Male and female college students' learning styles differ: an opportunity for instructional diversification

College Student Journal, Sept, 2002 by Gabe Keri

Several extant studies have demonstrated that females and males learn differently. In general, the studies on males' and females' learning differences have concluded that more females are relational learners, whereas more males are independent learners. Using Canfield's Learning Style Inventory (1988) more males indicated a preference for applied learning styles (i.e., using every-day-life experiences as a basis of learning), whereas females preferred abstract (i.e., where copious reading assignments are required, learning materials are organized, and instructors' demonstrate knowledge). The results provide validation for diversifying instructional styles to address the learning needs of students.

**********

Individual differences in learning and achievement continue to present challenges to educators and researchers alike. During the late 60's, Cronbach and Snow (1969) postulated that individualizing teaching to the needs of learners improves learners' satisfaction and achievement. Using their Aptitude Treatment Interaction Theory (ATI) the authors argued that teaching methods differentially affect students' learning because teaching methods place varying demands on learners and account for learners' achievement. Interpolations from the ATI theory have resulted in multiple ways of examining teaching and learning from left and right brain emphasis (Bancroft, 1995), cognitive styles (Messick, 1984), learning strategies (Butler, 1994), to even personality styles (Cooper & Miller, 1991). Despite the extension of learning styles, studies on individual learning differences argue essential dichotomies exist amongst students, even in terms of males and females vis-a-vis learning styles (Pettigrew & Zakrajsek, 1984).

Although performance expectations of instructors do not vary as much in terms of students' learning, researchers interested in individual differences have consistently expressed a need for instruction to emphasize variant aspects of learning (Ristow & Edenburn, 1984; Claxton & Murrell, 1987). Psychologists interested in learning efficacy have also examined cognitive-information processing abilities (i.e., memory) in moderating individual learning differences (Just & Carpenter, 1992), reasoning (Tirre & Pena, 1993) and academic achievement (Engle, Cantor & Carullo, 1992). The most compelling argument from most of these studies so far is that retention of content information is key to learning success, irrespective of learners' characteristics beyond those that are intrinsic.

In recent times the focus on students' learning characteristics embrace rather a gestalt approach, where learners' characteristics are associated with indices of learners, including learning intelligences (Gardner, 1993). Gardner argued that students' styles are indicative of forms of intelligences. The main thrust of recent epistemologies on learning styles suggests that methods of instruction emphasize differing modes of learning such that the connection between instructional efficacy and student achievement becomes inseparable (Dunn, Deckinger, Withers & Katzenstein, 1990). The question to ask is whether academic achievement is a function of matching instructional and learning characteristics. While differences in learners provide instructors with a concrete framework for achieving instructional effectiveness, there is a continuous debate as to whether there are male and female properties that can further differentiate students' learning style preferences (Knight et al. 1997)

For example, Dwyer's (1998) reported that trait/context communication apprehension significantly relates to learning style preferences for females. Dwyer' study recommended removing hierarchical classroom barriers in terms of classroom organization, or forms of threats that have the potential of invalidating females' learning efficacy, independent of course content. Lundeberg et al. (1994) concluded that there were significant differences in the confidence of undergraduate males and females to test-item response, and argued that the differences was both contingent on the learning context and as well the domain being tested.

Mann (1994) examined the development of women and girls within a hierarchical power structure relative to the development of their self-esteem, and general academic performance in certain subjects. Mann reported that faced with several challenging learning conditions such as instructor bias and passivity, and institutions that destroy friendship networks, females were less likely to exemplify their learning styles in subject areas such as math and sciences. The author, therefore, encouraged teaching techniques that place more emphasis on collaboration and hands-on learning, as well as recommended textbooks that depicted females as authors of science books and originators of novel scientific discoveries.

Picou et al. (1998) examined the learning styles of 187 Hispanic students, and concluded that the males emphasized more abstract/sequential styles, whereas the females stressed more concrete/random styles. Realizing that many faculty members tend to teach from the vantage point of their own styles fomented overtime, the authors suggested faculty varying their instructional styles to accommodate students' varied learning needs.