Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261

The 6th International Conference Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World
Issues”, 7th - 9th November 2014

Learning styles in Higher Education. A case study in History

training
Căpiță Carol*
University of Bucharest, Faculty of History

Abstract

The present paper aims at analyzing learning styles at the level of first year students in Higher Education. The target population
chosen is represented by the first-year History students at the University of Bucharest, and a group of MA students from various
study strands as a comparative cohort. The instrument applied was Kolb’s Learning Styles Questionnaire. The primary results
seem to indicate certain uniformity in learning styles, but some significant differences are also visible. At the same time the
implications for the academic History curriculum are debated.

©
© 2015
2015TheTheAuthors. Published byby
Authors.Published Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibility of The
of The Association
Association “Education
“Education for tomorrow”
for tomorrow” / [Asociatia
/ [Asociatia “Educatie“Educatiepentrumaine”].
pentru maine”].

Keywords:learning styles; first-year History students; gender differences in learning styles preferrence; subjetc-based differences in learning
styles.

1. Introduction

The increase in both number and diversity of students enrolled in Higher Education represents one of the
challenges that characterize contemporary education. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the realities of
the labor market are changing at a relatively fast pace, ensuring a delay in academic training and the perceived needs
of employers. While there is a commitment towards fostering a knowledge-based society (therefore, also an
economy), the actual way in which formal schooling, including the Higher Education sector, could support this trend

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address:capita.laura@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of The Association “Education for tomorrow” / [Asociatia “Educatie pentru maine”].
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.113
 Căpiţă Carol / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261 257

is still a matter of debate. Finding the good mixture between new teaching approaches and the core elements of a
field of study is always a balancing act.
The analysis of student learning styles is an approach that is part of the educational practice for more than half
a century. Although a current occurrence at all levels of schooling, in Romania such studies are rare and seem to
focus on specific areas such as web-based learning (Popescu, 2010). The situation is more complicated at the level
of universities, where issues of institutional culture, the autonomy of the teaching staff, the different teaching styles,
and the issues in the generational change create a tension between the need for diversity in teaching approaches and
training paths for students and the need for assessment of progress in learning.

2. Rationale

The analysis put forth is focused on a specific target group, first-year students training to become professional
historians (in the broadest sense) and/or History teachers (History students are trained in a concurrent model of
initial teacher training). The choice is the result of both subjective factors (the author has as main specialization
Ancient History) and objective factors: (a) although there is a fluctuation in the interest of High School graduates for
an academic training, there seems to be a relatively constant interest for a career in the field of History; moreover,
the number of candidates that have graduated several years before, or who already have a degree and have no direct
professional interest is also significant (the number of students that already have a degree seems to be larger in the
case of those studying History and Art History); (b) it is debatable to which degree the academic curriculum has
changed in order to comply to new job opportunities; in a recent study on the initial History and Social Sciences
teacher training, Romania ranked relatively low in terms of courses focused on interdisciplinarity, concept-based
teaching, and problem-based courses (http://www.univie.ac.at/fdz-geschichte/che/index.php); (c) the diversity in
student population seems to be increased, mostly in terms of age, gender, and cultural background; (d) there are
relatively few studies on the transition from Secondary to Higher education, although these would be very important
for calibrating induction courses (Booth, 2001).
Therefore, an empirical analysis on preferred learning styles of students in their first year of academic training might
be useful for both the teaching staff (including administrators) and the students.

3. Theoretical background and methodology

3.1. Theoretical background

There are a number of definitions given to the learning styles (a brief but relevant list in Kazu, 2008). In fact,
the number of conceptualizations seem to act as a catalyst for those that consider that learning style have a reduced,
if any, scientific value (for a critical approach, see Scott, 2010) An early definition states that learning styles are “the
way in which each person absorbs and retains information and/ or skills” (Dunn, 1984, p. 12). In 1991, Boyatzis and
Kolb define the learning skill as a “general heuristic that enables mastery of a specific performance domain”
(Boyatzis & Kolb, 1991, p. 280). They continue to refine this initial statement: such a skill is domain specific and
knowledge rich, it describes the interaction between the learner and his/her environment, and is developed through
practice; therefore, learning styles are limited to “higher order heuristics for learning how to learn” (Boyatzis &
Kolb, 1991, p. 281). Later on, Y. Kolb and D.A. Kolb stress the fact that learning is a process, and therefore a
learning style is represented by “individual differences in learning based on the learner’s preference for employing
different phases of the learning cycle” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005, p. 194-195). Another definition is that learning styles
“are a description of attitudes and behaviors that determine the preferred way of learning of an individual” (Honey
& Mumford, 1992, quoted in Graf, Kinshuk & Tzu-Chien, 2009). An added element is that of the way in which
information is processed, that is, if individual learners tend towards global or analytic approaches to processing the
acquired data (Cutolo & Rochford, 2007). At the same time, new research tends to favor a more clear-cut distinction
between cognitive style and learning style – the first is seen as representing the processing of information, and
therefore more stable, while the second is regarded as describing the preferred way of answering to learning tasks
(Evans, Cools & Charlesworth, 2010). Finally, learning styles have to take into consideration the relation that is
established between the learner and the teacher, since there are two key concepts involved: the preference, and the
258 Căpiţă Carol / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261

ability (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, Bjork, 2008).

