Learning Style Preferences of Undergraduate Social

Social Work Education The International Journal

ISSN: 0261-5479 (Print) 1470-1227 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cswe20

Learning Style Preferences of Undergraduate Social Work Students Brett Williams, Ted Brown & Jamie Etherington To cite this article: Brett Williams, Ted Brown & Jamie Etherington (2013) Learning Style Preferences of Undergraduate Social Work Students, Social Work Education, 32:8, 972-990, DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2012.730142 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2012.730142

Published online: 18 Oct 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 680

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cswe20 Download by: [Monash University Library]

Date: 25 February 2016, At: 17:52

Social Work Education, 2013 Vol. 32, No. 8, 972–990, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2012.730142

Learning Style Preferences of Undergraduate Social Work Students

Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 17:52 25 February 2016

Brett Williams, Ted Brown & Jamie Etherington

It has been identified that undergraduate social work students have distinctive learning needs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the learning style preferences of a group of undergraduate social work students enrolled at a large Australian university. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Index of Learning Styles and Success Types Learning Style Type Indicator was distributed to 606 students enrolled in an undergraduate social work degree at one metropolitan Australian university. A total of 116 questionnaires were returned, providing a response rate of 19.14%. The results indicated that converging and assimilating, intuitive and sensing, thinking, judging and perceiving learning styles were favoured by this group of social work students. It is recommended that educators understand and take into consideration the learning style preferences of undergraduate social work students when developing curricula and evaluating teaching approaches, especially when planning and implementing education initiatives. This will help create effective learning environments, appropriate learning opportunities and a contemporary curriculum for social work students. Keywords: Learning Styles; Students; Education; Curriculum; Social Work

Introduction and Review The process of educating professional social workers is a complex one with students needing to integrate foundational knowledge from the core disciplines of social work, sociology, psychology and social policy with ethical frameworks and practice skills (Payne, 1997). With an increase in the size of university classes over the last two decades, there is a risk that traditional lecture-style teaching, based on the assumption

Brett Williams, Ted Brown & Jamie Etherington, Monash University, Australia. Correspondence to: Dr Brett Williams, Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University—Peninsula Campus, Building H, PO Box 527, McMahons Road, Frankston 3199, Victoria, Australia, Tel.: þ 61 3 9904 4283, Fax: þ61 3 9904 4252; Email: [email protected]

q 2013 Taylor & Francis


Social Work Education 973

of ‘passive absorption’ of knowledge by students, will lead to fewer interactions between students and teacher than smaller group approaches (Moulding, 2010). This is particularly relevant within the context of social work education where there is an emphasis on developing higher cognitive skills such as critical thinking, professional judgement and problem solving. Social work education is also multidimensional in nature and social work courses demand that students use multiple learning modes in different parts of the course, e.g. in classroom learning, laboratory sessions and fieldwork placements. Therefore, knowledge of students’ learning style preferences, and identification of their possible strengths and weaknesses, will help social work educators to structure course content appropriately, thereby improving student learning and engagement in the education process. It will also improve students’ self-awareness of how they learn best and what they can do to maximise learning opportunities. The research highlights the importance of developing a new social work pedagogy more firmly grounded on empirical evidence of what works (Fook et al., 2000; Trevithick et al., 2004; Richards et al., 2005; Orme et al., 2009; Wilson and Kelly, 2010a). It has long been recognised that an understanding of learning styles in the educator– learner relationship is relevant. According to Fox and Guild (1987), an appreciation of student learning styles allow the teacher to ‘design the most individualised instructive methods’, further arguing that stylistic differences in cognition, conceptualisation and behaviour are interrelated. It is anticipated that the findings of this paper will add to the body of research and assist social work educators in both Australia and internationally in designing fully integrated courses that are relevant to real life and encourage enthusiastic teaching. Learning styles have been described as ‘the ways in which individuals characteristically approach different learning tasks’ (Cassidy, 2004) and as ‘a particular set of behaviors and attitudes related to learning context’ (Brown, 1998). The concept of learning styles is not without its critics, with the main criticism being that it assumes a direct relationship between learning style, teaching style and learner performance rather than considering the learner as a psychological whole (Markham, 2004). It is our belief, however, that exploration and an understanding of learning styles helps facilitate appropriate learning contents and experiences for learners and assists students’ self-awareness about how they learn best, providing opportunities for maximising learning and seeking out appropriate learning contexts. Most classes will be composed of students with a variety of learning style preferences, and increasing the variety of teaching methods available may improve the extent to which the learning needs of all students are addressed. Lack of awareness of individual learning styles may result in communication problems, lack of student engagement and learning blocks in the classroom. There exists a significant body of research that demonstrates the importance of finding out what works in social work teaching and learning, and understanding how students acquire, apply and develop professional social work knowledge and expertise. Much of this research has been undertaken in the UK by SWAP, the social policy and social work learning and teaching network, over the past decade. The findings of one


