Dalrymple.p65 Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 261 261 Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction Connie Dalrymple Connie Dalrymple is an Assistant Professor and Life & Health Sciences Librarian at Wichita State Uni- versity; e-mail: connie.dalrymple@wichita.edu. The author wishes to thank research assistant Fui-Nii Phang, who was of immense help and encouragement during the project. This research was supported by a grant from Wichita State University’s University Research and Creative Projects Administration. Learning style theory has gained a broad base of acceptance in the library field. Less clear is how well librarians have assimilated learning style theory and how consciously they are incorporating its tenets into their day-to-day teaching. This survey was conducted to ascertain how instruction librarians and other library professionals learn, assimilate, and utilize learning style theory. Results show that the majority of librar- ians are aware of learning style theory, but many are unsure of its valid- ity or proper application in library settings. Recommendations include increased coverage of instructional theory in library schools and more rigorous scientific studies of learning style–sensitive practice in library instruction settings. he concept of learning style has been defined in various ways. For the purposes of this article, a simplified definition is a given individual’s learning preferences. The concept of learning styles, although it sounds simple, is actually quite com- plex. Thomas C. DeBello’s 1990 article provided an overview of this complexity as it outlined the many dimensions of learning style as proposed by theorists in the field. 1 Although many models of learning style theory exist, two are most often cited by librarians. One model, developed by Kenneth J. and Rita Stafford Dunn in the late 1960s, consists of emotional, environ- mental, physiological, psychological, and sociological dimensions with twenty-one subcategories. The Dunns’ assessment instrument is the Learning Style Inven- tory, consisting of one hundred questions. The perceptual modalities (visual, au- ditory, tactual, kinesthetic, and combina- tion) often cited in the literature are part of the perceptual subcategory of the physi- ological category in the Dunn model.2 Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, first published in 1983, out- lined seven intelligences: linguistic, logi- cal–mathematical, musical, bodily–kines- thetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Additional intelligences have since been proposed. Though simi- lar in concept, Gardner ’s framework was developed separately from the Dunns’. Cited frequently in the education litera- ture, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences is mentioned infrequently in the literature of library science.3 262 College & Research Libraries May 2002 The second model cited often in the li- brary literature, the Experiential Learning Model, was envisioned by David Kolb. This model consists of two dimensions and is represented like the axes on a graph. At opposite poles of one dimension are Con- crete Experience abilities and Abstract Conceptualization abilities. At the oppo- site poles of the second dimension are Re- flective Observation abilities and Active/ Experimentation abilities. Individuals tend to fall into one of the four possible quad- rants on the graph. According to Kolb, the four predominant types are the diverger, the assimilator, the converger, and the accomodator. Divergers need to know why they need to learn something, assimilators need to know what pieces of the puzzle they need to assimilate in order to learn a concept, convergers act pragmatically and want to find out how things work, and accomodators tend to be highly creative and to experiment in order to solve prob- lems.4 The professional literature of librarianship is rich in references to the application of learning styles in library instruction. Much of it refers to the appli- cation of learning style theory to specific audiences. Daniel D. Barron’s review ar- ticle for school library media specialists detailed sources of background informa- tion on learning styles.5 He prefaced the article by reminding readers that, although we en- deavor to treat all stu- dents as individuals, sometimes categoriza- tion can be a helpful tool. Sonia Bodi’s pa- pers outlined her appli- cation of Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in the academic library setting. 6 Elizabeth J. McNeer ’s 1991 article detailed the characteris- tics of college students at different levels of cognitive development and suggested strate- gies for teaching to these levels.7 Eileen E. Allen recommended ways to increase student involvement in postsecondary library instruction through active learn- ing techniques.8 The methods recom- mended in Allen’s article, including in- corporating pauses for group discussions, questioning, and short quizzes, could eas- ily be adapted to work in other settings as well. Some authors have taken the tack of showing how learning style theory can be applied to certain ethnic groups. Dor- othy N. Bowen’s research on Kenyan and Nigerian students is one example.9 Sally G. Wayman took a broader approach in her publications, giving examples of how individuals from various cultures might react in different situations such as group work or the classroom setting.10 Rita Dunn’s articles cited studies proving the efficacy of applying learning style theory in the classroom and also discussed learn- ing styles of different groups and the in- dividual variance within them.11 TABLE 1 Organization Type Variable Frequency Percent Academic library 799 88.0 Public library 22 2.4 School library 21 2.3 Medical library 10 1.1 Special library 8 0.9 State or federal library 7 0.8 School of library information science 6 0.7 Law library 4 0.4 Library system 3 0.3 Independent information brokerage 2 0.2 Other 25 2.8 Total 907 99.9 1 missing case; 907 valid cases Most librarians who had heard of learning style theory felt that it was valid or very valid, with 70.8 percent of respondents falling into these two categories. Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 263 Another arena that librarians have con- sidered is the application of learning style theory in different instructional settings. Keith Gresham focused on the electronic classroom in his 2000 article.12 Terri Holtze pointed out the importance of incorporat- ing learning style theory into Web page de- sign.13 She explained that because so many library users are bypassing the physical library and library instruction because of the Web accessibility of resources, Web portals must follow good instructional design principles. Randall Hensley’s 1991 article described how learning style–sen- sitive instruction could be offered at the reference desk based on verbal and non- verbal cues in the reference interview.14 Learning style theory has even been adapted to very specific situations, as evi- denced by Marie Carbo’s reading styles research, which identified students’ learn- ing styles during the act of reading.15 The learning styles of librarians them- selves also have been addressed in the lit- erature. Jin M. Choi found that the most common learning styles among academic librarians were the assimilator and the converger, according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory.16 There have been dozens of articles studying librarian and student learning styles and recommending instructional methods to accommodate them. Librar- ian learning style pioneers have not been shy about making their colleagues aware of this growing area of research. Clearly, learning style theory has gained a broad base of acceptance in the library field. But how well has this information been as- similated by librarians, and how often and how consciously are they incorporat- ing the tenets of learning style theory into their day-to-day teaching? This survey was conducted to ascertain how instruc- tion librarians and other librarians inter- ested in user education learn, assimilate, and utilize learning style theory. Methodology The 33-question survey instrument de- scribed in this paper was pretested by a convenience sample of eleven persons: FIGURE 1 Collection Size 264 College & Research Libraries May 2002 TABLE 2 Main Job Duties (Multiple Response) Variable Frequency Percent of Cases Reference 634 70.2 Administration 482 53.4 Instruction 469 51.9 Collection development 415 46.0 Research 200 22.1 Systems 83 9.2 Technical services 78 8.6 Circulation or reserve 75 8.3 Consulting 70 7.8 One-librarian library 53 5.9 Interlibrary loan 47 5.2 Archives 21 2.3 Total responses 2627 290.9 5 missing cases; 903 valid cases nine academic librarians, a graduate stu- dent in business, and a marketing consult- ant. Final modifications to its content and presentation were based on their input. A tab-delimited file containing name and address information for 1,500 mem- bers of the ALA’s Library Instruction Round Table, along with Instruc- tion Section members, was leased from the ALA in April 2000. The surveys were distributed via U.S. mail in April 2000. Between April and August, respondents returned 908 surveys, for a return rate of 60.5 percent, providing results that fall within +/- 3 percent at the 95 per- cent confidence level. Data were analyzed using SPSS 10 for Windows. Spearman’s rho was used to assess the correlation between nonparametric variables. Participant Demographics As shown in table 1, most respon- dents were from academic institu- tions, with lesser representation from other categories. A variety of sizes of institutions was repre- sented, as illustrated in figure 1, with a collection size of 100,000–499,999 being the largest category and with 40 percent of participants coming from large libraries with collections of more than 500,000 volumes. Table 2 shows the main job duties of the participants, with large numbers participating heavily in refer- FIGURE 2 Highest Degree Earned .3% 9.3% 90.2% .2% Missing doctorate master’s bachelor’s Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 265 ence, collection development, instruction, and administration. Most participants’ highest-earned degree was a master ’s, as shown in figure 2. Library science educa- tion is shown in table 3, with most respon- dents falling into the MLS category, as one might expect. As shown in figure 3, most participants fell into the baby-boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1965. Figure 4 shows that slightly more than 74 percent of respondents were female and slightly more than 25 percent were male. Results Awareness of Learn- ing Style Theory Overall, the vast ma- jority of participants (nearly 82%) indicated that they have heard of learning style theory (figure 5). This high percentage is what one might expect, given the penetration of this concept into the pro- fessional literature of librarianship. There was a slight, but significant, positive cor- relation between awareness of learning style theory and: • those with backgrounds involving significant course work in education; • having been a K–12 teacher; • the number of hours spent on du- ties relating to instructing library users; • the type of current work organization. Participants working in academic librar- ies, school library media centers, and library schools had a slightly higher awareness of TABLE 3 Library Science Education Attainment Variable Frequency Percent I have a master�s degree in the field. 873 96.3 I have a Ph.D. in the field. 22 2.4 I have taken some course work but earned no degree. 4 .4 I have an associate�s or bachelor�s degree. 4 .4 I have no formal library science education. 4 .4 Total responses 907 99.9 6 missing cases; 902 valid cases FIGURE 3 Birth Date Range 266 College & Research Libraries May 2002 25.1% 74.4% .4% male female Missing 4.0% 13.7% 81.9% .4% don’t remember no yes Missing FIGURE 4 Gender of Respondents FIGURE 5 Awareness of Learning Style Theory Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 267 learning style theory. As might be expected, these correlations would seem to indicate that the more involved one has been with education as a professional, the more likely it is that one will have knowledge of learn- ing style theory. Moreover, there was a slight, but significant, positive correlation between awareness of learning style theory and the desire to learn more about instruc- tion or education. Females were slightly more likely to be aware of learning style theory than were males. Table 4 shows de- tails on the calculated correlations. Validity of Learning Style Theory Most librarians who had heard of learn- ing style theory felt that it was valid or very valid, with 70.8 percent of respon- dents falling into these two categories (figure 6). In addition, librarians with more course work in education and those with more interest in increasing their knowledge about instruction or education were slightly more likely to believe in the validity of learning style theory. Table 5 shows the calculated cor- relations. TABLE 4 Correlations with Awareness of Learning Style Theory Variable Spearman�s N = number p = significance rho of cases (one-tailed) Number of hours spent on duties related to instructing library users .144 895 .000 Desire to learn more about instruction or education .114 892 .000 Significant course work in education .160 904 .000 K�12 teaching experience .104 904 .001 Type of work organization .135 903 .000 Gender .094 900 .002 FIGURE 6 Validity of Learning Style Theory 5.4% 26.4% 44.4% 5.6% .2% 18.0% don’t know very valid valid slightly valid not valid at all Missing 268 College & Research Libraries May 2002 some librarians feel that any teaching style will suffice to educate patrons about the library research process. Do some li- brarians feel that library research is an inferior subject, undeserving of the same level of thought or attention to instruc- tional design as other academic subjects? Moreover, there may be a sense, at least among librarians working in institutions of higher education, that students at this stage of life ought to be able to adjust to the teaching style of the professor rather than the professor adjusting to the learn- ing style of the student. These would make interesting topics for further study. Perhaps the reason there are opponents of learning style theory among survey participants is because librarians have simply not delved deeply enough into the education literature to know whether the theories are valid. In addition, much of the literature of librarianship relating to learning style theory has been anecdotal, aimed at raising awareness and provid- ing possible models. For the most part, library research into learning styles has not consisted of the kinds of rigorous sci- Most of the comments indicated that participants found learning style theory very valuable. One participant offered: “I believe that learning about learning styles was one of the single most helpful things I have encountered related to helping me in my own teaching. Specifically, I was made more aware of how different my own preferred learning style is from that of most of my students/patrons.” An- other participant wrote: “As both a librar- ian and teacher, I find learning style in- formation invaluable in crafting instruc- tion. Varied approaches, shifting from one exercise to another type involves and em- powers students.” Some participants were very outspo- ken in their criticism, as shown by one response: “I am a doctoral student in or- ganizational psychology and most of the learning styles stuff I’ve seen is absolutely worthless—about as valid as astrology! It terrifies me to see how blithely these tests are tossed around in educational set- tings.” Particularly interesting were the comments of one respondent who wrote: “I am skeptical about the significance of learning styles. Certainly, something like learning styles exists, but I suspect for most library research topics, any good teaching style will be quite suffi- cient for communicating the subject matter.” It is certainly reason- able for a librarian to be skeptical about a theory somewhat peripheral to his or her own area of in- terest. However, it is in- teresting to note that TABLE 5 Correlation with Ranking of Validity of Learning Style Theory Variable Spearman�s N = number p = significance rho of cases (one-tailed) Interest in learning more about