Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (2007) 54, S58S65

doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00723.x

Research Article
Blackwell Publishing Asia

Learning style preferences of Australian occupational


therapy students
Glenys French1, Tessa Cosgriff2 and Ted Brown3
1School

of Occupational Therapy, LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 2Caulfield General Medical Centre, Caulfield,
Victoria and 3School of Primary Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia

Background/aim: The learning styles and teaching implications for nursing and health science students have been well
researched in other countries. Less research has considered
the learning styles and implications for occupational therapy
students. The current study examines the learning styles of
occupational therapy students at one Australian university.
Methods: The learning style preferences of first year undergraduate occupational therapy students (n = 120) were investigated. The students completed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory
(LSI) and Flemings VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and
Kinaesthetic) Questionnaire in the first weeks of their course.
Results: The response rate was 97% (n = 116). Learning
style preferences as determined by the Kolb LSI were spread
over all four Kolb LSI learning styles with diverging (30.2%)
and converging (28.4%) being the most preferred. Instructional
preference as measured by the VARK Questionnaire was
kinaesthetic learning (33%), followed by the multimodal
preference VARK (18.1%). Visual and aural categories
were these students least preferred methods of learning.
Conclusions: The results of the current study support
previous research indicating a range of teaching methods
should be utilised to accommodate for the variability of
students learning styles within educational programs. To
accommodate the range of learning experiences encountered
in fieldwork and later in professional practice, students need
to strengthen their capacities to use a variety of learning
styles. This paper proposes that student learning for evidencedbased practice be facilitated by a range of learning opportunities
including practical experiences.
KEY WORDS learning styles, occupational therapy, students.
Glenys French DOrgDyn, MBA, BBehavSc, DipOT; Senior
Lecturer. Tessa Cosgriff BOccther(Hons); Occupational
Therapist (G1) and Ted Brown PhD, MPA, MSc,
BScOT(Hons); Senior Lecturer.
Correspondence: Glenys French, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora,
Vic. 3086, Australia. Email: g.french@latrobe.edu.au
Accepted for publication 16 August 2007.
2007 The Authors
Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of
Occupational Therapists

Introduction
There is an extensive body of literature on learning styles
but only limited research on the learning style preferences
of occupational therapy students and no available Australian
data. Given the costs associated with occupational
therapy education, the shift towards technology-based
educational curricula and the pressure on resources, it is
imperative to optimise relevant learning opportunities in
professional curricula for efficiency and effectiveness. To
optimise the learning opportunities, the learning styles
and learning requirements of students need to be
identified (Sims & Sims, 2006). This study investigated
the learning style preferences of a group of occupational
therapy students at an Australian university.

Literature review
Learning theories
Individuals use learning to adapt to and manage everyday
situations. The concept of learning styles has received
considerable attention in the empirical literature including some in the allied health literature (Barris, Kielhofner
& Bauer, 1985; Contessa, Ciardiello & Perlman, 2005;
Cook, 2005; Curry, 1983; Hauer, Straub & Wolf, 2005;
Linares, 1999; Mitchell & Nyland, 2005; Sandmire, Vroman
& Sanders, 2000; Stratton, Witzke, Elam & Cheever, 2005;
Vittetoe & Hooker, 1983; Ware & ODonoughue, 2005).
Some of the studies are based on small cohorts and the early
investigations may be based on educational experiences
very different to the current Australian student experience.
Many theories have been proposed to better understand
the process and dynamics of learning and are often
associated with the characteristics of professional groups
(Sims & Sims, 2006). Learning styles are viewed from
various perspectives including models of personality traits,
information processing, social interaction, and instructional
preference (Fleming, 2001; Katz, 1990). From the baseline
of personality traits, the different theoretical perspectives
can be viewed as layers to an individuals learning style,
with each having influence on subordinate layers.
Personality trait theories view learning styles as
relatively fixed personality characteristics, compared with

