See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285963150

Influence of Learning Styles

Article  in  International Journal of Learning · January 2009

DOI: 10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v16i09/46612

CITATIONS READS
8 8,480

2 authors:

Venugopal Prabhakar Gantasala Swapna Gantasala

New York Institute of Technology New York Institute of Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainability View project

Climate change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Venugopal Prabhakar Gantasala on 08 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The International
JOURNAL
ofLEARNING

Volume 16, Number 9

Influence of Learning Styles

Prabhakar Venugopal Gantasala and Swapna Bhargavi

Gantasala

www.learning-journal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
http://www.Learning-Journal.com

First published in 2009 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

© 2009 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2009 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and
maps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or
review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be
reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other
inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

ISSN: 1447-9494
Publisher Site: http://www.Learning-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING is peer-reviewed, supported by

rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary,
ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is
published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel

typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Influence of Learning Styles
Prabhakar Venugopal Gantasala, New York Institute of Technology,
Amman, Jordan
Swapna Bhargavi Gantasala, Aurora P.G. College, Hyderabad,
ANDHRA PRADESH, India

Abstract: Research points out to the fact that students and trainees in general learn effectively with
teaching pedagogy that matches their learning style preferences (Li et al., 2008). There is ample re-
search in studying the influence of learning styles (Coffield et al., 2004; Reynold & Vince, 2007; Welsh
et al., 2007; Herbert & Stenfors, 2007; Sievers, 2007; Hyde, 2007; Kayes A.B., 2007; Garcia et al.,
2007; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2007; Armstrong & Mahmud,2008). This empirical work centers on
learning styles of Indian students with reference to Management Education. The study has been under-
taken to evaluate, analyze and compare learning style preferences of Indian students enrolled for the
Master’s program in Management. The aim of this study is to ascertain different learning styles of
students and develop pedagogy for improving delivery of management courses. An attempt has been
made to develop a research instrument that could further facilitate research in improvising curriculums.
A descriptive and exploratory design has been employed to carry out this work. The literature review
on learning styles is presented to begin with, followed by the findings from the empirical study. Factor
analysis has been used to assess learning styles of students.

Keywords: Learning Styles, Management Education, Pedagogy

Introduction

L
EARNING IS A lifelong process and is a continuous and never ending improvement
that should be integral to the way courses are taught at the B-school. Management
faculty must assess individual learning style preferences and then approach delivery
to improve the pace of learning. If students were to understand their strengths and
weaknesses, they could learn with greater motivation. It has been empirically proved time
and again that learners ability to grasp, assimilate and to transfer learning are improved with
pedagogy that matches their learning style preferences and in an environment that facilitates
it (Duff & Duffy, 2002; Lhori-Posey, 2003; Coffield et al., 2004; Reynold & Vince, 2007;
Welsh et al., 2007;; Herbert & Stenfors, 2007; Sievers, 2007; Hyde, 2007; Kayes A.B., 2007;
Garcia et al., 2007; Demirbas & Demirkan, 2007; Armstrong & Mahmud, 2008; Li et al.,
2008). However, this influence of students learning styles has not been researched in the
Indian context. The researchers attempt to explore learning styles of Management Students
enrolled for their Master’s program in Management with an affiliated college of the Osmania
University, Hyderabad, India.
Learning is defined as a person’s focus on different types of information, perceiving it
and the assimilation of it (Li et al.,2008). The authors employed the VAK Learning style
theory ( Coffield et al., 2004), Learning style questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey and Mumford’s,

The International Journal of Learning

Volume 16, Number 9, 2009, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
© Common Ground, Prabhakar Venugopal Gantasala, Swapna Bhargavi Gantasala, All Rights Reserved,
Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

1992) and the Dunn & Dunn’s (2003) to design the questionnaire to assess Indian students’
learning styles.The LSQ has been applied to management training and also the field of edu-
cation. (Duff & Duffy, 2002). The study aims at assessing learning styles and then integrating
preferred styles into course design to facilitate student learning. The mission of the B-school
has been to impart experiential learning that would facilitate transfer of learning in the
business world and enable students to actualize their potential. Imparting the required
knowledge, imbibing skills and competencies that are required by the challenges of the
corporate world are to be delivered with teaching methods and strategies that would closely
parallel students’ learning styles. It becomes imperative for management faculty to be aware
of their students’ learning styles and utilize pedagogy that ensures the transfer of learning.
This study aims to equip management faculty with the wherewithal of teaching a student
population with diverse learning style preferences. The study incorporates a descriptive work
on the literature background in learning styles followed by the empirical survey on students
of the four semester MBA program. Respondents were picked using simple random sampling
from five sections of the MBA program comprising of a total population of 596 students.
The sample used in this study comprised of sixty three students. The study was carried out
at Aurora’s Consortium which is a group of colleges that offer Bachelor of Technology in
Computer Sciences, Electrical Engineering, Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Mech-
anical Engineering, Information Technology, Instrumentation and Production Engineering
at the under-graduate level. The Institution also offers Masters Programs in Computer Science
and Management. The consortium has been accredited by the National Board of Accreditation
(NBA), the top accrediting body in India.

