Higher Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 487–501 | Cite as

Gender differences in learning styles: A narrative review and quantitative meta-analysis

  • Sabine E. Severiens
  • Geert T. M. Ten Dam
Article

Abstract

This article reviews research on gender and learning styles of students, 18 and older, conducted after 1980. Curry's onion model (1983) is used to classify definitions of learning styles and to reconstruct the theoretical frameworks used. The extent to which learning style is considered stable or variable in different learning contexts determines its position in the model. Most studies used theoretical frameworks that belonged in the middle or outer layers of the model. This location indicates the strong influence of learning context on women's and men's learning styles. While there were differences between learning styles, research designs rarely included learning contexts.

In addition to the narrative review, we performed a quantitative meta-analysis on two instruments (Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and Entwistle's Approaches to Studying Inventory) to determine the direction and magnitude of gender differences in various samples. A search for these two instruments resulted in 26 studies for which the necessary statistics were available. On Kolb's instrument, the results showed that men were more likely than women to prefer the abstract conceptualisation mode of learning. On Entwistle's ASI a difference was found on the affective components of approaches to studying.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acker, S., Megarry, J., Nesbit, S., and Hoyle, E. (eds.) (1984).World Yearbook of Education: Women and Education. London: Kogan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Bar-Haïm, G., and Wilkes, J.M. (1989). ‘A cognitive interpretation of the marginality and under-representation of women in science’,Journal of Higher Education 6, 371–387.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1987).Gender Differences in Cognitive Development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. (ERIC No. ED 284 908).Google Scholar
  4. Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1989). ‘Gender differences in cognitive development: An analysis of cognitive complexity and learning styles’,Journal of College Student Development 30(3), 213–220.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J.B. (1987).Student approaches to learning and studying. Research Monograph. Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd. (ERIC No. ED 308 201).Google Scholar
  6. included in the meta-analysis. Bokoros, M.A., Goldstein, M.B., and Sweeney, M.M.et al. (1990).Common Cognitive Personality Factors in Non-clinical Measures. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC No. ED 328 819).Google Scholar
  7. Burton, L. (ed.) (1990).Gender and mathematics. An International Perspective. Strand: Cassell.Google Scholar
  8. Caplan, B. (1984). ‘Sex differences in cognitive strategic preference among medical students’,Perceptual and Motor Skills 58(1), 279–285.Google Scholar
  9. Chatterjea, R.G., and Paul, B. (1982). ‘Cognitive style, social environment, sex and recognition capacity’,Psycho-Lingua 12(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
  10. Chipman, S.F., Brush, L., and Wilson, D.M. (eds.) (1985).Women and Mathematics: Balancing the Equation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. included in the meta-analysis. Choi, J.M. (1989). ‘Learning styles of academic librarians’,College and Research Libraries 50(6), 691–699.Google Scholar
  12. included in the meta-analysis. Clarke, R.M. (1986). ‘Students’ approaches to learning in an innovative medical school: a cross-sectional study’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 56, 309–321.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Revised Edition). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. included in the meta-analysis. Coles, C.R. (1985). ‘Differences between conventional and problem-based curricula in their students’ approaches to studying’,Medical Education 19, 308–309.Google Scholar
  15. included in the meta-analysis. Cordell, B.J. (1991). ‘A study of learning styles and computer-assisted instruction’,Computers and Education 16(2), 175–183.Google Scholar
  16. included in the meta-analysis. Cornwell, J.M., Manfredo, P.A., and Dunlap, W.P. (1991). ‘Factor analysis of the 1985 revision of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory’,Educational and Psychological Measurement 51, 455–462.Google Scholar
  17. Curry, L. (1983).An Organization of Learning Styles Theory and Constructs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC No. ED 235 185).Google Scholar
  18. Dippelhofer-Stiem, B. (1989). ‘The development of research-oriented learning in five European countries’,European Journal of Psychology of Education 4, 489–503.Google Scholar
  19. included in the meta-analysis. Dorsey, O.L., and Pierson, M.J. (1984). ‘A descriptive study of adult learning styles in a nontraditional education program’,Lifelong Learning, 8–11.Google Scholar
  20. Dronkers, J. (1990).De Opbrengst van Schoolloopbaanonderzoek; een Terugblik op een Decennium en een Voorschouw op het Volgende, Working Papers 42. [The Results of Research on Schoolcareers, a Retrospectrive View on a Decade and a Prospective View on the Next]. Tilburg: Vakgroep Sociologie, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.Google Scholar
  21. Duckwell, J.M., Arnold, L., and Hayes, J. (1990).Approaches to Learning by Undergraduate Students: A Longitudinal Study. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Louisville KY (ERIC No. ED 322 677).Google Scholar
  22. Eccles, J., MacIver, D., and Lange, L. (1986).Classroom Practices and Motivation to Study Mathematics. San Francisco: Contribution to the AERA-Conference.Google Scholar
  23. Entwistle, N.J. (1981).Styles of Learning and Teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Fennema, E., and Leder, G. (eds.) (1990).Mathematics and Gender. New York and London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  25. included in the meta-analysis. Gledhill, R.F., and Van der Merwe, C.A. (1989). Gender as a factor in student learning: preliminary findings’,Medical Education 23, 201–204.Google Scholar
  26. Halpern, D.F. (1992).Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. included in the meta-analysis. Hayden, R.R., and Brown, M.S. (1985). ‘Learning styles and correlates’,Psychological Reports 56, 243–246.Google Scholar
  28. Hedges, L.V., and Olkin, I. (1985).Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. included in the meta-analysis. Hines, S.J., and Seidman, S.A. (1988).The Effects of Selected CAI Design Strategies on Achievement, and an Exploration of other Related Factors. Proceedings of selected research papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC No. ED 295 646).Google Scholar
  30. included in the meta-analysis. Hudak, M.A., and Anderson, D.E. (1990). ‘Formal operations and learning style predict success in statistics and computer science courses’,Teaching of Psychology 17(4), 231–234.Google Scholar
  31. included in the meta-analysis. Katz, N. (1988). ‘Individual learning style: Israeli norms and cross-cultural equivalence of Kolb's LSI’Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19(3), 361–379.Google Scholar
  32. Kolb, D.A. (1976).Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Boston: McBerand Company, revised 1978.Google Scholar
  33. Kolb, D.A. (1984).Experiential Learning, Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Lotwick, G.H., Simon, A., Ward, L.O. (1981). ‘Field dependence/independence and its relation to sex of polytechnic students’,Perceptual and Motor Skills 53, 271–272.Google Scholar
  35. Light, R.J., and Pillemer, D.B. (1984).Summing up; the Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. included in the meta-analysis. Logan, E. (1990). ‘Cognitive styles and online behavior of novice searchers’,Information Processing and Management 26(4), 503–510.Google Scholar
  37. Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1976a). ‘On qualitative differences in learning, 1-outcome and process’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  38. Marton, F., and Säljö, R. (1976b). ‘On qualitative differences in learning, 2-outcomes as a function of the learners conception of the task’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 115–127Google Scholar
  39. Matthews, D.B. (1991). ‘The effects of learning style on grades of first year college students’,Research in Higher Education 32, 253–268.Google Scholar
  40. included in the meta-analysis. Miller, C.D., Finley, J., and McKinley, D.L. (1990). ‘Learning approaches and motives: male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs’,Journal of College Student Development 31(2), 147–154.Google Scholar
  41. Myer, K.A., and Higgins, H.J. (1984). ‘Cognitive style, gender and self-report of principle as predictors of adult performance on Piaget's Water Level Task’,Journal of Genetic Psychology 144(2), 179–183.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, R.J.L. (1982). ‘Sex differences in objective test performance’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 52, 213–219.Google Scholar
  43. included in the meta-analysis. Newland, J.R., and Woelfl, N.N. (1992). ‘Learning style and academic performance within a group of sophomore medical students’,Academic Medicine 67(5), 349.Google Scholar
  44. Petrakis, E. (1981). ‘Cognitive styles of physical education majors’,Perceptual and Motor Skills 53(2), 574.Google Scholar
  45. Pinto, J.K., and Geiger, M.A. (1991). ‘Changes in learning-style preferences: a prefatory report of longitudinal findings’,Psychological Reports 68, 195–201.Google Scholar
  46. Prosser Gelwick, B. (1985). ‘Cognitive development of women’,Facilitating the Development of Women. New Directions for student services. No. 29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, March 1985.Google Scholar
  47. Rennie, L., Parker, L., Hildebrand, G. (eds.) (1991).Action for Equity: the Second Decade. Contributions to the Sixth International GASAT-Conference. Victoria: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  48. included in the meta-analysis. Rhodes, R.W. (1990). ‘Measurement of Navajo and Hopi brain dominance and learning styles’,Journal of American Indian Education 29(3), 29–40.Google Scholar
  49. included in the meta-analysis. Richardson, J.T.E. (1990). ‘Reliability and replicability of the Approaches to Studying Questionnaire’,Studies in Higher Education 15(2), 155–168.Google Scholar
  50. Schmeck, R.R. (1983). ‘Learning styles of college students’, in, Dillon, R., and Schmeck, R.R. (eds.),Individual Differences in Cognition (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press. pp. 233–279.Google Scholar
  51. Schonberger, A.K. (1981).Gender Differences in Solving Mathematics Problems among Two-Year College Students in a Developmental Algebra Class and Related Factors. Paper presented at the Midyear Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Special Interest Group on Women in Education, Washington DC (ERIC No. ED 214 602).Google Scholar
  52. Schwarzer, R. (1989).Manual for Meta-Analysis. Berlin: Institut für Psychologie (WE 7), Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  53. Speth, C., and Brown, R. (1990). ‘Effects of college students' learning styles and gender on their test preparation strategies’,Applied Cognitive Psychology 4(3), 189–202.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, M.J., and O'Brien, T.P. (1991).Learning Styles and Achievement in Postsecondary Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL (ERIC No. ED 331 554).Google Scholar
  55. Van Rossum, E.J., and Schenk, S.M. (1984). ‘The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and learning outcome’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 54(1), 73–83.Google Scholar
  56. Veres, J.G., Sims, R.R., and Locklear, T.S. (1991). ‘Improving the reliability of Kolb's revised Learning Style Inventory’,Educational and Psychological Measurement 51, 143–150.Google Scholar
  57. included in the meta-analysis. Vernon-Gerstenfeld, S. (1989). ‘Serendipity? Are there gender differences in the adoption of computers. A case study’,Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 21(3–4), 161–173.Google Scholar
  58. Volman, M., ten Dam, G., and van Eck, E. (1993). ‘Girls in the educational research discourse’,Comenius 13(2) 198–217.Google Scholar
  59. included in the meta-analysis. Watkins, D., and Hattie, J. (1981). ‘The learning processes of Australian university students: Investigations of contextual and personological factors’,British Journal of Educational Psychology 51(3), 384–393.Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, M. (1991). (ed.).Girls and Young Women in Education. A European Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Witkin, H.A. (1979). ‘Socialization, culture and ecology in the development of group and sex differences in cognitive style’,Human Development 22, 358–372.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine E. Severiens
    • 1
  • Geert T. M. Ten Dam
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations