Important of Learning
2.1 Important of Learning
The objective for the learning in the context of training are often to be secondary important. Antonacopoulou (1999) concluded that learning is part of the development process. He also indicated that learning is seen as important during training through a failure to provide suitable basic whereby training take place to support learning. Garavan (1997), who adopt the view and argues that an individual involve in the process of learning and increase their capacity to learn should be a primary concern. The author had mentioned in that by reaching the effectiveness in learning, we need to consider both learning process and the product of learning. However, improve the relative between effectiveness and efficiency of learning sub-processes would seem logical to improve result of training. A competent learner need to include the skills associated with learning, the knowledge of the learning process and awareness of learning. Learning is important because as a learner, we able to discover new knowledge by ourselves, solve the problem by applying acquired knowledge, created a new knowledge, and so on (David Robotham, 2004).
According to Rockman (2002), he identified the library took an important role in supporting the institution's objectives and goals for learning and teaching to improve the assessment of student learning outcomes and more specifically information literacy competency. Student understanding, acquisition, and transference of knowledge are main key to go on and maintain their learning behavior. In order to assess student performances, there are varieties of qualitative and quantitative measures can be use such as web-based tutorials, tests, successful completion of internships, quizzes, reflective essays, direct observations, or services learning opportunities (Rockman, 2002). The effectiveness of learning can be estimate by having examination at both the beginning and the end of student's higher education. There are many types of learning that student apply their learning skill on their education. It is very important for student to use their learning skill effectively so that they are able to get a good result in exam and apply the knowledge that they learnt to future (Ilene F. Rockman, 2002).
Learning for a student is a need for them to develop as independent learners to make it possible for them to deal with the demands of the structure and curriculum of higher education and to meet the expectations of employers (Cotton, 2001). Although characterizing the independent learner usually involves a range of propensities, attributes, and skills, the capability to self-assess appears essential to many studies examining the issue of independent learning. Besides, self-assessment enables the students to take responsibility for learning, encouraging independence in learning and self-motivation (Peckham and Sutherland, 2000), encouraging life-long learning and be success (McAlpine, 2000) and to be elemental to the development of autonomous learning and intrinsic motivation (van Krayenoord and Paris, 1997).
Generally, self-assessment skill involves a higher stage of self-awareness and the ability to observe our own learning and performance. As such, self-assessment is associated with cognitive awareness and skill, which Reid (2001) describes as “thinking about thinking, being aware of the learning process and utilizing that in new learning”. Both definitions and discussions of self-assessment is a particular emphasis on cognitive skill. According to Vockell (2004), cognitive skills had been described as the learners that will automatically awareness of their own knowledge and their capability to control, understand and manipulate their own cognitive processes. Both Peters (2000) and Rivers (2001) classify that cognitive skill is as important as the development of independent learners. According to Peters (2000), cognitive skills enable self-management and appraisal of own to think and learn, whereas Rivers (2001) identify that students' self-directed learning behavior as being related with students' regular assessment of their approach to learning and their academic performance.
McAlpine (2000) emphasizes goal-directed learning and preferred learning styles, while Elwood and Klenowski (2002) refer to self-knowledge about how we perceive, remember, think and act. Although passing reference to learning styles is common in the context of cognition and, by association, self-assessment, there seems little work examining the relevance of learning styles to self-assessment skill. The current study aims to establish whether learning style - ways in which individuals characteristically approach different learning tasks (Hartley, 1998) - and self-assessment skills are to provide some insight and associated into the nature of any such association.
On the other hand, there exist many models and measures of learning style (Cassidy, 2004), Entwistle and Tait's (1996) model based on depth of processing during learning was adopted given its frequent use in the context of research into learning in higher education. The model presents four approaches to learning derived from four different modes of orientation of the learner. Although there is a lack of direct research on learning style and self-assessment, Cassidy and Eachus (2000) do report relations between students' approach to learning and judgments regarding their academic proficiency.