S59

LEARNING STYLE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS

the way an individual approaches a learning task (Katz,


1990). The information processing style of an individual
is considered to be less stable than personality traits, and
can be considered the second layer in an individuals
learning style. Information processing theories are
based on Lewins Cycle of Adult Learning (Kolb, 1984).
Lewins cycle describes four stages that follow on from
each other during the learning process. The first stage is
concrete experience, which is followed by personal
reflection on the experience. This is then linked with
previous knowledge (abstract conceptualisation), and
finally new ways of adjusting to experiences are explored
(active experimentation) (Atherton, 2002). Kolbs Experiential Learning Cycle is one system based on Lewins
cycle and is the most commonly applied theory to health
professionals (Titiloye & Scott, 2001). Kolb supports the
concept of influences on learning style from personality
traits.
Ideally, an individual would cycle through all four
stages of Kolbs Experiential Learning Cycle (Kolb, 1984).
In reality, sometimes one stage is the focus or stages are
skipped. Kolb elaborated Lewins cycle, proposing a
specific learning style preference based on an individuals
use of the four learning phases. The resulting learning styles
are accommodator, diverger, converger, and assimilator.
An accommodator combines learning steps of active
experimentation and concrete experience and is expected
to prefer hands-on experience, with strengths in using
others to solve problems rather than individual logic.
Kolb (1999) postulates that this learning style profile is
best suited to careers that influence others and exploit
opportunities such as marketing or sales. A diverger
combines learning steps of concrete experience and reflective
observation. A diverger views concrete situations
from a range of perspectives through observation, and
prefers group work learning. These characteristics, Kolb
(1999) believes, are best suited to careers in social service
(psychology, nursing, or social work), and arts and
communication.
Individuals with a converger learning style prefer
abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation.
Characteristics associated with this learning style are a
preference for practical problem-solving rather than
dealing with social issues, and a preference for laboratory
exercises in learning situations. A career in technology,
environment, or economics is suggested to be the most
fitting for a converger learning style profile (Kolb, 1999).
The profile of an assimilator is characterised by combining
learning steps of reflective observation and abstract
conceptualisation. An assimilator is likely to have a
preference for abstract ideas and theory, favouring lectures
and exploring models in learning situations (Kolb). Careers
Kolb matches with the assimilator learning style profile
are in the sciences and research fields.
Social interaction can be viewed as the third layer of
learning styles. Social interaction models of learning are
concerned with how a learner interacts within the learning

environment, and consider influences from personality


and information processing types (Conner, 2004). The
final layer of learning styles, and the most unstable, is
instructional preference (Curry, 1983). An instructional
preference theory is the VARK theory, originally developed
by Fleming in 1987. VARK theory considers exclusively
the instructional preference of individuals, using the four
categories of visual, aural, read/write, and kinaesthetic
(Fleming, 2001). Prior to this development, research of
instructional preference centred on visual, aural, and
kinaesthetic characteristics (VAK). Fleming subdivided
the visual mode into visual (images) and text to create
the fourth modal preference of read/write (Clark, 2000;
Fleming). The VARK theory allows for individuals to
be multimodal (those who prefer more than one type of
learning).

Measurement of learning style preferences


Many assessments have been developed to identify
learning style preferences for each perspective on learning
styles (personality traits, information processing, social
interaction, and instructional preference). The most
frequently used tool in health science literature is the
Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Kolb, as cited in
Kolb, 1984) (Hauer, Straub & Wolf, 2005; Katz, 1990; Katz
& Heimann, 1991; Miller, Kovacs, Wright, Corcoran &
Rosenblum, 2005; Sandmire et al., 2000; Stafford, 1986;
Titiloye & Scott, 2001; Wessel et al., 1999). In allied health
literature, four other tools were utilised to identify student
learning style preferences. These include the Learning
Preference Inventory (LPI) (Rezler & Rezmovic, 1981),
the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers &
Briggs, 1962), Index of Learning Styles (ILS) (Felder &
Soloman, 2004), Learning Style Type Indicator (LSTI)
(Pelley, 2005), and two instruments both called the
Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) (Honey & Mumford,
as cited in McLeod et al., 1995; Marshall & Merrit, as cited
in Linares, 1999).
The tools that are utilised in this study are the Kolb
LSI (version 3) (Kolb, 1999) and the VARK Questionnaire
(Fleming, 2001). Many studies completed in the health
science professions have already used the Kolb LSI
(Katz, 1990; Katz & Heimann, 1991; Sandmire et al., 2000;
Stafford, 1986; Titiloye & Scott, 2001; Wessel et al., 1999).
The second measure of learning style preference used in
the current study is the VARK Questionnaire (Fleming).
It is the most recently developed instrument measuring
instructional preference exclusively. It was hypothesised
that using the VARK Questionnaire to measure instructional preference as well as the Kolb LSI would provide
key evidence supporting or contrasting with the modal
preferences that Kolb assigned to his information
processing learning styles.

