Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content

analysis of publications from 2000 to 2011

Yavuz Akbulut
*
, Cigdem Suzan Cardak
Anadolu University, Faculty of Education, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 30 August 2011
Received in revised form
15 October 2011
Accepted 19 October 2011
Keywords:
Humancomputer interface
Intelligent tutoring systems
Interactive learning environments
Multimedia/hypermedia systems
Distributed learning environments
a b s t r a c t
Implementing instructional interventions to accommodate learner differences has received considerable
attention. Among these individual difference variables, the empirical evidence regarding the pedagogical
value of learning styles has been questioned, but the research on the issue continues. Recent develop-
ments in Web-based implementations have led scholars to reconsider the learning style research in
adaptive systems. The current study involved a content analysis of recent studies on adaptive educational
hypermedia (AEH) which addressed learning styles. After an extensive search on electronic databases,
seventy studies were selected and exposed to a document analysis. Study features were classied under
several themes such as the research purposes, methodology, features of adaptive interventions and
student modeling, and ndings. The analysis revealed that the majority of studies proposed a framework
or model for adaptivity whereas few studies addressed the effectiveness of learning style-based AEH.
Scales were used for learning style identication more than automatic student modeling. One third of
the studies provided a framework without empirical evaluation with students. Findings on concrete
learning outcomes were not strong enough; however, several studies revealed that suggested models
inuenced student satisfaction and success. Current trends, potential research gaps and implications
were discussed.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Provision of same instructional conditions to all students can be pedagogically ineffective. In contrast, achieving learning goals can be
more effective if pedagogical procedures are geared to comply with the pupils individual needs. Referred to as adaptive instructional
systems, this approach involves the efforts to develop and implement educational interventions accommodating learner differences (Lee &
Park, 2008). Adaptivity and adaptability are frequently used terms in the literature. Adaptivity can be dened as the capacity of the
instructional systems to modify lessons through using specic parameters of the learner needs. On the other hand, adaptability is the
possibility for learners to choose certain parameters of the learning experiences by themselves (Burgos, Tattersall, & Koper, 2007). That is,
program controlled modications are referred to as adaptivity while learner controlled ones are called adaptability.
Any form of instruction accommodating learners individual needs can be considered adaptive, whether it is delivered face-to-face or in
a technology-based format (Lee & Park, 2008). It can be relatively easy for teachers to get insights into how students learn in conventional
classroomsettings, but it requires more efforts to measure individual difference variables reliably in e-learning contexts. On the other hand,
recent technological developments facilitate the provision of individually customized instruction to large audiences. In this regard, in
contrast to the difculty of individual differences diagnosis, adaptation to these individual differences can be easier in e-learning contexts.
This is because learners in such contexts are not in large classrooms where teachers cannot provide them with individual treatments
(Graf, Liu, Kinshuk, Chen, & Yang, 2009).
Studies adapting instructional procedures to individual student variables have been documented by many researchers, which gathered
speed after the inuential study of Cronbach (1957). Tailoring learning experiences to student needs can be accomplished with respect
to several factors including intellectual ability, cognitive styles, learning styles, prior knowledge, anxiety, achievement motivation, and
* Corresponding author. Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Anadolu University, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey. Tel.: 90 222 335 0580x3474;
fax: 90 222 335 0573.
E-mail address: yavuzakbulut@anadolu.edu.tr (Y. Akbulut).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ compedu
0360-1315/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.008
Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842
self-efcacy (Park & Lee, 2004). Among these variables, learning styles i.e. learners characteristic strengths and preferences of receiving
and processing information (Felder, 1996) have had considerable inuence in educational practices. Felder states that learners with strong
preferences for certain learning styles may have learning problems if the instruction does not match with their learning styles. Thus,
incorporating learning styles in the instruction can make learning easier for those students and increases their learning efciency (Graf,
2007). However, the eld of learning styles is quite complex and there are tens of different learning style models (Cofeld, Moseley,
Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004a). While some of these models suffer either low internal reliability or the lack of empirical support, some are
perceivably more robust and commonly used in the learning style research for decades (e.g. Dunn & Dunn, 1974; Felder & Silverman, 1988;
Honey & Mumford, 1982; Kolb, 1984; Pask, 1976).
The scarcity of robust empirical evidence to retain the value of learning styles and the dubious degree of reliability while measuring them
caused some researchers to conclude that learning styles are limited in what they can achieve (Cofeld, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004b).
Such a view is also supported by the existence of several empirically untested models and confusing terminology. Thus, the feasibility of
incorporating learning styles in education has been questioned. Among the recent proponents of this view Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, and
Bjork (2008) addressed the scarcity of robust experimental studies that revealed strong interaction effects between the instructional
method and learning styles of the experimental groups. Thus, they concluded that there is no adequate evidence base to justify incor-
porating learning styles assessments into general educational practice (p. 105). The studies reviewed were methodologically strong;
however, very fewof themaddressed the complexities and promises of the adaptive educational hypermedia (AEH). Recent investigations in
such contexts implied that learners choice of the instructional environments and conditions within which they learn may be of importance
in inuencing the success of learning (Federico, 2000; Ford & Chen, 2000; Graf & Kinshuk, 2007; Graf, Kinshuk, & Liu, 2009; Graf, Liu, &
Kinshuk, 2010; Magoulas, Papanikolaou, & Grigoriadou, 2003; Popescu, 2010; Sun, Joy, & Grifts, 2007; Triantallou, Pomportsis,
Demetriadis, & Georgiadou, 2004; Tseng, Chu, Hwang, & Tsai, 2008).
Web-based AEH systems aim to provide content that ts the individual learning preferences of students. They reect characteristics of
users in a user model and apply that model to adapt instructional aspects of the systemaccordingly (Brusilovsky, 1996). In this regard, these
systems can be considered an extension of intelligent tutoring systems. Like intelligent tutoring systems, Web-based AEHadapts instruction
on a micro-level through identifying individual learner needs and providing instructional prescriptions accordingly (Lee & Park, 2008).
