Momentum: Physics Education Journal

6 (2), 2022, 162-170

Available at: ejournal.unikama.ac.id/index.php/momentum

Analysis of learning styles in terms of knowledge,

skills and attitudes
Abdul Halim a *, Adinda Wirda b, Yusrizal Yusrizal c
Universitas Syiah Kuala. Jl. Teuku Nyak Arief No441, Kec. Syiah Kuala, Kota Banda Aceh, Aceh 23111, Indonesia
a
[email protected]; b [email protected]; c [email protected]
*Corresponding Author

Received: 23 January 2021; Revised: 14 April 2022; Accepted: 28 April 2022

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to determine the domains of knowledge, skills and atti-
tudes of students which are dominantly influenced by learning styles. The approach used is
quantitative research with a correlation method in the form of a survey on 71 high school
students in the Aceh Tengah area. The data collection instrument used a questionnaire for
learning style data and a documentation study for student learning outcomes data. The re-
sults of data analysis using descriptive and inferential statistics show that there is a significant
relationship between learning styles and knowledge, skills and attitudes with an average
contribution of 17.67%, 14.77% and 72.4% respectively. Based on the types of learning styles
selected in this study, the visual learning style is more highly related to students' knowledge,
skills and attitudes. The conclusion from the results of this study is that teachers as educators
need to know and understand the characteristics of each student's learning style, so as to be
able to place students in the right position during the learning process.
Keywords: Learning style, Visual, Auditorial, Kinesthetic, Learning Outcomes

How to Cite: Halim, A., Wirda, A., & Yusrizal, Y. (2022). Analysis of learning styles in terms of
knowledge, skills and attitudes. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6(2), 162-170.
https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v6i2.6581

Introduction
Various terms have been used to explain the meaning of learning styles, including saying the
preferred way of learning for students (Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018); Susilowati, 2018), the ability of
students to respond, perceive and interact with the environment (Martin & Bolliger, 2018), or
describe variations in the way students learn individually (Odic, 2018). It also used the term cognitive
style to respond, view and interact with the learning environment (Valencia-Vallejo et al., 2019). It
refers to the concept that individuals are different in terms of how to teach or learn and choose what
is most effective for them (Grant, 2020). Although there are several definitions of learning styles, this
study chose to use the definition proposed by Odic (2018) and Susilowati since the definition is more
significant with the case being studied and the definition is also indirectly related to student learning
outcomes.
The learning style inventory has been used by various types of instruments since 1976
(Olanipekun et al., 2020), including using the Cranfield Learning Style Inventory (CLSI) with 30 items
covering aspects of seeing, reading, listening and experience (Sudria et al., 2018). It applies the Kolb
Learning Style Inventory (Kolb-LSI) includes aspects of divergence, assimilation, convergence, and
accommodation (Mpwanya & Dockrat, 2020), and using Honey and Mumford's Learning Style
Questionnaire (H&M-LSQ) which includes 4 additional variables from the Kolb model, namely activist,
reflector, theoretical, and pragmatic (van Gaalen et al., 2021). Based on these instruments, this study
uses the Deporter model instrument (Mashoedah et al., 2018) covering three main aspects, namely

This is an open access article under the CC–BY license.

10.21067/mpej.v6i2.6581
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 163
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

visual (absorbing information by relying on sight), auditory (absorbing information by relying on

hearing), and kinesthetic (absorbing information by moving the object).
Some research results show that learning styles affect several other variables, including the
learning outcomes significantly (Husmann & O’Loughlin, 2019; Nortvig et al., 2018; Sudria et al.,
2018). Learning styles depend on student achievement and gender (Nikoopour & Khoshroudi, 2021)
and are affected by the applied learning model (Razzaque & Hamdan, 2020). Learning styles also
affect student learning activities (Ardila & Gómez-Restrepo, 2021). Besides, specifically, learning sty-
les are also related to attitudes in mathematics learning (Naenah, 2022; Weng et al., 2018), gender,
attitudes and perceptions (Şener & Çokçalışkan, 2018), motivation, attitudes and achievements (İlçin
et al., 2018), and attitudes and achievements (Cimermanová, 2018). Several other research results
show that learning styles are related to problem-solving skills in mathematics (Kim et al., 2018),
critical thinking skills (Muali et al., 2018), higher order thinking skills (Saido et al., 2018), and
computer use skills (Kolekar et al., 2018).
Based on the description above and several results of previous studies, it can be understood
that learning styles are related to latent variables as well as physical variables, but there are still very
few previous studies that have a relationship between learning styles and knowledge or cognitive.
Therefore, the research will examine in detail about (a) how the relationship between learning styles
and knowledge, skills and attitudes are, (b) what types of learning styles that have a high correlation
with knowledge, skills and attitudes, and (c) what the form of the diagram (TAM model) the
correlation between the types of learning styles and the realm of learning outcomes is.

