sustainability

Article
The Relationship between Learning Styles and Academic
Performance: Consistency among Multiple Assessment
Methods in Psychology and Education Students
Jesús Maya 1 , Juan F. Luesia 1, * and Javier Pérez-Padilla 2,3

1 Department of Psychology, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Avda. de las Universidades s/n,

47704 Dos Hermanas, Spain; [email protected]
2 Department of Psychology, Universidad de Jaén, Campus de Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaen, Spain;
[email protected]
3 Research Group (HUM604), Development of Lifestyles in the Life Cycle and Health Promotion, University of
Huelva, Campus de El Carmen s/n, 21007 Huelva, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-955-641-600

Abstract: Universities strive to ensure quality education focused on the diversity of the student body.
According to experiential learning theory, students display different learning preferences. This study
has a three-fold objective: to compare learning styles based on personal and educational variables, to
analyze the association between learning styles, the level of academic performance, and consistency
of performance in four assessment methods, and to examine the influence of learning dimensions in



students with medium-high performance in the assessment methods. An interdisciplinary approach

 was designed involving 289 psychology, early childhood education and primary education students
Citation: Maya, J.; Luesia, J.F.; at two universities in Spain. The Learning Style Inventory was used to assess learning styles and
Pérez-Padilla, J. The Relationship dimensions. The assessment methods used in the developmental psychology course included the
between Learning Styles and following question formats: multiple-choice, short answer, creation-elaboration and an elaboration
Academic Performance: Consistency question on the relationship between theory and practice. Univariate analysis, multivariate analysis,
among Multiple Assessment Methods and binomial logistic models were computed. The results reveal Psychology students to be more
in Psychology and Education
assimilative (theoretical and abstract), while early childhood and primary education students were
Students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341.
evenly distributed among styles and were more divergent and convergent (practical) in absolute
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063341
terms. In addition, high scores in perception (abstract conceptualization) were associated with a high
level of performance on the multiple-choice tests and the elaboration question on the relationship
Academic Editor:
José Sánchez-Santamaría between theory and practice. Abstract conceptualization was also associated with medium-high
performance in all assessment methods and this variable predicted consistent high performance,
Received: 29 January 2021 independent of the assessment method. This study highlights the importance of promoting abstract
Accepted: 15 March 2021 conceptualization. Recommendations for enhancing this learning dimension are presented.
Published: 18 March 2021
Keywords: learning styles; academic performance; assessment method; higher education; multiple-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral choice question; open-ended questions
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
Achieving teaching excellence in higher education is one of the priority areas of the
European University Teaching Plans [1]. Specifically, the analysis of teaching-learning
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. processes has emerged as one of the most relevant topics in educational psychology. Evi-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. dence suggests that not all individuals learn in the same way [2,3]. Consequently, to ensure
This article is an open access article
education based on sustainable development, we must consider individual differences,
distributed under the terms and
as well as develop potential educational interventions for students who display learning
conditions of the Creative Commons
difficulties. To do this, studies should be designed to provide insight into the learning
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
processes of students in order to develop proposals for student-centered teaching. The
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
match between teaching methods and student learning style can encourage meaningful
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063341 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 2 of 18

learning of content and academic performance [4,5]. Similarly, to evaluate performance,

it is important to include a variety of assessment methods to provide students with the
opportunity to demonstrate their achievements through different types of tests. Student
learning style, teaching practices, and performance assessment form an educational triangle
in which the fit among dimensions will foster excellence in educational processes.
In line with promoting teaching excellence [6], efforts have been made in recent years
to include the sustainable development approach to education within universities. Among
the many objectives in the 2030 United Nations Agenda is the promotion of equitable and
quality education focused on the strengths and needs of students to promote meaningful
learning. In addition, sustainable education emphasizes empowering students in their
professional roles to be responsive and make ethical contributions to society [7,8]. In pursuit
of these objectives, this study concentrates on students, their different learning styles, and
their specific and overall performance in different assessment methods. The purpose of this
study is to examine two key educational components: the learning styles of psychology
and education students, differentiating between primary education (Prim. Ed.) and early
childhood education (E.C. Ed.) students, and their performance in different assessment
methods in order to identify the strengths and specific needs of university students.

1.1. Learning Styles: Experiential Learning Theory

The analysis and assessment of learning styles has been viewed through multiple
theories [9–13]. Learning styles can generally be defined as the different relatively stable
cognitive, affective, and physiological preferences used by the learner to approach and
internalize a content or to respond to a learning situation in formal, non-formal and infor-
mal contexts [11,13]. Focusing on education, when learners are involved in instructional
settings, they use certain skills to manage and interpret the educational process [14]. Both
personal dimensions such as extroversion or introversion and cognitive dimensions includ-
ing perception, representation, processing, or understanding of content have been used to
determine learning style [11,15,16].
According to experiential learning theory [15], learning is the result of first grasping
then transforming an experience. The diversity of responses in this process leads to a
range of learning styles. Experiential learning theory is based on constructionist principles
of education and conceptualizes learning as a holistic process involving the learner as
the main protagonist of teaching-learning situations. Through this process, the learner
discovers, creates and builds his or her knowledge and experiences guided by the expert [2].
In education, the teacher must understand the student as the sum of his or her cognitive
skills, which can be trained, and the personal characteristics that affect learning styles such
as how the individual feels, thinks, perceives the world and acts. Indeed, experiential
learning theory holds that the learning process is cyclical or spiraling, in that during this
process, the learner feels, reflects, thinks, and acts. However, each person learns differently
due to the differential importance the learner attaches to each component [17].
Within this approach, learning styles are the result of the combination of two fun-
damental dimensions: the perception of a specific material and the processing of the
information or experience by the learner [17]. On the one hand, perception is defined as
the way the learner understands contents and experiences. Learners may show a tendency
to focus on concrete sensations, data, experiences, and examples (concrete experience,
CE), or they may prefer abstract conceptualization (AC) centered on the ability to under-
stand theoretical relationships and classifications without needing concrete elements of
information or the here and now. These two extremes (CE versus AC) are viewed as a
continuum. On the other hand, it is believed that individuals use different strategies to
transform, incorporate, and give meaning to perceived content [17,18]. Thus, information
processing arises from the balance between the individual’s preference to perform active
experimentation (AE) with contents and experiences or to internalize and transform con-
tents through reflective observation (RO), considering different perspectives [2,19]. Similar
to perception, information and experience processing is not a dichotomous measure, but a
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 3 of 18

continuum between AE and RO. These learning dimensions form the basis of Experiential
Learning Theory, identifying four learning styles: accommodating, diverging, assimilating,
and converging.
Learners with an accommodating style (CE and AE) are the most practical and tend
to focus on specific aspects of content and experience that are processed through AE. The
diverging style (CE and RO) is characterized by a predilection for content and concrete
situations that are transformed and processed through cognitive analysis from multiple
perspectives. By contrast, the assimilating style (AC and RO), the most theoretical, involves
a preference for abstract concepts such as the study of psychological theories learned
through RO without focusing on practical value. Finally, convergent learners (AC and CE)
also show a preference for abstract contents that gain meaning through active and practical
experimentation following a deductive method [17].
Learning styles have been associated with a wide variety of dimensions, some of
the most common being personal and educational variables [15]. First, with regard to
gender, the evidence is inconsistent. Some of Kolb’s original studies found that men have
a more abstract perception than women, but that, nevertheless, there are no differences
associated with processing [2]. These results have not been confirmed by subsequent
research, which suggests that the difference in AC is due to the interaction between
variables and cannot be explained by sex alone [2,20]. Second, the influence of age on
learning styles has been widely studied. Overall, the evidence indicates that learning
styles are stable at different ages, although a tendency towards AC is found in middle
age [2]. Despite the stability in preferences, learning styles can be modified by training
the different dimensions, for example, through training in AC, using a more concrete
perception, promoting active experiences in learning contexts or providing spaces for
reflection and analysis in information processing [8,21,22].
Experiential learning theory emerged within the formal context, applied in higher
education with the aim of promoting teaching-learning processes centered on the student
and his or her characteristics. Learning styles have been studied in disciplines including
engineering, medicine, nursing, physiotherapy, humanities, business, language, com-
munication, psychology, and education, among others [2,20,22–25]. In education and
psychology, reference data from experiential learning theory show that education students
tend to exhibit an accommodating, i.e., practical, style with perception focused on concrete
experiences and active information processing, while psychology students exhibit a diver-
gent style with higher scores on the CE and RO dimensions [2,17]. When comparing the
learning styles of psychology and education students with the preferences of students in
other degrees, on the one hand, we find that education students are the most accommo-
dating (very high scores in active processing) followed by communication students [2].
On the other hand, psychology students, who demonstrate divergent styles, show high
scores in reflective processing as do literature and language students. Additionally, other
degrees, such as engineering, mathematics, or medicine, show completely opposite scores
with a preference for the convergent style [2,20]. Thus, although considerable similarities
exist between students within the same degree, ensuring that teachers are familiar with the
most common learning styles in their class and specifically with individual preferences
can facilitate the design of teaching-learning processes that maximize the potential of
each student.
To summarize, recognizing a student’s learning style can have important educational
implications and provide guidance to optimize teaching-learning processes [3,26]. Teachers
can tailor their teaching practices to maximize strengths and meet student needs [27], and
students can develop meta-cognitive processes and greater control over their learning
and performance.

