Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE)
Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) is one of the learning approaches that help learners take control of and manage their own learning towards flexible and adaptive in responding to the diverse needs and interests of students. However, there are limited research conducted that integrates learnin...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Online Access: | http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/1/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29%2024%20Pages.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/2/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| id |
my-utem-ep.18568 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
uketd_dc |
| institution |
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka |
| collection |
UTeM Repository |
| language |
English English |
| advisor |
Shahbodin, Faaizah |
| description |
Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) is one of the learning approaches that help learners take control of and manage their own learning towards flexible and adaptive in responding to the diverse needs and interests of students. However, there are limited research conducted that integrates learning styles with PLE approach using prototype to increase student performance. Learning styles are important components in a learning environment. Learning styles are among the concepts that are postulated by to show learners’ differences and varied needs. The issues in this study highlight students’ lack of interest in learning Science and also fail to classify, synthesise and evaluate information. There are three objectives which are (i) To propose a learning model that integrate dominant learning styles and PLE elements; (ii) To design a learning prototype based on the proposed model that integrates dominant learning styles in Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) and (iii) To evaluate the effectiveness of the prototype towards student performance and student perception. Science is a compulsory subject for Form 2 students from Ministry of Education Malaysia. A prototype called PLENut was developed. The research framework consist of three phases which are (i) Phase 1 PLENut Analysis, (ii) Phase 2: PLENut Design, Development & Implementation and (iii) Phase 3: PLENut Evaluation. Testing was conducted to analyze independent variables by Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic types of learning styles while student’s performances and student perception are dependent variable. The data was populated from 132 Form Two students of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Dato' Dol Said, Alor Gajah, Melaka, Malaysia. The population was divided into 3 groups which is (i) Visual (n=76); (ii) Auditory (n=35) and (iii) Kinesthetic (n=21). The separate sample pretest and posttest design was implemented to assess the effectiveness of the PLENut in increasing students’ performance. Non parametric tests which are Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test and Kruskal Wallis Test were used to analyze the data. The result revealed that: (i) there were no statistically significant differences in mean ranks between group 1, group 2 and group 3 for Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learning styles in terms of student performance and (ii) there were two specific learning styles that were statistically different from each other, which is between Kinesthetic-Visual (test statistic=60.650, p-value=0.000) and Auditory-Visual (test statistic=45.440, p-value=0.000). Therefore, the study found that there is a significant relationship between student performance and learning styles. Results of student performances showed that Science subject is significant with Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learning styles. As a conclusion, PLENut has demonstrated a practical learning styles approach on Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) in teaching and learning of Science subject. |
| format |
Thesis |
| qualification_name |
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD.) |
| qualification_level |
Doctorate |
| author |
Che Ku Mohd, Che Ku Nuraini |
| spellingShingle |
Che Ku Mohd, Che Ku Nuraini Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| author_facet |
Che Ku Mohd, Che Ku Nuraini |
| author_sort |
Che Ku Mohd, Che Ku Nuraini |
| title |
Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| title_short |
Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| title_full |
Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| title_fullStr |
Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) |
| title_sort |
practical learning styles approach on personalised learning environment (ple) |
| granting_institution |
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka |
| granting_department |
Faculty of Information and Communication Technology |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| url |
http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/1/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29%2024%20Pages.pdf http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/2/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29.pdf |
| _version_ |
1747833937169743872 |
| spelling |
my-utem-ep.185682021-10-10T16:36:10Z Practical Learning Styles Approach On Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) 2016 Che Ku Mohd, Che Ku Nuraini Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) is one of the learning approaches that help learners take control of and manage their own learning towards flexible and adaptive in responding to the diverse needs and interests of students. However, there are limited research conducted that integrates learning styles with PLE approach using prototype to increase student performance. Learning styles are important components in a learning environment. Learning styles are among the concepts that are postulated by to show learners’ differences and varied needs. The issues in this study highlight students’ lack of interest in learning Science and also fail to classify, synthesise and evaluate information. There are three objectives which are (i) To propose a learning model that integrate dominant learning styles and PLE elements; (ii) To design a learning prototype based on the proposed model that integrates dominant learning styles in Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) and (iii) To evaluate the effectiveness of the prototype towards student performance and student perception. Science is a compulsory subject for Form 2 students from Ministry of Education Malaysia. A prototype called PLENut was developed. The research framework consist of three