances for the means in all 20 learning styles subscales at pre- and
posttest as described previously. The demographic results in both groups are
in Table 1.
First, the descriptive statistics for both experimental and control groups regard-
ing their overall learning style preference, top preferences, and least preferences
are presented in Table 2 for pretest and posttest.
In addition, in order to visually demonstrate the mean scores, two line charts
were made for the 20 learning style scales at pretest (see Figure 1) and posttest
(see Figure 2), respectively.
Second, the results of the independent t tests between the pretest and posttest
mean scores in learning style subscales in both groups are presented in Table 3.
Results in Table 3 indicated that there were significant differences in 8 of the
20 learning styles subscales at posttest between the online and traditional section
at a = .05. The specific significant differences were shown in these categories:
1) Conditions-Peer; 2) Conditions-Competition; 3) Conditions-Instructor;
4) Conditions-Details; 5) Conditions-Independence; 6), Conditions-Authority;
7) Mode-Reading; and 8), Mode-Direct Experience. In addition, this independent
t test indicated that there were marginally significant differences between the
online and traditional section in 1 of the 20 subscales (a = .10): Conditions-Goal.
Third, the results of a paired t test of the pretest and posttest mean scores in
learning style subscales in the experimental group are presented in Table 4. The
t test result in Table 4 indicated there were significant statistical differences in
the experimental group between pretest and posttest mean scores in learning
styles in 7 of the 20 subscales at a = .05. The specific significant differences
were shown in these categories: 1) Conditions-Goal; 2) Conditions-Competition;
3) Conditions-Instructor; 4) Conditions-Details; 5) Conditions-Independence;
6) Conditions-Authority; and 7) Mode-Reading.
50 / LIU

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for 20 Learning Style Subscales at

Pretest and Posttest in Experimental and Control Groups
Pretest Posttest
Groups N Mean SD Mean SD
I. CLSI Conditions—Peer Experimental 19 13.32 2.73 12.21 2.68
Control 25 13.96 2.98 14.96 1.99

