


































Chowdhury_A_Promotion&Tenure


Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 2, Issue 2, 2021 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Heather L. Young, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall. PO Box 110540, Gainesville. FL 32611, 
heather.young@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2236-5054 

2. Bradley M. Coleman, Graduate Assistant, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
bradleycoleman@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-5747 

3. Carla B. Jagger, Assistant Professor, University of Florida, 307B Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
carlajagger@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9796-6271 

4. Peyton E. Sweet Moore, Graduate Student, University of Florida, 408 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
psweetmoore@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9974-1698 

5. J. C. Bunch, Associate Professor, University of Florida, 307A Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, 
bunchj@ufl.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8729-2349 

 
97 

 

Exploring the Preferred Learning Style of Preservice Teachers 
and How This Influences Their Philosophy of Teaching 

 
H. Young1, B. Coleman2, C. Jagger3, P. Sweet Moore4, J.C. Bunch5 

 
 

Abstract 
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to address how preservice teachers’ preferred learning style 
influences their philosophy of teaching agricultural education. A convergent parallel mixed methods design 
was used in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and 
then merged for combined analysis. In this study, we identified 17 preservice teachers’ learning style and then 
assessed how their learning style influenced their philosophy statement. We found 59% of the teaching 
philosophy statements were similar to the preservice teachers’ learning style, 18% were different, and 23% 
were deemed inconclusive. It appears the preferred learning style of preservice teachers does carry through 
into their teaching philosophy. The percentage of inconclusive statements show that teachers will incorporate 
multiple learning styles to meet the diverse learning needs of their students. When the various learning styles 
of a class are met, it is suggested that the learning experience will be more effective and beneficial for the 
learners. Based on the findings of this study, we recommend implementing professional development 
sessions to help teachers blend their preferred learning style with the needs of their learners. Additionally, 
further research is needed to compare teachers’ actual practice with their teaching philosophies.    
 
 
Keywords 

Teaching philosophies, agricultural education, Kolb LSI, mixed methods 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   98 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Novice middle and high school teachers often teach how they were taught or how the 
individual teacher prefers to learn (Brown, 2003). However, the way teachers were taught may 
often times be different than the learning preferences found in a classroom of diverse learners. 
Recognizing students learn in different ways, middle and high school teachers have adjusted 
their pedagogical approaches by using multiple teaching methods to help meet the needs of 
their diverse learners (Brown, 2003; Delahoussaye, 2002; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Hernandez 
et al., 2020; Hydrie & Naqvi, 2021; Kolb & Kolb, 2006; Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009; Miller, 
2001; Seaman & Fellenz, 1990). Typically, novice teachers have developed a teaching 
philosophy as part of their teacher preparation program to assist novice teachers in guiding 
their practice (Caukin & Brinthaupt, 2017).   
 
Schönwetter et al. (2002) purported that an effective teaching philosophy statement includes 
characteristics of one’s teaching strategies, rationale for teaching, guiding teaching behaviors, 
organizing evaluation of teaching, promoting personal and professional development, and 
encouraging the sharing of effective teaching. A teaching philosophy should specifically state 
one’s definition of teaching, definition of learning, the view of the learner, the goals and 
expectations of the student - teacher relationship, a discussion of teaching methods, as well as 
a discussion of evaluation (Schönwetter et al., 2002).  Literature supports the idea of novice 
teachers teaching how they were taught (Beegle & Coffee, 1991; Oleson & Hora, 2014). 
Further, positive results are achieved when agriscience students are taught using their 
preferred learning style (Baker & Robinson, 2019; Smith & Rayfield, 2019). Therefore, there is a 
need to investigate how preservice teachers’ learning styles influence their initial teaching 
philosophies, which could influence their pedagogical preferences as a novice teacher.  
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 

The conceptual framework used for this study was Kolb’s (2017) Learning Style Inventory (LSI). 
The LSI is founded upon the principles of Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning. Kolb 
(2017) revised the LSI to include nine different learning styles instead of the original four, 
including, initiating, experiencing, imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, 
and balancing.  
 
