Learning Styles, Multimedia Hybrid versus Traditional Teaching, Course Satisfaction, and Learning Outcomes in Art Apprec

1. Lynn University Doctoral Dissertation Hearing Learning Styles, Multimedia Hybrid versus Traditional Teaching, Course Satisfaction, and Learning Outcomes in Art Appreciation Courses Ching-Chuan Chan August 15, 2007

2. Introduction to the Problem • Dramatic changes in instructional technology. • Conflicting performance results. • No empirical study was found to explain the effectiveness between multimedia hybrid and traditional course delivery in Art Appreciation courses.

3. Purpose of the Study 1. Explanatory (correlational) purpose To explain the relationships among student background characteristics and learning styles on course satisfaction and learning outcomes in Art Appreciation courses.

4. Purpose of the Study (Cont.) 2. Exploratory (comparative) purpose To compare the percentage of dependent variance explained by the independent and attribute variables between the two groups.

5. Definition of Terms Learning Styles • Theoretical definition Learners respond to or interact with stimuli in the learning context. Closely related to the learner’s personality, temperament, and motivation. (Kolb, 1984) • Operational definition Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (KLSI 3.1), a 4-point, 12 items self-report ipsative (rating) scale, was used to assess learning styles.

6. Definition of Terms (Cont.) CourseSatisfaction The quality of the instruction Students’ feelings The quality of the course (Rivera et al., 2002) Two global-item of course satisfaction instrument which created by the researcher was used to assess students’ course satisfaction.

7. Definition of Terms (Cont.) Course Grade • Theoretical definition The instructor-assigned grade was viewed as the measurement of course grade (Young et al., 2003). • Operational definition Course grade was measured using GPA associated with each letter grade (A= 4.00, A-= 3.67, B+= 3.33, B= 3.00, B-= 2.67, C+= 2.33, C= 2.00, C-= 1.67, D+= 1.33, D= 1.00, F= 0.00).

8. Definition of Terms (Cont.) Art Appreciation Learning Gains Theoretical definition The intended student learning outcomes in art appreciation courses. Operational definition Pre-test and post-test using the same essay questions AEA were utilized to measure student art appreciation learning gains (posttest - pretest = learning gains).

9. Justification Researchable • Concepts of theoretical framework are measurable • Research hypotheses can be tested Feasible • Participants are available • Time investment is manageable

10. Justification (Cont.) Significance • Understanding the influence of course delivery methods and learning styles on course satisfaction and student learning outcomes may facilitate instructional innovation in art appreciation education.

11. Delimitations and Scope • Day undergraduate students • Must read, write, and speak English. • At least 18 years or older.

12. Review of Literature Art Appreciation Learning Gains Experiential Learning Theory (KLSI) Course Grade Multiple Intelligences (Howard Gardner) Course Satisfaction Myers-Briggs Personality Theory (MBTI) Learning Styles Learning Outcomes Outcome-Based Student Background Characteristics On-line Flaherty’s Learning Modality Web-Based Course Delivery Formats Hybrid Traditional Art Appreciation Course

13. Literature Gaps • No empirical study was found to examine the relationships among student characteristics, learning styles, and learning outcomes between course delivery formats in the field of art appreciation education. • Conflicting results produced.

14. Hypothesized Model Course Delivery: Multimedia Hybrid Delivery H1a, H2a, H3a Course Delivery: Traditional Face-to-Face Delivery H1b, H2b, H3b Art Appreciation H1c, H2c, H3c Student Background Characteristics Age, Gender, Major, and Prior Computer Experience Learning Orientations Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO) Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE) Learning Preferences Abstractness (AC-CE) and Concreteness (AE-RO) Learning Style Classifications Converging, Diverging, Assimilating, and Accommodating Course Satisfaction H1a, H1b,H1c Learning Outcome: Course Grade H2a, H2b, H2c Learning Outcome: Art Appreciation Learning Gains H3a, H3b, H3c Tests the effectiveness of Hybrid course delivery Tests the effectiveness of traditional face-to-face course delivery Compares the explanatory power between hybrid and traditional face-to-face

15. METHODOLOGY

16. Research Design & Population Research Design • Prospective (longitudinal) • Explanatory (correlational) • Exploratory (comparative)

17. Research Design & Population (cont.) • Target Population (n=129) Multimedia hybrid group (n=69) Traditional face-to-face (n=60) • Accessible Population (n=71) Target population = Accessible population

18. Sampling Plan • The entire accessible population was 71 respondents which included 44 students in the multimedia hybrid group and 27 students enrolled in the traditional group.

19. Instrumentation Student Background Characteristics

20. Instrumentation (Cont.) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) Description: A self-report ipsative (rating) scale which consisted of 12 items and four responses to each item for a total of 48 variables.

22. Instrumentation (Cont.) Aesthetic Experience Assessment Description:AEA was modified by the researcher to include three essay questions with three criteria and three responses.

23. Instrumentation (Cont.) Course Satisfaction Description:A 5-point Likert scale that included two global items, was created by the researcher.

24. Instrumentation (Cont.) Course grade report Course grade was secondary data provided by the instructors at the end of the courses.

25. Methods of Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics To answer Research Question 1 describing the characteristics of all variables.

26. Methods of Data Analysis (Cont.) Independent t-tests and Chi-Square To answer Research Question 2 about the differences in student background characteristics (gender & major --- Chi-Square), learning styles, course satisfaction, course grade, and art appreciation learning gains.

27. Methods of Data Analysis (Cont.) Eta, Pearson r correlations, and Hierarchical multiple regression To examine the explanatory relationships between student background, learning styles, course satisfaction (H1a and H1b), course grade (H2a and H2b), and art appreciation learning gains (H3 and H3b).

28. Methods of Data Analysis (Cont.) Adjusted R-Squares To compare the percentage of dependent variances of course satisfaction (H1a VS. H1b = H1c), course grade (H2a VS. H2b = H2c), and art appreciation learning gains (H3a VS. H3b = H3c) explained by independent and attribute variables between the two groups.

29. Descriptive Statistical Results

30. Student Background Characteristics

31. Student Background Characteristics (Cont.)

32. Student Background Characteristics (Cont.)

33. Student Background Characteristics (Cont.)

34. Learning Orientations

35. Learning Preferences

36. Learning Style Classifications

37. Course Satisfaction

38. Course Grade (GPA)

39. Learning Gains

40. Independent t-test Results for All Variables

41. Chi-Square Test for Gender and Major

42. Results of Hypotheses Testing

43. Results

44. DISCUSSION

45. Interpretations

46. Practical Implications • Based on the differences of student learning outcomes, to provide students their preferred learning environment may facilitate learning and increase course satisfaction and learning performance. • To understand students’ learning style may facilitate instructors to manage their classes more effectively.

47. Practical Implications (Cont.) • To enhance the usage of instructional technologies to facilitate instructors’ teaching, and further improve teaching effectiveness. • The results of this study may facilitate instructional innovation in higher education art appreciation courses.

48. Conclusions 1. Student course satisfaction and learning outcomes may be influenced by different course delivery formats offered in art appreciation courses. 2. Student background characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups.

49. Conclusions (Cont.) 3. Student learning orientations and learning preferences were not significantly different between the groups. However, students’ learning style classifications appeared significant between the groups. 4. Students with a specific learning style as a mediating factor may have an effect on learning efficiency of the courses. For instance, student with a Diverging learning mode may favor and perform well in art related courses.

50. Conclusions (Cont.) 5. Student background characteristics and learning styles were not significant to explain the variances of student course satisfaction and learning outcomes in the art appreciation courses. 6. The scores of post-test AEA were lower, which may be due to participants spending less time in answering questions compared with the pretest, and the post test did not count toward grading.