Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
LEARNING STYLES OF ACCOUNTANCY AND
MANAGEMENT STUDENTS: BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE
APPROPRIATE TEACHING STRATEGIES
Leny R. Dellosa1 and Juliana M. Laraya
Centro Escolar University, Philippines (1lenydellosa@yahoo.com)
ABSTRACT
Learning style is defined as “the way each person begins to concentrate on, process, internalize, and retain new and
difficult information”. However, Kazdin (2010), in his theory on individual differences, noted that individuals
behave and learn differently, and therefore, have different learning styles. On this notion, a study on the learning
styles of the Accountancy and Business students of Centro Escolar University was undertaken to determine the
appropriate teaching and learning strategies that would best meet the needs of the students. The Index of Learning
Styles Inventory (ILS) was administered to 371 Accountancy and Management students. ILS is an on-line
instrument used to assess preferences of college students on four dimensions (active vs. reflective, sensing vs.
intuitive, visual vs. verbal, and sequential vs. global) of a learning style model. The finding shows that the learning
styles of the students, when classified as to gender and year level, generally do not differ. However, when classified
as to academic program Accountancy students are sequential learners while Management students are sensing
learners.The findings will guide the educators to determine the teaching strategies that will accommodate the
different learning styles of the students and minimize mismatches between the prevailing teaching style and the
learning styles.
KEYWORDS
Learning Styles, Dimensions, Active vs. Reflective, Sensing vs. Intuitive, Sequential vs. Global, Visual vs. Verbal,
Pedagogy, Accountancy Program, and Management Program.
INTRODUCTION
Learning style is defined as “the way each person begins to concentrate on, process, internalize,
and retain new and difficult information” (Dunn and Dunn, 1999).
Cognizant of the Centro Escolar University vision of “Sustaining Quality and Excellence in the
Next 100 years”, the School of Accountancy and Management continuously appraises its
academic performance.
According to Edward E. Lawler (2010), “the typical person rates his or her performance at about
80th percentile. Hence, people tend to believe they’re doing better than most of the people
around them. But, to meet the standard of quality and excellence, an organization requires
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
consistent level of high performance. The hallmark of modern appraisal philosophy focuses on
the present performance, future goals, and knowledge of the results.”
It is on this premise that the present research focuses on the identification and comparison of the
learning styles of the students in the School of Accountancy and Management during the school
year 2008-2009 in order to identify the appropriate teaching strategies to be used.
The learning styles that an individual acquires throughout his development are predictable and
eventually change following a distinct pattern. Learning styles are similar to human preferences
that may change over time and can only be affected by high levels of personal motivation.
It is remarkably a great challenge for us to study how people tend to behave and understand
things according to what they have been taught and what they have been made to learn from
childhood to maturity. The theory on individual differences, Kazdin (2010), indicated that even
if two human beings were raised in the same family, they would certainly behave differently.
This theory substantiates that people learn in different ways. Individuals perceive and approach
learning differently according to their pattern of culture.
This principle somewhat influences the perception and teaching pedagogy of some educators. It
is on this notion that a descriptive study on the learning styles of the Accountancy and Business
students of the School of Accountancy and Management was undertaken to determine the
appropriate teaching strategies that would best meet the needs of the students
PROCEDURE/METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in the School of Accountancy and Management, Centro Escolar
University, Mendiola, Manila during the school year 2008-2009.
The researcher utilized purposive sampling in the study. In purposive sampling, the researcher
usually has a sample with a purpose in mind. Usually there is one or more specific predefined
groups in mind. The present study focused on the Accountancy and Management students of the
School of Accountancy and Management of Centro Escolar University, Mendiola, Manila.
The total number of students enrolled during the School Year 2008-2009 was 1,210. To get the
population required for the study, the researcher used the Sloven’s formula and arrived at a total
of 284 respondents for the study. However, the researcher utilized a total of 371 respondents.
