See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229794012
Learning styles among geography undergraduates: An
international comparison
Article in Area · March 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00600.x
CITATIONS
READS
78
619
4 authors, including:
Mick Healey
Pauline Kneale
Healey HE Consultants Ltd; University of Gloucestershire
University of Plymouth
145 PUBLICATIONS 7,783 CITATIONS
94 PUBLICATIONS 1,579 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
John Bradbeer
25 PUBLICATIONS 559 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by John Bradbeer on 22 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Area (2005) 37.1, 30–42
Learning styles among geography undergraduates:
an international comparison
Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Mick Healey*, Pauline Kneale** and John Bradbeer†
with other members of the INLT Learning Styles and Concepts Group 1
*School of Environment, University of Gloucestershire, Francis Hall Close, Swindon Road, Cheltenham,
Gloucestershire GL50 4AZ
Email: mhealey@glos.ac.uk
**School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
Email: p.e.kneale@leeds.ac.uk
†
School of Education and Continuing Studies, University of Portsmouth, 141 High Street,
Portsmouth, PO1 2HY
Email: john.bradbeer@port.ac.uk
Revised manuscript received 18 August 2004
Growing diversity is focusing attention on the range of different student learning styles.
This study assesses whether geographers have a predominant learning style and whether
this varies between and within countries. The findings are based on over 900 geography
students from 12 universities in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US, who
completed Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI). The implications for curriculum design
and student learning strategies are discussed. It is suggested that departments should aim
to produce balanced learners with a full range of learning capacities rather than simply
matching teaching to existing learning styles.
Key words: learning and teaching styles, experiential learning model, Kolb’s Learning Style
Inventory (LSI), assessment, geography undergraduates
Introduction
As numbers of students entering higher education grow
and the diversity of the student population becomes
greater in social background, ethnicity, disability and
previous educational and life experience, the challenge
of how best to provide appropriate and fulfilling
learning experiences for all has become more important. Greater awareness of the issue has been
encouraged by the increased attention given to initial
and continuing professional development of teachers
in higher education (Healey 2003). These two trends
have stimulated an increased interest in the topic
of variations in student learning styles, that is, the
differences in the way individuals learn. Issues of
equity arise where the mixture of teaching styles
and assessment methods used in a department are
out of alignment with the range of learning styles
among the students taking the programmes.
Research into learning styles has been active for
at least the last four decades and there has been a
marked upturn in interest in the last few years. An
indication of this is given by three extensive reviews
of the topic that were all published in mid-2004
(Cassidy 2004; Coffield et al. 2004; Desmedt and
Valcke 2004). However, up until now there have been
no systematic studies published in the geographical
literature on learning styles, although Kolb’s experiential
ISSN 0004-0894 © Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2005
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 31
learning theory has attracted some attention, at least
in the UK (e.g. Healey 1998; Jenkins 1998; Bradbeer
1999; Burkill et al. 2000; Healey and Jenkins 2000;
Healey and Roberts 2004). The origins for this study
arose out of the conclusion from Healey and Jenkins’
review that:
. . . the characteristic learning style of geography
students remain unclear. It is important that we
establish whether geography students in higher
education in the early twenty-first century have a
predominant learning style and whether this varies
between countries . . . (2000, 193)
Hence the research focuses on two questions:
• Do geography undergraduates have a predominant
learning style early in their studies?
• Is there a geography of learning styles?
This study reports on the findings from 12 university
departments in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and
the US. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory
provides the theoretical context for the study. Kolb
is recognized as launching the modern learning style
movement (Coffield et al. 2004) and is the most
cited author in the learning style literature (Desmedt
and Valke 2004).
Hartmann (1995), using Kolb’s categorization, makes
links between learning styles and the teaching
preferences of students:
• Concrete experience is for those who enjoy being
involved in a new experience and who might feel
most comfortable with practical laboratory analysis,
field work, working from observations and other
visual stimuli including art and film.
• Reflective observation is preferred by those who
are comfortable watching others or developing
observations about their own experience. Logs,
journals and mindstorming are helpful.
• Abstract conceptualization is about creating
theories to explain observations and for these participants lectures, papers and argument by analogy
are appreciated.
• Active experimentation involves activities such as
using theories to solve problems and to make decisions and may include simulation exercises, case
studies and the opportunity to work on projects.