These prescriptions can be presentation or navigation support (Brusilovsky, 2001). In addition, these systems not only allow users to initiate
their choices of instruction, but also provide themwith opportunities to use outer web resources. Thus, they are not closed corpus systems
conned to the program (Lee & Park, 2008, p. 471). With these capabilities they can be used to avoid the one-size-ts-all approach and to
create the optimumonline lesson for learners with diverse learning needs (Brown, Cristea, Stewart, & Brailsford, 2005). However, immediate
creation of pedagogically appropriate content according to learner differences is a demanding task. That is, AEH design is quite a complex
process, which includes not only the design tasks similar to conventional hypermedia, but also the generation of mechanisms to detect and
create the learner model, customization of the application according to that model and arrangement of the learner control over the cus-
tomization (Cristea & Garzotto, 2004). Optimization and standardization of these tasks should be realized through further empirical studies
to eliminate reported obstacles to the adaptation. Among these obstacles are the low reusability of learning objects, inconsistency of
pedagogical techniques and low interoperability among different systems (Aroyo & Dicheva, 2004; Yalcinalp & Gulbahar, 2010).
Extensive reports on AEHsystems and taxonomies in general are presented in the landmark works of Brusilovsky (1996, 2001, 2003). The
focus of the current study is AEH systems that accommodate learning styles. As indicated beforehand, even though the importance of
learning styles in adaptive instruction has been questioned, recent research accompanied with technological developments has promising
implications. To increase our understanding about current trends in learning style-based AEH studies and to identify possible gaps to be
revisited in future work, we conducted a content analysis of published models and implementations on learning style-based AEH. Such
content analyses on different instructional technology topics have recently appeared in international journals and provided possible
directions for further research (e.g. Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011; Ozcinar, 2009; Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010; Shih,
Feng, & Tsai, 2008). We hope that the current study contributes to the eld, leads to more effective AEH projects, and helps instructional
designers to cope well with the challenge of runtime content creation for pedagogically coherent e-learning. In the next section, the search
and analysis procedures are summarized followed by the ndings of the content analysis, and possible directions for further studies.
2. Methods and procedures
Starting about 1990, the eld of adaptive hypermedia arose (Mdritscher, 2008), and a drastic growth in the eld is observed in the last
decade (Popescu, 2010). Similar content analyses in educational virtual environments considered the last decade as the focus of their
research (e.g. Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Magnisalis, Demetriadis, & Karakostas, 2011; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011). Thus, the decision was made to
consider 2000 the start date for the analysis. Extensive document searches were designed in commonly used electronic databases including
JSTOR, Sage, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost Web, SpringerLink, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Ulrichs Periodicals Directory, ISI Web of
Knowledge, Wiley InterScience, Google Scholar and ERIC. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles; full-text proceedings of inter-
national conferences, symposia and workshops; and dissertations in English. Sample key terms used in search strategies included adaptive/
adaptable e-learning, adaptive/adaptable hypermedia, adaptivity, adaptation, adaptability, personalized e-learning and learning
styles. In addition to simple keyword search, author search options were utilized to nd other relevant works of the retrieved studies
authors. Finally, snowball method was applied through reviewing the references of relevant articles. The search was terminated on July 15,
2011.
The document search revealed over 300 papers. Several studies were eliminated including opinion papers and magazine articles. In
addition, derivatives of an original researchs ndings were eliminated. For instance, if a proceeding was developed and transformed into
a peer-reviewed article, the article was included and the proceeding was eliminated. Consequently, a total of 70 studies published in the last
decade were included in the review: 47 peer-reviewed journal articles, 17 proceeding papers and six dissertations.
In addition to descriptive summaries of the quantitative data, qualitative content analysis was implemented to interpret the contents of
the selected manuscripts. This holistic technique was deliberately used to integrate the statistical formalism with the qualitative analysis
(Bauer, 2000). An initial coding plan was developed through the review of the current literature. This initial scheme was extended through
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 836
further reading. Then, studies were examined in detail with regard to their purposes, methodology, treatments and ndings. Categories
emerging from the analyzed data were used to revise the coding scheme and to adjust the previous ndings accordingly. After all the
manuscripts were read once, the coding scheme was complete.
Studies were coded by the researchers according to the coding scheme. Thirty-eight studies (54.3%) were coded twice to conrm the
scheme. In addition, coding decisions for 28 studies (40%) were checked by another researcher. Finally, inter-rater agreements at different
stages of the analysis were reported for abstract screening (92%), full-text manuscript inclusion (90%) and study features coding (88%). As
a result of the qualitative document analysis, themes regarding the purposes, methodology, participant characteristics, data collection tools,
features of the program used for adaptation, student modeling, adaptivity features and ndings were identied.
3. Results
The summary of the current analysis is provided in Table 1. Of 70 studies included in the analysis 47 (67.1%) were peer-reviewed articles
that were indexed in international databases. Twenty-nine of them (% 61.7) were published in SCI/SSCI journals with considerable impact
factors. Thirty-four of all resources (48.6%), 27 of peer-reviewed articles (57.4%) and 17 of 29 SCI/SSCI articles (58.6%) were published after
2007, which signaled a recent increase in the number of learning style-based AEH studies. The mean age of all resources (4.01) supported
this argument as well. Many studies were published in high-impact journals of the eld (e.g. Computers & Education [9], Educational
Technology & Society [4], British Journal of Educational Technology [3], Computers in Human Behavior [2]). Authors were primarily from
computer science, information science or engineering departments.
The majority of studies (81.4%) addressed adaptivity based on learning styles. Only 13 studies (18.6%) focused on automatic student
modeling. The most preferred learning style model was FelderSilverman Learning Style Dimensions, which was utilized in 35 studies (50%),
followed by cognitive styles (f 12; 17.1%) Kolb (f 6; 8.6%), VARK (f 5; 7.1%), Honey and Mumford (f 4; 5.7%) and other individual
models such as Dunn and Dunns (1974) and Keefes (1987). A learning style model was not specied in ve studies.
Various names were given to developed adaptive systems which provided learning materials to match with the learning styles. Listed
alphabetically, these were 3DE (Del Corso et al., 2001), ADAPTAPlan (Baldiris et al., 2008), AES-CS (Triantallou, Pomportsis, & Demetriadis,
2003, 2004), AHA! (Stash, Cristea, & De Bra, 2006), AHA! and MOT (Stash, Cristea, & De Bra, 2004), Arthur (Gilbert & Han, 2002), CoBL (Lee &
Chong, 2003), CooTutor (Wang, Li, & Chang, 2006), DesignFirst-ITS (Parvez, 2007), Diogene (Sangineto, Capuano, Gaeta, & Micarelli, 2008),
<e-aula> (Sancho, Martnez, & Fernndez-Manjn, 2005), EDUCA (Cabada, Estrada, & Garca, 2011), eTeacher (Schiafno, Garcia, & Amandi,
2008), IDEAL (Shang, Shi, & Chen, 2001), iLearn (Peter, Bacon, & Dastbaz, 2010), INSPIRE (Papanikolaou, Grigoriadou, Kornilakis, & Magoulas,
2003), iWeaver (Wolf, 2007), LearnFit (Bachari, Abelwahed, & Adnani, 2011), Lecomps (Sterbini & Temperini, 2009), LS-Plan (Limongelli,
Sciarrone, Temperini, & Vaste, 2009), MASPLANG (Pea, Marzo, & de la Rosa, 2004), Methadis (Prieto & Garca, 2006), Oscar (Latham,
Table 1
Summary of the content analysis.
f % f %
Publication type (n 70) Tools for dynamic modeling (n 28)
Article 47 67.14 Tracking tools 11 39.29
Proceeding 17 24.29 Test scores 5 17.86
Dissertation 6 8.57 Selected learning goals 2 7.14
Main focus (n 70) Student selections on the prole 2 7.14
Adaptivity based on learning styles 57 81.43 User feedback 1 3.57
Automatic student modeling 13 18.57 Time spent on each unit 1 3.57
Purpose (n 70) Multiple methods 7 25
Proposing a framework for adaptivity 41 58.57 Research settings (n 46)
Automatic LS detection framework 12 17.14 Higher education 37 80.43
Effectiveness of AEH 11 15.71 Secondary education 6 13.04
Other 6 8.57 Elementary education 1 2.17
Study nature (n 70) Work setting 2 4.35
Theoretical 24 34.29 Participants (n 46)
Evaluation with students 46 65.71 Students 42 91.3
Variables used for adaptivity (n 70) Instructors/employees 4 8.7
Learning style only 39 55.71 Type of empirical studies (n 46)
Additional variables 31 44.29 Design-based case study 24 52.17
Learning style model (n 70) Pre/post-test control group 11 23.91
FelderSilverman 35 50 Post-test only control group 8 17.39
Cognitive styles 12 17.14 Repeated-measures 3 6.52
Kolb 6 8.57 Data collection tools (n 46)
VARK 5 7.14 Learning style scale 33 71.74
Honey and Mumford 4 5.71 Achievements test 26 56.52
Other 3 4.29 Questionnaire 24 52.17
Not specied 5 7.14 Tracking data 21 45.65
Student modeling (n 70) Explicit student comments 7 15.22
Static 42 60 Interview 5 8.7
Dynamic 28 40 Assignment 4 8.7
Tool for modeling (n 70) Attitude scale 3 6.52
Indexes or scales 37 52.86 Web-OSPAN task 2 4.34
Tracking tools 16 22.86 Rubric to assess interaction 1 2.17
Scales & tracking tools together 12 17.14 Spatial ability test 1 2.17
Not specied 5 7.14 Total 127
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 837
Crockett, McLean, Edmonds, & OShea, 2010), PALS2 (Siadaty & Taghiyareh, 2007), SPORAS (Scheihing, Carrasco, Guerra, & Parra, 2005), TSAL
(Tseng et al., 2008), WELSA (Popescu, 2010) and WHURLE (Brown, Stewart, & Brailsford, 2006).
Some of the automatic learning style detection systems were named as YMAS (Sawaan, 2006) and DeLeS (Graf, 2007; Graf, Kinshuk, et al.,
2009). Some studies resorted to add-on applications to make LMSs adaptive such as WebCT (Taylor, 2007) and Moodle (Graf, 2007; Graf,
Kinshuk, et al., 2009; Wen et al., 2007). The current content analysis particularly focused on the recent developments in learning style-
based AEH. Thus, for a more comprehensive list, inaugural AEH systems incorporating learning styles can be included such as CS383
(Carver, Howard, & Lane, 1999) and MANIC (Stern, Steinberg, Lee, Padhye, & Kurose, 1997).
Major purposes of the studies were classied, 41 of which (58.6%) aimed to propose a framework or model for adaptivity, 12 (17.1%)
proposed an automatic learning style detection framework and 11 (15.7%) examined the effectiveness of learning style-based AEH. Other
purposes were examining the relations between the learning styles and the students behaviors, investigating how courses could be
dynamically adapted to learning preferences, examining the effect of learning styles on cooperative work, examining e-learning service
preferences of different learners, proposing dynamic student modeling, proposing adaptive hypermedia-questionnaire based on ILS,
providing a tool for incorporating different learning styles in AEH and showing how the information regarding learning styles could be
linked to the rules of adaptive online courses. Of 53 studies which proposed an original framework, 20 (37.7%) did not evaluate the
framework with real participants.
An examination into the student modeling features revealed that 37 studies (52.9%) resorted to indexes or scales for learning style
identication whereas 16 studies (22.9%) tracked students behaviors for automatic learning style identication. Twelve studies (17.1%) used
learning style identication indexes and tracking tools simultaneously. Only 8 studies allowed students to specify their preferences for the
student prole.
Student modeling was dynamic in 28 studies (40%). The source of information for dynamic student modeling was primarily tracking
student behaviors (39.3%), collecting test scores (17.9%), student selections regarding the learning goals (7.1%), student preferences on the
prole (7.1%), time spent on each learning unit (3.6%) and user feedback (3.6%). Seven studies (25%) resorted to multiple sources of infor-
mation for dynamic student modeling.
Holistic approaches for student modeling were observed in 31 studies (44.3%). That is, different variables were considered for adaptivity
in addition to learning styles. These variables were the knowledge/competency level (Essalmi, Jemni Ben Ayed, Jemni, Kinshuk, & Graf, 2010;
Kardan & Taghipour, 2008; Lau & Lee, 2010; Lee & Chong, 2003; Limongelli et al., 2009; Pea et al., 2004; Sangineto et al., 2008; Scheihing
et al., 2005; Shang et al., 2001; Siadaty & Taghiyareh, 2007; Triantallou et al., 2003), cognitive traits (Graf, 2007; Graf & Kinshuk, 2010),
multiple intelligences (Aguilar & Kaijiri, 2007; Mustaro & Silveira, 2006; Zajac, 2009), learning goals (Del Corso et al., 2001), cognitive styles
(Prieto & Garca, 2006), learning modalities (Rumetshofer & W, 2003), spatial ability (Wang et al., 2006), learning behavior (Tseng et al.,
2008) or a combination of several individual difference variables (Graf, Yang, Liu, & Kinshuk, 2009; Li, Lau & Dharmendran, 2010;
Papanikolaou et al., 2003; Sancho et al., 2005; Santally & Alain, 2006; Sterbini & Temperini, 2009; Wang, Tseng, & Liao, 2009).
It was observed that adaptivity was sustained mostly through learner control on the repository (60%). In addition, seven systems
provided adaptive navigation (e.g. Prieto & Garca, 2006; Stash et al., 2006; Triantallou et al., 2003), four systems provided adaptive
feedback (e.g. Papanikolaou et al., 2003; Parvez, 2007) and three systems provided adaptive exercises and self-assessment (e.g. Pea et al.,
2004). In 23 models (32.9%), learner control on adaptivity or the selection of learning objects was observed.
Forty-six studies (65.7%) involved evaluations or experiments accompanying the adaptive framework whereas 24 studies (34.3%)
provided a theoretical or development framework without empirical evaluation with students. The majority of the implementations were
design-based case studies (f 24; 52.2%) followed by pre-test and post-test control group designs (f 11; 23.9%), post-test only control
group designs (f 8; 17.4%), and repeated-measures designs (f 3; 6.5%). Thirty-seven of those 46 studies (80.4%) were conducted in higher
education settings.
A total of 127 data collection tools were detected in 46 empirical studies. The most prevalent ones were learning style identication
scales (71.7%), achievement tests (56.5%), questionnaires (52.2%), and tracking tool data (45.7%). Details regarding the validity and reliability
of the data collection instruments were neglected in many studies.
An analysis of the top ten highly cited papers revealed that ve of them were published in Computers and Education. Study charac-
teristics varied among highly cited papers, but some features were common. For instance, eight of the highly cited papers proposed either
a framework for adaptivity (f: 5) or a model for automatic learning style detection (f: 3). Nine of the papers resorted to case studies on the
proposed framework (5) or robust experiments with students (4). That is, theoretical papers were not cited a lot. Seven of the studies used
multiple data collection tools six of which resorted to tracking tools for automatic learning style identication. Even though learning style
models and adaptivity features varied, it was observed that theoretically and methodologically stronger papers were highly cited. The most
cited papers were provided in Table 2.
Table 2
Highly-cited papers.
Authors Citations Citations per year
Papanikolaou et al. (2003) 82 10.25
Garca, Amandi, Schiafno, and Campo (2007) 40 10
Ford and Chen (2001) 58 5.8
Tseng et al. (2008) 16 5.33
Schiafno et al. (2008) 15 5
Triantallou et al. (2003) 36 4.5
Alfonseca et al. (2006) 22 4.4
Chang et al. (2009) 6 3
Stathacopoulou et al. (2005) 18 3
Guo and Zhang (2009) 6 3
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 838
The ndings of the studies implied that the developed adaptive e-learning models and automatic learning style detection models were
successful in general. The student satisfaction and success were inuenced positively by the initiated learning experience. When concrete
learning outcomes in robust experimental studies were considered, ndings were slightly controversial. That is, there were eight studies
indicating that AEH systems signicantly affected the learning outcomes of the students in a positive way, and there were four studies
refuting the signicant effects on the learning outcomes. The content analysis revealed 24 unique ndings which should be supported with
further studies. Consistent ndings across several studies were promising:
AEH affected student performances positively (e.g. Alfonseca, Carro, Martn, Ortigosa, & Paredes, 2006; Bajraktarevic, Hall, & Fullick,
2003; Ford & Chen, 2001; Mampadi, Chen, Ghinea, & Chen, 2011; Sangineto et al., 2008; Taylor, 2007; Triantallou et al., 2003, 2004).
AEH increased perceived learning outcomes (Buch & Sena, 2001; Limongelli et al., 2009; Siadaty & Taghiyareh, 2007).
AEH facilitated learning processes (Graf, 2007; Papanikolaou et al., 2003; Parvez, 2007; Popescu, 2010; Tseng et al., 2008).