974

B. Williams et al.

such study by Wilson and Kelly (2010b), into social work students’ practice learning at one UK university, found that those practice teachers who adopted practical methods, i.e. role play, to demonstrate ways of working with clients’ challenging behaviours were greatly valued by students. Students also preferred reflective learning that promoted the development of analytical and critical reflection skills than more routine and instrumental forms of feedback and assessment. In another SWAP report, Lindsay (2003) suggests the ideal model of social work education appears to be one where group supervision alternates with individual supervision. This supports Moulding’s contention that it is not the individual teaching strategy per se that is important to students’ perceptions of what best assists their learning but purposeful and integrated course design, content that relates to ‘real-life’ and teacher enthusiasm (Moulding, 2010). In her own research, Moulding found that student-centred courses achieved much higher student satisfaction ratings and grades than teacher-directed courses. A better knowledge and understanding of learning styles has become increasingly relevant as classroom sizes, students’ learning needs and the diversity of student backgrounds increase. Technological advances continue to influence and shape the types of students entering higher education. Computer-assisted instruction and innovative web-based learning strategies are potentially effective tools if adapted to specific learning styles, just like the teacher who adapts their instruction to meet the needs of individual learners in traditional face-to-face instruction (Cook, 2005a). Research indicates that people differ in their approach to learning and that no one strategy will result in high-quality learning circumstances for all individuals (Cavenagh et al., 1995). The challenge is to enhance student-centred teaching and learning and maximise student engagement in social work classes (Moulding, 2010). Learning styles related to various occupational groups have been previously studied. For example, specific learning style preferences have been attributed to certain healthcare professions, with studies investigating doctors, nurses and allied health professionals such as occupational therapists and physiotherapists (Laschinger and Boss, 1984; Katz and Heimann, 1991; Hardigan and Cohen, 2003; Sandmire and Boyce, 2004). In the area of social work education, there are several key studies from various countries. These include Kruzich et al.’s assessment of student and faculty learning styles and Massey et al.’s study of learning styles among undergraduate social work students, both items of research undertaken at American universities (Kruzich et al., 1986; Massey et al., 2011). Significant research has also taken place in Hong Kong, Israel and Australia investigating shifts of learning styles on a social work course (Tsang, 1993), the effect of learning styles on social work student supervision (Itzhakya and Eliahoub, 2002) and changes in social work students’ approaches to learning during a Bachelor of Social Work course (Zoghi et al., 2010). A wide range of models and tools have been developed to explain and measure the concept of learning styles. The three learning style tools used in this study are from the family of learning styles based on the premise that ‘learning styles are flexibly stable learning preferences’ (Coffield et al., 2004) in which previous experiences and other


factors impacting on learning preference are recognised. Discussion of the models used in the present study now follows.


Kolb Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1999) is a commonly used and significant tool that has been used in the health professions to reliably identify how people learn. It is useful for curriculum development as knowledge of learning style aids design of the most effective learning experiences, stimulating more reflective practice and promoting student-centred learning. The K-LSI has built a large body of empirical knowledge accumulated over 30 years of research use (Loo, 2004) and has been widely used in the investigation of learning styles of other cognate health science students including nursing and the allied health disciplines (King, 1986; Cavenagh et al., 1995; Bowman et al., 2000; Hauer et al., 2005; Zoghi et al., 2010; Smith, 2010). The basis for using Kolb’s model within health science is the notion that learning evolves as a student progresses through their academic learning and practical skills training. They must also become accustomed to the concept of being professionals, which invariably leads to exposure to a variety of learning environments (Zoghi et al., 2010). The model can accommodate potential growth and changes in students’ learning styles as they progress through these different environments (Smith, 2010). Kolb has developed a model that describes four modes of learning and four learning styles. Learning modes are the cyclic stages an individual moves through during the learning process and involve four different modes of learning: abstract conceptual isation (AC), active experimentation (AE), concrete experience (CE) and reflective observation (RO) (see Figure 1). The ‘abstract –concrete’ dimension (AC –CE) reflects how we perceive new experience and information; and the ‘active –reflective’ (AE– RO) dimension is concerned with how perception is processed and transformed. AC represents theoretical ‘thinking’ processes with the result being AE, where students use the knowledge they have gained to formulate a theory on completion of a task. The completion, or failure, to achieve the desired outcome of a task is the CE ‘experience’ phase of learning, and post-CE is RO where students reflect on what worked and perhaps did not work, also known as ‘reflecting’. This cycle is a continuous, reoccurring process, with students frequently moving from phase to phase as directed by their learning needs (Hauer et al., 2005). Learning styles refer to the way individuals prefer to process new information and strategies they adopt for optimum learning. Kolb identified four distinct learning styles (converger, diverger, assimilator, accommodator) on a model with two dimensions (see Figure 1 and Table 1). The horizontal axis is the processing continuum demonstrating a preference for performing tasks on one end (AE) and a preference for watching at the other end (RO) (Kolb, 1999). The vertical axis is the perception continuum indicating a preferred learning style based upon feeling at one end (CE) and a preferred learning process based on thinking at the other end (AC). The four quadrants are formed by the intersection of the two axes representing four learning styles derived from a combination of two preferred learning abilities (see


976

B. Williams et al.

Figure 1

Kolb’s Learning Styles.

