The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1 2005 - Whitewater ...

Educational Applications
The primary purpose of the LSI and ELT is to increase individuals’ understanding of the process of learning from
experience and their unique individual approach to learning. By providing a language for talking about learning styles
and the learning process, the inventory can foster conversation among learners and educators about how to create the
most effective learning environment for those involved. There have been many studies that have used ELT and the
LSI in this way to improve the learning process in education. The following two sections summarize some of this
work. The fi rst section examines those studies that have used the LSI to understand and manage differences between
student and faculty learning styles. The second section describes studies in a number of different disciplines that have
used the experiential learning model in curriculum development. For a complete review of the applications of the LSI
and ELT in higher education, see Kolb and Kolb (2006).
Managing Faculty and Student Learning Style Differences
Several studies have examined the differences between faculty and student learning styles. These studies suggest that
educators need to adapt their teaching styles and instructional methods to facilitate the learning process by offering
a variety of learning opportunities appropriate to different student learning styles and to different subject matters.
(Baker, Simon, and Bazeli 1986; Buch and Bartley 2002; Cartney 2000).
In their study of learning style differences among pediatric residents and faculty, Kosower and Berman (1996) found
that that while most residents preferred accommodating or diverging styles (81%), most faculty preferred either
converging or assimilating learning strategies (73%). A longitudinal study comparing undergraduate nursing students’
learning styles and faculty learning styles reported similar results: nursing students preferred concrete thinking (59%)
over abstract thinking (41%), while their faculty preferred abstract thinking (82%) over concrete thinking (18%)
(Kalsbeek 1989).
Kruzich, Friesen, and Soest (1986) conducted a study of student and faculty learning styles in social work at two
universities and two private colleges and found signifi cant learning style differences among undergraduate students,
graduate students, fi eld instructors, and social work faculty. Overall, faculty most often had converging learning styles,
whereas the majority of graduate students and fi eld instructors were diverging learners. The undergraduate students
were mostly accommodating learners, suggesting a preference for action.
In a similar study conducted in the fi eld of social work, Raschick, Maypole, and Day (1998) found that students
whose learning styles were similar to their fi eld supervisors along the active experimentation-refl ective observation continuum
would rate their fi eld experience with them higher. The authors suggest that the fi nding is most relevant for
the supervisors at the beginning point of the learning cycle, when matching their teaching techniques to their students’
preferences presents with added benefi ts to encourage students to move through the rest of the learning cycle.
In their study of differences and similarities of perception of learning among internal medicine residents and faculty,
White and Anderson (1995) found that one of the restraining factors that prevented learning from occurring was
related to the discrepancies in what residents and faculty perceived to be the most relevant aspect of the learning process.
In most situations, faculty tended to focus on abstract and refl ective modes of the learning process, while residents
emphasized the concrete mode of learning.
Sadler, Plovnick, and Snope (1978) report some of the diffi culties of teaching in an environment in which the learning
style of the faculty and the students differ. Their study suggests that faced with such a situation, instructors may be
required to use instructional methods valuable to the students but not necessarily appealing or intellectually rewarding
to the instructors themselves.
34 LSI Technical Manual