Students satisfaction levels were higher (Buch & Sena, 2001; Cabada et al., 2011; Essalmi et al., 2010; Filippidis & Tsoukalas, 2009;
Mampadi et al., 2011; Papanikolaou et al., 2003; Popescu, 2010; Sangineto et al., 2008; Schiafno et al., 2008; Stash et al., 2006;
Taylor, 2007; Triantallou et al., 2003, 2004).
AEH systems were user-friendly (Filippidis & Tsoukalas, 2009; Mampadi et al., 2011; Popescu, 2010; Triantallou et al., 2003).
AEH systems were useful and helpful (Filippidis & Tsoukalas, 2009; Papanikolaou et al., 2003; Popescu, 2010; Sangineto et al., 2008;
Schiafno et al., 2008).
Student control on adaptive systems was preferable (Brown et al., 2006; Papanikolaou et al., 2003).
Majority of students accepted the recommendations of the adaptive systems (Popescu, 2010; Wolf, 2007).
AEH did not have signicant effects on learning outcomes (Brown et al., 2006; Buch & Sena, 2001; Siadaty & Taghiyareh, 2007; Wolf,
2007).
4. Discussion
As previous contradictory literature and current ndings communicate, describing AEH studies with a focus on learning styles has been
an arduous and delicate task. The research incorporates diverse perspectives, topics and designs; and ndings may be used carelessly to
justify large investments on learning style-based educational implementations. We only hoped to describe current trends and reveal
possible gaps to be addressed in future implementations. However, we accept that alternative viewpoints with compelling rationales exist.
Thus, ideas here reected our personal perspectives based on our personal experiences in conducting educational research.
Findings revealed that many AEH studies accommodating learner styles were published in international, privileged and high-impact
journals. Even though some of them were centered on advertising a new product, most had a meticulous inquiry with a focus on
guiding further research and development. On the other hand, technical aspects usually surpassed educational research concerns and
pedagogical implications probably because of the background of authors. Another problem was the lack of relevant implementations to
justify the reliability and validity of data collection instruments. For instance, FelderSilverman Learning Style Dimensions were initially
developed for face-to-face instruction of undergraduate engineering students. Thus, the reliability and validity precautions should be taken
into consideration in new settings and populations. However, we encountered AEH studies conducted with 11-year olds, which imple-
mented the FelderSilverman without a rationale or empirical validation of the model. Thus, current learning style models proposed for
traditional learning settings should be adapted for technology-enhanced environments, reliability and validity endeavors should be
empowered, and rationales behind choosing a specic learning style model should be justied. In short, empirical and pedagogical eval-
uations of the current projects with more robust methodologies are needed. This problemis not peculiar to adaptive systems since a decline
in the quantity of robust experimental studies on educational interventions has been mentioned recently (Ross et al., 2010). Therefore, to
increase the rigor in educational technology research which reects evidence-based practices, the collaboration of scholars fromcomputer/
information sciences, educational technology and curriculum development can be recommended.
Provision of adaptivity in a Web-based system requires robust diagnosis of learner characteristics to make up effective student models.
Student modeling in AEH systems can be done in a collaborative way such as asking students to ll out a questionnaire, or in an automatic
way where actions of learners are tracked while they are using the system (Brusilovsky, 1996). Automatic student modeling is considered
more accurate since it allows students to concentrate only on learning rather than on a time-consuming self-report of individual prefer-
ences. In addition, automatic modeling data represents natural behaviors of students in a time span rather than a self-report at one specic
moment (Graf, Kinshuk, et al., 2009). On the other hand, getting sufcient and relevant information to build a robust student model is
a challenge in automatic student modeling (Graf, Liu, et al., 2009). Analyzed studies showed that the majority of methods for measuring
learning styles included a collaborative way. However, since questionnaires were perceivably long, boring and time-consuming, learners
could be less motivated to respond. In this regard, new approaches were developed to minimize the number of questions to diagnose
learning styles (Ortigosa, Paredes, & Rodrigues, 2010). There are also arguments indicating that students can be unaware of their learning
styles (Merrill, 2002), so asking them to report their learning preferences may not be that feasible. In such a context, further empirical
studies focusing on automatic modeling can be advised to generate better student models. Automatic detection systems were found
successful in identifying learning styles in analyzed studies (Alghazzawi, 2007; Botsios, Georgiou, & Safouris, 2008; Chang, Kao, Chu, & Chiu,
2009; Graf, 2007; Graf, Kinshuk, et al., 2009; Latham et al., 2010; Lo & Shu, 2005; zpolat & Akar, 2009; Stathacopoulou, Magoulas,
Grigoriadou, & Samarakou, 2005). However, these automatic detection systems generally use learning style inventories and scales to test
the user models. In this regard, previously indicated disadvantages of those instruments and the lack of sufcient reliability and validity
precautions should be taken into account before appreciating the value of current automatic detection systems.
Another concern regarding the student modeling was the static-dynamic dimension. Static modeling involves student modeling
initialized only once whereas dynamic student modeling requires frequent update of the information in the student model. Learning styles
may be inuenced by learners past experiences, so they are not constant traits that can be measured through explicit questionnaires once
and ignored till the end of the implementation. In the current analysis, 28 studies addressed dynamic student modeling; however, only 13
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 839
studies (18.6%) had an empirical evaluation with students. This nding revealed the need for further studies focusing on dynamic student
modeling since it looks counter-productive to lock the learner into a xed learning style prole after the initial assessment (Bachari et al.,
2011, p. 211). That is, it is more fruitful to estimate the learning styles in a dynamic way during the learning process.