phases which are (i) Phase 1 PLENut Analysis, (ii) Phase 2: PLENut Design, Development & Implementation and (iii) Phase 3: PLENut Evaluation. Testing was conducted to analyze independent variables by Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic types of learning styles while student’s performances and student perception are dependent variable. The data was populated from 132 Form Two students of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Dato' Dol Said, Alor Gajah, Melaka, Malaysia. The population was divided into 3 groups which is (i) Visual (n=76); (ii) Auditory (n=35) and (iii) Kinesthetic (n=21). The separate sample pretest and posttest design was implemented to assess the effectiveness of the PLENut in increasing students’ performance. Non parametric tests which are Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test and Kruskal Wallis Test were used to analyze the data. The result revealed that: (i) there were no statistically significant differences in mean ranks between group 1, group 2 and group 3 for Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learning styles in terms of student performance and (ii) there were two specific learning styles that were statistically different from each other, which is between Kinesthetic-Visual (test statistic=60.650, p-value=0.000) and Auditory-Visual (test statistic=45.440, p-value=0.000). Therefore, the study found that there is a significant relationship between student performance and learning styles. Results of student performances showed that Science subject is significant with Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic learning styles. As a conclusion, PLENut has demonstrated a practical learning styles approach on Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) in teaching and learning of Science subject. UTeM 2016 Thesis http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/ http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/1/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29%2024%20Pages.pdf text en public http://eprints.utem.edu.my/id/eprint/18568/2/Practical%20Learning%20Styles%20Approach%20On%20Personalised%20Learning%20Environment%20%28PLE%29.pdf text en validuser https://plh.utem.edu.my/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=100393 phd doctoral Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Faculty of Information and Communication Technology Shahbodin, Faaizah 1. Abd Halim N.D., Bilal Ali M., Yahaya N. 2011. Personalised Learning Environment: Accommodating Individual Differences in Online Learning. 2011 International Conference on Social Science and Humanity IPEDR, 5, pp. 398-400, IACSIT Press, Singapore. 2. Abbas Pourhosein Gilakjani., 2012. A Match or Mismatch between Learning Styles of the Learners and Teaching Styles of the Teachers. International Journal Modern Education and Computer Science, 2012, 11, pp. 51-60. 3. Adell, J., & Castaneda, L., 2010. Personal Environments Learning (PLEs): a new way of understanding learning. In Roig Vila R. & M. Fiorucci (Eds.). Key research edu innovation and quality. 4. Ahmad Fawaz Alzaghoul, 2012. The Implication of the Learning Theories on Implementing E-Learning Courses. The Research Bulletin of Jordan ACM, vol 2 (2), pp. 27-30. 5. Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Mohd Ali Samsudin, Robertus Rohandi and Azman Jusoh.2010. Improving Students’ Attitudes toward Science Using Instructional Congruence. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia 2010, 33(1), pp. 39-64. 6. Amine, M., 2009. PLE -PKN. Personal Environments Loosely Joined, HTML. Retrieved 25 April 2016 (MEST). 7. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3),pp. 81-97. 8. Arrow R.N. 2013. Keys to Studying better using your Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic talents. Retrieved from http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-student/keys-to-studying-840132.htm. 9. Armstrong, A. M., 2004. Instructional Design in the Real World: A View from the Trenches. United States: Information Science Publishing. 10. Attwell, G., 2007. The Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning?. eLearning Papers, 2(1). 11. Alkhasaweh, I. M., Mrayyan, M. T., Docherty, C, Alashram, S., & Yosef, H., 2008. Problem-based learning (PBL): Assessing students' learning preferences using VARK. Nurse Education Today, 28, pp. 572-579. 12. Alan Pritchard (2009).Ways of Learning: Learning Theories and Learning Styles in the Classroom. Second Edition. A David Fulton Book. Publisher Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. 13. Allen, K., Varner, K., & Sallee, J., 2011. Addressing nature deficit disorder through primitive camping experiences. Journal of Extension, 49(3) Article 3IAW2. 14. Ally M., 2004. Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca, Canada: Creative Commons: Athabasca University. 15. Al-Dujaily., 2007. Personality Effect in the Design of Adaptive E-learning Systems.PhD Thesis in Information System Massey University. 16. Alicia C., 2013. Pros and Cons of Making Food and Nutrition Compulsory Subjects. Pros and Cons of Making Food and Nutrition Compulsory Subject. 17. Alina Mihaela Ion. 2015. Mobile Technologies for Lifelong Learning. Journal of Computer Economics, 19 (2), pp 112-119. DOI: 10.12948/issn14531305/19.2.2015.11. 18. Anderson, F., 2007. What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and Implications for education. JISC Technology and Satandards Watch. 19. Andi Asrifan., 2015. Analysis of English Students’ Learning Style in Bilingual Class.International Journal of Literature and Arts, 2015; 3(4), pp.34-41. 20. Arunodaya Barman, Rosniza Abd. Aziz & Yusniza Muhamed Yusoff., 2014. Learning style awareness and academic performance of students. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 8(1), pp. 47-51. 21. Attwell, G., 2007. The personal learning environments- the future of elearning? eLearning Papers, 2 (1). 22. Attwell, G., 2009. Personal Learning Environments: The future of education, SlideCast. 23. A. Aviram, Y. Ronen, S. Somekh, A. Winer, and A. Sarid., 2008. Self-regulated personalised learning (SRPL): Developing iClass’s pedagogical model. eLearning Papers. 2008, 9. 24. Azizollah Arbabi Sarjou, Soltani, Afsaneh, Kalbasi and Siruos Mahmoudi.2012. A Study of Iranian Students’ Attitude towards Science and Technology, School Science and Environment. Journal of Studies in Education. ISSN 2162-6952 2012, 2(1). 25. Bachari E., El Hassan Abelwahed and Mohammed El Adnani, 2011. E-Learning personalisation Based On Dynamic Learners’ Preference. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), 3(3), June 2011. 26. Barroso, J., Cabero, J., & Vázquez, A., 2012. Training from the perspective of personal learning environments. Opening, 16. 