December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE         228

Research

Anatomical knowledge is essential to the competency of physiotherapists in 
professional practice.[1] Therefore, the way in which physiotherapy students 
learn gross anatomy has a bearing on their clinical acumen. 

An abundance of literature on learning style models has been promulgated 
from the 1960s to date. Diverse opinion as to the value of learning style 
research is apparent. Early researchers were positively disposed to the idea 
of the educational value of knowing learning styles[2-4] and some still uphold 
that belief.[5] Recently, researchers have been more sceptical about the 
scientific value of enhancing student academic performance and facilitating 
better teaching methodology in general,[6,7] and in anatomy education in 
particular.[8] 

In 1978, Claxton and Ralston[2] summed up a learning style as ‘a 
student’s consistent way of responding and using stimuli in the context of 
learning’. Grasha and Yangarber-Hicks[9] found that some learning styles 
are more dominant than others and some are only used if sufficient reason 
and support are given.[10] It was found that the subject to be learnt could 
influence learning style preference,[11] and health science students showed a 
preference towards a particular learning style.[9]

In 1987, Curry[12] described a learning style model depicted by an onion-
like structure with four layers. These are from outside to innermost the 
‘instructional preference’, ‘social interaction’, ‘information processing style’ 
and ‘cognitive personality style’ layers. The Grasha-Riechmann learning 
style scale (GRLSS) was placed in the social interaction layer of that model 
and was aligned with the expectations of teachers and students and their 

interaction with the learning environment, as is the case in this study.[3,11,12] 

Criteria that guided the choice of the GRLSS and Grasha-Riechmann 
teaching style scale (GRTSS) tools for data collection in this study were that 
the former was designed to collect information from university students.[4,13] It 
exhibits compatibility with the GRTSS and thus facilitates easy comparisons 
between the two tools. The GRLSS has not been specifically negatively 
critiqued in the literature for its learning style preference stance.

This study forms part of a research project investigating various aspects 
of gross anatomy education for undergraduate physiotherapy students. 
It sought to identify any learning style preference trend peculiar to 
physiotherapy students and document the teaching styles of two consecutive 
cohorts of gross anatomy lecturers. The realisation that there was a paucity of 
specific pertinent information on these aspects of gross anatomy education 
necessitated the collection of the study data. It has been shown that age 
and gender significantly influence student learning style preference.[14] 
This study aimed to assess how age and gender influence the learning style 
preferences of two chronologically consecutive student cohorts. All the 
information collected is factored into the research project and adds to the 
body of literature pertaining to the ongoing debate on the relevancy of using 
learning and teaching style measurement tools. 

Methods
A descriptive cross-sectional design was used, with purposive sampling. The 
students invited to participate were second-year physiotherapy students in 

Background. Anatomy is essential to prepare physiotherapy students for future clinical practice. Student learning styles and lecturer teaching styles may 
influence learning outcomes.
Objective. To determine if the learning style of this student population is consistent and compatible with lecturers’ teaching styles for better learning outcomes.
Methods. A descriptive cross-sectional study was undertaken during 2015 and 2016. The Grasha-Riechmann learning style scale (GRLSS) and Grasha-
Riechmann teaching style scale (GRTSS) were used to measure learning styles of two consecutive physiotherapy student cohorts and teaching styles of 
their anatomy lecturers, respectively.
Results. Student samples were small (group 1: N=59 and group 2: N=54), but response rates high (n=39; 66.1% and n=43; 81.5%) in 2015 and 2016, 
respectively. Mean Likert scores for GRLSS indicated that the most popular choice for learning style was the dependent style (mean (standard deviation) 
3.81 (0.75)) for group 1 and the independent style (3.68 (0.61)) for group 2. Female students preferred the dependent style (group 1: n=12; 30.8% and 
group 2: n=10; 23.3%) and male students the participant style (group 2: n=6; 14%) of learning. Lecturers scored highest in the expert category of teaching 
styles. Compatibility between learning and teaching styles was seen in both years based on comparisons made using teaching style clusters, where the 
identified GRLSS and GRTSS were grouped together and seen to fit into specific cluster categories.
Conclusion. Consistency in learning style choice was observed. A degree of cohesion between student learning styles and their respective lecturers’ 
teaching styles augured well for good interaction between staff and students. 

