Addressing diverse learner preferences and intelligences with emerging technologies: Matching models to online opportunities

Ke Zhang Curtis J. Bonk Authors Ke Zhang is an assistant professor in the Instructional Technology Program at Wayne State University. Previously, she was an assistant professor at Texas Tech University in !!"# !!$. %orrespon&ence regar&ing this article can 'e sent to()e.*hang+wayne.e&u %urt ,on) is a professor of Instructional Systems Technology an& a&-unct in the School of Informatics at In&iana University. %urt is Presi&ent of %ourseShare an& SurveyShare. .e can 'e contacte& 'y e#mail( c-'on)+in&iana.e&u Abstract: This paper critically reviews various learning preferences an& human intelligence theories an& mo&els with a particular focus on the implications for online learning. It highlights a few )ey mo&els, /ar&ner0s multiple intelligences, 1leming an& 2ills0 345K mo&el, .oney an& 2umfor&0s 6earning Styles, an& Kol'0s 7xperiential 6earning 2o&el, an& attempts to lin) them to tren&s an& opportunities in online learning with emerging technologies. ,y intersecting such mo&els with online technologies, it offers instructors an& instructional &esigners across e&ucational sectors an& situations new ways to thin) a'out a&&ressing &iverse learner nee&s, 'ac)groun&s, an& expectations. 6earning technologies are important for effective teaching, as are theories an& mo&els an& theories of learning. We argue that more immense power can 'e &erive& from connections 'etween the theories, mo&els an& learning technologies. Rsum : %et article passe en revue &e mani8re criti9ue les &ivers mo&8les et th:ories sur les pr:f:rences &0apprentissage et l0intelligence humaine, avec un accent particulier sur les implications 9ui en &:coulent pour l0apprentissage en ligne. 60article pr:sente 9uel9ues#uns &es principaux mo&8les ;les intelligences multiples &e /ar&ner, le mo&8le 34K &e 1leming et 2ills, les styles &0apprentissage &e .oney et 2umfor& et le mo&8le &0apprentissage exp:rientiel &e Kol'< et tente &e

les relier = &es ten&ances et occasions &0apprentissage en ligne 9ui utilisent les nouvelles technologies. 7n croisant ces mo&8les avec les technologies We', les instructeurs et concepteurs p:&agogi9ues &ans les secteurs &e l0:&ucation ou en situation :&ucationnelle se voient offrir &e nouvelles fa>ons &e tenir compte &es &ivers 'esoins, hori*ons et attentes &es apprenants. 6es technologies &0apprentissage sont importantes pour un enseignement efficace, tout comme les th:ories et les mo&8les &0apprentissage. ?ous sommes &0avis 9u0en :ta'lissant &es liens entre les th:ories, les mo&8les et les technologies &0apprentissage, il est possi'le &0o'tenir un r:sultat plus puissant.
Introduction

@nline learning is one among the extensive lineage of e&ucational technologies an& processes that has shifte& where, when, an& how learning occurs. 4s e&ucational technologies continue to emerge an& progress, the learning situations an& pro'lems as well as the resources to solve them can 'e customi*e& for online learners. @nline resources an& technologies can support fascinating opportunities for interactive an& colla'orative learning among people who have never physically met. 4t the same time, they can sanction opportunities for )nowle&ge sharing among learners an& teachers in vastly &ifferent times *ones ;Papastergiou, !!$<. What is perhaps most significant is that there is growing awareness of the importance of a&&ressing in&ivi&ual learner nee&s an& preferences in online learning spaces. People &iffer along a wi&e continuum as to how they learn an& how they prefer to learn. This continuum of &ifferences is often referre& to as learning styles or preferences ;Pas), ABC$D 5i&ing, 5., ABBCD 5i&ing E %heema, ABBAD 5i&ing E 5aynor S., ABBFD Sa&ler#Smith, ABBC<, as well as cognitive styles, types of intelligences, an& thin)ing approaches or styles ;Gonassen E /ra'ows)i, ABB", Stern'erg E Zhang, !!A<. While the names an& terminology may vary, the )ey goal of e&ucation is to help all learners learn. The learning style an& relate& literature highlights the nee&s for variety an& &iversity in instructional metho&s, remin&ing e&ucators that there is no one single learning metho& that wor)s for everyone. Thus, we use learning preferences in this paper as a general term to encompass the tra&itional learning styles literature, as well as that relate& to cognitive styles, multiple intelligence theories, 'rain#'ase& learning, an& other relate& mo&els an& perspectives, in an attempt to help 'uil& a 'roa&er