Studies of learning style preferences


The main hypotheses previously investigated in the
literature suggest that students of specific professions

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S60

G. FRENCH ET AL.

exhibit specific learning style preferences, and that being


aware of learning styles has an impact on student performance and academic success. An extensive search of
the literature surrounding learning styles and allied
health students was conducted in which only one study
observed a relationship between learning style and
academic success when learning style was matched with
teaching style (Katz, 1990). Katz reported a relationship
between matched learningteaching styles and problemsolving ability when grade point average and verbal
ability of the students was controlled. Katz stated that
this holds true only when higher order cognitive outcomes are considered and not for variables such as the
achievement outcome, which is on a basic knowledge
level (p. 233). When academic success defined as
competence in recalling and understanding the content
taught during education is considered, no evidence of a
relationship between learning style and academic success
was found. On this basis the optimisation of learning
through matching learning style with teaching style is
questionable.
It is postulated in the theoretical literature that presenting
material in a range of styles requires students to adapt to
the presenting situation, assisting in the development of
students preferred and non-preferred learning styles
(Cavanagh & Coffin, 1993; Linares, 1999; Thompson &
Crutchlow, 1993). In the health-care field, strengthening
non-preferred learning styles is relevant to the professional
need to learn from various sources in the context of
knowledge redundance and growth and the demand
for evidence-based practice. Occupational therapists are
required to change their practice as new knowledge is
discovered, reported and integrated into professional
practice. A key component of their education should be
to learn how to learn, through both preferred and nonpreferred methods.
Identifying students learning styles enables educators
to strengthen non-preferred learning styles and provide
effective learning experiences based on preferred learning
styles. Previous studies of allied health students and
professionals have reported a range of learning style
preference for the professional groups. Occupational
therapy students have been identified as accommodators
(Katz & Heimann, 1991; Kolb, 1984; Linares, 1999) or
convergers (Linares, 1999; Titiloye & Scott, 2001), both
characterised by a preference for the active experimentation
phase of the learning cycle, having preferences at either
end of the concreteabstract continuum. As accommodators, students are likely to prefer hands-on experience
and demonstrate strengths in using and working with
others to solve problems. As convergers, occupational
therapy students would be likely to prefer dealing
with practical problem-solving rather than social and
interpersonal issues (Kolb, 1999). This does not appear
to be consistent with the qualities of being a caring,
empathetic, helping professional (Barris et al., 1985, p. 20)
to which these students are reported to aspire.

Purpose
In the current study, the learning style preferences of a
group of first year occupational therapy, physiotherapy
and speech pathology students were investigated. The
results of the occupational therapy cohort are reported
in this paper. University programs and supervision of
students during fieldwork placements may benefit from
these findings as a deeper understanding of how students
learn will lead to more appropriate presentations of
information or provide knowledge of what areas students
may have difficulty in learning. Gaining knowledge of
and insight into the learning style preferences among
occupational therapy students may result in the provision
of more effective and efficient learning experiences for
students. Katz and Heimann (1991) have already identified
that occupational therapy students whose learning styles
matched the teaching methods had better performance
on problem-solving exams. The results may be useful for
continued professional development and clinical reasoning for which individuals in allied health professions
must be prepared (Wessel et al., 1999). There is also the
potential for interdisciplinary comparison to facilitate
interdisciplinary communication, education, client care,
and team performance associated with current educational
goals (Sandmire et al., 2000). The aim of this paper is
to report learning style preferences of undergraduate
occupational therapy students and identify implications
for education.