The initiating learning style is identified by initiating action to deal with varying experiences and 
situations. Experiencing learning style is identified by finding meaning from being deeply 
involved in experiences. Individuals with an imagining learning style can imagine the 
possibilities based on what they have observed and reflected upon. They are aware of people’s 
feelings and values by listening and having an open mind. Someone with a reflecting learning 
style understands others’ point of view and can grasp what is happening in a situation, while 
being able to explain it in detail. Individuals with an analyzing learning style are seen as logical 
and typically excel in organizing varying information in a concise form, creating conceptual 
models, and rational thinking (Kolb, 2017). 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   99 
 

The thinking learning style is identified by the ability for logical reasoning and rational decision 
making, as well as strong data analysis skills. Goal setting, decision making, problem-solving, 
and evaluating solutions are all strengths of those with a deciding learning style. The acting 
learning style is described as a combination of technical knowledge, personal relationships, and 
getting projects completed. Individuals with the acting learning style are focused on setting 
goals to help them get tasks accomplished by testing their ideas with experiences in the area 
and concepts they have created to complete the task. Balancing learning style individuals 
typically have the ability to be flexible and work well within diverse groups. Since they do well 
with balancing between all types of learning, they are often seen as being indecisive and having 
their ‘hands in too many pots’, where they are not able to focus on the topic at hand (Kolb, 
2017). 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this mixed methods study was to address how preservice teachers’ preferred 
learning style influences their philosophy of teaching agricultural education. A convergent 
parallel mixed methods design was used in which quantitative and qualitative data were 
collected simultaneously, analyzed separately, and then merged for combined analysis 
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Descriptive, quantitative data were used to describe the 
preservice teachers’ preferred learning style category. Qualitative data, in the form of 
preservice teachers’ teaching philosophy statements, were used in comparison with their 
preferred learning style. The data were then merged in a data matrix and analyzed to address 
the following research questions:  
1. What are the preservice teachers’ preferred learning styles as defined by the Kolb LSI 

instrument? 
2. How do preservice teachers’ preferred learning style influence their teaching philosophy 

statements?   
 

Methods 
 
A convergent parallel mixed method design was used (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). All data 
were collected from preservice teachers enrolled in, AEC 4224: Special Methods in Teaching 
Agricultural Education, which is the student teaching preparation block course in the 
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida. The first 
strand of data was quantitative and measured the preservice teachers’ preferred learning style. 
The qualitative strand of data included the preservice teachers’ teaching philosophy 
statements. In total, nineteen teaching philosophy statements (N = 19) were submitted, 
however, only 17 philosophies (n = 17) were analyzed due to incomplete data. Participant 
demographics included 16 females and one male. There were 16 preservice teachers who 
identified as White, and one preservice teacher identified as Hispanic. 
 
Researchers’ biases and perspectives are potentially influential of the research process and 
should be addressed to help in reducing bias (Patton, 2002). Of the five researchers, two are 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   100 
 

university agricultural teacher education faculty. One faculty member currently serves as the 
teacher certification program coordinator and the lead instructor of the student teacher 
preparation block course. Three of the researchers are graduate students in agricultural 
education. Weekly meetings were held among the authorship team to reduce bias and share 
perspectives. 
 
Data Collection and Instrumentation   
Each preservice teacher completed Kolb’s LSI questionnaire. This instrument consists of 12-
items which describe learning situations where participants rank themselves from one to four, 
with 1 = least like you and 4 = most like you. In addition to the LSI, preservice teachers were 
asked to compose their teaching philosophies based on the following questions: (a) What do 
you teach? (b) Why do you teach? (c) How do you view your students? (d) How do you teach? 
(e) How do you know if you have been successful? 
 
Data Analysis 
For the quantitative strand of data, preservice teachers’ LSI scores were calculated following 
the LSI grid design to establish their score and learning style. To analyze the qualitative data 
strand, each philosophy statement was analyzed deductively for congruent and discrepant 
statements according to their calculated learning style. For example, a philosophy statement 
from a preservice teacher with an initiating learning style was analyzed, keeping those 
characteristics in mind, to determine if their philosophy statement reflected that learning style. 
Congruent statements were those closely related to the learning style characteristics, as 
described in the LSI workbook (Kolb, 2017). Additionally, LSI scores that reflected one learning 
style and a philosophy statement that reflected another learning style in the same quadrant 
were considered similar and analyzed as congruent. Discrepant statements were identified as 
being related to any other learning style outside of the participant’s learning style quadrant on 
the LSI scoring grid. In other words, if their LSI score fell in the top left quadrant (initiating) but 
had mostly statements clearly reflecting a learning style from another quadrant (e.g., imaging, 
reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding) they were analyzed as discrepant. Finally, if 50% or 
more of the philosophy statement did not align with a specific learning style, it was considered 
an inconclusive case. 
 