instruction or education .160 736 .000 Amount of course work in education .092 393 .034 TABLE 6 Tested for Learning Style (multiple response) Variable Count Percent of Cases Personality type 682 87.1 Preferred sensory modality 171 21.8 Preferred cognitive style 127 16.2 Environmental preferences 26 3.3 Don�t remember 71 9.1 Total responses 1,077 137.5 125 missing cases; 783 valid cases Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 269 entific studies needed to test the validity of the theories as applied in the library setting. In the field of education itself, there is debate about the validity of vari- ous learning style constructs. Although many studies seem to prove the efficacy of customized learning style–sensitive instruction, other studies question these results. Learning Style Testing A majority of respondents (87.1%) had been tested for personality type (Myers Briggs, etc.) (table 6). Fewer had been tested for their preferred sensory modal- ity (22.8%), cognitive type (16.2%), or en- vironmental preferences (3.3%). One might speculate that the personality type testing was probably done as the result of the librarians’ employment and not in- tended for any learning style applications. It may be that some do not remember test- ing performed early in their lives, with those results incorporated during the early years of their education. It also may be that many of these librarians had al- ready completed their formal education before learning style theory began being broadly applied. As expressed by one par- ticipant, “My library school training was mostly before learning style became a sig- nificant issue, so I have had to pick up what I know primarily from conferences/ workshops and reading.” Forms of learn- ing style testing are being incorporated into freshman orientation programs and FIGURE 7 Interest in Being Tested for Learning Style TABLE 7 Correlation with Interest in Being Tested or Retested for Learning Style Variable Spearman�s N = number p = significance rho of cases (one-tailed) Desire to learn more about instruction or education .378 887 .000 Age .142 877 .000 27.0% 35.7% 24.9% 11.5% 1.0% very interested interested slightly interested not interested Missing 270 College & Research Libraries May 2002 introduction to the university courses.17 Perhaps testing would be useful for new library school students as well. A large percentage (62.7%) of respon- dents indicated that they were interested or very interested in being tested or re- tested to determine their learning style (fig- ure 7). This percentage is slightly less than one might expect, given the large number of librarians who feel that learning styles are valid. This may be because many li- brarians do not plan on returning to a for- mal learning environment or because they have enough of an understanding of their own learning styles through their own past experience and past testing. Individuals who feel a strong desire to learn more about instruction or education also are slightly more likely to have a stronger in- terest in being tested or retested for learn- ing style. Younger participants were slightly more likely to indicate an interest in being tested as well, perhaps because of a greater likelihood of furthering their educations or perhaps be- cause their awareness of their own learning styles might not be as high as more experienced participants. Table 7 shows the calculated correlations. Where Librarians Learn about Learning Style Theory Participants were most likely to be exposed to learning style theory in their daily work, while do- ing professional reading, or at conferences. A relatively small percentage (18.4%) of participants indicated that they had learned about learning styles in library school. A complete break- down of responses is shown in table 8. Although this does not speak well for the penetration of this theory into library school curricula, it does reinforce the abil- ity of librarians to share knowledge through the professional literature and conferences. It is not surprising that library school ranks fifth on the list. Diana Shonrock and Craig Mulder noted that, historically, a relatively small percentage of library schools have offered course work in bib- liographic instruction. 18 Ronald R. Powell also found that a surprisingly small percentage of librarians indicated that library school was where they ac- quired their bibliographic instruction knowledge.19 Desire to Learn More about Education and Instruction Nearly 84 percent of respondents indi- cated that they were interested or very interested in learning more about instruc- tion or education. Given the increasing focus on information literacy and patron education, this is undoubtedly a positive thing. Some librarians reported on their efforts to educate their colleagues about learning style theory. According to one respondent, TABLE 7 Where Librarians Learned about Learning Styles (multiple response) Variable Count Percent of Cases Professional reading 506 68.5 Conferences 384 52.0 On-the-job experience 280 37.9 Additional degree 157 21.2 Library school 136 18.4 Continuing education coursework 110 14.9 In-house training 102 13.8 Mentoring relationship 40 5.4 Don�t remember 40 5.4 Distance learning 34 4.6 Total responses 1,789 242.1 169 missing cases; 739 valid cases One of the biggest concerns ex- pressed by participants was that it is difficult or impossible to address different learning styles in the typical one-shot instruction session. Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 271 For many years I was like a “broken record” reminding colleagues of difficult learning styles, especially regarding online, CD-ROM, and Web databases. One group of people felt that handouts on a particular database should take care of most questions. Experience showed that not all library users could learn from a written explanation—some needed oral explanations, some a combo, some needed hands-on with coaching from a library staff member, etc. One size does not fit all users. Teaching Methods Used Librarians reported using a variety of teaching methods in the classroom. The categories with the most adherents, as one might expect, were lectures and online demonstrations. Some of the least fre- quently used techniques were flexible classroom design, distance learning, and audio- or videotaped instr uction. Though these were among the least popular tech- niques, they each gar- ner ed a respectable number of users. Table 9 represents a complete breakdown of respon- dents’ instructional methods. The variety of teach- ing methods was some- what surprising con- sidering the degree of negativity expressed in survey comments to- ward applying learn- ing style theory in li- braries. One of the big- gest concerns ex- pressed by participants was that it is difficult or impossible to address different learning styles in the typical one-shot instr uction session. “I would love to do more with learn- ing styles, but a fifty minute BI session doesn’t leave much time for anything,” wrote one participant. Gwendolyn Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper reported the same sort of time concerns expressed by schoolteach- ers and suggested that one way to gradu- ally incorporate multiple intelligence ac- commodations into the curriculum is to incorporate into any given unit at least one activity geared toward each learning style.20 Some librarians expressed doubts about the validity of some instructional methods. As one respondent noted, “An unfortunate trend in recent education seems to be the ‘team’ approach to assign- ments. Individual achievement is no longer considered the ideal, apparently. Many students at the reference desk com- plain that their grade is going to be low- ered because one or more members of their ‘assignment team’ is slacking or TABLE 8 Classroom Teaching Methods Used (multiple response) Variable Count Percent of Cases Online demonstrations 755 84.5 Online demos with simultaneous student experimentation 456 51.0 Humor or stories 444 49.7 Web-based instruction 435 48.7 Assignments 425 47.5 Individual exercises 407 45.5 Class discussions 401 44.9 Contextual learning 381 42.6 Collaborative/cooperative learning 378 42.3 Copies of lecture notes/slides provided 340 38.0 Graphic organizers 231 25.8 Computer-assisted instruction 138 15.4 Flexible classroom design 132 14.8 Student-controlled learning 123 13.8 Distance learning 94 10.5 I do not participate in classroom-based instruction 93 10.4 Audiotaped or videotaped instruction 54 6.0 Total responses 5,287 591.4 14 missing cases; 894 valid cases 272 College & Research Libraries May 2002 coasting, content to settle for a lower grade based on other students’ efforts.” Other librarians were enthusiastic about embracing learning styles in the classroom: “I love teaching! Providing li- brary instruction enables me to combine teaching and reference librarianship. In all my classes, I try ‘to tell’ a little, ‘to show’ a lot, and to allow sufficient time in each section of instruction for ‘hands- on’ experience.” Another respondent wrote: “My current approach to teaching different learning styles is to create as many active learning opportunities as possible to give students a way to show me that they are learning what I think I’m teaching.” A third respondent addressed the time concern by saying, “It is abso- lutely essential to incorporate learning opportunities that address differing learn- ing styles into library instruction. It is time for all teaching, but more so for our pro- fession, for we often don’t get multiple opportunities with a class or group of learners.” Conclusion Learning style and education in general are areas of ongoing interest for librar- ians. This would seem a logical out- growth of several trends, including the advent of the information age, the adop- tion of information literacy standards, and the need for constant training and retraining in so many fields, including librarianship. Some have argued, as Herbert S. White did in his 1991 opinion piece, that biblio- graphic instruction knowledge is best ac- quired on the job.21 However, a great deal has changed in the ten years since White’s article appeared. Librarians in schools and higher education continue to focus on patron education and have become more rigorous in their approaches to implementing information literacy stan- dards in their curricula. Public, technical services, and special librarians—who have traditionally been somewhat less concerned with education and instruc- tion—have recently been focusing more on these areas. Regardless of institution type or position, librarians are bringing their patrons, themselves, and their staffs up to speed on new technologies, espe- cially in the areas of technology literacy and the Internet. The information world in which librar- ians operate is increasingly a dynamic, changing environment, necessitating con- stant attention to education and reeduca- tion. It could be argued that education is no