Afr J Health Professions Educ 2018;10(4):228-234. DOI:10.7196/AJHPE.2018.v10i4.1070 

Learning styles of physiotherapy students and teaching styles of their 
lecturers in undergraduate gross anatomy education
D A Shead,1,2 MSc Physiotherapy; R Roos,1 PhD; B Olivier,1 PhD; A O Ihunwo,2 PhD

1 Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
2 School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Corresponding author: D A Shead (dots@icon.co.za) 

This open-access article is distributed under 
Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

mailto:dots@icon.co.za


229         December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE

Research

the gross anatomy classes of 2015 (student group 1: 
N=59) and 2016 (student group 2: N=54). The 
invited gross anatomy lecturers who taught the 
students were designated as lecturer group 1 (N=5) 
and lecturer group 2 (N=4). Ethical clearance 
was obtained from the Human Research 
Ethics Committee (ref. no. H15/04/12) of the 
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 
South Africa. Permission was obtained from 
the university’s dean of student affairs and the 
head of the Department of Physiotherapy to 
administer the survey to the student body. 
The standardised 60-question version of the 
GRLSS[13] was administered to student groups 
in September 2015 and late August 2016. To 
maintain confidentiality of participants, the 
GRLSS and demographic questionnaires were 
distributed and collected by the respective class 
representatives. No identifiers were on the 
answer sheets. Permission was obtained from 
the head of the School of Anatomical Sciences 
prior to distribution of the GRTSS to the lecturer 
groups. The standardised 40-question version of 
the GRTSS[15] was distributed to and collected 
from the lecturer groups by the gross anatomy 
course coordinator for physiotherapy students. 
The timing of this distribution was aligned with 
that of the GRLSS to the student groups.

The standardised GRLSS[4,13] administered to 
the student groups was evaluated for reliability 
by Baykul et al.;[16] these authors found medium 
co-efficient scores for the six sub-categories. 
Internal consistency of each subscale was found to 
be acceptable and suitable for measuring inter  -
active learning styles.[16] The scoring sheet for the 
GRLSS includes information on learning style 
preference norm values according to specified 
age groups.[4] These norms were formulated using 
Grasha’s[15] own research regarding learning styles, 
where he defined low, moderate and high ‘cut-
points’. He also defined the same levels for the 
GRTSS.[15] The development of teaching style 
clusters by Grasha[15] allowed for the matching 
of student learning style preferences with 
teaching style preferences for optimum transfer 
of knowledge from teacher to student. Data 
pertaining to validity or reliability of the GRTSS 
tool administered to the lecturers in the current 
study could not be found during a literature 
search. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score 
both scales. The sum of the scores in each category 
was divided to produce an overall score to one 
decimal place. Mean and standard deviation (SD) 
calculations were presented to two decimal places. 

Descriptive data analysis was done using SPSS 
version 24 (IBM Corp., USA). Missing data 
were not replaced and therefore not included 
in the analysis. The 2015 and 2016 student 
cohorts’ GRLSS data analysis results, including 
descriptive findings, are presented as means 
(SD), frequencies and percentages (Table 1). 
Results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient and 
paired t-tests at p<0.05, comparing group means 
for differences and correlations between student 
groups 1 and 2, student group 1 and the GRLSS 
norms, and student group 2 and the GRLSS 
norms, are presented in Table 2. Calculations for 
the age groups 17 - 21 years and 22 - 28 years were 
done separately, as the GRLSS norms for each age 
group differed. 

Figs 1 and 2 illustrate comparison of group 
means for each learning style by age category 
and their comparison with the associated GRLSS 
norms. Fig. 3 shows the relationship between 
gender and student learning style preference for 
student groups 1 and 2.

The GRTSS rankings for teaching style choices 
made by both lecturer groups were calculated 
and tabulated as mean (SD) values (Table 3). Data 
analysis was undertaken to establish prevalent 
teaching styles and cluster categorisation of the 
two teaching cohorts for comparison with the 
student learning style preferences identified in 
each year studied.

