A Comparative study of Learning Styles of

Engineering and MBA students using Brain

dominance and VAK method in m-learning
Environment
V.B. Deshmukh1,A.B.Koti1, S.R.Mangalwede2 and D. H. Rao3
1 Research Centre Gogte Institute of TechnologyBelgaum,India
2 Research Centre Gogte Institute of TchnologyBelgaum,India
3 Dean-Faculty of Engineering, VTU, Belgaum, India.
1
veenadeshm@gmail.com
1
akkamma.koti@gmail.com
2
srmangalwede@gmail.com
3
dr.raodh@gmail.com

Abstract- In an adaptive m-learning environment, a learner
classification considering the students thinking style and learning
styles together is necessary as the personal learning needs of the
students are different. Students of different discipline think and
learn in different ways and instructors need to design and deliver
the courses as per their requirements. The aim of this study is to
determine the thinking style and learning style of Engineering
and MBA students and compare the findings to help instructors
design and deliver appropriate contents as per their learning
needs. A Brain dominance and VAK (Visual, Auditory and
Kinesthetic) questionnaire was administrated to the students who
were enrolled for m-learning course and learning styles of these
students with dominant hemisphere were determined. In this
paper data from 265 learners is collected and learners thinking
style and learning style are determined. The experimental results
indicate that there is diversity in thinking style and learning style
preferences of the two experimental groups. There is a need to
design and deliver contents to suit the thinking and learning
styles of the learner.
Keywords - Brain Dominance, VAK questionnaire, learning
style, Dominant hemisphere, adaptive learning environment.
I. INTRODUCTION
The demand for m-learning is increasing with the rapid
growth of internet technology, wireless communication and
smart mobile devices. To promote the performance of m-
learners and enhance their learning experience, the researchers
opine that adaptive learning is essential. Adaptive learning
refers to adaptive content development, content delivery,
learning strategies, learning activities for different courses as
per learners learning needs. To enhance teaching-learning
quality and make m-learning adaptive many learner
classification techniques are being worked out. To
successfully address the needs of the individual learner and
implement an adaptive learning environment, it is necessary to
identify learners learning needs and learning style and then
deliver the contents to suit the needs. Among the many
classification techniques based on different aspects of learning
process are, Allinson and Hayes' Cognitive Styles Index
(CSI) [1], Apter's Motivational Style Profile (MSP), Dunn
and Dunn model and instruments of learning styles,
Herrmann's Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), Honey and
Mumford's Learning Styles, Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
[2], Felder, Silverman, Solomon [3], Flemings VARK
learning style[4], Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
[5],[6], Memletics Learning Styles, (MLS), Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI),Paragon Learning Style Inventory
(PLSI). These instruments can be used to classify large
sample sizes.
In this paper we compare the thinking style and learning
preferences of the Engineering and MBA students. From
engineering stream we have taken samples of Electronics and
Communication Engineering (EC), Mechanical Engineering
(ME) and Civil Engineering (CV) students. Thinking style is
an indicator of how a learner thinks (logical or creative),
processes information (sequential or random) and expresses
(verbal or nonverbal), learning style is an indicator of how a
learner prefers to learn by visual, auditory or kinesthetic
means. Thinking style depends upon the right and left
hemispheric activity of the brain or brain dominance and
learning style on the personal choice to perceive and process
information. We are administering the Brain Quiz developed
by Catawba community college [7] for identifying
hemispheric dominance and VAK Learning Style Inventory
developed by V Chislett & A Chapman 2005[8] for
identifying preferred learning style.
Section 2 provides insight into the Brain dominance and
VAK learning style, section 3 discusses about the
implementation. The results are discussed in section 4 and in
section 5 the conclusions are presented.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Brain dominance
The preferred way of perception, organization and retention
of information acquired by each learner is unique. The human
brain activity influences this acquisition mechanism [9]. It has
also been shown that different hemispheres of the brain
contain different perceptive avenues. Both the hemispheres of
the brain process information in different ways [10].Human
beings tend to process information using their dominant side
of the brain. Research work is going on to study the
correlation between hemispheric dominance and personality
types, or between scores of the learners and personality type
[11]. It is found that left brain learners scored better on both
the routine and creative tasks assigned indicating that there is
a correlation between hemispheric dominance and
performance of the learner.
The human brain is biologically divided into four areas
called lobes. They are occipital, frontal, parietal, and
temporal. According to whole brain analysis theory, the
human brain is divided into two cerebral hemispheres namely
left and the right and are connected by a bundle of about
250 million nerve fibers known as the corpus callosum.. In
general, the left hemisphere is involved with logical thinking,
mathematical analysis, verbal functions etc. It processes
information in linear and step-by-step sequential manner. The
left hemisphere is logical thinking oriented and the right
hemisphere is more holistic. The right hemisphere is
responsible for visual and special processing, recognition of
faces, artistic endeavour, and creativity. The right is sensitive
to negative emotions faster and the left to positive emotions.
Practically, a person at the same time (whole brain mode),
uses both the hemispheres though the dominant hemisphere
more. Because of this, it is important for instructors to have
knowledge of brain hemisphericity of learners and identify
the advantages and disadvantages in their teaching techniques,
understand when and how to develop and use different
techniques to benefit the learners. In addition, knowledge of
brain hemisphericity can assist them in becoming more
flexible and effective in teaching in the classroom.
B. VAK style
Learning can be defined as any increase in knowledge,
extracting meaning from it, processing an information from
the experience and taking action if required [12], [13]. To
increase the intelligence and grow smarter, the connections
between brain cells have to be increased retaining the existing
connections. About 30 to 60 percent of our brain's wiring is
heredity and 40 to 70 percent is obtained from experience or
environmental impact. During the learning process with each
new stimulation, experience, and behaviour, new brain
connections are formed increasing the knowledge.