While analyzing the philosophy statements each participant’s learning style was recorded at the 
top of their work and annotated notes were recorded throughout to identify congruent or 
discrepant statements to specific learning styles. Additionally, each philosophy statement was 
reanalyzed multiple times to validate the annotated analysis. These steps helped to establish 
the validity of the reported findings. Finally, the results of the two strands of data were 
integrated through the comparison of data across learning style groups (Creswell & Plano Clark, 
2018; Bazeley, 2009). This integration was situated into a data matrix which featured the 
quantitative results and a summary of qualitative findings. 

 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   101 
 

Findings 
 

Research Question One: What are the preservice teachers’ preferred learning styles as defined 
by the Kolb LSI instrument?   
 
Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the learning styles of each preservice teacher 
based on the Kolb LSI instrument. Within the sample (n = 17), 41.2% (ƒ = 7) of the preservice 
teachers had an acting learning style, 29.4% (ƒ = 5) had an initiating learning style, 11.8% (ƒ = 2) 
had a balancing learning style, 5.9% (ƒ = 1) had an experiencing learning style, 5.9% (ƒ = 1) had a 
reflecting learning style, and 5.9% (ƒ = 1) had a thinking learning style. There were no imagining, 
deciding, or analyzing learning styles among the preservice teachers. The individual 
participants’ learning styles are reported in Table 1.  
 
Table 1 
 
Summary of Participants’ Individual Kolb LSI Learning Styles   
Kolb Learning Style Participant 
Acting Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 5, Teacher 7, Teacher 8, Teacher 9, 

Teacher 15 
Initiating Teacher 3, Teacher 4, Teacher 10, Teacher 13, Teacher 16 
Balancing Teacher 14, Teacher 17 
Reflecting Teacher 6 
Thinking Teacher 11 
Experiencing Teacher 12 

 
Research Question Two: How do preservice teachers’ preferred learning style influence their 
teaching philosophy statements?   
 
Qualitative data were collected on the preservice teachers’ philosophy statements and were 
analyzed based on the preservice teachers’ developed teaching philosophy statement. The 
objective was to determine whether or not the personal learning style of the preservice 
teachers had an influence on their teaching philosophy statements. There were ten teachers (1, 
2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17) who were congruent regarding their philosophy statements and 
their LSI scores. Three teachers (7, 14, 16) had discrepant statements within their philosophy 
statement compared to their LSI scores. There were four preservice teachers (3, 4, 5, 11) who 
had multiple learning styles present in their teaching philosophy statement and were reported 
as inconclusive.  
 
Acting 
The most frequently occurring learning style within the teaching philosophies was the acting 
learning style. Acting learners do well with combining tasks, teammate needs, and addressing 
questions and problems, while still being personable and responsible. They learn best when 
they are involved in conversations with co-workers and within teams. Acting learners prefer to 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   102 
 

work with a teacher who has practical real-life experience students can learn from. Teachers 1, 
2, 8, 9, 14, and 15 were identified as acting style based upon their teaching statements. All of 
these teachers, except for 14, had statements which aligned with their LSI scores, as acting, 
while teacher 14 was discrepant to their LSI score of balancing.  
 
Participants within this learning style had the following congruent statements within their 
philosophies, “A quality SAE is one where students go beyond the classroom and take their 
learning into their own hands and into the real world…to develop their own interests so the 
skills they acquire may be useful” (Teacher 9). Teacher 15 believes “the [students’] 
responsibilities are to understand and demonstrate their knowledge of all subjects…in an 
agriculture-based classroom…The student should engage in classroom activities and 
discussions…learning how to apply the things they’ve learned in class.” Teacher 8 similarly 
mentioned “I will provide them knowledge for specified courses, which they will be able to 
apply in real life scenarios. Students will be advised to [participate] in a supervised agriculture 
experience (SAE) of their interest.” 
 