Except for few experimental studies with strong methodologies, the direct and positive inuence of learning style-based adaptation on
learning outcomes was still unclear, which supported previous discussions on the issue (Cofeld et al., 2004a; Popescu, 2010; Stash et al.,
2006). Overall, the number of studies indicating a direct inuence of learning style-based adaptation on instructional outcomes was twice as
much as the number of those refuting such an inuence. However, signicant ndings are more likely to be published in international peer-
review journals. Besides, ndings regarding the inuence of learning styles on learning outcomes could not be attributed to learning styles
in some AEH systems, since these systems assumed not only a learning style-based approach, but also considered other variables such as
competency level, cognitive traits, topic interest and multiple intelligences. On the other hand, the majority of studies reported stronger
satisfaction and preference toward matching, which demonstrated that learning style-based AEH had more discernible effects on
perceptions than performance (Mampadi et al., 2011). Therefore, it can be suggested that learning styles can be effective to enrich the
learning experiences with regard to satisfaction, positive attitude and motivation, but should be considered in combination with other
signicant background variables such as prior knowledge and competence. Moreover, implied relationships between working memory
capacity and learning styles (Graf, 2007) or between learning behavior and personal learning styles (Tseng et al., 2008) necessitates further
work on the interactions among multiple personalization sources.
Probably because of the easiness of convenience sampling, most studies were conducted with undergraduate students. Thus, the
implications of the current models in other populations are still ambiguous. Since learner preferences seem to be strongly inuenced by
learners background (Wolf, 2007), current ndings which primarily represented an undergraduate student population could vary in other
contexts. Assuming that the capacity, creativity and educational needs of younger learners are somewhat different, further studies are
needed in such contexts to empower the theoretical framework behind learner style-based adaptation. Meager studies with slightly
younger learners had promising ndings (Bajraktarevic et al., 2003; Filippidis & Tsoukalas, 2009; Parvez, 2007; Tseng et al., 2008). It should
also be noted that only one study to our knowledge was conducted with elementary school students (i.e. Chang et al., 2009).
Some studies resorted to add-on applications to extend LMSs (e.g. WebCT, Moodle) with adaptivity because commonly used LMSs are
somewhat limited in the amount of personalization they can offer. That is, even though they are used frequently to provide instructors with
tools to create and manage courses, they do not allow for the learner to have a unique personalized learning experience (Peter et al., 2010;
p. 93). In this regard, further studies on add-on applications to extent LMSs are needed since these studies are crucial steps to bring
adaptivity closer to being used for educational purposes more often (Bachari et al., 2011; Peter et al., 2010; Wen et al., 2007).
Some of the presented systems were similar to traditional micro-adaptive instructional systems, that is, they were adaptive but not
adaptable. In other words, the intelligence of the system is hidden within the system and is system-dependent (Brown et al., 2005; p. 78).
However, each type (i.e. adaptive/adaptable) can be more effective than the other for certain types of learners or learning conditions. In
addition, adaptive systems should be controllable by the user as well because they cannot be intelligent enough to appropriately adapt in all
possible cases (Triantallou et al., 2004, p. 101). Thus, an effective system carrying both adaptability and adaptivity functions can be more
effective than a system with only one type of functions (Lee & Park, 2008). Further empirical studies to sustain the standardization and
optimization of this interdependence are needed. Finally, the translation of ndings and implementations from research in traditional
formats to AEH systems requires further empirical studies to protect instructional designers from creative guessing games on how to adapt
based on learning styles.
References
Aguilar, G., & Kaijiri, K. (2007). Adaptive courseware generation of a web-based tutorial system. International Journal of Media, 34(3), 293299.
Alfonseca, E., Carro, R. M., Martn, E., Ortigosa, A., & Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: a case study. User Modeling
and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(34), 377401.
Alghazzawi, D. M. (2007). Inferring cognitive learning styles in an e-learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(AAT 3269039).
Aroyo, L., & Dicheva, D. (2004). The new challenges for e-learning: the educational semantic web. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 5969.
Bachari, E., Abelwahed, H., & Adnani, M. (2011). E-learning personalization based on dynamic learners preference. International Journal of Computer Science & Information
Technology (IJCSIT), 3(3), 200216.
Bajraktarevic, N., Hall, W., & Fullick, P. (2003). Incorporating learning styles in hypermedia environment: empirical evaluation. In P. de Bra, H. C. Davis, J. Kay, & M. Schraefel
(Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based systems (pp. 4152). Nottingham, UK: Eindhoven University.
Baldiris, S., Santos, O. C., Barrera, C., Boticario, J. G., Velez, J., & Fabregat, R. (2008). Integration of educational specications and standards to support adaptive learning
scenarios in ADAPTAPlan. International Journal of Computer & Applications, 5(1), 88107.
Bauer, M. W. (2000). Classic content analysis: a review. In M. W. Bauer, & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook (pp. 131151).
London: Sage.
Botsios, S., Georgiou, D., & Safouris, N. (2008). Contributions to adaptive educational hypermedia systems via on-line learning style estimation. Educational Technology &
Society, 11(2), 322339.
Brown, E., Cristea, A., Stewart, C., & Brailsford, T. (2005). Patterns in authoring of adaptive educational hypermedia: a taxonomy of learning styles. Educational Technology &
Society, 8(3), 7790.
Brown, E., Stewart, C., & Brailsford, T. (2006). Adapting for visual and verbal learning styles in AEH. In Proceedings of the sixth IEEE international conference on advanced learning
technologies (ICALT06) (pp. 11451147). The Netherlands: Kerkrade.
Brusilovsky, P. (1996). Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 6(23), 87129.
Brusilovsky, P. (2001). Adaptive hypermedia. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11(12), 87110.
Brusilovsky, P. (2003). Developing adaptive educational hypermedia systems: from design models to authoring tools. In T. Murray, S. Blessing, & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring
tools for advanced technology learning environment (pp. 377409). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Buch, K., & Sena, C. (2001). Accommodating diverse learning styles in the design and the delivery of on-line learning experiences. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 17(1), 9398.
