The objective of this paper was to profile the learning style preferences of merchandising students and to demonstrate how Web-based instructional strategies can accommodate their unique preferences. The framework was based on Felder and Silverman's (1988) model that identifies four dichotomous bipolar learning style dimensions (i.e., active or reflective, sensory or intuitive, visual or verbal, and sequential or global). To develop learning style profiles, students (N = 340) enrolled in three undergraduate merchandising courses completed the 44-item Index of Learning Styles (ILS). The majority of merchandising students were active, sensing, visual, and sequential learners. A model, Adapting Web-Based Instruction to Accommodate Student Learning Style Preferences, was developed detailing specific Web-based instructional strategies that could be incorporated across the merchandising curricula.
Alexander, P. (1999, August). Pros and cons of cyberclassrooms. Marketing News, 10-10.
2.
Barbe, W. B., & Milone, M. N. (1981, February). What we know about modality strengths. Educational Leadership, 378-380.
3.
Bernard, R. M., de Rubalcava, B. R., & St. Pierre, D. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Education, 21(2), 260-277.
4.
Brace-Govan, J., & Clulow, V. (2000). Varying expectations of online students and the implications for teachers: Findings from a journal study. Distance Education, 21(1), 118-135.
5.
Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: The higher education curriculum in the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 37-55.
6.
Buch, B., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(1/2), 5-10.
Carswell, L., Thomas, P., Petre, M., Price, B., & Richards, M. (2000). Distance education via the Internet: The student experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 29-46.
9.
Collis, B., Winnips, K., & Moonen, J. (2000). Structured support versus learner choice via the World Wide Web (WWW): Where is the payoff? Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(2), 131-162.
10.
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.
11.
Doherty, P. B. (2001). Student success in an asynchronous learning environment. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems, 15(1), 12-16.
12.
Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2001). New horizons in distance education: The online learner-centered marketing class. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 25-35.
13.
Ellis, T. J. (1999). Translating a college course for delivery over the World Wide Web. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 13(3), 14-18.
14.
Felder, R. (1993). Reaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290.
15.
Felder, R. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23.
16.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles: In foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
17.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles: In engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
18.
Goldenberg, J. (1999). Virtual learning communities: A student's perspective. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 13(2), 16-20.
19.
Haseman, W. D., Nuipolatoglu, V., & Ramamurthy, K. (2002). An empirical investigation of the influences of the degree of interactivity on user outcomes in a multimedia environment. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 31-48.
20.
Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29-49.
21.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
Miles, B., M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new materials. Newbury, CA: Sage.
23.
Morris, K. (1999, August 9). Wiring the ivory tower. Business Week, 90.
24.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroomSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Robertson, L. J., & Stanforth, N. (1999). College students' computer attitudes and interest in Web-based distance education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 91(3), 60-64.
26.
Sanders, D. W., & Morrison-Shetlar, A. I. (2001). Student attitudes toward Web-enhanced instruction in an introductory biology course. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 251-263.
27.
Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (n.d.) Index of Learning Styles Retrieved November 27, 2000, from North Carolina State Universityhttp://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
28.
The Sloan Consortium (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: The Sloan Center for Online Education.
29.
Wernet, S. P., Olliges, R. H., & Delicath, T. A. (2000). Postcourse evaluations of WebCT (Web Course Tools) classes by social work students. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 487-504.
30.
Weigel, V. (2000, September/October). E-learning and the trade-off between richness and reach in higher education. Change, 33, 10-15.
31.
Zywno, M. S. (2003). A contribution of score meaning for Felder-Soloman's Index of Learning Styles. Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 1-16.