Initiating 
The next learning style from the teaching philosophies was the initiating learning style, which 
teachers 10 and 13 were identified as and were congruent with their LSI score. Characteristics 
of this learning style are preferring a hands-on, real-life learning situation; willingness to try out 
new and challenging experiences; volunteering for leadership positions; starting new projects, 
taking risks, identifying new strategies for completion; learners often act on ‘gut’ feelings, 
spontaneity, energetic, persuasion, and courage. Initiating learners usually excel in learning 
environments where they can work together in groups to try out different ways to complete 
the assignment. Teacher 10 presents the desire to serve as a mentor to students by “leading by 
example and [using] my agricultural experiences to guide and direct them. I will make it a 
priority to help students find their passion through supervised agriculture experiences.” 
Teacher 13 “strongly believes in the educational power of immersing children into the real-
world application of the lesson at hand.” 
 
Reflecting 
The third learning style, which included teacher 6 and 7; 6 being congruent with reflecting and 
7 being discrepant of their LSI score of acting, was the reflecting learning style. These preservice 
teachers connect experiences and ideas through sustained reflection. Reflective learners are 
able to organize information in a way to aid reflection. They enjoy being able to come up with 
various solutions or approaches to a problem and offering detailed insight. Since reflective 
learners are quiet, sensitive, and thorough, interjecting in a group conversation or being the 
one to take action is often difficult for them.  
 
A couple congruent statements include, “I know [I have accomplished my purpose] if they walk 
out of my classroom knowing more than they did before and fostering a passion for the 
agricultural industry” (Teacher 7). Teacher 6 stated “teaching styles have a great impact on the 
audience you are trying to reach. I will teach to accommodate different learning styles to the 
best of my ability.” 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   103 
 

Experiencing 
The fourth learning style was experiencing. Teacher 12’s philosophy statement similarly 
identified with the experiencing learning style. Experiencing learners will feed off constructive 
feedback in both their professional and personal lives, as well as desiring to build personal 
relationships with their teachers. They enjoy working in groups but need time to work alone to 
finalize a project; they prefer learning by meaningful interactions and continuing conversations 
with friends and co-workers; they are open minded, accepting, helpful, empathetic, sensitive to 
others’ feelings, innovative, and take unique approaches to problem solving. This particular 
preservice teacher found meaning from deep involvement in experiences. “I incorporate 
exploration and hands-on learning. I listen to the desires of students while meeting it with the 
expectations of the world they are going into.” 
 
Balancing 
The fifth learning style was the balancing learning style, in which teacher 17’s philosophy 
statement identified with and was aligned to their LSI score. This preservice teacher adapted by 
weighing the pros and cons of acting versus reflecting and experiencing versus thinking. “Each 
student is unique and has their own experiences that will inspire them to make a change…I 
teach my students while they are in groups so that they can learn to communicate and help one 
another.” In reference to individuals with a balancing learning style, they can easily change 
from thinking to feeling and reflecting to acting, all depending on the situation, allowing them 
to fill in the missing learning style within the team. Considering their ability to adapt and fit 
whatever style is needed, they often switch careers due to their changing interests, 
consequently leading them in a different direction. 
 
Imagining 
The sixth learning style was the imagining learning style, which included teacher 16 who was 
discrepant from their LSI score of initiating. Observing and reflecting on experiences and 
individual’s feelings aid in their learning, as well as allowing them to connect differences within 
the group. They are open to different thoughts and opinions due to their ability to look at 
things with multiple points of view. Observation leads action with this learning style which 
allows learners to think through cause-and-effect situations for a certain action and helps to 
create alternative solutions to the problem. This preservice teacher discussed imagining the 
possibilities by observing and reflecting on experiences. “I believe it is my job to learn about my 
students and try to understand them.” 
 
Inconclusive 
Teachers 3, 4, 5, and 11 had philosophy statements which aligned with multiple learning styles 
and did not fully connect back to their identified learning style. Teachers 3 and 4 had LSI scores 
that were initiating, teacher 5 had an LSI score that was acting, and teacher 11 had an LSI score 
of thinking. These preservice teachers’ philosophy statements did not specifically fit 
into one particular learning style. Examples from these teachers’ philosophy statements are 
presented in Table 2 under both the congruent and discrepant columns highlighting several 
quotes from each preservice teacher representing multiple learning styles.  
 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   104 
 

Table 2 
 
Comparing Teaching Philosophy Statements of Preservice Teachers and Their Preferred Learning 
Styles 

Congruent Statements   Discrepant Statements   
Acting Style. A strong motivation for goal directed action that integrates people and tasks 
(f = 7 Teachers) 

 “I will have…surveys at the beginning and end 
of the year…students write down what they 
wish to accomplish during the class and then 
follow with what they believe should be 
improved in the program at the end of the 
class” (Teacher 1). 

 
“…you cannot learn everything from a 

PowerPoint and lecture, a lot of things in 
agriculture needs to be experienced by the 
student in order for them to fully understand 
how things work” (Teacher 2). 

 
“My agriculture program stems from the idea of 

creating skilled, agriculturally literate people 
who will be lifelong learners” (Teacher 8).  

 
“I believe that using group projects, discussions, 

and debate in my classroom allows students 
to build interpersonal skills and learn from 
each other” (Teacher 9). 

 
“My students will be taught how to speak in 

front of others… [and] dress professionally. 
There is no specific class to give students 
simple lessons for necessary parts of life, such 
as job interview skills” (Teacher 15).  

“I plan to rely on various teaching methods to 
ensure I equip each student with the 
materials needed for achievement” (Teacher 
5). 
 

“…benefits of blending various teaching 
methods throughout a lesson is vital for 
learning and retaining the information” 
(Teacher 5). 
 
“Learning is the first requirement, but most 

important is retaining and that is the true 
necessity for success. Being open about 
receiving feedback is essential, I value my 
students’ opinion and appreciate their 
honest criticisms” (Teacher 5). 

 
“My students reflect myself and my teaching. 

If I do my job well…students will be 
knowledgeable, informed, and able to go 
into the world confidently; sharing the 
knowledge they have gained through my 
teaching” (Teacher 7). 

Initiating Style. Initiating action to deal with experiences and situations 
(f = 5 Teachers)   

“…technology should not replace the physical 
experience that students receive in a land lab. 
Students will have the opportunity to get their 
hands dirty and follow the FFA motto by ‘Doing 
to Learn” (Teacher 4). 
 

“I will…readjust my lessons based on the 
community needs and new knowledge I have 
gained over my last year” (Teacher 3). 
  



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   105 
 

“My teaching style is unique to itself in that it 
reflects not only how I learn but also how I was 
previously taught. A combination of lectures, 
labs, practicums, and group and independent 
work will be included in my teaching. I believe 
students learn best when they are presented 
content in a variety of ways” (Teacher 10). 
 
“Hands-on and investigative learning 
techniques will be utilized to encourage 
students to explore and discover new concepts 
on their own” (Teacher 13). 

“…my students are a team; I see the value and 
determination in the individuals that I am 
helping them become” (Teacher 3). 
 
“I encourage constructive criticism and 
feedback because I owe it to my students to 
be the teacher they deserve” (Teacher 3). 
 
“...Important to chart student progress as 
they move through the program...tested on 
information before, during, and after... 
success can be viewed in the land lab as they 
will apply what they learn in class” (Teacher 
4). 
 
“I will ask for honest feedback and make sure 
all students that wish to speak, have a chance 
to do so…students should be encouraged to 
be their true authentic self, it is our difference 
that brings us together” (Teacher 4). 
 
“I am always working on bettering myself, to 
better serve my students. I constantly look to 
improve myself…through reflection and 
professional development” (Teacher 16).  
  

Balancing Style. Adapting by weighing the pros and cons of acting versus reflecting, and 
experiencing versus thinking (f = 2 Teachers)  

“I teach agriculture…[but]…I also teach life 
lessons [to] help prepare and guide my students 
for their future…I teach beneficial skills such as 
communication, leadership, public speaking, 
record management, how to work together, 
and help others” (Teacher 17). 

“My goal as an agriculture teacher is to teach 
any course needed in the community or 
desired by students, to prepare them for the 
[future]. My objective is to produce 
knowledgeable, skilled, lifelong learners who 
are inspired to continue ag ed” (Teacher 14).  
  

Experiencing Style. Finding meaning from deep involvement in experience   
(f = 1 Teacher) 

“I teach to inspire…to be passionate…I teach 
because these were all things my teacher 
taught me, and I don’t want students to go 
through the entire school system without 
knowing what it’s like to have someone 
rooting for you” (Teacher 12). 

 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   106 
 

Reflecting Style. Connecting experience and ideas through sustained reflection 
(f = 1 Teacher)   

“Group style learning encompassing “Think-
Pair-Share” techniques will be used to allow 
students the ability to connect their ideas with 
others” (Teacher 6). 

 
“I will record [my] lectures and observe these to 

find areas of improvement and will openly ask 
for the other educators’ observations…attend 
[professional development] to meet [student] 
needs …” (Teacher 6). 

  

   

 Thinking Style. Disciplined involvement in abstract reasoning and logical reasoning  
(f = 1 Teacher)  

“I vow as a teacher to always be respectful and 
prepared for class. I hope that I am seen as a 
resource to students not only in the 
classroom, but in real-life setting” (Teacher 
11). 

 
“I count myself as successful if students exit the 

program as informed, skilled, productive 
citizens…program’s growth can be measured 
through certification exams, student feedback, 
community support, student career choices” 
(Teacher 11). 

“Much of an agriculture program’s best 
resources are found outside of the 
classroom…Farmers, agribusinessmen, 
grocery store managers, florists, and others 
all have skills that can showcase the career 
opportunities in agriculture” (Teacher 11). 

“Auditory, kinesthetic, visual learners will find 
project-based assignments engaging and 
applicable to life” (Teacher 11). 

 
Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 

 
The purpose of this study was to determine if a preservice teachers’ learning style transfers to 
their teaching philosophy statement. The first aim of the study was to identify preservice 
teachers’ learning styles through Kolb’s (2017) LSI. The majority (n = 12) of preservice teachers 
identified with the acting or initiating learning styles. Appearing side-by-side on the LSI grid and 
connecting strongly to active experimentation and concrete experiences within experiential 
learning, these learners are focused on creating a plan and implementing it. As described by 
Kolb (2017), both of these learning styles have strong connections to real-world and hands-on 
experiences, which tend to be key teaching approaches within agricultural education. 
Additionally, five of the preservice teachers were split across the balancing (n = 2), thinking (n = 
1), reflecting (n = 1), and experiencing (n = 1) learning styles, all of which appear across the 
central axis of the LSI grid, representing how learners work from determining what is a problem 
and how they can carry out the solution for that problem. Imagining, deciding, and analyzing 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   107 
 

learning styles were not among the learning styles with which this group of preservice teachers 
identified. Each of these learning styles fall in three of the four corners on the LSI grid, which 
would require an individual to have strong preferences towards characteristics of that style, 
such as choosing a solution, recognizing problems with that solution, and considering any 
alternative solutions.  
 
The second part of the study was to analyze the preservice teachers’ philosophy statements 
and deductively align data to their calculated learning style, as defined by their LSI score. Ten 
(59%) preservice teachers’ teaching philosophies appeared to align with their assigned style 
from the LSI. It should be noted, while analyzing preservice teachers’ philosophy statements 
from the acting and initiating styles, if there were elements that resembled the inclusion of 
real-world applications, they were coded as being congruent to their respective learning style 
since these two styles are so closely related. From this trend, it appears that the preferred 
learning style does translate into their teaching philosophy potentially linking back to the way 
they were taught (Beegle & Coffee, 1991; Oleson & Hora, 2014). Additionally, three (18%) 
philosophies were different from the teachers preferred learning styles and there were four 
(23%) philosophies which were deemed inconclusive when compared to their preferred 
learning style. These differences from the teachers’ preferred learning style aligns more with 
the notion by Sankey and Foster (2012) and Kolb (1984) that teachers often incorporate 
multiple learning styles to match the diverse learning preferences of their students. Since the 
inconclusive philosophy statements reflect multiple learning styles, this could be an indicator 
that teachers may incorporate multiple learning styles within classroom instruction (Brown, 
2003; Delahoussaye, 2002; Heimlich & Norland, 2002; Hernandez et al., 2020; Hydrie & Naqvi, 
2021; Kolb & Kolb, 2006; Loewenberg Ball & Forzani, 2009; Miller, 2001; Seaman & Fellenz, 
1990).  
 
Based on these findings it could be beneficial for teacher educators to implement class sessions 
in their teacher preparation courses to help preservice teachers add to their teacher toolbox, 
while learning how to blend their preferred learning style with the diverse learning needs of 
their students, to allow for an effective educational environment. The researchers recognize 
these findings only apply to this specific population. Therefore, further research should be 
conducted regarding how learning styles transfer to teaching philosophy statements and to 
actual teaching behaviors. For example, observations of participating teachers could be 
conducted to determine if their philosophy statements and LSI scores translate to their actual 
teaching practices. Additionally, teachers could be tracked over time for longitudinal analysis of 
their teaching style compared to their philosophy statements. 
 

References 
 

Baker, M. A., & Robinson, J. S. (2019). The interaction of learning style on measures of 
successful intelligence in secondary agriculture students exposed to experiential and 
direct instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(3), 14–31. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.03014  



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   108 
 

 
Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of 

Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443   
 
Beegle, J., & Coffee, D. (1991). Accounting instructors’ perceptions of how they teach versus 

how they were taught. Journal of Education for Business, 67(2), 90–94. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1991.10117524   

 
Brown, B. L. (2003). Teaching style vs. learning style. Myths and realities. ERIC Publications. 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED482329 
 
Caukin, N. G., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (2017). Using a teaching philosophy statement as a 

professional development tool for teacher candidates. International Journal for the 
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, (11)2, 1–9. 
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110218 

 
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods 

research (3rd ed.). SAGE.   
 
Delahoussaye, M. (2002). The perfect learner: An expert debate on learning 

styles. Training, 39(5), 28-36. 
 
Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions for 

Adults and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.46  
 
Hernandez, J. E., Vasan, N., Huff, S., & Melovitz-Vasan, C. (2020). Learning styles preferences 

among medical students: Kinesthetic learner’s multimodal approach to learning 
anatomy. Medical Science Educator, 30, 1633–1638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-
020-01049-1 

 
Hydrie, M. Z. I., & Naqvi, S. M. Z. H. (2021). Assessing learning styles of medical students using 

Kolb’s learning style inventory and their association with preferred teaching 
methodologies. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 71(4), 1157–1161. 
https://www.jpma.org.pk/article-details/10601 

 
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 

Prentice Hall.  
 
Kolb, D. A. (2017). Kolb learning style inventory: Workbook version 3.2. Korn Ferry Hay Group.  
 
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the 

multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. Nova 
Science Publishers, Inc. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291046218 

 



Young et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v2i2.131   109 
 

Loewenberg Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for 
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479 

 
Miller, P. (2001). Learning styles: The multimedia of the mind (ED451340). ERIC. 

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED451140.pdf  
 
Oleson, A., & Hora, M. T. (2014). Teaching the way they were taught? Revisiting the sources of 

teaching knowledge and the role of prior experience in shaping faculty teaching 
practices. Higher Education, 68, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9678-9 

 
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.   
 
Sankey, L. L., & Foster, D. D. (2012). A content analysis of teaching philosophy statements of 

award-winning colleges of agriculture professors. Journal of Agricultural Education, 
53(4), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04124  

 
Schönwetter, D. J., Sokal, L., Friesen, M., & Taylor, K. L. (2002). Teaching philosophies 

reconsidered: A conceptual model for the development and evaluation of teaching 
philosophy statements. The International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 83–
97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440210156501   

 
Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R. A. (1990). Effective strategies for teaching adults. Merrill. 
 
Smith, K. L., & Rayfield, J. (2019). STEM knowledge, learning disabilities and experiential 

learning: Influences of sequencing instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 60(2), 
222–236. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2019.02222  

 
© 2021 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