Literature Review

Learning Style
Honey & Mumford (1992) define learning as a description of attitudes, behaviors that influ-
ence ones preferred way of learning. They enunciate learning style to be the cognitive char-
acteristics, affective and psychological behaviors that indicate the way learners perceive,
interpret and react to learning environments. Duff and Duffy’s (2002) definition of learning
styles is that they are the composite of cognitive characteristics, affective and psychological
factors that influence the way individuals interact and respond to learning environments.
Coffield et al (2004) indicate that learning theories are stable and fixed in learners minds.
Coffield et al (2004) compare learning theories with consistency, test-retest reliability, con-
structive and predictive validity as the bases. The continuum of learning styles is presented
in Figure 1.
Learning styles as a research area has grabbed a great deal of attention of late (Alban &
Metcalfe 2002; Duff & Duffy, 2002; Dunn & Griggs, 2003;). Though learning styles are
important to Management and to teachers, they have not been dominant part of educational
strategies (Reynolds & Vince, 2007). Learning styles have been researched from various
perspectives that include intelligent learning systems, a genetic algorithm approach to stu-
dents’ learning styles (Yannibelli et al., 2006), web-based education perspective on learning
style (Garcia et al., 2007), learning about and through aesthetic experience (Welsh et al.,
2007), use of business case studies in learning process (Duff et al., 2008), problem-solving
strategies within learning styles (Metallidou & Platsidou, 2008), preferred learning styles

170
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

(Peters et al., 2008) and adaptive learning system perspective of learning styles (Tseng et
al., 2008). Organizational learning has become of pivotal significance in higher education
and management education (Lhori-Posey, 2003; Garcia et al., 2007; Demirbas & Demirkan,
2007). Skerlavaj et al., 2007 & Dimovski (2007) also indicate the importance of organiza-
tional learning as the most researched phenomenon in social sciences. It is also then obvious
that the concept of organizational learning draws from theoretical assumptions that are
complementary to each other and relies on learning styles.

Figure 1: Learning Styles

Learning Styles
Learning styles Learning styles Learning styles Learning styles Move on from
are reflect deep-seated are one are flexibly learning styles to
continuously features of the component of stable learning learning
based, includ- cognitive structure a preferences approaches,
ing four modal- relatively strategies,
ities – (VAKT) stable orientations .
personality
type
Broverman (1960) Apter (1998) Allinson and Biggs (1987)
Motivation Hayes Study Process
Cooper (1997) Style (1996) Questionnaire
Learning Styles ID Profile Cognitive Style Conti & Kolody
(MSP) Index (1990) Self
Gardner et al (1959) (CSI) Knowledge Invent-
Tolerant/intolerant Epstein-Meier Felder and Sil- ory of Lifelong
(1989) Con- verman Learning Skills
structive Think- (1989) (SKILLS)
Guilford (1950) ing Inventory Index of Learn- Entwistle (1979,
Convergent/diver- (CTI) ing Styles 2000) Approaches
gent thinking (ILS) to Study Invent-
Holzman & Klein Harrison- Bran- Honey and ory (ASI), Re-
(1954) son Mumford* vised Approaches
Schematizing Test (1998) (1982) Learning to Study Invent-
revised Inquiry Style ory (RASI),
Mode Questionnaire
Hunt (1978) Questionnaire (LSQ)
Paragraph Comple- Herrmann
tion (1995)
Method Jackson (2002)
Learning Style
Profiles (LSP)
Kagen (1967)
Matching Familiar
Figures Test

171
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Bartlett (1932) Kogan (1973) Myers – Briggs Brain Domin- Approaches and
Betts (1909) Sorting Styles into (1962) ance Instrument Study Skills In-
Betts Types Myers-Briggs (BDI) Her- ventory Students
Inventory Messick (1976) Ana- Type manussen (ASSIST)
Dunn and lytic / non Indicator (2000) Question- Grasha-Riech-
Dunn* (MBTI) naire Practice mann (1974) Stu-
(1975, 1979, Miller (1991) Oriented Learn- dent Learning
1992, Personality typo- ing (QPL) Style Scales
2003) logy: cognitive, Kaufmann (SLSS)
VAK Learning affective, conat- (1989) The A-E Hill (1976)
Style Theory; ive Inventory Cognitive Style
Learning Style Witkin (1962) Profile
Inventory (LSI); Group Embed- McKenney &
Building Excel- ded Figure Test Kolb (1976, Keen (1974)
lence Survey (GEFT) 1985, Model of Cognit-
(BES) 1999) ive Style
Gordon (1949) Learning Style Pask (1976)
Scale of Im- Inventory (LSI); Serialist – Holist
agery Revised Learn- Model
Control ing Style Invent- Sternberg (1998)
Gregorc (1977) ory (R-LSI); Thinking Styles
Gregorc Mind LSI Version 3 Schmeck (1977)
Styles Delineat- Kirton (1989) Inventory of
or (MSD) Kirton Adaption Learning Pro-
Innovation In- cesses
Marks (1973) ventory (KAI) Vermunt (1996)
Marks Vivid- McCarthy Inventory of
ness of Visual (1987) Learning Styles
Imagery Ques- 4MAT (ILS)
tionnaire Paivio Weinstein, Zim-
(1971) merman, Palmer
Individual Dif- (1988)
ference Learning and
Questionnaire Study
(IDQ) Strategies Invent-
Richardson ory
(1977) Verbal-
iser Visualiser
Questionnaire
Source: Adapted from Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004; Reynolds & Vince,
2007; Li et al., 2008.

172
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

Learning styles as a research area has grabbed a great deal of attention of late (Alban &
Metcalfe 2002; Duff & Duffy, 2002; Dunn & Griggs, 2003; Kayes, 2003; Loo, 2004). Though
learning styles are important to Management and to teachers, they have not been dominant
part of educational strategies (Reynolds & Vince, 2007). Learning styles have been researched
from various perspectives that include intelligent learning systems, a genetic algorithm ap-
proach to students’ learning styles, web-based education perspective on learning style
(Garcia et al., 2007), learning about and through aesthetic experience (Welsh et al., 2007),
use of business case studies in learning process (Duff et al., 2008), problem-solving strategies
within learning styles (Metallidou & Platsidou, 2008), preferred learning styles (Peters et
al., 2008) and adaptive learning system perspective of learning styles (Tseng et al., 2008).
Organizational learning has become of pivotal significance in higher education and manage-
ment education (Li et al., 2007; Cuthbert, 2005; Garcia et al., 2007; Demirbas & Demirkan,
2007). Skerlavaj et al., 2007 & Dimovski (2007) also indicate the importance of organiza-
tional learning as the most researched phenomenon in social sciences. It is also then obvious
that the concept of organizational learning draws from theoretical assumptions that are
complementary to each other and relies on learning styles.

Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Theory

The authors employ the Honey and Mumford’s (1992) LSQ and Dunn and Dunn’s (2003)
VAK learning styles to assess whether the students at the Aurora’s B-School follow the as-
sumptions presented under these learning styles (presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3)
The Dunn and Dunn’s learning style model VAK is based on three sensory receivers,
Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (Figure 3). This model is sometimes referred to as VAKT
that includes the tactile ways of learning. Though learners use all the four, one of them could
be more dominant. This dominant way of learning defines the best way a person learns to
process and interpret information. Constantinidou and Baker (2002) indicate that the visual
ways of presentation with the use of rich pictures could be advantageous for teaching adults
even if their dominant style was not visual. The Dunn and Dunn’s model is based on the
premise that student’s performance and achievements are dependent on relatively fixed traits
and characteristics (Dunn, 2003; Dunn & Griggs, 2003).For Faculty the most important
question could be the extent to which students can remedy their own low preference for a
learning style. Coffield et al., 2004 showed that students learning styles changed a great deal
as they matured.

Figure 2
Perception Description/Characteristics
V: Visual - Seeing Mind sometimes strays during verbal activities
Observes, rather than talks or acts; may be quiet by nature
Organized in approach to tasks, Likes to read
Usually a good speller, Memorizes by creating mental images

173
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

A: – Auditory - Thinks in pictures, Easily put off by visual distractions Finds verbal in-
Hearing structions difficult Remembers faces, Strong on first impressions
Likes drawing and doodling, may have good handwriting
Enjoys using color, Notices details
Often a quick thinker, May focus on the big picture and use advanced
planning.

Talks to self aloud, Outgoing by nature

Whispers to self while reading, may hum or sing while working
Likes to be read to
May be particular about the exact choice of words
Memorizes by steps in a sequence, Very aware of rhythm
Easily distracted by noises
May have difficulty with written instructions
Remembers names, May assess people by the sound of their voice
Enjoys music and the sounds of words, Enjoys talking and listening
Can remember – and often mimic – speech by picking up rhythm of the
sentence
May need time to think (i.e. discuss it with myself),
May assess a situation as it sounds to them
K: Kinaesthetic In motion most of the time/fidgety
– Doing Outgoing by nature; expresses emotions by physical means
Taps pencil or foot/fiddles with objects while studying
Reading is not a priority, May find spelling difficult
Likes to solve problems by physically working through them
Very good body control, good timing and reflexes
Is affected by touch or lack of it, Likes physical rewards
Remembers what they have done rather than seen/heard
Enjoys handling objects, Enjoys doing activities
Likes to use gestures and touch people while talking to them
May need time to think (i.e. process the actions involved), Will try new
things.

Figure 3
Learning Description Characteristics
Reflectors Reflectors like to stand back to ponder exper- Careful
iences and observe them from many different Good listener
perspectives. They collect data, both first
hand and from others, and prefer

174
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

Theorists to think about it thoroughly before coming Holds back from participation
to any conclusion. The thorough collection Methodical
and analysis of data about experiences and Does not jump to conclusions
events is what counts so they tend to post- Slow to decide
pone reaching definitive conclusions for as Thorough and thoughtful
long as possible. Their philosophy is to be
cautious. They are thoughtful people who Disciplined
like to consider all possible angles and implic- Intolerant of subjective, intuitive
ations before making a move. ideas
Logical
Theorists adapt and integrate observations Low tolerance of uncertainty,
into complex but logically sound theories. ambiguity
Activists They think problems through in a vertical, Objective
step-by-step logical way. They assimilate Parental in approach
disparate facts into coherent theories. They Probing when questioning
tend to be perfectionists who won’t rest easy Rational
until things are tidy and fit into a rational Restricted in lateral thought
scheme. They like to analyze and synthesize. Flexible
They are keen on basic Gets bored with consolidation
assumptions, principles, theories models and Happy to give things a try
systems thinking. Their philosophy poses Open minded
rationality and logic. “If it’s logical it’s
good”. Questions they frequently ask are:
“Does it make sense?” “How does this fit
with that?” “What are the basic assump-
tions?” They tend to be detached, analytical
and dedicated to rational objectivity rather
than anything subjective or ambiguous.

Activists involve themselves fully and Optimistic about change

without bias in new experiences. They enjoy Rushes into action without prepar-
the here and now and are happy to be domin- ation
ated by immediate experiences. They are Takes immediate obvious action
open-minded, not skeptical, and this tends to
make them enthusiastic about anything new.
Their philosophy

175
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Pragmatist is “I’ll try anything once”. They tend to act Takes unnecessary risks
first and consider the consequences after- Unlikely to resist change
wards. Their days are filled with activity.
They tackle problems by brainstorming. As Businesslike – gets to the point
soon as the excitement from one activity has Does not like theory
died down they are busy looking for the next. Impatient with waffle
They tend to thrive on the challenge of new Keen to test things out in practice
experiences but are bored with implementa- Practical, down to earth, realistic
tion and longer term consolidation. Rejects ideas without clear applic-
Pragmatists are keen on trying out ideas, ation
theories and techniques to see if they work Seizes first, often most obvious
in practice. They positively search out new solution
ideas and take the first opportunity to exper- Task and technique focused
iment with applications. They are the sort of
people who return from management courses
brimming with new ideas that they want to
try out in practice. They like to get on with
things and act quickly and confidently on
ideas that attract them. They tend to be impa-
tient with ruminating and open ended discus-
sions. They are essentially practical, down-
to-earth people who like making practical
decisions and solving problems.

Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ)

The Honey and Mumford’s learning style questionnaire has been used extensively in determ-
ining learning styles in higher education (Duff & Duff, 2002) and in management practices
(Allinson & Hayes, 1990). The LSQ was designed to evaluate the comparative strengths of
the four learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992): Activist, Reflector, Theorist, and the
Pragmatist. They also indicate that no style is dominant over the other and that one style
may have an advantage in one situation and not in another. The four styles closely correspond
to Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model (ELM): active experimentation (Activist), reflective
observation (Reflector), abstract conceptualization (Theorist), and Concrete Experience
(Pragmatist).

Research Methodology
The students of the two-year MBA program were the respondents. Sixty-three of them were
interviewed using a questionnaire consisting of twenty five questions that elicited their
learning preferences. The instrument was confined to the students of the Aurora’s Consortium,
affiliated to the Osmania University.

176
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

Questionnaire
The questionnaire was developed based on the two learning theory models presented, viz.
Honey & Mumford’s model and the Dunn & Dunn’s learning style theories. A pilot study
was carried out and then questions that best elicited student learning characteristics were
retained. The questions were restricted to a small number based on the rationality that lengthy
questionnaires draw arbitrary responses instead of thoughtful and insightful answers. The
variables used were based on these learning models and are depicted in Table 1 and Table
2. An ordinal scale was used having a five points: (1) disagree strongly; (2) disagree; (3)
neutral; (4) agree; (5) agree strongly. Those in italics are the excluded ones that were incon-
sistent with other variables used to measure similar learning styles.

Table 1: Variables for the Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Theory
Variables Description of Variables
Xp1 Written Instructions is what I prefer from the Instructor.
Xp2 Verbal Instructions is what I prefer from the Instructor.
Xp3 Question time and discussions are the best way to learn a topic.
Xp4 Reading makes it easy for me to understand a topic.
Xp5 Electronic media including the net and mail are preferred by me.
Xp6 Spoken instructions help me to arrive at clear solutions for problems.
Xp7 I prefer topics to be explained on transparency/board/slides.
Xp8 Live examples and cases make learning easy.
Xp9 Simulation exercises are what interest me most.
Xp10 Practical experiences given by the instructor are the most effective ways
to learn

Table 2: Variables Under the Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Theory
Variables Description of Variables
Xs1 I am flexible in my thinking.
Xs2 I do look at a problem from different dimensions.
Xs3 I do have an open-minded approach and am ready to improvise.
Xs4 My preparation is insightful and thoughtful.
Xs5 My learning is based on assumptions, principles, theories and concepts.
Xs6 I am activity-driven and involve myself with activities.
Xs7 I prefer to collect data on events and experiences to reach conclusions.
Xs8 I feel lost in long-term implementation and evaluation.
Xs9 Working in teams is an exciting prospect for me to experiment and try new
Xs10 ideas.
Xs11 I prefer activities to be centered on me.
Analysis and synthesis for me are pivotal to adapt and integrate observations
into theories.

177
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Xs12 I relish in experiences and activities all the time.

Xs13 My approach has been of being practical and realistic.
Xs14 Practical decision-making and problem-solving is what interests me most.
Xs15 I like being pragmatic, to act quickly and assuredly on ideas of interest.

Data Analysis
Factor analysis was used with the Principle Axes Factoring method. The logic of having
employed factor analysis was to assess and describe the variation among factors. Factor
Analysis was then testing using the using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Both these tests did confirm the applicability of factor ana-
lysis for both groups of variables (Table 3). It is imperative that the KMO should be greater
than 0.5 for furthering factor analysis (Coakes & Steed, 2003). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity
was employed to test the null hypothesis that the population correlation matrix is uncorrelated.
The observed significance level is .0000. It is small enough to reject the hypothesis. The
authors infer that the relationship between variables is significantly strong.

Table 3: KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Measure of Factor analysis Group 1 Group 2
applicability Dunn & Dunn’s Honey and Mumford’s Learning
Learning Style Model
KMO Measure ,616 ,673
Bartlett’s Approx 91,330 259,572
Sphericity Chi-square
df 28,000 78,000
Sig ,000 ,000

Factor Analyses Results

Factor analysis results using the SPSS resulted in three factors for the variables in the first
group and four factors for the variables in the second group. Table 4 and Table 5 confirm
the influence of three factors under the Dunn & Dunn’s Model and the influence of four
factors under the Honey & Mumford’s learning model (using the eigen values greater than
one rule). (The applicability criteria for KMO measure being > 0,6 and X2 test statistically
significant). For the first group of variables, Xp1 and Xp6 are the visual, Xp2 and Xp7 are
auditory and Xp8, Xp9, Xp3 and Xp10 that are kinesthetic, confirming the Dunn & Dunn’s
VAK style theory. For the second group of variables, Xs3, Xs6, and Xs11 are reflectors,
Xs10, Xs4 and Xs1 that best explain theorists, Xs5 and Xs9 that explain activists, Xs7, Xs12,
Xs13, Xs14, and Xs15 that best explain pragmatists and thereby confirming the Honey and
Mumford’s learning style model (LSQ). Table 4 and Table 5 indicate the factor numeric
definition for each variable. In both of them, factors have significant loadings of + or -0.30.
Variables that constitute individual factors are indicated with an asterix.

178
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

Table 4: Factor Loadings – Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Theory

Raw Rescaled
Factor Factor
1 2 3 Kinesthetic Visual Auditory
Xp1 -0.053 0.689 0 -0.68 0.905* 0
Xp6 0.03 0.402 0.064 0.032 0.425* 0.068
Xp2 -0.071 0.131 0.569 -0.101 0.182 0.791*
Xp7 0.168 -0.031 0.558 0.179 -0.033 0.596*
Xp8 0.282 0.063 0.076 0.531* -0.12 0.144
Xp9 0.654 0.21 0.09 0.648* 0.208 0.091
Xp3 0.826 0.047 -0.031 0.761* 0.043 -0.027
Xp10 0.691 -0.093 -0.031 0.665* -0.091 -0.028
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 5: Factor Loadings before and after Rotation – Honey and Mumford’s Learning
Style Theory (LSQ)
Raw Rescaled
Factor Factor
1 2 3 4 Pragmatist Reflector Activist Theorist
Xs3 -0.226 0.765 0.052 -0.077 -0.228 0.772 0.054 -0.078
Xs6 0.061 0.62 -0.192 0.072 0.064 0.644 -0.201 -0.075
Xs11 0.125 0.695 0.134 0.111 0.132 0.731 0.142 0.115
Xs10 0.071 0.161 0.241 0.511 0.076 0.173 0.261 0.547
Xs4 0.298 0.029 0.086 0.736 0.273 0.028 0.081 0.676
Xs1 0.257 -0.144 0.27 0.305 0.328 -0.184 0.345 0.391
Xs5 0.068 -0.066 0.815 0.271 0.069 -0.066 0.804 0.267
Xs9 0.03 0.116 0.672 0.028 0.029 0.111 0.631 0.028
Xs7 0.295 -0.121 0.414 0.201 0.306 -0.125 0.431 0.207
Xs12 0.571 -0.181 0.101 0.01 0.634 -0.201 0.112 0.013

179
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Xs13 0.544 -0.055 0.335 0.184 0.641 -0.062 0.395 0.218

Xs15 0.61 0.068 0.021 0.217 0.685 0.076 0.023 0.244
Xs14 0.541 0.194 -0.013 0.13 0.617 0.224 -0.015 0.148
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Reliability Test
The Cronbach Alpha Coefficient has been calculated to measure how well a set of variables
measure the latent construct. The values for the first factor are near to satisfactory values
and range 0.602 to 0.728 and that of the second factor analysis range 0.631 to 0.745. The
calculations are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Reliability
Factor Analysis Factors Cronbach Alpha
Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Theory Kinesthetic 0.728
Visual 0.545
Auditory 0.602
Honey & Mumford’s Learning Style Theory Pragmatist 0.745
Reflector 0.742
Activist 0.689
Theorist 0.631

Findings from T-test

The t-test was run to examine if the means from the samples are different. For the first time,
gender as a variable was used as a grouping variable and for the second time the year of
study was used as the grouping variable. The results indicated that male students were more
pragmatic and theoretic in comparison to female students and that women were more reflective
and activist in their approaches. The difference however were significant only in the theorist
component statistically p=0,033 < 0, 05). For the Dunn & Dunn’s Learning Style Theory
the difference in approaches is even less conclusive and the same can be stated for the dif-
ferences between the first year and second year students. It does indicate that demographic
variables like gender and year of study had no influence on learning style preferences and
the choice is based on individual’s cognitive make-up and cultural background.

Results
The objective of the study was to explore two of the most used learning style theories at the
Aurora’s Consortium, affiliated to the Osmania University. Analyzing the students of the
two-year MBA program using factor analysis, students learning style preferences have become
clear. Three factors were extracted that students practically use, vis-à-vis Visual, Auditory,
and Kinesthetic through the first factor analysis. These factors also confirm the Dunn &
Dunn’s learning style theory. Further analysis resulted in the extraction of four dimensions

180
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

that reiterate the Honey and Mumford’s learning style theory. The factors extracted were
reflectors, theorists, activists, and pragmatists. Correlation analysis indicates that both the
learning theories are independent of each other. T-tests results showed that learning style
preferences were independent of gender and year of study. In effect the soico-demographic
factors did not have a bearing on learning style preferences. The learning style preferences
were outcomes of individual characteristics and personal impulse. The research instrument
developed to facilitate further research and for this empirical survey is appropriate for a
small sample. The findings also clearly indicate that the course design and curriculum should
closely parallel students’ learning style preferences to improve academic excellence and at-
titude toward learning. It does mean that the faculty involved with management education
must design and develop teaching methods and us pedagogy that complement learning styles.
Learning styles are not fixed and change through experience (Kolb, 1999; Honey & Mum-
ford,1992;). Theorists such as Entwistle (1998), on the other hand, are more interested in
how students tackle a specific learning task/learning strategy than any habitual prefer-
ence/learning style. The authors here are interested in approaching learning taking into
consideration the learner, and the interaction between the learner, the context and the nature
of work. With the premise that learning styles are not fixed, an amalgamated, harmonious
and balanced approach could be used to accommodate learning styles for a diverse group of
students. To facilitate students’ reflection on their own learning process could create
awareness of their learning styles and to flexibly change their styles based on the task (Coffield
et al., 2004). Supporting students in meta-cognition perhaps is the basis for applying learning
style theories to learning and training.
This study also indicates that students aware of a range of learning styles would be then
conscious of using different and appropriate styles for different set of activities. To this effect,
pedagogy must be flexible enough and faculty could use case analysis, role plays, team
projects, mini lectures, management games, vestibule or simulation training, sensitivity
analysis and seminars. Curriculum design should include projects, internship, coaching and
mentoring to great effect for creating awareness of the range of learning strategies that
complement learning styles of students. Activity base learning like collage, team building
exercises, adventure learning, and action-based learning should help in fostering a flexible
learning strategy. The faculty through all these innovative approaches must provide the meta-
cognitive support to enable students reflect on not just the what but also on the how and why
of learning.

Future Research
This study is confined to one consortium and date may be gathered from several institutions
so that results and findings could be generalized. The study does not take into consideration
the time factor. Learning style preferences could change over a period of time and also with
student maturation. The research has however enabled the clear recognition of students
learning style preferences. This in itself allows faculty to design and deliver on a flexible
learning strategy platform. This study indicates that students do have an impulsive personal
preference to a learning style. However other research (Kolb, 1999; Honey & Mumford,
1992; Armstrong & Mahmud, 2008) indicates that experience does impact learning style
preferences. Further research must focus on studying if experience does impact on the changes

181
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

in learning style preferences and the mediating role of personal characteristics on learners’
choice.

Conclusions
This study clearly showed different learning style preferences amongst students of the MBA
program. Flexible learning strategies could be adopted by management faculty in inducing
interest and the requisite learning of course content. The authors opine that faculty can expose
students to diverse learning environments that would allow students to develop coping skills,
behaviors and learning strategies. Being aware of their own learning process would enable
students to learn how to learn – termed as generative learning. Students equipped with
learning strategies and problem-solving skills that do not match with their own natural
preferences could become versatile on their jobs (Hayes & Allinson, 1990). Intentionally
mismatching learning environments does make learners more adaptable, overcome weaknesses
in their learning preferences, and develop that harmonious approach to learning.
The study also concludes that students aware of different learning strategies could select
the appropriate style for a given task. The objective of transferring knowledge, developing
skills and competencies could be achieved if students were made aware of their own learning
process. This meta-cognitive support must be provided by management faculty. Using flexible
strategies and pedagogy would enable faculty offer this meta-cognitive support. Pedagogy
then must be customized, and adapted to the content, nature of work in the corporate and
the students learning styles. The authors’ experience in handling course for the MBA students
has been that case study method, activity-based learning, and other simulation exercises
should be widely employed with the traditional lecture method. Having students enact a skit,
empathize and play roles, deliver presentations, attend workshops and conferences has always
resulted in improved attitude toward learning. These kinds of activities expose students to
diverse learning environments and spurs learning activities initiated by them. Equipped with
a range of learning styles, students experience a sense of self-efficacy, confidence and coping
behaviors that are essential for their transition into the corporate. It is clear that research in
learning styles, transfer of learning, pedagogy and learning environments is something that
would keep us interested for Educational Institutions and the Corporate spend huge amounts
of money, time and effort in learning and training activities. Further research in this area
should support the objectives of this study and reiterate the stand that awareness of learning
styles allows students choose the right style for a given task of activity.

References
Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2002). Attention deficit/hyperactivity Disorder type Behaviors among Undergradu-
ates and their Relation to Learning Style. Research in Education, 68, 89-109.
Allinson, C. W. & Hayes, J. (1990). Validity of the Learning Styles Questionnaire. Psychological Report
,67, 859-866.
Armstrong, S. & Mahmud, A. (2008). Experiential Learning and the Acquisition of Managerial Tacit
Knowledge. Academy of Management Journal, 7(2), 189-208.
Coakes, S. J. & Steed, L. G. (2003). SPSS Analysis without Anguish, Version 11.0 for Windows.
Milton: Wiley.

182
 PRABHAKAR VENUGOPAL GANTASALA, SWAPNA BHARGAVI GANTASALA

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (Ed.). (2004). Learning Styles and Pedagogy in
post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Wiltshire: Learning and Skills Research
Centre.
Constantinidou, F. & Baker, S. (2002). Stimulus Modality and Verbal Learning Performance in Normal
Aging. Brain and Language, 82(3), 296-311.
Cuthbert, P. F. (2005). The student learning process: Learning styles or Learning Approaches?
Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), 235- 249.
Demirbas, O. O. & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning Styles of Design Students and the Relationship of
Academic Performance and Gender in Design Education. Learning and Instructions, 17,
345-359.
Duff, A. & Duffy, T. (2002). Psychometric Properties of Honey 6 Mumford’s Learning Style Ques-
tionnaire (LSQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 147-163.
Duff, A., Dobie, A. & Guo, X. (2008). The Influence of Business Case Studies and Learning Styles
in an Accounting Course: A Comment. Accounting Education, 17(2), 129-144.
Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. (2003). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model Research: Who,
What, When, Where, and What? New York: St. Johns’ University Press.
Dunn, R. (2003). The Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model: Theoretical Cornerstone, Research and
Practical Applications. In Armstrong S. & Graff M. (Ed.), Bringing Theory and Practice,
Proceedings of the 8th Annual European Learning Styles Information Network Conference.
Hull: University of Hull.
Entwistle, N. J. (1998). Improving Teaching through Research on Student Learning. In Forrest, J. J.
F (Ed.), University teaching: International Perspectives. New York: Gerland.
Garcia, P., Amandi, A., Schiaffino, S. & Campo, M. (2007). Evaluating Bayesian Networks’Precision
for Detecting Students’ Learning Styles. Computers & Education, 49, 794-808.
Herbert, A., Stenfors, S. (2007). Choosing Experiential Methods for Management Education: The Fit
of Action Learning and Problem-Based Learning. In Reynolds M & Vince R. (Ed.), the
Handbook of Experiential Learning & Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publica-
tions.
Kayes, A. B. (2007). Power and Experience: Emancipation through Guided Leadership Narratives. In
Reynolds M & Vince R. (Ed.), The Handbook of Experiential Learning & Management
Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reynolds M & Vince R.(Ed.), The Handbook of Experiential Learning & Management Education.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1999). The Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory. Boston: Hay Group.
Lhori-Posey, B. (2003). Determining Learning Styles of Students. Nurse Educator, 28(2), 54.
Li, Y. S, Chen, P. S. & Tsai, S. J. (2008). A Comparison of the Learning Styles among Different
Nursing Programs in Taiwan: Implications for Nursing Education. Nurse Education Today,
28, 70-76.
Loo, R. (2004). Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: is there a linkage? Educational Psy-
chology, 24(1), 99-108.
Metallidou, P. & Platsidou, M. (2008). Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory-1985: Validity Issues and
Relations with Metacognitive Knowledge about Problem-solving Strategies. Learning and
Individual Differences, 18(1), 114-119.
Peters, D., Jones, G. & Peters, J. (2008). Preferred ‘learning styles’ in Students Studying Sports-Related
Programmers in Higher Education in the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education,
3(2), 155- 166.
Sievers, B. (2007). Pictures from Bellow the Surface of the University: The Social Photo-Matrix as a
Method for Understanding Organizations in Depth. In Reynolds M & Vince R. (Ed.), the

183
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

Handbook of Experiential Learning & Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Škerlavaj, M. & Dimovski, V. (2006). Social Network Approach to Organizational Learning. Journal
ofApplied Business Research, 22(2), 89-97.
Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C.C. (2008). Development of an Adaptive Learning
System with Two Sources of Personalization Information. Computers & Education, 51(2),
776-786.
Welsh, M.A., Dehler, G. E. & Murray, D. L. (2007). Learning about and Through Aesthetic Experience:
Understanding the Power of Experience-Based Education. In Reynolds M & Vince R. (Ed.),
the Handbook of Experiential Learning & Management Education. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

About the Authors

Dr. Prabhakar Venugopal Gantasala
Currently working as Professor in the School of Business, New York Institute of Technology,
Amman, Jordan, I have thirteen years experience of working with different Business Schools
in teaching, research and consultancy. I have been conferred with the Prof.K.Venkat Reddy
gold medal in MBA for the batch 1992-1994 by S.K. University. I have been awarded with
Doctor of Philosophy in Management for my dissertation titled ‘Organizational Culture and
Network Embeddedness’. I possess to my credit a bachelors degree in law with Labor legis-
lations as specialization. I have published five articles in different Journals and presented
my research work in Human Resource Management, Knowledge Management, and Organ-
izational Culture in various International Conferences including one in the International
Colloquium on Business and Management, Bangkok. Have also undertaken consultancy
work for the Government of Andhra Pradesh, India.

Swapna Bhargavi Gantasala

I am an Assistant Professor at Aurora P.G. College, handling Finance and Marketing special-
izations for MBA students. I have been associated with the Bank of America and then moved
to academics. I have presented papers at various International conferences, one including at
the International Colloquium of Business and Management, Bangkok. I am currently pursuing
my doctoral program in Marketing and involved with research in HR and Marketing.

184
EDITORS
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Michael Apple, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
David Barton, Lancaster University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Mario Bello, University of Science, Cuba.
Manuela du Bois-Reymond, Universiteit Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Robert Devillar, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, USA.
Daniel Madrid Fernandez, University of Granada, Spain.
Ruth Finnegan, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
James Paul Gee, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
Juana M. Sancho Gil, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Kris Gutierrez, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Anne Hickling-Hudson, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Australia.
Roz Ivanic, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Carey Jewitt, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.
Andeas Kazamias, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.
Peter Kell, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA.
Gunther Kress, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.
Colin Lankshear, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia.
Kimberly Lawless, University of Illinois, Chicago, USA.
Sarah Michaels, Clark University, Worcester, USA.
Jeffrey Mok, Miyazaki International College, Miyazaki, Japan.
Denise Newfield, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Ernest O’Neil, Ministry of Education, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
José-Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Francisco Fernandez Palomares, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Ambigapathy Pandian, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.
Miguel A. Pereyra, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Scott Poynting, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Angela Samuels, Montego Bay Community College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.
Michel Singh, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Helen Smith, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Richard Sohmer, Clark University, Worcester, USA.
Brian Street, University of London, London, UK.
Giorgos Tsiakalos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Salim Vally, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Gella Varnava-Skoura, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.
Cecile Walden, Sam Sharpe Teachers College, Montego Bay, Jamaica.
Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Wang Yingjie, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Zhou Zuoyu, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Learning-Journal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
 THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS
Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories
and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships
with society.
ISSN: 1833-1866
http://www.Arts-Journal.com
Examines the meaning and purpose of ‘design’ while
also speaking in grounded ways about the task of
design and the use of designed artefacts and
processes.
ISSN: 1833-1874
http://www.Design-Journal.com
Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in
globalisation.
ISSN 1835-4432
http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com
Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a
body of knowledge on the nature and future of
learning.
ISSN: 1447-9540
http://www.Learning-Journal.com
Addresses the key question: How can the institution
of the museum become more inclusive?
ISSN 1835-2014
http://www.Museum-Journal.com
Draws from the various fields and perspectives
through which we can address fundamental
questions of sustainability.
ISSN: 1832-2077
http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com
Investigates the affordances for learning in the digital
media, in school and throughout everyday life.
ISSN 1835-2030
http://www.ULJournal.com
FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT
subscriptions@commonground.com.au
View publication stats
Explores the past, present and future of books,
publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning
in the information society.
ISSN: 1447-9567
http://www.Book-Journal.com
Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of
knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference
and diversity.
ISSN: 1447-9583
http://www.Diversity-Journal.com
Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating
the future and the human, in an era otherwise
dominated by scientific, technical and economic
rationalisms.
ISSN: 1447-9559
http://www.Humanities-Journal.com
Creates a space for discussion of the nature and
future of organisations, in all their forms and
manifestations.
ISSN: 1447-9575
http://www.Management-Journal.com
Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary
approaches to knowledge creation within and across
the various social sciences and between the social,
natural and applied sciences.
ISSN: 1833-1882
http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com
Focuses on a range of critically important themes in
the various fields that address the complex and
subtle relationships between technology, knowledge
and society.
ISSN: 1832-3669
http://www.Technology-Journal.com
Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in
times of striking social transformation.
ISSN 1835-2030
http://www.Universities-Journal.com