CLSI Conditions—Organization Experimental 19 10.95 2.55 10.05 2.07

Control 25 9.32 2.38 9.57 2.27

CLSI Conditions—Goal Experimental 19 16.53 2.57 14.89 3.75

Control 25 15.32 3.78 16.91 3.74

CLSI Conditions—Competition Experimental 19 16.95 3.32 14.05 2.90

Control 25 18.16 2.51 17.91 2.81

CLSI Conditions—Instructor Experimental 19 12.32 3.22 10.37 2.36

Control 25 13.28 3.43 14.61 2.61

CLSI Conditions—Detail Experimental 19 12.26 3.65 9.37 2.89

Control 25 10.24 2.73 11.13 2.88

CLSI Conditions—Independence Experimental 19 18.53 3.60 15.42 3.83

Control 25 17.20 4.65 18.91 3.82

CLSI Conditions—Authority Experimental 19 14.53 2.63 11.53 3.61

Control 24 14.71 3.77 14.06 3.23

II. CLSI Content —Numeric Experimental 19 18.05 5.20 16.53 5.52

Control 25 18.04 4.93 18.17 5.65

CLSI Content—Qualitative Experimental 19 14.68 3.40 13.94 2.75

Control 25 15.16 4.78 15.17 4.86

CLSI Content—Inanimate Experimental 19 14.84 3.62 14.42 3.50

Control 25 14.20 4.36 14.70 4.25

CLSI Content—People Experimental 19 11.58 4.74 11.74 4.65

Control 25 11.64 4.39 11.39 4.73

III. CLSI Mode—Listening Experimental 19 15.11 4.28 13.11 3.73

Control 25 13.88 3.96 15.13 4.59

CLSI Mode—Reading Experimental 19 19.63 4.07 16.05 3.60

Control 25 19.24 4.96 20.22 4.33

CLSI Mode—Iconic Experimental 19 11.69 3.48 11.00 2.89

Control 25 12.00 2.84 11.22 3.40

CLSI Mode—Direct Experience Experimental 19 11.42 4.50 9.26 3.33

Control 25 12.20 4.68 13.04 5.46

IV. CLSI Performance: A-Expectation Experimental 19 12.95 4.72 11.84 3.55

Control 25 11.84 3.85 11.57 4.10

CLSI B-Expectation Experimental 19 8.74 2.02 10.58 2.97

Control 25 9.60 2.04 9.83 2.15

CLSI C-Expectation Experimental 19 15.32 3.58 16.42 3.88

Control 25 16.08 3.43 16.09 3.67

CLSI D-Expectation Experimental 19 23.26 1.28 22.58 2.14

Control 25 23.24 1.36 22.83 2.08
LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 51

Figure 1. Means of pretest of learning style scales.

52 / LIU

Figure 2. Means of posttest of learning style scales.

 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 53

Table 3. Results of Independent t Test for 20 Learning Style Subscales

at Pretest and Posttest in Experimental and Control Groups

t-Test for equality of t-Test for equality of

means at pretest means at posttest

Sig. (2- Sig. (2-

t df tailed) t dfa tailed)
I. CLSI Conditions—Peer –.74 42 .47 –3.81 40 .000***

CLSI Conditions—Organization 2.18 42 .035* .72 40 .48

CLSI Conditions—Goal 1.20 42 .24 –1.74 40 .09

CLSI Conditions—Competition –1.380 42 .18 –4.37 40 .000***

CLSI Conditions—Instructor –.95 42 .35 –5.47 40 .000***

CLSI Conditions—Detail 2.11 42 .041* –1.97 40 .050*

CLSI Conditions—Independence 1.03 42 .309 –2.94 40 .005**

CLSI Conditions—Authority –.18 41 .86 –2.96 40 .005**

II. CLSI Content —Numeric .01 42 .99 –.95 40 .35

CLSI Content—Qualitative –.37 42 .71 –.96 39 .34

CLSI Content—Inanimate .520 42 .61 –.23 40 .82

CLSI Content—People –.04 42 .97 .24 40 .81

III. CLSI Mode—Listening .98 42 .33 –1.55 40 .130

CLSI Mode—Reading .280 42 .78 –3.35 40 .002**

CLSI Mode—Iconic –.33 42 .74 –.22 40 .83

CLSI Mode—Direct Experience –.56 42 .58 –2.64 40 .012*

IV. CLSI Performance: A-Expectation .86 42 .40 .20 40 .84

CLSI B-Expectation –1.40 42 .17 .95 40 .35

CLSI C-Expectation –.72 42 .48 .29 40 .78

CLSI D-Expectation .06 42 .955 –.38 40 .71

aMeans the value of df is different since there are missing cases deleted at posttest.
*p = .05. **p = .01. ***p = .001.
54 / LIU

Table 4. Results of Paired t Test in Mean Scores of 20 Learning Style Subscales

between Pretest and Posttest in Experimental Groups

Variables between Sig.

Pairs pretest and posttest t df (2-tailed)

