See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299356350

Learning styles preferences of statistics students

Article in Quality Assurance in Education · April 2016

DOI: 10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0004

CITATIONS READS

8 1,059

1 author:

Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef

United Arab Emirates University
45 PUBLICATIONS 2,534 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef on 29 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quality Assurance in Education
Learning styles preferences of statistics students: A study in the Faculty of
Business and Economics at the UAE University
Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef
Article information:
To cite this document:
Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef , (2016),"Learning styles preferences of statistics students", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 227 - 243
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0004
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 27 March 2016, At: 04:47 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 23 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Balancing instructional techniques and delivery formats in capstone business strategy
courses", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 173-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
QAE-04-2014-0016
(2016),"A comparative assessment of the performance of select higher education institutes
in India", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 278-302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
QAE-02-2015-0006
(2016),"Strategic management and innovation: A checklist for readiness evaluation of AACSB
standards", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 259-277 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
QAE-01-2015-0001

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:232579 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm

Learning styles preferences of Learning

styles
statistics students preferences
A study in the Faculty of Business and
Economics at the UAE University 227
Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef
Received 22 January 2014
UAE University, Al-Ain, UAE Revised 9 July 2014
2 December 2014
Accepted 3 July 2015
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – Although there are many studies addressing the learning styles of business students as
well as students of other disciplines, there are few studies which address the learning style preferences
of statistics students. The purpose of this study is to explore the learning style preferences of statistics
students at a United Arab Emirates University (UAEU). Furthermore, it investigates whether there are
statistically significant differences along the four dimensions of learning styles due to students’
demographic and academic characteristics.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaires were distributed to the whole population which
included 79 undergraduate statistics students at the UAEU, of which 69 returned the questionnaire.
Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages were used to present the main characteristics
of respondents and the results of the study. Additionally, a chi-square test was used to find out if there
were significant differences along the four dimensions of learning style preferences due to students’
demographic and academic characteristics.
Findings – The results indicate that UAEU undergraduate statistics students have balanced
preferences along the four dimensions of learning styles. Results also suggest that there are no
statistically significant differences along the four dimensions of learning styles due to students’
demographic and academic characteristics, except in the active-reflective and sensing-intuitive
dimensions with respect to high school type (private vs public).
Research limitations/implications – There are a number of limitations associated with this study.
First, the findings of the study are based on data from only one university. Second, the sample was small
and limited to undergraduate statistics students and, therefore, it excluded graduate students who
might have had different experiences. Third, the results are based on a self-reported questionnaire and
this, in turn, might have affected the reliability of the results On the other hand, it has a number of
implications for educators and students. Educators will benefit from the results of this study in the sense
that they will adopt teaching styles and strategies that match learning styles of the majority of their
students. Students themselves will benefit from knowing their own learning style.
Originality/value – The present study is the first attempt to explore learning styles preference of
undergraduate students not only in the UAE setting but also in the developing country setting.
Keywords Learning styles, United Arab Emirates, Higher education, Undergraduates,
Business education, Index of learning styles, Statistics students, Statistics education
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Quality Assurance in Education

Improving the quality of higher education institutions’ graduates is the main goal of Vol. 24 No. 2, 2016
pp. 227-243
educators as well as curriculum developers and policy makers. Several studies have © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
shown that every individual has a unique learning style (Felder and Silverman, 1988; DOI 10.1108/QAE-01-2014-0004
 QAE Bargar et al., 1994; Gappi, 2013), and the academic performance of higher education
24,2 students is related to their learning styles (Christou and Dinov, 2010; Abidin et al., 2011;
Komarraju et al., 2011; Yeung et al., 2012). As a result, improving students’ performance
requires that consideration is to be given to individuals’ learning style.
Students’ learning style preferences and the factors influencing students’ learning
style preferences have been the subject of numerous publications, published either in
228 journals or in conference proceedings, over the past decades. This is due mainly to the
importance of learning styles. Students’ learning styles play an important role in their
understanding of the course material and in turn their performance in the course.
Additionally, learning styles play an equally important role in helping instructors
adopting the teaching styles that match their students’ learning styles. This in turn
enhances students’ ability to digest the material and improves students’ interest and,
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