Self-report academic proficiency was negatively correlated with a surface approach to learn and positively correlated with a deep approach to learn. Negative correlation between an apathetic approach and academic achievement and positive correlations between strategic approaches were also reported. There is some evidence that students show a preference for assessment formats which they identify to reflect their main approach to learning (Entwistle and Tait, 1990). Entwistle and Entwistle (1991) illustrate the point suggesting that deep learners for free-format assessments and surface learners would show preference for multiple-choice formats such as reports and essay.
2.2 Process of Learning
The process of student learning illustrated in 1 proposes that the interaction of two major groups of factors (the personal characteristics of the student and the context of learning) will determined the student's perception. The previous educational experience of the student maybe the most important personal factor, as the student's initial attitude will be instrumental in shaping within a given context. However, the student's orientation to study is also important. Ramsden (1992) identifies that in the context of learning include curriculum, assessment, and learning or teaching mode. Based on the empirical evidence, the most influential area is assessment. The student's perception combined with the student's personal characteristic will guide to the development of an approach to learn. Recently, researches had suggested that what students oriented towards their learning are dominated by assessment system. In conclusion, assessment system will be instrumental to decide the approach that it will be the student's perception of asssessment system and student may take in a learning situation whereby its context that will be vital (Trevor Hassall and John Joyce, 2001).
In the 2 illustrates that the first stage of deep approaches, a written assignment involve the building of an overall description of the topic which includes proper supporting detail. While in the second stage, it involve connection that made with prior knowledge and between conclusion and evidence within the learning materials provided. When student's purpose is strategic, then deep and surface approaches will be well be used. However, it need to depend on the perceived requirement of the assessment procedures. 2 implied that this style of thinking make a basic contribution to understanding (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983). Nevertheless, when operation learning carry out either without effective or casually use of comprehension learning, it may become inseparable from surface approach. Moreover, it will lead to an unfinished form of understanding in express the characteristic pathology. 2.2.2 exemplify how to differentiate process of learning that develop understanding and it helps to explain some characteristic in the quality of learning outcomes in higher education (Noel Entwistle, 2001).
In the role of knowledge management, the action of learning process particularly fits with different phases of action learning process. The concept of learning and action is increasing reciprocity with each other (Argyris, 1991). The business driven action learning (BDAL) programs for management development is focus on develop both managers and business result through the same type of learning process. According to the author, the process begin with a sort of coherence and legitimacy for the process that provided by the preliminary phases. In different strategic business department, BDAL require people to interpret what they are doing and to work together. However, BDAL want the rest of the group people to think the same thing about the issue for those who do not think before.
There are four phases in this learning process. The first phase is business issue definition. The phases for this process begin with the definition of the strategic intent. Constantly, the issue that is belongs to sponsor is the people who want to balance the synergies between department and also units to respond its issue. Secondly, teamwork is the next phases that the participants reflect and meet the issue. In this phase, there are few goals that are focus on, such as experiences about the issue, know-how, competencies and to share knowledge. In addition, it also related about the organization and the relationship between this matter and others business units.
Next, a recommendation is the third phase and the principle of these phases is to integrate knowledge that we shared in the previous phases and determine a solution. The sponsor and some member of the senior administrative team had notice the recommendation by showed in front of them. Throughout the BDAL, practical answer must present by the participants and it depending on the firm's principles that real dialogue between the executive committee members and the participants can be open in this phase. Lastly, implementation is the last phases of the learning process. Based on the last phases, at least one participants need to be responsible for the implementation to manage effective. The recommendations are executed by participants will helps the process to be accepted by other company. In conclusion, the four of phases of this learning process is a creation of new knowledge that uses to solve the business issue (Nicolas Rolland, 2006).
The individuals are the main source of organizational transformation and the primary learning entity in firms (Dodgson, 1993). In 3 illustrates a useful learning cycle of individual learning attributes when several facets of individual learning exist (Kim, 1993; Kolb, 1984). Learning behaviors subsequently will become institutionalized in organizational routines because the learning preference may be different for every learner (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In 3, the main point include observe, assess, design and implement. Individual observe occasion as they arise and reflecting on their observation by assess their experiences. They design from an abstract concept of assessment and test the design by implement the concept. If there is a one individual follow the learning cycle, then the organization will be event-driven, cyclical, and highly dependent on an individual's cognitive skill because of having individual member that have the ability to manage knowledge. However, when engaging in learning activities, individual need other social skills too.