27. Bass, R., 1994. A brief guide to interactive multimedia and the study of the United States. 28. Beaudreault, A. R., & Miller, L. E., 2011. Need for methamphetamine programming in Extension education. Journal of Extension, 49(3) Article 3RIB6. 29. Bernard, H.R., 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative methods. 3rd edition. AltaMira Press , Walnut Creek, California. 30. Brown, S., 2010. From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), pp. 1-10. 31. Berita Harian, 2012. Peratusan kanak-kanak alami obesiti meningkat. Available at: http://www.bharian.com.my/bharian/articles/Peratusankanak kanakalamiobesitimeningkat/Article/ [Accessed on 8 November 2013]. 32. Bidabadi, F. SH., &Yamat, H., 2010. Learning style preferences by Iranian EFL freshman university students. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 7, pp. 219-226. 33. Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R. B., & Lee, S. M., 2000. A Ten-Level Web Integration. Continuum for Higher Education. In Beverly Abbey, (Ed.) Instructions and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education. PA: Idea Group Publising, pp. 56-77. 34. Boyatzis, R. E., and Mainemelis, C., 2000. An empirical study of pluralism of learning and adaptive styles in a MBA Program. Department of Organizational Behaviour. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 35. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York; Toronto: Longmans, Green. 36. Bransford, J., 2007. Personal email communication with Ken Kay, President of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, October 12, 2007. 37. Bricheno, P., and Younger, M., 2004. Some unexpected results of a learning styles intervention. Manchester, BERA Conference. 38. Brown, H. D., 2000. Principles of language teaching and learning, (4th ed.). White Plains,NY: Longman. 39. Brown, A.R. & Votlz, B.D., 2005. Elements of effective e-learning design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(1). 40. Burn, A. and Parker, D., 2003. Tiger’s Big Plan: Multimodality and the moving image. Jewitt, C. and Kress, G. (eds.) Multimodal Literacy. New York, Peter Lang, pp. 56-72. 41. Bush, G., 2006. Learning about learning: from theories to trends. Teacher Librarian, vol 34(2), pp. 14 - 19. 42. Cabero, J., 2012. Digital learning trends: the content closed to the material design centered activities. The Dipro 2.0 project. Network. Journal of Education Distance, 32. 43. Castaneda, L., 2010. Learning with social networks. Fabrics in new educational environments. Sevilla: Eduforma. 44. Castaño, C., Maíz, I., Palacio, G., & Villaroel, J., 2008. Educational Practices 2.0 environments. Madrid: Synthesis. 45. Celce-Marcia, M., 2001. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, (3rd ed.). 46. Dewey Publishing Services: NY 47. Cennamo, K. & Kalk, D., 2005. Real world instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Thompson Learning. 48. Chatti, M. A., Agustiawan, M. R., Jarke, M., Specht, M., 2010. Toward a Personal Learning Environment Framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environment 1(4), pp. 66-85. 49. Charles Fadel, 2012.What should students learn in the 21st century? Global perspectives on education and skills. 50. Chapman, A., 2005-2012. VAK learning styles. Retrieved September 5, 2015, from www.businessballs.com. 51. Chieu V. M., 2007. COFALE: An Authoring System for Supporting Cognitive Flexibility. Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 06), Kerkrade, The Netherlands, pp.335-339. 52. Ciara O’Farrell, 2009. Enhancing Student Learning through Assessment. A Toolkit Approach 53. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E., 2003. E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. 54. Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. M., 2011. E-learning and the science of instruction (3rd edition.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. 55. Conole, G. (2010). Theory and methodology in networked learning. Positional paper for the Networked Learning Hotseat Debate. 56. Constantinidou, F. and Baker, S. (2002). Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language, 82(3), 296–311. 57. Craig D. Jerald, 2009. Defining a 21st century education. The Center for Public Education. 58. Creswell, J. W. & Miller, D. L., 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), pp. 124-131. 59. Cristea A., 2004. Authoring of adaptive and adaptable educational hypermedia: Where are we now and where are we going? IASTED International Conference in Web-Based Education, February 2004. 60. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A., 2011. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning, Internet and Higher Education (2011). 61. De Meo P., Garro A., Terracina G., & Ursino D., 2007. Personalised learning programs with X-Learn, an XML-based, ‘user device’ adaptive multi-agent system, Information Sciences. International Journal, 177(8), pp. 1729-1770. 62. Dobson J., 2009. Learning style preferences and course performance in an undergraduate physiology class. Adv Physiol Educ, 33,pp 308–314, 2009. 63. Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Paper presented to the Instructional Technology Forum. 64. Downes, S., 2007. Learning Networks in Practice. BECTA. Emerging Technologies for Learning. 65. Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. In D. Ley (Ed.), Emerging technologies for learning, vol. 2, pp. 19-27. Coventry, UK: Becta. 66. Dick, W., and Carey, L., 2004. The Systematic Design of Instruction. Allyn & Bacon; 6th Ed. 67. Dixon J., 2007. MANaged Teaching and Learning Environment – ManTLE JISC Capital Programme. 68. Drago, W. A., & Wagner, R. J., 2004. VARK preferred learning styles and online education. Management Research News, 27(7), pp. 1-13. 69. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K., 1986. The Dunn and Dunn learning style model of instruction. 70. Drachsler, H., 2009. Adaptation in Informal Learning Environments. Presentation at IATEL Conference. June, 19-20, Darmstadt, Germany: TU Darmstadt. 71. Edelson, D. C., 2001. Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, pp. 355-385. 72. Edjundo, 2016. Web 2.0 teaching tools. Retrieved on 4 April 2016, from http://edjudo.com/web-2-0-teaching-tools-links. 73. Elliott, C., 2010. We are not alone: the power of Personal Learning Networks, Synergy, 7(1), pp. 47-50. 74. Emily R. Lai, 2011.Performance-based Assessment: Some New Thoughts on an Old Idea. Copyright © 2011. Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 75. Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D., 2005. Collaborative learning: The wiki way. TechTrends, vol 49(6), pp. 12-15. 76. Essi Kanninen, 2008.Learning Styles and E-Learning. Master of Science Thesis.Tampere University of Technology. 