Learning Style (LS) of an individual indicates his/her
learning preferences and learning differences. The popular and
most widely discussed learning styles that are present in
literature are Dunn and Dunn, Kolb, Felder and Soloman and
Flemings learning styles. In addition to the above mentioned
LSs, many other LSs are also being studied [14] and [15].
Among the above mentioned learning styles, the VAK LS
model, based on individuals seeing, hearing, touching and
working with moving objects is considered as basis for many
oher models. The VAK LS was designed by Sarasin [16] and
developed by V Chislett & A Chapman in 2005. Learning
styles are considered relevant for the adaptation process in the
user model, [17],[18] and [19]. The VAK classification,
proposed by Neil Fleming, divides the population into three
classes [20], [21] namely visual, auditory and kinesthetic.
The visual learners prefer the visual arts, make their own
handwritten notes and can concentrate if surrounding is
quiet. They remember visual arts related features like colours,
drawings, graphs and faces, even the position of objects in
space but they find it difficult remembering names, and titles
[22], [23]. In brief, the visual learners remember best what
they see in the form of text, video, graphics, and plots.
The auditory learners prefer to talk, sing, and whistle,
speak about an action rather than watching it and require
silence to focus on learning. They learn by listening to
lectures, reading aloud, and discussions. In short the auditory
learners remember well music and the conversations and may
face problems in reading the graphic forms, such as maps,
geometry. They learn language easily[24],[25].
The kinesthetic learner prefers to learn in motion. They
find it difficult in listening to a lecture sitting at the desk.
They require a break between learning sessions. They like to
work in a group and often gesticulate during
conversations[26],[27].
III. METHOD
In this paper we have classified the Engineering and MBA
learner groups considering both thinking style and learning
styles. The thinking style of the learner is identified by
administering Brain dominance test and the learning style by
VAK test.
On the basis of the two tests the learner is grouped into one
of the six groups, namely Visual Left (VL), Visual Right
(VR), Auditory Left (AL), Auditory Right (AR), Kinesthetic
Left (KL) and Kinesthetic Right (KR).
The Learner Group consists of a sample of 255 adult
learners studying Engineering and MBA course. In the first
phase the brain dominance test, which classifies them into
either Left brain (L) dominant or Right brain(R) dominant is
conducted. In the second phase both the left brain dominant
and right brain dominant groups are administered the VAK
learning style inventory. This further classifies the two groups
into three groups each. Thus the entire learner group is
classified into six specific learning styles, the data was
analysed using SPSS 16 and data is generated as percentage of
students. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire is
tested.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A. Hemispheric Characteristics of Respondents
Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondents on the
basis of their thinking style or hemispheric dominance.
Among the engineering students 63.75% are left dominant and
36.25% are right dominant where as among the MBA students
51.70% are left dominant and 47.30% are right dominant. The
engineering students comprising of 191 students of the total of
255 sample population were from EC, ME and CV
departments and remaining 74 are from MBA course.
B. Overview of Engineering students learning styles
Of the 191 students, 63.75 % of students are left brain
dominant indicating they are logical, sequential and having
problem solving abilities and nonverbal and 36.25% are right
brain dominant indicating they are creative, intuitive and
verbal. Considering the most preferred learning style of EC,
ME and CV students, 42% EC students prefer kinesthetic
style,38% ME students prefer visual style and 45% CV
students prefer auditory style as shown in Figure 2. From
Table 2 it is clear that the most preferred learning style of both left and right brain dominant MBA students prefer
different disciplines of engineering students are different. auditory style of learning involving more discussions than the
other two styles. Both the left brain and right brain dominant
EC engineering students prefer kinesthetic style of learning
C. Overview of MBA students learning styles involving more of practicals or hands on experience which is
important in creating systems and machines within this
Of the 74 students, 51.35 % of students are left brain discipline. The next preferred learning style of EC students is
dominant and 48.65% right brain dominant indicating that the visual (30%).In contrast to this about 38.00% of ME students
class has both logical and creative students in almost equal prefer visual learning style and only 28.60% prefer kinesthetic
percentage. Considering most preferred learning style 25.00% style and the second most preferred style is auditory (32.70%).
prefer visual learning style, 43.00% prefer auditory learning Interestingly both CV 45% and MBA 43% of students
style and 32.00% prefer kinesthetic learning style as shown in prefer auditory style .
The pattern of distribution of learning style amongst the
TABLE 1
HEMISPHERIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
engineering and MBA students group is depicted in Figure 1
and 2. The predominant mode of learning among EC
engineering students is kinesthetic and though not
Sl Discipline Total Left Right
significantly more than visual as shown by studies which
.No mentions that EC are kinesthetic learners in contrast with CV
1 Electronics and 110 64.54% 35.45% and business students who are auditory learners. The ME
Communication students are visual learners. These results immediately
2 Mechanical 49 67.3% 32.7% indicate the diversity in learning preferences exhibited by the
students in our sample. In practice Electronics and Mechanical
engineers are mostly busy with many hardware issues,
3 Civil 32 59.4% 40.6% programming software applications, designing systems,
handling large machines, mathematical analysis etc. Whereas
4 MBA 74 51.35% 48.64% Civil engineers are more into construction of buildings and
MBAs are into managerial roles. Both are into giving
Figure 2. From Table 2 it is clear that MBA students prefer instructions, planning and discussions.
more of auditory learning style with more explanations and
less of visual style. The instructors need to develop contents V. CONCLUSIONS
with more explanations and practicals to give more hands on Knowledge about the thinking style and learning style
experience than graphical representations. preference of different profession can help instructors enhance
the teaching method for the students. The sample respondents
(overall out of 265 respondents) have shown that
approximately 58% of students are left brain dominant and
80.00% 67.30% think sequentially, logical/analytical and 42% are right brain
64.54%59.40% dominant indicating that they are creative, intuitive and
60.00% 51.35% 48.64%
Percentage