consequently, students’ performance in the course. Furthermore, understanding

students’ learning styles provides curriculum developers with the information
necessary for developing schools’ curricula.
The term learning style has been defined as “being characteristics of the cognitive,
affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how
learners perceive, interact with, and respond to learning environment” (Keefe, 1979, p. 4).
Dunn (1990, p. 353) sees learning style as “the way each learner begins to concentrate,
process, and retain new and difficult information”. Loo (2002, p. 349) defines learning
style as “the consistent way in which a learner responds to or interacts with stimuli in
the learning context.”. Felder (1996, p. 18) describes learning style as “characteristics
strengths and preferences in the way they take in and process information”. Learning
style was also defined as “the way in which a learner prefers to take in and process
information” (Rosati, 1999, p. 17). However, for the purpose of this study, Felder’s (1996)
definition of learning style was adopted.
An extensive literature search revealed lack of prior studies concerning statistics
students’ learning style preferences in the UAE context in particular. Furthermore, most
business students at the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) and elsewhere
perceive statistics as one of the most difficult majors due to the quantitative nature of the
subjects taught in this major. Although there is a high demand for statistics graduates
in the UAE, few students usually select this major compared with other business majors
such as accounting, management, marketing and finance. This is due mainly to the
negative attitudes students have toward statistics as a major. Hence, it seems important
to investigate the learning style preferences of statistics students, so that appropriate
corrective actions could be taken and, consequently, better performance could be
attained. Additionally, a number of scholars argue that there is a need to investigate the
learning style preferences of undergraduate students in different cultures (Jaju et al.,
2002; Naik, 2009, 2013).
The objective of this study was to explore learning style preferences of the UAEU
undergraduate statistics students. It also investigated whether there were significant
differences along the four dimensions of learning styles due to students’ demographic
and academic characteristics.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a brief
description of learning styles, followed by a literature review of previous research
related to the present study. The methodology and the process of data-gathering follow.
 The results are then presented and discussed. The paper concludes with implications, Learning
limitations and identification of potential lines for further research. styles
preferences
Learning styles
While there are a number of theories and models concerning learning styles, the most
widely used models of learning styles in business education are those of Felder and
Soloman (2004) and Kolb (1985, 1996 and 1999). The present study is based on the model 229
developed by Felder and Soloman. According to this model, there are four dimensions of
learning styles. These are active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal and
sequential/global.

Active/reflective
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Active learners like hands-on activities, group discussions and problem solving. They
dislike simply sitting in class and taking notes. Reflective learners, on the other hand,
like to think about a concept or problem quietly first. Furthermore, they like to study and
solve problems alone and take notes and summarize materials (Felder, 1993).

Sensing/intuitive
Sensing learners prefer external information that is perceived by the sense, they are
practical, careful and good in memorizing things. They like facts and observations. On
the other hand, intuitive learners like abstracts, mathematical formulations and
innovative methods of problem solving (Felder, 1993).

Visual/verbal
Visual learners like pictures, diagrams, flowcharts, photographs and videos. They like
color-coding, highlighting and drawing boxes, circles and lines. Verbal learners like
written or spoken explanations and like to outline material in their own words (Felder,
1993).

Sequential/global
Sequential learners absorb information and acquire understanding of material in small
connected parts. Global learners are divergent and good at synthesis, they cannot learn
without the “big picture”. They can solve complex problems faster but may not be able
to explain how they did it (Felder, 1993).

Literature review
Very little research has addressed the learning style preferences of statistics students.
Bell (1998) tries to answer a number of questions such as does one’s learning style affect
his/her grade in an introductory statistics course? Does it depend on the age or
nationality of the individual? Do male students perform better in quantitative courses?
Do full-time outperform part-time students? Results indicate that learning style, age and
full-time or part-time have an important impact on the final grades, while gender and
nationality have no significant impact on the final grades in introductory statistics
courses. Naik (2003) uses the index of learning styles (ILS) developed by Felder and
Soloman (2004) to determine the learning style of 156 business students enrolled in two
levels of business statistics courses. The results indicated that the majority of business
students preferred sensing, visual, active and sequential learning styles. Similarly, Naik
 QAE (2009) investigated the learning styles of 297 undergraduate business students enrolled
24,2 in business statistics and operations management courses in an American university.
The results showed that the majority of the business students preferred sensing, visual,
active and sequential learning styles. Christou and Dinov (2010) investigated the impact
of students’ learning styles, in addition to other factors, on their performance in statistics
and probability courses. They concluded that students’ learning styles had an important
230 impact on their performance. Ganyaupfu (2013) examined factors influencing academic
achievement in quantitative courses among business students of private higher
education institutions in South Africa. Results indicated that lecturer competence,
teaching methods and quality of learning materials had a positive influence on business
students’ academic achievements in quantitative business courses. Stevens (2013)
measured the effect of learning style on several variables for students in undergraduate
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