Methods
This study uses a quantitative research approach, correlation method and survey design in
three classes of High School students in the Central Aceh region totaling 24 students in class XI-IPA1,
27 students in class XI-IPA2, and 20 students in class XI-IPA3.
This study uses a questionnaire to obtain data on student learning styles and study docu-
mentation to obtain data or the final score of physics learning outcomes in three domains, namely
the value of knowledge, skills and attitudes. The questionnaire to obtain learning style data was
adopted from Deporter (Idkhan & Idris, 2021) which refers to the modality model. The purpose of
the modality model is that students enjoy learning by using sight, hearing, and movement. Based on
the modality model, the Deporter version of the learning style measurement questionnaire covers
three main aspects, namely visual (about 14 items), auditory (about 14 items) and kinesthetic (about
16 items). All these items (44 items) used a four-point Likert scale with the categories Strongly Agree
(SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and Strongly Disagree (SD). The questionnaire instrument validation
was carried out in two stages, namely expert validation and questionnaire testing on a limited sam-
ple. Meanwhile, the Documentation Study, which was conducted on the archives of grade XI student
report cards at senior high schools in the Central Aceh region, was to obtain data or the value of
students' knowledge, skills and attitudes.
The process of data collection is carried out based on the type of data and the appled instru-
ment. Learning style data is collected after the learning process is completed in the current semester.
Then, it proceeded with a documentation study to get report cards in the realm of knowledge, skills
and attitudes of students who have answered the learning style questionnaire.
There are two types of data that have been collected, namely data from the questionnaire in
the form of a Likert scale (4,3,2,1) and data from the results of the documentation study in the form
of scores or report cards (0-100). Data analysis was carried out in two stages. On the first stage,
learning outcomes data and also questionnaire data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to
obtain a total score and an average score. Then, the second stage of data analysis uses inferential
statistics to get the correlation coefficient and the coefficient of termination between learning styles
and learning outcomes. All data analysis results are displayed in graphical form as shown in Figure 1
to Figure 5.

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 164
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

Result and Discussion

The results of data analysis and discussion are adjusted to the study objectives, namely (a) how
the relationship between learning styles and knowledge, skills and attitudes is (Q1), (b) what types of
learning styles have a high correlation with knowledge, skills and attitudes (Q2), and (c) how is the
form of the diagram (TAM model) the correlation between the types of learning styles and the realm
of learning outcomes (Q3). Figure 1 shows the relationship between visual learning styles with know-
ledge, skills and attitudes.

Figure 1. The relationship between visuals and the realms of learning outcomes
Based on Figure 1, it can be understood that the visual learning model has the highest contri-
bution to the learning outcomes of the knowledge domain. After that, the attitude domain and the
lowest contribution is to the skills domain results. In other words, students who have a visual learn-
ing style have the highest score in the realm of knowledge or cognitive domain. This is because
students who have a visual learning style are easier to accept in concepts by using the five senses of
seeing or observing if the concept is displayed in the form of images or animations.

Figure 2. The relationship between auditory and learning outcomes

Furthermore, based on Figure 2, it shows that students who have the auditory learning model
have the highest contribution to the learning outcomes of the attitude domain, after that to the skills
domain and the lowest contribution to the knowledge domain outcomes. In other words, students