77. Felder R., & Silverman L., 1988. Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, 78(7), pp. 674-681. 78. Felder, R.M. & Spurlin, J. E., 2005. Application, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal Engineering Education, 21(1), pp. 103-112. 79. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage, London. 80. Fiedler, S., & Pata, K., 2009. Distributed learning environments and social software: In search for a framework of design. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Social software & developing community ontologies, pp. 145-158. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 81. Fisseha Mikre, 2011.The Roles of Information Communication Technologies in Education. Review Article with Emphasis to the Computer and Internet.The Role of Information communication. Ethiop. Journal Education & Science. Vol (6)2. 82. Forehand, M., 2005. Bloom’s Taxonomy: Original and revised. Michael Orey (Ed.). 83. Forster, T., 2007. Msg. 14, Re: What Connectivism Is. Online Connectivism Conference:University of Manitoba. 84. Filppula, P., 2006. Learning Styles Network-learning. 85. Franzoni, A. L., & Assar, S. (2009). Student Learning Styles Adaptation Method Based on Teaching Strategies and Electronic Media. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (4), 15–29. 86. Friesen & Milton, 2009. Effective teaching practices – A framework. Toronto: Canadian Education Association. 87. Fruhmann, K; Nussbaumer, A; Albert D., 2010. A Psycho-Pedagogical Framework for Self-Regulated Learning in a Responsive Open Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference eLearning Baltics Science (eLBa Science 2010), 1–2 July 2010, Rostock, Germany. 88. G. J. Hwang, H. Y. Sung, C. M. Hung, & I. Huang, “A Learning Style Perspective to Investigate the Necessity of Developing Adaptive Learning Systems,” Educational Technology & Society, 2013, pp. 188-197. 89. G. J. Hwang, H. Y. Sung, C. M. Hung, I., Huang,& C. C. Tsai, “Development of A Personalized Educational Computer Game based on Students’ Learning Styles,” Educational Technology Research & Development, 2012, pp. 623-638. 90. Gallivan, M. J., 2001. Organizational Adoption and Assimilation of Complex Technological Innovations: Development and Application of a New Framework. Database for Advances in Information Systems (32)3, pp. 51–85. 91. Gardner, H. (2008). 5 minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. 92. Gagné RM, Wager WW, Golas KC, Keller JM, 2005. Introduction to Instructional Design (5th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 93. Gede Pramudya Ananta, 2004. Using an Adaptive Web-Based Learning Environment to Develop Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. Ed.Doctorate thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 2004. 94. Gibbons, A. S., 2003. The practice of instructional technology: Science and technology. Educational technology, 43(5), pp.11–16. 95. Graff M., 2013. Assessing Learning from Hypertext: An Individual Differences Perpective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, Vol 14 (4), 2003. 96. Glaser, B. G. 2003. The grounded theory perspective II: Description’s remodeling of grounded theory methodology. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 97. Henri, F., Charlier, B. & Limpens, F., 2008. Understanding PLE as an Essential Component of the Learning Process. Proc. of ED-Media, AACE, Chesapeake, pp. 3766-3770. 98. Honey, P. & Mumford, A., 1992. The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey. 99. Hollander, M. & Wolfe D. A, 1999. Nonparametric stastistical methods (2nd Ed), New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc. 100. Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1194-1201. 101. Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2010). Development of a reading material recommendation system based on a knowledge engineering approach. Computers & Education, 55(1), 76-83. 102. Hwang, G. J., Sung, H. Y., Hung, C. M., & Huang, I. (2012). Development of a personalized educational computer game based on students’ learning styles. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(4), 623-638. 103. Hwang, G. J., Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, Judy C. R. (2008). A novel approach for assisting teachers in analyzing student web-searching behaviors. Computers & Education, 51(2), 926-938. 104. International Society for Technology in Education, 2007. The national educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE. 105. Ilona Béres, Tímea Magyar, Márta Turcsányi-Szabó, 2012. Towards a Personalised, Learning Style Based Collaborative Blended Learning Model with Individual Assessment. Informatics in Education, 2012, 11(1), pp 1–28 .© 2012 Vilnius University. 106. Jana Hackathorna, Erin D. Solomonb,Kate L. Blankmeyerb, 2011. Learning by Doing: An Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques. The Journal of Effective Teaching, Vol(11)2, 2011, pp.40-54 107. Jenkins, J. & Keefe, J., 2002. Two schools: Two approaches to Personalised Learning Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6), pp. 449-456. 108. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K., 2011. The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. 109. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G., 1999. Learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 110. Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtar, K., 2003. Are students’ learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(5), pp. 363-375. 111. Josh Schwieso. 1999. How To Think Straight About Psychology, 5th Edition. Educational Psychology. Dorchester-on-Thames, 19(4), pp.502. 112. Jianhui Shi & Lihua Liu, 2013. Application of a Dynamic Collaborative Learning Oriented Knowledge Model. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Computer, Communication, Control and Automation (ISCCCA-13). Published by Atlantis Press, Paris, France. 113. Juhary J., 2005. A Step Towards e-learning: Some Pedagogical Issues International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 1(1), pp. 48-58. September 2005 114. Jung, J. and Graf, S., 2008. An Approach for Personalised Web-based Vocabulary Learning through Word Association Games. SAINT, pp.325-328. 115. Junko., 1998. Learning styles and error correction: How do learning styles affect students' perceptions towards error correction in a foreign language classroom? 116. Kabassi K., & Virvou M., 2004. Personalised adult e-training on computer use based on multiple attribute decision making. Interacting with Computers,16 (1). 117. Kaiser, H.F., 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, pp. 31-36. 