To sum it up, learning styles represent the preferred way of processing and using information received during
instruction, and are the result of internal and external factors. While this definition is simply a working hypothesis, it
stresses the fundamental elements: the psychological and biological elements, the social context, and the fact that it
represents the way in which a cognitive process takes place and it develops over time. As many of the quoted
authors stress, there is a direct link between the learning styles, the adaptive process of learners to new learning
tasks, and the progression in developing learning skills.

3.2. Methodology

In the absence of a specialized learning style questionnaire (LSQ) for the social sciences, the research opted for
a general LSQ that would enable comparisons across countries and academic fields. The choice was made for the
David A. Kolb LSQ, the 3.1 version, dated 2005 (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a) as revised by Peter Honey and Alan
Mumford (Honey & Mumford, 2006). This questionnaire has, in our opinion, several advantages: it is applicable,
the graphic form is accessible also for non-specialists, and it offers opportunities for extending the actual research by
introducing variables (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
Most of the research done on the basis of this model focuses strictly on the questionnaire. However, taking into
account the theories that underline the social aspects of learning, especially in relation to the self-regulating nature
of learning (Bandura, 1971; 1976), we introduced several variables in the questionnaire: age, gender, type of High
School, previous academic experience, and previous job experience. These elements were introduced in order to see
if the learning styles of first-year students is influenced by their background, their possible diversity and the prior
abilities that a the teaching staff might consider when designing the learning and teaching activities and also if the
interest for the study of History is backed up by their learning preferences. David and Alice Kolb argue that there is
a significant distribution of learning styles preferences across the academic fields (Kolb, 1981, fig. 2, p. 240; Kolb &
Kolb, 2005a, 26-27)
The Kolb LSQ was applied to the first-year students in the Faculty of History at the University of Bucharest in
the years 2012 and 2013. The fields of study were History, International Relations and European Studies, and Art
History. The total number of students is around 400, and the number of questionnaires that were filled and returned
is 164 (95 questionnaires for the year 2012-2013, and 63 questionnaires for the academic year 2013-2014, six
questionnaires were eliminated for being invalid, n=158). In order to refine the approach, and to see if a long-term
perspective might yield relevant information, a group of MA students (training for the teaching profession) from a
number of academic fields in the Social Sciences was invited to fill in the questionnaire (n = 19).

4. Results

The results indicate a series of interesting elements. First of all, the differences between the two groups of first-
year students are minimal, indicating a certain consistency within the target group on longer time-spans. Second,
there is a relative balance between the four main categories identified by Kolb (Activist, Reflector, Theorist,
Pragmatist). The dominant elements are Reflector and Theorist, and the least represented is the Activist component.
By contrast, the MA group had a very different balance between the four categories (the Theorist group was very
pronounced). On the whole, there is a dominant Reflective-Theorist character, while the Pragmatic-Activist aspects
have the lowest scores. The students studying History and International Relations have a similar profile, while a
rather different group is represented by the first-year students enrolled in the Art History program; their profile is the
most different from the mean values for the entire target group. Gender does not seem to be a discriminating factor.
Also, the profile of the High School they have graduated does not seem to be a relevant variable. It seems that the
first-year students represent a homogenous group in terms of their preferred learning styles acquired during their
previous formal training. The interesting element is the relative lack of importance of gender differences in the
sample group in the preferred learning style.
 Căpiţă Carol / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261 259

1
15
10
5
4 0 2

3
Fig. 1 The learning style profile for all first-year students in History, sample average values (1: Activist, 2: Reflector, 3:Theorist, 4: Pragmatist)

1
15
10
5 Male average

4 0 2
Female
average

Fig. 2 The learning style profile for male and female first-year students in History, academic year 2012-2013 (1: Activist, 2: Reflector, 3:Theorist,
4: Pragmatist)

The tendency is more visible when comparing the results with the group of MA students. While there is a similar
trend, two elements are interesting. First, there seems to be a significant difference between the MA students that
had a professional experience as teachers. Also, there is a more clear-cut difference in terms of gender, although
data is biased by the difference in numbers between female and male students (13 to 6).

1
15

10

4 0 2

3
260 Căpiţă Carol / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261

Fig.3. The learning style profile for MA students in Social Sciences, sample average values (1: Activist, 2: Reflector, 3:Theorist, 4: Pragmatist)

1 1
15 15
10 Job experience 10
5 5 Male
4 0 2 4 0 2
Female
No job experience

3 3
a b

Fig.4. (a) The learning style profiles for MA students with and without job experience in the teaching profession; (b) The learning style profiles
for male and female MA students. Sample average values (1: Activist, 2: Reflector, 3:Theorist, 4: Pragmatist).

5. Discussion

The results presented raise several questions of interpretation. First of all, there is a tendency towards a more
formalized approach to learning for first-year students. The dominance of the Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist
preferences seem to indicate a greater dependence of first-year students from teacher input. This balanced result is
related to a greater flexibility in adapting to learning requirements (Mainemelis, Boyatzis & Kolb, 2002). The
problem is that this tendency seems to be increased during the studies. Even more of a concern is the fact that
personal experiences in the teaching profession limit the use of personal teaching experiences. At the level of MA
students, those without practical teaching experience seem to be more interested in trying out new approaches than
those that already are in the teaching profession. A first possible explanation would be that, confronted with the
practicalities of the teaching activities, MA students tend to have a more focused approach, preferring more secure
and direct ways to apply acquired knowledge in their teaching. A second explanation might be found in the distance
perceived by that group between their formal initial training and the job requirements. These findings seem to be in
agreement with other research in the field (Boyatzis, Mainemelis, 2011).
The second interesting element is related to the uniformity within the group of first-year students. The fact that
there are no relevant differences in their approaches to learning raises questions on the relevance of the relation
between the core curriculum and the subjects that create the specialized training profile in High Schools. While this
uniformity seems to demonstrate that the option for this academic field is consistent for the entire group, which is a
positive element, the fact that gender and the profile of the graduated High School are less important asks for a long-
term research.

Conclusion

The diversity of learner approaches to the formal education is an element that has to be taken into
consideration by the academic staff. Furthermore, the relation with the practicalities of the labor market has to be
drawn into discussion when developing the academic curriculum. However, in terms of research, learning styles
inventories in themselves might not be a tool able to indicate long-term shifts and trends in student population.
Sociological variables, as well as job profiles have to be part of the analysis. Future research should focus on the
elements that are considered by the academic staff as a prerequisite of first-year students. A “progression in learning
skills” portfolio that could accompany the student in the transition from Secondary to Higher education is one of the
ways in which the academic staff might be better informed on the educational needs of their students. Also, the
academic curriculum might offer provisions for the diversity of learners that enter Higher education. The academic
curriculum is traditionally focused on modeling an “ideal” student as a criterion for selecting and organizing the
subject matter. The fact that the starting point of the students, their strengths and weaknesses might be quite
different seems not to be a major concern. Finally, a reappraisal of job descriptions and their role in developing the
 Căpiţă Carol / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015) 256 – 261 261

academic curriculum, keeping in mind that professionalization has to be moderated by the needed flexibility on the
labor market might also provide insights for reconstructing the academic curriculum.

References

Bandura, A. (1971) Social Learning Theory, New York: General Learning Press
Bandura, A. (1976)Self-Reinforcement: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Behaviorism, Vol. 4/2, 135-155
Booth, A. (2001) Developing History Students’ Skills in the Transition to University. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6/4, 279-295
Boyatzis, R. E., Kolb, D. A. (1991) Assessing Individuality in Learning: the learning skills profile. Educational Psychology, Vol. 11/3-4,
Boyatzis, R.E., Mainemelis, C. (2011) Assesing the Distribution of Learning and Adaptive Learning Styles in an MBA Program. In Rayner, S. &
Cools, E. (Eds.) Style Differences in Cognition, Learning, and Management. Theory, Research, and Practice, New York: Routledge
Cutolo, A., Rochford, E. D. (2007) An Analysis of Freshmen Learning Styles and their Relationship to Academic Achievement. College Quarterly,
Vol. 10/2, (http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2007-vol10-num02-spring/cutolo_rochford.html, accessed on June 14th, 2013)
Dunn, R. (1984) Learning Style: State of the Science. Theory into Practice, Vol. 23/1, 10-19
Evans, C., Cools, E., Charlesworth, Z. M. (2010) Learning in higher education how cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher
Education, Vol. 15/4, 467-478
Honey, P., Mumford, A. (1992) The manual of learning styles (3rd Ed.), Maidenhead: Peter Honey
Honey, P., Mumford, A. (2006) The Learning Styles Questionnaire. 80-item version (Revised edition, July 2006), Maidenhead: Peter Honey
Publications Limited
Kazu, I. Y. (2009) The Effect of Learning Styles on Education and the Teaching Process. Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5/2, 85-94
Kolb, D. A. (1981) Learning Styles and Disciplinary Difference; in A. W. Chickering et alii, The Modern American College. Responding to the
New Realities of Diverse Students and a Changing Society, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D. A. (2005) Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of
Management Learning & Education,Vol. 4/2, 193-212
Kolb, A. Y., Kolb, D.A. (2005a) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications, Experience Based Learning
Systems, Inc
Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis R. E., Kolb, D. A. (2002) Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility: Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management
Learning, Vol. 33/1, 5-33
Pashler, H., McDaniel, H., Rohrer, D., Bjork, R. (2008) Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
Vol, 9/3, 103-119
Popescu, E. (2010) Adaptation provisioning with respect to learning styles in a Web-based educational system: an experimental study. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 26/4, 243-257
Scott, C. (2010) The enduring appeal of ‚learning styles’. Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 54/1, 5-17