1.2. Assessment Method, Academic Performance and Learning Dimensions

Overall, academic performance is the extent to which a student has acquired the
planned knowledge in a teaching-learning setting that students routinely demonstrate in
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 4 of 18

curriculum-based assessments [28]. Collaborative group projects, individual assignments

or tests are some of the most commonly used modalities to measure student learning [29].
In undergraduate degrees in psychology and education, various assessment methods are
frequently combined, although it is common to have a final performance examination in
almost all courses. Nonetheless, objectively assessing the knowledge acquired continues to
be a challenge in current teaching plans [30]. The use of closed or open-ended questions is
frequent in disciplines such as psychology and education. Closed questions may include
multiple choice questions (MCQ) or short questions (although this typology may also
occasionally include open-ended questions). The MCQ consists of a theoretical or practical
question and a limited number of related answer items. Students must choose the most
appropriate answer from the given options. The MCQ requires students to perform
relationship and discrimination processes between response alternatives to make the final
selection of an option. In this assessment method, the student’s processes of recognition
memory are essential, with the question statement acting as the instruction for recognition,
while the incorrect answer alternatives act as distractors [31,32]. Short questions (SQ) can
be of different types: single-best answer, concept identification, briefly describing a theory,
or classifying a set of constructs based on common aspects. Some SQ involve briefly writing
a theory, an example, or a definition, or naming a theory from the definition. Unlike MCQs,
this assessment method enhances recall processes and knowledge application, as opposed
to cognitive processes of recognition with distractors [31].
Complementarily, open-ended questions are another form of assessment. Open-
ended questions generally require different simultaneous processes such as access to recall
memory, use of critical thinking, making abstract associations, planning, content synthesis
and writing [15,33]. Linking concepts or theories, solving a practical or clinical case,
proposing an intervention or making associations between theory and practice and vice
versa are some of the most common types of open-ended questions. One of the challenges of
open-ended assessment questions is identifying objective correction criteria since response
variability is greater than in closed questions [34]. Nevertheless, open-ended questions
allow the student to initiate cognitive elaboration processes, construction of content, and
appear to measure deeper learning than the MCQ [33,35].
The nature of each assessment method has implications for teaching-learning pro-
cesses. Student performance may vary depending on the evaluation method used. Some
studies suggest that students find open-ended tests more difficult because they are forced
to use more elaborate and in-depth learning strategies than with MCQ tests [30,33]. Urda
and Ramocki [30] also found that students prefer memory-based assessment methods to
tests of analysis, creativity, or practical applications. There is controversy in the literature
as to whether different assessment tests measure the same knowledge. Some reviews
highlight the consistency of performance among assessment methods [36,37]. However,
other authors point out that different assessment methods involve qualitatively diverse
learning methods. The evidence suggests that in closed questions, students tend towards
using surface learning strategies, while in open-ended questions they adopt a deep learning
approach. Thus, performance will be influenced by learning strategies, learning preference,
and assessment method [33,38].
Student performance is not only determined by the assessment method. Studies and
meta-analyses in the university context suggest that performance is affected by a large
number of variables such as emotional attention, motivational self-efficacy, prior academic
performance, student motivation, goal-directed learning strategies, and teaching style
and practices such as the use of feedback [39,40]. Evidence also shows an association
between learning styles and performance [4,17,22,41]. Several authors have studied this
relationship in multiple assessment methods [17,21,42,43]. Just as students approach
learning tasks with certain perception and processing preferences, they will also approach
assessment tasks with certain predilections. Therefore, unquestionably, student learning
styles may involve a preference for certain assessment methods that lead to differences in
performance [21,42,44].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 5 of 18

Regarding learning dimensions and styles, when students prefer CE and a practical
processing (accommodating style), they typically obtain better results primarily in applied
tasks unrelated to theory. These students are able to distance themselves from analysis
and theory and focus on practical activities based on concrete aspects of the contents [17].
Students with an accommodating style usually perform well in cooperative work, project-
based teaching methodology, and assessment methods that are not mediated by theoretical
considerations, such as creating applied activities or SQ that do not involve comparisons
between concepts. Nonetheless, some evidence points to poorer academic performance
in students with a tendency towards active learning [21,44]. In fact, a study conducted
in Spain with engineering students showed that students with a tendency towards active
learning show poorer results compared to more theoretical students [22]. Alternatively,
students with divergent styles (preference for CE and RO) are attracted to group work
where multiple perspectives can be analyzed for the construction of content. These students
also prefer going deeper into contents while also being creative [17]. Concerning assessment
methods, these students analyze and process information on two levels: concrete perception
and reflective processing. They do well on performance tests that involve connecting the
practical with the theoretical, such as elaboration tests and linking content to practice and
theory, or MCQ tests, which require identifying the correct answer from different options.
Continuing with learning dimensions and styles, students who are more drawn
to theory, tending towards AC and RO (assimilating style), typically perform better in
theoretical exercises far from concrete aspects and active experience. These students
therefore prefer teaching-learning processes focused on analyzing readings, exploring
contents, or creating theoretical models [17]. Evidence suggests that a reflective learning
style is associated with high performance [21,22]. Despite the more theoretical profile of
assimilative students, some studies have shown that they tend to perform well on tests
that involve linking practical aspects to theory, as well as in assessment methods that
involve generating new concepts [42,45]. MCQs requiring the student to reflect on and
compare different theories can enhance performance in these students. Indeed, Gargallo
and colleagues [22] compared students from various degrees with excellent and average
results and found that high-performing students prefer a reflective and theoretical style,
while low performing students favor more active styles.
Finally, the learner with a convergent style (preference for AC and AE) more easily
develops practical implications that emerge from theory. These learners are typically
decisive and often propose practical solutions based on theory. These students apply
theory as a basis for solving practical problems [17]. Some studies suggest that students
with higher scores on abstract concepts usually perform better on MCQ tests [17,42]. Indeed,
AC and the convergent style have been found to be dimensions commonly associated with
high performance on various assessment tests [43,46]. Accordingly, students with a clearly
abstract perception and active processing perform on two levels of analysis. They are
initially more theoretical and subsequently more practical, and can therefore approach
open-ended question assessments with potentially positive results that allow the student
to draw relationships between theory and practice.
In summary, although the relationship between performance and learning styles
should be further explored, the integration of evidence suggests the importance of AC and
RO as dimensions associated with high performance in complex assessment methods such
as MCQ or open-ended questions.