118. Kapitzke, C., Dezuanni, M., & Iyer, R., 2012. Copyrights and Creative Commons Licensing: Pedagogical Innovation in a Higher Education Media Literacy Classroom. E-Learning and Digital Media, 8(3), pp. 271-282. 119. Keith S. Taber, 2011. Constructivism as Educational Theory: Continhency in Learning and Optimally Guided Instruction. Nova Science publishers. ISBN:978-1-61324-580-4. 120. Keefe, J. W., 1987. Learning styles: Theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. 121. Kennedy, D. M., & McNaught, C. 1997. Design elements for interactive multimedia. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 1-22. 122. Kerlinder, F.N., 1984. Foundation of behavioural research (3rd ed), Florida: Harcourst Barce & Co. 123. Kia M., Alipour A. and Ghaderi E. 2001. Study of learning styles on their roles in the academic Achievement of the students of Payame Noor University. 124. Kim IS, 2009. The Relevance of Multiple Intelligences to CALL Instruction. The Reading Matrix, 9(1): 1-21. 125. Kolb, D. A., 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 126. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. E., 1975. Toward an applied theory of experiential learning, In C. Cooper, (Ed), Theories of group processes. London: Wiley Press. 127. Kolmos, A., & Holgaard, J. E., 2008. Learning styles of science and engineering students in problem and project based education. 128. Kratzig, Gregory P., and Katherine D. Arbuthnott., 2006. Perceptual Learning Style and Learning Proficiency: A Test of the Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, pp. 238-246. 129. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T., 2001. Multimodal Discourses: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. 130. Laura Goe,Kietha Biggers, Andrew Croft, 2012. Linking Teacher Evaluation to Professional Development: Focusing on Improving Teaching and Learning. May 2012. National Comprehensice Center for Teacher Quality. 131. Lazar Stošić, 2015.The Importance of Educational Technology In Teaching. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE). 3 (1), pp 111-114. 132. Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D., 2012. Do one-to-one initiatives bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1),pp 1-30. 133. Leach, J. 2005. Do new information and communication technologies have a role to play in achieving quality professional development for teachers in the global south? 1. Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 293-329. 134. Lee, Y. M. 2010. Have fewer minor tests. The Star Online. 135. Lee, C. H. M., Cheng, Y. W., Rai, S., & Depickere, A., 2005. What affect student cognitive style in the development of hypermedia learning system? Computers & Education, 45, pp. 1-19. 136. Leander, K. and Wells Rowe, D., 2006. Mapping literacy spaces in motion: A rhizomatic analysis of a classroom literacy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), pp. 428-460. 137. Lemke, J.L., 1998. Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text. Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (eds.) Reading Science. London: Routledge, pp. 87-113. 138. Lemire, D., 2002. Brief report: What developmental educators should know about learning styles and cognitive styles. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 32(2), pp.177-182. 139. Leu, D. J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawlinski, L., McVerry, G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H., 2009. Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), pp. 264-269. 140. Liber O., Olivier B., & Britian S., 2004. The TOOMOL project: supporting a personalised and conversational approach to learning Computers & Education, 34(3-4), pp. 327-333. 141. Linda Darling-Hammond, Joan Herman, James Pellegrino, Jamal Abedi, J. Lawrence Aber, Eva Baker, Randy Bennett, Edmund Gordon, Edward Haertel, Kenji Hakuta, Andrew Ho, 142. Loo, S. P. & Sarmiento, C. Q. (Eds.), 2005. Japanese and Southeast Asian Cultural Influences on the Understanding of Scientific Concepts. Proceedings of the Japan Foundation-funded Intellectual Exchange Project Penang: SEAMEO-RECSAM. 143. Lubensky, R., 2006. The present and future of Personal Learning Environments (PLE). 144. Lynch, M., 2006. Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility. Pauwels, L. Visual cultures of science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. 145. Mabula, N., 2012. Promoting Science Subjects Choices for Secondary School Students in Tanzania: Challenges and Opportunities Academic Research International. ISSN: 2223-9944, 3(3), pp 234-245. 146. MacKeracher, D., 2004. Making sense of adult learning, (2nd ed.). Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 147. M, Martinez., 2000. Key Design Considerations for Personalised Learning on the Web. Educational Technology and Society, 4(1). 148. Maria Zajac, 2009. Using learning styles to personalise online learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(3), pp.256 – 265. 149. Mary Ann Wolf, 2010.nnovate to Educate: System [Re]Design for Personalized Learning A Report From The 2010 Symposium.2010 Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA). 150. Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y. H., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M. P., 2011. Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011. 151. Martinez, M. 2000. Designing Learning Objects to Mass Customize and personalise Learning. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning. Instructional Technology and Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AIT/AECT). 152. Malaysia Ministry of Education (MOE), 2008. National report: education in Malaysia. Ministry of Education, Malaysia. 153. McGlynn, A. P., 2005. Teaching millennials, our newest cultural cohort. Educational Digest, pp. 12-16. 154. McGloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W., 2010. Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), pp 28–43. 155. McRae, P., 2010. The politics of personalisation in the 21st century. ATA Magazine, 91(1). 156. Meccawy M., Stewart C., & Ashman H., 2007. Adaptive educational hypermedia interoperability and content creation with a web service-based architecture. International Journal Learning Technology, 3(3), 2007. 157. Melinda Dooly, 2008.Constructing Knowledge Together. Extract from Telecollaborative Language Learning. A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. 158. Melor Md. Yunus, Hadi Salehi, Dexter Sigan Anak John, 2013. Using Visual Aids as a Motivational Tool in Enhancing Students’ Interest in Reading Literary Texts. Recent Advances in Educational Technologies. ISBN: 978-1-61804-155-5. 159. Miller, P., 2001. Learning styles: the multimedia of the mind: ED 451340. 160. Milosevic, D., Brkovic, M., Debevc, M., & Krneta, R., 2007. Adaptive Learning by Using SCOs Metadata. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, pp. 163-174. 161. Ministry of Education, 1994. Laporan prestasi PMR. Kuala Lumpur: Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. 162. Ministry of Education, 1995. Laporan prestasi PMR. Kuala Lumpur: Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. 163. Ministry of Education, 1996. Laporan prestasi PMR. Kuala Lumpur: Lembaga Peperiksaan 164. Ministry of Education Malaysia, MOE, 1998. Laporan kajian penguasaan kemahiran proses sains murid Tahun 6 (1998) di sekolah kebangsaan. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Center. 165. Ministry of Education, 2001b. Laporan prestasi UPSR 2001. Kuala Lumpur: Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia. 166. Mohd. Zakaria Hj Yusof, 1992. Perlaksanaan Penekanan-Penekanan KBSM Dalam Pengajaran Pembelajaran Sains di Sekolah-Sekolah Negeri Johor – Dapatan dan Isu. In The Science and Mathematics Science Education Seminar. Johore: University of Technology Malaysia. Skudai. 167. Mohamad Najib Abdul Ghafar (1999). Malaysian students’ skills in the sciences. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in S.E. Asia, 2, pp. 54-59. 168. Mohamad Jafre Zainol Abidin, Abbas Ali Rezaee, Helan Nor Abdullah and Kiranjit Kaur Balbir Singh, 2011 .Learning Styles and Overall Academic Achievement in a Specific Educational System. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. (10), pp. 143-152; August 2011. 169. Modritscher, F. et al., 2011. May I suggest? Comparign three PLE recommender strategies. Digital Education Review, 20, 1-13. 170. Mokmin N.A.M & Masood M., 2014. Development of Multimedia Learning Application for Mastery Learning Style: A Graduated Difficulty Strategy. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Social, Management, Economics and Business Engineering, 8(12), pp. 3592-3595. 171. Murphy, R. J., Gray, S. A., Straja, S. R., & Bogert, M. C., 2004. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. : Educational methodologies. Journal of Dental Education, 68(8), pp. 859-866. 172. Murphy, R., Gray, S., Straja, S., & Bogert, M., 2004. Student learning preferences and teaching implications. Journal of Dental Education, 68, pp. 859–866. 173. Neo, M., & Neo, K., 2001. Innovative teaching: Using multimedia in a problem-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 4 (4), pp. 19-21. 174. Nouran Radwan, 2014. An Adaptive Learning Management System Based on Learner’s Learning Style. International Arab Journal of e-Technology, 3(4), June 2014. 175. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H., 1994. Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 176. O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65, pp. 17-37. 177. Oliver, R. 2000. Creating Meaningful Contexts for Learning in Web-based Settings. Proceedings of Open Learning 2000. (pp 53-62). Brisbane: Learning Network, Queensland. 178. Ormrod, J., 2008. Human Learning (5th ed.). New Jersey, NY: Pearson Education, Inc. 179. Oye, N. D., Salleh, M., & Iahad, N. A., 2011. Challenges of e-learning in Nigerian university education based on the experience of developing countries. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 3(2), pp. 39-48. 180. Patton, M. Q., 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 181. Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Magoulas, G. D., & Kornilakis, H., 2002. Towards new forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of a web-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 39, 333-360. 182. Palanivel K. & S. Kuppuswami S. 2014. Towards Service-Oriented Reference Model and Architecture to E-Learning Systems. International Journal of Emerging Trends & Technology in Computer Science (IJETTCS) , 3 (4), July - August 2014 , pp. 146-155 , ISSN 2278-6856. 183. Palomo, R. Ruiz Palmero, J., & Sanchez Rodriguez, J., 2008. ICT education in the XXI century. The school 2.0. Sevilla: Eduforma. 184. Peck, A. C., Ali, R. S., Matchock, R. L., & Levine, M. E., 2006. Introductory psychology topics and student performance: Where’s the challenge? Teaching of Psychology,vol 33(3), pp. 167-170. 185. Penger, S. & Tekavcic, M. 2009. Testıng Dunn & Dunn’s and Honey & Mumford’s learning style theories: The case of the Slovenian higher education system. Management, 14(2),pp. 1-20. 186. Pelletier, C., 2005. The uses of literacy in studying computer games: comparing students’ oral and visual representations of games. English teaching: Critique and Practice, 4(1), pp. 40-59. 187. Piaget, J., 1972. Psychology and epistemology: Toward a theory of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 188. Pitler, H. and M. Enriquez-Olmos, 2005. McREL Technology Initiative: Final Report. Aurora, Colo, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. 189. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K., 2007. Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 190. Peggy Grant and Dale Basye, 2014. Personalised Learning. ISTE ® International Society for Technology in Education 191. Rajshree S. Vaishnav, 2013. Learning Style and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students. Voice of Research, Vol. 1 Issue 4, March 2013, ISSN No. 2277-7733. 192. Raschick, M., Maypole, D. E., & Day, P. A., 1998. Improving field education through Kolb’s learning theory. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(1), pp. 31-42. 193. Reig, D., 2009. Personal learning environments. 194. Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A.A., 2009. Instructional-Design Theories and Models. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis Publishers. 195. Retalis S, Paraskeva F, Tzanavari A, Garzotto F, 2004. Learning Styles and Instructional Design as Inputs for Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Material Design. Information and Communication Technologies in Education. Fourth Hellenic Conference with International Participation, Athens, Greece. 196. Ricardo T. Bagarinao, 2015. Students' Navigational Pattern and Performance in an E-Learning Environment: A Case from UP Open University, Philippines. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE. January 2015 ISSN 1302-6488. Vol (16), 1 Article 7. 197. Rita Kop & Adrian Hill , 2008.Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9(3).ISSN: 1492-3831 198. Robert Lee Linn, P. David Pearson, James Popham, Lauren Resnick, Alan H. Schoenfeld, Richard Shavelson, Lorrie A. Shepard, Lee Shulman, Claude M. Steele, 2013. Criteria for High-Quality Assessment. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, Stanford University. University of Illinois at Chicago.June 2013. 199. Robert Marrone. 1999. Dying, Mourning, and Spirituality: A Psychological Perspective. Death Studies. Washington. 23(6), pp. 495. 200. Rozalina Khalid, Ahmad Azman Mokhtar, Mohd Sofian Omar-Fauzee, Abd Latif Kasim, Yahya Don, Nurul Fatni Abdussyukur, Fatin Azreen Ponajan, Ahmad Mahyuddin, Siti Nor Baya Ghazali, Mohd Hafiz Rosli, Soh Kim Geok., 2013. The Learning Styles and Academic Achievements among Arts and Science Streams Student. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. April 2013, Vol. 2 (2), pp 68-85, ISSN: 2226-6348. 201. Rosmalen P. Van., Vogten H., Es R Van., Passier H., Poelmans P., & Koper R., 2006. Authoring a full life cycle model in standards-based, adaptive e-learning? Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), pp. 72-83. 202. Romanelli F., Bird E., and Ryan M., 2009. Learning styles: a review of theory, application, and best practices. Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 73(1), pp. 9. 203. Rutz, E., 2003. Learning styles and educational performance: Implications for professional development programs. CIEC Conference proceedings, Tuson, AZ. 204. S. W. Hsieh, Y. R. Jang, G. J. Hwang, & N. S. Chen, “Effects of Teaching and Learning Styles on Students’ Reflection Levels for Ubiquitous learning,” Computers & Education, 2011, pp. 1194-1201. 205. Sabine Graf, Silvia Rita Viola, Kinshuk and Tommaso Leo. 2006. Representative Characteristics of Feldersilverman Learning Styles: An Empirical Model. Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science, and Culture, and the European Social Fund (ESF) under grant 31.963/46-VII/9/2002. 206. Safaa Mohmmed Al-Hebaishi, 2012. Investigating the Relationships between Learning Styles, Strategies and the Academic Performance of Saudi English Majors. International Interdisciplinary Jo urnal of Education – September, 2012, Vol. 1, Issue 8, pp 510-520. 207. Sampson, D., Karagiannidis, C., & Cardinali, F., 2002. An architecture for web-based elearning promoting re-usable adaptive educational e-content. Educational Technology and Society, (4), pp. 27-37. 208. Sajtos & Mitev, 2007. SPSS Research and Data Analysis Manual. Alinea Publisher, Budapest. 209. Salih R., 2010. Impacts of Learning Styles and Computer Skills on Adult Students’ Learning Online. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 9(2), pp.108-115. 210. Santos O. C, & Boticario J. G., 2006. Open and Accessible Training Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education. 211. Santamaria, F., 2010. Evolution and development of a personal environment learning at the University of Leon. Digital Education Review, 18, pp. 48-60. 212. Saripah Salbiah Syed Abdul Azziz, Asmahani Ahmad Suhairun, Salihan Siais, Othman Talib, Nor Zuhaidah Mohamed Zain ,Tengku Putri Norisah Tengku Shariman, Nor’ain Mohd. Tajudin, Nurul Aini Bakar and Kamaruzaman Jusoff, 2013. The Effectiveness of Multimedia Organic Chemistry Module: Sn1 and Sn2 Reaction Mechanism. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 28, pp. 53–68, 2013. 213. Sarvghad, S., & Dianat, A. S., 2009. A study of learning and problem solving styles of university students. Quarterly Journal of New Approach in Educational Administration, 2, pp. 77-92. 214. S.bDownes., 2006. Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge.Discussion Paper. Instructional Technology Forum, 2006. 215. Sefton-Green, J., 2006. Youth, Technology and Media Culture, AERA, Review of Research in Education, 30(1), pp. 279-306. 216. Selay Arkün & Buket Akkoyunlu, 2008. A Study on the development process of a multimedia learning environment according to the ADDIE model and students’ opinions of the multimedia learning environment. Interactive Educational Multimedia, Number, pp. 1-19. ISSN 1576-4990. 217. Selwyn, N., 2007. Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning-A critical review. OECD CERIKERIS International expert meeting on ICT and educational performance. Cheju Island, South Korea: Organization for Economic CoOperation and Development. 218. Selwyn, N., & Gouseti, A., 2009. Schools and web 2.0: a critical perspective. Education Century, 27(2), pp. 147-165. 219. Schaffert, S., & Hilzwnsauer, W., 2008. On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects. eLearning Papers, 9. 220. Shaikh, Z. A., 2009. ZPD incidence development strategy for demand of ICTs in higher education institutes of Pakistan. Proceedings of 3rd IEEE Symposium of Intelligent Information Technology Applications (IITA’09), IEEE Press, pp. 661-664. 221. Shaikh, Z.A. and Khoja, S.A., 2012. Role of Teacher in Personal Learning Environments. Digital Education Review, 21, pp. 22-32. 222. Shahin G. & Mohammad S. B., 2013. Relationship between VAK Learning Styles and Problem Solving Styles regarding Gender and Students' Fields of Study.Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), pp. 700-706, July 2013 © 2013 Academy Publisher Manufactured in Finland. ISSN 1798-4769. 223. Shanmugapriya M. and Tamilarasi A. 2013. Developing a Mobile Courseware for ICT Students using Problem Based Learning Approach. International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 1(4), June 2013, pp 958-968. ISSN (Online): 2320 – 9801 224. Siegel, S. & Castellan, 1988. Nonparametric statistic for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.), New York: Mc Graw Hill. 225. Siemens, G. (2008). About: Description of connectivism. Connectivism: A learning theory for today’s learner. 226. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. 2009. Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 227. Simpson, C., & Du, Y., 2004. Effects of learning styles and class participation on students' enjoyment level in distributed learning environments. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), pp.123-136. 228. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age 229. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, vol2(1), pp. 3-10. 230. Siemens, G. (2007). Connectivism: Creating a learning ecology in distributed environments. In T. Hug (Ed.), Didactics of microlearning: Concepts, discourses and examples (pp. 53-68). Munster, Germany: Waxmann Verlag. 231. Sirmaci N. 2009.The Relationship Between The Attitudes Towards Mathematics And Learning Styles. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., 9, pp. 644–648, Jan. 232. Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J., 2005. Instructional Design (3rd.ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley. 233. Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. 2009. The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2009. : EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR). 234. Solomon, G., & Schrum, L., 2007. Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington DC: International Society for Technology in Education. 235. Soghra Akbari Chermahini, Ali Ghanbari, Mohammad Ghanbari Talab, 2013. Learning Styles and Academic Performance Of Students In English As A Second-Language Class In Iran. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy (BJSEP), Vol. 7 (2), 2013, pp 322-333. 236. Stefan Hrastinski, 2008. Asynchronous & Synchronous E-Learning. Number 4.Educause Quarterly. 237. Steinmetiz, R., & Nahrstedt, K., 2004. Multimedia applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 238. Stojan Kostanjevec, Janez Jerman and Verena Koch, 2011. The Effects of Nutrition Education on 6th graders Knowledge of Nutrition in Nine-year Primary Schools in Slovenia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(4), pp. 243-252. 239. Surjono H., 2007. The design and implementation of an adaptive e-learnng system.The International Symposium Open, Distance and E-Learning (ISODEL),Denpasar,Indonesia, November 2007. 240. T. C. Yang, G. J. Hwang, & J. H. Yang, Stephen, “Development of An Adaptive Learning System with Multiple Perspectives based on Students' Learning Styles and Cognitive Styles,” Educational Technology & Society, 2013, pp. 185-200. 241. Taber, KS, 2006. Beyond Constructivism: the Progressive Research Programme into Learning Science Studies in Science Education, 42, pp 125-184. 242. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, Fifth Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 243. Taylor, L. & Parsons, J., 2011. Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/. 244. Terry, M., 2001. Translating learning style theory into university teaching practices: An article based on Kolb’s experiential learning model. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 32(1), pp.68-85. 245. Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C., 2008. Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalisation information. Computers & Education, 51(2), pp. 776-786. 246. T. Subahan Mohd Meerah, 1996. Strategi pengajaran untuk meningkatkan prestasi sains dan matematik. Prosiding Seminar Kebangsaan Pendidikan Sains dan Matematik. Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, pp. 1-12. 247. Torkar, G., Pintarič M., Koch V., 2010. Fruit and vegetable playing cards: utility of the game for nutrition education. Nutrition and Food Science, 40(1), pp. 74-80. 248. Thomas E.J., J. R. Brunstings, and P. L. Warrick, 2010. Styles and Strategies for Teaching High School Mathematics: 21 Techniques for differentiating Instruction and Assessment, 1st ed. California: Corwin, pp. 209. 249. Thomas H Leahey.2000. Control: A History of Behavioural Psychology. The Journal of American History. 87(2), pp 686. 250. Thomson S., 2006. Examining the Evidence: Science Achievement in Australia Schools. 251. Thomson, P. & Sefton-Green, J., 2010. Researching Creative Learning; methods and approaches [ed.]. London: Routledge 252. Thyagharajan K.K., & Nayak R., 2007. Adaptive Content Creation forPersonalised e-learning Using Web Service. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(9), pp. 828-836,2007, INSInet Publication vices. 253. Trinidad S, 2003. Working with Technology-rich Learning Environments: Strategies for Success. In M. S. Khine and D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-Rich Learning Environments: A future Perspective. Singapore: Worldntific Publishing, pp. 97-113. 254. Trindade, J., et al., 2002. Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study.British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (4), pp. 471-488. 255. Tuckman, B. W., 1994. Conducting educational research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 256. Uche Chineze M. & Augustine Sandra E., 2015. Relevance of post graduate diploma in education program to students in furthering their education: A case study of University of Port-Harcourt. Journal of Educational Research and Review, 3(5), pp. 75-85, ISSN: 2384-7301. 257. Väljataga, T. and Laanpere, M., 2010. Learner control and personal learning environment: a challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 277-291. 258. Valjataga, T., Pata, K., & Tammets, K., 2011. Considering students' perspective on personal and distributed learning environments. In M. J. W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-Learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching pp. 85-107. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 259. Vaughan, N., 2008. Supporting deep approaches to learning through the use of wikis and weblogs. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008. pp. 2857-2864). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 260. VSTE Advocacy White Paper. The Role of Web 2.0 Technologies in K-12 Education. Retrieved on 4 April 2016, from http://vste.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Web20Advocacy.pdf 261. Vickery, G., 2007. Participative web and user-created content: Web 2.0, wikis and social networking. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 262. Vogt, W. Paul. 1999. Dictionary of statistics and methodology. Sage: Thousand Oaks, California. 263. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2010). 21st Century Skills, Discussion Paper. Netherlands: Universiteit Twente. 264. Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 265. Wagner, E., 2011. Essay: In search of the secret handshakes of ID. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), pp. 33-37. 266. Wang, H., 2008. Wiki as a collaborative tool to support faculty in mobile teaching and learning. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008. pp. 2865-2868. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 267. Wehrwein, E.A., Lujan, H.L. & DiCarlo, S.E. 2007. Gender differences in learning style preferences among undergraduate physiology students, Adv Physiol Educ, 31, pp. 153-157. 268. Weber K, Martin MM, Cayanus JL, 2005. Student interest: A two-study re-examination of the concept. Commun. Q., 53(1), pp. 71-86. 269. Wild, F. & Moedritscher, F. & Sigurdason, S., 2008. Designing for Change: Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments. 270. Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P.,Sharples, P., & Milligan, C., 2007. Personal learning environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), pp. 27-38. 271. Wyman, M., Escobedo, F., Varela, S., Asuaje, C., Mayer, H., Swisher, N., & Hermansen-Baez. 2011. Analysing the natural resource Extension needs of Spanish-speakers: A perspective from Florida. Journal of Extension, 49(2), Article 2FEA3. 272. X. Gu and X. Li, 2009. A Conceptual Model of Personal Learning Environment Based On Shanghai Lifelong Learning System. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in Education. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, 2009, pp.885. 273. Zhang, L.-F. & Sternberg, R.J., 2005. A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1),2 |