Pair 1 I. CLSI Conditions—Peer 1.28 18 .22

Pair 2 CLSI Conditions—Organization 1.03 18 .32

Pair 3 CLSI Conditions—Goal 2.08 18 .050*

Pair 4 CLSI Conditions—Competition 2.97 18 .008**

Pair 5 CLSI Conditions—Instructor 2.43 18 .026*

Pair 6 CLSI Conditions—Detail 2.58 18 .019*

Pair 7 CLSI Conditions—Independence 3.61 18 .002**

Pair 8 CLSI Conditions—Authority 3.12 18 .006**

Pair 9 II. CLSI Content —Numeric .75 18 .46

Pair 10 CLSI Content—Qualitative .86 17 .40

Pair 11 CLSI Content—Inanimate .35 18 .73

Pair 12 CLSI Content—People –.10 18 .92

Pair 13 III. CLSI Mode—Listening 1.44 18 .17

Pair 14 CLSI Mode—Reading 3.04 18 .007**

Pair 15 CLSI Mode—Iconic .81 18 .43

Pair 16 CLSI Mode—Direct Experience 1.63 18 .121

Pair 17 IV. CLSI Performance: A-Expectation .96 18 .35

Pair 18 CLSI B-Expectation –2.98 18 .008**

Pair 19 CLSI C-Expectation –.98 18 .34

Pair 20 CLSI D-Expectation 1.43 18 .17

*p = .05. **p = .01. ***p = .001.
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 55

Finally, the nonparametric statistic Chi-Square (c2) indicated that there were no
significant statistical differences in terms of the number of students who received
their final course grade (e.g., A, B, C) between the online and the traditional
sections (p > .05). The final course grade in both groups included these course
components: individual weekly essays, online quizzes or classroom test, peer
critiques, and collaborative research proposals.

DISCUSSION

H1: There are no significant statistical differences in learners’

mean scores in learning styles between the online section
and the traditional section at the beginning of the course.
Based on Table 2 and Figure 1, it’s clear that “Organization” and “B-Expec-
tation” are two of the top three preferences in both groups at pretest. Specif-
ically, at pretest, the first top three preferences for the experimental group are:
“B-Expectation,” “Organization,” and “Direct Experience”; the first top three
preferences for the control group are: “Organization,” “Detail,” and “B-Expec-
tation.” In other words, most graduate students prefer to study effectively in
well organized courses and they generally expect a B for the final course grade.
This result was not surprising since graduate students are a special group of
motivated adult learners.
In addition, “D-Expectation” and “Reading” are two of the three least
preferences in both groups at pretest. At pretest, the last three preferences for the
experimental group are: “D-Expectation,” “Reading,” and “Independence”; the
last three preferences for the control group are: “D-Expectation,” “Reading,” and
“Competition.” In other words, most graduate students prefer not to do too much
reading in their courses and they generally don’t expect a D for the final course
grade. This result seems not surprising. On one hand, most graduate students have
full time jobs and do not have enough time for reading course materials. On the
other hand, they are motivated adult learners and don’t expect to fail the course.
Most of the results in this study are consistent with findings from previous
studies using the CLSI. Keri (2002-2003) could not find any learning style
differences between online and traditional students. Tucker (2001) also found that
there was a similar preference for “Organization” and “B-Expectation” for course
grade in both online and traditional groups. But there are some differences in the
results between the present study and Tucker’s study. According to Tucker, online
students preferred “People” (e.g., learning and working with team members)
and “Direct Experience” (e.g., learning by hands-on or performance situations)
while traditional students preferred “Inanimate” (e.g., learning with things)
and “Iconic” (e.g., learning with slides and illustrations); both groups least pre-
ferred the “Numeric” (e.g., learning course content related to numbers); online
students’ least preferred style were “Authority” (e.g., learning from authority) and
56 / LIU

“Listening” (e.g., learning from listening) while traditional students’ least

preferred style were “Independence” (e.g., learning independently) and “Reading”
(e.g., learning by reading course materials). The differences between the present
study and Tucker’s study (2001) may be attributable to at least one important
factor—participants. That is, participants in the present study were drawn from
graduates majoring in education while participants in Tucker’s (2001) study
were drawn from the undergraduates majoring in business communications.
An independent t test of the pretest mean scores in learning style subscales
indicated there were no significant statistical differences in 18 of the 20 learning
style subscales between the online and traditional section at the beginning of the
course. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported and the study indicated that both groups
were almost equivalent in learning styles before the study. This non-significant
result between both groups at the beginning of the study was not surprising since
both groups in the present study were drawn from the same population. However,
significant differences at pretest between both groups were only detected in
two Conditions variables at a = .05. One is Conditions-Organization (t42 = 2.18,
p = .035, mean for online section = 10.95 with a SD of 2.55 and mean for FtF
section = 9.32 with a SD of 2.38). The other one is Conditions-Detail (t42 = 2.11,
p = .041, mean for online section = 12.26 with a SD of 3.65 and mean for FtF
section = 10.24 with a SD of 2.73). This result indicated that FtF participants
preferred a course with better organization and greater details over their online
counterparts at the beginning of the course.

