title: Instructional methods and cognitive and learning styles in web-based learning: report of two randomised trials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Adapting web-based (WB) instruction to learners' individual differences may enhance learning. Objectives This study aimed to investigate aptitude-treatment interactions between learning and cognitive styles and WB instructional methods.
  
  
  METHODS
  We carried out a factorial, randomised, controlled, crossover, post-test-only trial involving 89 internal medicine residents, family practice residents and medical students at 2 US medical schools. Parallel versions of a WB course in complementary medicine used either active or reflective questions and different end-of-module review activities ('create and study a summary table' or 'study an instructor-created table'). Participants were matched or mismatched to question type based on active or reflective learning style. Participants used each review activity for 1 course module (crossover design). Outcome measurements included the Index of Learning Styles, the Cognitive Styles Analysis test, knowledge post-test, course rating and preference.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Post-test scores were similar for matched (mean +/- standard error of the mean 77.4 +/- 1.7) and mismatched (76.9 +/- 1.7) learners (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference - 4.3 to 5.2l, P = 0.84), as were course ratings (P = 0.16). Post-test scores did not differ between active-type questions (77.1 +/- 2.1) and reflective-type questions (77.2 +/- 1.4; P = 0.97). Post-test scores correlated with course ratings (r = 0.45). There was no difference in post-test subscores for modules completed using the 'construct table' format (78.1 +/- 1.4) or the 'table provided' format (76.1 +/- 1.4; CI - 1.1 to 5.0, P = 0.21), and wholist and analytic styles had no interaction (P = 0.75) or main effect (P = 0.18). There was no association between activity preference and wholist or analytic scores (P = 0.37).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cognitive and learning styles had no apparent influence on learning outcomes. There were no differences in outcome between these instructional methods.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. cook.david33@mayo.edu
authors.forename: David A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Cook
authors.forename: Mark H
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Gelula
authors.forename: Denise M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Dupras
authors.forename: Alan
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Schwartz
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D003071:Cognition; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D020375:Education, Distance / Q000379:methods*; D004501:Education, Medical / Q000379:methods*; D004522:Educational Status; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D007858:Learning; D014481:United States