Table 1) (Kolb, 1999). Convergers are good deductive reasoners and enjoy problem solving and decision making while divergers prefer observation to action and operate well in ‘brainstorming’ activities. Assimilators’ strength lies in their ability to understand and create theories while accommodators learn primarily from hands-on experience and are effective in getting things done. Kolb’s learning style theory has been operationalised in a standardised self-report questionnaire known as the Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (K-LSI) (Kolb, 1999). The K-LSI is a form of self-description, self-scoring scale that aims to help individual learners identify their optimal learning style and better understand the learning cycle Table 1

Definition of Kolb’s Learning Styles

Diverger (CE and RO) Assimilator (AC and RO)

Converger (AC and AE)

Accommodator (CE and AE)

Divergers prefer to view situations from a number of different perspectives Assimilators are competent at understanding a wide variety of information, putting it into a concise, logical order and excel at creating theories Convergers like to apply practical ideas to problems and perform at their best when there is only one answer Accommodators enjoy hands-on experience and thrive in new and challenging situations



that is described by Kolb (1985). The K-LSI involves participants completing 12 questions that describe various learning contexts. Each question has four responses and participants rank these from the response that best describes their learning style (4) to the response which least describes them (1). The value for each response (1– 4) is placed into one of four categories: CE, RO, AC and AE. A total for each equation is then derived, which equates to a numerical value for each of the four learning modes: CE, RO, AC and AE. The value obtained for CE is then subtracted from the value obtained for AC; this yields the y-coordinate. The value derived for RO is subtracted from AE to yield the x-coordinate. The x and y values are then plotted on Kolb’s Learning Style Grid, resulting in a preferred learning style. The four learning styles are fluid and flexible and are not intended to be definitive or diagnostic. Individuals will move through all learning styles in their daily lives, influenced by context and environment. The psychometric properties of the K-LSI have been established. This tool is reliable, with internal consistency using Cronbach alpha scores ranging from 0.43 to 0.79 and the test –retest reliability for the four learning styles ranging from 0.91 to 0.97. Its validity has been supported cross-culturally with studies in many countries and norms are available based on a sample of 1,446 adults between the ages of 18 and 60. The K-LSI has been widely used to investigate learning styles in social work education (Kruzich et al., 1986; Katz and Heimann, 1991; Tsang, 1993; Van Soest and Kruzich, 1994; Raschick et al., 1998; Wolfsfeld and Haj-Yahia, 2010; Massey et al., 2011). Kolb’s work reflects many of the characteristic approaches in social work education and training such as the importance of ‘person-in-environment’ and an appreciation of diversity (Koob and Funk, 2002). Kruzich et al.’s research of graduates and undergraduates enrolled on Masters and Bachelor social work programmes at one American university (Kruzich et al., 1986) revealed that, on average, undergraduate students had higher active experimentation (AE) scores and lower scores for abstract conceptualisation (AC) than graduate students, and that undergraduate students were more likely to be accommodators tending to favour intuition over systematic problem solving. Those students with greater work experience were more likely to be assimilators (abstract and reflective) than those with less work experience. Tsang’s research, in which the K-LSI was administered over a two-year period to students enrolled on a social work programme at one university in Hong Kong at four different points in their training (Tsang, 1993), found that students who started out as accommodators at the beginning of the course and were exposed to classroom learning of academic and practice-oriented subjects became assimilators at the end of their first year. The learning mode switched again (to converger) at the end of the second year, during which students combined academic study with fieldwork placements. Kruzich et al. and Tsang’s findings show how preferences can shift in response to different contexts—the favouring of active experimentation on fieldwork placements, and preference for abstract conceptualis ation in the academic classroom. It also demonstrates how social work undergraduates tend to gravitate towards the assimilator and converger learning styles as their studies progress. Within the multidimensional context of social work education, Tsang found


978

B. Williams et al.

the K-LSI a compatible model with which to explore the learning styles of social work students. Research undertaken by Katz and Heimann (1991) and Wolfsfeld and Haj-Yahia (2010) into the learning styles of Israeli social work students and practitioners found that the majority of students were categorised as divergers. Wolfsfeld and Haj-Yahia’s (2010) study of 333 social work students enrolled on a three-year Bachelor programme revealed variations in students’ preference between active and reflective activities, and greater variation in learning styles at the start of the social work programme than on completion of the degree. Students tended to move towards the learning styles most prevalent among Israeli professional social workers (accommodating and diverging). Katz and Heimann (1991) found that practitioners accelerated on the AE–RO axis towards the active mode. Massey et al.’s (2011) study of a relatively small sample (86) of social work students at Norfolk State University in America also demonstrated a preference for diverging and accommodating learning styles, suggesting that these students learn best in classes where activities are focused on lectures, role playing and discussion. Index of Learning Styles (ILS) The ILS is a less common 44-item questionnaire instrument developed by Felder and Silverman, and produces a learning style profile that provides an indication of probable strengths and possible tendencies or habits that might lead to difficulty in academic settings. The preference profile is based on four defined learning dimensions: preference in terms of type and mode of information perception (sensory – intuitive; visual – verbal), approaches to organising and processing information (active – reflective), and the rate of progression towards understanding (sequential – global) (Felder and Silverman, 1988) (see Table 2). Advantages of the ILS include conciseness and ease of administration in written and computerised formats (Felder and Silverman, 1988; Felder and Solomon, 2011). Test – retest correlation coefficients for the four scales varied between 0.7 and 0.9 for an interval of four weeks between test administration and between 0.5 and 0.8 for intervals of seven and eight months (Felder and Spurlin, 2005). Cronbach alpha coefficients were greater than the criterion value of 0.5. The active – reflective, sensing – intuitive and visual –verbal scales have been found to be valid in determining learning styles (Cook, 2005b). While the ILS has been used in studies examining the learning style of internal medicine residents, there is no prior published data on the specific use of the tool in populations of social work students or social workers. Success Types Learning Style Type Indicator (STLSTI) The literature reveals no previous use of the STLSTI in investigations of learning styles. The STLSTI is, however, derived from the reputable Myers– Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which was devised to help individuals increase their self-awareness and the tool has been used successfully in higher education research including social work education (Moore et al., 1997). The rationale for using the related, albeit lesser known,

Social Work Education 979 Table 2

Definition of ILS Learning Styles

Active – Reflective

Sensory – Intuitive


Visual – Verbal Sequential – Global

Active learners tend to like group work more than reflective learners who prefer working alone. Lecture-based teaching with no hands-on practical work is hard for both learning types, but especially so for active learners Sensing learners tend to be practical and careful, and like learning facts and problem-solving using traditional methods. Intuitive learners prefer innovation and discovering possibilities and relationships, and tend not to enjoy courses that involve a lot of memorisation and routine calculations Visual learners remember best from the use of pictures and demonstrations in teaching. Verbal learners prefer written and spoken explanations Sequential learners tend to follow a logical stepwise approach in seeking solutions while global learners absorb material in a random fashion without seeing connections

STLSTI is the tool’s ease of administration and relatively low cost. The STLSTI is a list of 28 questions or statements representing opposites in one’s thinking when learning (Pelley, 2011). Participants choose the one that describes the way they really are, not the one that represents what they want to be or what others think they ought to be. Participants enter the boldface letter of choice in a box—Extraversion or Intraversion, Sensing or iNtuitive, Thinking or Feeling, Judging or Perceiving—and these are totalled on completion. The bipolar constructs are determined as follows: extroverts (E) focus on people and things (the outer world) while introverts (I) prefer the inner world of ideas; sensors (S) focus on concrete information and the here and the now as opposed to intuitors (N) who tend to consider future possibilities; thinkers (T) prefer logical and objective analysis while feelers (F) base their decisions on person-centred evaluations; judgers (J) tend to be organised and like to plan, unlike perceptors (P) who are generally more flexible and spontaneous. The four letter combination represents one of 16 learning types—for example, ISFJs tend to be organised, empathic individuals who make factual judgements. A sample selection of some of the 28 questions is provided in Table 3.

Setting The Bachelor of Social Work course at Monash University covers social work principles and methods of intervention relating to individuals, families, groups and communities, and includes social work research, theory, policy and management. Fieldwork is interwoven with traditional class work during the course. The course is designed to produce graduates with good critical analysis skills and the ability to apply these to social work theories and models of intervention. Students should also have an understanding of factors affecting people’s functioning (their life stage, health and mental health), the organisational context of human services and how to develop and change organisations. They should be able to display good written and oral presentation skills, and be able to apply them effectively in practice. The course is also

980

B. Williams et al.

Table 3 E E

I study best with other people I prefer to start my learning by doing something active and then considering the results later

I I

S

I am more patient with routine or details in my study I learn much better in a hands-on situation to see what is

N

F

J

I prefer to have a logical reason for what I learn I prefer group study as a way to give and receive critical analysis I prefer to study in a steady, orderly fashion

J

I like well-defined learning assignments

P

S T


Sample Questions from the STLSTI

T

N

F P

I study best by myself I prefer to start my learning by considering something thoroughly and then doing something active with it later I am more patient with abstract or complex material I learn much better when I’m thinking about the possibilities to imagine what might be I prefer a personable teacher to a logically organised teacher I prefer group study to be harmonious I prefer to study in a flexible, even impulsive, way I like learning from open-ended problem solving

intended to develop students’ understanding of themselves as individuals and as professionals, and teaches them how to critically analyse their experiences and to learn to handle these constructively. The course is based on a model in which a range of teaching and learning activities are employed, to ensure the mode best suited to developing particular skills and achieving specific objectives is chosen: problem-based learning sessions are used to develop critical thinking; online discussion groups and debates to strengthen communication skills and construction of arguments; lectures and aligned tutorials for the attainment and understanding of knowledge; practical classes for the learning of specific technical skills; and field placements for developing professional skills and practices. The findings of this study should assist social work educators at Monash University in assessing students’ strengths and weaknesses in learning and provide opportunities for addressing concerns and structuring appropriate learning contexts. For example, group work and practical sessions are particularly suited to active learners while more reflective types tend to learn more effectively when given time and space to think about what they have learned.

Method Design A non-experimental cross-sectional survey study design was used.

Participants All undergraduate students enrolled in the Bachelor of Social Work course at Monash University in 2006 –2007 were potential respondents (n ¼ 606). A convenience


sampling approach was utilised. Inclusion criteria were full- or part-time enrolment as an undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Social Work programme at Monash University and providing consent to take part in the study. There is potential for respondent bias since self-report surveys were used, but the three learning style scales used all have established reliability and validity so occurrences should be minimised.


Instrumentation Information about the K-LSI, ILS and STLSTI is reported above. Participants completed a paper-based self-report questionnaire which was divided into two sections. The first section asked for demographic information (20 questions) including year level, type of enrolment, gender, age and secondary school completion or equivalent. Students were advised that their participation was voluntary and the questionnaires were anonymous. A non-teaching staff member (administrator) recruited students for the study. The questionnaires took students approximately 15 minutes to complete and consent was implied by its completion and return. No follow-ups were undertaken. Data Analysis and Management The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for data entry, storage, retrieval and the generation of descriptive statistics (Kirkpatrick and Feeney, 2001). For the K-LSI, ILS and STLSTI, scores for the specific types of learning styles were calculated. Procedures Approval from the Monash University Committee on Ethics in Research on Humans was obtained before commencement of the project. Permission was gained from the head of department or programme chairperson of each academic programme to approach students about completing the survey during a regularly scheduled class. Participants were given a brief overview of the project and were asked to participate on a voluntary basis. The self-report questionnaire was distributed during a scheduled class. Results Participants The learning scales were administered to 606 students enrolled in the social work programme at Monash University. A total of 116 questionnaires were returned, providing a response rate of 19.14%. Of students who completed the questionnaire 45% were between 20 and 29 years of age, with a predominance of female respondents (87.9%) over male (12.1%). Of all the respondents, 85.3% (n ¼ 99) were of European background, with 69% of students enrolled full-time (n ¼ 80). The distribution of the

982

B. Williams et al.

demographic data is fully reported in Table 4 while the results of the study are given in Tables 5 –7. K-LSI Scores Social work students showed a preference for abstract conceptualisation (AC) which obtained the highest mean score, followed closely by active experimentation (AE).


Table 4

Demographic Variables (n ¼ 116)

Age 15– 19 years 20– 24 years 25– 29 years 30– 34 years 35– 39 years 40– 44 years 45– 49 years 50 years or older Total Gender Female Male Total Year level 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Other 1st year graduate entry Masters 2nd year graduate entry Masters Total Current type of enrolment Full-time Part-time Total Residential place whilst attending university Inner city Outer city Semi-rural Rural Other Total Ethnicity Of European origin Asian Indian African Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander Other Total

Number

Percentage

5 30 23 18 14 10 6 10 116

4.3 25.9 19.8 15.5 12.1 8.6 5.2 8.6 100

102 14 116

87.9 12.1 100

2 14 53 31 1 8 7 116

1.7 12.1 45.7 26.7 0.9 6.9 6.0 100

80 36 116

69 31 100

16 54 14 10 22 116

13.8 46.6 12.0 8.6 19.0 100

99 10 3 1 1 2 116

85.3 8.6 2.6 0.9 0.9 1.7 100

Social Work Education 983 Table 5 Distribution of Kolb’s Four Learning Style Preferences among Students (n ¼ 116)


Number Percentage

Accommodator

Diverger

Assimilator

Converger

23 19.8

17 14.7

34 29.3

42 36.2

The ‘abstract –concrete’ dimension (AC –CE) reflects how we perceive new experience and information; the ‘active– reflective’ (AE– RO) dimension is concerned with how perception is processed and transformed. Mean scores for AC and concrete experience (CE) were subtracted to obtain a y-axis coordinate; scores for AE and RO were used to obtain the x-axis coordinate. The resulting x and y coordinates were then transposed onto Kolb’s Learning Style Grid to determine the preferred learning style (Kolb, 1999). The breakdown of students’ learning style preferences is reported in Table 5. The majority of students demonstrated a stronger preference for the converger (36.2%) and assimilator (29.3%) types of learning style, than the accommodator (19.8%) and diverger (14.7%) learning styles.

ILS Scores Results from the present study suggest that social work students display largely intuitive tendencies in the learning environment. In terms of how information is perceived, a significant portion (38.8%) showed a moderately strong preference for an intuitive type of learning, while 13% indicated only a mild preference for either a sensing or intuitive mode. With regard to the organising and processing of information, 16.1% were moderately strongly reflective versus 13.7% who were moderately strongly active, with 13.2% having a mild preference for one or the other. A high proportion of students (38.5%) indicated a moderately strong preference for receiving information verbally, while only 10.2% preferred a visual style of learning. In understanding the information received, 33.3% showed a moderately strong preference for global learning and 14.4% had only a mild preference for either a sequential or global style of learning (see Table 6).

STLSTI Scores The findings demonstrated a dominance of introverted, sensing, thinking, judging (ISTJ) types with fluctuations between introversion – extraversion and judging– perceiving preferences. The dominant driving forces for ISTJs are an abiding sense of responsibility, commitment and attention to detail—they are realists and display a logical pragmatism. ISTPs are also characterised by a sense of realism and logic. They are typically quiet and analytical observers who naturally look for the underlying sense to any facts they have gathered (see Table 7).

Mild

13.2%

Mod. strong active

13.7%

16.1%

Mod. strong reflective 10.4%

Mod. strong sensing 13.0%

Mild

Sensing – Intuitive

38.8%

Mod. strong intuitive

Strengths of Preferences Based on the Index of Learning Styles

Active – Reflective

Table 6

10.2%

Mod. strong visual 15.6%

Mild

Visual – Verbal

38.5%

Mod. strong verbal


11.7%

Mod. strong sequential

14.4%

Mild

Sequential – Global

33.3%

Mod. strong global

984

B. Williams et al.

Judging (J) ISTJ 40.6%

Perceiving (P) ISTP 36.4%

Thinking (T) Judging (J) ISFJ 25.9%

Perceiving (P) ISFP 27.3%

Feeling (F)

Perceiving (P) INFP 10%

Feeling (F) Judging (J) INFJ 2.1%

Intuitive (N)

Perceiving (P) INTP 12.9%

Thinking (T) Judging (J) INTJ 8.0%

Intraversion (I)

Perceiving (P) ENFP 8.3%

Feeling (F) Judging (J) ENFJ 8.3%

Intuitive (N)

Perceiving (P) ENTP 10.8%

Thinking (T) Judging (J) ENTJ 8.0%

Extraversion (E)

Perceiving (P) ESFP 20.0%

Feeling (F) Judging (J) ESFJ 15.4%

Sensing (S)

Perceiving (P) ESTP 33.3%

Sensing (S)

Learning Style Preferences Based on the STLSTI

Thinking (T)

Judging (J) ESTJ 33.3%

Table 7



986

B. Williams et al.

Discussion


K-LSI Scores Using the abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation modes, convergers prefer the practical application of ideas and use deductive reasoning to solve problems (Kolb, 1985). Therefore, learning activities and curricula that incorporate a problembased learning (PBL) dimension suit these students’ learning preferences since they provide opportunities to use deductive reasoning to solve issues. Assimilators tend to focus less on individual needs and more on ideas, concepts and logical arguments, concentrating more on the soundness of a theory rather than its practical application. They are adept at understanding a wide range of information, preferring analytical work and having the time to think things through. For these fact-oriented learners, learning activities such as lectures and aligned tutorials are particularly beneficial and optimise the potential learning that can occur. The occurrence of all four learning styles amongst social work undergraduates suggests a diversity of learning styles and social work educators should aim to accommodate such adjustments and variations through the availability of different learning environments and contexts for students. The identification of learning style preferences also provides an opportunity to encourage students to employ different learning styles and strengthen non-preferred styles in order to support learning within educational and clinical contexts (Kolb, 1999). Knowledge of how they learn and exposure to a variety of learning opportunities has the potential to improve students’ experiential learning environment—small group-based activities to support the development of communication and PBL skills, larger group sessions such as lectures for the attainment of knowledge, and field placements to strengthen and hone practical and technical skills. Small group discussion allows students to monitor their own learning and achieve self-direction and independence in learning. The development of holistic and relativistic students is more likely to be achieved by the openness of small discussion groups than formal, highly structured lecture courses. While many qualifying social work programmes use a group tutorial system in which students can experience group processes, not all programmes provide specific group work teaching (Lindsay, 2003). According to Jaques (2000) students’ learning is enhanced when they are actively involved and given prompt feedback, and presented with a variety of learning opportunities. PBL, self- and peer-assessment, and peer monitoring develop deeper understanding and promote thinking beyond immediate skills and knowledge. Burgess and Jackson (1990) state how PBL assists the integration of academic and practice learning while developing their problem solving skills and increasing their motivation to learn. ILS Scores According to the ILS’s authors, Felder and Silverman (1988), a balance of preferences is desirable as all learners are sometimes active, sometimes reflective, sometimes sensing,


sometimes intuitive. The findings from the present study suggest that social work students prefer a small group learning environment that accommodates a more reflective and intuitive learning style. It is recommended, however, that in setting curricula the full range of learning preferences be considered otherwise those students who prefer more active or sensing learning may be disadvantaged.


STLSTI Scores Where the sensing and judging dimensions predominate, students prefer hands-on experiences and practical data, and arrive at conclusions quickly in an organised manner. Such preferences would seem to fit the traditional type of teaching where emphasis is placed on facts and memorisation. Sensing type students like to learn a skill, perfect it and put it into practice with little variation. Those students with a judging preference prefer goals, deadlines and a clear plan for learning (Jensen et al., 1987). These findings will be useful in future research to determine whether social work students’ preferences for certain learning environments are correlated to their academic success as measured by grades. Knowing students’ preferences will help faculty to design a variety of teaching methods for a social work programme as well as various grading opportunities. It will also increase teachers’ awareness of their own learning and teaching preferences and engender an appreciation of other styles. Social work teachers need to be aware of the significance of the impact of student learning styles, the importance of planning teaching sessions using lesson plans, and the impact of their own teaching style. Research also suggests that self-directed learning is an effective and efficient means of delivering continuing professional development (CPD) later in careers (Cartney, 2000). It is preferable for learning opportunities such as expert lectures, personal reading, article reviews and small group discussions to be aligned with social workers’ learning styles, otherwise misalignment may lead to disengagement from continuing education and falling standards of competency. The flip side, however, is that total alignment of learning and teaching styles may result in a ‘cosy’ relationship (Cartney, 2000) and some researchers such as Tsang (1993) have suggested that a mismatch of styles can be beneficial as it offers the potential for students to experience ‘more rounded learning in terms of the relative ease and openness for students to use all the different modes of learning’.

Study Limitations There are a number of limitations to this study. The generalisability of these results is limited since the study was conducted at one university using convenience sampling. Those students who self-selected themselves to participate may be of a particular type and thus it is possible that this sample is not representative of undergraduate social work students. Given that the K-LSI, ILS and STLSTI are all self-report scales, participants may have answered scale items in a socially desirable manner. The response rate of 19.14% was deemed acceptable for self-report surveys.

988

B. Williams et al.

Recommendations for Future Research


It is recommended that this study be replicated with a larger sample size involving more than one university. Also, further longitudinal research is needed to show how learning styles change over the course of study and to ensure curricula are constructed appropriately and meet students’ learning needs in different years of study. Another area that warrants further study is educators’ learning styles and whether their preferred teaching styles change in response to the perceived learning styles of students. The role of culture in conditioning and reinforcing learning styles in the classroom would also provide valuable insight.

Conclusion The process of educating social work students is a particularly complex one and the integration of knowledge, skills and values cannot be successfully achieved through the simple transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. Passive absorption of information in large, lecture-based groups is unlikely to produce skilled social work graduates with the well-developed higher cognitive attributes needed to meet the demands of modern social work practice. An understanding of students’ learning style and learning needs will assist educators in developing well-designed, flexible, studentcentred curricula that incorporate the full range of teaching methods and strengthen essential skills such as problem solving, critical thinking and self-directed learning. By adding to the body of research, this paper will benefit educators, students and wider partners in their understanding of the importance of learning styles in the effective and appropriate delivery of social work education.

Acknowledgements The social work students who volunteered their time and input to complete the survey are thanked. Acknowledgements are extended to the Monash University Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Learning and Teaching Performance Fund—Project Grants Scheme that provided the funding for the completion of this project.

References Bowman, K., Delargy, L., Deshong, L., Kutcher, R. & Roush, S. (2000) ‘Learning styles of physical therapy students and clinicians’, Physical Therapy, vol. 80, pp. S7. Brown, B. (1998) Learning Styles and Vocational Education Practice, Center on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, The Ohio State University College of Education, Columbus, OH. Burgess, H. & Jackson, S. (1990) ‘Enquiry and action learning: a new approach to social work education’, Social Work Education, vol. 9, pp. 3 – 19. Cartney, P. (2000) ‘Adult learning styles: implications for practice teaching in social work’, Social Work Education, vol. 19, pp. 609 –626.


Social Work Education 989 Cassidy, S. (2004) ‘Learning styles: an overview of theories, models and measures’, Educational Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 419 –444. Cavenagh, S., Hogan, K. & Ramgopal, T. (1995) ‘The assessment of student nurse learning styles using the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory’, Nurse Education Today, vol. 15, pp. 177 – 183. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review, Learning and Skills Council and the Department of Education and Skills, London. Cook, D. (2005a) ‘Learning and cognitive styles in web-based learning: theory, evidence and application’, Academic Medicine, vol. 80, pp. 266– 278. Cook, D. (2005b) ‘Reliability and validity of scores from the index of learning styles’, Academic Medicine, vol. 80, pp. S97– S101. Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. (1988) ‘Learning and teaching styles in engineering education’, Engineering Education, vol. 78, pp. 674– 681. Felder, R. M. & Soloman, B. A. (2011) Index of Learning Styles [online]. Available at: www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html, accessed 6 June 2011. Felder, R. M. & Spurlin, J. (2005) ‘Applications, reliability and validity of the Index of Learning Styles’, International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 21, pp. 103 – 112. Fook, J., Ryan, M. & Hawkins, L. (2000) Professional Expertise: Practice, Theory and Education for Working in Uncertainty, Whiting and Birch, London. Fox, R. & Guild, P. (1987) ‘Learning styles: their relevance to clinical supervision’, The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 5, pp. 65 – 77. Hardigan, P. C. & Cohen, S. R. (2003) ‘A comparison of learning styles among seven health professions: implications for optometric education’, Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, vol. 1, pp. 1 –7. Hauer, P., Straub, C. & Wolf, S. (2005) ‘Learning styles of allied health students using Kolb’s LSI-IIa’, Journal of Allied Health, vol. 34, pp. 177 – 182. Itzhakya, H. & Eliahoub, A. (2002) ‘The effect of learning styles and empathy on perceived effectiveness of social work student supervision’, The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 20, pp. 19 –29. Jaques, D. (2000) Learning in Groups. 3rd edn. Kogan Page, London. (1987) Applications of the Myers – Briggs Type Indicator in Higher Education, eds G. Jensen, J. A. Provost & S. Anchors, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Katz, N. & Heimann, N. (1991) ‘Learning styles of students and practitioners in five health professions’, The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, vol. 11, pp. 238 – 244. King, J. E. (1986) ‘A comparative study of adult developmental patterns of RN and generic students in a baccalaureate nursing program’, Journal of Nursing Education, vol. 25, pp. 366 – 371. Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Feeney, B. C. (2001) A Simple Guide to SPSS for Windows: For Versions 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0. revised edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Kolb, D. (1985) Learning Style Inventory. revised edn. McBer & Company, Boston, MA. Kolb, D. (1999) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3, Hay Resources Direct, Boston, MA. Koob, J. J. & Funk, J. (2002) ‘Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory: issues of reliability and validity’, Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 12, pp. 293. Kruzich, J. M., Friesen, B. J. & Van Soest, D. (1986) ‘Assessment of student and faculty learning styles: research and application’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 3, pp. 22– 30. Laschinger, H. K. & Boss, M. W. (1984) ‘Learning styles of nursing students and career choices’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 9, pp. 375 – 380. Lindsay, T. (2003) An Investigation of Group Learning on Practice Placements, SWAP Report, Social Policy and Social Work Subject Centre, University of Southampton. Loo, R. (2004) ‘Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: is there a linkage?’, Educational Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 99 – 108.


990

B. Williams et al.

Markham, S. (2004) Learning Styles Measurement: A Cause for Concern Computing Educational Research Group, Technical Report, pp. 1 –20 [online]. Available at: http://cerg.infotech. monash.edu.au/techreps/learning_styles_review.pdf, accessed 29 March 2012. Massey, M. G., Kim, S-H. & Mitchell, C. (2011) ‘A study of the learning styles of undergraduate social work students’, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, vol. 8, pp. 294 –303. Moore, L., Jenkins, D., Dietz, T. & Feuerbaum, J. (1997) ‘The use of the MBTI as a self-awareness tool in undergraduate education’, The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 53 –70. Moulding, N. (2010) ‘Intelligent design: student perceptions of teaching and learning in large social work classes’, Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 29, pp. 151– 165. Orme, J., MacIntyre, G., Lister, P. G., Cavanagh, K., Crisp, B., Hussein, S., Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Sharpe, E. & Stevens, M. (2009) ‘What (a) difference a degree makes: the evaluation of the new social work degree in England’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 39, pp. 161– 178. Payne, M. (1997) Modern Social Work Theory, Macmillan Press, London. Pelley, J. (2011) The Success Types Learning Style Type Indicator: Introduction to Your Psychological Type [online]. Available at: www.ttuhsc.edu/som/success/page_LSTI/LSTIntro.htm, accessed 8 June 2011. Raschick, M., Maypole, D. E. & Day, P. A. (1998) ‘Improving field education through Kolb learning theory’, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 34, pp. 31– 42. Richards, S., Ruch, G. & Trevithick, P. (2005) ‘Communication skills training for practice: the ethical dilemma for social work education’, Social Work Education, vol. 24, pp. 409– 422. Sandmire, D. A. & Boyce, P. F. (2004) ‘Pairing of opposite learning styles among allied health students’, Journal of Allied Health, vol. 33, pp. 156– 163. Smith, A. (2010) ‘Learning styles of registered nurses enrolled in an online nursing program’, Journal of Professional Nursing, vol. 26, pp. 49 – 53. Trevithick, P., Richards, S., Ruch, G. & Moss, B. (2004) Knowledge Review: Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Social Work Education, SCIE, The Policy Press and Social Policy and Social Work Learning and Teaching Support Network, London. Tsang, N. M. (1993) ‘Shifts of students’ learning styles on a social work course’, Social Work Education, vol. 12, pp. 62– 76. Van Soest, D. & Kruzich, J. (1994) ‘The influence of learning styles on student and field instructor perceptions of field placement success’, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 9, pp. 49 –69. Wilson, G. & Kelly, B. (2010a) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of social work education: preparing students for practice learning’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 40, pp. 2431 – 2449. Wilson, G. & Kelly, B. (2010b) Enhancing Social Work Students’ Learning Experience and Readiness to Undertake Practice Learning, SWAP Report, Social Policy and Social Work Subject Centre, University of Southampton. Wolfsfeld, L. & Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2010) ‘Learning and supervisory styles in the training of social workers’, The Clinical Supervisor, vol. 29, pp. 68– 94. Zoghi, M., Brown, T., Williams, B., Roller, L., Jaberzadeh, S., Palermo, C., McKenna, L., Wright, C., Baird, M., Schneider-Kolsky, M., Hewitt, L., Sim, J. & Holt, T-A. (2010) ‘Learning style preferences of Australian health science students’, Journal of Allied Health, vol. 39, pp. 95 – 103.