H2: There are significant statistical differences in learners’

mean scores in learning styles between the online section
and the traditional section at the completion of the course.

Based on Figure 2 as described previously, at posttest, the first top three

preferences for the experimental group are: “Direct Experience,” “Detail,” and
“Organization”; while the first top three preferences for the control group are:
“Organization,” “B-Expectation,” and “Detail.” It’s clear that “Organization”
continued to be one of the three top preferences for both groups. Meanwhile,
“Detail” was added to be another one of the top preferences for both groups.
In addition, at posttest, the last three preferences for the experimental group
are: “D-Expectation,” “C-Expectation,” and “Numeric”; the last three preferences
for the control group are: “D-Expectation,” “Reading,” and “Independence.” It’s
clear that “D-Expectation” continued to be one of the last three preferences for
both groups.
As indicated in Table 3, most of these differences between both sections were
found in the Conditions for Learning category. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
That is, there were significant statistical differences in learners’ mean scores in
most learning styles between the online section and the traditional section at the
completion of the course. The posttest results above clearly indicated that online
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 57

participants demonstrated significantly different preferences over their FtF

counterparts. That is, at the end of the online class, compared with the traditional
learners in the control group, online participants in the experimental group had a
higher preference in these areas: 1) learning and working with peers; 2) working
and learning in a competitive online environment; 3) working and learning
with the instructor’s help; 4) learning more details of the course; 5) working and
learning independently; 6) working and learning from the authority such as
the textbooks and the instructor; 7) learning from various reading assignments;
8) working and learning from direct experience such as hands-on writing an
individual research proposal; and 9) learning based on the individual learner’s
and course’s clear goal setting.
It’s interesting to see these learning style changes between the online section
and the traditional section at the completion of the course. These learning style
changes may also be related to the author’s teaching style in these two sections.
In the online section, learners had to be more self-motivated and self-disciplined
since they had to complete a variety of weekly asynchronous exercises including
chapter quizzes and essays, as well as peer critiques and discussion by each
Sunday during the semester. In the traditional section, learners had to attend
classes and participate in class discussions every week, as well as complete a
final test in the final week.

H3: There are significant statistical differences in learners’

mean scores in learning styles in the online section between
the beginning and the completion of the course.

According to Table 4, there are significant statistical differences in learners’

mean scores in eight of the learning styles subscales between the beginning and
the completion of the online course in the experimental group. That is, online
learners demonstrated significantly different learning style preferences at the
end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester. Thus, Hypothesis 3
was supported. Of those eight differences, six of them were found in the Con-
ditions for Learning category—“Goal,” “Competition,” “Instructor,” “Detail,”
“Independence,” and “Authority”; one difference in Mode category—“Reading,”
one difference in Course Grade Expectation category—“B Expectation”; and
none in Content category.
Specifically, compared with at the beginning of the semester, at the end of the
semester, online learners tended to show a significantly higher preference in these
learning style subscales: 1) learning with very clear learning goals; 2) learning
in a competitive learning environment; 3) learning from the instructor’s help;
4) learning with all details of the course; 5) more preferred learning independently;
6) learning from authority such as the textbook and the instructor; 7) learning
from various reading assignments; and 8) receiving a B for final course grade.
58 / LIU

These changes are not surprising due to such characteristics of the online course
in the present study. First, the course goal and objectives were very clearly stated.
Second, the course was a competitive environment because every learner had to
participate and post discussions by the deadline. Third, learners tended to value
help more from the instructor due to the isolation between them. Fourth, learners
tended to focus on all the specific details of the course including reading, assign-
ments, and due dates. Fifth, learners tended to learn independently since they did
not meet with each other often. Sixth, learners tended to focus on the authority
sources such as the textbook and the instructor’s replies. Seventh, learners tended
to focus on reading lots of course materials. Eighth, learners tended to reasonably
expect a B for the course grade since the online course seemed very challenging
for them.
In all, the change in learning styles as a result of online learning is consistent
with the findings from some previous studies. Several researchers in this area have
reported that students learning styles changed when learning via the Internet com-
pared with the traditional FtF method (e.g., Ching, 1998; Clariana, 1997; Jordanov;
2001). In contrast to other recent studies (e.g., Neuhauser, 2002), this study
again demonstrated that, unlike intelligence, learning styles are not the relatively
unchanging catalysts for learning that reside somewhere in the learner’s head.

H4: There are no significant differences in learners’ mean

scores in learning performance, as measured by final
grades, between the online section and the traditional
section at the completion of the course.

Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. That is, there were no significant statis-
tical differences in learners’ mean scores in learning performance, as measured
by final grades, between the online section and the traditional section at the
completion of the course. This non-significance result is consistent with most
recent studies in this area (e.g., Jones, 1999; Liu, 2005a, 2005b; McCollum, 1997;
Pittman et al., 2006; Russell, 2000; Schulman & Sims, 1999). Since learning
performance is not a major focus of this study, it is not elaborated on.
In all, the results of this study have provided valuable information for
researchers (e.g., Schmidt & Brown, 2004) who are concerned about adapting
traditional instructional methods in the course design and delivery of online
courses, that is, to meet learners’ learning styles and to maximize their learning
performance. According to Diaz and Cartnal (1999), if the teacher can strengthen
online learners’ lesser-preferred learning styles, it can help them become more
versatile learners and more easily adapt to the requisites of the real world. In
addition, the results have significant implications for the field of teacher educa-
tion. Just as Honigsfeld and Schiering (2004) pointed out, “. . . learning style is one
possible research-based catalyst for the type of education that utilizes multiple
teaching strategies to reach all learners” (p. 505).
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 59

However, this study had its limitations. First, participants were self-enrolled,
rather than randomly assigned in both groups. Second, the study only covered one
semester of online instructional duration. Third, the study was not conducted
blindly since the author actually delivered instructions for both experimental and
control groups. Fourth, this study only involved graduate students in educational
majors. Thus, care should be taken when any generalization of the results in this
study is made. The need for additional research in this area still remains. Further
research in this area should be conducted across various disciplines and majors,
as well as across undergraduate and graduate populations.

CONCLUSION
The present study has found that online students’ preferred learning styles
tended to change from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester. In
spite of no significant differences at pretest, significant statistical differences were
found in many of the Conditions for Learning subscales and some of the Modes for
Learning subscales at posttest between the two groups. Specifically, at the end of
the online course, online students, compared with their FtF counterparts, seemed
to have a higher preference in the following learning styles subscales: 1) learning
and working with peers; 2) working and learning in a competitive online environ-
ment; 3) working and learning with the instructor’s help; 4) learning more details
of the course; 5) working and learning independently; 6) working and learning
from the authority such as the textbooks and the instructor; 7) learning from
various reading assignments; 8) working and learning from direct experience
such as hands-on writing of a research proposal; and 9) learning based on the
individual learner’s and course’s clear goal setting. In addition, this study indi-
cated that students’ learning performances between the online and traditional
sections were similar.
This study has its practical and theoretical significance in online education.
Practically, as suggested by many researchers in online educational and training
programs (e.g., Tucker, 2001; Valenta et al., 2001), the CLSI, similar to other
learning style inventories, can be used to adapt instructional strategies to learner
needs, to design alternative curricula, to help individuals select courses or work
environments compatible with their learning styles, and to help reduce dropout
rates. The findings from this study will further support this perspective.
Theoretically, the findings from this study will continue to contribute to the
existing literature related to learning styles and online instruction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author deeply appreciates the financial support and encouragement from
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and also wants to thank the insightful
comments from the reviewers.
60 / LIU