Methods
Design
The study design was a prospective cross-sectional survey.

Participants
The sample consisted of 120 first year occupational
therapy students enrolled at La Trobe University in
Bundoora, Victoria. Of these, 116 students (97.7% of the
sample) completed the surveys correctly and were
included in the analysis.

Instrumentation
The Kolb LSI (version 3) (Kolb, 1999) and the VARK
Questionnaire (Fleming, 2001) were used to measure
individual learning styles. The students also completed a
demographic information sheet describing their age, sex,
past educational experience, and whether occupational
therapy was their first preference when applying for a
university place. These data assisted in identifying factors
other than career choice that may influence their learning
style, and whether their enrolment was in a career of choice.
The Kolb LSI is based on Kolbs theory of experiential
learning (Kolb, 1984). It involves participants completing
12 questions that describe various learning contexts.
Each question has four responses and participants rank
which response best describes their learning style (4) to

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S61

LEARNING STYLE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS

which least describes them (1). Each potential response


represents one of four learning phases of Kolbs learning
cycle: (i) concrete experience (CE), (ii) reflective observation
(RO), (iii) abstract conceptualisation (AC), and (iv) active
experimentation (AE), and their responses indicate
where their preference is. Values are then calculated to
identify preferences along the abstract/concrete scale
and the active/reflective scale and a point plotted on a
grid. The resulting grid quadrants are identified as the
learning style preferences of accommodator, diverger,
assimilator and converger. The Kolb LSI is reported to
be very reliable with internal consistency using Cronbach
alpha scores ranging from 0.43 to 0.79, and the testretest
reliability for the four learning styles ranging from 0.91
to 0.97 (Veres, Sims & Locklear, 1991). Its validity has
been supported in many studies in a range of countries
(Kayes, 2005; Experience Based Learning Systems, 2004).
Norms are available based on a sample of 1446 adults
between the ages of 18 and 60 years.
The VARK Questionnaire generates a profile of
participants learning preferences, and measures the
preferred way of gathering and using information through
visual, aural, read/write and kinaesthetic (V, A, R, and K)
means. The questionnaire consists of 13 questions.
Participants are asked to choose from four responses
which best represents their way of learning. More than
one response can be selected if appropriate, or can be left
blank if no responses apply. The number of responses
selected corresponding to the different learning modalities is totalled and significance of differences is calculated to determine learning preference which may be
unimodal (single preference), bimodal (two preferences),
trimodal (three preferences), or multimodal if all four
modes are preferred. As the questionnaire is relatively
new, no reliable studies have yet been reported. Good
validity and independence of the V, A, R, and K modal
subscales were shown through statistical analysis where
no strong correlations were found between the different
modal subscales (Fleming, 2001).

Procedures
The study was approved by the La Trobe University,
Faculty of Health Science Faculty Human Ethics Committee
(2004), and informed consent was assumed for students
through completion of the surveys. Occupational therapy
students were invited to complete the Kolb LSI (1999), the
VARK Questionnaire (Fleming, 2001), and a demographic
questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed and
collected by a fourth year student not connected with the
study at the end of a lecture in the first 2 weeks of the
academic year with the support of the lecturer.
The data collection was performed at the beginning of
the academic year for a number of reasons. First, as the
authors were interested in the learning styles of the
individuals and the impact of this on the profession and
education, surveying students at the beginning of their
academic course meant that they had not already been

TABLE 1:

Demographic information of participants (n = 116)

Age

Sex
First preference

1721 years
2226 years
2731 years
Male
Female
Yes
No

109
5
2
9
107
82
34

exposed to teaching methods that may influence their


method of learning. Second, it was anticipated that this
would be the time period when most students are likely
to attend assigned classes, thus providing the context for
obtaining an optimum response rate.

Data management and analysis


All data entry, storage and retrieval were performed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
version 10 (SPSS Inc., 1999). Data were analysed at the
descriptive level. At the other level of analyses, Spearmans
Rho (rs) was used to calculate a correlation between the
VARK Questionnaire and Kolb LSI. All calculations were
assessed for statistical significance using P-values at the
0.05 level.

Results
Demographic characteristics of the sample
The sample included 116 occupational therapy students
representing a response rate of 97%. The majority of
students (87.1%) had previously completed only secondary
schooling and no other undergraduate education.
Students were more likely to be female (92.2%). When
applying for positions in university courses, students are
required to list a number of courses in preference order
so that if they are unsuccessful in obtaining a position at
their first preference, they can be considered for their
following choice. The majority of occupational therapy
students (70.7%) reported selecting occupational therapy
as their first preference (see Table 1).

Learning profile results


The learning style preferences for the occupational
therapy students as determined by the Kolb LSI were
diverging 30.2%, converging 28.4%, assimilating 22.4%
and accommodating 19.0% (see Fig. 1). Instructional
preference as measured by the VARK Questionnaire was
kinaesthetic learning (33%), followed by the multimodal
preference VARK (18.1%). Visual and aural categories
that were either unimodal, bimodal or trimodal were
the least preferred methods of learning indicated by
occupational therapy students (see Fig. 2).
To ascertain learning style preferences of students
based on their attraction to a particular profession, results

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S62

G. FRENCH ET AL.

FIGURE 1: Percentage of Kolb Learning Style Inventory


learning style preferences of occupational therapy students
(n = 116)

were compared for those students who had selected


occupational therapy as their first preference. Similar LSI
and VARK preferences emerged.

Correlation between instruments


Spearmans Rho (rs) correlations between the four VARK
Questionnaire subscales (V, A, R and K) and four Kolb
LSI subscales (CE, AC, AE and RO) ranged from 0.09 to
0.17. These are weak correlations, indicating little or no
relationship (Portney & Watkins, 2000), with none reaching
the specified 0.05 significance level. Subscales within each
inventory were also analysed for correlations. Within the
VARK Questionnaire, significant negative correlations
were observed between the aural and kinaesthetic
subscales (rs = 0.19, P = 0.04), and the read/write and
kinaesthetic subscales (rs = 0.24, P = 0.01). Within the
Kolb LSI were significant negative correlations between
CE and AC (rs = 0.46, P = 0.00), CE and AE (rs = 0.53,
P = 0.00), AC and RO (rs = 0.33, P = 0.00) and AE and
RO (rs = 0.48, P = 0.00).

Discussion
Results in context of previous literature
Kolb Learning Style Inventory results
Previous studies acknowledged a range of learning style
preferences in health science professional student groups
(Katz & Heimann, 1991; Linares, 1999; McLeod et al.,
1995; Titiloye & Scott, 2001; Wessel et al., 1999; Wessel &
Williams, 2004). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI)
(Kolb, 1999) results of the current study revealed that all
four information processing learning styles are represented
in first year undergraduate occupational therapy students.
The results indicated that the two learning style types:

FIGURE 2: Percentage of VARK Questionnaire learning style


preferences of occupational therapy students (n = 116). VARK
profiles are unimodal (V, visual; A, aural; R, read/write;
K, kinaesthetic), bimodal (VA, VK, AR, AK, RK), trimodal (VAR,
VAK, VRK) or multimodal (VARK).

converger and diverger, were the most prevalent among


the occupational therapy cohort. A converger prefers
AE and AC, and has been acknowledged as the preferred
learning style of occupational therapy students in recent
research (Linares, 1999; Titiloye & Scott, 2001). Characteristics
of a diverger are described as being imaginative and
understanding people with a preference for CE and RF
(Kolb, 1999). Divergers have not been reported as
being preferred by as many of the occupational therapy
student cohort in previous studies. This may reflect shifts
in learning experiences of prospective students or in
the perception of the characteristics of the occupational
therapy profession.
In contrast to previous research (Katz & Heimann,
1991; Kolb, 1984; Linares, 1999), the current study found
accommodator to be the least preferred learning style
for occupational therapy students. Different findings
may be attributed to the location of the studies. Different
educational systems and program selection requirements
in different countries may attract or favour one learning
style over another (Sutton & Griffin, 2000). The profession
itself may have evolved a role or image that differs across
national boundaries or regions. Although several studies
have been reported, no other Australian studies have been
identified in determining the learning style preference
of occupational therapy students.

