Learning Styles and Admission Criteria as Predictors of

Academic Performance of College Freshmen

Thomas D. Cox
University of Central Florida

Abstract

This study was an investigation of college freshmen to determine the effectiveness of

student learning style and university admission criteria as a means of predicting
student performance and retention. High school class rank, high school GPA, ACT
score, and learning styles were analyzed. Freshmen enrolled in a First Year Seminar
(FYS) course were the subjects of the study.

Introduction

Admission Criteria
Universities across the nation continue to study admission criteria in order to
improve their selection processes and support the guidance of students toward
academic success (Steunkel, 2006). This is especially important today because of the
monetary values placed on student retention. Academic indicators used since the 1940s
include a variety of standardized assessment tools that measure students’ math,
reading, and critical thinking skills. Tinto (1975) defined grade performance and
intellectual development as academic measures. Student success in prior learning
activities, which can include high school courses, college preparatory courses, and
general education courses taken prior to matriculation, are also used as predictors of
future academic success to inform admission decisions (Yoho, Young, Adamson, &
Britt, 2007).

Today, academic predictors are routinely used in the college admissions process
for all degree programs and majors. Various academic screening criteria include essays,
references, high school grade point average (GPA), last acquired science grade, and
standardized assessment exams. Standardized assessment exams used as criteria for
entrance to undergraduate programs include the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), used
since 1926, and American College Test (ACT) for an assessment of skills in math and
English. In addition, Accuplacer Computerized Placement Tests (CPT) may be used to
determine student placement into freshman college math and English courses.

Standardized assessment exams are also used for specific undergraduate majors
as pre requisites for admission. Although many standardized exams may be used as
admission predictors of student success it could be argued that a student’s high school
course grades are the most relevant academic predictor of undergraduate student

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 1

success. This finding has caused a number of colleges to re-evaluate the use of
traditional college exams in the admissions process. Currently, some colleges, such as
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (Lamb, 2008) in Massachusetts, Bates College in Maine,
and Mount Holyoke in Massachusetts, no longer require the SAT or ACT as a condition
of entrance due to their lack of specific relevance as predictors (“The SAT is Losing
Favor among College Admissions Officers,” 2000). One possible suggestion for an
improvement in retention and academic performance through admission criteria is an
examination of student learning styles.

Literature Review

Learning Styles
Research on learning styles now spans four decades and occurs across a wide
spectrum of disciplines. Cassidy (2004) states, “there is general acceptance that the
manner in which individuals choose to or are inclined to approach a learning situation
has impact on performance and achievement of learning outcomes.” (p. 420) Cassidy
describes an onion metaphor as a way of organizing how the various measures arrive
the different constructs considered part of learning and cognitive style. At the outer
level, meaning they are most observable, at the same time they are most susceptible to
influence, therefore making them the least stable measures are instruments that rate
student’s “instructional preference” or their “preferred choice of learning
environment.” (p. 423) Next are instruments that measure how much social interaction
students prefer during learning. The third and most stable layer of instruments seek to
measure “information processing style.” The well-known Kolb instrument falls into this
category. And finally are innermost measures of “cognitive personality style” like the
Myers Briggs Type Indicator.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory

David Kolb's experiential learning theory is one of the best known educational
theories in higher education (Kolb and Fry 1975, Kolb 1984) and is frequently cited in
the literature involving higher education. Fielding (1984) and Robotham (1995) report
that since the publication of his seminal Experiential Learning in 1984, Kolb's ideas have
had an increasing impact on the work of teachers and trainers, particularly those
involved with students of 16 years and upwards. The salient question for this study
is,”How does Kolb’s experiential learning theory enhance student achievement?”

Professors in higher education should engage in reflective practice as it enables

us to learn from our experiences of teaching and facilitating student learning.
Developing reflective practice means developing ways of reviewing our own teaching
so that it becomes a routine and a process by which we might continuously develop.
Kolb developed a theory of experiential learning that can give us a useful model by
which to develop our practice. This is called The Kolb Cycle, The Learning Cycle or The
Experiential Learning Cycle. The cycle comprises four different stages of learning from

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 2

experience and can be entered at any point but all stages must be followed in sequence
for successful learning to take place. The Learning Cycle suggests that it is not sufficient
to have an experience in order to learn. It is necessary to reflect on the experience to
make generalizations and formulate concepts which can then be applied to new
situations. This learning must then be tested out in new situations. The learner must
make the link between the theory and action by planning, acting out, reflecting and
relating it back to the theory.

