1

Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education

Volume 5 Number 1 n

January 2007 d

Printed in the U.S.A. m

Using Learning Style Instruments .

y

to Enhance Student Learning d

/

Thomas F. Hawk 4

Department of Management, College of Business, Frostburg State University, 101 Braddock 9

Road, Frostburg, MD 21532, e-mail: [email protected] 0

Amit J. Shah
b

Department of Management, College of Business, Frostburg State University, 101 Braddock d

Road, Frostburg, MD 21532, e-mail: [email protected] i

ABSTRACT i

n
 l

The emergence of numerous learning style models over the past 25 years has broughtin n

creasing attention to the idea that students learn in diverse ways and that one approach to r

teaching does not work for every student or even most students. We have reviewed five n

learning style instruments (the Kolb Learning Style Indicator, the Gregorc Style Delin 3

eator, the Felder–Silverman Index of Learning Styles, the VARK Questionnaire, and the 3

Dunn and Dunn Productivity Environmental Preference Survey) in this article in order e

to describe the learning style modes or dimensions measured in the instruments; find the e

common measures and the differences; report on research on instrument validity, reli a

ability, and possible improvement in student performance; suggest classroom activities n

that work with the different student learning styles; and recommend selection of models n

under several conditions. We also review one additional learning style instrument, the t

Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory, as a complementary approach to using one n

or more of the first five learning style instruments. b

Subject Areas: Learning Style Models. .

INTRODUCTION d

We believe that it is the exception rather than the rule that doctoral programs in
W

thebroadly defined management field provide more than a token effort at educating
O

i
 n

their doctoral students on adult pedagogy (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) and phi
L

losophy of education (Noddings, 1998). We also believe that most faculty in higher r

education initially adopt a teaching style that merges (1) the ways they prefer to u

learn and (2) approaches to teaching they saw as effective for their own learning in
u

their higher education programs. As a result, it is likely that many faculty in higher A

education are either unfamiliar with learning style models and their potential to l

inform and enhance the learning processes in the classroom or are uncomfortable
g

experimenting with or utilizing learning styles other than their own preference n

because it takes them out of their own comfort zone.

t

Within the last three decades, the proposition that students learn and study p

in different ways has emerged as a prominent pedagogical issue. Learning styles e

1 o

,
2 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning
D

(Claxton & Murrell, 1987; Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004a, 2004b) r

and learning style models (Gregorc & Ward, 1977; Gregorc, 1979, 1985; Kolb, t

1984; Felder & Silverman, 1988; Dunn & Dunn, 1975; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, n

1982, 1989; Entwistle & Tait, 1995; Fleming, 2001; Duff, 2004; among numerous r

others) have offered descriptive typologies that range from relatively fixed student i

natural dispositions to modifiable preferences for learning and studying. m

The implications for faculty are significant in that faculty are likely to reach 1

only some of the students in a given course if they assume that all students learn 1

the same way or that one teaching approach will connect with all students. The 0

apparent conclusion is that faculty who are consciously aware of their students’ 9

learning styles as well as their own are in a position to make more informed choices .

in course material, design, and learning processes to broaden the opportunities for .

effective learning in their courses. We believe that a use of a variety of teaching and o

learning approaches has the potential to enhance the learning and performance for i

a wider range of adult students in a course and to expand the learning approaches N

with which adult students are comfortable and capable of learning. i

In this article, we review five prominent learning style models and one ap n

proaches to studying model that have instruments that claim to give faculty and L

b
 r

students an indication of an individual’s learning style or approaches to studying

o

dispositions and/or preferences. We describe each learning style model; report on 7

research on instrument validity, reliability, and student performance; compare the 2

models to find commonalities and differences; examine possible ways to resolve e

the differences; recommend selection under several conditions; offer suggestions T

for classroom activities; and suggest avenues for future research. a

LEARNING STYLE MODELS AND INSTRUMENTS

(

Learning style is a component of the wider concept of personality. McAdams and i

Pals (2006) offer a five-principle model of the whole person that encompasses evo a

lutionary design for human nature, dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, l

self-defining life narratives, and culture/social contexts. Learning style falls into /

the categories of dispositional traits and characteristic adaptations where there are -

differences across individual humans but there are groupings of humans who have o

common or similar learning style characteristics. n

Advocates of learning style models (Claxton & Murrell, 1987; Coffield

W

et al., 2004a, b) postulate that students learn in different ways. Taking that as a
O

basic premise leads to the implications that higher education faculty should not as
L
 i

sume (1) that all adult students learn the same way and (2) that a faculty member’s r

own dispositions and/or preferences for learning are broad enough to accommodate u

the learning needs of most or all the students in the course. Rather, because the
u

premise is that adult students learn in different ways, faculty in higher education A

would have a responsibility to expand their repertoire of learning activities to em c

brace as wide a field of adult student learning styles as possible in order to achieve
g

more effective learning. n

We will review six well-known and widely available learning style instru
t

ments (Figure 1) offered by Kolb, Gregorc, Felder–Silverman, Fleming, and Dunn p

and Dunn as well as the Entwistle and Tait Revised Approaches to Studying e

model. In each review, we will describe the learning styles that emerge from each t

Hawk and Shah 3

D

o
 a

Figure 1: Six prominent learning style models. r

instrument and review the instrument validity, reliability, and student performance ,

research, where available. y

Kolb Experiential Learning Theory r

The first model is the Kolb Experiential Learning Theory (Kolb, 1984). This ex /

periential model defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created 2

through the transformation of experience” (p. 26). Learning is a holistic set of pro e