At the level of individual, interpreting and intuiting are related by socio-cognitive competences. The level of interpretation between the environment and the individual guide by the individual belief systems recommend that performances outcome maybe will restricted while an individual's schema is not highly advanced (Crossan, 1993; Neisser, 1967). In between the individual's and the cycle of learning, there is a strong link that capacity to increase the effectiveness by interprets a range of decision outcomes. On the other hand, the cycle of learning needs to infused with understanding the socio-cognitive learning to the point where the level of interpreting and intuiting improves. The interpretive and intuitive capacity of team that is made up of individuals will cooperate in increasing the central role in enhancing organizational learning (Peter Murray and Maree Moses, 2005).
2.3 Learning Methodology
E-learning identified in variety of contexts, such as distance learning, network learning and online learning (Wilson, 2001). Volery (2000) argues that the fast expansion of the Internet and related technological advancements, in conjunction with limited budgets and social demands for improved access to higher education, has produced a substantial incentive for universities to introduce e-learning courses. Nowadays, many commentators describe the benefits of e-learning in higher education. However, there are consequences for unprepared when trying to implement distance learning courses. O'Hearn (2000) contends that university structures are rigid and unverified, regarding the incorporation of technological advancements. Holley (2000) states that e-learning is difficult to implement without the full cooperation and support from the lecturers. In addition, the degree of interaction between lecturers and students is still predominant in e-learning environments (Volery, 2000). Finally, are traditional universities able to compete with other independent education providers in relation to social demands for life-long learning and globalised education services? (O'Hearn 2000).
An E-learning initiative have reportedly created new educational issues for lecturers, such as changing patterns we work and in some cases the reluctant integration of technology. Serwatka (2002) argues that sometimes student success can be achieved simply by preventing student withdrawals from e-learning programmes. The teaching techniques used by lecturers in traditional courses may also have to be reviewed and modified, as they do not always prove effective or necessarily transferable in eLearning environments (Serwatka 2002). Lecturers in networked learning environments modify their courses as they go along, meaning the longer a course is taught in a particular format the more effective it is (Volery 2000).
Many suggest that rather than changing the role of the lecturer, it will gradually disappear completely with the rise of improved eLearning technologies and methodologies. At Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in America they exercise the concept of a ‘wired campus', in which all students learn in a number of disciplines via eLearning. At CMU the traditional lecturer is considered a relic of the past that should be replaced by electronic tutors. Scott (2000) explains how in the future these electronic tutors at CMU will act as virtual teachers, if students make a mistake the tutor will be informed automatically and will offer helpful hints. Scott (2000) argues that virtual tutors will out perform traditional face to face techniques because in traditional lectures vital information flows past students, whereas the virtual tutor can wait until a student demonstrates a clear understanding of the information or knowledge repository. Rigid information management mechanisms which incorporate tutor invention and involvement must be facilitated in a variety of ways, as they would within the contexts of class based activity.
Volery (2000) maintains that technical expertise on its own is not of great value unless lecturers conceive effective ways to utilise it. Lecturers will always play a key role in the effective delivery of eLearning initiatives, as it is the lecturer not the technology that facilitates the students learning experience. Wilson (2001) suggests that three characteristics of the lecturer will control the degree of learning; attitude towards technology, teaching style and the control of technology.
Nowadays, e-learning has become more and more common as our education system tool. E-learning is a multifaceted that covers a wider range of methods and approaches (Clarke, 2007). Moreover, e-learning is the learning methods that works in which the students and teacher are separated with each other in term of time and place. E-learning enables classes and meetings with student at a wide range of characteristic than traditional class (Moore, 1993). E-learning are determined most of the adults and then the population of youngsters that turn into e-learning are also increase. By using e-learning, there is an interaction between the student and teacher and also among the students (Fetterman, 1998). We are able to learn face-to-face via internet by having meeting or discussion between us as a student and the teacher.
