Dimensions of Students Learning Styles at The University with The Kolb Learning Model

  • A. Muhammad Idkhan Universitas Negeri Makassar
  • Muhammad Maruf Idris Universitas Negeri Makassar
Keywords: Abstract Conceptual, Active Experimentation, Concrete Experience, Learning Process, Reflective Observation


Someone will learn better if the person concerned understands his character in learning. Individuals in learning have various ways; some learn by listening, some learn by reading, and some learn by discovering. These diverse ways of learning by students are known as learning styles. Kolb's learning style is divided into four types, namely converge, assimilator, diverge, accommodator. The purpose of the study was to determine the profile of student learning styles of the Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Makassar, which is divided into 9 (nine) study programs. Samples taken with an error rate of 5 percent were 177 students. Purposive sampling is used as a sampling technique with special considerations so that it is feasible to be used as a sample. The research measures four types of learning styles, namely Active Experimentation (AE), Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), and Abstract Conceptual (AC). The results showed that the accommodator learning style was more dominant in students. Of the eight majors that became the research subjects, seven tended to the accommodator learning style, and only one tended to the assimilator learning style. The accommodator learning style combines the poles of active experimentation (doing) and concrete experience (feeling). The use of learning methods following the learning style is Problem-Based Learning which involves all students in the learning process.


Download data is not yet available.


K. Swisher, “Learning styles: Implications for teachers,” Multicult. Educ. 21st century, pp. 72–84, 1992.

J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-hill education (UK), 2011.

S. L. Christenson, T. Rounds, and D. Gorney, “Family factors and student achievement: An avenue to increase students’ success.,” Sch. Psychol. Q., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 178, 1992.

A. T. Henderson, The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent Involvement Improves Student Achievement. An Annotated Bibliography. National Committee for Citizens in Education Special Report. ERIC, 1987.

G. Nelson, “The relationship between dimensions of classroom and family environments and the self‐concept, satisfaction, and achievement of grade 7 and 8 students,” J. Community Psychol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 276–287, 1984.

A. Y. Kolb and D. A. Kolb, “Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education,” Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 193–212, 2005.

G. Reid, Learning styles and inclusion. Sage, 2005.

E. Sadler‐Smith, “Learning styles: a holistic approach,” J. Eur. Ind. Train., 1996.

P. García, S. Schiaffino, and A. Amandi, “An enhanced Bayesian model to detect students’ learning styles in Web‐based courses,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 305–315, 2008.

B. DePorter and M. Hernacki, Quantum learning. PT Mizan Publika, 2000.

A. Woolfolk, Educational psychology: Active learning edition. Pearson, 2016.

B. L. Brown, “Teaching style vs. learning style,” Myth. realities, vol. 26, no. 1, 2003.

G.-J. Hwang, H.-Y. Sung, C.-M. Hung, and I. Huang, “A learning style perspective to investigate the necessity of developing adaptive learning systems,” J. Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 188–197, 2013.

J. D. Vermunt, “Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis,” High. Educ., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 25–50, 1996.

F. Marton, G. Dall’Alba, and E. Beaty, “Conceptions of learning,” Int. J. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 277–300, 1993.

D. A. Kolb, The Kolb learning style inventory. Hay Resources Direct Boston, MA, 2007.

A. Y. Kolb and D. A. Kolb, “Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development,” SAGE Handb. Manag. Learn. Educ. Dev., pp. 42–68, 2009.

D. A. Kolb, R. E. Boyatzis, and C. Mainemelis, “Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions,” Perspect. thinking, Learn. Cogn. styles, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 227–247, 2001.

S. Griggs, Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000.

S. Isaac and W. B. Michael, Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences. Edits publishers, 1995.

T. L. Ruble and D. E. Stout, “Changes in learning-style preferences: comments on Geiger and Pinto,” Psychol. Rep., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 697–698, 1992.

R. R. Sims and S. J. Sims, The importance of learning styles: understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education: understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education. ABC-CLIO, 1995.

P. Schwartz, Problem-based learning. Routledge, 2013.

H. S. Barrows, “A taxonomy of problem‐based learning methods,” Med. Educ., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 481–486, 1986.

A. Qvortrup and M. Wiberg, Dealing with conceptualisations of learning: learning between means and aims in theory and practice. Springer, 2017.

How to Cite
A. M. Idkhan and M. M. Idris, “Dimensions of Students Learning Styles at The University with The Kolb Learning Model”, Int. J. Environ. Eng. Educ., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 75-82, Aug. 2021.
Research Article