Burgos, D., Tattersall, C., & Koper, R. (2007). How to represent adaptation in e-learning with IMS learning design. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(2), 161170.
Cabada, R. Z., Estrada, M. L. B., & Garca, C. A. R. (2011). EDUCA: a web 2.0 authoring tool for developing adaptive and intelligent tutoring systems using a Kohonen network.
Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 95229529.
Carver, C. A., Howard, R. A., & Lane, W. D. (1999). Addressing different learning styles through course hypermedia. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(1), 3338.
Chang, Y. C., Kao, W. Y., Chu, C. P., & Chiu, C. H. (2009). A learning style classication mechanism for e-learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 273285.
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 840
Cofeld, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004a). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research
Centre, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Cofeld, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Cristea, A. I., & Garzotto, F. (2004). Designing patterns for adaptive or adaptable educational hypermedia: a taxonomy. In World conference on educational multimedia,
hypermedia and telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2004). Switzerland: Lugano.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientic psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671684.
Del Corso, D., Ovcin, E., Morrone, G., Gianesini, D., Salojarvi, S., & Kvist, T. (2001). 3DE: an environment for the development of learner-centered custom educational packages.
In Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Nevada, 2, F2C2126.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1974). Learning style as a criterion for placement in alternative programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 56(4), 275278.
Essalmi, F., Jemni Ben Ayed, L., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, & Graf, S. (2010). A fully personalization strategy of e-learning scenarios. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 581591.
Federico, P. (2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 359379.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6(4), 1823.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674681.
Filippidis, S. K., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2009). On the use of adaptive instructional images based on the sequentialglobal dimension of the FelderSilverman learning style theory.
Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 135150.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4),
281312.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: an empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 522.
Garca, P., Amandi, A., Schiafno, S., & Campo, M. (2007). Evaluating Bayesian networks precision for detecting students learning styles. Computers & Education, 49(3),
794808.
Gilbert, J. E., & Han, C. Y. (2002). Arthur: a personalized instructional system. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 113129.
Graf, S. (2007). Adaptivity in learning management systems focusing on learning styles. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Vienna University of Technology, Austria.
Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2007). Providing adaptive courses in learning management systems with respect to learning styles. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of the world
conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (e-Learn) (pp. 25762583). Chesapeake, VA: AACE Press.
Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2010). Using cognitive traits for improving the detection of learning styles. In Workshop proceedings of the international conference on database and expert
systems applications (DEXA 2010), Aug/Sep 2010 (pp. 7478).
Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Liu, T. C. (2009). Supporting teachers in identifying students learning styles in learning management systems: an automatic student modelling approach.
Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 314.
Graf, S., Liu, T. C., & Kinshuk. (2010). Analysis of learners navigational behaviour and their learning styles in an online course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2),
116131.
Graf, S., Liu, T. C., Kinshuk, Chen, N. S., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). Learning styles and cognitive traits their relationship and its benets in web-based educational systems.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 12801289.
Graf, S., Yang, G., Liu, T. C., & Kinshuk. (2009). Automatic, global and dynamic student modeling in a ubiquitous learning environment. Knowledge Management & E-Learning:
An International Journal, 1(1), 1835.
Guo, Q., & Zhang, M. (2009). Implement web learning environment based on data mining. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22(6), 439442.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42(4), E65E70.
Kardan, A., & Taghipour, N. (2008). Decision support models for personalized course composition with a focus on learning styles. In Proceedings of the fth international
conference on information technology: New generations (pp. 961966). Las Vegas: Nevada.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning styles: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Latham, A. M., Crockett, K. A., McLean, D. A., Edmonds, B., & OShea, K. (2010). Oscar: an intelligent conversational agent tutor to estimate learning styles. In Proceedings of the
IEEE world congress on computational intelligence 2010 (pp. 25332540). Barcelona: Spain.
Lau, S. B. Y., & Lee, C.-S. (2010). Contextualising e-learning services and content for computing course in higher education based on learning style and competency level.
International Journal of Learning Technology, 5(3), 211242.
Lee, J., & Park, O. (2008). Adaptive instructional systems. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J.v. Merrinboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (3rd ed.). (pp. 469484) New York: Taylor Francis.
Lee, Y., & Chong, Q. (2003). Multi-agent systems support for community-based learning. Interacting with Computers, 15(1), 3355.
Li, F. W. B., Lau, R. W. H., & Dharmendran, P. (2010). An adaptive course generation framework. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8(3), 4764.
Limongelli, C., Sciarrone, F., Temperini, M., & Vaste, G. (2009). Adaptive learning with the LS-plan system: a eld evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3),
203215.
Lo, J. J., & Shu, P. C. (2005). Identication of learning styles online by observing learners browsing behaviour through a neural network. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 36(1), 4355.
Magnisalis, I., Demetriadis, S., & Karakostas, A. (2011). Adaptive and intelligent systems for collaborative learning support: a review of the eld. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, 4(1), 520.
Magoulas, G. D., Papanikolaou, K., & Grigoriadou, M. (2003). Adaptive web-based learning: accommodating individual differences through systems adaptation. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 34(4), 511527.
Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M.-P. (2011). Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: a cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4),
10031011.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). Instructional strategies and learning styles: which takes precedence? In R. Reiser, & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology
(pp. 99106) Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (19992009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769780.
Mdritscher, F. (2008). Adaptive e-learning environments: Theory, practice and experience. Saarbrcken, Germany: Verlag Dr. Mller Aktiengesellschaft & Co.
Mustaro, P. N., & Silveira, I. F. (2006). Learning objects: adaptive retrieval through learning styles. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 3546.
Ortigosa, A., Paredes, P., & Rodrigues, P. (2010). AH-questionnaire: an adaptive hierarchical questionnaire for learning styles. Computers & Education, 54(54), 9991005.