business statistics. The author demonstrated that learning style, as measured using the
VARK (Visual, Aural, Read-write or Kinesthetic) model, had significant effects on a
number of variables such as academic success, student perceptions of course and
instructor and academic major.
A handful of prior studies investigated learning styles of students of other business
majors. Novin et al. (2003) investigated the preferred learning styles of accounting,
management, marketing and general business majors. Findings indicated that the vast
majority of all four majors demonstrated clear preferences for the assimilator and
converger learning styles. Giordano and Rochford (2005) investigated the learning
styles of first-year business majors at an urban community college. Results showed that
94 per cent of the participants were analytic learners. Using the ILS, Pallapu (2008)
examined the relationships among undergraduate students’ learning styles from the
Colleges of Business, Education and Liberal Art. The author examined the impact of
gender, age, ethnicity, GPA and grade level on learning style. The results indicated that
undergraduate business students preferred active (69 per cent), sensing (79 per cent),
visual (77 per cent) and sequential (70 per cent) learning styles. Results also revealed no
statistically significant relationships among the demographic variables of gender, race/
ethnicity, age, GPA and grade level and students’ learning styles.
Goorha and Mohan (2009) analyzed the learning preferences of business schools
students in addition to teaching strategies and course content that would lead to these
preferences. They concluded that business students had a preference for convergence
and assimilative learning. Luck and Estes (2011) investigated the learning styles of
business students at a US university, as they relate to the areas of concentration with the
College of Business and Public Administration. Results showed a preference for active,
sensory, visual and sequential learning styles. Results also indicated the largest
difference is 1.58 points between accounting and marketing concentrations on the
sensory/intuitive construct on an 11-point scale. O’Leary and Munro (2011) evaluated
the learning styles of final-year accounting students and assessed the interaction of
teaching methods and learning styles. The findings indicated that students
predominantly displayed passive learning styles; students’ preferred styles varied
depending on the topic; and when learning style matched the teaching method used,
usefulness was assessed as high, but when learning style and teaching method differed,
usefulness deteriorated significantly. Using ILS, Naik and Girish (2012) tried to
determine the distribution of learning styles of 125 South Korean business students
enrolled in a South Korean institution of higher education. Results showed that a greater
 proportion of South Korean business students preferred sensing over intuitive, visual Learning
over verbal, reflective over active and global over sequential learning styles. styles
In a recent study, Yousef (2014) investigated learning style preferences of the UAEU
undergraduate business students. Results indicated that UAEU business students had
preferences
a balanced preference along the four dimensions of the learning styles.
In summary, the literature review indicated a lack of research in the area of statistics
students’ learning style preferences not only in the UAE context but also in the 231
developed and in developing countries. This confirmed the need for such a study, as
statistics as a major differs from other disciplines investigated in prior research.

Method
Population and sample
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

The population of this study consisted of full-time, statistics students at the College of
Business and Economics (CBE) of the UAEU. As of fall 2012, the total number of
statistics students was 79. Due to the small size of the population, the author, with his
colleagues, distributed printed questionnaires to the whole population. Of the 79
questionnaires distributed, 69 questionnaires were returned (an 87 per cent response
rate).

Data collection
To gather the required data, the author developed a questionnaire, which consisted of
two parts. The ILS survey with 44 questions, which measured the four learning style
domains, comprised the first part. The second part consisted of academic and
demographic information such as high school majors (art vs science), age, nationality
(Emirati vs non-Emirati), gender, GPA and type of high school (public vs private).

Measure
Learning style was measured using Felder and Soloman’s (2004) ILS. This index
consisted of 44 questions, 11 questions for each domain. All questions are forced-choice
with alternative answers “a” or “b”. ILS covered two opposite styles in each of the four
domains, active/reflexive, sensing/intuition, visual/verbal and sequential/global.
Questions 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37 and 41 measured the domain of active/reflective
with “a” for active and “b” for reflective. Questions 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38 and
42 measured the domain of sensing/intuitive with “a” for sensing and “b” for intuitive.
Questions 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 and 43 measured the domain of visual/verbal
with “a” for visual and “b” for verbal. Questions 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40 and 44
measured the domain of sequential/global with “a” for sequential and “b” for global.
ILS has been widely used in prior studies to measure students’ learning styles
(Kovačić, 2004; Pallapu, 2008; Naik, 2009; Naik and Girish, 2012; Naik, 2013). The
reliability of this measurement has been tested in prior studies. For example, Livesay
et al. (2002) tested the reliability of ILS and found alpha to be in the range of 0.54 to 0.72.
They also found relatively high test–retest reliability in repeated measurements over
time, and concluded that the ILS was an appropriate and statistically acceptable tool for
characterizing learning preferences. Felder and Spurlin (2005) analyzed the reliability of
ILS and concluded that the current version of ILS may be considered reliable, valid and
suitable. Litzinger et al. (2007) found that the internal consistency reliability of the four
learning style domains of the ILS ranges from 0.55 to 0.77. In the present study, the
reliability of ILS was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which was 0.76 for active/
 QAE reflective domain, 0.65 for sensing/intuitive domain, 0.79 for visual/verbal domain and
24,2 0.64 for sequential/global domain. The overall value was 0.75.

Analysis
We used descriptive statistical analysis such as frequencies and percentages to present
232 the demographic and academic information of respondents, and also to present the
distribution of respondents by learning style domains and by respondents’
demographic and academic information. Additionally, a chi-square test was used to find
out whether there were significant differences along the four dimensions of the learning
style preferences due to students’ demographic and academic characteristics.
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Results and discussion

Respondents’ demographic and academic characteristics
Table I presents respondents’ demographic and academic characteristics.
Data in Table I show that 62 per cent of the respondents were female, 51 per cent
majoring in science in the high school and about 82 per cent were Emirati. Eighty-seven
per cent attended public high schools, and 68 per cent had GPA less than 3.0.
Ninety-seven per cent were 20 or more years of age. These results indicated that the
majority of respondents were females, majoring in science in the high school, had GPA
less than 3.0, were Emirati, attended public high schools and were 20 years old and
above.