The education institutional that execute e-learning programs is keep increasing. Therefore, teachers need to know the learning-teaching processes make different when students and teachers is not present at the same time and places. The disadvantages of e-learning such as creating meta-knowledge, structuring of knowledge, fostering of skills, and of intellectual inclinations cannot be done. According to Cohen (1999), there are two dimensions that classify virtual courses, a-synchronous learning and synchronous learning. In A-synchronous learning, teacher and learner in certain topic do not occur at the same time. On the other hand, they engage simultaneity in synchronous learning.
Based on the researchers, there are three categories of the interactions in online course include social interactions between the learner and instructor or among learners (Gilbert and Moore, 1998; Berge, 1995; Henri, 1991), academic interactions related to the learning material (Moore, 1996; Gilbert and Moore, 1998; Berge, 1995; Henri, 1991), and technical interactions which are unrelated to the learning material (Henri, 1991; Hillman, 1994). According to the author, the pedagogical technologies affect the learning material, the instructors, the information sources, the learner and ways of delivering. All of this impacts the perception of teachers to teach about e-learning (Orly, 2007).
Distance learning is also one of the method categories in e-learning. Distance learning is the delivery approaches because it does not depend on lecturer or teacher. The advantages of distances learning is that we able to bring the learning to the people not only in our own county but oversea too. The cost for student to learn per hour is cheaper than we learn at schools or universities. On the other hand, there is computer-based tutorial learning that provided for everyone at reasonable cost. The technology we have presently can use to remodel learning to make our life simple. Computer-based tutorial learning somehow won't be approaches as detailed interaction from a best tutor, but it is a greater superior of all learning today. In addition, compare to human tutor, it has much wider diversity of media. There are few advantages of e-learning such as reach everyone on each in their nation languages, student learn it anywhere and anytime they want, low cost, and so on. Someday, e-learning will be the major method that all learning will use it as a model (Alfred Bork, 2001).
2.3.2 Cognitive learning
According to Vockell (2004), cognitive skills had been described as the learners that will automatically awareness of their own knowledge and their capability to control, understand and manipulate their own cognitive processes. The particular skills cited under the cognition banner include memory (awareness of memory systems and strategies to manipulate memory for optimal efficiency), comprehension (the ability to know what has and has not been understood and to apply strategies to improve comprehension), and self-regulation (the act of self-monitoring and evaluating and adapting learning in light of experience and feedback) (Vockell, 2004).
Both Peters (2000) and Rivers (2001) identify cognitive skills as important in the development of independent learners. Peters (2000) sees cognitive skills as enabling self-management and appraisal of own thinking and learning, while Rivers (2001) reports students' self-directed learning behaviour as being associated with students' regular assessment of their academic performance, their approach to learning, and how this compares with that of their peers and with the teaching styles used. In a study examining the development of independent learning in children aged three to five years, Anderson et al. (2003) include a number of cognitive and self-assessment skills in their list of identified factors underlying independent learning.
These include: ability to speak about own and others' behaviours; monitors progress and seeks help appropriately; negotiates when and how to carry out tasks; is aware of feelings and others; is aware of own strengths and weaknesses; can speak about how they have done something or what they have learned; can speak about planned activities; can make reasoned choices and decisions; engages in independent cooperative activities with peers; initiates activities; finds own resources without adult help; develops own ways of carrying out tasks; and plans own tasks, targets and goals.
In addition to cognitive skills, learning style is also a feature - both explicit and implicit - of many definitions of self-assessment. McAlpine (2000) emphasizes goal-directed learning and preferred learning styles, while Elwood and Klenowski (2002) refer to self-knowledge about how we perceive, remember, think and act. Although passing reference to learning styles is common in the context of cognition and, by association, self-assessment, there seems little work examining the relevance of learning styles to self-assessment skill.
2.4 Relationship between Learning and Performance.
In order to define and demonstrate the effects of a student's learning style on academic performance in the classroom, cognitive style one of the entity. Researchers examining learning styles and proven that there are varied views on the precise components and characteristics of learning styles. According to Keefe (1982), learning styles are affective, cognitive, and physiological traits that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners respond, interact with, and perceive to the learning environment.