The results of the survey are discussed in the light of
information from the literature about the preferred
teaching and learning preferences of students. The
implications of the findings for curriculum design
and student learning strategies are discussed. Knowing the learning styles of student cohorts gives the
teacher the opportunity to use a variety of style
materials that match and challenge students’ learning preferences (Felder 1993, 1996).
The nature and relevance of learning
styles
There is a large, and unfortunately at times confusing,
literature on student learning (Coffield et al. 2004).
Some refer to learning style, others to learning approach,
learning strategy and learning orientation. Often the
same construct is described in different terms and
the same term can be used to refer to quite different
constructs. As Sadler-Smith reports ‘. . . the term
“learning style” is a potentially misleading portmanteau term for a rag-bag of disparate and even
unrelated constructs’ (1999, 160). However, in a
series of extensive reviews of the field (Riding and
Cheema 1991; Sadler-Smith 1996; Rayner and Riding
1997; Curry 2000; Rayner 2000a; Rayner 2000b;
Riding 2000; Riding and Rayner 1998; Coffield et al.
2004), a consensus emerges that learning style should
be defined in terms of a distinctive and habitual way
an individual acquires knowledge, skills or attitudes
and that, in adults, it is a relatively stable trait.
One of the most influential writers on learning styles
is David Kolb. His Experiential Learning Theory
Bibliography contains 1863 entries from 1971 to 2004
(Kolb and Kolb 2004). His cycle of experiential
learning (Kolb 1981) is shown in Figure 1. Kolb
theorizes that effective learning involves four key
elements: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC) and active
experimentation (AE). Learners ideally move through
each stage in turn, and transform their experience
into knowledge. According to Kolb, learning requires
abilities that are polar opposites. People tend to
perceive new information in either a concrete or
abstract dimension (CE–AC) and process or transform
that information either through activity or reflection
(AE–RO) (Smith and Kolb 1986). The combination
of these two axes gives the four learning styles Kolb
(1984) describes – diverger, assimilator, converger
and accommodator – each of which has different
characteristics (Figure 2).2
Kolb and Fry (1975, 35– 6) argued that for people
to learn effectively they should ideally be able in
each of the four areas. However, they acknowledge
that individuals tend to be more skilled in some
areas and less comfortable in others. They suggest
32 Healey et al.
Figure 1
The experiential learning model and associated learning styles (from Kolb 1981, 1984)
Figure 2
Characteristics of Kolb’s Learning Styles (adapted from Kolb 1984, 86; Gibbs 1988, 20)
that unconsciously individuals will play to their personal strengths developing one area at the expense
of another. For example, Smith and Kolb (1986)
suggested that students who are strong convergers
would perform well in written examinations where
there is a single right answer to a question. They
attributed this to the converger’s preference for
using hypothetico-deductive reasoning.
Learning styles are considered to affect the ways
in which teachers teach. Generally teachers are
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 33
thought to prefer to teach in the style that accords
with their own learning preferences, presumably
because they found that style of learning effective for
themselves. Where this is in tune with their learners
that should be successful; but where a learner prefers an alternative approach their learning may be
less rich and need more support. A teacher’s
learning style can influence students’ perceptions
of their teachers. For example, Bueno (1999) shows
that assimilator engineering and sciences professors
tend to obtain more favourable evaluations than
the other professors, particularly those with diverger
and accommodator strengths. Felder states:
Students whose learning styles are compatible with
the teaching style of a course instructor tend to retain
information longer, apply it more effectively, and
have more positive post-course attitudes toward the
subject than do their counterparts who experience
learning and teaching style mismatches. (1993, 286)
One of the advantages of using Kolb’s Learning
Style Inventory (LSI) is that there are comparative data
available on disciplinary variations from previous
research (e.g. Kolb 1981). Moreover, it is simple for
students to self-complete, as the LSI (of 1985) consists
of just 12 statements (Kolb 1985).3 This contrasts with
the 80 statements used in Honey and Mumford’s
(1992) Learning Style Questionnaire.
Although the revised LSI (1985), used in this study,
appears to have improved re-test reliability, the construct validity (i.e. the existence of the two dimensions
AC– CE and RO – AE) of the LSI has been challenged
(Coffield et al. 2004). Nevertheless, Loo (1997) argues
that using it with students helps them to improve
their learning effectiveness in different learning situations and Smith and Kolb state that the intended
purpose of the instrument is ‘an individual’s self development’ (1986, 5) and is ‘especially useful when
used by teachers and learners to develop a shared
understanding of the educational venture’ (1986, 7).