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 165
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

who have an auditory learning style have the highest scores in the attitude or affective domain. This
is because students who have an auditory learning style are easier to accept concepts by using the
five senses of hearing if the concept is displayed in the form of a video or animation that makes a
sound. Based on the two pictures above or Figure 1 and Figure 2, it can be understood that students
who have a visual learning style have a higher contribution to learning outcomes in the realm of
knowledge compared to students who have an auditory learning style. The same applies to learning
outcomes in other domains.
Figure 3 shows that students who have the kinesthetic learning model have the highest
contribution to the learning outcomes of the skill domain, after that to the knowledge domain and
the lowest contribution to the attitude domain outcomes. In other words, students who have a
kinesthetic learning style have the highest grades in the skill domain. This is because students who
have a kinesthetic learning style are easier to accept concepts by using the five senses that are easily
moved like hands. In other words, students who have this type of learning style enjoy learning that
involves movement. Usually, students find it easier to learn something not just by reading a book,
but also by practicing it. Doing or touching the object being studied will provide its own experience
for the kinesthetic type. Based on the three images above or Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, it can
be understood that students who have a visual learning style have a higher contribution to learning
outcomes in the realm of knowledge, auditorial learning styles in the realm of attitudes and
kinesthetic learning styles in the realm of skills.

Figure 3. The relationship between kinesthetic and learning outcomes

The graph in Figure 4 shows the relationship between the average score of learning styles with
Bloom's domain type learning outcomes. It turns out that the aspect of learning style that
contributes the highest to student learning outcomes is in the realm of knowledge. Then, in the
realm of attitudes and the lowest contribution is in the realm of skills. If we relate to the results
obtained in Figure 1, it can be said that the students who were respondents in this study were more
dominant in the visual learning style compared to other types of learning styles. In other words,
these students prefer to learn by using the five senses of seeing or observing. In addition, students
with visual learning styles focus on sight. When learning something new, it is usually necessary to see
something visually to make it easier to understand. In addition, visual types are also more comfort-
able learning by using colors, lines, and shapes.
The graph in Figure 5 shows the relationship between the average score of learning styles and
the average score of learning outcomes. It turns out that overall aspects of learning styles contribute
to student learning outcomes about 13% of the total student report cards. In other words, the high
or low grades of student report cards are only 13% influenced by student learning styles, while 67%

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 166
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

are influenced by teacher factors, reading books, learning environment, models used by teachers,
and others.

Figure 4. The relationship between Learning Styles and learning outcomes

Learning Styles (means)-vs-Learning Outcomes (means)

100

95 y = 0.5877x + 41.805
R² = 0.1289
90

85
Learning Outcomes

80

75

70

65

60
Learning Styles-vs-Learning Outcomes
55 Linear (Learning Styles-vs-Learning Outcomes)
50
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
Learning Styles

Figure 5. The relationship between Learning Styles and learning outcomes (means)
The information in Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between the types of learning styles and
the Bloom realm of student learning outcomes. The learning styles studied are visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic, while Bloom's realm of learning outcomes includes knowledge, skills and attitudes. Based
on the results of the data analysis shown in Figure 6, it can be concluded that the overall relationship
between learning styles and learning outcomes is in the medium and positive categories. The highest
correlation is visual learning style to the land of knowledge with a contribution of around 47.4%,
while the lowest correlation is auditory learning style to the realm of knowledge learning outcomes.

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 167
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

Figure 6. Relationship between Learning Styles and learning outcomes based on TAM Model
Several previous research results also show the same results as this study, including moderate
learning styles that affect learning outcomes (Black & Kassaye, 2014) and learning styles that affect
student response abilities (Hsieh et al., 2011). It has a strong positive correlation with learning
outcomes (Ogundokun, 2011), can improve the ability to solve HOT questions (Nitriani et al., 2022),
and influence student achievement (Yilmaz-Soylu & Akkoyunlu, 2009). Besides using learning styles,
improving learning outcomes can also be done with several methods, media or other learning
models, including using problem-solving learning models (Alqurashi, 2019), interactive-invention
teaching strategies (Ukoh, 2022), and generative learning models with virtual lab. (Li et al., 2019), the
Inquiry learning method (Razali et al., 2020), the community science technology approach (Mulyanti
et al., 2021), including discovery learning-based SWS (Junina et al, 2020), ELSE-based STEM training
(Ulfa et al., 2021), virtual Lab-based SWS. PhET simulation (Halim et al., 2021), and the NHT model
(Rahayu & Cahyadi, 2019).