T
cesses that are continuous, with a lesser emphasis on outcomes. Learning style is e

the “generalized differences in learning orientation based on the degree to which a

people emphasize the four modes of the learning process” (p. 76). The model as n

serts a four-mode or four-process learning cycle that covers and generally starts s

with Concrete Experience (CE), moving to Reflective Observation (RO), then to s

Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and finally to Active Experimentation (AE), with i

the most effective and complete learning taking place when learning activities em r

brace all four modes. However, depending on the individual’s preferences, learning e

may start at any one of the other modes in the cycle. /

Kolb describes CE and AC as bipolar on a continuum and orthogonal to a -

second bipolar continuum of RO and AE. Individual learning styles result from a n

combination of two adjacent mode preferences in the experiential learning cycle n

leading to four basic learning styles: Diverger (CE and RO), Assimilator (RO and W

AC), Converger (AC and AE), and Accommodator (AE and CE). Individuals have O

a preference for one of the four learning styles but can and should learn to use
L

the other modes. Figure 2 presents the Kolb Experiential Learning Cycle (adapted y

from Kolb, 1984). u

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is a commercially available ques

u

O
 tionnaire (www.learningfromexperience.com) with twelve items where respon A

dents rank-order four sentence endings that correspond to the four learning modes. l

Scores are between 13 and 48. Students and faculty can self-administer, self-score,
g

and self-interpret the LSI. Kolb (1984) found moderate support for the validity of n

his instrument. There has been extensive research on the validity and reliability
t

of the instrument. Some research (e.g., Sims, Veres, & Shake, 1989; Cornwell & l

Manfredo, 1994) has raised questions about the validity of the instrument, result e

ing in revisions to the instrument. Most research, however, has supported both i

4 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

Figure 2: Kolb experiential learning model. r

Diverger i

Accommodator e

(AE/CE) Active Converger Experience

(AC/AE)
Experimentation Concrete Experiencing
Doing Reflecting Conceptualization (RO/AC)
r

(CE/RO) r

y
N

P
.

w
L

il
,
e

m W

/d il
e
o

y
i

/1

11
1
O
/j
.

Reflective
n
1540
-
lin
46
09 e
.

Observation
2007
.

00125
.

ib

by
r

o
r

Thinking
d n

[1

Abstract
7

in

Assimilitator
r

its validity and reliability (Hickox, 1991; Iliff, 1994; Kayes, 2002). Furthermore, /

neuroscience research (Zull, 2002; Kolb & Kolb, 2005) supports the whole brain 2

involvement in effective learning through the full Kolb experiential learning cycle. e

Divergers have a strong imaginative ability, are good at seeing things from e

different perspectives, are creative, and work well with people. Assimilators have a

abilities to create theoretical models, prefer inductive reasoning, and would rather n

deal with abstract ideas. Convergers have a strong practical orientation, are gener s

ally deductive in their thinking, and tend to be unemotional. Accommodators like s

doing things, are risk takers, are in the here and now, and solve problems intuitively. n

Kolb (1984), Svinicki and Dixon (1987), Vince (1998), and Wynd and r

Bozman (1996) suggest numerous classroom approaches that faculty can use to e

accommodate the diverse learning modes of their students indicated by the Kolb /

LSI. Wynd and Bozman (1996) suggest that traditional students generally will -

prefer starting in the RO/AC quadrant while nontraditional learners will prefer the n

AC/AE quadrant. Kolb (1984) and Brokaw and Merz (2000) indicate that matching n

)
 o

Table 1: Activities that accommodate Kolb learning processes. n

Concrete Reflective Abstract Active r

Experience Observation Conceptualization Experimentation

r

Lecture Examples Thought Questions Lecture Lecture Examples s

Problem Sets Brainstorming Papers Laboratories A

Readings Discussions Analogies Case Studies c

Films Logs Text Readings Homework e

Simulations Personal Journals Projects Projects e

Laboratories Model Building Fieldwork b

Observations Model Critiques

a

Field work c

Source: Kolb (1984); Svinicki and Dixon (1987). a

0
 9

Hawk and Shah 5

D

learning activities with learning style enhances student performance in courses. r

Table 1 below provides a number of learning activities to support each learning t

mode. n

Gregorc Learning Style Model i

The second model is the Gregorc Learning/Teaching Style Model (Gregorc & d

Ward, 1977; Gregorc, 1979, 1985, 1997; Butler, 1986). This is a model, based .

in phenomenological research as well as Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, that .

defines learning style as “distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues 4

about the mediation abilities of individuals and how their minds relate to the world 0

and, therefore, how they learn” (Gregorc, 1979, p. 19). Gregorc claims that individ 1

uals have natural predispositions for learning along four bipolar, continuous mind b

qualities that function as mediators as individuals learn from and act upon their en a

vironments. Those mind qualities are abstract and concrete perception, sequential a

and random ordering, deductive and inductive processing, and separative and asso L

ciative relationships. The Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) provides metrics on the e

n
 l

first two qualities, perception and ordering, giving an individual a score from 10 to i

40 in each of four learning styles of Concrete-Sequential (CS), Abstract-Sequential r

(AS), Abstract-Random (AR), and Concrete-Random (CR), with a maximum of n

100 points for all four. Gregorc describes Concrete and Abstract as orthogonal to 3

Sequential and Random. Although the scores indicate the individual’s innate dis ]

positions for one, two, three, or all of the styles, individuals can improve their use t

of the mind qualities that do not score high. Figure 3 presents the Gregorc Learning m

Model (adapted from Gregorc, 1985).