VARK Questionnaire results


The instructional preference of occupational therapy
students surveyed was predominantly kinaesthetic and
multimodal. This indicates a partiality for learning through
practice or simulations, although the range of learning

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S63

LEARNING STYLE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS

styles found in this study suggests that a range of


instructional approaches is required. It should be noted
that the strength of an individuals preference is not
indicated in Kolb LSI results because of the categorical
nature of the instrument. It may be in fact that all students
fall close to the centre of the grid when plotted on the
concrete-abstract and active-reflective axes.

Instrument findings
Analyses of the Kolb LSI and VARK Questionnaire
reported weak correlations between the two instruments.
None of the correlations between Kolb LSI subscales
(CE, AC, AE and RO) and VARK Questionnaire subscales
(V, A, R and K) reached statistical significance. This is
not a surprise as the Kolb LSI and VARK Questionnaire
claim to measure two different sets of theoretical constructs. As described in the literature review, the Kolb
LSI measures learning style preference at the information
processing level, and the VARK Questionnaire measures
learning style preference at the level of instructional
preference. No correlation between these levels is indicative of these levels being separate, measuring different
aspects of learning styles. The hypothetical link between
levels (or layers) of learning style could still exist for
the three more stable layers of personality, information
processing and social interaction. The example of an
extravert (personality) preferring AE (information processing) and talking to others about ideas (social interaction)
makes sense at a theoretical and conceptual level, for
example, all involve an aspect of doing, or involving others.
It could be hypothesised that a person with these
characteristics would prefer kinaesthetic learning because
of their preference for learning through doing, but
results of this study do not indicate a correlation
between kinaesthetic and AE subscales. Results indicate
an overall preference for kinaesthetic learning, including
multimodal VARK preferences that included kinaesthetic
learning (e.g. RKread/write and kinaesthetic; VAK
visual, aural and kinaesthetic). A kinaesthetic learning
preference is not correlated specifically with AE, but
may be a preference common to most occupational
therapy students no matter what information processing
style preference, or even to an overall student group.
Correlations were also performed between the subscales
within both inventories. Negative correlations were found
between Kolb LSI subscales in a number of combinations. Noteworthy for Kolbs polarity theory are the
statistically significant negative correlations between AC
and CE representing the concreteabstract continuum,
and AE and RO representing the activereflective
continuum (Kolb, 1999).

Study strengths and limitations


This study has several strengths. One is that it was performed with students at the very beginning of their
professional course, thus limiting the possible influences
from course curriculum and fieldwork placements. The

results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge


related to the learning style and instructional preferences
of a large cohort of current occupational therapy students
in an Australian university. The study is also unique as it
considers two different levels of learning style, information processing and instructional preference, providing
evidence for the existence of two distinct layers of learning
styles. The high response rate in this study suggests the
sample was representative.
One inherent limitation in this study is that the sample
is from one educational facility limiting the generalisation
of the results to other student groups. Claims cannot be
made about the influence of learning styles on the success
of participants in their educational program as these data
are yet to be obtained.

Implications
A focus on kinaesthetic learning complemented by visual
(images or text) and aural instruction would cater for
the learning style preferences of occupational therapy
students in this study, and the preference groups within
them. The issue that remains is whether teaching should be
presented to match students learning styles, or facilitate
students to develop alternative learning methods. Given the
range of learning styles found, it seems that a range of
teaching methods is required to enable students learning.
It is postulated that presenting material in a range of
styles requires adaptive learning strategies by students,
assisting them to develop preferred and non-preferred
learning styles (Cavanagh & Coffin, 1993; Linares, 1999;
Thompson & Crutchlow, 1993). Strengthening nonpreferred learning styles is important to meet the demands
of professional practice in health care that require
adaptive learning strategies from individuals. This is
demonstrated in evidence-based practice where practice
methods change as knowledge and skills become
redundant and are replaced. A key component of students
education must be to learn how to learn, through both
preferred and non-preferred methods.

Future recommendations
This paper considers only occupational therapy students
in the first year of their undergraduate course. To assist
in identifying effects of the educational process on learning
styles, a longitudinal study that follows students learning
styles throughout their academic careers could be performed. The current study showed no correlation between
learning style preferences at the information processing
and instructional preference levels. Future studies involving larger sample sizes and multiple inventories measuring
learning style at the personality and social interaction
levels would provide evidence or absence of links between
theoretical models. To assess the usefulness of knowing
students learning styles, the most valuable research
would involve studies that investigate the impact of
different methods of teaching when considering students
learning styles. These studies would require a more

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S64

G. FRENCH ET AL.

consistent or well-defined measure of academic performance than that which already exists in the literature.
Further research of student learning style preferences
using the VARK Questionnaire would provide more useful
information for an instrument with little reliability data
currently available specifically designed for the Australian
and New Zealand population.
The impact of students learning styles in education is only
one influencing factor in students learning experiences.
Other factors that may also be influential are students
values and environmental influences. For example, a student
is less likely to perform well, or effectively learn about a topic
that is not perceived as relevant nor is of interest to them,
and the general atmosphere in a classroom may influence
a students attention (Thompson & Crutchlow, 1993).
Knowledge of how to best motivate and engage students
may be more beneficial for optimal learning than tailoring
the instructional mode to the learning styles of students.

Summary and conclusion


The learning style preferences of first year undergraduate
occupational therapy students were identified through
the use of two inventories. The Kolb LSI and the VARK
Questionnaire (Fleming, 2001) identified preferences at
the information processing and instructional preference
level of learning styles.
The first year undergraduate occupational therapy
student group demonstrated a greater preference for
kinaesthetic learning, supporting relevant case study and
practical experience components of allied health education.
All four of Kolbs information processing styles were
represented with some more prevalent than others. The
majority of occupational therapy students prefer either
experimenting with new ideas through case studies and
practical classes (converging), or brainstorming through
learning activities and receiving personal feedback
(diverging). The current study has provided valuable
information regarding the range of learning styles among
occupational therapy students. Ongoing research in this
area with health science students and clinicians is recommended. Knowledge of how to best motivate and engage
students may also be beneficial for optimal learning.

Acknowledgments
The occupational therapy students from La Trobe
University who volunteered their input by completing
the two learning style instruments are thanked for their
valuable contribution to the study.

References
Atherton, J. S. (2002). Learning and teaching: Learning from
experience. Retrieved 13 September 2004, from http://
www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/experien.htm.

Barris, R., Kielhofner, G. & Bauer, D. (1985, February).