Rasinski (1983) identified that field independence/dependence is currently the most researched of all cognitive styles. These learning approaches measure how much students are capable to overcome the effects of distract background elements when they try to differentiate related aspects of a particular condition (Dembo, 1991). Witkin (1977) stated that field independent students show greater interest in more impersonal, conceptual aspects of various stimuli. on the contrary, field dependent students will prefer structured activities that require involvement with others and prefer a higher level of social sensitivity.
Independent and dependent learning style has an impact on academic performance in classrooms that use computer aided instruction. Cheney (1980) recommended that computer aided instruction can be made more effective if it is personalized to an individual's cognitive style. Based on the research from MacGregor, Shapiro, and Niemiec (1988) of the effect of computer aided mathematical instruction, they found that although field independent students outperformed field dependent students in all teaching methods, field dependent students particularly benefit from computer aided instruction as it provided the needed consistency and cognitive structure that they lack.
A frequently dilemma experienced by agricultural educators is how to react to the changes look of society and stay alongside each other of the possible impacts that technology could have in the teaching-learning context. A comparatively new dimension of microcomputer technology entitled, “multimedia” possesses the prospective to influence student learning and knowledge acquisition on their performances. Multimedia is a multi-faceted approach to computer-based education that brings together animation, text, audio, graphics, still images, video, and motion video.
Based on the impact of computer multimedia on student achievement, nobody have been undertaken to resolve the effect that learning style has on student performance when utilizing the multimedia instruction. In this study, the researcher required to identify the effects of students' learning styles on academic achievement and perceptions of two particularly different methods of instruction. If agricultural educators can adapt and utilize multimedia technology is a new teaching tool and capable of improving each of the student ability to learn, then definitely all individuals involved in agricultural education will gain benefit (Marrison and Frick, 1994).
There are many factors influence students' learning, such as students' interest in the material under study, their learning style preferences, and the learning environment. A student learning style preference refers to the way they act in response to stimuli in a learning context, and to their characteristic way of using and acquiring information. These learning styles identify that individuals learn in different ways, as a result the students in any course will place a variety of different interpretations on their lessons (Bailey and Garratt 2002). Since learning style preferences differ between students, so the most effective mode of education will also be different. If any consideration is to be given to accommodate students' learning style preferences when considering the design of instructional or assessment materials, then it is necessary to know whether the academic performance of students is dependent upon their preferred learning style, and also the sharing of learning style preferences within the students must be well-known. In conclusion, the strength of the relationship between learning style and academic performance can be investigated along the aspect (Yeung, Read and Schmid, 2005).
1. Robotham, D. (2004), “Developing the competent learner”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 36, No.2, pp. 66-72.
2. Antonacopoulou, E.P. (1999), “Training does not imply learning: the individual's perspective”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 14-33.
3. Garavan, T.N. (1997), “Training, development, education and learning: different or the same?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 21, No.2, pp. 39-50.
4. Rockman, I.F. (2002), “Editorial: The important of assessment”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 181-182.
5. Hassall, T. & Joyce, J. (2001), “Approaches to learning of management accounting students”, Education + Training, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 145-152.
6. Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
7. Entwistle, N. (2001), “Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education”, Kybernetes, Vol. 30, No. 5/6, pp. 593-603.
8. Entwistle, N.J. & Ramsden, p. (1983), Understanding Student Learning, Croom Helm, London.
9. Rolland, N. (2006), “Knowledge management in the business driven action learning process”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 896-907.
10. Argyris, C. (1991), “Teaching smart people how to learn”. Harvard Business Review, May-June.
11. Murray, P. & Moses, M. (2005), “The centrality of teams in the organisational learning process”, Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 1186-1202.
12. Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organisational learning: a review of some literatures”, Organisational Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 375-94.
13. Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organisational learning”, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 37-50.
14. Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
15. DiMaggio, P.W. & Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp. 147-60.
16. Crossan, M., Lane, H.W. & Hildebrand, T. (1993), “Organizational learning: theory to practice”, in Hendry (Ed.), Leadership and the Management of Change, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
17. Neisser, U. (1967), Cognitive Psychology, Meredith Publishing, New York, NY.
18. Orly, M. (2007), “Multicultural e-learning project and comparison of teachers', student teachers' and pupils' perception about e-learning”, Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 178-191.