un&erstan&ing of how people &iffer in learning an& more importantly, how to a&&ress these &ifferences in teaching an& learning &esigns an& practices. Hespite the critical views on learning style research ;e.g., %offiel&, 2oseley, .all, E 7cclestone, !!ID Santo, !!$<, these theories an& mo&els stimulate more thoughts an& reflections upon how one might a&&ress &iverse learners. 4s scholars pointe& out ;e.g., Knowles, ABFID We&emeyer, ABFA<, choices an& self#&irecte& learning opportunities are more li)ely to result in learning#relate& success, especially with a&ult learners. Thus, 'y 'eginning to a&&ress learner preferences, one may 'e a'le to &esign more effective an& engaging learning experiences.

Pros and Cons of Learning Preferences

The learning styles literature focuses on how people nee& or prefer to learn ;,rophy, ABBFD 5i&ing E %heema ABBA<. In a systemic review of learning styles an& associate& pe&agogical applications, %offiel& an& his colleagues ;%offiel& et al., !!I< i&entifie& CA &ifferent learning style theories. In the following, we 'riefly review some of the more influential learning preferences theories an& mo&els of the past few &eca&es, with a particular emphasis on how they relate to online learning. In general, learning styles refer to the pattern or ten&ency of an in&ivi&ual0s learning 'ehaviours an& attitu&es. These styles influence how people learn an& how they may 'e 'etter taught. 7ffectively a&&ressing styles of human learning can have enormous payoffs for an organi*ation or institution that is expan&ing its e&ucation an& training opportunities using emerging technologies. 1or instance, Gu&y Serwat)a ; !!J< claims that the )ey ingre&ient in improving stu&ent retention an& increasing motivation in online courses lies in a&&ressing stu&ent learning styles. .owever, instructors an& course &esigners will li)ely continue to encounter &ifficulty &esigning components of a course that will a&&ress all learning styles or preferences ;Serwat)a<. Thus e&ucators may 'enefit from fin&ing an& a&opting free online resources, such as those in 2756@T ;see http(KKwww.merlot.org<, which may engage multiple learning preferences. The increasingly availa'le online resources, especially through We' .! technologies ;e.g., wi)is, LouTu'e, etc.< certainly have great potential to help course &esigners an& instructors to choose an& integrate a wi&e variety of learning activities an& materials to a&&ress various learner preferences.

In an attempt to &ocument the relationship 'etween online learning an& learning styles, Santo ; !!$< fin&s that as a construct, the i&ea of learning styles is rather wea). Hifferent instruments contain &issimilar factors ma)ing it &ifficult to )now what to compare or a&&ress. 4n& in some cases, a learning styles inventory or instrument is a)in to a personality measure ;Santo<. 4lso, most of these learning styles instruments rely on learners self report, respon&ents may select answers that they thin) their instructor or those con&ucting the assessment want to see or that are &eeme& popular at the time ;Santo<. In a&&ition, Santo also argues that there is a lac) of research verifying any connection 'etween the evaluation of learning styles an& stu&ent success in an online course or learning experience. 4 fourth issue is that the more options offere& 'y online learning experiences ;e.g., synchronous learning com'ine& with asynchronous<, the more &ifficult it is to trac) or clarify any relationships that may exist. Let another pro'lem of most, if not all learning style schemes, is that while they may explain some aspects of human learning in one culture, they cannot 'e generali*e& across other cultures. The ina'ility of most learning style instruments to a&&ress cultural &ifferences in learning is perhaps its most serious flaw. Hespite the issues concerning learning styles literature, the awareness of learner &ifferences may help instructors to 'etter a&&ress the customi*ation an& personali*ation tren&s in online learning. The learning preference approach may also stimulate more active an& more critical reflections on one0s teaching or course &esign practices. In this paper, we review some of the most influential mo&els that have significant implications for online teaching an& learning. In our &iscussions in the later portions of the paper, learning preference;s<, instea& of learning style;s<, will 'e use& to hopefully convey a 'roa&er sense of learner &ifferences concerning online instructions in particular.
Kolbs Experiential Learning Cycle