Ozcinar, Z. (2009). The topic of instructional design in research journals: a citation analysis for the years 19802008. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4),
559580.
zpolat, E., & Akar, G. B. (2009). Automatic detection of learning styles for an e-learning system. Computers & Education, 53(2), 355367.
Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Kornilakis, H., & Magoulas, G. D. (2003). Personalizing the interaction in a web-based educational hypermedia system: the case of
INSPIRE. User Modelling and User Adapted Interaction, 13(3), 213267.
Park, O., & Lee, J. (2004). Adaptive instructional systems. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 651685). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parvez, S. M. (2007). A pedagogical framework for integrating individual learning style into an intelligent tutoring system. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (AAT 3316898).
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105119.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128148.
Pea, C.-I., Marzo, J.-L., & de la Rosa, J.-L. (2004). Curriculum sequencing for an elearning system based on learning styles. In Proceedings of the fth international conference on
information technology based higher education and training (pp. 167172). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
Peter, S. E., Bacon, E., & Dastbaz, M. (2010). Adaptable, personalised e-learning incorporating learning styles. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(2), 91100.
Popescu, E. (2010). Adaptation provisioning with respect to learning styles in a web-based educational system: an experimental study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
26(4), 243257.
Prieto, M., & Garca, F. (2006). METHADIS: methodology for the design of adaptive hypermedia systems for learning based on learning and cognitive styles. In Proceedings of
the sixth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT06) (pp. 11371138). The Netherlands: Kerkrade.
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 841
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1(1), 1735.
Rumetshofer, H., & W, W. (2003). XML-based adaptation framework for psychological-driven e-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 6(4), 1829.
Sancho, P., Martnez, I., & Fernndez-Manjn, B. (2005). Semantic web technologies applied to e-learning personalization in <e-aula>. Journal of Universal Computer Science,
11(9), 14701481.
Sangineto, E., Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., & Micarelli, A. (2008). Adaptive course generation through learning styles representation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 7(1),
123.
Santally, M. I., & Alain, S. (2006). Personalisation in web-based learning environments. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 4(4), 1535.
Sawaan, S. Y. M. (2006). Studying the implications of hidden learning styles by tracing learners behaviors in an elearning system. (Masters thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (AAT 1448633).
Scheihing, E. I., Carrasco, S., Guerra, J. D., & Parra, D. A. (2005). An adaptive web platform based on a multiagent system and ontologies. Nuevas Ideas en Informtica Educativa, 1,
172176.
Schiafno, S., Garcia, P., & Amandi, A. (2008). eTeacher: providing personalized assistance to e-learning students. Computers & Education, 51(4), 17441754.
Shang, Y., Shi, H., & Chen, S. S. (2001). An intelligent distributed environment for active learning. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 1(2), 308315.
Shih, M. L., Feng, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Research and trends in the eld of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: a content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers
& Education, 51(2), 955967.
Siadaty, M., & Taghiyareh, F. (2007). PALS2: pedagogically adaptive learning system based on learning styles. In Proceedings of the seventh IEEE international conference on
advanced learning technologies (ICALT 2007) (pp. 616618). Niigata: Japan.
Stash, N., Cristea, A., & De Bra, P. (2004). Authoring of learning styles in adaptive hypermedia: problems and solutions. In Proceedings of the 13th international world wide web
conference (pp. 114123). New York: New York City.
Stash, N., Cristea, A., & De Bra, P. (2006). Adaptation to learning styles in e-learning: approach evaluation. In T. Reeves, & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on
e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 284291). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Stathacopoulou, R., Magoulas, G. D., Grigoriadou, M., & Samarakou, M. (2005). Neuro-fuzzy knowledge processing in intelligent learning environments for improved student
diagnosis. Information Sciences, 170(24), 273307.
Sterbini, A., & Temperini, M. (2009). Adaptive construction and delivery of web-based learning paths. In Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference
(pp. 16). San Antonio: Texas.
Stern, M. K., Steinberg, J., Lee, H. I., Padhye, J., & Kurose, J. (1997). Manic: multimedia asynchronous networked individualized courseware. In Proceedings of the world
conference on educational multimedia/hypermedia and world conference on educational telecommunications (Ed-Media/Ed-Telecom) (pp. 10021007). Calgary: Canada.
Sun, S., Joy, M., & Grifts, N. (2007). The use of learning objects and learning styles in a multi-agent education system. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3), 381398.
Taylor, L. L. (2007). Adapting instruction based on learning styles for improved learning among rural community college students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses. (AAT 3290502).
Triantallou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles. Computers &
Education, 41(1), 87103.
Triantallou, E., Pomportsis, A., Demetriadis, S., & Georgiadou, E. (2004). The value of adaptivity based on cognitive style: an empirical study. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(1), 95106.
Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 776786.
Wang, H.-C., Li, T.-Y., & Chang, C.-Y. (2006). A web-based tutoring systemwith styles-matching strategy for spatial geometric transformation. Interacting with Computers, 18(3),
331355.
Wang, Y.-H., Tseng, M. H., & Liao, H. C. (2009). Data mining for adaptive learning sequence in English language instruction. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 76817686.
Wen, D., Graf, S., Lan, C. H., Anderson, T., Kinshuk, & Dickson, K. (2007). Supporting web-based learning through adaptive assessment. FormaMente Journal, 2(12), 4579.
Wolf, C. (2007). Construction of an adaptive e-learning environment to address learning styles and an investigation of the effect of media choice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Yalcinalp, S., & Gulbahar, Y. (2010). Ontology and taxonomy design and development for personalised web-based learning systems. British Journal of Educational Technology,
41(6), 883896.
Zajac, M. (2009). Using learning styles to personalize online learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), 256265.
Y. Akbulut, C.S. Cardak / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 835842 842