While some learning style categories focus only on the environmental aspects of
learning (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, and tactile), Kolb’s learning styles include
perception and processing. According to Kolb, learners perceive and process
information in a continuum from concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation:

1. Concrete experience: being involved in a new experience

2. Reflective observation: watching others or developing observations about one’s
own experience
3. Abstract conceptualization: creating theories to explain observations
4. Active experimentation: using theories to solve problems, make decisions

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 3

Concrete/Reflective/Abstract/Active
From this continuum, Kolb developed four learning styles: Diverger,
Assimilator, Converger, and Accommodator. Learners generally prefer one of the four
styles above the others. Although Kolb thought of these learning styles as a continuum
that one moves through over time, usually people come to prefer, and rely on, one style
above the others. And it is these main styles that instructors need to be aware of when
creating instructional materials.

Accommodators - (Concrete experience/Active experimenter)

These students are motivated by the question, "What would happen if I did this?"
They look for significance in the learning experience and consider what they can do, as
well as what others have done previously. These learners are good with complexity and
are able to see relationships among aspects of a system. These teaching methods would
work well for an Accommodator:

1. Anything that encourages independent discovery is probably the most desirable.

2. Accommodators prefer to be active participants in their learning.
3. The instructors working with this type of student might expect devil's advocate
type questions, such as "What if?" and "Why not?"

Assimilator - (Abstract conceptualization/Reflective observer)

These students are motivated to answer the question, "What is there to know?"
They like accurate, organized delivery of information and they tend to respect the
knowledge of the expert. They aren't that comfortable randomly exploring a system and
they like to get the right answer to the problem. Instructional methods that suit
Assimilators include:

1. Lecture method (or video/audio presentation)--followed by a demonstration.

2. Exploration of a subject in a lab, following a prepared tutorial (which they will
probably stick to quite closely) and for which answers should be provided.
3. These learners are perhaps less instructor intensive than some other learning
styles. They will carefully follow prepared exercises.

Convergers - (Abstract conceptualization/Active experimenter)

These students are motivated to discover the relevancy or the "how" of a
situation. Application and usefulness of information is increased by understanding
detailed information about the system's operation. Instructional methods that suit
Convergers include:

1. Instruction should be interactive, not passive.

2. Computer-assisted instruction is a possibility.
3. Problem sets or workbooks can be provided for students to explore.

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 4

Divergers (Reflective observer/Concrete experience)
These students are motivated to discover the relevancy or "why" of a situation.
They like to reason from concrete, specific information and to explore what a system
has to offer, and they prefer to have information presented to them in a detailed,
systematic, reasoned manner. Instructional methods that suit Divergers include:

1. Lecture method--focusing on specifics such as the strengths, weaknesses and

uses of a system.
2. Hands-on exploration of a system.

The instructor would be best to mingle with the students, answering questions
and making suggestions. Ready reference guides provide handy, organized summaries
for this kind of learner.

There is a bounty of research that has reported associations between learning

style academic performance. Albeit at the same time, there has been little studied
recently about the relationship between university admission criteria and learning
styles to academic achievement and student retention.

Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of academic achievement

of freshmen students in a small rural university branch campus. The specific objectives
of the study were to:

1. Describe the relationship between students’ learning styles according to first

semester college GPA.
2. Determine the best predictors of academic performance as measured by grade
point average after the first semester of college.

Methods

Participants
The target population for this ex post facto correlational study was freshmen
entering the university during the fall of 2011 (N=181). The sample consisted of a group
of freshmen enrolled in 3 sections of a First Year Experience Course (n=88). Of the
participants, 51 (58%) were females, 37(42%) were males; 66 (21%) were freshmen, and
22 (20%) were sophomores. The mean age was 21.47 (SD=1.61; Minimum: 17;
Maximum= 26).