longer the sole purview of biblio- graphic instruction librarians; profession- als in all areas of librarianship need a bet- ter understanding of education and in- struction in order to prosper in their ca- reers. As a result, library schools need to bolster their efforts to ensure that students recognize the importance of teaching to librarians, regardless of whether they plan to embark on a library instruction career. Among the many respondents who expressed this sentiment was one who wrote: “I wish library schools had taught this when I was working on my MLS.” Suggestions for Future Research Required course work in education and instruction seems to be indicated for all students who intend to become librarians, but what can be done for the librarians who are already in the trenches? It would seem that increasing the attention in the professional literature to this area would be indicated. Two areas of research par- ticularly stand out as needing further at- tention. First, librarians need to put aside their concerns about time limitations and develop and share more models of learn- ing style–sensitive instruction as applied in both the one-shot and the extended contact settings. This will not be easy be- cause it will require an outlay of time and intellectual resources at a time when many librarians already feel stretched to the breaking point. Perhaps many more of these models already exist but have yet to be published. After these models have been developed, they need to be tested in a rigorous, scientific manner so that librar- ians can know what works and what does not. Perceptions and Practices of Learning Styles in Library Instruction 273 Notes 1. Thomas C. DeBello, “Comparison of Eleven Major Learning Styles Models: Variables, Ap- propriate Populations, Validity of Instrumentation and the Research Behind Them,” Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International 6 (July–Sept. 1990): 203–22. 2. Rita Stafford Dunn and Kenneth J. Dunn, Teaching Students through Their Individual Learn- ing Styles (Reston, Va.: Reston Publishing, 1978). 3. Howard Gardner, Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century (New York: Basic Books, 1999). 4. John Naim Harb, et al., Teaching through the Cycle: Application of Learning Style Theory to Engineering Education at Brigham Young University (Provo, Utah: Bringham Young Univ. Pr., 1995). 5. Daniel D. Barron, “Doing It with Style or Different Strokes for Different Folks: Learning Styles for School Library Media Specialists,” School Library Media Activities Monthly 14 (Oct. 1997): 48–50. 6. Sonia Bodi, “Teaching Effectiveness and Bibliographic Instruction: The Relevance of Learn- ing Styles,” College & Research Libraries 54 (Mar. 1990): 113–19; —–, “Learning Style Theory and Bibliographic Instruction: The Quest for Effective Bibliographic Instruction,” in Academic Librar- ies: Achieving Excellence in Higher Education. Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference of the Asso- ciation of College and Research Libraries, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 12–14, 1992 (Chicago: ACRL, 1992). 7. Elizabeth J. McNeer, “Learning Theories and Library Instruction,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 117 (Nov. 1991): 294–97. 8. Eileen E. Allen, “Active Learning and Teaching: Improving Postsecondary Library In- struction,” Reference Librarian 52 (1995): 89–113. 9. Dorothy N. Bowen, “Learning Style–based Bibliographic Instruction,” International Library Review 20 (July 1988): 405–13. 10. Sally G. Wayman, “The International Student in the Academic Library,” Journal of Aca- demic Librarianship 9 (Jan. 1984): 336–41. 11. Rita Dunn, “Learning Styles of the Multiculturally Diverse,” Emergency Librarian 20 (Mar./ Apr. 1993): 24–32; ———, Mark Beasley, and Karen Buchanan, “What Do You Believe about How Culturally Diverse Students Learn?” Emergency Librarian 22 (Sept./Oct. 1994): 8–14. 12. Keith Gresham, “Experiential Learning Theory, Library Instruction, and the Electronic Classroom,” Colorado Libraries 25 (spring 1999): 28–31. 13. Terri Holtze, “Applying Learning Style Theory to Web Page Design,” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 5 (2000): 71–80. 14. Randall Hensley, “Learning Style Theory and Learning Transfer Principles During Refer- ence Interview Instruction,” Library Trends 39 (winter 1991): 203–9. 15. Marie Carbo, “Reading Styles Times Twenty,” Educational Leadership 54 (Mar. 1997): 38–42. 16. Jin M. Choi, “Learning Styles of Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 50 (Nov. 1989): 691–99. 17. Betsy O. Barefoot and Paul P. Fidler, 1994 National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programs: Continuing Innovations in the Collegiate Curriculum (Columbia, S.C.: National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of South Carolina, 1996). 18. Diana Shonrock, and Craig Mulder, “Instruction Librarians: Acquiring the Proficiencies Critical to Their Work,” College & Research Libraries 54 (Mar. 1993): 137–49. 19. Ronald R. Powell, “Sources of Professional Knowledge for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 49 (July 1988): 332–40. 20. Gwendolyn Mettetal, Cheryl Jordan, and Sheryll Harper, “Attitudes toward a Multiple Intelligences Curriculum,” Journal of Educational Research 91 (Nov./Dec. 1997): 115–19. 21. Herbert S. White, “Bibliographic Instruction and the Library School Curriculum,” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 32 (fall/winter 1991): 194–202.