Situating geography
Kolb argues that different disciplines process, experience and produce knowledge in distinctive ways
and so can be seen as operating with distinctive
learning style. Learners will tend to gravitate towards
a discipline where their learning style is in accord
with the type of knowledge production prevalent
within it. Educational experience shapes learning
styles. Kolb argues ‘people choose fields that are
consistent with their learning styles and are further
shaped to fit the learning norms of their field once
they are in it’ (1984, 88). Equally, if learning style in
adolescents is more fluid than within adults, then it
is likely to be influenced by the mode of knowledge
production favoured in the discipline being studied.
Congruence of individual learning style and disciplinary knowledge type is likely to lead to academic
success in that discipline and to greater satisfaction
from learning. One possible impact of widening
student participation in higher education is that more
students arrive at university with personal learning
style less finely attuned to the knowledge structures
they have chosen to study.
There is considerable evidence that learning styles
vary by discipline (Heffler 2001; Dalrymple 2002;
Dee et al. 2002; Pungente et al. 2002; Siepen and
Westrup 2002). Kolb collected extensive data on
learning styles of undergraduates and academic
staff in the US and used the results to classify the
disciplines (Figure 3). For Kolb, geography is an
assimilative discipline, favouring abstract conceptualization and reflective observation and tends to
attract people with an assimilative learning style.
By contrast, in an Australian study of changes in
learning styles of undergraduates, Nulty and Barrett
(1996) drew on the earlier work of Cullen et al.
(1994) and concluded that geography students were
predominantly accommodators (Figure 4). Intuitively,
given the significance of fieldwork and practical
laboratory work in the curriculum, the accommodator style may appear the more likely learning
style for geographers. Bradbeer (1999) predicts that
the British picture for geography would probably be
closer to the Australian than to the American. Physical
geography may fall in the harder science group and
human geography on the softer side of the social
science–science divide (Becher 1989).
Healey and Jenkins (2000) identify this question
of learning style preferences amongst geographers
as an unresolved issue. Perhaps fuzziness is to be
expected. Given the diversity of geography as a
discipline, the real differences in national traditions
of learning and teaching and in university geography,
and the decade or more that elapsed between Kolb’s
work and that of Nulty and Barrett, a major aim of
this paper is to investigate national differences in
Kolb learning style among geography undergraduates.
Sampling methodology and analysis
Colleagues in geography in 12 higher education
institutions agreed to participate in this international
34 Healey et al.
Figure 3
Concrete/Abstract and Active/ Reflective orientations of academic fields (from Kolb 1984, 127)
project. Three universities in Australia, New Zealand,
the US and the UK participated. All the colleagues
are members of the INLT (International Network for
Learning and Teaching Geography in Higher Education).
Although not a random sample of institutions, the
participating universities represent a range of
types of university. The procedures were piloted
and refined in an initial trial at the University of
Gloucestershire and then sent to the participants
(Table 1). One paper from the study on the learning
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 35
Figure 4
Kolb’s learning styles and disciplinary groups (cited in Nulty and Barrett 1996;
adapted from Cullen et al. 1994)
styles of geography students at Auckland has already
been published (Milicich et al. 2003).
The students are not all at the same stage in their
geographical experience – though most are in the
early stages of studying geography at university,
pre-university experience varies. This may be an
issue, as there are indications from a longitudinal
study that the response to the LSI changes with time
(Vermunt and Minnaert 2003). This may be due to
increased exposure to university-style teaching, but
they do not look at this in a subject context. Nulty
and Barrett (1996), looking in detail at students studying business, chemistry, Japanese and computer
science, show students’ learning styles changing
between the first and third years.
Do geography undergraduates have a
predominant learning style early in their
studies?
Over 900 students completed Kolb’s (1985) revised
LSI in 2001–2. Taking the data as a whole, Table 2
shows that 45 per cent of the students are in the
assimilator category. In Kolb’s terms this suggests
that slightly less than half of geography classes are
populated with people who prefer organizing materials,
testing theories and ideas, designing experiments,
analysing quantitative data and building conceptual
models. A quarter of the class are convergers, happy
to experiment with new ideas, choosing the best
solution, setting goals, making decisions and creating
new ways of thinking and doing. The divergers,
17 per cent of the group, are sensitive to people’s
feelings and values, comfortable with gathering information, listening with an open mind and imagining the implications of ambiguous situations.