REFERENCES
Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2000, November). The influence of learning
style preferences on student success in online vs. face-to-face environments. Paper
presented at the World Conference on the WWW and Internet. San Antonio, TX.
Arsham, H. (2002). Impact of the Internet on learning and teaching. USDLA Journal,
[Online serial] 16(3). Retrieved September 19, 2006 from
http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAR02_Issue/article01.html.
Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2005-2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies:
Utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32.
Bozionelos, N. (1997). Psychology of computer use: XLIV: Computer anxiety and learning
style. Perception and Motor Skills, 84, 753-754.
Buerk, J. P., Malmstrom, T., & Peppers, E. (2003). Learning environments and learning
styles: Non-traditional student enrollment and success in an Internet-based versus
a lecture-based computer science course. Learning Environments Research, 6(2),
137-155.
Butler, T. J., & Pinto-Zipp, G. (2005-2006). Students’ learning styles and their preferences
for online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(2),
199-221.
Canfield, A. A. (1992). Canfield Learning Styles Inventory Manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
CEO Forum. (2000). The CEO forum: School technology and readiness report [Online].
DC: CEO Forum. Retrieved September 19, 2006 from http://www.ceoforum.org/.
Ching, L. S. (1998). The influence of a distance-learning environment on students’ field
dependence/independence. Journal of Experimental Education, 66(2), 12, 149.
Clariana, R. B. (1997). Considering learning style in computer-assisted learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 66-68.
Daughenbaugh, R., Ensminger, D., Frederick, L., & Surry, D. (2002). Does personality
type effect online versus in-class course satisfaction? (ERIC Reproduction Service
Number ED 464 631).
Diaz, D. P., & Cartnal, R. B. (1999). Students’ learning styles in two classes: Online
distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching, 47(4), 130-135.
Doherty, W. A., & Maddux, C. D. (2002). An investigation of methods of instruction and
student learning styles in Internet-based community college courses. Computers in the
Schools, 19(3-4), 23-32.
Downing, K., & Chim, T. M. (2004). Reflectors as online extraverts? Educational Studies,
30(3), 265-276.
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarki, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes
toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98(6), 331-338.
Garland, D. K. (2003). Learning style characteristics of the online student: A study of
learning styles, learner engagement, and gender. Dissertation Abstracts International
Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(12-A), 4282.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning
styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2-10.
Halsne, A. M., & Gatta, L. A. (2002, Spring). Online versus traditionally-delivered
instruction: A descriptive study of learner characteristics in a community college.
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 61

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(1), Retrieved September 19,

