LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCE: A STUDY OF GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS.

摘要

A number of studies have supported the existence of learning style preferences developed during childhood and adolescence. The influence of these preferences on postsecondary academic performance has also been studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to identify the relationships among learning style preferences and declared academic major among samples of graduate and undergraduate students in a higher education setting. The Canfield Learning Style Inventory was administered to discover whether style preference differences could be discerned and whether they varied among the selected groups.;Clear inter-major variances in preference were found when the five majors were compared through analysis of variance and Scheffe procedures. Comparison of the five majors revealed the most striking differences in the Content preference area of the Canfield Learning Style Inventory.;Using t-tests, consistent patterns of learning style preference among the groups were found. Preferences of graduate students differed from those of undergraduates in the same majors. The education majors differed least from each other while the nursing students differed most. Differences between graduate students as a whole and undergraduates as a whole were also found.;Finally, the study found a significant relationship between learning style preference and major. A series of simple and stepwise discriminant analyses produced a nine-item function capable of correctly classifying subjects at a rate in excess of chance.;Five academic majors were selected: nursing, education, finance, English, and engineering. From each major a minimum of 80 subjects was included-40 graduate and 40 undergraduate students. A total of 421 students participated. Research hypotheses explored between-major differences, within-major differences between graduate and undergraduate students, and the relationship between style preference and major.;The results of the study were discussed in terms of their implications for student counseling and advising, educational environment engineering, and the learning style preference tool itself. Suggestions for further study and research were included.