The learning styles of Australian exercise science and clinical exercise physiology students

ABSTRACT

There has been a shift in tertiary education, whereby large portions of theory are now taught online, and the practical skills underpinned by this knowledge taught in clinical environments. It is unclear if this flipped approach is appropriate for the learning styles Exercise Science (ES) and Clinical Exercise Physiology (CEP) students. First- and second-year ES and CEP students at a South Australian metropolitan university were invited to participate between March 2021 and October 2022. Eligible participants completed the Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) (Version 3.1) to identify learning styles. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the four KLSI learning orientations. Group scores for the learning orientations were used to identify group preference for abstractness over concreteness and action over reflection. A total of 69 students completed the KLSI fully. As a single cohort, Accommodators were the most common learning style, and there was a preference for concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience and a preference for action over reflection when transferring experience into knowledge. These findings indicate that Australian ES and CEP students have a unique learning style that may be suited to flipped classroom approaches, but only if they include opportunity to experience skill learning in a hands-on manner, while also allowing time for reflection.

KEYWORDS:

• Exercise science
• clinical exercise physiology
• learning styles
• university
• education

Introduction

The purpose of teaching is to facilitate learning and develop the skills and knowledge required to practice in society. In the fields of exercise science (ES) and clinical exercise physiology (CEP), the development of clinical skills pertaining to subjective and objective assessment, exercise prescription, and exercise monitoring are vital as they can have profound implications on patient safety and clinical effectiveness (ESSA 2022a, 2022b). Consequently, the teaching of clinical skills is an important educational component in these cohorts (Johnson, Chuter, and Rooney 2013).

However, over the last decade, there has been a shift in tertiary education, whereby large portions of learning are now conducted in an online format (Ewing 2021). This often involves theoretical concepts and knowledge being taught online, and the practical skills underpinned by this knowledge taught in clinical environments using a ‘flipped classroom’ approach (Rapanta et al. 2020; Strelan, Osborn, and Palmer 2020). While this has been shown to be an effective means of teaching theoretical information (Castro and Tumibay 2021; Strelan, Osborn, and Palmer 2020), students need to have the capacity to apply this learning into practical situations. It is unclear as to whether this blended learning approach is appropriate for the learning styles of students in ES and CEP programmes.

Literature review

Blended learning and the flipped classroom approach

Methods of online education have become common in tertiary settings, where they are suggested to offer students a flexible and self-paced learning strategy, with blended learning being one such method. Blended learning is a broad term used to describe a combination of face-to-face teaching with technology-mediated instruction, whereby all students are separated by distance some of the time (Liu et al. 2016). Taking this into consideration, flipped classrooms can be viewed as a type of blended learning approach, where lectures and other theoretical content are made available to students in advance, often in an online format, so they can study them in their own time (Sajid et al. 2016). Consequently, time in class is spent undergoing interactive teaching activities that are typically linked to practical skills, building upon pre-delivered online content. There is robust evidence indicating that blended learning leads to similar or better learning outcomes that traditional ‘non-blended’ approaches in students studying areas pertaining to allied health and medicine (Liu et al. 2016; Vallée et al. 2020). Similarly, flipped classroom approaches have been shown to increase the performance of students undergoing health professional education (Hew and Lo 2018), with no apparent negative effects on student satisfaction (van Alten et al. 2019). However, despite the apparent benefit of these approaches in numerous allied health professions, there is little direct evidence examining their effect on learning outcomes in ES and CEP students specifically. In fact, on the contrary, there is some evidence suggesting that Australian CEP and ES cohorts may have unique concerns about blended learning approaches that could impact their uptake. In some research Australian ES students have expressed worry about not being sufficiently autonomous to undertake the independent study flipped classrooms require (Keogh, Gowthorp, and McLean 2017), while others have highlighted that virtual lectures delivered within a flipped classroom method are less engaging than more traditional lectures, and that only a minority of students are completely up to date with the required content when they attend their in-person practical sessions (Burkhart et al. 2020). Lastly, research in Australian allied health cohorts including ES students has reported that approximately only half of students prefer a flipped classroom approach, with the other half demonstrating a strong preference for traditional learning methods (McNally et al. 2017). While the exact reason for these findings is not clear, it may imply that CEP and ES students in Australia have a unique style of learning that needs to be considered to design effective blended learning approaches.

Learning styles and the experiential learning theory

It has been proposed that individuals develop their own preferred style of learning. These learning styles can be viewed as the way individuals prefer to process new information, in conjunction with strategies they adopt for effective learning (Milanese, Gordon, and Pellatt 2013). In this manner, they have been defined as ‘characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychosocial behaviours that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment’ (Keefe 1979). It is suggested that educators who understand and respond to the learning styles of students can improve the retention of important concepts, information, and skills (DiBartola 2006). Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that simply knowing their learning styles (and therefore knowing how they may be best suited to learn) can enhance student learning outcomes (Brown et al. 2009). However, to date, there is no evidence of a clear association between learning styles and future knowledge acquisition (Romanelli, Bird, and Ryan 2009). Furthermore, a preferred learning style does imply that is the only way an individual learns, but rather the way they are likely to learn best (Romanelli, Bird, and Ryan 2009). Nonetheless, being aware of ES and CEP learning styles may assist educators deliver better learning experiences and improve associated outcomes, which is particularly important when considering the clinical skills required in these professions. Similarly, it is important to note that within the context of modern educational practices, research has shown that learning styles may have implications on the effectiveness of blended learning strategies, suggesting an important factor to consider in tertiary education design (Cheng et al. 2017).

One notable learning theory is the experiential learning theory (ELT), which suggests learning is ‘the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience’ (Milanese, Gordon, and Pellatt 2013). This theory indicates that experience plays a pivotal role in the learning process. Considering ES and CEP learning is heavily experiential, where students are required to build and then integrate theoretical and practical knowledge (Bryant et al. 2003; John 2003; Kilminster and Jolly 2000), this learning theory has potential relevance for this cohort. Of numerous ELTs, Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) is arguably the most common (D. A. Kolb 2014).

The KLSI is a self-reported questionnaire frequently used to identify learning styles amongst different student groups. KLSI considers learning to be a cyclic process involving four modes, concrete experience (CE) and abstract conceptualisation (AC), reflective observation (RO) and active experimentation (AE), and categorises individuals into one of the four preferred learning styles (i.e. Diverger [CE and RO], Assimilator [AC and RO], Converger [AC and AE] or Accommodator [CE and AE]) (Table 1) (Manolis et al. 2013).

Table 1. The characteristics of the four learning styles.

Learning Style	Characteristics
Diverger	Best at viewing concrete situations from many different points of view. Performs better in situations that call for generation of ideas, such as brainstorming sessions. Have broad cultural interests and like to gather information. Interested in people, tend to be imaginative and emotional, and have broad cultural interests. Prefer to work in groups, listening with an open mind to different points of view and receiving personalized feedback.
Assimilator	Best at understanding a wide range of information and putting it into concise, logical form. Less focused on people and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. Find it more important that a theory have logical soundness than practical value. Is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. Prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.
Converger	Best at finding practical uses for ideas and theories. Can solve problems and make decisions based on finding solutions to questions or problems. Prefer to deal with technical tasks and problems rather than with social issues and interpersonal issues. These learning skills are important for effectiveness in specialist and technology careers. Prefer to experiment with new ideas, simulations, laboratory assignments, and practical applications.
Accommodator	Learn from primarily ‘hands-on’ experience. Enjoy carrying out plans and involving themselves in new and challenging experiences. Tendency may be to act on ‘gut’ feelings rather than on logical analysis. In solving problems, rely more heavily on people for information than on their own technical analysis. Important for effectiveness in action-oriented careers such as marketing or sales. Prefer to work with others to get assignments done, to set goals, to do field work, and to test out different approaches to completing a project.

Potential limitations of the Kolb learning style inventory

While the KLSI is arguably the most common learning style theory, it is not without criticism. Firstly, Kolb suggests that, as students are said to gravitate to their preferred style of learning while avoiding others, they create a positive feedback loop that makes learning styles highly stable (A. Y. Kolb 2005). However, it has been hypothesised that learning styles may change when students are exposed to different learning methods, or simply through an accumulation of life experience (Felder 2020). Indeed, recent research exploring this topic in Australian engineering students has shown that some students may change learning style preferences in as little as 7 weeks, which may impact upon the utility of the concept when designing educational materials (Newton and Wang 2022). Secondly, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that matching education to students KLSI will increase academic outcomes (Dembo and Howard 2007). It has been suggested that rigorous within-subject crossover designs comparing a learning-style matched education against a non-matched education are needed to answer this question, which have not yet been conducted (Deng, Benckendorff, and Gao 2022; Pashler et al. 2008). Lastly, in conjunction with potential issues associated with stability and validity, other literature has critiqued the model of the KLSI itself. It has been suggested that the KLSI fails to sufficiently differentiate between concrete and abstract learning processes, does not clearly distinguish between learning activities and learning typologies, and does not identify all viable learning constructs, all of which impacts the clarity of the KLSI (Bergsteiner, Avery, and Neumann 2010). In this manner, it has also been suggested that the KLSI somewhat oversimplifies the learning process, as it fails to consider the role of unconsciousness in learning (Villanueva 2020), something that is thought to be linked to the consolidation of knowledge (Fukuta and Yamashita 2021). While this does not deny the potential applications of the KLSI in tertiary education, it does highlight the need for more rigorous research on those applications, and suggests that educators should pay careful consideration to the limitations of the tool when implementing learning style driven educational strategies.

Learning styles in allied health contexts

There is a large body of research identifying the learning style preferences of physiotherapy students (Stander, Grimmer, and Brink 2019), nurses (Bakon, Christensen, and Craft 2016), and other allied health practitioners (French, Cosgriff, and Brown 2007; Koohestani and Baghcheghi 2020; McLeod et al. 1995). This research has indicated some consistency of learning styles according to discipline with the most preferred learning styles of physiotherapy students being Converger or Assimilator, with the least preferred learning styles being Diverger and Accommodator (Stander, Grimmer, and Brink 2019). Amongst nursing students, the evidence suggests that whilst undergraduate nursing students have varied learning styles, the most predominant learning style preference is the Assimilator or Diverger (Campos et al. 2022; Shumba and Iipinge 2019).

However, the learning styles of ES and CEP students are less explored. Research conducted in the UK identified that students involved in a variety of sport-related tertiary education programmes were more likely to be classified as ‘auditory’, ‘kinaesthetic’, and ‘group’ learners, suggesting that they may be more suited to experiential learning, rather than the conventional learning of theoretical constructs (Peters, Jones, and Peters 2008). Similar results have been observed in American anatomy students, who were predominantly classified as active, sensing, visual, and sequential learners in accordance with the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) questionnaire (Quinn et al. 2018). However, it is important to note that while these trends were observed, this research used tools that face many of the same criticisms as the KLSI, with further critique for their oversimplification of the learning process and lack of validity in educational settings (Felder 2020). Furthermore, prior research has shown that learning style models that employ a visual, auditory, reading, kinaesthetic categorisation method tend to see positive correlations between learning styles, whereby a high score in one is positively associated with high scores in the others (Drago and Wagner 2004). As such, it has been suggested that they lack the ability to distinguish between dominant learning styles and are likely to be confounded by students who employ a variety of study methods to facilitate learning (Husmann and O’Loughlin 2019).

Specific to the KLSI, research in American ES students has indicated that the largest proportion of learners are classified as Convergers’ (Wagner et al. 2014), suggesting they are most likely to learn best using a hands on approach, which may not support the suitability of modern educational approaches (i.e. online theoretical learning, coupled with experiential learning of clinical skills) in ES students. Conversely, this finding was not repeated in a large cohort of Turkish ES students, who were most likely to be classified as Diverger’s and least likely Converger’s (Kurtuluş 2022). While the exact reason for this difference between cohorts is unclear, it may be due to different cultural influences, further highlighting the need for learning style research in Australian ES and CEP cohorts. Furthermore, there are key differences between ES and CEP professionals that may result in different learning style orientations. Often CEP involves working with patients with clinical presentations, and consequently involves a high degree of involvement with other health care professionals (Carrard et al. 2022; Soan et al. 2014). Conversely, many ES professionals work alone within general health or athletic development settings, delivering exercise to an individual or team (Carrard et al. 2022; Stevens et al. 2018). It is conceivable that the desire to work in notably different roles could result in students enrolled in ES and CEP programmes having different learning style orientations.

Given the importance of teaching clinical skills to Australian ES and CEP students, the various changes seen in tertiary education over the last decade, and the potential for cultural influences on impact on learning styles, the exploration of Australian ES and CEP students learning styles is worthy of attention. As such, this study aims to report the learning style preferences, as measured by the KLSI, of first- and second-year ES and CEP students from a South Australian metropolitan university.

Methods

Research design

This study employed a cross-sectional observational design to understand the learning style of ES and CEP students, as identified by the KLSI. The study was granted ethical approval by the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol no: 204308).

Participants

Participants were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were aged 18 years or older and currently enrolled in the Bachelor of ES and Bachelor of Human Movement (ES stream) programme, or Bachelor of CEP programme, at the University of South Australia. Participants were recruited between March 2021 and October 2022 via a method of purposive sampling which was accomplished through targeted emails to two courses (one first-year course and one second-year course). First- and second-year students were deemed most suitable for this study as they are most exposed to flipped classroom approaches within this specific tertiary institution, whereas third-year courses are predominantly placement based.

Data collection tools

Eligible participants provided informed consent online prior to completing a basic questionnaire that captured relevant demographic information and the KLSI. All data were obtained through REDcap Survey Platforms (v10.0.19, TN, USA). A total of 97 students viewed the survey, with 69 completing it in full. The KLSI (version 3.1) (A. Y. Kolb 2005) has 12 questions, each with four possible responses. Participants were asked to rank the responses that best describe their learning style to the response that least describes their learning style. The assigned value for each response was summed to derive a total for each of the four modes of learning (CE, AC, RO, AE). The value for CE was subtracted from the AC value to calculate a y-coordinate value, and the value for RO was subtracted from the AE value to calculate an x-coordinate value (Figure 1). These values were then plotted on the KLSI grid to identify the preferred learning style (i.e. Diverger [CE and RO], Assimilator [AC and RO], Converger [AC and AE], or Accommodator [CE and AE]) (Table 1) of the participants (Manolis et al. 2013).

Figure 1. Kolb Learning Style Inventory Grid (adapted from A. Y. Kolb 2005).

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for each of the four KLSI learning orientations (i.e. CE, RO, AC, AE). Group mean scores for the learning orientations were then used to identify the group preference for abstractness over concreteness (AC–CE) and action over reflection (AE–RO). Additionally, differences in raw KLSI scores (CE, RO, AC, AE, AC-CE, AE-RO) between gender and programme (i.e. CEP vs ES) were examined using independent samples t-test, while differences in the distribution of KLSI learning styles were compared using a chi-squared test. All statistical analysis was conducted in Stata Statistical Software, release 17 (College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Of the 69 students (aged 22.1 ± 7.6 years) that completed the KLSI, 39 were female, 12 (n = 10 females) were enrolled in a bachelor of CEP, with the remaining 57 (n = 29 females) in bachelor of ES programmes (inclusive of those enrolled in a Bachelor of Human Movement Exercise Science stream). Additionally, 34 were in the first year of study, and 35 in their second. Table 2 contains the mean scores and standard deviations of the different modes upon which the KLSI is based. Group means for these modes were used to obtain a score of the population characteristics on the two modes of gaining experience (AC–CE) and transforming experience (AE–RO). These results were applied to the normative data provided with the KLSI, and the number of subjects within each learning styles was identified.

Table 2. Kolb learning style inventory scores presented as mean (standard deviation).

	CE	RO	AC	AE	AC-CE	AE-RO	Acc	Div	Con	Ass
Total	24.3 (5.7)	29.1 (6.2)	29.1 (7.4)	37.5 (6.3)	4.8 (11.5)	8.4 (10.7)	30 (43%)	14 (20%)	11 (16%)	14 (20%)
Female (n = 39)	24.8 (6.3)	30.9 (5.7)	27.9 (7.6)	36.4 (6.4)	3.1 (12.4)	5.5 (10.4)	16 (41%)	11 (28%)	2 (5%)	10 (26%)
Male (n = 22)	24.6 (4.8)	25.2 (5.4)	30.0 (7.7)	40.2 (5.6)	5.4 (10.6)	15.0 (8.4)	12 (55%)	2 (9%)	7 (32%)	1 (4%)
P=	0.883	<0.001*	0.305	0.024*	0.460	<0.001*	0.309	0.080	0.005*	0.040*
CEP (n =12)	23.2 (7.2)	32.8 (7.1)	28.8 (4.8)	35.5 (6.0)	5.6 (10.5)	2.7 (11.8)	2 (17%)	5 (42%)	1 (8%)	4 (33%)
ES (n = 57)	24.6 (5.4)	28.3 (5.8)	29.3 (7.8)	38.0 (6.3)	4.6 (11.8)	9.7 (10.2)	28 (49%)	9 (15%)	10 (18%)	10 (18%)
P=	0.433	0.020*	0.857	0.219	0.785	0.039*	0.039*	0.043*	0.428	0.216

*CE = concrete experience, AC = abstract conceptualisation, RO = reflective observation, AE = active experimentation, Ass = Assimilator, Acc = Accommodator, Con = Converger, Div = Diverger.

At a group level, there was a preference for students for concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience (AC–CE = 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.0 to 7.5), and when transferring this experience into knowledge, a preference for action over reflection (AE–RO = 8.4; 95‰ CI = 5.9 to 11.0). Accommodators were the most common learning style in this cohort.

When comparing KLSI outcomes between genders, females (AC–CE = 3.1; 95% CI = −0.9 to 7.1) and males (AC–CE = 5.4; 95% CI = 0.7 to 10.1) presented similarly to the larger cohort, reporting a preference concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience. When transferring experience into knowledge, male students reflected the larger cohort with a preference for action over reflection (AE–RO = 15.0; 95‰ CI = 11.3 to 18.8), while females preferred reflection over action (AE–RO = 5.5; 95‰ CI = 2.1 to 8.8). Additionally, females were less likely to be categorised as Converger’s and more likely to be categorised as Assimilators (Table 2).

With respect to KLSI by degree, both ES (AC–CE = 4.8; 95% CI = 1.5 to 7.7) and CEP (AC–CE = 5.6; 95% CI = −1.1 to 12.2) students had a preference concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience. When transferring this experience into knowledge, ES students reflected the larger cohort with a preference for action over reflection (AE–RO = 9.7; 95‰ CI = 7.0 to 12.4), while CEP preferred reflection over action (AE–RO = 2.7; 95‰ CI = −4.8 to 10.2). Furthermore, CEP students were more likely to be categorised as Diverger’s than ES students and less likely to be categorised as Accommodator’s (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Kolb learning style grid results of exercise science (ES) and clinical exercise physiology (CEP) students.

Discussion

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study in the peer-reviewed literature to explore the learning styles of CEP and ES students in Australia using the KLSI. Results found that as a cohort, the most common learning style was Accommodator, followed by Diverger and Assimilator. However, when separated into study programme CEP students were more likely to be Diverger’s than ES students and less likely to be Accommodators. Interestingly, these results are different to previous research conducted on ES cohorts in the American (Wagner et al. 2014) and Turkish (Kurtuluş 2022) ES students, who were most likely to be classified as Convergers and Diverger’s, respectively. This may highlight potential differences in the learning styles of students from different cultural backgrounds, and with different life experiences, practices, and beliefs, that may be worthy of consideration when designing educational content. The Y-Axis of the KLS grid (Figure 1) depicts the learning preference for gaining experience, ranging from concrete experience (CE) at one end and abstract conceptualisation (AC) at the other. The X-axis depicts the self-reported preference for transforming this experience into knowledge, along the continuum from reflective observation (RO) through to active experimentation (AE). The further an individual is along the axis from the intersection the more they prefer that learning approach and the less likely they are to prefer the opposite approach (A. Y. Kolb 2005). When examining the cohort as a single group, there was a student preference for concreteness when gaining experience, and a preference for action when transferring this experience into knowledge. These results are similar to research on other allied health practitioners, including physiotherapists (Brown, Cosgriff, and French 2008; Hauer, Straub, and Wolf 2005; Katz and Heimann 1991; Milanese, Gordon, and Pellatt 2013; Wessel and Williams 2004; Wessel et al. 1999; Zoghi et al. 2010) and occupational therapists (Brown, Cosgriff, and French 2008; French, Cosgriff, and Brown 2007; Hauer, Straub, and Wolf 2005; Katz and Heimann 1991; Zoghi et al. 2010), which are considerably similar to ES and CEP.

Interestingly whilst the preference for concreteness when gaining experience, the profile of learning styles of CEP and ES students in Australia differed slightly from that of physiotherapy students who were least likely to be Accommodators, and most likely to be Assimilators (Stander, Grimmer, and Brink 2019). As the CEP/ES learning style data collected in this study were from relatively new students (first and second year) then this difference may reflect a self-selection process for the programmes.

This finding may suggest that Australian ES and CEP students prefer the learning of new information to come from a theoretical perspective, allowing them to think about a given concept or situation before experiencing it, and then when transforming this experience into knowledge, to consolidate this knowledge through ‘real-world’ experiences. This is reinforced when considering the most common learning style was the accommodator, which uses concrete experience and active experimentation to learn information (DiMuro and Terry 2007). It has been proposed that individuals with this style learn primarily from experiencing something new and carrying out plans that involve those new experiences. Within this, they also prefer to work in teams to accomplish tasks and consolidate their learning (A. Y. Kolb 2005). However, it is important to note that at a cohort level, the preferences for the different approaches were close to the intersection of the axes on the KSLI grid (Table 2; Figure 2), suggesting that any preference for learning is slight, and that students may be able to move between different learning approaches with minimal impact. This is supported by the relatively even distribution of preference between the remaining three learning styles.

A key finding is the learning style differences observed between CEP and ES students. While both groups had a slight preference for concreteness when gaining experience, CEP had a preference reflection over action when consolidating this experience into knowledge, whereas ES was the opposite. One possible explanation for this finding may be due to the subtle differences in the ES and CEP occupations, which could offer appeal to different types of learners. As CEP is more clinical in nature, it typically involves multidisciplinary treatment with other health care professionals (Carrard et al. 2022; Soan et al. 2014). As such, this may lend itself to more group work that involves observation, experimentation, and reflection with in a broad interdisciplinary environment. On the other hand, many ES roles have a general health or athletic development focus, whereby individuals are more likely to work alone, delivering exercise to an individual or team (Carrard et al. 2022; Stevens et al. 2018). Another potential explanation for this finding could be related to the difficulty in gaining acceptance to either programme. In Australia, CEP traditionally has higher entrance requirements than ES. This may lead to different learners self-selecting into different programmes, based upon their potential study habits and exam success. Irrespective of the reason, this is an important finding, as most Australian ES and CEP programmes are taught together for the first 2 years of their degrees, before they begin to differentiate into individualised courses that provide profession-specific knowledge.

With respect to gender, there were some differences in learning styles that are like previous research in health-related student cohorts (Dobson 2009; Ibrahim and Hussein 2016; Kurtuluş 2022; Milanese, Gordon, and Pellatt 2013; Wehrwein, Lujan, and DiCarlo 2007). Females and males reported a preference concreteness when gaining experience. However, when transferring experience into knowledge, male students reflected preferred action over reflection, while females preferred reflection over action. This resulted in females being less likely to be categorised as Converger’s and more likely to be categorised as Assimilators than males, with a similar proportion of Accommodator’s. From an educational perspective, this may suggest that learning environments that involve the opportunity to experience concepts and skills directly, and observe other students demonstrating those concepts and skills, might be best for mixed-gender classrooms.

Despite subtle differences between males and females, and CEP and ES, students, it is important to highlight that there was consistent preference for concreteness when gaining experience. This finding may indicate that modern educational approaches in tertiary education (i.e. flipped classrooms) where face-to-face teaching time is largely dedicated to experiential learning of clinical skills, may be suitable to the learning styles of ES and CEP students, possibly explaining a small portion of its success in similar cohorts (Gaines 2021; Hew and Lo 2018; Kazeminia et al. 2022). However, it is important to highlight that despite a strong group trend, there were large variations of learning styles on an individual basis (Figure 2). While it is impossible to always cater to the learning styles of everyone, teaching strategies should involve a degree of flexibility that addresses different learning style needs within a course or lesson (for example, opportunities to both experience a skill in a hands-on manner and watch and reflect on others experiencing that same skill).

When considering these findings in the context of modern education, the preference for concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience, and for action over reflection when transferring this experience into knowledge, is a relevant one. This may suggest a high suitability for the use of blended learning approaches in ES and CEP students, if they contain sufficient opportunity to experience skill learning in a direct hands-on manner and observe others do the same. This learning style preference may explain some recent findings in other allied health cohorts, with both ES and physiotherapy students indicating a strong preference for blended learning over both online-only, and traditional, learning methods (Finlay, Tinnion, and Simpson 2022; Marques-Sule et al. 2023).

Limitations

There are certain limitations that should be considered when interpreting these findings. The subjects in this study all attended the same metropolitan university and only consisted of first- and second-year students. As such, these results may not generalise to rural universities, or students who are currently in their third or fourth year of study. Additionally, while there were significant differences observed between ES and CEP students, it is important to note that there were only a small number of CEP students in this cohort. While this does represent ~40% of a yearly cohort in the Australian metropolitan university where this research was conducted, these findings may not accurately represent that of the larger CEP programme, or the CEP programmes of other Australian universities. Similarly, the total number of ES students (n = 57) who completed the survey only accounted for ~40% of the yearly ES cohort at this same university, therefore presenting with the same potential limitations. Lastly, as outlined in detail in the introduction section of this paper, the KLSI as a means of categorising students is not without its own potential limitations, with the most relevant in this setting being that student learning styles have been shown to change with education and experience (Newton and Wang 2022). Consequently, the learning styles of the first- and second-year ES and CEP students in the present study may change as they transition through their final years of tertiary study. This is further impacted by the cross-sectional design of the study, which does not allow the evaluation of learning styles over time. Future research examining longitudinal changes in learning styles across multiple years of study would provide further insight into how learning styles change across the duration of a student’s higher education.

Practical implications

To summarise the practical implications of these findings for ES and CEP educators:

1. The most common learning style amongst this cohort of Australian ES and CEP students was the accommodator, whereby, on average, students may prefer new information to come from a theoretical perspective before having the opportunity to consolidate it into knowledge through ‘real-world’ experiences.

2. However, CEP had a preference reflection over action when consolidating this experience into knowledge, whereas ES was the opposite. This may imply that CEP students prefer the opportunity to practice and develop knowledge in larger group settings, where they have can reflect on their own performance, and the performance of others. Conversely, ES students may gain more from developing knowledge through hands on practical environments, such as placement.

3. Despite subtle differences in the learning styles of CEP and ES students, there was a consistent preference for concreteness when gaining experience. This may indicate that educational approaches (such as ‘flipped classrooms’) are suitable and may even be preferred, in this context.

Conclusion

In the first formal exploration of Australian ES and CEP student learning styles, it was identified that Accommodators were the most common learning style in this cohort. Furthermore, there was a preference for students for concreteness over abstractness when gaining experience, and for action over reflection when transferring this experience into knowledge. These findings may suggest that modern flipped classroom approaches are suitable to the learning styles of ES and CEO students, as long as they are implemented with opportunity to experience skill learning in a direct hands-on manner, and observe others do the same, allowing time for reflection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no funding from an external source.