Leaning preferences, values, and student satisfaction.
Journal of Allied Health, 14, 13 23.
Cavanagh, S. J. & Coffin, D. A. (1993). Matching instructional
preference and teaching styles: A review of the literature.
Nurse Education Today, 14, 106 110.
Clark, D. (2000). Learning styles. Retrieved 27 July 2005, from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html.
Conner, M. L. (2004). Introduction to learning styles. Ageless learner.
Retrieved 4 August 2005, from http://agelesslearner.com/
intros/lstyleintro.html.
Contessa, J., Ciardiello, K. A. & Perlman, S. (2005). Surgery
resident learning styles and academic achievement.
Current Surgery, 62, 344 347.
Cook, D. A. (2005). Learning and cognitive styles in
Web-based learning: Theory, evidence, and application.
Academic Medicine, 80, 266 278.
Curry, L. (1983). Learning style in continuing medical education.
Ottawa, ON: Council on Medical Education, Canada
Medical Association.
Experience Based Learning Systems (2004). Learning Style
Inventory (Version 3): Technical Specifications. Retrieved 17
September 2004, from http://www. learningfromexperience.com/Tech_spec_LSI.pdf.
Felder, R. M. & Soloman, B. A. (2004). Index of learning styles.
Accessed on 20 November 2006 at http://www.ncsu.edu/
felder-public/ILSpage.html.
Fleming, N. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Author.
Hauer, P., Straub, C. & Wolf, S. (2005). Learning styles of
allied health students using Kolbs LSI-IIa. Journal of Allied
Health, 34, 177182.
Katz, N. (1990). Problem solving and time: Functions of
learning style and teaching methods. Occupational Therapy
Journal of Research, 10, 221235.
Katz, N. & Heimann, N. (1991). Learning style of students
and practitioners in five health professions. Occupational
Therapy Journal of Research, 11, 239 245.
Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of Kolbs
Learning Style Inventory version 3 (1999). Journal of Business
and Psychology, 20, 249 257.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1999). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Version
3. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.
Linares, A. Z. (1999). Learning styles of students and faculty
in selected health care professions. Journal of Nursing
Education, 38, 407 414.
McLeod, S., Lincoln, M., McAllister, L., Maloney, D., Purcell, A.
& Eadie, P. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of reported
learning styles of speech pathology students. Australian
Journal of Human Communication Disorders, 23, 13 25.
Miller, J., Kovacs, P. J., Wright, L., Corcoran, J. & Rosenblum, A.
(2005). Field work education: Student and field instructor
perceptions of the learning process. Journal of Social Work
Education, 41, 131145.
Mitchell, M. W. & Nyland, N. K. (2005). Learning styles differ
between senior dietetics students and dietetics faculty members. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105, 16051608.

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

S65

LEARNING STYLE OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS

Myers, I. B. & Briggs, K. C. (1962). MyersBriggs indicator.


Palo Alto, C.A.: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
Pelley, J. (2005). The success types learning style indicator.
Accessed 20 November 2006, from http://ttuhsc.edu/
SOM/Success/LSTIntro.htm.
Portney, L. G. & Watkins, M. P. (2000). Foundations of clinical
research: Applications to practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health.
Rezler, A. G. & Rezmovic, V. (1981). The learning preference
inventory. Journal of Allied Health, 10, 28 34.
Sandmire, D. A., Vroman, K. G. & Sanders, R. (2000). The
influence of learning styles on collaborative performances
of allied health students in a clinical exercise. Journal of
Allied Health, 29, 143 149.
Sims, R. & Sims, S. (2006). Learning styles and learning: A key
to meeting the accountability demands in education. Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Publishers.
SPSS Inc. (1999). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(Version 10.0 for Windows). Chicago, IL: Author.
Stafford, E. M. (1986). Relationship between occupational
therapy student learning styles and clinic performance.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 40, 34 39.
Stratton, T. D., Witzke, D. B., Elam, C. L. & Cheever, T. R.
(2005). Learning and career specialty preferences of medical
school applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 35 50.
Sutton, G. & Griffin, M. A. (2000). Transition from student to

practitioner: The role of expectations, values and personality.


British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 380 388.
Thompson, C. & Crutchlow, E. (1993). Learning style research:
A critical review of the literature and implications for
nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 9, 34 40.
Titiloye, V. M. & Scott, A. H. (2001). Occupational therapy
students learning styles and application to professional
academic training. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 15,
145 155.
Veres, I., Sims, R. & Locklear, T. (1991). Improving the
reliability of Kolbs Revised Learning Style Inventory.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 143 150.
Vittetoe, M. & Hooker. E. (1983). Learning Style preferences
of allied health practitioners in a teacher education program.
Journal of Allied Health, 12, 48 55.
Ware, G. & ODonoughue, E. (2005). Student learning styles
and assessment on a family therapy training course. Journal
of Family Therapy, 27, 293 297.
Wessel, J. & Williams, R. (2004). Critical thinking and learning
styles of students in a problem-based, masters entry level
physical therapy program. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice,
20, 79 89.
Wessel, J., Loomis, J., Rennie, S., Brook, P., Hoddinott, J. &
Aherne, M. (1999). Learning styles and perceived problemsolving ability of students in a baccalaureate physiotherapy
program. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 15, 1724.

2007 The Authors


Journal compilation 2007 Australian Association of Occupational Therapists

Anda mungkin juga menyukai