Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007: Full paper: Willems 1070 When words fail: A case for multimodality in e-learning Julie Willems School of Humanities, Communications and Social Sciences, Monash University. Research conducted to study the impact of learning styles in e-learning environments examined three cohorts (undergraduate e-learners, graduate e-learners, and educators working in electronic educational environments in higher education) to identify the impact of learning styles in e-learning design. Quantitative data was gathered from the research cohorts through the Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Soloman, 1991, 1994). In addition, qualitative responses were collected from the participants using open-ended questions via a survey questionnaire. Of the quantitative results, all three cohorts rated a moderately strong preference for visual communication over text (verbal or written communication). The results are consistent with other research findings (Felder & Spurlin, 2005), and they suggest that, at times, words do fail. These results support a case for multimodality in e- learning environments. This goes beyond situating vast chunks of text in e-learning environments and towards the inclusion of various forms of visual communication in e- learning designs. Further, it is argued, that at a time when various forms of historically text- reliant communications media are shifting towards visually inclusive constructs, that this adoption within academia is also socio-historically appropriate. Keywords: learning styles, e-learning, visual and verbal learning, e-learning design, visual communication, multimodal and multiliterate learning environments Background As a qualified and experienced educator, I had ventured into a tertiary e-learning environment as a teaching assistant. The unit was fairly conventional in terms of it being predominantly text-based. The print materials received by the student cohort at the commencement of the semester were also replicated within the electronic learning environment. Assessment in the course was via the submission of both written essays and compulsory written forum postings. This particular unit structure, with its predominant reliance on the written (and spoken) word, was not unusual from other e-learning environments that I had seen before and since. Yet this e-learning environment was in contrast to the learning environments that I had been used to working in. I had entered the realm of tertiary e-learning, from the face-to-face teaching environment of senior secondary classrooms wherein my learning designs had incorporated a wide variety of media for both delivery of content and opportunities for learning. My doctoral research focus, which at that time was in its infancy, was ultimately to be guided by this experience: the anecdotal frustrations by some of the student cohort with their predominantly text-based e-learning environment, and my own inability to help generate a more dynamic, multimodal (involving different media and methods to deliver information) and historically-appropriate learning environment in which students could learn. The doctoral research was eventually to examine the impact of learning styles in e-learning in order to inform e-learning design. It gathered quantitative and qualitative data across three cohorts of interest: undergraduate e-learners, graduate e-learners, and educators teaching in electronic learning environments. The data was gathered using a quantitative research instrument and qualitative participant responses. One aspect of the results generated, the visual and verbal learning preferences of the three cohorts, is the focus of this paper. Learning styles The theory of learning styles is a means for both explaining individual differences in learning and suggesting how educators may best design their instructional environments so that for the students, effective learning may take place. Learning styles can be defined as the unique manner in which children and adults think and learn (Litzinger & Osif, 1993). They are the distinctive individual patterns of learning, which vary from person to person. Kolb (1984) has argued