C

The GSD is commercially available (www.gregorc.com) and asks the re i

spondent to rank order ten sets of four words that correspond to the four poles of h

the two mind qualities. Students and faculty can self-administer, self-score, and /

self-interpret the GSD. Gregorc (1979, 1985) provides only limited research on the l

validity and reliability of his instrument. Joniak and Isaksen (1988) and O’Brien .

(1990) found moderate support for reliability but only partial and limited support c

for the validity of the GSD. r

Figure 3: Gregorc learning style model. )

l
 Concrete i

CS CR 40 r

30 r

20

10

10 20 30 40

Sequential Random r

40 30 20 10

10

20 e

30 t

AS AR p

40 l

Abstract l

6 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

a
 d

Table 2: Activities that accommodate Gregorc learning styles. r

Concrete Abstract Abstract Concrete /

Sequential Sequential Random Random e

Checklists Lectures Mapping Brainstorming i

Worksheets Outlines Group Work Creating Possibilities o

Outlines Documenting Cartoons Case Studies i

Charts Lengthy Reading Music Hands-on Experience 1

Maps Audio Tapes Humor Mapping 1

Demonstrations Writing Reports Discussion Optional Reading 4

Field Trips Doing Research Role Play Simulations 2

Diagrams Term Papers Interviewing Investigations 0

Flowcharts Instructional Media Keeping Journals Problem Solving .

Source: Butler (1986). a

The CS learner prefers direct, hands-on experience, wants order and a logical ,

sequence to tasks, and follows directions well. The AS learner likes working with y

ideas and symbols, is logical and sequential in thinking, and likes to focus on e

the task without distractions. The AR learner focuses attention on the people and a

the surroundings, prefers discussions and conversations that are wide ranging, and [

7
 /

wants time to reflect on experiences. The CR learner is experimental and a risk /

taker, likes to explore unstructured problems, makes intuitive leaps in solving them, .

and uses trial and error to work out solutions. e

Butler (1986) offers an extensive discussion of classroom approaches that s

accommodate the learning styles revealed through the GSD. The CS learner relates C

best to the concrete world with hands-on experience, prefers a structured, step-by i

step learning process using all of the senses, and wants explicit and clear directions. t

The AS learner relates best to the world of ideas in a sequential and structured n

manner, uses the mind to explore, likes well-researched documentation, and is very b

analytical and evaluative. The AR learner relates best to the world of emotions and i

the spirit, prefers a nonlinear order that is harmonious, wants personal experiences o

and supportive relationships, and works for good communication. The CR learner m

also relates well to the concrete world, prefers a nonlinear order, looks for the big -

picture, uses experience to investigate, and is intuitive, creative, and a risk taker. t

Table 2 above provides a number of learning activities to support each learning n

mode. e

The VARK Model r

r
The third model is the VARK Model (Fleming, 2001), a sensory model that is an u

extension of the earlier neuro-linguistic model (Eicher, 1987). The acronym VARK
u

stands for Visual (V), Aural (A), Read/Write (R), and Kinesthetic (K). Fleming A

(2001) defines learning style as “an individual’s characteristics and preferred ways c

of gathering, organizing, and thinking about information. VARK is in the category

g

of instructional preference because it deals with perceptual modes. It is focused n

on the different ways that we take in and give out information” (p. 1). The only
t

perceptual modes, or senses, it does not address are taste and smell. The VARK p

Inventory provides metrics in each of the four perceptual modes, with individuals e

having preferences for anywhere from one to all four. Individual students have t

Hawk and Shah 7

D

Figure 4: VARK learning model. r

m
 h

VISUAL AURAL i

12 12 i

6
6
1

0 0

6 r

6 d

12
12
L

KINESTHETIC READ/WRITE e

relative preferences along each of the four perceptual modes but can learn to 7

function in the other modes. Figure 4 presents the VARK model (adapted from 0

Fleming, 2001). e

Fleming (2001) reports that about 41% of the population who have taken the T

s
instrument online have single style preferences, 27% two preferences, 9% three,
a

and 21% have a preference for all four styles. n

The free VARK questionnaire (www.vark-learn.com) offers thirteen state n

ments that describe a situation and asks the respondent to pick one or more of three s

or four actions that the respondent would take. Each action corresponds with a i

VARK Learning Style preference. The total of all four scores ranges from 13 to 48, a

with individuals having a preference for one, two, three, or all four of the learning l

channels. Students and faculty can self-administer, self-score, and self-interpret /

the VARK Inventory. -

There are also differences in learning approaches for the four VARK Learn o

ing Styles. Visual learners prefer maps, charts, graphs, diagrams, brochures, flow n

charts, highlighters, different colors, pictures, word pictures, and different spatial
W

arrangements. Aural learners like to explain new ideas to others, discuss topics with
O

other students and their teachers, use a tape recorder, attend lectures and discussion
L

groups, and use stories and jokes. Read/Write learners prefer lists, essays, reports, r

textbooks, definitions, printed handouts, readings, manuals, Web pages, and taking u

notes. Kinesthetic learners like field trips, trial and error, doing things to understand
u

them, laboratories, recipes and solutions to problems, hands-on approaches, using A

r
 t

their senses, and collections of samples. Fleming (2001) offers extensive sugges c

tions for classroom approaches for matching teaching styles and learning styles.
g

Table 3 summarizes a number of learning activities to support each learning style. n