40.60% verbal.
35.45% EC The comparative study has shown that Electronics
40.00% 32.70%
ME engineering students prefer kinesthetic style of learning. The
20.00% course content should have more of laboratory applications
CV where students get hands-on experience of different tools,
0.00% MBA
analysis. The Mechanical engineering students prefer visual
Left Right and auditory styles of learning. The course content should
Comparison of Thinking Styles have more machine tools with explanation based learning
of EC,ME,CV and MBA material. Thus, students are not limited to a single style of
instruction and their learning styles can be converged to a
common goal of understanding and benefitting from the
course.
Fig. 1.Hemispheric Classification
The Civil engineering and MBA students prefer auditory
style of learning, and the course should be designed and
D. Comparison of all Disciplines delivered to give them more instructions or explanation and
prepare them for managerial roles for giving instructions,
The learning style preferences listed based on disciplines discussions etc.
are shown in Table 2. The Engineering students (63.75%) are The instructors must be able to modify their teaching styles
logical, sequential thinkers whereas MBA (51.30%) students to support those different learning processes and evaluating
are logical and almost equal percentage (48.70%) are creative the effect of such modifications on individual learners.
prefer open ended problems in their education. Interestingly,
 In some sense, teachers need to be sure they are being
practical and interactive in their teaching with students.
Teachers should always strive for new and innovative ways to
make teaching and learning effective, beginning with an
awareness of the different ways in which students learn.
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF DISCIPLINES AND LEARNING STYLES
reduce the high costs associated with both preparation of
appropriate tools (m-learning platforms), and teaching
materials (m-content) that would meet the requirements of the
model, the Learning Objects such as LOM (Learning Object
Module ), SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference
Model), which allow reusing lesson units for various courses
on different platforms are to be prepared and delivered.

Sl. Learning Course

REFERENCES
No Style EC ME CV MBA
[1] E. Kanninen. Learning Styles and E-Learning, Master of Science
1 VL 23.6% 20.4% 15.6% 14.9% Thesis, Tampere University Of Technology, 2009
2 AL 18.2% 26.5% 34.4% 18.9% [2] L. Kartin.E-Learning: The Quest for Effectiveness, Malaysian Online
Journal of Instructional Technology Vol. 2, No.2, p. 61-71, 2005
3 KL 22.7% 20.4% 9.4% 18.9%
[3] D. A .Kolb,The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Case Western Reserve
4 VR 6.4% 18.4% 12.5% 10.0% University, 2005
5 AR 10.0% 6.1% 9.4% 24.3% [4] V Chislett , A Chapman 2005 From www.businessballs.com, VAK test
questionnaire
6 KR 19.1% 8.2% 18.8% 12.2% [5] D.A. Kolb, Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning
and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall 1984
[6] Kinshuk, T. Lin, Improving mobile learning environments by applying
mobile agents technology, Massey University, Palmerston North, Third
34.40% Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning, 2004, New Zealand
35.00% [7] Catawba community college Brain Quiz. http://www.cvcc.edu/
[8] L. C. Sarasin. Atwood, Madison Learning Style Perspectives: Impact
30.00% in the Classroom, WI, 1998. ISBN 1-891859-22-6.
26.50% [9] L.Diana, London Knowledge Lab In: Pachler, N. (ed)
24.30%
25.00%23.60% 22.70%
(2007) Mobile learning: towards a research agenda, London: WLE
Centre, IoE
20.40% 20.40% [10]
Percentage

J. M. Diana, Adapting Online Education to Different Learning Styles,

20.00%
18.90%
18.20% 18.40% 19.10%
18.90% 18.80%
EC National Educational Computing Conference, Building on the Future
15.60%
14.90% 1 July 25-27, 2001Chicago, IL
ME [11] D. B. Steven, An Analysis Of Right- And Left-Brain Thinkers And
15.00% 12.50% 12.20%
Certain Styles Of Learning The Graduate School University of
9.40% 10%
10.00%
9.40% CV Wisconsin Stout May 2006
10.00% 8.20%
6.40%6.10% MBA [12] R. S. Vaishnav Learning Style And Academic Achievement Voice of
Research, Vol. 1 Issue 4, March 2013, ISSN No. 2277-7733
5.00% [13] N. Fleming, D. Baume, Learning Styles Again: VARKing up the right
tree, Educational Developer and Educational Developments, SEDA
0.00% Ltd, Issue 7.4, Nov. 2006, p4-7.
[14] R. C. Mary The Effect of Learning Styles on Success in Online
VL AL KL VR AR KR Education
Comparison of Disciplines [15] N. Othmana, Mohd .H. Amiruddinb Different Perspectives of Learning
Styles from VARK Model, International Conference on Learner
Diversity 2010 sciencedirect. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences
7(C) (2010) 652660 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
[16] S. Graf., Adaptavity in Learning Management Systems Focusing on
Learning Styles, Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universitat Wien, 2007
Fig. 3. Discipline wise comparison of students
[17] M. Woda, K. Kubacki, Students Learning Styles Classification For e-
The profile of the students is constantly changing and the Education, ICIT 2011 The 5th International Conference on Information
Technology
instructors need to adapt to changes in student learning styles
[18] A. Pourhossein, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran,Visual,
in addition to other competing demands. Being aware of Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and Their Impacts on English
studies like this help educators support and appreciate the Language Teaching Journal of Studies in Education ISSN 2162-6952
diversity of learners in any given field. To enhance the ,2012, Vol. 2, No.1
learning experience and promote effectiveness of the [19] A.C.M. Fong, S.C. Hui, and C.T. Lau Nanyang Technological
University, On-Demand Learning for a Wireless Campus, 1070-
knowledge acquisition the content development and delivery 986X/04/$20.00 2004 IEEE Published by the IEEE Computer
to suit the learning needs and preferred learning style of the Society
individual group of students has to be done. To implement the [20] N. Flemming,. VARK Questionnaire (accessed Dec 2010)
adaptive m-learning successfully, for every unit the instructor http://www.varklearn.com/english/page.asp?p=questionnaire
has to prepare as many as six different versions of the same [21] A. S. Richmond, R. Cummings, Implementing Kolbs learning
content and deliver the contents to each of the groups. To styles into online distance education, International Journal of
Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 45-54 2005.
[22] L.J. Deborah, R.Baskaran , A.Kannan, P.Vijayakumar Intelligent Agent
Based Pair Programming and Increased Self-Efficacy through Prior-
Learning for Enhanced Learning Performance. pp 87-100Malasian
Journal of Computer Science Vol.26(2),2013.
[23] D.E. Dekson,. E.S Suresh, Learner Centered Adaptive and Intelligent
E-Portfolio Architecture for Learning (AIEPAL)

[24] B. D. Ictenbas, H. Eryilmazb, Determining Learning Styles of

Engineering Students to Improve the Design of a Service Course.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 28 (2011) 342 346 Science
Direct
[25] A. Pourhossein, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran Visual,
Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and Their Impacts on English
Language Teaching
Journal of Studies in Education ISSN 2162-6952 ,2012, Vol. 2, No. 1
[26] A. Dahoud, T. Walkowiak,M. Woda, Dependability aspects of
elearning system, Proceedings of nternational Conference on
Dependability of Computer Systems, DepCoS - RELCOMEX
2008,Szklarska Porba, Poland, 26-28 June, 2008 IEEE Computer
Society
[27] Y. Meryem, A. Buket, The Effect Of Learning Styles On Achievement
In Different Learning Environments The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology TOJET October 2009 ISSN: 1303-6521
volume 8 Issue 4 Article 4