1.3. Present Study

How university students learn undoubtedly has a strong influence on teaching-
learning processes. This study intends to go one step further to promote educational
development by considering individual differences among students. Students enrolled in
Education degrees have traditionally been studied as a single group [2,17]. In this study,
however, we explore separately the learning dimensions of two specialized education
degrees: Prim. Ed. and E.C. Ed., as well as psychology. This study is one of the first
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 6 of 18

attempts to provide insight into the characteristics of E.C. Ed. students. We also focus on
the association between assessment methods, learning styles and performance. Most re-
search has associated learning styles and performance as measured by a single assessment
test [4,22]. This study aims to conceptualize the possible implications of using different
assessment methods involving open-ended and closed-ended questions. In addition, this
research endeavors to go beyond the relationship between learning styles and performance
by also evaluating the congruency between performance in different assessment methods
and learning preferences. In line with the goal of achieving a university education based
on excellence, tailored to the needs of students and ensuring equal opportunities [1,6], the
purpose of this study is to identify the learning preferences of high-performing students,
as well as to detect dimensions that may improve the results of lower-performing students
in order to provide recommendations to teachers.
This study has a threefold objective: (a) to describe and compare learning dimen-
sions (CE, AC, AE, RO, perception, and processing) and learning styles (accommodating,
diverging, assimilating, and converging) according to gender, age, and university de-
gree: psychology, E.C. Ed. and Prim. Ed.; (b) for each assessment method (MCQ, SQ,
creation-elaboration questions and elaboration question on the relationship between theory
and practice), examine the association between learning dimensions and styles, academic
achievement level (high, medium and low) and consistency of performance among the
assessment methods; and (c) explore the influence of the learning dimensions on students
in terms of the level of performance.
In line with previous evidence, with respect to our first objective, we hypothesize that
gender and age will not influence learning dimensions, while we anticipate that education
students will display a tendency towards CE and AE, and psychology students towards CE
and RO. Due to a lack of previous data, we cannot propose possible differences between
Prim. Ed. and E.C. Ed. students. With regard to our second objective, we hypothesize that
there will be differences between learning dimensions and styles and level of performance
in each assessment method. In methods such as MCQ or the elaboration question on the
relationship between theory and practice, we believe that high-performing students are
likely to show a preference for AC and RO. We also anticipate that in purely practical
methods, such as creation-elaboration, there will be no relationship between learning
dimensions and performance. In addition, given the characteristics of learning dimensions
and styles, we believe there may be inconsistencies in performance depending on the
assessment methods. Specifically, we hypothesize that students with higher scores in AC
and RO will be more consistent and demonstrate successful academic performance in
various assessment methods. Finally, for the third objective, we propose that the perception
dimension, which integrates AC, will have the ability to predict consistent successful
performance, independent of the assessment methods used.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
The study was carried out during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 academic years at two
different universities in southern Spain, the University of Seville (US) and the University
of Jaen. A total of 289 undergraduate students enrolled in degrees in psychology (n = 64),
early childhood education (n = 77), and primary education (n = 148) were selected to
participate in the research through purposive, non-probability sampling. These students
were taking a developmental psychology course common to the three degrees. All students
were in their first or second year of university. A total of seven groups were assessed:
two psychology groups, two E.C. Ed. groups and three Prim. Ed. groups. Women made
up 80.62% of the sample and men 19.38%. The mean age of the sample was 20.53 years
(SD = 3.20).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 7 of 18

2.2. Instruments
Sociodemographic profile. The questionnaire included information related to sociode-
mographic dimensions such as sex and age, and to educational dimensions including
degree and year of university enrollment.
Learning styles and dimensions. Version 3.1 of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI-
III) [17] was used, adapted and validated in Spanish [47]. This instrument comprises
12 items with four response alternatives. Respondents must classify their answers in an
ipsative manner (from 1 to 4) for each statement. Each response option corresponds to a
different learning preference: AE (α = 0.70), RO (α = 0.68), AC (α = 0.73), and CE (α = 0.69).
Using the total score for each dimension, two different opposite dimensions are obtained:
perception (the AC score is subtracted from the CE score) and processing (AE—RO). The
combination of these two learning dimensions results in four learning styles. According to
the cut points recommended by the authors of the scale [17], the following learning styles
emerge: accommodating (perception ≤ 7; processing ≥ 7), diverging (perception ≤ 7; pro-
cessing ≤ 6), converging (perception ≥ 8; processing ≥ 7) and assimilating (perception ≥ 8;
processing ≤ 6).
Academic performance. The final content assessment comprised an examination to
quantify the academic performance of the students. Different evaluation methods were
integrated in this final assessment. For each degree, the same content was evaluated
through the following assessment methods:
1. Multiple choice questions (MCQ). The contents were evaluated through multiple
choice tests. Using this closed question method, students had to identify a single valid
response among four alternatives. The following is an example of an MCQ used in the
assessment: “The increase in explicit memory in children is associated with: (a) the
autonomy of the child when learning to walk and handle objects; (b) an increase in
the density of synapses at four months; (c) an increase in the density of synapses at
eight months (correct answer); (d) the importance of holophrases in children to store
memory”. A total of 30 MCQ were used with a final score of 0 to 10.
2. Short questions (SQ). This method used short and closed questions. In this test, the
student is given a statement in order to identify a concept. An example is given below:
“Identify the developmental theory that states that the zone of proximal development
refers to the distance between the actual level of development and the level of potential
development”. In this case, the correct answer would be: Vygotsky’s Sociocultural
Theory. A total of 10 SQ were used with a final score ranging from 0 to 10.
3. Creation-elaboration questions (CEQ). In this open-ended question, students must
create a practical activity based on the contents studied in the developmental psychol-
ogy course. This method involves mainly a practical question. The CEQ used in the
tests was: “Create an activity to work on the understanding other people’s emotions
in a class of 5-year-olds”. With a score between 0 and 10 points, the structure of the
activity, creativity, and suitability with the contents of the course were used as criteria
to evaluate performance on the CEQ.
4. Elaboration Questions on the Relationship between Theory and Practice (EQRTP).
In this open-ended assessment question, students must link theoretical concepts to
practical application. A video is used to illustrate a teaching-learning process between
children and an expert, and various interactions between children. After watching
the video, students must analyze its content using theoretical concepts. Below is the
examination question and a link to the video used (https://www.dropbox.com/s/
xux6p9di5pj885m/Sustainability.mp4?dl=0) (accessed on 29 January 2021) [48] “Asso-
ciate the following video with theoretical contents of the Developmental Psychology
course”. The number of associations between practical aspects and theoretical con-
tents, coherence between concepts, presentation of theory and clarity in the written
composition were used as criteria to assess performance from 0 to 10.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 8 of 18

2.3. Procedure
This research forms part of a teaching innovation project of the Department of Evolu-
tionary Psychology and Education, financed by the US from 2017 to 2019. The aim of this
project is to optimize teaching-learning processes in the university setting through teacher
training based on the current needs of the student body [49].
The data collection procedure was similar for all three degrees. Learning styles
were assessed in all students who took the final examination for the Developmental
Psychology course. In addition, to systematize the process, the same teacher was in
charge of the teaching-learning process (researcher of this study) in all the groups. Prior
to the start of the study, the students were informed of the objectives of the study on
learning styles and performance, as well as its voluntary nature. The confidentiality of
the data and respect for participants and human rights were guaranteed, in compliance
with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent to use the data for
research purposes was signed by all participants. This study was carried out according
to the ethical principles of anonymity, responsibility, and equality in the framework of a
teaching innovation project financed and approved by the US (Resolution 11 October 2017,
“Support for Teaching Coordination and Innovation”, Department of Developmental and
Educational Psychology, US).
Both instruments were administered on the same day, first the LSI-III then the per-
formance assessment. The instructions for completing the LSI-III were explained in more
detail on the day of the assessments, placing special emphasis on the non-evaluative nature
of the questionnaire in order to avoid response bias. The instruments were administered in
person, in written format (paper-based). The total duration of the evaluation was about
135 min: 15 min for the sociodemographic profile and the LSI-III questionnaire and 105 min
for the content assessment in sequential order: MCQ, SQ, CEQ and EQRTP.