19. Clarke, A. (2007), “The future of e-learning”, Adults Learning, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 14-15.
20. Moore, M.G. (1993), “Theory of transactional distance”, in Keegan, D. (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 22-38.
21. Fetterman, D. (1998), “Practical computing”, Practical Anthropology, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 32-9.
22. Cohen, A.M. (1999), “The hopeful marriage of community colleges and distance education: true love at last”, Catalyst, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 3-7.
23. Gilbert, L. and Moore, D.R. (1998), “Building interactivity into web courses: tools for social and instructional interaction”, Educational Technology, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 29-35.
24. Berge, Z.L. (1995), “Facilitating computer conferencing: recommendations from the field”, Educational Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 22-30.
25. Henri, F. (1991), “Computer conferencing and content analysis”, in Kaye, A.R. (Ed.), Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 117-36.
26. Moore, M.G. (1996), “Three types of interaction”, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, available at: www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm#editorial
27. Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J. and Gunawardena, C.N. (1994), “Learner-interface interaction in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners”, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 30-42.
28. Kempster, S. (2009), “Observing the invisible: Examining the role of observational learning in the development of leadership practice”, Journal of Management Development, Vol.28, No. 5, pp. 439-456.
29. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
30. Cotton, K. (2001), Developing Employability Skills, Northwest Regional Educational Research Laboratory, Portland, OR, available at: www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c015.html (accessed January 2005).
31. McAlpine, D. (2000), “Assessment and the gifted”, Tall Poppies, Vol. 25, No. 1, available at: www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/pedagogy/tallpoppies_e.php (accessed January 2005).
32. Peckham, G. and Sutherland, L. (2000), “The role of self-assessment in moderating students' expectations”, South African Journal for Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 1.
33. Krayenoord, C.E. and Paris, S.G. (1997), “Australian students' self-appraisal of their work samples and academic progress”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 523-37.
34. Reid, G. (2001), “Metacognition, learning style and dyslexia”, paper presented at the 5th BDA International Conference, University of York, York, 18-21 March.
35. Vockell, E.L. (2004), Educational Psychology - A Practical Guide, University of Purdue, Purdue, IN, available at: education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/EdPsyBook (accessed December 2004).
36. Peters, M. (2000), “Does constructivist epistemology have a place in nurse education?”, Journal of Nursing Education, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 166-70.
37. Rivers, W. (2001), “Autonomy at all costs: an ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners”, Modern Language Journal, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 279-90.
38. Hartley, J. (1998), Learning and Studying: A Research Perspective, Routledge, London.
39. Entwistle, N. and Tait, H. (1990), “Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching and preferences for contrasting academic environments”, Higher Education, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 169-194.
40. Cassidy, S. (2004), “Learning styles: an overview of theories, models and measures”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 419-44.
41. Cassidy, S. and Eachus, P. (2000), “Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education”, Educational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 307-22.
42. Entwistle, N.J. and Entwistle, A. (1991), “Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: the students' experience and its implications”, Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 205-27.
43. Marrison, D.L. and Frick, M.J. (1994), “The Effect of Agricultural Students' Learning Style on Academic Achievement and Their Perceptions of Two Methods of Instruction”, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 26-30.
44. Keefe, J.W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles: An overview. Student learning styles and brain behaviour. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
45. Rasinski, T. (1983). Cognitive style and read Implications from field dene de ce esearch for reading instruction. International Reading Association, Springfield, Illinois, 1983. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 241 899).
46. Witkin, H.A., Moores, C., Goodenough, D., & Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 1-64.
47. Dembo, M.H. (1991). Applying educational psychology in the classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
48. Cheney, P. (1980), “Cognitive style and student programming ability: An investigation”, Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 285-291.
49. MacGregor, S.K., Shapiro, J.Z., & Niemiec, R. (1988), “Effects of computer augmented learning environment on math achievement for students with differing cognitive style”, Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol.4, pp. 453-465.
50. Bork, A. (2001), “Adult education, lifelong learning, and the future”, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 195-203.
Need an essay? You can buy essay help from us today!