Results
Participants
In 2015, the student group comprised 59 students 
and 39 (66.1%) completed the GRLSS. In 2016, 
the student group consisted of 54 students and 
43 (81.5%) completed the GRLSS. Five lecturers 
taught the students in 2015 and all completed the 
GRTSS. In 2016, 4 lecturers taught the students 
and 3 (75%) participated in the study. 

Table 1 provides information regarding the 
demographic profile of student participants. The 
majority were 20 years of age (group 1: n=18; 
46.2% and group 2: n=22; 51.2%). In both groups, 

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(1
7 

- 2
1 

ye
ar

s)

1 
3.48
3.68
3.34

2
2.82
2.9

2.18

3
3.69
3.67
3.67

4
3.84
3.66
3.34

5
2.51
2.19
2.76

6
3.51
3.63
3.91

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(2
2 

- 2
8 

ye
ar

s)

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0
1

3.53
3.67
3.28

2
2.37
3.0

1.96

3
3.13
3.17
3.72

4
3.57
3.83
3.45

5
2.47
2.33
2.68

6
3.67
3.53
4.03

Le
ar

n
in

g
 s

ty
le

 p
re

fe
re

n
ce

 b
y 

g
en

d
er

 fo
r 

20
15

 a
n

d
 2

01
6 

st
u

d
en

t 
co

h
o

rt
s,

 %
 

Distribution of learning style

Female group 1
Male group 1
Female group 2
Male group 2

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
1             2          3        4                 5              6

Fig. 1. Comparison of group means for Grasha-Riechmann learning styles (17 - 21 years) and Grasha-Riechmann 
norms for this age group. (GRLSS = Grasha-Riechmann learning style scale; 1 = independent; 2 = avoidant; 
3 = collaborative; 4 = dependent; 5 = competitive; 6 = participant.)

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(1
7 

- 2
1 

ye
ar

s)

1 
3.48
3.68
3.34

2
2.82
2.9

2.18

3
3.69
3.67
3.67

4
3.84
3.66
3.34

5
2.51
2.19
2.76

6
3.51
3.63
3.91

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(2
2 

- 2
8 

ye
ar

s)

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0
1

3.53
3.67
3.28

2
2.37
3.0

1.96

3
3.13
3.17
3.72

4
3.57
3.83
3.45

5
2.47
2.33
2.68

6
3.67
3.53
4.03

Le
ar

n
in

g
 s

ty
le

 p
re

fe
re

n
ce

 b
y 

g
en

d
er

 fo
r 

20
15

 a
n

d
 2

01
6 

st
u

d
en

t 
co

h
o

rt
s,

 %
 

Distribution of learning style

Female group 1
Male group 1
Female group 2
Male group 2

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
1             2          3        4                 5              6

Fig. 2. Comparison of group means for Grasha-Riechmann learning styles (22 - 28 years) and Grasha-Riechmann 
norms for this age group. (GRLSS = Grasha-Riechmann learning style scale; 1 = independent; 2 = avoidant; 
3 = collaborative; 4 = dependent; 5 = competitive; 6 = participant.)



December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE         230

Research

the number of female students was greater than that 
of male students (group 1 females: n=32; 82.1% and 
males: n=7; 17.9%) (group 2 females: n=33; 76.7% 
and males: n=10; 23.3%). Pre-university education 
was predominantly private in group 1 (n=24; 61.5%) 
and governmental in group 2 (n=23; 53.5%). 

Learning style choices of student 
groups
Table 1 provides information regarding the 
learning style of the student participants. Overall, 
the most popular learning style choice for student 
group 1 was the dependent style (3.81 (0.75)) and 
for student group 2 the independent style (3.68 
(0.61)). A student who chooses the dependent 
style is said to be passive, and needs structure 

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(1
7 

- 2
1 

ye
ar

s)

1 
3.48
3.68
3.34

2
2.82
2.9

2.18

3
3.69
3.67
3.67

4
3.84
3.66
3.34

5
2.51
2.19
2.76

6
3.51
3.63
3.91

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

Student group 1
Student group 2
GRLSS norms

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0

G
ro

u
p

 m
ea

n
s 

(2
2 

- 2
8 

ye
ar

s)