Characteristics n (%)

High school majors

Art 34 49.3
Science 35 50.7
Nationality
Emirati 56 81.2
Non-Emirati 13 18.8
Type of high school
Private 7 10.1
Public 62 89.9
Age
Less than 20 years 1 1.4
20 to less than 22 years 51 73.9
22 years and over 17 24.6
Gender
Male 21 30.4
Table I. Female 48 69.6
Respondents’
demographic and GPA
academic Less than 3.0 48 69.5
information (n ⫽ 69) 3.0 and above 21 30.5
 Distribution of respondents by learning style domains Learning
Table II presents the distribution and percentages of UAEU undergraduate statistics styles
students by learning style domains.
It should be noted that a score of 1 to 3 in either dichotomy of a dimension indicates
preferences
a learning style preference that is fairly balanced in that dimension. A score of 5 to 7
indicates a moderate preference in the associated dichotomy of the concerned
dimension. A score of 9 to 11 indicates a strong preference. 233
Data presented in Table II show that 65.2 per cent of the UAEU undergraduate
statistics students had balanced preferences in the active-reflective dimension, 20.3 per
cent of students had moderate reflective preference and 5.8 per cent were strong
reflective learners. Hence, 91.3 per cent of the students would benefit from teaching
styles preferred by reflective learners. In the sensing-intuitive dimension, 50.7 per cent
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

of the statistics students had balanced preferences, 36.2 per cent had moderate intuitive
and 7.2 per cent had strong intuitive preference. Thus, 94.1 per cent of the students
would benefit from teaching techniques preferred by intuitive learners. Table II also
showed that 55.1 per cent of the statistics students were balanced learners in the
visual-verbal dimension, 26.1 per cent were moderate verbal learners and 17.4 per cent
were strong verbal learners. Thus, 98.6 per cent of the statistics students would be
comfortable with teaching techniques suitable for verbal learners. Finally, Table II
shows that 72.5 per cent of the statistics students were balanced learners in the
sequential-global dimension, 20.3 per cent were moderate global learners and 1.4 per
cent were strong global learners. Accordingly, 94.2 per cent of the students would
benefit from teaching techniques preferred by global learners. On the other hand, the
minority of students were active (8.7 per cent), sensing (5.7 per cent), visual (1.4 per cent)
and sequential (5.8 per cent).
It was concluded that UAEU undergraduate statistics students preferred reflective
over active, intuitive over sensing, verbal over visual and global over sequential
learning styles.
These results indicated that UAEU undergraduate statistics students liked thinking
something through, think about it, in study groups working on difficult material, they
were more likely to sit back and listen, and they liked to work alone and take notes and
summarize material (reflective). They preferred external information according to their
memory, reflection and imagination; they preferred theory, concepts and interpretation.
Furthermore, they appreciated the diversity and complexity of situations and disliked
too much detail and repetition (intuitive). Furthermore, they preferred oral information
(verbal). They gained an overall understanding first by absorbing material at random,

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Preference Frequency Preference Frequency Preference Frequency Preference Frequency

Strong active Strong sensing 1.4 Strong visual Strong sequential 0.0
Moderate
Moderate active 8.7 Moderate sensing 4.3 Moderate visual 1.4 sequential 5.8
Balanced Balanced Balanced Balanced
Table II.
ACT-REF 65.2 SEN-INT 50.7 VIS-VRB 55.1 SEQ-GLB 72.5 Distribution of
Moderate reflective 20.3 Moderate intuitive 36.2 Moderate verbal 26.1 Moderate global 20.3 respondents by
Strong reflective 5.8 Strong intuitive 7.2 Strong verbal 17.4 Strong global 1.4 learning style
Total 100.00 Total 100.00 Total 100.00 Total 100.00 domains
 QAE then saw the significance of the parts to the whole; they could also solve complex
24,2 problems faster but they may not be able to explain how they did it (global).
The results of the present study are in line with the findings of Yousef’s (2014) study,
which used a sample of UAEU undergraduate business students. However, these results
are contrary to the results of a number of prior studies conducted in different cultures
that used samples of non-statistics students, such as the study of Rosati (1999) in
234 Canada, Kuri and Truzzi (2002) in Brazil, Naik (2003) Pallapu (2008) in the USA and Naik
and Girish (2012) in Korea. Such differences might be attributed to differences in culture,
as a number of prior studies suggested that students’ learning styles differ across
cultures and ethnicity backgrounds (Nooriafshar and Maraseni, 2005; Zualkernan et al.,
2006; Gündüz and Özcan, 2010; Naik, 2013).
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Distribution of respondents by learning style domains and demographic and academic

characteristics
Tables III-VIII exhibit the distribution of respondents by learning style domains, and
demographic and academic characteristics.

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

active active ACT-REF reflective reflective (%)

Active-reflective dimension
Emirati 8.9 % 64.3 23.2 3.6 100
Non-Emirati 7.7 69.2 7.7 15.4 100
Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sensing sensing SEN-INT Intuitive Intuitive (%)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
Emirati 5.4 % 50.0 39.3 5.4 100
Non-Emirati 7.7 53.8 23.1 15.4 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal verbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
Emirati 1.8 % 51.8 28.6 17.9 100
Non-Emirati 69.2 15.4 15.4 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)
Table III.
Row percentages for Sequential-global dimension
the four learning Emirati 7.1 % 69.6 21.4 1.8 100
style dimensions- Non-Emirati 84.6 15.4 100
nationality Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100
 Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
Learning
active active ACT-REF reflective reflective (%) styles
preferences
Active-reflective dimension
⬍20 years 100 % 100
20 to ⬍22 years 9.8 66.7 17.6 5.9 100
22 years and over 5.9 58.8 29.4 5.9 100
Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100
235

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sensing sensing SEN-INT intuitive intuitive (%)
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
⬍20 years 100 % 100
20 to ⬍22 years 2.0 2.0 43.1 43.1 9.8 100
22 years and over 11.8 76.5 11.8 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal verbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
⬍20 years 100 % 100
20 to ⬍22 years 52.9 27.5 19.6 100
22 years and over 5.9 58.8 23.5 11.8 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)

Sequential-global dimension Table IV.

⬍20 years 100 % 100 Row percentages for
20 to ⬍22 years 3.9 70.6 23.5 2.0 100 the four learning
22 years and over 5.9 82.4 11.8 100 style dimensions-age
Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100 groups

Data in Table III display the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the four
dimensions of learning styles according to students’ nationality (Emirati or
non-Emirati). A visual examination of the data presented in Table III might indicate
significant differences between Emirati and non-Emirati students along some of the
dimensions of learning styles. A chi-square test of independence was performed for each
of the four learning style dimensions across the five categories of learning style
preferences and showed no statistically significant difference between Emiratis and
non-Emiratis along the four dimensions of the learning styles. A majority of
non-Emiratis were Arabs and belonged to a culture similar to that of the UAE; as a
result, they have similar learning style preferences to those of the Emiratis. A number of
researchers have pointed out that students’ learning styles differ across cultures and
ethnicity backgrounds (Gündüz and Özcan, 2010; Naik et al., 2010; Naik, 2013).
 QAE Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
24,2 active active ACT-REF reflective reflective (%)

Active-reflective dimension
Male 9.5 % 66.7 9.5 14.3 100
Female 8.3 64.6 25.0 2.1 100
236 Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sensing sensing SEN-INT intuitive intuitive (%)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Male 4.8 9.5 47.6 28.6 9.5 100

Female 2.1 52.1 39.6 6.2 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal verbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
Male 4.8 61.9 23.8 9.5 100
Female 52.1 27.1 20.8 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)
Table V.
Row percentages for Sequential-global dimension
the four learning Male 9.5 % 57.1 33.3 100
style dimensions- Female 4.2 79.2 14.6 2.1 100
gender Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100

Table IV shows the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the four dimensions
of learning styles according to age groups. A visual examination of the data presented in
Table IV might suggest significant differences among different age groups along some
of the dimensions of learning styles. A chi-square test of independence was performed
for each of the four learning style dimensions across the five categories of learning style
preferences and revealed no statistically significant differences among different age
groups. This result is consistent with those of Pallapu (2008) and Gappi (2013), who
found no significant effect of age on the learning style preferences of students.
Data in Table V show the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the four
dimensions of learning styles according to gender (male or female). A visual
examination of the data presented in Table V might indicate significant differences
between male and female students along some of the dimensions of learning styles. A
chi-square test of independence was performed for each of the four learning style
dimensions across the five categories of learning style preferences and revealed no
statistically significant differences between male and female students along the four
dimensions of learning styles. This result is consistent with the results of Pallapu (2008),
 Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
Learning
active active ACT-REF reflective reflective (%) styles
preferences
Active-reflective dimension
Science 8.8 % 67.6 14.7 8.8 100
Art 8.6 62.9 25.7 2.9 100
Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100
237
Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
sensing sensing SEN-INT intuitive intuitive (%)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Science 2.9 5.9 47.1 32.4 11.8 100

Art 2.9 54.3 40.0 2.9 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal Strong vverbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
Science 2.9% 47.1 29.4 20.6 100
Art 62.9 22.9 14.3 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)
Table VI.
Sequential-global dimension Row percentages for
Science 5.9 % 73.5 20.6 100 the four learning
Art 5.7 71.4 20.0 2.9 100 style dimensions-
Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100 high school major

Gündüz and Özcan (2010), Naik and Girish (2012), Gappi (2013) and Sopian et al. (2013),
who found no significant differences in learning style preferences due to gender.
Table VI displays the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the four
dimensions of learning styles according to high school major (science or arts). A visual
examination of the data presented in Table VI might show significant differences
between those with science as major in the high school and those with arts as major in
the high school along some of the dimensions of learning styles. A chi-square test of
independence was performed for each of the four learning style dimensions across the
five categories of learning style preferences and disclosed no statistically significant
difference between students with science major in the high school and students with arts
major in the high school in the four dimensions of the learning styles.
Data in Table VII reveal the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the four
dimensions of learning styles according to GPA groups. A visual examination of the
data presented in Table VII might show significant differences among GPA groups
along some of the dimensions of learning styles. A chi-square test of independence was
performed for each of the four learning style dimensions across the five categories of
 QAE Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
24,2 active active ACT-REF reflective reflective (%)

Active-reflective dimension
Less than 2.0 100 % 100
2.0-2.9 10.6 61.7 25.5 2.1 100
238 3.0 and above 4.8 71.4 9.5 14.3 100
Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sensing sensing SEN-INT intuitive intuitive (%)
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
Less than 2.0 100 % 100
2.0-2.9 6.4 61.7 29.8 2.1 100
3.0 and above 4.8 28.6 47.6 19.0 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal verbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
Less than 2.0 100 % 100
2.0-2.9 2.1 57.4 25.5 14.9 100
3.0 and above 47.6 28.8 23.8 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)

Sequential-global dimension
Table VII. Less than 2.0 100 % 100
Row percentages for 2.0-2.9 8.5 66.0 23.4 2.1 100
the four learning 3.0 and 85.7 14.3 100
style dimensions- above
GPA groups Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100

learning style preferences and revealed no statistically significant differences between

GPA groups along the four dimensions of learning styles. These findings are consistent
with previous studies such as Pallapu (2008), Warn (2009) and Gappi (2013), which
found no statistically significant correlation between the academic achievement and the
learning style preferences of students. However, it is contrary to the findings of a
number of prior studies which found a link between learning style preferences and GPA
(Wynd and Bozman, 1996; Dwyer, 1998; Cano, 1999; Jones et al., 2003).
Results in Table VIII reveal the distribution of UAEU statistics students along the
four dimensions of learning styles according to high school type (public or private). A
visual examination of the data presented in Table VIII shows significant differences
between students who graduated from public high school and those who graduated
from private high school along some of the dimensions of learning styles. A chi-square
 Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
Learning
active active ACT-REF reflective Reflective (%) styles
preferences
Active-reflective dimension
Private 57.1 % 14.3 28.6 100
Public 9.7 66.1 21.0 3.2 100
Total 8.7 65.2 20.3 5.8 100
239
Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total
sensing sensing SEN-INT intuitive intuitive (%)

Sensing-intuitive dimension
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Private 14.3 % 57.1 14.3 14.3 100

Public 4.8 50.0 38.7 6.5 100
Total 1.4 4.3 50.7 36.2 7.2 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

visual visual VIS-VRB verbal verbal (%)

Visual-verbal dimension
Private 71.4 % 28.6 100
Public 1.6 53.2 25.8 19.4 100
Total 1.4 55.1 26.1 17.4 100

Strong Moderate Balanced Moderate Strong Total

sequential sequential SEQ-GLB global global (%)
Table VIII.
Sequential-global dimension Row percentages for
Private 57.1 % 42.9 100 the four learning
Public 6.5 74.2 17.7 1.6 100 style dimensions-
Total 5.8 72.5 20.3 1.4 100 type of high school

test of independence was performed for each of the four learning style dimensions across
the five categories of learning style preferences and revealed statistically significant
differences only for active-reflective and sensing-intuitive dimensions.

Conclusion
This study focused on exploring the learning style preferences of UAEU undergraduate
statistics students. Furthermore, it investigated whether there were statistically
significant differences along the four dimensions of learning styles due to students’
demographic and academic characteristics. The results indicated that UAEU
undergraduate statistics students had balanced preferences along the four dimensions
of learning styles. It is concluded that UAEU undergraduate statistics students
preferred reflective over active, intuitive over sensing, verbal over visual and global
over sequential learning styles. Furthermore, it was concluded that there were no
statistically significant differences along the four dimensions of learning styles due to
students’ demographic and academic characteristics, except in the active-reflective and
sensing-intuitive dimensions with respect to high school type (private vs public).
 QAE The present study has a number of implications for educators and students.
24,2 Educators will benefit from the results of this study in the sense that they need to adopt
teaching styles and strategies that match learning styles of the majority of the students
in class. This in turn will result in improving students’ ability to digest the material, and
accordingly, will improve their overall academic performance. Previous research has
shown a positive correlation between learning styles of students and teaching styles of
240 instructor (Hussain and Ayub, 2012). A number of previous studies have emphasized
the importance of knowing the learning styles of students in class and adopting teaching
methods that match the learning styles of the majority of students for effective teaching
(Jaju and Kwak, 2000; Yeung et al., 2012; Al BuAli et al., 2013; Naik, 2013).
For reflective learners, educators should use teaching techniques that emphasize
giving students the chance to think about a concept or a problem quietly, study and
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

solve problems alone, take notes and summarize material. For intuitive learners,
educators should use teaching techniques that focus on abstract ideas, mathematical
formulation and innovative methods of problems solving. They should avoid using
techniques that depend on memorization and routine calculations. For verbal learners,
educators should use techniques that emphasize written and spoken explanations, and
give students the chance to outline material using their own words. Finally, for global
learners, educators should provide the big picture or the goal of the lesson before
presenting the steps. They should give students the freedom to choose their own
methods of solving problems and not to force them to use the instructor’s approach.
Additionally, educators will need to take care of different learning styles when
preparing the contents of the courses, assignments and various activities in and out of
class. On the other hand, educators should not neglect the small proportion of students
who are active, sensing, visual and sequential learners and adopt teaching techniques
which accommodate the needs of the minority group.
Students themselves will benefit from knowing their own learning style. Cano (1999)
argued that identifying the students’ learning style early in their academic career would be
to alert the student to his/her potential academic weaknesses and to teach them mechanisms
by which to cope and/or adapt their learning. The results of this study provide a guideline for
students to make the right career decision. Students considering specialization in a statistics
major can evaluate their individual learning preferences with the learning style preferences
of statistics students. Further, Jones et al. (2003) argued:
Increasing student awareness of their own learning styles may be quite helpful in increasing
control of their learning habits and strategies, which should, in turn, influence their academic
performance (p. 373).
The study has a number of limitations. First, the sample was taken from a single university
in the UAE; therefore, it might not adequately represent UAE statistics students. Second, the
sample is limited to undergraduate statistics students and, therefore, it excludes graduate
students who might have different experiences. Third, the results are based on self-reported
questionnaire and this, in turn, might affect the reliability of the results.
A number of future studies are suggested. For example, a study which uses a sample
which covers more than one university in the UAE would be valuable. A comparison
between learning style preferences of undergraduate and graduate statistics students
would be of interest. Moreover, a comparison between learning styles of students of
different majors would be worthy. A study which compares the learning style
 preferences of statistics students in the UAE with those of other Gulf States would be Learning
valuable. Finally, as previous research (Felder, 1993; Nielsen, 2013) has shown that styles
students’ learning styles change over time, a longitudinal study of the learning style
preferences of undergraduate statistics students would be worthwhile.
preferences

References
Abidin, M.J.Z., Rezaee, A.A., Abdullah, H.N. and Singh, K.K.B. (2011), “Learning styles and overall 241
academic achievement in a specific educational system”, International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1 No. 10, pp. 143-152.
Al BuAli, W.H., Balaha, M.H. and Al Muhaidab, N.S. (2013), “Assessment of learning style in a
sample of Saudi medical students”, Acta Informatica Medica, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 83-88.
Bargar, J.R., Bargar, R.R. and Cano, J. (1994), Discovering Learning Preferences and Learning
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Differences in the Classroom, The Ohio Agricultural Education Curriculum Materials

Service, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Bell, J.A. (1998), “Problems in statistics: learning style, age, and part time students”, Education,
Vol. 118 No. 4, pp. 526-528.
Cano, J. (1999), “The relationship between learning style, academic major, and academic
performance of college students”, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 30-37.
Christou, N. and Dinov, I.D. (2010), “A study of students’ learning styles, discipline attitudes and
knowledge acquisition in technology-enhanced probability and statistics education”,
MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 546-572.
Dunn, R. (1990), “Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for
individual diagnosis and prescription”, Reading, Writing and Learning Disabilities, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 223-247.
Dwyer, K.K. (1998), “Communication apprehension and learning style preference: correlations and
implications for teaching”, Communication Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 137-150.
Felder, R. (1993), “Reaching the second tier: learning and teaching styles in college science
education”, Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 286-290.
Felder, R.M. (1996), “Matters of style”, ASEE Prism, Vol. 6, pp. 18-23.
Felder, R.M. and Silverman, L.K. (1988), “Learning and teaching styles in engineering education”,
Engineering Education, Vol. 78 No. 7, pp. 674-681.
Felder, R.M. and Soloman, B.A. (2004), “Index of Learning Styles”, available at: www.ncsu.edu/
federpublic/ILSpage.html (accessed 16 January 2012).
Felder, R.M. and Spurlin, J. (2005), “Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning
styles”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 103-112.
Ganyaupfu, E.M. (2013), “Factors influencing academic achievement in quantitative courses
among business students of private higher education institutions”, Journal of Education
and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 15, pp. 57-65.
Gappi, L.L. (2013), “Relationships between learning style preferences and academic performance
of students”, International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 70-76.
Giordano, J. and Rochford, R.A. (2005), “Understanding business majors’ learning styles”, The
Community College Enterprise, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 21-39.
Gündüz, N. and Özcan, D. (2010), “Learning styles of students from different cultures and
studying in near East University”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9,
pp. 5-10.
Goorha, P. and Mohan, V. (2009), “Understanding learning preferences in the business school
curriculum”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 145-152.
 QAE Hussain, N. and Ayub, N. (2012), “Learning styles of students and teaching styles of teachers in
business education: a case study of Pakistan”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science,
24,2 Vol. 69, pp. 1737-1740.
Jaju, A. and Kwak, H. (2000), “Learning preferences of marketing students”, in John, P.,
Workman, Jr, William, D. and Perreault, Jr (Eds), Proceedings of the AMA Winter
Educators’ Conference, American Marketing Association, San Antonio, TX, pp. 243-250.
242 Jaju, A., Kwak, H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2002), “Learning styles of undergraduate business students:
a cross-cultural comparison between the US, India, and Korea”, Marketing Education
Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 49-60.
Jones, C., Reichard, C. and Mokhtari, K. (2003), “Are students’ learning styles discipline specific?”,
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 363-375.
Keefe, J.W. (1979), “Learning style: an overview”, in Keefe, J.W. (Ed.), Students Learning Styles:
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs, NASSP, Reston.