Conclusion
It turns out that the aspect of learning style that highly contributes to student learning
outcomes is in the realm of knowledge, namely the realm of attitudes with the lowest contribution in
the realm of skills. If we relate to the results obtained in Figure 1, it can be said that the students who
were respondents in this study were more dominant in the visual learning style compared to other
types of learning styles. In other words, these students prefer to learn by using the five senses of
seeing or observing. In addition, students with visual learning styles focus on sight. When learning
something new, it is usually necessary to see something visually to make it easier to understand.
Based on the results of the data analysis shown in Figure 6, describes that the relationship between
learning styles and learning outcomes is in the medium and positive categories.

Acknowledgment
We thank all those who have helped in carrying out the research and writing this article. Also
our colleagues in the physics education study program and the science education master's program
at Syiah Kuala University.

References
Alqurashi, E. (2019). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning
environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562
Ardila, C. M., & Gómez-Restrepo, Á. M. (2021). Relationship between physical activity, academic
achievement, gender, and learning styles in students of a Latin American Dental School: A

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 168
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

cross-sectional study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10, 149.

https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_646_20
Black, G. S., & Kassaye, W. W. (2014). Do students learning styles impact student outcomes in
marketing classes? Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18(4), 149.
Cimermanová, I. (2018). The effect of learning styles on academic achievement in different forms of
teaching. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 219–232.
https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11316a
Farashahi, M., & Tajeddin, M. (2018). Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A
comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. The
International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 131–142.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.01.003
Grant, A. M. (2020). An integrated model of goal-focused coaching. In Coaching Researched (pp. 115–
139). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119656913.ch7
Halim, A., Farhan, Ahyuni, A., Susanna, Andriani, W., & Irwandi. (2021). The impact of PhET virtual lab
worksheets on student learning outcomes on sound wave materials. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1806(1), 012033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012033
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.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.004
Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities
among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported
VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12(1), 6–19.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Idkhan, A. M., & Idris, M. M. (2021). Dimensions of students learning styles at the university with the
kolb learning model. International Journal of Environment, Engineering and Education, 3(2 SE-
Research Article). https://doi.org/10.55151/ijeedu.v3i2.60
İlçin, N., Tomruk, M., Yeşilyaprak, S. S., Karadibak, D., & Savcı, S. (2018). The relationship between
learning styles and academic performance in TURKISH physiotherapy students. BMC Medical
Education, 18(1), 291. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1400-2
Kim, J. Y., Choi, D. S., Sung, C.-S., & Park, J. Y. (2018). The role of problem solving ability on innovative
behavior and opportunity recognition in university students. In Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity (Vol. 4, Issue 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-018-
0085-4
Kolekar, S. V, Pai, R. M., & Pai M.M., M. (2018). Adaptive user interface for Moodle based e-learning
system using learning styles. In Procedia Computer Science (Vol. 135).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.226
Li, J., Han, S., & Fu, S. (2019). Exploring the relationship between students’ learning styles and
learning outcome in engineering laboratory education. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 43(8), 1064–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1449818
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of
engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning Journal (OLJ),
22(1), 205+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A573558339/AONE?u=anon~a85670a2&sid=googleScholar&xi
d=c951a038
Mashoedah, M., Hartmann, M., Surjono, H. D., & Zamroni, Z. (2018). The vocational high school
teachers ‘awareness level and implementation of the students’ learning style assessment.
Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi Dan Kejuruan, 24(1), 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v24i1.17722

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 169
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