From the total number of respondents, there were 24% (89) first year, 28% (104) second year,
20.2% (75) third year, and 27.8% (103) fourth year.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
DATA-GATHERING PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENT USED
The researcher asked permission from Dr. Ma. Flordeliza L. Anastacio, Dean of the School of
Accountancy and Management, to use the Accountancy and Management students as
respondents of the study.
The Felder–Silverman Learning Style Inventory classifies students as (a) sensing learners
(concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) intuitive learners (conceptual,
innovative, oriented toward theories and meanings); (b) visual learners (prefer visual
representations of presented material-pictures, diagrams, flow charts); (c) verbal learners (prefer
written and spoken explanations); (d) inductive learners (prefer presentations that proceed from
the specific to the general) or deductive learners (prefer presentations that go from the general to
the specific); (e) active learners (learn by trying things out, working with others) or reflective
learners (learn by thinking things through, working alone) and; (f) sequential learners (linear,
orderly, learn in small incremental steps) or global learners (holistic, systems thinkers, learn in
large leaps).1
The Index of Learning Styles Inventory (ILS) developed by Felder and Silverman was used in
gathering information regarding the learning styles of the students. It is an on-line instrument
used to assess preferences for four dimensions (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal,
and sequential/global) of a learning style model. It is taken/downloaded from the internet. The
ILS may be used at no cost for non-commercial purposes by individuals who wish to determine
their own learning style profile and by educators who wish to use it for teaching, advising, or
research. The said Inventory has been used in several researches locally and abroad that it has
been accepted as a valid and reliable tool in research.
Explanation of scores on LSI:
 If the score on a scale is 1-4, one has a mild preference for one or the other dimension but
are essentially well balanced. (For example, a 3a in the ACT/REF category indicates a
mild preference for active learning.)
 If the score on a scale is 5-8, one has a moderate preference for one dimension of the
scale and will learn more easily in a teaching environment which favours that dimension.
 If the score on a scale is 9-11, one has a strong preference for one dimension of the scale.
One may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that
preference.
The Index of Learning Styles Inventory was administered to the Accountancy and Management
students of the School of Accountancy and Management, Centro Escolar University, Mendiola,
Manila during the school year 2008-2009. The questionnaire, through the assistance of the
School’s faculty members, was administered and collated per class. The researcher checked all
the gathered questionnaires and disqualified incomplete answer sheets from the study. The
gathered data was tallied and submitted to the Research and Evaluation Office for statistical
treatment of data.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Profile of the respondents
Majority of the respondents were female, and most of them were categorized as Second Year and
Fourth Year students. With regards to their academic program, a bigger percentage of the
respondents belonged to the Management program.
2. Distribution of the learning styles of the students in different dimensions when classified as
to gender, year level, and academic program
Table 1. Matrix showing the Learning Styles of the students when grouped according to Gender
Gender Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Male
Sensing
Style
Female
Active
Learning
Style
Active
Learning
Style
Sensing
Style
Dimension 3
Learning Visual
Learning
Style
Learning Visual
Learning
Style
Dimension 4
Sequential
Style
Learning
Sequential
Style
Learning
The Learning Styles of the students in different Dimensions when grouped according to gender
indicate that males and females are: Active, Sensing, Visual, and Sequential learners.
Table 2. Matrix showing the Learning Styles of the students when grouped according to Year
Level
Year Level
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
First Year
Active
Learning Style
Active
Learning Style
Sensing Learning Visual
Style
Learning Style
Sensing Learning Visual
Style
Learning Style
Sequential
Learning Style
Sequential
Learning Style
Active
Learning Style
Active
Learning Style
Sensing Learning Verbal
Style
Learning Style
Sensing Learning Visual
Style
Learning Style
Sequential
Learning Style
Sequential
Learning Style
Second Year
Third Year
Fourth Year
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
The Learning Styles of the students in different Dimensions when grouped according to year
level indicate that First year, Second year, and Fourth year students are Visual learners.
However, Third year students are Verbal Learners.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Table 3. Matrix showing the Learning Styles of the students when grouped according to
Academic Program
Academic
Program
Accountancy
Management
Dimension 1
Active
Learning
Style
Active
Learning
Style
Dimension 2
Dimension
3
Sensing Learning Visual
Style
Learning
Style
Sensing Learning Visual
Learning
Style
Style
Dimension 4
Sequential
Learning Style
Sequential Learning
Style
The Learning Styles of the students in different Dimensions when grouped according to
academic program indicate that the students are: Active, Sensing, Visual, and Sequential
learners.
3. Comparison of the learning styles of the students when grouped according to academic
program
Comparison of the learning styles of the students when grouped according to academic program
shows that the observed value of 15.39 (P=0.017<0.05) for dimension 1 is greater than the
minimum expected count of .29, and a critical value of 0.05. This implies that the observed
differences above are significant; hence, learning style of students with respect to Dimension 1 is
associated with academic program.
4. Relationships between learning styles and students’ gender, year level, and academic
program
Results show that, generally, there is no significant relationship existing between the Learning
styles from Dimension 1 to 4 with gender, year level, and the academic program, except for
Dimension 1 where the result reveals a significant relationship with the academic program.
Dimension 3 shows a significant relationship between the learning styles and the year level.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The learning styles of the students, when classified as to gender and year level generally
do not differ.
2. Accountancy students are sequential learners while Management students are
a. sensing learners when classified as to academic program.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
3. Not all Learning styles are able to establish significant relationship with year level and
academic program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the aforementioned findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are
considered important:
For the Educators
1. Employ different teaching strategies that will accommodate the different learning
styles of the students and minimize mismatches between the prevailing teaching
style and the learning styles.
2. Adopt the strategies based on the Felder-Silverman model to ensure that the
courses present information that appeals to a range of learning.
Below are the teaching strategies, “Teaching to all Types”, based on the Felder-Silverman
model.
 Teach theoretical material by first presenting phenomena and problems that relate to the
theory (sensing, inductive, global).
 Balance conceptual information (intuitive) with concrete information (sensing).
 Make extensive use of sketches, plots, schematics, vector diagrams, computer graphics,
and physical demonstrations (visual) in addition to oral and written explanations and
derivations (verbal) in lectures and readings.
 To illustrate an abstract concept or problem-solving algorithm, use at least one numerical
example (sensing) to supplement the usual algebraic example (intuitive).
 Use physical analogies and demonstrations to illustrate the magnitudes of calculated
quantities (sensing, global).
 Occasionally give some experimental observations before presenting the general
principle, and have the students (preferably working in groups) see how far they can get
toward inferring the latter (inductive).
 Provide class time for students to think about the material being presented (reflective)
and for active student participation (active).
 Encourage or mandate cooperation on homework (every style category).
 Demonstrate the logical flow of individual course topics (sequential), but also point out
connections between the current material and other relevant material in the same course,
in other courses in the same discipline, in other disciplines, and in everyday experience
(global).
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
For the School Administrators
1. Conduct a university-funded research on students’ learning styles and teachers’ teaching
strategies as basis for developing a teaching-learning enhancement program both for
faculty members and students.
For the Future Researchers
1. A follow-up study on styles-based approach addressing the learning needs of the full
spectrum of learning styles based on the Felder-Silverman model.
REFERENCES
Ammy Jell I. Uetani and Katrina A. Villanueva. (2003). “The Dominant Learning Styles and
Instructional Strategy in Assumption College’. Undergraduate thesis, Assumption College.
Claudia Rinaldi and Regan Gurung. Should Teaching and Learning Styles Match? A Journal Of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from University of Winconsin System.
Website:
http://www.uwosh.edu/programs/teachingforum/public_html/module=displaystory$story_id=648
&format=html
D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1984.
Daphne Pan (2002). A Matter of Style (PDF File). Center for Development of Teaching and
Learning Brief, Vol. 5, No. 7, pages 6-8. Retrieved from National University of Singapore
website: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/Pdf/v5n7.pdf
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning styles: State of the science. Theory into Practice, 23, 10-19.
Dr. D. Mills (2002) “Ápplying What We Know Student Learning Styles”. Date Retrieved,
March 15, 2008, Web site: http://www.csrnet.org/csrnet/articles/student-learning- styles.html
E. Edet (n.d.). “A Relationship between Teachers’ Teaching Methods and the Pupils’ Learning
Styles: A Case Study of Some Primary Schools in Zaria and Soba Local Governments in Kaduna
State.”
Date
Retrieved,
January
25,
2008,
Web
site:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/aern/efiongsy.html
F. Melis, E. & R. Monthienvichienchai (n.d.). “They call it Learning Style but it’s So Much
More.”
F. H. Fridland. (2002). Adult learning styles and cultural background: A comparison of the
learning style preferences of American teachers of English as a second language and Chinese
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
teachers of English as a foreign language”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Memphis, TN.
H. Gardner (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Index of Learning Styles (ILS). (n.d.) Date Retrieved, March 25, 2008. Web site:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/locker/users/f/felder/public/ILSpage.html
J.E. Stice, "Using Kolb's Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning." Engr. Education, 77,
291-296 (1987).
Learning Styles, www.trcc.commet.edu/ed.
Learning
Styles.
(n.d.).
Date
Retrieved,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/learning_styles
March
Learning
Styles.
Date
Retrieved,
March
http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_styles.cfm
21,
21,
2008,
2008,
Web
Web
site:
site:
Lesmes-Anel J. Robinson G. Moody S. (n.d.) “Learning Preferences and Learning Styles: A
Study of Wessex General Practice Registrars”.
Lizelle F. Knight and Sonia F. Silbor. (2006). A 2 Z Creative Teaching Methods. Makati City,
Philippines: Church Strengthening Ministry, Inc. pages 14-30.
L. Lixin Xiao. (2006). Bridging the Gap Between Teaching Styles and Learning Styles: A
Cross-Cultural Perspective. College of Foreign Languages, Nankai University.
Lum Peng Lim, (2002). Applying Learning Styles in Instructional Strategies (PDF File). Center
for Development of Teaching and Learning Brief, Vol. 5, No. 7, pages 1-2. Retrieved from
National University of Singapore website: http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/Pdf/v5n7.pdf
M. Hodgins W. Corner, (2000). Learning Styles. Date Retrieved, March 2, 2008, from Learning
Theory: Learning Styles, Web site: http://www.learnativity.com/learningstyles.html
Nilo G. Delima (1998). “The Learning Styles of Business College Students of Western Leyte
College of Ormoc, Inc; Basis for Innovative Teaching Strategies.”
Ng, D. F. P.,Tsui, A. M. P., & Marton, F. (2001). Two races of the reed relay: Exploring the
Effects of the Medium of Instruction. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Pourboghrat Afiat Froozan. (1997). “Learning Styles Teaching Strategies Similarity Scores And
Their Relationship to Achievement and Attitude of Gifted Mathematics Students.” Retrieved
from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (AAT 9736945).
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
R. Felder. (n.d.). “Reaching the Second Tier Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science
Education,” J. College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290, (1993), Date Retrieved: January 28,
2008, Web site: www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/papers/Secondtier.html
Susan B. Bastable (2003). Nurse as Educator. 2nd edition. Canada: Jones and Bartlett Publishers
Inc. pages 93-107.
Tenedero, Henry (June 30, 2009), Implications of learning style in instructional strategies
htenedero@yahoo.com.
Henry Tenedero Center for learning and teaching styles. Manila Bulletin. mb.com.ph August 15,
2009.
Tenedero, Henry (July 9, 2009), Different Kinds of Learning Style Defined. Manila Bulletin.
htenedero@yahoo.com
V. Villanueva-Vunnasiri. (n.d.) “A Study of Learning Styles, Teaching Styles and Students’
Achievement in Principles of Accounting Course at Assumption niversity”, Master’s Thesis,
2003.
Wallace, James. Learning styles in the Philippines. Educational Journal, Volume 115, 1995.