Fleming (2001) discusses the validity of the instrument, presenting research

t

that supports the use of the instrument in identifying learning preferences of p

students. Beyond his reports, there is no other research on validity or reliability. e

8 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

Table 3: Activities that accommodate VARK learning styles. r

Visual Aural Read/Write Kinesthetic /

Diagrams Debates, Arguments Books, Texts Real-Life Examples r

Graphs Discussions Handouts Examples i

Colors Conversations Reading Guest Lecturers o

o
Charts Audio Tapes Written Feedback Demonstrations i

Written Texts Video+Audio Note Taking Physical Activity 1

Different Fonts Seminars Essays Constructing 1

Spatial Arrangement Music Multiple Choice Role Play 4

Designs Drama Bibliographies Working Models 2

Source: Fleming (2001). 5

Fleming also presents the results of research that indicate higher student perfor P

mance in courses when faculty match learning activities with students’ learning l

styles as determined by the VARK instrument. l

Felder–Silverman Learning/Teaching Style Model n

The fourth model is the Felder–Silverman Learning/Teaching Style Model (Felder /

& Silverman, 1988). This model, originating in the engineering sciences, defines .

learning style as “the characteristic strengths and preferences in the ways indi e

viduals take in and process information” (Felder & Silverman, 1988, p. 674). It s

asserts that individuals have preferences along five bipolar continua: the Active C

t
 Reflective, the Sensing-Intuitive, the Verbal-Visual, the Sequential-Global, and the i

Intuitive-Deductive. Figure 5 presents the Felder–Silverman Model (adapted from t

Felder & Silverman, 1988). n

Figure 5: Feldr–Silverman learning style model. r

0 i

11 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 )

Active i

Reflective e

o
by

Sensing
o
t

f h

s
a

e
pp

Visual
lic
;
a

le

OA

e
a
a

Sequential
r
t
t
iv
ic
le e

Intuitive Verbal Global

C

o
r

e m

r
s
go
v

r e
L
u d

ic
le
e
s

Hawk and Shah 9

D

w
 n

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) provides metrics for all but the Intuitive r

Deductive dimension, with scores showing the strength of an individual’s pref t

erence for the indicated continuum. Individual students have relative preferences n

along each of the four but can learn to function in the other direction. r

The ILS is a free, 44-item questionnaire (www.ncsu.edu/effective teaching) i

that asks the respondent to choose one of two endings to a sentence that focuses m

on some aspect of learning. Scoring is 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, with 1 and 3 showing a 1

balance along the continuum, 5 and 7 showing a moderate preference for one end 1

of the continuum, and 9 and 11 a strong preference for one end or the other. The 0

students and faculty can self-administer, self-score, and self-interpret this inventory. 9

Felder clearly states that the model and instrument are still under development. We .

were unable to find any published research that addresses the validity, reliability, .

or student performance based on the use of the instrument. o

Active learners prefer doing things, particularly in groups. Reflective learners i

work better on their own, with time to think about the task before doing it. Sensing N

learners like facts, data, and experimentation and work well with detail. Intuiting i

learners prefer ideas and theories, particularly when they can grasp new ideas and n

innovation. Verbal learners like to hear their information and engage in discussion, L

especially when they can speak and hear their own words. Visual learners like
 o

words, pictures, symbols, flow charts, diagrams, and reading books. Sequential 7

learners prefer linear reasoning, step-by-step procedures, and material that comes 2

to them in a steady stream. Global learners are strong integrators and synthesizers, e

making intuitive discoveries and connections to see the overall system or pattern. T

Felder and Silverman (1988) discuss a number of teaching approaches useful a

to match the learning preferences that emerge from the use of the ILS. Active learn n

ers like trying something out, doing it, and seeing if it works, particularly in groups. s

Reflective learners want to think it through first, take notes in class, and work alone. s

Sensors like facts, solving problems, working with details, practicality, and real i

world connections. Intuitors like discovering possibilities, grasping new concepts, a

and working with abstractions. Visual learners want to see pictures, diagrams, e

flow charts, films, and demonstrations. Verbal learners like hearing and discussing /

information, taping lectures, and explaining themselves. Sequential learners like -

to move step-by-step through the material, progress logically to the solution to a o

problem. Global learners want to see the big picture, take in information randomly n

before putting it all together, and work intuitively. W

Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model r

 a

The fifth learning style model is the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model as u

measured by the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey or PEPS (Dunn &

u

Dunn, 1975, 1989; Dunn et al., 1982). Dunn (1990) defines learning style as “the A

way in which individuals begin to concentrate on, process, internalize, and retain l

new and difficult information” (p. 353). Dunn and Dunn suggest that there are five
g

learning style stimuli and several elements within each stimulus. The five stimuli n

and their respective elements are Environmental (sound, light, temperature, and
t

room design), Emotional (motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure), p

Sociological (learning alone, in a pair, with peers, with a teacher, and mixed), e

10 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

d
 f

Figure 6: Dunn and Dunn Productivity Environment Preference Survey model. r

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 i

Prefers Quiet
1

Prefers Dim Light Prefers Visual Learning

.

Prefers Cool Environment Prefers Informal Design Low Motivation x

Low Persistence
Low Responsibility b

Doesnít Like Structure Prefers Tactical Learning

y

Prefers Learning Alone

No Authority Figures Present Doesnít Learn in Several Ways Low Auditory Learner
J

Low Visual Learner o

Low Tactical Learner Prefers Kinesthetic Learning

d

Low Kinesthetic Learner Doesnít Prefer Intake

a

Prefers Evening
Doesnít Prefer Late Morning Doesnít Prefer Afternoon Doesnít Prefer Mobility
Prefers Sound Prefers Intake
H
a

i
r
n
y

a
.

Prefers Bright Light Prefers Morning

r
w
i

Prefers Warm Environment

y
N

Prefers Late Morning

.

P
o

m L

Prefers Formal Design

/
,

High Motivation
i

/ Prefers Afternoon
W
1

0
i

High Persistence
l

Prefers Mobility
.

y
1

High Responsibility
1

/
O
j

. n

1
l

Wants Structure
i

5
e

Prefers Learning With Others

4 L

6
i

0 b

Wants Authority Figures Present

r

9 r

y
.

Learns in Several Ways

0
o
7
n
.

Prefers Auditory Learning

0

Physiological (perceptual, intake while learning, chronological energy pattern, and [

mobility needs), and Psychological Processing (global or analytic, hemisphericity, /

and impulsive or reflective). Figure 6 presents the Dunn and Dunn PEPS model
S

(adapted from Dunn et al., 1982). e

Dunn and Dunn’s PEPS is a commercially available questionnaire (www. s

humanresources.com) that offers a set of 100 questions covering all five stimuli C

and their respective elements. Scores range from 20 to 80, with 40 to 60 reflecting i

a low or balanced preference for the two ends of each of the 20 elements, and 20 to t
 t

40 or 60 to 80 reflecting a stronger preference for the indicated polar end. Students n

and faculty can self-administer, self-score, and self-interpret the PEPS if purchased b

online. i

Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley, and Gorman (1995) provide an extensive anal o

ysis of 42 research pieces about the Dunn and Dunn model that validates the model. s

Kavale, Hirshoren, and Forness (1998) and Coffield et al. (2004a, b), however, -

challenge some of the findings in Dunn et al. (1995). Dunn et al. also present re t

search that shows enhanced student performance in courses when faculty match n

learning activities to student learning style preferences as determined by the PEPS y

questionnaire. n

The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory r

The final model we consider is the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory

u

model or RASI (Entwistle, Hanley, & Hounsell, 1979; Entwistle & Tait, 1995; A

Duff, 2004). This model defines learning style as “the composite of characteristic l

cognitive, affective, and psychological factors that serves as an indicator of how an

g

individual interacts with and responds to the learning environment” (Duff, 2004, n

p. 56). The model provides scaled measures for individuals on three approaches to
 t

studying: deep, surface, and strategic. Students have varying degrees of preferences p

for the three approaches, with one of the approaches being the most preferred. e

Hawk and Shah 11

D

The RASI is a 30-question (short form) or 44-question instrument (long form) r

where students respond with one of five ratings from strongly agree to strongly t

disagree. Scores for each of the three approaches to studying range between 10 (the n

lowest preference) and 50 (the highest preference). The total of the three scores r

can vary from one student to the next. The short form instrument is available i

free (http://www.scotcit.ac.uk:8082/resources/pv rasi.doc), however, there is no m

scoring available at that site. 1

Duff (2004) describes students with a preference for a deep approach to 1

studying as individuals who look for meaning in what they are learning and enjoy 0

the learning activity; make connections to previous learning; use logic, reasoning, 9

7
and evidence well; and examine critically what they have learned and are learning. .

Students with a surface approach to studying use primarily memorization to learn; .

have difficulty using logic, reasoning, and evidence; make fewer connections to o

previous learning; and have difficulty studying. Students with a preference for a i

strategic approach to studying want to organize their studying routines, manage N

their time, and learn what is expected to achieve the highest grade possible. i

Duff (1997, 2002, 2004) report on extensive research using confirmatory n

factor analysis that supports the validity and reliability of the RASI. L

COMPARISON OF THE FIRST FIVE MODELS 3

Now that we have introduced and described the learning style models, how do they e

compare and contrast? Table 4 provides a summary of the learning style definitions. e

Omitting the RASI because of its approaches to studying focus, Table 5 shows n

where the first five learning style models have elements in common, if we assume d

a general commonality of terminology and theoretical comparability. s

Table 4: Summary of learning definitions. b

r
 y

Kolb Experiential Learning Model: Generalized differences in learning orientation .

based on the degree to which people emphasize the four modes of the learning process t

(Kolb, 1984, p. 76). a

Gregorc Learning Style Model: Distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues n

about the mediation abilities of individuals and how their minds relate to the world and, n

therefore, how they learn (Gregorc, 1979, p. 19).

W

Felder and Silverman Learning Style Model: The characteristic strengths and O

preferences in the ways individuals take in and process information (Felder &
L

Silverman, 1988, p. 674). r

VARK Model: An individual’s characteristics and preferred ways of gathering, u

organizing, and thinking about information. VARK is in the category of instructional f

preference because it deals with perceptual modes. It is focused on the different ways
O

that we take in and give out information (Fleming, 2001, p. 1). r

Dunn and Dunn Model: The way in which individuals begin to concentrate on, process, r

internalize, and retain new and difficult information (Dunn & Dunn, 1990, p. 353). e

RASI Model: The composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological y

factors that serves as an indicator of how an individual interacts with and responds to a

the learning environment (Duff, 2004, p. 56). a

 b

12 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

Table 5: Learning style composite. r

Learning Style Felder– Dunn and /

Modes Kolb Gregorc Silverman VARK Dunn e

1. Concrete Concrete i

Abstract Abstract o

2. Active Active Impulsive 1

Reflective Reflective Reflective 1

3. Sequential Sequential Analytic 0

Random Global Global 9

4. Visual Visual Visual .

Verbal Aural Aural 5

Read/Write Time y

d
 Kinesthetic Kinesthetic a

5. Intuitive r

Sensing L

6. Design l

Sound n

Light
L

Temperature r

7. Motivation 7

Persistence 2

Responsibility .