2006 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/index.php.
Harris, R. N., Dwyer, W. O., & Leeming, F. C. (2003). Are learning styles relevant in
Web-based instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 13-28.
Honigsfeld, A., & Schiering, M. (2004). Diverse approaches to the diversity of learning
styles in teacher education. Education Psychology, 24(4), 487-507.
Jordanov, W. (2001). An examination of the relationship between learning styles and
technology use. Cincinnati, OH: (ERIC Reproduction Service Number ED 460 150).
Jones, E. (1999). A comparison of all Web-based class to a traditional class. Texas: (ERIC
Reproduction Service Number ED 432 286).
Kearsley, G. (2000). Online education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multi-
nationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 229-239.
Kelly, K. L., & Schorger, J. (2002). Online learning: Personalities, preferences and
perceptions. (ERIC Reproduction Service Number ED 470 663).
Keri, G. (2002-2003). Traditional and nontraditional students’ learning styles: Using
Canfield’s Learning Style Inventory. Perspectives: The New York Journal of Adult
Learning, 1(2), 29-38.
Kickul, G., & Kickul, J. (2006). Closing the gap: Impact of student proactivity and learning
goal orientation on e-learning outcomes. International Journal on ELearning, 5(3),
361-372.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What
do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and
communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher
Education, 30(3), 257-274.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 42, 7-19.
Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2004-2005). The effect of flexible learning delivery format
on online learners’ learning, application, and instructional perception. Journal of
Education Technology Systems, 33(4), 385-397.
Liu, Y. (2003). Improving online interactivity and learning: A constructivist approach.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(1), 174-178.
Liu, Y. (2005a). Effects of online instruction vs. traditional instruction on students’
learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
2(3), 57-64, Article 006. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Mar_05/article06.htm.
Liu, Y. (2005b). Impact of online instruction on teachers’ learning and attitudes toward
technology integration. The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 6(4),
Article 007. Retrieved October 27, 2005, from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde20/index.htm.
Liu, Y. (2006). A comparison study of online versus traditional student evaluation of
instruction. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning,
3(3), 15-29, Article 002. Retrieved April 27, 2006, from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/April_06/April_06.pdf.
Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999, November 1). Cognitive styles and distance education. The
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3), Article 005. Retrieved October 1,
1999, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/liu23.html.
62 / LIU

Lo, J., & Shu, P. (2005). Identification of leaning styles online by observing learners’
browsing behaviour through a neural network. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 36(1), 43-55.
McCollum, K. (1997). A professor divides his class in two to test value of online instruc-
tion. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, 23.
Melton, J. (2003). Learning styles and educational technology: An overview. Languages
Issues, 9(1), 61-82.
Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations,
and needs of online students. College Teaching, 54(1), 185-189.
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners
in cyberspace. The American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15-35.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face
instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
Papp, R. (2001, December). Student learning styles & distance learning. Paper presented
at the International Academy for Information Management Annual Conference.
Pittman, J., Rutz, E., & Elkins, V. (2006). Technology-enabled content in engineering
technology and applied science curriculum: Implications for online content develop-
ment in teacher education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning [Electronic],
5(1), 32-58.
Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/5.1.3.pdf.
Russell, T. (2000). The no significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved September 19,
2006 from at http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning (Online), 1(1), 1-9. Retrieved October 27,
2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/4/24.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model
of distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36-56.
Schlosser, C. A., & Anderson, M. L. (1994). Distance education: A review of the literature.
Ames, IA: Iowa Distance Education Alliance, Iowa State University (ERIC Repro-
duction Service Number ED 382 159).
Schmidt, K., & Brown, D. (2004). A model to integrate online teaching and learning
tools into the classroom. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(2), 86-92.
Schulman, A. H., & Sims, R. L. (1999). Learning in an online format vs. an in-class
format: An experimental study. T. H. E. Journal, 26(11), 54-56.
Seiler, D. A. (2004). An investigation of online learning and learning styles. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(2-A), 479.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Smith, P. J. (2005). Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 3-12.
Smith, P., & Dillion, C. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning:
Conceptual considerations. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 6-23.
Tabs, E. D. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions:
2000-2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Tucker, S. (2001, Winter). Distance education: Better, worse, or as good as traditional
education? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration [Online serial], 4(4).
 LEARNING STYLES BETWEEN ONLINE & TRADITIONAL STUDENTS / 63

Retrieved September 19, 2006, from

http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter44/tucker44.html.
Valenta, A., Therriault, D., Dieter, M., & Mrtek, R. (2001). Identifying student attitudes
and learning styles in distance education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
5(2), 111-127, 2001.
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_valenta.asp.
Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: Determine learning styles, per-
sonality types, and multiple intelligences online. Learning Organization, 8(1), 36-43.
Waits, T., & Lewis L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2000-2001. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES Pub 2003-017).
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles
and formative assessment strategy: Enhancing student achievement in Web-based
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207-217.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Yuliang Liu
School of Education
Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville, IL 62026
e-mail: yliu@siue.edu