Mpwanya, M. F., & Dockrat, S. (2020). Assessing learning styles of undergraduate logistics students
using Kolb’s learning style inventory: a cross-sectional survey. South African Journal of Higher
Education, 34(3), 210–228. https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.20853/34-3-3338
Muali, C., Islam, S., Bali, M. E. I., Hefniy, Baharun, H., Mundiri, A., Jasri, M., & Fauzi, A. (2018). Free
online learning based on rich internet applications; The experimentation of critical thinking
about student learning style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1114, 012024.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1114/1/012024
Mulyanti, S., Halim, A., Murniati, Ilyas, S., Syukri, M., & Mursal. (2021). The impact of the science
technology society (STS) approach on critical thinking ability and student learning outcomes.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882(1), 012026. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1882/1/012026
Naenah, N. N. (2022). Learning styles and attitude toward achievement among English second
language students. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 7(2
SE-), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.35974/acuity.v7i2.2607
Nikoopour, J., & Khoshroudi, M. S. (2021). EFL learners’ learning styles and self-regulated learning:
Do gender and proficiency level matter? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(4),
616–623. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1204.13
Nitriani, N., Darsikin, D., & Saehana, S. (2022). Kolb’s learning style analysis in solving HOTS questions
for prospective physics teacher students. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6(1), 59–72.
https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v6i1.5593
Nortvig, A.-M., Petersen, A. K., & Balle, S. H. (2018). A literature review of the factors influencing e
learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and
engagement. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 16(1), pp46-55. https://academic-
publishing.org/index.php/ejel/article/view/1855
Odic, D. (2018). Children’s intuitive sense of number develops independently of their perception of
area, density, length, and time. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12533.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12533
Ogundokun, M. O. (2011). Learning style, school environment and test anxiety as correlates of
learning outcomes among secondary school students. IFE PsychologIA : An International
Journal, 19(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC38876
Olanipekun, T., Effoe, V., Bakinde, N., Bradley, C., Ivonye, C., & Harris, R. (2020). Learning styles of
internal medicine residents and association with the in-training examination performance.
Journal of the National Medical Association, 112(1), 44–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2019.12.002
Rahayu, S., & Cahyadi, R. (2019). Experimentation of NHT and TPS learning model using CTL approach
towards mathematics learning outcomes viewed from student learning styles. International
Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 2(4), 215–218.
https://doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v2i4.140
Razali, R., Halim, A., Haji, A. G., & Nurfadilla, E. (2020). Effect of inquiry learning methods on generic
science skills based on creativity level. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), 012118.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1460/1/012118
Razzaque, A., & Hamdan, A. (2020). Internet of things for learning styles and learning outcomes
improve e-learning: a review of literature. In A.-E. Hassanien, A. T. Azar, T. Gaber, D. Oliva, & F.
M. Tolba (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and
Computer Vision (AICV2020) (pp. 783–791). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44289-7_73
Saido, G. M., Siraj, S., Nordin, A. B. Bin, & Al_Amedy, O. S. (2018). Higher order thinking skills among
secondary school students in science learning. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Sciences, 3(3), 13–20. http://ijie.um.edu.my/index.php/MOJES/article/view/12778

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)
 Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 6 (2), 2022, 170
Abdul Halim, Adinda Wirda, Yusrizal Yusrizal

Şener, S., & Çokçalışkan, A. (2018). An investigation between multiple intelligences and learning
styles. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(2), 125.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i2.2643
Sudria, I. B. N., Redhana, I. W., Kirna, I. M. K., & Aini, D. (2018). Effect of Kolb’s learning styles under
inductive guided-inquiry learning on learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction,
11(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1117a
Ukoh, E. E. (2022). Teaching electromagnetism using interactive-invention instructional strategy and
the learning outcome of secondary school students. Momentum: Physics Education Journal,
6(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v6i1.5463
Ulfa, Z., Irwandi, I., Syukri, M., Munawir, A., & Halim, A. (2021). Improving ISLE-based STEM learning
outcomes for building the 21st century skills and characters through a lesson study: A case
study on Torque and Moment of Inertia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1882(1),
012153. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1882/1/012153
Valencia-Vallejo, N., Lopez-Vargas, O., & Sanabria-Rodriguez, L. (2019). Effect of a metacognitive
scaffolding on self-efficacy, metacognition, and achievement in e-learning environments.
Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 11(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2019.11.001
van Gaalen, A. E. J., Brouwer, J., Schönrock-Adema, J., Bouwkamp-Timmer, T., Jaarsma, A. D. C., &
Georgiadis, J. R. (2021). Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review.
Advances in Health Sciences Education, 26(2), 683–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-
10000-3
Weng, F., Ho, H.-J., Yang, R.-J., & Weng, C.-H. (2018). The influence of learning style on learning
attitude with multimedia teaching materials. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 15(1), em1659. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/100389
Yilmaz-Soylu, M., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2009). The effect of learning styles on achievement in different
learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(4), 43–50.
http://www.tojet.net/articles/v8i4/844.pdf

Copyright © 2022, Momentum: Physics Education Journal, ISSN 2548-9127 (print) | 2548-9135 (online)