8. Self e

Pair m

Peers d

Team n

Varied n

The Kolb and Gregorc Models share the Concrete and Abstract dimensions. r

The Kolb Model shares the Active and Reflective dimensions with the Felder– l

Silverman Model and the impulsive and reflective elements of the Psychological /

m
stimulus for the Dunn and Dunn Model. The Gregorc, the Felder–Silverman, and s

the Dunn and Dunn Models have the Sequential and Random/Global dimensions o

in common. The Felder–Silverman and VARK Models have the Visual and Verbal o

dimensions in common. And the Dunn and Dunn Model is the only one with the
W

Sociological dimensions. However, there is not a single learning style dimension or

O

element that is common to all five of the models. The Felder–Silverman Model is e

the only model to contain the Sensing and Intuitive dimensions, the VARK Model r

is the only model to contain the Read/Write and Kinesthetic dimensions, and the r

Dunn and Dunn Model is the only one to have the 12 elements in the Environmen f

tal, Emotional, and Physiological stimuli and one element in the Psychological A

stimulus. c

A composite of these five models would need to measure the following learn e

ing style dimensions: r

1. The Concrete and Abstract dimension (Kolb and Gregorc).

a

2. The Active and Reflective dimensions (Kolb, Felder–Silverman, and Dunn e

and Dunn). t

e
 C

Hawk and Shah 13

D

3. The Sequential and Random/Global dimensions (Gregorc, Felder– r

Silverman, and Dunn and Dunn). t

4. The visual, aural, read/write, and kinesthetic dimensions (Felder– e

Silverman and VARK). r

5. The intuitive and sensing dimensions (Felder–Silverman). o

6. The sociological elements of learning through self, pairs, peers, with a .

teacher, and mixed (Dunn and Dunn). j

7. The Environmental elements of sound, light, temperature, and room design 0

(Dunn and Dunn). 7

8. The Emotional elements of motivation, persistence, responsibility, and

b

structure (Dunn and Dunn). r

9. The Physical elements of Perceptual, Intake, Chronology, and Mobility r

i
 N

(Dunn and Dunn). ,

10. The Psychological element of hemisphericity (Dunn and Dunn). n

A combination of the Kolb, Felder–Silverman, and the VARK Models or the Gre
o

gorc, Felder–Silverman, and VARK would cover the first five. But only the Dunn 7

and Dunn instrument would allow coverage of the last five. 2

Continuing under the assumptions of general theoretical and term defini e

tion comparability of the models, there are further complications in the attempt T

to find a universal approach. They are (1) the scarcity of research supporting a

the validity and reliability of the instruments, (2) the cost of purchasing some n

of the instruments, and (3) the use of class time to administer and interpret the n

instruments. s

There is solid support for instrument validity and reliability for the LSI, PEPS, i

and RASI instruments, with some support for the VARK. There is moderate support a

for reliability with the Gregorc LSD but low for its validity. The LSI, VARK, and e

PEPS would cover all modes of learning except for the Intuitive/Sensing continuum. /

Use of the RASI would add information on students’ preferences for approaches -

to studying. The missing research supporting instrument validity and reliability o

i
 o

would eliminate the Felder–Silverman from consideration. n

If cost is not a constraining factor, then the commercially available LSI and
W

PEPS plus the free VARK and RASI would give the most valid and reliable coverage
O

of student learning styles and approaches to studying. On the other hand, if cost is
L

a constraining factor, then use of the VARK, Felder–Silverman, and RASI would r

yield the most useful information, but information that is suspect from a validity u

and reliability perspective from the Felder–Silverman.

u

If use of class time to administer, interpret, and discuss the instruments is A

a constraint, then the only two Web-based instruments that the students could do l

on their own time and report the results to the instructor would be the Felder–
g

Silverman and the VARK, with only the VARK having a moderate support for n

validity and reliability. An advantage for using the Felder–Silverman for students
t

taking courses that fall into the general category of decision sciences and operations p

research courses would be that the Felder–Silverman is an instrument designed for e

engineering students. t

s
 L

14 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

Up to this point we have made the assumptions that the models have the r

same general definitions of critical terms and the theoretical comparability. We t

are not convinced that is the case. As Table 1 shows, each model has its own n

definition of learning style. The Kolb Model is an experiential model. The Gregorc r

Model, although emerging out of Kolb’s work, is a phenomenological model. The i

VARK is a sensory/perception model. The Felder–Silverman combines parts of m

the experiential, the phenomenological, and the sensory. And the Dunn and Dunn 1

PEPS combines elements of all four. The apparent differing theoretical bases for 1

the learning styles suggests the likelihood that it takes differing perspectives to 0

capture the comprehensive character of learning styles, similar to the metaphor of 9

the blind men describing the elephant from differing points of view. The conclusion .

would be that no one instrument can capture all of the richness of the phenomenon .

of learning style. o

In describing all of the models, we have indicated that students can and should i

develop their abilities to use the learning styles that are not their natural modes and N
 P

preferences. Based on that statement, one might argue that faculty, then, should i

not need to develop a repertoire of learning approaches and processes that embrace n

the diversity of learning styles in their courses. We would argue otherwise. When L

we share with the class the anonymous profile of the learning styles of the students
o

in the course, as well as our own learning style information, the students see the 7

diversity of the profile and that not all individuals learn in the same way. When 2

we use differing learning approaches and processes in a course and point them out e

to our students as to how they match with the differing learning styles, students T

can see how we are attempting to address their individual needs. When individual a

students schedule course meetings with us or are struggling to understand an issue in n

class, knowledge of the student’s particular learning style modes and preferences s

helps us respond to them by choosing explanatory or demonstrative approaches s

and materials tailored to their learning style preferences. Finally, knowledge of the i

overall learning style profile of classes allows us to make adjustments to our learning a

approaches as the profile changes from course to course and across semesters. We e

believe that student performance improves as a result of our use of the learning /

style instruments, although we have no empirical data of our own to support that -

belief. o

s
 )

PROPOSITIONS ON THE USE OF LEARNING e

STYLE INSTRUMENTS n

It is clear from the review of the six learning style models we have presented above f

that their authors believe using learning style instruments to inform the choice e

of learning activities and approaches will enhance the effectiveness and quality e

of learning for students. Our experiences with learning style instruments would
a

reinforce that belief. We would, therefore, offer five propositions. s

1. Diagnostic use of one or more learning style instruments and the subse
t

quent use of matching learning activities should result in higher levels of p

adult student satisfaction with the learning in a course. e

0
 9

Hawk and Shah 15

D

2. Diagnostic use of one or more learning style instruments and the subse r

quent use of matching learning activities should result in higher levels of t

academic performance by adult students in a course. n

3. Diagnostic use of one or more learning style instruments and the subse r

quent use of matching learning activities should result in deeper, more y

lasting adult student learning in a course and beyond the course. d

4. Diagnostic use of one or more learning style instruments and the subse 1

quent use of matching learning activities should result in an increase in the 4

ability of adult students to learn in different ways in a course and beyond 9

the course. .

5. Diagnostic use of two or more learning style instruments and the subse
b

quent use of matching learning activities should result in higher levels of d

academic performance for the adult students than the diagnostic use of n

just one learning style instrument. L

We have already suggested coupling learning style instruments to extend the diag n

i
 n

nostic range available to both faculty and students. L

We would also like to draw on our extensive use of the GSD since 1990 to
o

report on the learning style profile of our evening MBA students. Overall, 52% of 7

our students favor the CS style, followed by 20% for CR, 15% for AS, and 12% 2

for AR. There are only small differences between males and females for the first e

three but 8% of the men and 18% of the women are AR. Because both authors T

test strongly for the CS and CR styles, we have had more challenges with the AR a

learners than the others. However, giving extra attention to conversing with AR n

learners about their difficulties and what would work for them has made it easier n

to find ways to connect with them. s

In the larger picture, keeping in mind that we need to offer alternative and i

duplicative ways to connect with the differing learning styles pushes us to use a

differing learning approaches and activities in class as well as when students use e

office-hour time to clarify issues. Several examples might be useful. We have found /

that visual learners like to have things written on the board, both as text and as -

diagrams or flow charts. We reinforce what we put on the board by speaking it o

out loud so that the aural learners are satisfied. Discussions also help the aural n

learners. Sequential learners like to work through analyses on a step-by-step basis.

W

y
However, random or global learners need to see the whole picture before they can
O

see how the steps or parts fit together. So, presenting an example that illustrates
L

the entire process helps them. This includes describing what will happen for the r

entire semester for the course at the beginning of the course or providing sample u

articles. Abstract learners like to see a formula and how to connect the formula to
u

the numbers whereas we have found that concrete learners will often bypass the A

formula and go directly to the numbers, which are concrete to them. l

Administration of the learning style instruments should take place as close to

g

the beginning of the semester as possible, preferably during the first class session n

for purchased and printed instruments. In situations where the faculty member
t

can effectively communicate with the students before the beginning of classes p

and where Web-based instruments are chosen, faculty should strongly encourage e

7
 ,

16 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

students to complete the instruments prior to the first class and bring the printed r

results to class to share with the instructor. Faculty should also take the instruments, t

share their results and the composite class profile with the students in the course, n

and discuss the results with the students. And finally, faculty have an opportunity r

to make a case at their institutions for institution-wide administration and use of i

learning style instruments and information. This would allow all faculty to ask m

students to provide the results from taking the learning style instruments. 1

FUTURE RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS 0

We have reviewed and attempted to synthesize only five prominent learning style x

models and one approaches to studying model in this article. There are other r

learning style models available. One avenue for future investigation, therefore, i

would be to expand this review to include other learning style models. Another P

would be further research on the reliability and validity of the instruments. i

We also believe that the contexts in which learning occurs is important. n

Those contexts are within the institution and outside of the institution (Entwistle, i

a
 r

McCune, & Hounsell, 2002). Those two contexts should include the interaction
o

among individuals in the course as well as the interaction of the course and instructor /

with policies and resources for the program, the department, and the institution, 2

the physical environment, and the historical, cultural, and political background of e

the country. How do these interact with the individual learning style characteristics e

to enhance or hinder learning? Individual learning styles are likely to be important n

but not in isolation of other factors. n

In our review of all of the models, we have found that most of the authors have s

encouraged faculty using learning style information to make an effort to expand the :

range of learning style capabilities of their students by using a variety of learning n

activities and supporting their students as they attempt to become more proficient r

using learning styles in which they have less comfort. Although there are significant y

grounds for questioning the validity of three of the models we have reviewed here, /

the models offer commonsense descriptions of many factors that faculty can see at a

work in the classroom learning environment with their students. Use of one or more n

learning style instruments should give faculty additional information they can use s

to craft their learning activities. The use of learning style instruments should allow i

the students and faculty to consider and seek out more carefully the factors and n

e
activities that are conducive to more effective and deeper learning. L

REFERENCES ;

Brokaw, A. J., & Merz, T. E. (2000). The effects of student behavior and preferred s

learning style on performance. Journal of Business Education, 1, 44–53. o

Butler, K. A. (1986). Learning and teaching style in theory and practice.Columbia, d

CT: Learner’s Dimension. e

Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles. Washington, DC: George i

Washington University (ERIC). C

Hawk and Shah 17

D

d
 f

Coffield, F. J., Moseley, D. V., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004a). Learning styles r

and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: t

Learning and Skills Research Centre. n

Coffield, F. J., Moseley, D. V., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Learning styles: r

What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research e

Centre. /

Cornwell, J. M., & Manfredo, P. A. (1994). Kolb learning style theory revisited. 1

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(2), 317–327. 1

Duff, A. (1997). A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of 6

Entwistle and Tait’s revised approaches to studying inventory. British Journal 0

of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 529–539. 2

Duff, A. (2002). Approaches to learning: factor variance across gender. Personality y

and Individual Differences, 33(6), 997–1110. n

Duff, A. (2004). Approaches to learning: The revised approaches to studying in r

ventory. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 56–72. ,

Dunn, R. (1990). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning style model and y

the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. Reading, Writing, and n

Learning Disabilities, 6, 223–247. a

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price
[

7
 /

Systems. /

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1982). Productivity environmental preference .

survey. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. e

Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A meta s

analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences.

C

Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353–362. t

Eicher, J. (1987). Making the message clear. Santa Cruz, CA: Grinder, DeLozier, t

and Associates. n

Entwistle, N. J., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive ap i

proaches to studying. Higher Education, 8, 365–380. w

Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1995). The revised approaches to studying inventory. o

Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh Centre for Research on Learning m

and Instruction. -

Entwistle, N. J., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2002). Approaches to studying and i

perceptions of university teaching-learning environments: Concepts, mea o

sures, and preliminary findings. Occasional Report #1, ETL Project. Edin e

burgh, UK: Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry, and Durham. i

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning styles and teaching styles in r

o
 engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681. r

Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies.

o

Christchurch, New Zealand: N.D. Fleming. ;

Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and effects. NASSP r

Monograph, (October/November), 19–26. a

Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics. Maynard, MA: Gabriel e

Systems. b

Gregorc, A. F., & Ward, H. B. (1977). A new definition for individual: implications a

for learning and teaching. NASSP Bulletin, 401(6), 20–23. b

Gregorc, D. F. (1997). Relating with style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates. e

18 Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

D

Hickox, L. K. (1991). An historical review of Kolb’s formulation of experiential r

o
 m

learning theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, t

Corvallis, OR. n

Iliff, C. (1994). Kolb’s learning style inventory: A meta-analysis. Unpublished r

doctoral dissertation. Boston University, Boston. i

Joniak, A. J., & Isaksen, S. G. (1988). The Gregorc style delineator: internal con m

sistency and its relationship to Kirton’s adaptive-innovative distinction. Ed 1

ucational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1043–1049. 1

Kavale, K. A., Hirshoren, A., & Forness, S. (1998). A meta-analytic validation of 0

the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences: A critique of what 9

was Dunn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(2), 75–80. .

Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of .

experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management o

Learning and Education, 1(2), 137–149. i

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and N

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. i

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing n

experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning L

and Education, 4(2), 193–212.

o

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an 7

3
 /

integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61(3), 204–217. 2

Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco: e

Jossey-Bass. e

Noddings, N. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. a

O’Brien, T. P. (1990). Construct validation of the Gregorc delineator: An applica d

tion of Lisrel. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 631–636.

(

Sims, R. R., Veres, J. G., & Shake, L. G. (1989). An exploratory examination of the /

convergence between the learning styles questionnaire and the learning styles e

inventory II. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 227–233. y

Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom .

activities. College Teaching, 35(4), 141–146. e

Vince, R. (1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management n

Education, 22(5), 304–319. d

Wynd, W. R., & Bozman, C. S. (1996). Student learning styles: A segmentation )

strategy for higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 71(4), 232– i

235. n

Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching teaching by exploring i

the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

f

r
 r

Thomas F. Hawk is professor of management in the Management Department r

at Frostburg State University. He holds a PhD in Business from the University of

a

Pittsburgh, an MBA from Harvard, and a BS from the United State Naval Academy. v

He has taught at Frostburg State University since 1972, focusing primarily on the
b

capstone strategy course at the graduate level as well as courses in the consulting
a

and financial areas. His pedagogical research interests emphasize the case method, a

Hawk and Shah 19

D

learning styles, and the role of feedback in the learning process, while his other r

research interests focus on strategic change and theory-building research methods. t

:
 /

Amit J. Shah is professor of management in the Management Department at b

Frostburg State University. He holds a DBA from the U.S. International University i

and an MBA from Marshall University. He has taught at Frostburg State University m

since 1989, teaching the capstone strategy course at the undergraduate level as /

well as courses in strategic analysis and management. He is Director of Frostburg 1

State University’s Center for Community Partnership. His numerous articles and 4

conference presentations cover a wide range of management issues. 9

i
 o

n
s