2.4. Data Analysis

We conducted an interdisciplinary, cross-sectional, observational and quantitative
study using the LSI-III, a psychometric survey validated in multiple countries and con-
texts [17]. Analyses were performed with SPSS software, version 26 [50]. Before the
statistical analyses, several tests were conducted. First, missing data for items were studied
with missing value analysis. Little’s MCAR test was used to confirm random data distribu-
tion. Missing data were less than 5% per item and missing items less than 10% per scale,
following a random distribution. Accordingly, structural equation modeling was used
to impute data with the expectation-maximization algorithm in SPSS. Twelve students
were eliminated due to not answering ipsitively on the LSI-III. Regarding atypical and
influential cases, both univariate and multivariate cases were identified. Subsequently, we
checked the necessary prior assumptions for the use of parametric tests in the univariate
and multivariate analyses.
With regard to the study variables, academic performance was divided into three
levels: high, medium, and low. For this classification, each student’s performance was
categorized into a level (high, medium, or low) for each assessment method, using as a
reference the accumulated percentiles and their tertile position in their class group. For
the consistency variable, three levels were established (consistent students with medium-
high performance, consistent students with medium-low performance, and inconsistent
students). Consistent students performing at the medium-high level fall in the first and
second tertiles on all assessment methods. Consistent students performing at the medium-
low achievement level are students performing in the second and third tertiles in all
assessment methods. Finally, inconsistent students are those who score high in at least one
assessment method and score low in at least one other.
For the univariate analyses, the descriptive statistics are presented using means and
standard deviations and frequency and percentages, thereby describing their central ten-
dency and variability. For the bivariate analyses, ANOVA was calculated using Snedecor’s
F statistic, Bonferroni’s post hoc test, and contingency tables.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 9 of 18

For the multivariate analyses, binomial logistic models were computed, considering
Hosmer–Lemeshow chi-square distribution to calculate goodness of fit, as well as the
correct classification rate of the observed and predicted subjects of the resulting model.
Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2 statistic was used to assess the degree of explanation of the
resulting model. After creating the model and satisfactorily confirming its viability, the
meaning and direction of the coefficients were examined through the Wald statistic and
odds ratios.

3. Results
3.1. Learning Styles According to Personal and Educational Dimensions
Taking into account the main learning dimensions, overall, the students achieved a
mean score of 5.23 (SD = 9.94, Min. = −26, Max. = 32) in perception. Thus, AC had a mean
score of 31.09 (SD = 6.01, Min. = 15, Max. = 46), higher (t (288) = −8.95, p < 0.001) than
that obtained in CE of 25.86 (SD = 5.78, Min. = 13, Max. = 48). The mean for processing
was 4.83 points (SD = 9.63, Min. = −22, Max. = 24), with AE obtaining a mean of 33.94
(SD = 5.89, Min. = 17, Max. = 47), higher (t (288) = −8.53, p < 0.001) than that found for RO
(M = 29.11, SD = 5.63, Min. = 15, Max. = 48). The participants were therefore distributed
heterogeneously in terms of learning styles, which were mainly divergent (n = 88, 30.4%),
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
followed by accommodating (n = 86, 29.8%), assimilating (n = 70, 24.2%), and, finally,
converging (n = 45, 15.6%). Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the scores.

Figure 1.
Figure Spatial image
1. Spatial image of
of the
the distribution
distribution of
of the
the participants’
participants’ scores
scores according
according to
to learning
learning styles
styles as
as
classified by Kolb
classified Kolb and Kolb [17].

The statistics
3.2. Assessment for the
Methods: distribution
Academic of scores
Performance andby sociodemographic
Consistency (sex andtoage) and
and Their Relation
educational (degree) dimensions
Learning Dimensions and Styles are provided in Table 1. As can be seen, the score distri-
butions were similar according to age and sex. Nevertheless, both learning dimensions
Analyses of variance were calculated to examine the relationship between learning
and learning styles varied by university degree. Thus, according to the post hoc analyses,
dimensions and performance levels for each type of assessment method (see Table 2).
psychology students achieved higher scores in perception compared to Prim. Ed. students
While in the processing dimension (AE—RO), no differences were noted in performance
(mean difference [MD] = 4.41, p = 0.008) and E.C. Ed. (MD = 4.78, p = 0.013), especially in
on
ACthe assessment
(Prim. Ed., MDtests in perception
= 3.55, (AC—CE),
p < 0.001; E.C. Ed., MDdifferences were seen
4.57, p < 0.001). when processing,
Regarding comparing
means
although no differences were seen in this learning dimension, differences werethe
on the MCQ and the EQRTP. Specifically, Bonferroni’s post hoc tests on MCQ
found in
assessment method revealed that the lowest performing students showed
AE and RO. Compared to psychology students, primary education students tended to significantly
lower scores in perception compared to the medium-high performance group (MD =
−5.76, p = 0.022). In relation to the EQRTP, a trend toward significance was noted. In this
case, Bonferroni’s post hoc tests revealed that high-performing students tended to have a
higher level of perception than those students with average performance in the open-
ended EQRTP question (MD = −3.48, p = 0.075).
With respect to score consistency across the assessment methods, a significant differ-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 10 of 18

obtain higher scores (MD = 2.23, p = 0.034) in AE and E.C. Ed. students in RO (MD = 2.29,
p = 0.048).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and comparisons of means and frequencies according to learning
dimensions and demographic and educational variables.

Sex Degree
Age
Female Male t Test Psychology E.C. Ed. Prim. Ed. ANOVA
Learning Dimensions
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
r = −0.032, t (287) = −1.20, F (2286) = 5.39,
Perception 4.89 (9.79) 6.66 (10.50) 8.77 (11.66) 3.99 (8.75) 4.35 (9.42)
p = 0.590 p = 0.232 p = 0.005
r = 0.066, t (287) = 0.28, F (2286) = 0.62,
CE 25.91 (5.64) 25.66 (6.38) 25.36 (6.83) 30.56 (5.98) 28.72 (5.14)
p = 0.272 p = 0.777 p = 0.536
r = 0.009, t (287) = −1.71, F (2286) = 12.09,
AC 30.79 (5.80) 32.32 (6.70) 34.13 (6.40) 29.56 (5.42) 30.57 (5.69)
p = 0.877 p = 0.087 p < 0.001
r = −0.038, t (287) = 0.52, F (2286) = 1.41,
Processing 4.97 (9.35) 4.23 (10.79) 3.98 (10.74) 3.75 (9.71) 5.76 (9.04)
p = 0.522 p = 0.605 p = 0.244
r = −0.068, t (287) = 1.15, F (2286) = 3.47,
AE 34.14 (5.50) 33.13 (7.30) 32.25 (6.36) 34.31 (5.38) 34.48 (5.84)
p = 0.253 p = 0.249 p = 0.033
r = −0.005, t (287) = 0.32, F (2286) = 3.68,
RO 29.16 (28.89) 28.89 (5.95) 28.27 (6.01) 30.56 (5.98) 28.72 (5.14)
p = 0.931 p = 0.748 p = 0.027
Sex University Degree
Age
Female Male χ2 Test Psychology E.C. Ed. Prim. Ed. χ2 Test
Learning Styles
Diverging 74 (rz = 0.9) 14 (rz = −0.9) 11 (rz = −2.6) 28 (rz = 1.3) 49 (rz = 1)
2
Assimilating 53 (rz = −1.3) 17 (rz = 1.3) χ (3) = 0.47, 26 (rz = 3.5) 16 (rz = −0.8) 28 (rz = −2.2) χ2 (6) = 15.77,
F (3280) = 0.52,
p = 0.470, p = 0.015,
Converging p = 0.668 35 (rz = −0.6) 10 (rz = 0.6) 11 (rz = −2.6) 9 (rz = −1.1) 25 (rz = 0.6)
V Cramer = 0.09 V Cramer = 0.16
Accommodat. 72 (rz = 0.8) 14 (rz = −0.8) 16 (rz = −0.9) 24 (rz = 0.3) 46 (rz = 0.5)

CE: concrete experience; AC: abstract conceptualization; AE, active experimentation; RO: reflective observation; E.C. Ed: early childhood
education; Prim. Ed.: primary education.

Finally, concerning learning styles, in absolute terms, the divergent (theoretical) style
predominated in psychology, while Prim. Ed. and E.C. Ed. students showed divergent
and convergent (practical) styles. When comparing degrees, we observed a heterogeneous
distribution. Bearing in mind the adjusted standardized residuals, the analyses indicated
that the psychology students were characterized by more assimilative styles and less
divergent and convergent styles. The E.C. Ed. students were uniformly distributed, while
the primary education students showed a lower tendency towards the assimilating style.

3.2. Assessment Methods: Academic Performance and Consistency and Their Relation to Learning
Dimensions and Styles
Analyses of variance were calculated to examine the relationship between learning
dimensions and performance levels for each type of assessment method (see Table 2).
While in the processing dimension (AE—RO), no differences were noted in performance
on the assessment tests in perception (AC—CE), differences were seen when comparing
means on the MCQ and the EQRTP. Specifically, Bonferroni’s post hoc tests on the MCQ
assessment method revealed that the lowest performing students showed significantly
lower scores in perception compared to the medium-high performance group (MD = −5.76,
p = 0.022). In relation to the EQRTP, a trend toward significance was noted. In this case,
Bonferroni’s post hoc tests revealed that high-performing students tended to have a higher
level of perception than those students with average performance in the open-ended
EQRTP question (MD = −3.48, p = 0.075).
With respect to score consistency across the assessment methods, a significant dif-
ference was noted between the consistency groups. Students who maintained consistent
medium-high performance had a significantly higher perception score compared to stu-
dents who had consistent medium-low performance (MD = 4.22, p = 0.024).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 11 of 18

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, comparisons of means and frequencies of learning dimensions and learning styles according to assessment method and level of consistency.

Learning Dimensions Learning Style

Assessment
Perception Processing
Method and
(AC—CE) ANOVA (AE—RO) ANOVA Divergent Assimilating Convergent Accommodating Test χ2
Performance
M (SD) M (SD)
MCQ
Low 2.09 (11.02) 4.30 (11.09) 18 (rz = 2) 8 (rz = −2.2) 4 (rz = −1.2) 16 (rz = 1.2)
χ2 (6) = 8.85,
Medium 7.84 (10.35) F (2134) = 4.96, 3.89 (9.50) F (2134) = 0.12, 9 (rz = −1.5) 16 (rz = 1.1) 8 (rz = 0.9) 12 (rz = −0.3) p = 0.182,
p = 0.008 p = 0.885 V Cramer = 0.18
High 7.80 (8.69) 3.28 (9.18) 12 (rz = −0.4) 16 (rz = 1) 7 (rz = 0.3) 11 (rz = −0.8)
SQ
Low 2.42 (8.74) 4.50 (9.30) 22 (rz = 1) 10 (rz = −0.5) 4 (rz = −1.1) 16 (rz = 0.2)
χ2 (6) = 6.24,
Medium 4.02 (8.97) F (2165) = 1.63, 2.80 (9.49) F (2165) = 1.07, 22 (rz = 0.7) 14 (rz = 1) 5 (rz = −0.7) 13 (rz = −1.1) p = 0.397,
p = 0.199 p = 0.344 V Cramer = 0.13
High 5.31 (7.83) 5.37 (9.76) 18 (rz = −1.6) 12 (rz = −0.5) 11 (rz = 1.8) 21 (rz = 0.9)
Activity
Low 4.62 (9.42) 4.68 (10.90) 19 (rz = 0) 13 (rz = −1.4) 10 (rz = 1.1) 21 (rz = 0.6)
χ2 (6) = 8.70,
Medium 5.10 (11.32) F (2176) = 0.39, 3 (10.46) F (2176) = 0.43, 18 (rz = 0) 20 (rz = 1.4) 2 (rz = −2.6) 20 (rz = 0.5) p = 0.191,
p = 0.678 p = 0.650 V Cramer = 0.16
High 6.27 (10.36) 4.16 (9.13) 17 (rz = 0) 15 (rz = 0) 10 (rz = 1.5) 14 (rz = −1.1)
EQRTP
Low 5.27 (9.26) 3.19 (10.11) 26 (rz = 0.7) 22 (rz = 0.6) 4 (rz = −2.5) 23 (rz = 0.5)
χ2 (6) = 14.19,
Medium 3.70 (10.21) F (2229) = 2.54, 4.18 (9.32) F (2229) = 0.80, 33 (rz = 2) 18 (rz = −1.3) 12 (rz = 0.4) 20 (rz = −1.1) p = 0.028,
p = 0.081 p = 0.451 V Cramer = 0.18
High 7.18 (9.35) 5.23 (10.22) 14 (rz = −2.8) 22 (rz = 0.7) 15 (rz = 2.1) 23 (rz = 0.6)
Level of Consistency and Performance
Medium-High 7.18 (9.75) 4.79 (8.90) 20 (rz = −1.4) 20 (rz = 0) 17 (rz = 2.6) 21 (rz = −0,6)
χ2 (6) = 10.13,
Medium-Low 2.96 (10.32) F (2216) = 3.60, 4.34 (9.70) F (2216) = 0.12, 29 (rz = 1.7) 16 (rz = −1) 5 (rz = −2.1) 24 (rz = 0.7) p = 0.119,
p = 0.029 p = 0.887 V Cramer = 0.15
Inconsistency 5.28 (8.90) 4 (10.87) 20 (rz = −0.4) 20 (rz = 1) 8 (rz = −0.5) 19 (rz = −0.2)
CE: concrete experience; AC: abstract conceptualization; AE: active experimentation; RO: reflective observation; MCQ: multiple choice question; SQ: short question; EQRTP: Elaboration Question on the
Relationship between Theory and Practice.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 12 of 18

In terms of learning styles, chi-square tests and standardized residuals showed a

significant variation in the EQRTP assessment test. The students who did not have a
convergent style performed poorly on this test, while the convergent students achieved
high scores.

3.3. Influence of Learning Dimensions on Performance Consistency in the Different

Assessment Methods
A binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze the influence of
the learning dimensions on the consistency of student performance in the different assess-
ment tests. The perception and processing dimensions were selected as covariates and
consistency (medium-high and medium-low performance) as a dependent variable. With
a total of 152 students, the classification table of the initial model correctly predicted the
position of 51.3%, with the model constant proving non-significant in the absence of the
covariates. After entering the covariates, the proportion of variance explained by the model
reached 6.1%, yielding a significant change (p = 0.029). Table 3 presents the resulting model
showing that the perception dimension significantly explains the distribution of students
according to a consistent medium-high or medium-low performance. Specifically, a unit of
change in perception increased the possibility of belonging to the consistent medium-high
performance group by 4.3%. In this case, the percentage of correct distribution in the final
model increased to 59.2%.

Table 3. Groups with consistent medium-high and medium-low performance: binomial logistic
regression model and classification results.