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 5

Instruments
David Kolb’s (1985) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was administered to assess
the preferred learning style of each student as Diverger, Assimilator, Converger and
Accommodator. The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is a simple self-description test,
based on experiential learning theory that is designed to measure your strengths and
weaknesses as a learner. Experiential learning is conceived as a four stage cycle:

1. Immediate concrete experience is the basis for

2. Observation and reflection;
3. These observations are assimilated into a "theory" from which new implications
for action can be deduced
4. These implications or hypotheses then serve as guides in acting to create new
experiences.

The effective learner relies on four different learning modes: Concrete

Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and
Active Experimentation (AE). That is, he must be able to involve himself fully, openly,
and without bias in new experiences (CE), he must be able to reflect on and observe
these experiences from many perspectives (RO), he must be able to create concepts that
integrate his observations into logically sound theories (AC), and he must be able to use
these theories to make decisions and solve problems (AE).

A high score on Concrete Experience represents a receptive, experience-based

approach to learning that relies heavily on feeling-based judgments. High CE
individuals tend to be empathetic and "people-oriented." They generally find theoretical
approaches to be unhelpful and prefer to treat each situation as a unique case. They
learn best from specific examples in which they can become involved. Individuals who
emphasize Concrete Experience tend to be oriented more towards peers and less
toward authority in their approach to learning, and benefit most from feedback and
discussion with fellow CE learners.

A high score on Abstract Conceptualization indicates an analytical, conceptual

approach to learning that relies heavily on logical thinking and rational evaluation.
High AC individuals tend to be oriented more towards things and symbols and less
towards other people. They learn best in authority-directed, impersonal learning
situations that emphasize theory and systematic analysis. They are frustrated by and
benefit little form unstructured "discovery" learning approaches like exercises and
simulations.

A high score on Active Experimentation indicates an active, "doing" orientation

to learning that relies heavily on experimentation. High AE individuals learn best
when they can engage in such things as projects, homework, or small group

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 6

discussions. They dislike passive learning situation such as lectures. These individuals
tend to be extroverts.

A high score on Reflective Observation indicates a tentative, impartial and

reflective approach to learning. High RO individuals rely heavily on careful observation
in making judgments, and prefer learning situations such as lectures that allow them to
take the role of impartial objective observers. These individuals tend to be introverts.

Data Collection and Analysis

The LSI was administered to three sections of freshmen in a college success
course during the 1st week of the fall semester. Academic performance was measured
by cumulative grade point average at the completion of the fall semester. University
admission variables included ACT score, high school class rank, and high school grade
point average. Retention was based on enrollment status at the beginning of the spring
semester of the freshmen year.

Descriptive statistics were generated on LSI results and academic admission

variables (ACT, high school GPA, and high school rank). Pearson product correlation
coefficients were calculated between learning style preference and academic admission
variables. Regression analysis was used to explain variance in students’ cumulative
GPA at the completion of the fall semester. An alpa level of .05 (α = .05) was established
apriori.

Results

The first objective sought to describe the relationship between students’ learning
styles and academic performance at the completion of their first semester of their
freshman year. The majority of the students (69.2%) identified as Accommodators and
Divergers on the LSI. Thirty-six percent of the students rated as accommodators in their
learning style. Thirty-two percent of the students were rated as divergers in their
learning style. Convergers (14.9 %) and Assimilators (15.9%) were ranked lowest with a
1% difference between the two groups.

Eighty-two percent of the students who are Divergers received a GPA of 2.5 or
higher during their first semester (Table1). Assimilators (78.57 %) achieved a GPA of 2.5
or higher, likewise accommodators (78.10%) and convergers (69.20%) scored a GOA of
2.5 or higher.

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 7

Table 1

Relationship Between Learning Style and Academic Performance

Learning Style
Accommodator Diverger Converger Assimilator
Cumulative
GPA n % n % n % n %
3.50 - 4.00 6 6.8 5 5.6 3 3.4 2 2.2
3.00 - 3.49 7 7.9 8 9 4 4.5 5 5.6
2.50 - 2.99 12 13.6 11 12.5 2 2.2 4 4.5
Total 25 78.10% 24 82.75% 9 69.20% 11 78.57%
2.00 - 2.49 4 4.5 4 4.5 2 2.2 3 3.4
1.50 - 1.99 2 2.2 1 1.1 1 1.1 0 0
Below 1.49 1 1.1 0 0 1 1.1 0 0
Subtotal 7 22.90% 5 17.25% 4 30.80% 3 21.43%
Total 32 36.3 29 32.9 13 14.9 14 15.9

So, to answer the first research question, overall, there was a low positive relationship
(.311) between students’ learning style and their GPA at the end of their fall semester.