The smallest group, the accommodators (14%), are
characterized by those most at ease when seeking
and exploiting opportunities, committing themselves
to objectives, influencing and leading others, getting
personally involved and dealing with people (Kolb
1984, 96).
Using the Chi-Square test confirms that overall
there are significantly greater numbers of respondents
in the assimilator class (Table 3). Although there is
no significant difference in the learning styles of male
and female geography students, there is evidence that
more diverger and accommodator learning styles are
found among students aged 21 and over than among
younger students.
36 Healey et al.
Table 1
The characteristics of each of the student groups completing the Learning Style Inventory
University
University of
Gloucestershire,
UK
University of
Leeds, UK
University of
Portsmouth, UK
South West Texas,
US
University of
Oregon, US
Texas A&M, US
Year of
respondents
Year 1
When the
questionnaire was
administered
Prior geography experience
Number of
responses
Weeks 2–3,
semester 1
Most had studied geography at A-level
58
Weeks 1–2,
semester 1
Year 1
Week 2,
semester 1
Years 2 and 3 Semester 1
All have school geography to 18 years
145
Year 1
Majority had studied geography at A-level
81
25
Australian National
University,
Australia
Curtin University,
Australia
Year 1
Year 1
First few weeks,
semester 1
Macquarie
University,
Australia
University of
Auckland, New
Zealand
University of
Canterbury, New
Zealand
University of
Waikato, New
Zealand
Year 2
Week 1,
semester 1
1 or 2 years university geography; at least
1 year of school geography
1 or 2 years university geography and
school experience
1 or 2 years university geography; 40 –
50% have school geography
50% have at least 4 years school
experience; 50% have no school
background
About half have school geography
experience in the two years before
university; 50% have school experience
to 16 years
First year of university geography; most
have school experience
Year 1
First university
classes
85% have pre-university geography
experience
152
Year 1
Week 3,
semester 1
Most have pre-university geography
experience
129
Year 1, all
human
geographers
Weeks 1–2
semester 1
Most have pre-university geography
100
Table 2
Year 2
Weeks 3– 4,
semester 1
Week 1,
semester 1
End of year 1
Year 2
58
65
24
30
65
Preferred learning styles of geography undergraduates
All countries
Australia
New Zealand
UK
US
Divergers
No
%
Assimilators
No
%
Convergers
No
%
158
22
67
28
41
416
57
150
147
62
224
25
98
77
24
17
18
18
10
28
45
48
39
52
42
24
21
26
27
16
Accommodators
No
%
134
15
66
32
21
14
13
17
11
14
All students
No
%
932
119
381
284
148
100
100
100
100
100
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 37
Table 3
Chi Square tabulation results
Chi Square tabulation
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
learning
learning
learning
learning
learning
learning
learning
learning
styles
styles
styles
styles
styles
styles
styles
styles
All universities
Gender
Age
All countries
Australian universities
New Zealand universities
UK universities
US universities
Figure 5
2
Probability
Accept /reject H0
77.3
7.6
15.4
35.2
14.4
21.2
3.6
3.3
0.000
0.055
0.017
0.000
0.026
0.002
0.073
0.770
Reject
Accept
Reject
Reject
Reject
Reject
Accept
Accept
Kolb learning style preferences
Is there a geography of learning styles?
There are significant international differences in
the predominant learning styles of geographers in
the four countries (Table 2). The main contributors
to the Chi-Square statistic come from the low
percentage of divergers in the UK and the high
percentage of divergers in the US and to a lesser
extent the high percentage of assimilators in the UK
and convergers in the US. The lack of contribution
to the international significant difference from
Australia and New Zealand hides the fact that
there are significant differences in the distribution of
learning styles within both these countries, which
are averaged out when the data are aggregated to
the country level. Intranational differences in the
UK and US are not significant (Table 3).
The assimilator group is the largest group, except
in Curtin and Waikato Universities (Figure 5).
Accommodators are never the dominant group and
38 Healey et al.
in nine of the 12 universities they are the smallest
percentage. In the UK and US universities, the assimilators dominate with between 39 per cent and
55 per cent of the students. Convergers are the
second strongest group in the UK, while divergers
are the second strongest in the US.
Australian National University, Curtin and Waikato
University are interesting for having a more even
spread of learning styles. The Waikato cohort exhibited
the lowest percentage of assimilators, the highest
percentage of accommodators, and one of the highest
percentages of divergers. This may reflect the fact
that it is composed entirely of human geographers
on social science majors, as most of the social
science disciplines are characterized by a predomin-
Figure 6
ance of accommodator and diverger learning styles
(Figures 3 and 4).
Discussion
In exploring Kolb’s (1984) learning styles there are
implications for both teachers and learners (Anderson
and Adams 1992; Svinicki and Dixon 1994). Kolb
suggests that preferred learning abilities will draw
students to particular subject studies that play to
their learning strengths and in which they then enjoy
relative success (Figure 6). The corollary of this for
academic teachers is that teaching delivery should
be mindful of the learning preferences of students
and encourage them to explore and strengthen the
Teaching, learning and assessment activities matched to learning styles
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 39
other areas. While learning is a matter of personal
experience, an individual’s reaction to that experience and ability to draw lessons from it is variable,
depending on their skills. For example, a teacher
who is a strong diverger has a set of ideas about
how learning happens, based on personal experience
and a personal educational comfort zone.4 A class
that is largely made up of student assimilators may
find the approach of such a teacher following a
diverger teaching style less useful, the exercises less
helpful and the entire experience more stressful
than the same material handled by a teacher who
has an assimilator style. For example, a teacher who
is most comfortable with theory and ideas may talk
and write fluently to the advantage of similar style
learners, but lose those students who need concrete
examples and hands on experimentation to fully
enjoy and understand the ideas. A variety of styles
throughout a course should help all learners.
There is evidence that student learning is enhanced
as more of the learning stages are used (Stice 1987).
This confirms Kolb’s argument that teachers need to
encourage students to engage with all four stages of
the learning cycle. Indeed, Kolb suggests that there
are potential long-term benefits where there is an
intentional mismatch between learning style and
teaching style on the grounds that:
The aim is to make the student self-renewing and selfdirected; to focus on integrative development where
the person is highly developed in each of the four
learning modes; active, reflective, abstract and concrete.
Here, the student is taught to experience the tension
and conflict among these orientations, for it is from
these tensions that creativity springs. (1984, 203)
It is interesting to speculate as to whether school
students choose university courses to match their skills
and comfort zone. Lynch et al. (1998), surveying
medical students, found divergers to be just 8 per
cent of the class and cites other studies of medical
students with low diverger rates. This suggests medical
students self-select as people who are happiest when
presented with sound theories to consider (assimilators), and the practical application of concepts and
theories (convergers) and are least happy when
offered the chance to observe and gather research
from a broad range of areas (divergers). Geography
can be thought of as offering a broad, general
education covering a breadth of academic materials
combined with hands on field and laboratory studies.
It is therefore interesting that some 69 per cent of
the geographers sampled (assimilators and convergers)
are in their learning comfort zone when dealing
with logical theories and the application of concepts
and ideas. The smallest group, accommodators, are
comfortable when offered the opportunity for handson experience, which suggests that the majority of
students need support and encouragement to engage
well with field and personal research activities. That
is not to say that students will not enjoy field classes,
and the social aspects of this type of work, but that
the quality of personal investigative research, whether
alone or in groups, is not in the comfort zone of the
majority of geography students. Students may be very
‘happy’ on a fieldclass, but not necessarily working
to the highest standard. Healey and Jenkins (2000)
give examples of using the Kolb cycle as a framework
for organizing practicals and fieldclass experiences
to take participants right round the Kolb learning
cycle and address all four of the learning styles.
Clearly, geography teachers in higher education
need to expect that there will always be people in
class who are less happy with whatever approach is
taken. The current research suggests that the majority of students will need more support and guidance
to work effectively in an accommodator mode. This
has practical implications for transition to more
independent learning as student numbers increase.
The same argument applies to supporting students
undertaking an honours dissertation or project. If
this is to be self-driven, experimental, field or
laboratory based, then this activity is primarily in
the comfort zone of accommodators, who in their
entry years were just 14 per cent of the cohort.
In setting a piece of work a teacher has to decide
on the degree of challenge that is appropriate, the
baseline support required, but still leave scope for
brilliant extended responses. This is no easy task.
Kolb’s theory suggests that individuals will find some
tasks easier than others, so creating activities that
involve a range of style of learning and challenges
in assessment would be fair. For example, Lynch
et al. (1998) have shown multiple-choice question
tests favour convergers and assimilators. There are
broader issues on assessment than cannot be considered here, but this suggests that staff should
recognize the need to challenge and extend students’
learning by devising a range of learning opportunities and assessment tasks that favour different styles.
Some suggestions are made in Figure 6. Staff need
to ensure that students engage with all four learning
styles (Gibbs 1988).
Three caveats should be put on this research.
First, the findings describe predominant learning
40 Healey et al.
styles, ‘not immutable personality traits’ (Fielding
1994, 403). The danger of labelling students needs
to be avoided. Secondly, the lack of consensus in
the literature on the most effective instruments for
measuring learning styles suggests that a range of
instruments should be used. For example, Entwistle’s
Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students
(ASSIST), which distinguishes between surface, deep
and strategic learners, has been reviewed favourably
by Coffield et al. (2004). Richardson concluded that
‘learning style inventories show little overlap with
questionnaires designed to measure approaches to
studying in higher education’ (2000, 173). Thirdly,
learning styles emphasize an individualized, decontextualized concept of learning, which ignores
differences between learners that stem from social class,
race and gender (Reynolds 1997). We will do a disservice to our students if we ignore the socioeconomic
and cultural contexts of their lives and the institutions
where they seek to learn (Coffield et al. 2004).
Despite these caveats, making learning styles
explicit is a useful change agent. Smith (2002)
argues that an important benefit of using Kolb with
classes is in raising student awareness of their own
position. In working with groups, it is our experience
that students who have this awareness are better
prepared to appreciate the different approaches of
others, are better able to understand why some
people appear to be more comfortable and capable
in particular roles and can appreciate why some
tasks appear more difficult and need more time.
Being aware of one’s learning strengths ‘should not
be seen as a remedial or compensatory issue’ (Smith
2002, 69). It is about helping students to be more
aware of their strengths and approaches and therefore
to become more independent learners. A student
who is made aware of the Kolb cycle’s implications
of different activities may be encouraged to make
an additional effort in areas which previously he or
she has found difficult or simply dismissed as ‘not
for me’. A similar argument points to the need for
staff to be aware of their teaching styles and be sensitive to the varying needs of students taking their
courses. Such explicit recognition of ‘difference’ fits
well with the trend towards individualization of
learning in higher education and the recognition of
the ‘other’ in geographical research.
(1984) on the predominant learning styles of geographers was the more accurate, and investigating
whether learning styles varied internationally. The
results show unequivocally that in all four countries
examined, assimilators are the dominant group.
There are international differences, but these are
of a second order and mainly reflect the difference
in proportion of students in the UK and the US
whose predominant learning styles are divergers.
In Australia and New Zealand there are significant intranational variations between the universities
studied.
This is the first time a large data set on the
learning styles of students studying geography in
higher education has been collected, analysed and
published. Several questions arise for future research
including:
• Do the learning styles of geographers change
during their degree courses?
• By the time they graduate, do physical geographers have distinct learning styles from human
geographers?
• Do the learning styles of geographers in non-Western
countries differ from those in Anglo-America and
Australasia?
• What are the predominant learning styles of university geography staff?5
• How can variations between and within countries
be explained?
The research reported here has important implications
for teaching, learning, assessment and programme
design. Clearly all geography classes contain students
with a diversity of learning styles and teachers
need to recognize that any set task is not equally
challenging to all. If departments are to challenge
and develop all students equally, then they need to
ensure that across their programmes they vary their
teaching methods, the learning opportunities they
facilitate and the assessment methods they use
(Figure 6). The aim should be to produce balanced
learners with a full range of learning capacities,
rather than simply matching teaching to existing
learning styles.
Acknowledgements
Conclusions
Our original research questions involved exploring
whether the views of Cullen et al. (1994) or Kolb
We would like to thank all our students who participated
in the research and two anonymous referees for their
helpful comments.
Learning styles among geography undergraduates 41
Notes
1 The members of the International Network for the Learning
and Teaching of Geography in Higher Education (INLT)
Learning Styles Group who were involved in data collection and discussion are:
Australia – Australian National University: Richard Baker;
Curtin University: Roy Jones, Alan Pilgrim; Macquarie
University: Kevin McCracken.
UK – University of Gloucestershire: Mick Healey, Andrew
Bradley; University of Leeds: Pauline Kneale; University of
Portsmouth: John Bradbeer.
New Zealand – University of Auckland: Richard Le
Heron, Christina Stringer, Melanie Milicich; University
of Canterbury: Eric Pawson; Waikato University: John
Campbell.
US – South West Texas University: Michael Solem; Texas
A&M University: Robert Bednarz; University of Oregon:
Susan Hardwick.
2 Kolb (1984, 77, 78) used the terms: diverger – ‘because a
person of this type performs better in situations that call for
generation of alternative ideas and implications’; assimilator – because of the strength of ‘assimilating disparate
observations into an integrated explanation’; converger –
because of the like for situations ‘where there is a single
correct answer or solution’; accommodator – because it
suits ‘those situations where one must adapt oneself to
changing immediate circumstances’.
3 A copy of Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory (revised 1985)
is printed in Loo (1999, 219). One of the sentences which
well captures the gist of the four different learning styles
asks: ‘I learn by: a) feeling b) watching c) thinking d)
doing’. A forced ranking system is used in which respondents are asked to rank the four possible answers from 1
(least applicable) to 4 (most applicable). The sums of
the scores on the four elements of the 12 statements are
used to identify the respondents position of the Active–
Reflective axis (AE–RO) and the Concrete–Abstract axis
(AC–CE) using Figure 2 in Healey and Jenkins (2000,
188).
4 A comfort zone describes a position where someone feels
confident and not threatened by a situation.
5 Intriguingly, Healey found in an unpublished survey
undertaken in 2003 that the overall distribution of learning
styles of 26 US new geography faculty – Assimilators 14
(54%), Convergers 5 (19%), Accommodators 2 (8%) and
Divergers 5 (19%) – closely resembled that of early undergraduate students found in this study, though there were
slightly more assimilators and slightly fewer divergers
compared with US undergraduates.
References
Anderson J A and Adams M 1992 Acknowledging the
learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications
for instructional design. In Teaching for Diversity, eds N
Chism and L Border pp. 19–33. San Francisco, Jossey Bass
Becher T 1989 Academic tribes and territories: intellectual
enquiry and the cultures of disciplines Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press, Milton
Keynes
Bradbeer J B 1999 Barriers to interdisciplinarity: disciplinary
discourses and student learning Journal of Geography in
Higher Education 23 381–96
Bueno R P 1999 Learning style as a predictor of teacher
performance in the social-administrative and in the
engineering areas Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia
31 527–36
Burkill S, Corey D and Healey M 2000 Improving students’
communication skills in geography Geography Discipline
Network, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher
Education, Cheltenham
Cassidy S 2004 Learning styles: an overview of theories,
models, and measures Educational Psychology 24 419–44
Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E and Ecclestone K 2004 Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning Learning and
Skills Research Centre, London
Cullen D J, Pearson M, Saha L J and Spear 1994 Establishing
effective PhD supervisions Dept of Employment, Education
and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service,
Canberra
Curry L 2000 Review of learning style, studying approach
and instructional preference in medical education in
Riding R J and Rayner S G eds International perspectives
on individual differences volume 1: cognitive styles Ablex,
Stamford 239–76
Dalrymple C 2002 Perceptions and practices of learning
styles in library instruction College and Research Libraries
63 261–73
Dee K C, Nauman E A, Livesay G A and Rice J 2002 Learning
styles of biomedical engineering students Annals of
Biomedical Engineering 30 1100–6
Desmedt E and Valcke M 2004 Mapping the learning styles
‘jungle’: an overview of the literature based on citation
analysis Educational Psychology 24 445–64
Felder R M 1993 Reaching the second tier: learning and
teaching styles in College Science Education Journal of
College Science Teaching 23 286–90
Felder R M 1996 Matters of style American Society for Engineering Education Prism 6 8–23
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 5 393–417
Gibbs G 1988 Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and
learning methods Further Education Unit, London (http://
www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/index.htm) Accessed 30 July
2004
Hartman V F 1995 Teaching and learning style preferences:
transitions through technology VCCA Journal 9 18–20
Healey M 1998 Resource-based learning in geography
Geography Discipline Network, Cheltenham and Gloucester
College of Higher Education, Cheltenham
Healey M 2003 Promoting lifelong professional development
in geographical education: developing the scholarship of
42 Healey et al.
teaching in higher education in the 21st century The Professional Geographer 55 1–17
Healey M and Jenkins A 2000 Learning cycles and learning
styles: the application of Kolb’s experiential learning model
in higher education Journal of Geography 99 185–95
Healey M and Roberts J eds 2004 Engaging students in active
learning: case studies in geography, environment and related
disciplines University of Gloucestershire, Geography Discipline Network and School of Environment, Cheltenham
(http://www.glos.ac.uk/gdn/active/student.htm) Accessed
30 July 2004
Heffler B 2001 Individual learning style and the learning
style inventory Educational Studies 27 307–16
Honey P and Mumford A 1992 The manual of learning styles
3rd edn Peter Honey, Maidenhead
Jenkins A 1998 Curriculum design in geography Geography
Discipline Network, Cheltenham and Gloucester College
of Higher Education, Cheltenham
Kolb A and Kolb D 2004 Experiential learning theory
bibliography (http://www.learningfromexperience.com/
ELT%20bibApril%202004.rtf) Accessed 30 July 2004
Kolb D A 1981 Learning styles and disciplinary differences in
Chickering A W ed The modern American college JosseyBass, San Francisco
Kolb D A 1984 Experiential learning: experience as a source
of learning and development Prentice Hall, New York
Kolb D A 1985 Learning style inventory rev edn McBer, Boston
Kolb D A and Fry R 1975 Toward an applied theory of
experiential learning in Cooper C ed Theories of group
process John Wiley, London
Loo R 1997 Using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI 1985)
in the classroom Proceedings of the Association of
Management 15 47–51
Loo R 1999 Confirmatory factor analysis of Kolb’s Learning
Style Inventory (LSI – 1985) British Journal of Educational
Psychology 69 213–19
Lynch T G, Woelfl N N, Steele D J and Hanssen C S 1998
Learning style influences student examination performance American Journal of Surgery 176 62–6
Milicich M, Stringer C and Le Heron R 2003 Learning styles
of Auckland geography students – some preliminary findings New Zealand Journal of Geography 115 49–52
Nulty D D and Barrett M A 1996 Transitions in students’
learning styles Studies in Higher Education 21 333–45
Pungente M D, Wasanm K M and Moffett C 2002 Using
learning styles to evaluate first-year pharmacy students’
preferences toward different activities associated with the
problem-based learning approach American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education 66 119–24
Rayner S G 2000a Cognitive style: a strategic approach for
View publication stats
advancement in Riding R J and Rayner S G eds International perspectives on individual differences volume 1:
cognitive styles Ablex, Stamford 365–77
Rayner S G 2000b Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: profiling learning performance in Riding
R J and Rayner S G eds International perspectives on individual differences volume 1: cognitive styles Ablex, Stamford 115–77
Rayner S G and Riding R J 1997 Towards a categorisation
of cognitive styles and learning styles Educational Psychology 17 5–27
Reynolds M 1997 Learning styles, a critique Management
Learning 32 291–304
Richardson J T E 2000 Researching student learning:
approaches to studying in campus-based and distance
learning Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press, Buckingham
Riding R J 2000 Cognitive style: a review in Riding R J and
Rayner S G eds International perspectives on individual
differences volume 1: cognitive styles Ablex, Stamford
315–44
Riding R J and Cheema I 1991 Cognitive style – an overview and integration Educational Psychology 11 193–
215
Riding R and Rayner S 1998 Cognitive style and learning
strategies: understanding style differences in learning and
behaviour David Fulton, London
Sadler-Smith E 1996 Learning styles: a holistic approach
Journal of European Industrial Training 20 29–36
Sadler-Smith E 1999 Intuition-analysis style and approaches
to studying Educational Studies 25 159–73
Siepen G L and Westrup J 2002 Communicating vegetation
management science to land managers and other stakeholders Rangeland Journal 24 170–81
Smith D M and Kolb D A 1986 User’s guide for the LearningStyle Inventory: a manual for teachers and trainers McBer
and Company, Boston
Smith J 2002 Learning styles: fashion fad or lever for change?
The application of learning style theory to inclusive
curriculum delivery Innovations in Education and Teaching International 39 63–70
Stice J E 1987 Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student
learning Engineering Education 77 291–6
Svinicki M D and Dixon N M 1994 The Kolb model modified
for classroom activities in Feldman K A and Paulsen M B
eds Teaching and learning in the college classroom Ginn
Press, Needham Heights MA 307–15
Vermunt J and Minnaert A 2003 Dissonance in student
learning patterns: when to revise theory? Studies in Higher
Education 28 49–61