Nagelkerke’s R2 B Wald χ2 OR
Model 0.061 *
Perception −0.04 6.49 ** 0.957
Processing −0.01 0.39 0.989
Predicted n % of Correct Classifications
Classification
Medium-High 51 27 65.4%
Observed n
Medium-Low 35 39 52.7%
59.2%
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

4. Discussion
This study aims to provide recommendations for promoting excellence in teaching-
learning processes [6,51]. Following the 2030 agenda for sustainable development goals [7],
the design of this study focuses on students and how they learn. Given the diversity
and specialization of each university degree, we studied separately the learning styles of
primary education students and early childhood education students, rather than grouping
them together under the broad single category of education as is usually done in university
populations [2,17,52]. This is one of the strengths of this study, as it is the first to make this
distinction. Moreover, the data not only focus on the association between learning styles
and performance, but also further examine the results according to assessment method
(closed and open questions) and the consistency/inconsistency of performance among
assessment methods.
In line with our first objective, the exploratory results show a trend towards an
accommodating and diverging learning style, when considering the sample as a whole.
These learning styles show a common tendency towards CE in the perception dimension.
These results support those obtained in the application of experiential learning theory in
higher education with psychology and education students, who, as a whole, tend to score
high in the perception dimension, preferring divergent (psychology) and accommodating
(education) learning styles [2,17]. However, when describing and comparing learning styles
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 13 of 18

between university degrees, the results show that psychology students are predominantly
assimilators—that is, they are very theoretical students (tendency towards AC and RO).
This evidence is partially in contrast to the findings of the original authors of experimental
learning theory, who considered psychology students to be divergent. These results may
be explained by the curricular differences between the initial psychology courses in North
America and Europe [53]. Beginning in the first years of study, the curricula of European
universities include, to a greater extent, specific courses in which different theoretical
models are contrasted. Among Prim. Ed. and E.C. Ed. students, learning styles were quite
consistent. Previous evidence suggested a mainly accommodating, i.e., practical, learning
style for Prim. Ed. students [2]. These data are partially reproduced here, although the
diverging style also emerges in balance with the accommodating style. When comparing
scores between degrees, psychology students showed a significantly higher score in the
perception dimension (higher AC) than E.C. Ed. and Prim. Ed. students. No differences
were observed in the processing dimension, although psychology students did show
a higher score in RO. These results partially confirm our hypothesis of finding higher
RO among psychology students, which is associated with a greater ability to transform
theoretical contents [2]. Consequently, the findings of this research differ in part from
previous evidence, generally from the North American context. Therefore, this study raises
a new question to be addressed in further research on whether culture and educational
planning throughout developmental progression is influencing learning styles. Indeed, the
original authors of experiential learning theory have acknowledged that cultural influences
can affect learning styles [2,15]. In the sociodemographic dimensions, no significant
differences were found according to the sex or age of the students. These data support the
first hypothesis of the study and are consistent with previous research [2,54].
A central aspect of this study was the analysis of the possible differences between
Prim. Ed. students and E.C. Ed. students. In general terms, the distribution of learning
styles is similar with only one difference. E.C. Ed. students tend to be more assimilative
than Prim. Ed. Students, who are more convergent. E.C. Ed. students tend towards more
theoretical processing than Prim. Ed. students. According to previous studies [2,15], Prim.
Ed. students tend to prefer more active processing of content versus reflective processing.
However, the profile of E.C. Ed. students shows they tend to be more diverse in their
learning styles. This study is the first to provide evidence concerning learning preferences
in E.C. Ed. and shows the relevance of a detailed analysis of individual academic degrees
without generalizing the data for all education degrees, as has been the case until now.
With regard to our second objective, the associations between learning dimensions and
level of academic performance were examined for each assessment method: closed ques-
tions (MCQ and SQ, in this case) and open-ended questions (CEQ and EQRTP). Contrary to
our initial hypothesis, high-achieving students showed no significant differences in process-
ing (AE and RO) in any of the four assessment methods. These results do not coincide with
other results in the Spanish context, possibly because the most rigorous studies in Spain to
date have focused on engineering students whose exams are more numerical in nature and
very different from those of psychology and education students [22]. However, the results
partially support our initial hypothesis, in that the tendency towards AC in perception
is associated with high performance levels in the MCQ and the EQRTP. Findings from
previous studies are partially consistent with our results. Specifically, theoretical students
are associated with better performance in a variety of assessment tests [33,43,46]. Therefore,
completing tasks that involve complex cognitive processes can improve performance in
students with a preference for forming abstract relationships. Accordingly, in this study,
the closed questions posed (MCQ and SQ) involve different cognitive processes. The MCQ
favors recognition memory and also influences establishing relationships between response
alternatives in order to identify the correct option [32]. In contrast, the SQ focus on naming
a specific concept. It is therefore consistent that AC is a discriminating variable for high
performance as the difficulty of the assessment method increases.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 14 of 18

Similarly, elaboration questions tend to be less preferred by students [35]. In this case,
two types of SQ are posed: one involving the elaboration of an activity without establishing
explicit relationships with theoretical elements, and a second in which, through visualizing
a teaching-learning situation, students are asked to perform a theoretical analysis of the
situation depicted. Consistent with closed questions, high-performing students show
higher scores in AC. Again, this is a complex assessment method, which involves a process
of observing a practical situation, analysis, associating theory and practice, planning, and
elaborating content, facilitated by high scores in AC and a convergent style. Previous
studies have revealed that convergent students often achieve higher levels of performance
similar to our results [43,46]. Perhaps these students engage with ease on two levels, both in
theoretical and practical analysis, to establish two-way paths between theory and practice,
which would enhance their performance on tests requiring simultaneous analysis and
cognitive processes. Consequently, the data reveal that it is not only important to pay
attention to the difference in results between closed and open-ended questions [33,34], but
that within each assessment method, there may be different types of tests with different
implications depending on the complexity of the assessment.
Considering the differences in the learning dimensions of consistent/inconsistent
student performance, the results support our hypothesis that scores for perception were
significantly higher, tending towards AC, in consistent students with medium-high perfor-
mance compared to consistent students with medium-low performance. In fact, this study
provides partial evidence in favor of studies that show evidence of better performance by
students who tend to be more theoretical and poorer results among students who tend to
be more practical [22]. However, we should not make reductionist interpretations given
that in many cases, assessment methods favor students with a more theoretical approach
to learning, such as assimilating students. This would explain why in some studies the
more theoretical students show better performance compared to the results obtained in this
research [21,22]. Inconsistent students (high performance in one assessment method and
low performance in another method) had mean scores between consistent medium-high
and consistent medium-low performers. That 31% of students showed inconsistent perfor-
mance across assessment methods highlights the diversity in approaches to tasks. Previous
evidence has been controversial on this issue [36,55,56]. This study supports claims that
student performance can be influenced by assessment methods [33,38]. A possible bias
of the study was the influence of the first assessment method (MCQ) on the subsequent
ones [57]. That nearly one third of the sample showed inconsistency in their level of per-
formance, as well as that the order of presentation of the assessment methods was similar
in all groups, may imply a low impact of testing effect. These results provide support
regarding teachers using different evaluation methods. The choice of assessment method
can influence student performance according to their learning preferences. Moreover,
using a variety of assessment methods can help students with different learning profiles to
demonstrate their competencies effectively. For example, open-ended questions require
students to make greater use of recall memory, planning strategies, and the elaboration of
abstract relationships that must be conceptualized in question wording [15,33], whereas
MCQ involves processes of choice analysis associated with recognition memory [31].
Finally, regarding the third objective, our starting hypothesis considered the perception
dimension as a potential predictor of successful performance regardless of the assessment
method used. The data showed that, in line with our hypothesis, high scores in the per-
ception dimension (higher AC) significantly explain students’ belonging to the consistent
medium-high performance group in all assessment methods. However, the processing
dimension was not predictive of the potential consistency between assessment methods
and performance in each method. Ultimately, in contrast to previous studies that stress
the importance of RO [21,22], our findings show that AC is the variable associated with
successful performance irrespective of whether the student’s preference for establishing
conceptual relationships is subsequently complemented by AE or reflective analysis.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 15 of 18

The main limitation of this study is the extent of the interaction between academic
performance and assessment methods, which would have been greater had there been a
greater number of participants per university degree, as well as additional degrees. In this
line, one factor that could affect the external validity of our study is the composition of
the sample. On the one hand, in this study, the sample is overrepresented, especially by
Prim. Ed. students, and it was composed mainly of women. Although this is a limitation,
the distribution between men and women in these degrees in Spain (psychology and
education) follows a trend of unequal enrollment [58]. Therefore, complementing the study
with degrees in which more male students are enrolled may enhance the interaction and
effects between educational and sociodemographic dimensions according to experiential
learning theory. On the other hand, the participants in this study come from degrees in
which the study of learning processes is a central topic.
Future lines of research include other dimensions related to the teaching-learning situ-
ation such as study time or motivation, or aspects such as exam anxiety. Likewise, another
future line is to incorporate the effect of different teaching methodologies on the associa-
tions found, for example, collaborative methods or the use of virtual environments [59–61].
Teachers should also be involved in the study of learning styles. Defining the relationship
between learning styles within the teacher-centered educational process may generate tools
for the dynamic assessment of students, taking into account all educational agents [51,62].
At the same time, the distributed and long-term assessment of learning styles and dimen-
sions during the academic degree would enable the optimization of sequential resources to
help achieve the goals of sustainable development in education, meeting the specific needs
of the student throughout the curricular process. Additionally, to confirm a theoretical
model that associates learning styles and performance according to the assessment method,
studies are needed in different areas of knowledge such as engineering, art, and health
sciences, among others. These studies would make it possible to determine the relationship
between the variables studied (learning styles, performance, and assessment methods),
establishing their independence or dependence as a function of the teaching content.

5. Conclusions
The present study provides evidence for the use of teaching-learning processes based
on the identification of learning styles in university students to promote sustainable, holistic,
and individualized education. The data show that there are different learning preferences in
the three degrees evaluated: psychology, primary education and early childhood education.
Thus, psychology students stand out for their abstract perception of the contents and their
more theoretical orientation, Prim. Ed. students for their tendency to actively process the
contents, while E.C. Ed. students show a very diverse profile in their learning styles and
information processing that tends to be more theoretical compared to their peers in Prim.
Ed. In addition, this study emphasizes the influence of the different learning dimensions
(specifically, AC and converging style) on academic performance according to the various
assessment methods used. Previous evidence has associated learning styles with academic
performance [17,22]. This study, however, provides one of the first contributions to associate
learning dimensions and academic performance in four assessment methods: two open-
ended assessments and two closed-ended assessments. Different results are found for each
assessment method. Accordingly, high scores in perception and AC in particular are more
likely to be significant in complex assessment methods: MCQ and open-ended questions
linking practical experiences with theory. Therefore, regardless of whether the assessment
method corresponds to closed-ended questions or open-ended questions, the increased
difficulty of the assessment seems to be addressed more successfully by those students
with higher scores on AC. Similarly, this study finds that students can have consistent
medium-high academic performance, consistent medium-low performance, or inconsistent
scores according to the assessment method. In fact, almost one third of the student sample
shows inconsistent performance depending on the evaluation method. This supports
the evidence proposed by other authors that academic performance may vary according
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 16 of 18

to the assessment method used by teachers [33,38]. Therefore, the implications of using
different assessment methods should be explored. In this line, AC has been revealed as the
dimension that predicts medium-high performance in all assessment tests.
The implication of this study is not only descriptive. The aim is to ensure that
assessment methods are consistent with teaching processes in university education and
sensitive to learning styles. A proven shortcoming is that the use of assessment methods
that are inconsistent with individual teaching processes can lead to student academic
performance that does not correspond to the actual learning acquired. Given the importance
of AC, teachers in both undergraduate education and higher education should encourage
training in this dimension. Activities that can be implemented in the educational setting to
strengthen the abstract processes of perception include the use of concept maps, associating
texts with theories, producing syntheses and generalizations, establishing hierarchies and
classifications, identifying similarities and differences between theories, and linking them
with practice.

Author Contributions: Funding Acquisition, J.M.; Data collection, J.M. and J.F.L.; Conceptualization,
J.M., J.F.L. and J.P.-P.; methodology, J.M., J.F.L. and J.P.-P.; formal analysis, J.M., J.F.L. and J.P.-
P.; investigation, J.M., J.F.L. and J.P.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M., J.F.L. and J.P.-P.;
writing—review and editing, J.F.L.; supervision, J.M. and J.P.-P. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The University of Seville has financed the teaching innovation project of which this study
is a part.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by University of Seville (Resolution 11 October 2017,
“Support for Teaching Coordination and Innovation”, Department of Developmental and Educational
Psychology, US).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Acknowledgments: We wish to thank all the students for their participation in this study. The
authors would like to thank María Repice for her help with the English revision of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cardoso, S.; Rosa, M.J.; Stensaker, B. Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics. Assess. Eval.
High. Educ. 2016, 41, 950–965. [CrossRef]
2. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory 4.0: A Comprehensive Guide to the Theory, Psychometrics, Research on Validity
and Educational Applications; Hay Resources Direct: Boston, MA, USA, 2013.
3. Tormo-Carbó, G.; Seguí-Mas, E.; Oltra, V. Business ethics as a sustainability challenge: Higher education implications. Sustainability
2018, 10, 2717. [CrossRef]
4. Ghazivakili, Z.; Norouzi Nia, R.; Panahi, F.; Karimi, M.; Gholsorkhi, H.; Ahmadi, Z. The role of critical thinking skills and learning
styles of university students in their academic performance. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2014, 2, 95–102.
5. Hendry, G.D.; Heinrich, P.; Lyon, P.M.; Barratt, A.L.; Simpson, J.M.; Hyde, S.J.; Gonsalkorale, S.; Hyde, M.; Mgaieth, S.
Helping students understand their learning styles: Effects on study self-efficacy, preference for group work, and group climate.
Educ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 395–407. [CrossRef]
6. Deem, R.; Baird, J.A. The English Teaching Excellence (and Student Outcomes) Framework: Intelligent accountability in higher
education? J. Educ. Chang. 2020, 21, 215–243. [CrossRef]
7. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations Population Fund: New
York, NY, USA, 2015.
8. Watson, M.K.; Pelkey, J.; Noyes, C.; Rodgers, M.O. Using Kolb’s Learning Cycle to Improve Student Sustainability Knowledge.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4602. [CrossRef]
9. Alonso, C.; Gallego, D.; Honey, P. Los Estilos de Aprendizaje. Procedimientos de Diagnóstico y Mejora; Mensajero: Bilbao, Spain, 1997.
10. Kalleberg, A.L.; Dunn, M. Institutional Determinants of Labor Market Outcomes for Community College Students in North
Carolina. Community Coll. Rev. 2015, 43, 224–244. [CrossRef]
11. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall Inc. 1984, 20–38.
[CrossRef]
12. White, R.K.; Jantrania, A. Computer program design for land treatment systems. Biocycle 1989, 30, 66–67.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 17 of 18

13. Keefe, J.W. Profiling and Utilizing Learning Style; NASSP Learning Style Series; NASSP: Reston, VA, USA, 1988.
14. Myers, I.B. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Consulting Psychologists Press:
Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1998.
15. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad. Manag.
Learn. Educ. 2005, 4, 193–212. [CrossRef]
16. Sadler-Smith, E. Does the Learning Styles Questionnaire Measure Style or Process? a Reply to Swailes and Senior (1999). Int. J.
Sel. Assess. 2001, 9, 207–214. [CrossRef]
17. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3. 1 2005 Technical Specifications; Hay Resources Direct: Boston,
MA, USA, 2005.
18. Romero, L.N.; Salinas, V.; Mortera, F.J. Estilos de aprendizaje basados en el modelo de Kolb en la educación virtual. Apert. Rev.
Innov. Educ. 2010, 2, 72–85.
19. Sabariego, M.; Regos, R.A.; Villaverde, V.A.; José, M.; Tarazona, C.; Benito, V.D.; Serrano, L.R.; Dolores, M.; González, S. El
Pensamiento Reflexivo a Través De Las Metodologías Narrativas: Experiencias de Innovación en Educación Superior; Octaedro: Barcelona,
Spain, 2018.
20. Rodríguez, H.; Pirul, J.; Robles, J.; Pérez, L.; Vásquez, E.; Galaz, I.; Cuellar, C.; Díaz, H.; Arriaza, C. Analysis of learning styles in
Medical students in the University of Chile. Educ. Med. 2018, 19, 2–8. [CrossRef]
21. Bahamón, M.; Viancha, M.; Alarcón, L.; Bohorquez Olaya, C.I. Estilos y estrategias de aprendizaje: Una revisión empírica y
conceptual de los últimos diez años. Pensam. Psicol. 2012, 10, 129–144.
22. Gargallo, B.; Almerich, G.; Suárez, J.M.; García, E.; Garfella, P.R. Learning styles and approaches to learning in excellent and
average first-year university students. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2013, 28, 1361–1379. [CrossRef]
23. Gravini, M.; Cabrera, E.; Ávila, V.; Vargás, I. Estrategias de enseñanza en docentes y estilos de aprendizaje en estudiantes del
programa de psicología de la Universidad Simón Bolívar, Barranquilla. Rev. Estilos Aprendiz 2009, 3, 124–140.
24. İlçin, M.; Tomruk, N.; Yeşilyaprak, S.S.; Karadibak, D.; Savcı, S. The relationship between learning styles and academic
performance in Turkish physiotherapy students. Physiotherapy 2016, 102, e84–e85. [CrossRef]
25. Brown, T.; Cosgriff, T.; French, G. Learning style preferences of occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech pathology
students: A comparative study. Internet J. Allied Health Sci. Pract. 2008, 6, 7.
26. D’Amore, A.; James, S.; Mitchell, E.K.L. Learning styles of first-year undergraduate nursing and midwifery students: A cross-
sectional survey utilising the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Nurse Educ. Today 2012, 32, 506–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Shein, P.P.; Chiou, W. Bin Teachers as role models for students’ learning styles. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2011, 39, 1097–1104. [CrossRef]
28. Steinmayr, R.; Meißner, A.; Weidinger, A.F.; Wirthwein, L. Academic Achievement. Oxford Bibliographie; Oxford University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2015.
29. Ackerman, D.S.; Hu, J. Effect of type of curriculum on educational outcomes and motivation among marketing students with
different learning styles. J. Mark. Educ. 2011, 33, 273–284. [CrossRef]
30. Urda, J.; Ramocki, S.P. Assessing students’ performance by measured patterns of perceived strengths: Does preference make a
difference? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2015, 40, 33–44. [CrossRef]
31. Pham, H.; Trigg, M.; Wu, S.; O’Connell, A.; Harry, C.; Barnard, J.; Devitt, P. Choosing medical assessments: Does the multiple-
choice question make the grade? Educ. Health Chang. Learn. Pract. 2018, 31, 65–71. [CrossRef]
32. Schuwirth, L.W.T.; Van Der Vleuten, C.P.M.; Donkers, H.H.L.M. A closer look at cueing effects in multiple-choice questions.
Med. Educ. 1996, 30, 44–49. [CrossRef]
33. Scouller, K. The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus
assignment essay. High. Educ. 1998, 35, 453–472. [CrossRef]
34. Palmer, E.J.; Duggan, P.; Devitt, P.G.; Russell, R. The modified essay question: Its exit from the exit examination. Med. Teach. 2010,
32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Struyven, K.; Dochy, F.; Janssens, S. Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review.
Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2005, 30, 325–341. [CrossRef]
36. Bleske-Recheka, A.; Zeuga, N.; Webbb, R.M. Discrepant performance on multiplechoice and short answer assessments and the
relation of performance to general scholastic aptitude. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2007, 32, 89–105. [CrossRef]
37. Hogan, T. Constructed-response approaches for classroom assessment. In Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment;
McMillan, J., Ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 275–293.
38. Bridgeman, B.; Morgan, R. Success in College for Students with Discrepancies between Performance on Multiple-Choice and
Essay Tests. J. Educ. Psychol. 1996, 88, 333–340. [CrossRef]
39. Gilar-Corbi, R.; Pozo-Rico, T.; Castejón, J.L.; Sánchez, T.; Sandoval-Palis, I.; Vidal, J. Academic achievement and failure in
university studies: Motivational and emotional factors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9798. [CrossRef]
40. Schneider, M.; Preckel, F. Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses.
Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 565–600. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Yazici, H.J. Role of learning style preferences and interactive response systems on student learning outcomes. Int. J. Inf. Oper.
Manag. Educ. 2016, 6, 109. [CrossRef]
42. Lynch, T.G.; Woelfl, N.N.; Steele, D.J.; Hanssen, C.S. Learning style influences student examination performance. Am. J. Surg.
1998, 176, 62–66. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 3341 18 of 18

43. Rutz, E. Learning Styles and Educational Performance: Implications for Professional Development Programs. In Proceedings of
the CIEC Conference, Tucson, AZ, USA, 28–31 January 2003.
44. Camarero, F.J.; de Martín, F.A.; Herrero, F.J. Estilos y estrategias de aprendizaje en estudiantes universitarios. Psicothema 2000, 12,
615–622.
45. Oughton, J.M.; Reed, W.M. The effect of hypermedia knowledge and learning style on student—centered concept maps about
hypermedia. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 2000, 32, 366–384. [CrossRef]
46. Cornwell, J.M.; Manfredo, P.A. Kolb’S Learning Style Theory Revisited. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1994, 54, 317–327. [CrossRef]
47. Socarrás, V.; Donat, R.; Fornons, D.; Vaque, C.; Milà, R. Estilos de aprendizaje identificados según el modelo VARK y el
cuestionario de Kolb: Implicación en la Educación para la Salud. Cult. Educ. Soc. 2015, 6, 63–76.
48. La Vida Secreta de los Niños: ¡Es el cumpleaños de Eneko! [Video]. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3
NSTCosyqA (accessed on 11 October 2018).
49. Maya, J.; Maraver, J. Teaching-learning processes: Application of educational psychodrama in the university setting. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3922. [CrossRef]
50. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2019.
51. Bhattacharyya, E. Learning Style and Its Impact in Higher Education and Human Capital Needs. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,
123, 485–494. [CrossRef]
52. Newton, P.M.; Miah, M. Evidence-based higher education—Is the learning styles «myth» important? Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 444.
[CrossRef]
53. Dryjanska, L.; Giua, M. Diversified path to the psychological career: Europe vs. USA. Int. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 20, 51–56.
54. Yonker, J.E. The relationship of deep and surface study approaches on factual and applied test-bank multiple-choice question
performance. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2011, 36, 673–686. [CrossRef]
55. Bataineh, Z.M. Comparison of Students’ Performance in Multiple-Choice vs. Short Answer Question Formats in Anatomy Spotter
Exams. FASEB J. 2019, 33, 439.3. [CrossRef]
56. Li, C.; Zhou, H. Enhancing the Efficiency of Massive Online Learning by Integrating Intelligent Analysis into MOOCs with an
Application to Education of Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 468. [CrossRef]
57. Roediger, H.L.; Karpicke, J.D. The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice.
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. J. Assoc. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 1, 181–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Sáinz, M.; Martínez-Cantos, J.L.; Rodó-de-Zárate, M.; Romano, M.J.; Arroyo, L.; Fàbregues, S. Young Spanish People’s Gendered
Representations of People Working in STEM. A Qualitative Study. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 996. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. González-Zamar, M.D.; Abad-Segura, E. Implications of Virtual Reality in Arts Education: Research Analysis in the Context of
Higher Education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 225. [CrossRef]
60. Magulod, G. Learning styles, study habits and academic performance of Filipino University students in applied science courses:
Implications for instruction. J. Tech. Sci. Educ. 2019, 9, 2. [CrossRef]
61. Wang, R.; Lowe, R.; Newton, S.; Kocaturk, T. Task complexity and learning styles in situated virtual learning environments for
construction higher education. Autom. Constr. 2020, 113, 103148. [CrossRef]
62. Buldu, M.; Buldu, N. Concept mapping as a formative assessment in college classrooms: Measuring usefulness and student
satisfaction. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 2099–2104. [CrossRef]