The second research objective sought to determine the best predictors of

students’ academic performance at the completion of their first semester as freshmen.
Not surprisingly, substantial positive intercorrelations were found between the
predictor variables of ACT and high school GPA (r=.662). Also, a very strong positive
relationship was found between high school GPA and Class rank (r= .770). Low
positive relationships were found between learning style and the predictor variables of
high school GPA (.202), and high school class rank (.223). A moderate positive
relationship was found between learning style and ACT scores (Table 2).

Conclusion

Learners who are “divergers” performed at a higher level respectively in terms

of their GPA at the end of their first semester. “Assimilators” and “accommodators”
respectively scored very similarly and “convergers”, while still performing above 2.5 or
higher in GPA, ranked 8.9% lower than the other three learning style groups. More
research is needed into the dynamic. While this study showed that divergers were
higher in terms of academic performance, it does not tell us why. Divergers are
motivated to discover the relevancy or "why" of a situation. They like to reason from
concrete, specific information and to explore what a system has to offer, and they prefer
to have information presented to them in a detailed, systematic, reasoned manner.
Perhaps this is the result of 12 years of teacher-centered education. Perhaps students at

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 8

this developmental stage lack the life experience that would give them an affinity for
preferring another style of learning, such as the dynamics of abstract conceptualization.

Table 2

Intercorrelations of Regression of Variables Predicting Academic Achievement

LSI ACT HS GPA HS Rank Semester GPA

LSI 1.00 .366 .202 .223 .311

ACT 1.00 .662 .592 .277

HS GPA 1.00 .770 .308

HS Rank 1.00 .425

Semester GPA 1.00

The best predictor of academic performance during the first semester of college
was high school GPA and ACT score. This is not surprising; however more research
must be conducted to determine why learning style was not as much of a predictor of
academic performance. Perhaps the instruction provided at the university was
sufficiently diverse to negate the impact learning style preference would have on
student achievement. This is not likely. What is likely is the notion that instruction at
the university did not differ substantially from the skill level of the instruction in their
previous K-12 experience. This would be another area of future research.

This study is a reminder that the college admission criteria currently used is a
good predictor of achievement. For this group, however’ learning styles does not seem
to be an obvious predictor of success. This might prove to be different if the students
were tracked again after the entire first year, or even the sophomore year. However, not
enough is written about how to help students engage and how to retain students in that
first semester. Since it can be agreed that high school GPA and ACT score are good
predictors of success in college, and this study confirms that position, then why, for
these students, does learning style only factor in at a low correlation? The answer is
probably found in the asking of further questions. Variables other than high school
GPA and ACT must influence some students more than others, and learning style must
influence some students’ achievement more than others. The statement is ambiguous at
best, but the underlying charge behind this would suggest that classroom teachers and
others at universities keep in mind the need to conduct research into factors that
influence academic performance and shift their emphasis as needed to promote
opportunities for student success.

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 9

References

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures.

Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444.

Fielding, M. 1994. Valuing difference in teachers and learners: Building on Kolb's

learning styles to develop a language of teaching and learning. The Curriculum
Journal, 5(3), 393-417.

Kolb, D. & Fry, R. 1975. Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. L.

Copper (Ed), Theories of group processes (pp. 33-58). London: John Wiley.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Robotham, D. (1995). Self-directed learning: the ultimate learning style? Journal of

European Industrial Training 19(7), 3-7.

Steunkel, D. L. (2006). At risk students: Do theory grades + standardized examinations

= success? Nurse Educator, 31, 207-212.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Yoho, M. J., Young, A., Adamson, C., & Britt, R. (2007). The predictive accuracy of
Health Education Systems, Inc., examinations for associate degree nursing
students. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2, 80-84.

Author’s Note:
Thomas D. Cox teaches at the University of Central Florida.

Institute for Learning Styles Journal • Volume 1, Spring 2013 • Page 10