Komarraju, M., Karau, S.J., Schmeck, R.R. and Avdic, A. (2011), “The big five personality traits,
learning styles, and academic achievement”, Personality and Individual Difference, Vol. 51
No. 4, pp. 471-477.
Kolb, D.A. (1985), “Learning style inventory”, Version 2, The McBer, Boston.
Kolb, D.A. (1996), “Learning style inventory”, Version 2A, Hay-McBer, Boston.
Kolb, D.A. (1999), “Learning style inventory”, Version 3, The Hay Group, Boston.
Kovačić, Z.J. (2004), “A comparison of learning and teaching styles – self-perception of IT
students”, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 793-804.
Kuri, N.P. and Truzzi, O.M.S. (2002), “Learning Styles of freshmen engineering students”,
Proceedings, 2002 International Conference on Engineering Education, Manchester.
Litzinger, T.A., Lee, S.H., Wise, J.C. and Felder, R.M. (2007), “A psychometric study of the index of
learning styles”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 309-319.
Livesay, G., Dee, K., Felder, R., Hites, L., Nauman, E. and O’Neal, E. (2002), “Statistical evaluation
of the index of learning styles”, Session 2430, 2002 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Loo, R. (2002), “The distribution of learning styles and types for hard and soft business majors”,
Educational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 350-360.
Luck, G. and Estes, J. (2011), “Does the learning style of students depend on their area of
concentration in business?”, Review of Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 93-100.
Naik, B. (2003), “Learning styles of business students”, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of
the Decision Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 22-25.
Naik, B. (2009), “An investigation of learning styles of business students”, Proceedings of the 16th
Annual South Dakota International Business Conference, Rapid City, SD, 1-3 October.
Naik, B. (2013), “Influence of culture on learning styles of business students”, International Journal
of Education Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 129-139.
Naik, B. and Girish, V.G. (2012), “An investigation of the learning styles of South Korean business
students”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Naik, B., Tech, D. and Franco, M. (2010), “A comparative study of learning styles of business
students in United States and the Dominican Republic”, Proceedings of the 17th Annual
South Dakota International Business Conference, Rapid City, SD, pp. 260-268.
Nielsen, T. (2013), “Changes in BSc business administration and psychology students’ learning
styles over one, two and three years of study”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 41-48.
 Nooriafshar, M. and Maraseni, T.N. (2005), “A Comparison of learning preferences and Learning
perceptions of students for statistics concepts and techniques”, International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Vol. 6 (September), pp. 1-9. styles
Novin, A.M., Arjomand, L.H. and Jourdan, L. (2003), “An investigation into the preferred learning preferences
styles of accounting, management, marketing, and general business majors”, Teaching and
Learning, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 24-13.
O’Leary, C. and Munro, L. (2011), “Student learning styles and teaching methodologies in
accountancy: what if they differ?”, 2011 Accounting and Finance Academics, Australia and 243
New Zealand annual Conference, Darwin, AFAANZ.
Pallapu, P. (2008), “An exploratory study of undergraduate students’ learning styles”, PhD
dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
Rosati, P. (1999), “Specific differences and similarities in learning preferences of engineering
Downloaded by United Arab Emirates University At 04:47 27 March 2016 (PT)

students, Session 12c1”, Proceedings of the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education

Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 10-13 November.
Sopian, A., Ahmad, S., Abu Bakar, K.A., Jamsari, E.A. and Zin, H.M. (2013), “Study on learning
styles among Arabic language students at Universiti Teknologi Mara, Malacca campus”,
IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 38-40.
Stevens, D.P. (2013), “Assessing the effects of learning style in business statistics”, International
Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 268-283.
Warn, T.S. (2009), “Students’ Learning styles and their academic achievement for taxation course-
a comparison study”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and
Learning, INTI University College, Malaysia, pp. 1-7.
Wynd, W.R. and Bozman, C.S. (1996), “Student learning style: a segmentation strategy for higher
education”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 232-235.
Yeung, A., Read, J. and Schmid, S. (2012), “Students’ learning styles and academic performance in
first year chemistry”, Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and
Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference, Sydney, Vol. 11.
Yousef, D.A. (2014), “Learning styles preferences of undergraduate business students: a study in
the faculty of business and economics at the UAE University (UAEU)”, Journal of
International Business Education, Vol. 9, pp. 211-223.
Zualkernan, I.A., Allert, J. and Qadah, G.Z. (2006), “Learning styles of computer programming
students: a Middle Eastern and American comparison”, Education, IEEE Transactions,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 443-450.

Further reading
Charlesworth, Z.M. (2008), “Learning styles across cultures: suggestions for educators”,
Education & Training, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 115-127.

Corresponding author
Darwish Abdulrahman Yousef can be contacted at: dayousef@uaeu.ac.ae

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats