Debunking the Matching

Hypothesis of Learning Style

Theorists in Hospitality
Education
Dr. Mick La Lopa
La Lopa Teaching and Learning Initiative
Chef John Folse Culinary Institute
February 19. 2015

Abstract
This study tested the matching hypothesis using
Gregorcs Mind Styles (1977; 1984) and the related
Behavioral Styles Questionnaire by Alessandra,
Kelly, Sorenson, and Warren (2006). This study
refuted the matching hypothesis in that there we no
statistically significant instructional preferences as
prescribed by Gregorc amongst Hospitality
Management students. Students tended to prefer and
not prefer the same instructional preferences
regardless of style.

Abstract
These study findings question the notion that
teachers identify students learning styles and teach
them according to instructional preferences
prescribed by learning style theorists. Instead,
educators might find more success using the top five
preferred instructional preferences ranked by these
students, and limit the ones least preferred by
students.

Study Purpose

This study was devised to test the matching

hypothesis among students enrolled in a large
introductory hospitality and tourism management
course to see if there were instructional preference
based on students learning styles as prescribed by
Gregorc.

Literature Review

The learning style theories and theorists claim that

students have their own unique way of learning
typically derived through auditory, visual and
kinesthetic means. To enhance student
performance, some theorists, such as Gregorc
(1977; 1984) suggest that an educator could
identify the instructional preference of the student
and then match their mode of instruction to each
style.

Literature Review

This is known as the matching hypothesis. To

date, there numerous learning style theorists and
thousands of articles on the topic but the question
remains, Is the learning style theory, especially
the matching hypothesis, valid?

Literature Review

There is little if any credible independent research

with a proper experimental design to substantiate
the learning style theorists claim that matching
ones teaching strategy to learning styles leads to
student learning, as measured by academic
achievement and engagement.
Even Wikipedia critical of the theory.
Bonham (1988) concluded that learning styles
theories were based on a thinly developed
construct with weak instruments.

Literature Review

Similarly, Riener and Willingham (2010) posits

that it is students varying backgrounds in learning
is more significant than preference.
Clark (2012) was more emphatic when
challenging learning style theories and theorist by
suggesting that the 20 years or more of learning
styles research has been a bad investment.

Literature Review

Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone, (2004)

conducted a study to identify gaps in the
knowledge of learning styles and ultimately
recommended more research to study properly.
They found that to validate the theories, large
scale tests with validated forms of measurement
would be required.
Coffield et al. (2004) indicated the research to
date consisted of questionable small scale studies
that failed to provide evidence for the reliability,
validity and utility of the existing learning theory
models.

Methods

To assess if there are instructional preferences

based on learning styles, the authors purposefully
sampled 204 students with a 98% response rate in
an introductory Hospitality Management course
at a large Midwestern University.
The questionnaire assessed student learning styles
based on their Behavioral Styles (Alessandra,
Kelly, Sorenson, & Warren, 2006) which are
almost identical to Mind Styles generated by the
Gregorc Mind Style Delineator.

Methods
The Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) was not
used in the study to determine the mind style of
students because of reliability problems.

For example, the Cronbachs alpha for the four Mind Styles of
women engineers were .67 for concrete sequential, .53 for the
abstract sequential, .79 for the abstract random, and .72 for the
concrete random style (Gridley, 2006).
Gridley (2006) also found similar Cronbachs alphas among art
collectors.
Joniak and Isaksen (1988), found Cronbachs alpha ranging from .
23 for the abstract sequential to .57 for the concrete random as
generated by the GSD

Lets take it.

Methods

Methods

The four Behavioral Styles derived from the BSQ

are Directors (direct and guarded), Socializers
(direct and open), Relaters (indirect and open),
and Thinkers (indirect and guarded).
Lets take it.
Twenty-five Likert items were created based on
the instructional preferences prescribed by
Gregorc for his four Mind Styles (Gregorc, 1977)
using a scale of 1 (dislike extremely) to 5 (like
extremely).

Methods

Results

A one way ANOVA was run to determine if there

were any statistically significant differences
between the self-assessed learning styles of
students in an introductory hospitality
management course, based on the 25 instructional
preferences as prescribed by Gregorc (1984) and
assessed by the more statistically reliable and
concise BSQ (Alessandra, et al. 2006).

Results

All but four students indicated their student year

producing a 98% response rate. The respondents
in the introductory class were primarily freshman
(40.2%) and sophomores (38.7%), which is
typical of an introductory class. There was a
small percentage of junior (15.2%) and senior
level students in the course (3.9%).

Results

The frequency and relevant percentage of

Behavioral Styles among respondents consisted
primarily of Socializer (37.3%) and Relater
(35.8%) behavioral styles. There was a small
percentage of Director (19.1%) and Thinker
(5.9%) behavioral styles. This breakdown closely
compares to the ratio of styles in the program
based on historical data gathered by the lead
researcher from his sales class from students who
are required to complete the online version of the
BSQ.

Results

The top five instructional preferences were (a)

movies, films, videos, (b) hands-on learning
activities, (c) well-organized field trips, (d)
demonstrations, and (e) guest speakers. The five
least preferred instructional preferences were (a)
group projects, (b), audio tapes, (c) substantive
lectures (lengthy), (d) extensive reading
assignments, and (e) extensive writing
assignments.

Discussion

Riener and Willingham (2010) posit there are

three reasons. The first is that the general claim
that students are different is likely true, but the
most important thing to focus on may not be
whether the student has a preference for auditory,
visual, or kinesthetic teaching methods; the focus
should be on the differences the students have on
their background knowledge of what is being
learned and their interest in learning the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk

Discussion

Secondly, if one believes that all students have

their own values and strengths then you must
believe in learning styles, which is true for the
most part, but learning style theories do not
address that belief.

Discussion

Third, the theories on learning styles have become

common knowledge and have widespread
acceptance so those who think otherwise must be
wrong, notwithstanding there is no research to
support it.
Attempting to match ones teaching to the learning
styles of students to improve academic
achievement is futile at best.

Conclusions - Implications

Study may be limited by 72% of students being

female, particularly when results indicated that
good teachers should have a strong concern for
students and not have a negative demeanor.
Future study could be multi-institutional with
different class types.
Students wanted to tell stories regarding bad
teachers. Perhaps more open ended questions
could describe these stories in more detail.
Quantitative questionnaires may gauge differences
between; age, gender, class year, major, and types
of course.

Conclusion Implications

There were no statistically significant differences

between the BSQ styles presented by Alessandra,
et al. (2006) when it came to the instructional
preferences prescribed by Gregorc (1977).
Students did have instructional preferences in that
they liked and did not like some of those on the
list.

Conclusions Implications

The results are intended to be used by educators to

improve understanding that for the students in this
study, there was no reliable relationship between
learning style and instructional design.

Conclusions Implications

Time and effort designing instruction to match

learning styles is not recommended. What is
recommended is incorporating movies/films,
videos, hands-on learning activities, wellorganized field trips, demonstrations, and guest
speakers into ones teaching (Bowe, 2000; Hall,
Meyer, & Rose, 2012; Rose, Johnston, Daley &
Abarbanell, 2006; Turk, 2013).

Now, lets look at those

assessments again