1. Learning style, culture, and delivery mode in online distance education Dr. Mark Speece Associate Professor of Marketing (past Department Chair & MBA Director) University of Alaska Southeast Juneau, Alaska, USA http://www.uas.alaska.edu/som/faculty.html The Seventh International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society 16-17 December, 2010 Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand

2. UAS SOM is about 85% distance (by credit hour) mostly asynchronous online courses, a handful of synchronous satellite courses, some lower division classroom courses. cultural mix in Alaska – about 25% native in SOM more similar to Asia than West (Redpath & Nielsen 1997) conceptualizing a framework for why learning style matters

3. SOM program delivery local lower division market statewide upper division market

4. asynchronous technologies seem less suited for non-Western cultures when used alone cultural dimensions lead to differences in interaction individualistic vs. collectivist uncertainty avoidanceHofstede power distance masculine-feminine high vs. low contextHall most online DE delivery seems oriented toward Western cultures

5. many definitions of learning style extensive research on a wide range shows little impact on learning outcome for similar quality of DE modes & classroom students are adaptable when necessary, they will learn in whatever mode they need to use learning style makes little impact on learning outcomes

6. learning style: outer layer scales learning environment & interaction preferences outer layer learning styles Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales participant – avoidant independent – dependent collaborative – competitive Schellens & Valcke Learning Stylesauditory vs. visual applied vs. conceptual spatial vs. non-spatial social vs. individual creative vs. pragmatic Western Governors University scaleprefer f2f, discussion, ability to prioritize, work independently auditory, visual, tactile S.A. Santo, Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly 19(3): 73-88, 2006.

7. learning style: middle layer scales cognitive preferencesmiddle layer learning styles Kolb Learning Style Inventoryconvergers AC & AE divergers CE & RO assimilators AC & RO accommodators CE & AE 4MATwatching/sensing-feeling watching/thinking doing/thinking doing/sensing-feeling Witkins Group Embedded Figures Test field independent field dependent S.A. Santo, Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly 19(3): 73-88, 2006.

8. learning style: inner layer scales personalityinner layer learning styles Keirsey Temperament Typesensation/perceiving sensation/judging intuition/thinking intuition/feeling Soloman & Felder Index of Learning Styles active-reflective sensing-intuitive visual-verbal sequential-global Honey & Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire activists reflectors theorists pragmatists S.A. Santo, Relationships between learning styles and online learning: Myth or reality? Performance Improvement Quarterly 19(3): 73-88, 2006.

9. delivery mode influences competitiveness; e.g., inner layer: reflective learners more likely to enroll in DE than active learners global learners less likely to complete the course than sequential learners middle layer: enjoyment of the course differs by style outer layer: adaptation of course material to visual, applied, spatial, social, & creative styles but some students prefer other styles learning style does influence enjoyment and preference

10. learning style & culture outer layer: about interpersonal interaction these relate very directly to cultural interaction middle layer: constructed from learning cycle and how cognition works seems especially related to Halls high / low context inner layer: mental preferences for info processing both Hall & Hofstede

11. learning style & culture examples: traditional sage on the stage more preferred in high power distance cultures; greater structure & stronger instructor role preferred in uncertainty avoiding cultures; group activity & assessment more preferred in collectivist cultures; concrete examples, dialogic story-telling preferred in Native cultures

12. learning style & culture communication high-context needs contextual & social cues, extensive non-verbal component; difficult in many asynchronous formats

13. technology extends interaction modes a number of technologies that now facilitate student-student interaction both asynchrounously and synchronously in UASs market, requiring synchronous tech for class is not popular, but making it available for group work is highly demanded

14. technology extends interaction modes UASs solution in most online classes is required asynchronous discussion but group work with tech capability for voluntary synchronous group interaction. many learning objects for visual learners i.e., multiple technologies appeal to a broad range of learning styles