Kol'0s experiential learning cycle theory is wi&ely applie& or a&apte& in teaching an& training. 4ccor&ing to Kol' ;ABFI<, effective learning involves a four#stage cycle, from ;A< getting involve& in concrete experiences ;%7<, to ; < reflective listening an& o'servations ;4%<, ;5@<, to to ;"< creating i&eas with an a'stract active conceptuali*ation an& ;I< ma)ing &ecisions through

experimentations ;47<. Kol'0s experiential learning mo&el not only specifies a four# stage learning cycle that applies to learning in general, 'ut also i&entifies four

learning styles or preferences that relate to in&ivi&ual learners. Two polar opposite &imensions exist, one on the vertical axis contrasting %7 vs. 4% ;i.e., the perception continuum<, an& one on the hori*ontal wherein learners must choose 'etween 47 vs. 5@ tas)s an& activities ;i.e., the processing continuum<. 4t the top of the perception continuum are those in&ivi&uals with preferences towar& concrete experiences who ten& to learn 'y feelings. Such learners ten& to learn 'est through imme&iate experiences which can 'e felt, hear&, or seen. In contrast to the feeling preferences of concrete learners, those who are happiest with a'stract conceptuali*ation experiences ;i.e., at the 'ottom of the perception continuum< are typically in a thin)ing mo&e when they learn. 4'stract learners love to analy*e, &evelop theories an& i&eas, an& systematically plan things out. @n the left si&e of the processing continuum are learners who ten& to 'e in their element when reflectively o'serving an& watching others. They feel at home when ma)ing careful o'servations an& 'eing expose& to &ifferent viewpoints or opinions. @n the other en& are learners who typically &esire active experimentation an& learning 'y &oing. Such in&ivi&uals love to have a chance to influence others, ta)e ris)s, an& simply li)e to get things &one ;Santo, !!$<. 1or Kol', no one type of processing or perception is preferre& or &eeme& 'etter. In a&&ition, he asserts that one can enter the learning cycle at any of these four points. ,ase& on completion of a learning style inventory &evelope& 'y Kol' ;ABC$< which has 9uestions relate& to each type of learning preference, the learner &etermines where she is on each of those two axes, hori*ontal an& vertical. 4fter &etermining one0s position along the two &imensions, a line is &rawn 'etween the two points to &etermine which of four 9ua&rants the learner ten&s to prefer( ;A< accommo&ating, ; < &iverging, ;"< converging, or ;I< assimilating. Kol' an& his followers argue that these are the four )ey learning styles that nee& to 'e a&&resse& in any type of learning situations. 4ccor&ingly, there are certain ways to a&&ress learners who exhi'it each particular style of learning. Ta'le A summari*es some the )ey learner characteristics an& preferre& learning activities of each of the four styles of learning, together with some online learning technologies an& activities. 1or example, accommo&ators prefer to learn through practical experiences ;%7K47< rather than logical analyses. Hivergent learners focus on feeling, watching, an& reflection ;%7K5@<, an& often view things from &ifferent or multiple perspectives. 4ssimilating learners learn from watching an& thin)ing

;4%K5@< an& prefer rea&ing, lecturing, an& logical analyses. 4 converging style is in&icative of people who learn from &oing an& thin)ing ;4%K47<. %onvergent learners also en-oy experimenting with new i&eas an& solving practical pro'lems. Table 1. Linking Kolbs learning style theory (Smith, 2001 to emerging

te!hnologies

Table 1 ;contM&<. 6in)ing Kol'Ms learning style theory ;Smith, technologies

!!A< to emerging

Table 1 ;contM&<. 6in)ing Kol'0s learning style theory ;Smith, technologies

!!A< to emerging

Honey and Mumfords Learning Styles

,ase& on a simplifie& version of Kol'0s ;ABFI< learning cycle, .oney an& 2umfor& ;ABF$, ABB < &efine& the following four learning styles( ;A< activist, ; < reflector, ;"< theorist, an& ;I< pragmatist. 4s illustrate& in Ta'le , these learning styles are each relate& to a particular stage of Kol'0s learning cycle. 1or example, activists are similar to accommo&ators, reflectors share characteristics a)in to &ivergers, theorists an& assimilators are much ali)e, an& pragmatists have many of the characteristics of convergers. Table 2. 6in)ing .oney an& 2umfor&0s ;ABF$, ABB < learning styles to emerging technologies