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

0
1

3.53
3.67
3.28

2
2.37
3.0

1.96

3
3.13
3.17
3.72

4
3.57
3.83
3.45

5
2.47
2.33
2.68

6
3.67
3.53
4.03

Le
ar

n
in

g
 s

ty
le

 p
re

fe
re

n
ce

 b
y 

g
en

d
er

 fo
r 

20
15

 a
n

d
 2

01
6 

st
u

d
en

t 
co

h
o

rt
s,

 %
 

Distribution of learning style

Female group 1
Male group 1
Female group 2
Male group 2

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
1             2          3        4                 5              6

Fig. 3. Distribution of learning styles (1 - 6), by gender, for student groups 1 (2015) and 2 (2016); results are inclu -
sive of age groups (17 - 21 years and 22 - 28 years). (1 = independent; 2 = avoidant; 3 = collaborative; 
4 = dependent; 5 = competitive; 6 = participant.)

Table 1. Comparison of demographic information for student groups 1 and 2
Demographic information Group 1 Group 2
Age (years), n (%)

19 4 (10.2) 10 (23.3)
20 18 (46.2) 22 (51.2)
21 14 (35.9) 8 (18.6)
22 1 (2.6) 1 (2.3)
23 1 (2.6) 1 (2.3)
24 1 (2.6) 1 (2.3)

Gender, n (%)
Male 7 (17.9) 10 (23.3)
Female 32 (82.1) 33 (76.7)

Type of school, n (%)
Government 15 (38.5) 23 (53.5)
Private 24 (61.5) 20 (46.5)

Learning style preference rankings in descending order, mean (SD) 1. Dependent 3.81 (0.75) 1. Independent 3.68 (0.61)
2. Collaborative 3.65 (0.56) 2. Dependent 3.67 (0.86)
3. Participant 3.52 (0.53) 3. Collaborative 3.63 (0.50)
4. Independent 3.49 (0.64) 4. Participant 3.63 (0.48)
5. Avoidant 2.78 (0.44) 5. Avoidant 2.91 (0.42)
6. Competitive 2.42 (0.67) 6. Competitive 2.20 (0.61)

Learning style preference by age group in descending order (17 - 21 years), 
mean (SD)

n=35
1. Dependent 3.84 (0.43)

n=40
1. Independent 3.68 (0.34)

2. Collaborative 3.69 (0.45) 2. Collaborative 3.67 (0.53)
3. Participant 3.51 (0.51) 3. Dependent 3.66 (0.46)
4. Independent 3.48 (0.41) 4. Participant 3.63 (0.57)
5. Avoidant 2.82 (0.59) 5. Avoidant 2.90 (0.61)
6. Competitive 2.51 (0.74) 6. Competitive 2.19 (0.71)

Learning style preference by age group in descending order (22 - 28 years), 
mean (SD)

n=3
1. Participant 3.67 (0.49)

n=3
1. Dependent 3.83 (0.40)

2. Dependent 3.57 (0.25) 2. Independent 3.67 (0.47)
3. Independent 3.53 (0.31) 3. Participant 3.53 (0.38)
4. Collaborative 3.13 (0.45) 4. Collaborative 3.17 (0.32)
5. Competitive 2.47 (0.25) 5. Avoidant 3.00 (0.70)
6. Avoidant 2.37 (0.59) 6. Competitive 2.33 (1.19)

SD = standard deviation.



231         December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE

Research

and constant support.[4] A student who chooses the independent style 
learning option is one who is individualistic, confident and acts alone.[4] The 
younger age group (17 - 21 years) results in both cohorts differed little from 
the overall results. The least-favoured learning style choices overall were 
avoidant (group 1: 2.78 (0.67) and group 2: 2.91 (0.42)) and competitive 
(group 1: 2.42 (0.67) and group 2: 2.20 (0.61)). Avoidant-style students 
are unenthusiastic and disinterested.[4] Competitive-style students are keen 
to outshine others, be recognised and be rewarded.[4] The top four ranked 
learning styles were the same in both years, but their order varied (Table 1).

Comparison of learning style mean score differences and 
correlations between student groups 1 and 2 and Grasha-
Riechmann learning style scale norms
The group means for all six learning styles were calculated. A comparison 
of learning style means for groups 1 and 2 and the GRLSS norms by student 
age category are set out in Figs 1 and 2. There is little parity between the 
GRLSS norms and the scores attained in this study, except in the 17 - 
21-year collaborative category. