Testing feasibility of the system Study

3.10.1 Sampling

It is not possible for any study to undertake research on the entire population, therefore the standard method is to choose a sample within the population under study and undertake the research in that sample. Due to certain factors such as quality, cost and feasibility, including all the components of a population in the research is rarely attempted, argues Lynn (1996) [214] : (a) Cost: of the materials, equipment and time. (b) Feasibility: if the results of the research are required by a certain date, there would not be sufficient time to include the whole population. (c) Quality: ―Concentration of effort on a sample can increase the quality of the research which may then lead to more accurate results‖.

According to Fowler (2005) [206] , making a sample involves selecting ―a small subset of the population representative of the whole population. The sample procedure will give some members of the population a chance to be included in the sample while excluding others‖. The sampling scope is coined by Lynn (1996) [214], as ―The list of population members from which a sample is drawn‖. This scope should be exhaustive over the entire population of interest.

Random sampling is where each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. The method of selection should be independent of human judgement and is achieved by the lottery method, i.e. each member of the population is represented by a token which is placed in a container and mixed together. A sample of the required size is then selected. In this way it is simply by chance that someone is selected to take part. Alternatively, computers can be programmed to generate random numbers, which can be used to determine who (or what) is used in the sample. Opportunity sampling uses anyone who is available to take part in the research. For obvious reasons, this type of sampling is used in most student practicals. In the current study, convenience sampling was used as participants were chosen from a set of schools which responded to the initial invitation to participate in the study. Following on from there, the final data set was made up of only those who fully completed the survey.

Another issue is that of an appropriate response rate. Fowler (2002) [206] states that ―There is no agreed-upon standard for a minimum acceptable response rate. The response rate depends on the nature of the sample, the nature of the study, how motivated people are, and how easy the task is for them.‖ Ary et al. (2006) [208] states that ―Hegelson et al. found that an individual‘s attitude toward research is an important factor in responding to a survey‖. With regard to this study, therefore, selected participants should have some knowledge and experience of learning and learning styles theories or at the very least have some motivation to learn more about it.

Since the intended purpose of the study is to use the system, real learners are therefore the most appropriate participants. In the current study, the target users were computer students at higher education level. They were selected to participate in the study and allocated to each category randomly by the system. More than 120 students participated in the evaluation of the system, i.e. completed the survey. The evaluation exercise was carried out during one of their lectures as part of the module.

Although learners were informed about the evaluation in advance, participation was optional and some chose not to participate.

3.10.2 Purpose

The main purpose of this part of the study is to test the hypotheses and to answer the research questions, in an effort to help produce a model that presents tutorials according to learning styles that can be used in the current education system

3.10.3

Surveys were used because with large numbers of participants it is easier to use this method to obtain opinions about the system.

The final form of the survey was web-based and integrated with the proposed system. This type of survey design has a lot of advantages, such as free of cost, no unnecessary printing and the researcher avoids distribution and collection. It was short because most online participants have less time and patience to complete experiments and surveys.

3.10.4 Procedure

The experiment was intended to be conducted at Heriot-Watt University. Unfortunately the time chosen was not suitable for most of the students therefore alternative arrangements were made with schools in Saudi Arabia. The experiment took place in two different cities. Out of five schools contacted, only two participated: The College of Technology, in AlBaha and The Department of Education in Jeddah with additional collaboration from AlAlamyah Computer School.

The researcher gave a brief introductory presentation to the participants, before they began the experiment. During the presentation the following ideas were discussed:

A brief description of what learning styles are The importance of learning styles

Where to find more information about learning styles

The system was then introduced, which revealed the different learning styles, and the participants were required to carry out the experiment and fill out the survey.

The aim of this experiment was to examine whether the system was working properly in terms of whether or not it produced tutorials according to two combined learning styles for the participants‘ perspective. To examine if there were any differences between the learning styles, participants were divided into four groups:

Group A was given a lesson that was presented according to both of the participant‘s learning styles,

For Group B, the lesson was presented according to only one of the participants‘ learning styles (VARK).

For Group C, the lesson was presented according to only one of the participants‘ learning styles (Honey & Mumford).

For Group D the lesson was presented using none of participant‘s preferred learning styles,

By comparing the answers of these four groups, results will show if there is any difference between two, one or none learning styles.

3.10.5 Tasks

The participants had a range of tasks to complete: Registering with the system

The first task was for users to register with the system. This allowed them to have their own login details and individual profile. They could register/sign up by clicking the ―new user- sign up here‖ link which then navigated them to a form in which they entered their preferred username, password and other optional details. A consent form was also displayed on this page (users had to agree to participate in order to progress with the experiment).

Completing the two tests

The next task was to complete the VARK and the Honey & Mumford tests. To do this the user had to click on the links on the homepage after logging in with their unique username and password. To complete the tests they had to choose an answer from the options given to each question. Upon completion, the students profile was displayed in their profile and the system determined their learning style.

Studying the lessons/tutorials

Once the user completed the tests, they were presented a lesson which was tailored to their learning styles. They could, however, view the lesson content from other learning style perspectives by clicking on the links in the leftmost column. Overtime users‘ learning styles could change via exploring the lesson content from other styles or retaking tests. Each time they login, their profile would be updated and lessons would be shown according to their new styles if they have changed. Lessons were presented according to the users own styles determined by the system by default.

Completing the survey

Users were then directed to complete an evaluation study consisting of a brief set of closed- and open-ended questions. The data was then used to investigate the research hypotheses in more detail.