Ta'le

;contM&<. 6in)ing .oney an& 2umfor&0s ;ABF$, ABB < learning styles to

emerging technologies

Table 2 (cont d!. 6in)ing .oney an& 2umfor&0s ;ABF$, ABB < learning styles to emerging technologies

.oney an& 2umfor& a&mit that the similarities are greater than the &ifferences in this mo&el since the four stages of their learning cycle ha& their roots in the Kol' mo&el. In 'oth cases, it is important to com'ine opportunities for gaining experience, reflecting on that experience, coming to new insights or conceptuali*ations, an& then ta)ing action or experimenting with such new theories, i&eas, or approaches. .ence, activities that can engage all four styles can 'e important for effective instruction. /iven that approaches to learning vary across the population, involving multiple instructional metho&s, mo&els, an& strategies in online courses will perhaps help in creating more appealing learning experiences that a&&ress the ways in which &ifferent people learn.
4MA

In exten&ing Kol'0s ;ABFI< experiential learning approach, ,ernice 2c%arthy ;ABFC< &evelope& the I24T system, which also a&&resses four types of learners, ;A< innovative, ; < analytic, ;"< common sense, an& ;I< &ynamic. 4ccor&ing to 2c%arthy, innovative learners are primarily intereste& in personal meanings, whereas analytic learners ten& to focus on ac9uiring facts to un&erstan& concepts an& processes. Innovative learners, therefore, try to connect their learning situations to their &aily lives. Instructional approaches that might 'e effective in this regar& inclu&e cooperative learning, 'rainstorming, an& content integration activities. Such innovative learners &eeply appreciate personal reasons an& connections within their learning environments. 4nalytic learners, on the other han&, might prefer lectures, in&epen&ent research pro-ects, opportunities to analy*e real#worl& &ata, an& listening to expert viewpoints an& a&vice. Innovative an& analytic learners are not the only two choices, however. In contrast to these two approaches, are common sense an& &ynamic types of learners. 2c%arthy notes that common sense learners want to )now how things wor), while the fourth type of learner in her mo&elN&ynamic learnersNare primarily intereste& in self#&irecte& &iscovery. Instructional metho&s of choice for common sense learners inclu&e the use of manipulatives an& other han&s#on tas)s as well as )inesthetic experiences. 4s the name of this type of learning implies, common sense learners ten& to succee& when practical learning activities are use&. 1or &ynamic learners, popular instructional metho&s might inclu&e in&epen&ent stu&y or self#selecte& experiences, games an& simulations, as well as interactive role# playing an& &e'ates.

7ven though learners have their preferences, 2c%arthy conten&s that true learning strengths are evi&ent in a learner who can move from one mo&e of learning to another &epen&ing on the re9uirements of the particular pro'lem or learning situation. Thus, the curriculum shoul& 'e &esigne& in ways that allow learners to shine as well as encourage them to stretch to new learning heights. In effect, learners shoul& learn within their comfort *ones as well as in places 'eyon& or at the e&ges of their learning envelopes. 4s a tool for 'oth classroom management an& organi*ational change, the I24T system attempts to she& light on learning at the in&ivi&ual, group, an& organi*ational levels. It is useful for explaining an& &emonstrating the &iversity of learning approaches.
!A"K

4nother wi&ely influential mo&el is 345K ;also )nown as 34K or 34%T< which was &esigne& 'y 1leming an& 2ills ;ABB a, ABB '<. Similar to the three learning style mo&els alrea&y reviewe&, the 345K mo&el i&entifies four types of learners an& learning preferences ;1leming, n.&.<( ;A< 3isualD ; < 4u&itoryD ;"< 5ea&ingKwritingD an& ;I< Kinesthetic, tactile, or exploratory. 4s official we'site of the 345K ;1leming, n.&.< points out, while many people have a &ominant or preferre& learning style, some have a mixe& an& evenly 'alance& 'len& of two or more of these styles. The 345K system not only provi&es a way to i&entify learning preferences 'ut also clearly &emonstrates the nee&s an& a&vantages of multime&ia applications in e&ucation to a&&ress these varying styles. 1rom the 345K perspective, visual learners prefer &iagrams, flowcharts, an& graphicsD however, instructional technologies such as vi&eos, films, or PowerPoint presentations are noticea'ly a'sent from their &escriptions. 1leming ;n.&.< argues that some of these me&ia actually use a strong au&itory component, instea& of visual, an& many computer# 'ase& learning programs only appeal to the 5 ;rea&Kwrite< preference with heavy text#'ase& information. Some me&ia &o not use the &iagrams, charts, an& sym'olisms that visual learners preferD an& vi&eos an& photographs showing real situations actually a&&ress )inesthetic learners, not the visual ones. 4lso, television often appeals to all preferences. @f course, the me&ium itself &oes not guarantee the 9uality of learning materials &elivere& through it, an&, thus, one may claim that not all vi&eos appeal to those with a strong visual preference. .owever, we woul& argue that perhaps vi&eos, films, PowerPoint an& the li)e woul& appeal to either

one or multiple mo&alities or preferences of learning, &epen&ing on the &esign of the materials an& activities. In contrast to visual learners, au&itory learners naturally prefer hearing &irections, lectures, or ver'al information, while learners who prefer rea&ing an& writing learn 'est from text passages, wor&s, an& written explanations. 1inally, tactile or )inesthetic learners excel when connecting their learning to reality through han&s# on examples, role#play, &e'ates, practice exercises, an& simulations. While a learner may have a preference to learn 'y processing text, hearing information, visually perceiving the content, or actively engaging in or &oing a particular tas), as in&icate&, many people are multi#mo&al an& have more than one learning preference.
#ardners Multiple Intelligences

Unli)e tra&itional learning style theories, .owar& /ar&ner ;ABF", ABB"< proposes that people &iffer in terms of their intellectual compositions. 4ccor&ing to /ar&ner ;ABF", ABBB<, intelligence is a set of talents, s)ills, or potentials for fin&ing solutions. .e conten&s that people have varying amounts of &ifferent intelligences ;Smith, !! <. /ar&ner further argues that multiple intelligences may 'e cultivate&, strengthene&, or otherwise wea)ene&. /ar&ner ;ABB", ABBB< i&entifies the following three ;'< categories sensate, formsD an& of intelligence( ;a< thought, an& which inclu&es forms such of an& as ver'alKlinguistic, intelligenceD au&itoryKmusical logicalKmathematical, inclu&ing ;c< naturalist, existential intelligences,

visualKspatial,

'o&yK)inesthetic,

communicational

interpersonal an& intrapersonal. While nine &ifferent types of intelligences are liste& in Ta'le ", he originally was )nown for seven intelligences, with the naturalist an& existential forms 'eing a&&e& later. Hespite the clamour over his nine forms of intelligences, /ar&ner argues that there may 'e even more categories or types of human intelligences. Ta'le " attempts to lin) the nine intelligences &etaile& here to technological processes an& activities that one might attempt to con&uct online. This list ma)es it clear that e&ucators have enormous online resources for a&&ressing many forms of human intelligence. 6earners can collect original &ata online, analy*e an& visually represent such &ata, reflect on the fin&ings, an& then electronically share their fin&ings an& final pro&ucts with peers an& experts for their honest appraisals an& fee&'ac).

While the technologies for ver'alKlinguistic as well as logicalKmathematical intelligences are perhaps wi&ely )nown, there are now a host of tools to a&&ress intrapersonal an& musical intelligences. even 'o&ilyK)inesthetic, naturalist, an& existential intelligences, online. Though often conteste& theoretically 'y aca&emic psychology, multiple intelligence theory is well accepte& 'y 'oth the e&ucational community as well as the general pu'lic ;Smith, !! <. In fact, it is wi&ely applie& in e&ucation, as instructors have a&apte& instruction to a&&ress varying in&ivi&ual learner0s nee&s an& preferences with a range of learning materials an& activities. @f course, as Ta'le " reveals, increasingly availa'le computer an& Internet technologies further exten& the power an& possi'ilities of a&&ressing learning preferences an& stimulating multiple intelligences in online learning. Table ". 6in)ing /ar&ner0s 2ultiple Intelligences to 7merging 6earning

Technologies

Table " (cont d!. 6in)ing /ar&ner0s 2ultiple Intelligences to 7merging 6earning Technologies

Table " ;contM&<. 6in)ing /ar&ner0s 2ultiple Intelligences to 7merging 6earning Technologies

Table " ;contM&<. 6in)ing /ar&ner0s 2ultiple Intelligences to 7merging 6earning Technologies

Table " ;contM&<. 6in)ing /ar&nerMs 2ultiple Intelligences to 7merging 6earning Technologies

Implications for $nline Learning

@ne of the principal challenges facing online e&ucation to&ay is the nee& to stimulate an& sustain learner motivation an& retention ;,on) E Hennen, !!"<. To a&&ress this challenge, effective online environments can 'e &esigne& for &iverse learners with &ifferent learning preferences, expectations, experiences, cultural 'ac)groun&s, an& generational lifestyles. .owever, it is easier sai& than &one. Gust attempting to grasp the sheer num'er of learning style schemes an& approaches is a &aunting tas). Implementation of one or more of them in an e&ucationally 'eneficial way can 'e even thornier. Perhaps the )ey is to 'e aware that &ifferent learners learn &ifferently. When we'#'ase& learning starte& to explo&e in the late ABB!s, researchers ;e.g., ,on) E Hennen, ABBBD @liver, @mari, E .errington, ABBF< repeate&ly argue& that popular courseware or course management systems ;%2S< were not sufficiently sophisticate& for engaging an& motivating high 9uality learning. Such tools not only lac)e& pe&agogical sophistication, the &esigners of such systems &i& not appear to 'e ma)ing attempts to a&&ress these pe&agogical &eficiencies ;,on) E Zhang, !!$D !!F<. 4s a result, there are now many calls for pe&agogical improvements to learning management systems an& other online tools an& resources ;,on) E Zhang<. .owever, the expectations for change remain mo&est at 'est. In part, such

low perceptions were the result of shovel#ware in online courses ;5osen'erg, &eficiencies woul& have permeate& K#A

!!A<

foun& in 'oth higher e&ucation an& 'usiness settings. Such online course e&ucation as well, 'ut, at that time, online learning was not 9uite as pervasive there. Hespite the negative views an& the limite& research an& &evelopment relate& to effective pe&agogical tools from learning management systems ;62S< an& course management systems ;%2S< ven&ors, the next generations of 62S an& %2S will li)ely offer more participatory learning outlets an& opportunities to personali*e an& in&ivi&uali*e learning. 4lrea&y participatory technologies, inclu&ing po&casts, wi)is, 'logs, an& social networ)ing software, all offer ways to align learning situations with learner preferences an& informal learning experiences. Those involve& in online e&ucation &uring the coming &eca&e shoul& witness an explosion of such opportunities. 4s that explosion occurs, e&ucators shoul& 'e min&ful of existing lin)ages 'etween learning styles, preferences, an& approaches, an& online learning technologies such as those &ocumente& in this paper. 4ll types of learning situations an& events have their respective 'enefits an& opportunities. The options availa'le in online environments can ma)e the learning formats more explicit. Some recent research in&icates that we are in the mi&st of a &ramatic shift to more active learning, pro'lem solving, authentic learning, an& virtual teaming or colla'orative learning in online environments in 'oth higher e&ucation an& corporate training settings ;,on), Kim, E Zeng, !!$<. Such research in&icates that online courses are moving away from their text#centere& an& lecture#'ase& past while increasingly incorporating han&s#on activities ;Kim, ,on), E Zeng, !!J< an& some visual an& reflective ones as well. While our own research has reveale& that han&s#on learning is currently &eeme& the least a&&resse& learning style in online courses across a variety of settings, there seems some hope that it will 'e increasingly use& in the next couple of years ;,on) et al.<. @f course, more complex an& realistic simulations, scenarios, an& interactive news stories are alrea&y signalling part of this tren&. 4s learner &ifferences have 'een &iscusse& for millennia, what is perhaps uni9ue a'out the early years of this century is that there are powerful ways to &o -ust that. 1or instruction of any )in& to 'e successful an& have lasting impact, not -ust temporarily 'e &eeme& satisfactory, it must 'e responsive to learner

&evelopmental, linguistic, cultural, an& socioeconomic nee&s as well their learning styles, preferences, or favoure& approaches to learning ;We&emeyer, ABFA<. 4s illustrate& in this paper, the time is ripe for a&&ressing learning preferences an& interests through online tools an& activities. %learly, the various learning styles, learning preferences, an& human intelligence theories an& mo&els can 'e lin)e& to emerging an& useful technologies for online instruction. With the ample technologies presently availa'le, each instructor or instructional &esigner will have their own, uni9ue ways of implementing some of the emerging technologies to a&&ress particular learner nee&s an& &ifferences apparent in their classrooms or training situations. To help in such efforts, the authors have attempte& to offer a few 'rief examples for this to occur with the hope that it can perhaps open a &oor to the enormous opportunities for 'etter serving the &iverse online learners in the future.
"eferences

,on), %. G. E Zhang, K. ; !!$<. Intro&ucing the 5 H

mo&el( @nline learning for

the &iverse learners of this worl&. Histance 7&ucation, C; <, IB# $I ,on), %. G. E Zhang, K. ; !!F<. 7mpowering online learning( A!!O activities for rea&ing, reflecting, &isplaying, an& &oing. San 1rancisco, %4( Gossey#,ass. ,on), %. G., E Hennen, 3. P. ;ABBB<. Teaching on the We'( With a little help from my pe&agogical frien&s. Gournal of %omputing in .igher 7&ucation, AA;A<, "# F. ,on), %. G., E Hennen, 3. ; !!"<. 1ramewor)s for research, &esign, 'enchmar)s, training, an& pe&agogy in We'#'ase& &istance e&ucation. In 2. /. 2oore E ,. 4n&erson ;7&.<, .an&'oo) of &istance e&ucation ;pp. ""A#"IF<. 2ahwah, ?G( 6awrence 7rl'aum 4ssociates. ,on), %. G., Kim, K. G., E Zeng, T. ; !!$<. 1uture &irections of 'len&e& learning in higher e&ucation an& wor)place learning settings. In %. G. ,on) E %. 5. /raham ;7&s.<. .an&'oo) of 'len&e& learning( /lo'al Perspectives, local &esigns ;pp. JJ!# J$C<. San 1rancisco, %4( Pfeiffer Pu'lishing. ,rophy, G. 7. ;ABBF<. 2otivating stu&ents to learn. ,oston, 24( 2c/raw#.ill.

%offiel&, 1., 2oseley, H., .all, 7., E 7cclestone, K. ; !!I<. 6earning styles an& pe&agogy in post#A$ learning( 4 Systematic an& critical review. 5etrieve& 4ugust A$, !!$, from( http(KKwww.ls&a.org.u)KfilesKPH1K AJI".p&f 1leming, ?. H., E 2ills, %. ;ABB a<. ?ot another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the 4ca&emy, AA, A"C#AIB. 1leming, ?. H., E 2ills, %. ;ABB '<. 345K a gui&e to learning styles. 5etrieve& @cto'er AA, !!J, from http(KKwww.var)#learn.comK7nglishKin&ex.asp 1leming, ?. H. ;n.&.< 345K. 5etrieve& Hecem'er AA, learn.comK /ar&ner, .. ;ABF"<. 1rames of min&( The theory of multiple intelligences. ?ew Lor)( ,asic. /ar&ner, .. ;ABB"<. 2ultiple intelligences( The theory in practice. ?ew Lor)( ,asic. /ar&ner, .. ;ABBB<. Intelligence reframe&( 2ultiple intelligences for the century. ?ew Lor)( ,asic. .oney, P., E 2umfor&, 4. ;ABF$<. Using your learning styles. 2ai&enhea&, UK( Peter .oney. .oney, P., E 2umfor&, 4. ;ABB <. The manual of learning styles. 2ai&enhea&, UK( Peter .oney. Gonassen, H. G., E /ra'ows)i, ,. 6 ;ABB"<. .an&'oo) of in&ivi&ual &ifferences, learning an& instruction. .ills&ale, ?G( 6awrence 7rl'aum. Kim, K. G., ,on), %. G., E Zeng, T. ; !!J, Gune<. Surveying the future of wor)place e#learning( The rise of 'len&ing, interactivity, an& authentic learning. 7#6earn 2aga*ine. 5etrieve& on ?ovem'er A , !!C fromhttp(KKwww.elearnmag.orgKsu'page.cfmPsectionQresearchEarticleQJ#A Knowles, 2. ;ABFI<. 4n&ragogy in action. San 1rancisco( Gossey#,ass. Kol', H. 4. ;ABC$<. The learning style inventory( Technical manual. ,oston, 24( 2c,er. Ast !!C, from http(KKwww.var)#

Kol', H. 4. ;ABFI<. 7xperiential learning( 7xperience as the source of learning an& &evelopment. 7nglewoo& %liffs, ?ew Gersey( Prentice#.all. 6am', 4. ; !!I<. Technology an& multiple intelligences. 7&uscapes( Teacher Tap. 5etrieve& @cto'er "A, !!$, from http(KKe&uscapes.comKtapK topic$F.htm 6am', 4. ; !!$<. ,uil&ing treehouses for learning( Technology in the classroom ;Ith 7&<. 7mporia, KS( 3ision to 4ction. 2c%arthy, ,. ;ABFC<. The I24T system( Teaching to learning styles with rightKleft mo&e techni9ues ;5evise& e&.<. ,arrington, I6( 7R%76. @liver, 5., @mari, 4., E .errington, G. ;ABBF<. 7xploring stu&ent interactions in colla'orative Worl& Wi&e We' computer#'ase& learning environments. Gournal of 7&ucational 2ultime&ia an& .yperme&ia, C; K"<, $"# FC. Papastergiou, 2. ; !!$<. %ourse management systems as tools for the creation of online learning environments( 7valuation from a social constructivist perspective an& implications for their &esign. International Gournal on 7#6earning, J;I<, JB"# $ .

Pas), /. ;ABC$<. Styles an& strategies of learning, ,ritish Gournal of 7&ucational Psychology, I$, A F#AIF. 5i&ing, 5., ;ABBC<. @n the nature of cognitive style. 7&ucational Psychology, AC;A, <, B#J!. 5i&ing, 5., E %heema, I. ;ABBA<. %ognitive styles( 4n overview an& integration. 7&ucational Psychology, AA, AB$# AJ. 5i&ing, 5., E 5aynor, S. ;ABBF<. %ognitive styles an& learning strategies( un&erstan&ing style &ifferences in learning an& 'ehavior. 6on&on( Havi& 1ulton Pu'lishers. 5osen'erg, 2. ; !!A<. 7#6earning( Strategies for &elivering )nowle&ge in the &igital age. ?ew Lor)( 2c/raw .ill. Sa&ler#Smith, 7. ;ABBC<. 6earning styles( 1ramewor)s an& instruments. 7&ucational Psychology, AC, JA#$J.

Santo, S. ; !!$<. 5elationships 'etween learning styles an& online learning( 2yth or realityP Performance Improvement Suarterly, AB;"<, C"#FF. Serwat)a, 5etrieve& G. 4. ; !!J<. Improving @cto'er B, !!$, retention from in &istance learning classes. ;A<.

International Gournal of Instructional Technology an& Histance 6earning, GanT!JKarticle!$.htm

http(KKwww.it&l.orgKGournalK

Smith, 2. K. ; !!A<. Havi& 4. Kol' on experiential learning. The encyclope&ia of informal e&ucation. 5etrieve& @cto'er "A, !!$, from http(KKwww.infe&.orgK'i'lioK'#explrn.htm Smith, 2. K. ; !! <. .owar& /ar&ner an& multiple intelligences. The encyclope&ia of informal e&ucation. 5etrieve& @cto'er !, !!$, from http(KKwww.infe&.orgKthin)ersKgar&ner.htm. 6ast up&ate& Ganuary F, !!J. Stern'erg, 5. G., E Zhang, 6#1. ; !!A<. Preface. In 5. G. Stern'erg E 6#1. Zhang ;7&s.<, Perspectives on thin)ing, learning, an& cognitive styles ;pp. vii#x<. 2ahwah, ?G( 7rl'aum. We&emeyer, %. 4. ;ABFA<. 6earning at the 'ac) &oor( 5eflections on non#tra&itional learning in the lifespan. 2a&ison, WI( University of Wisconsin Press.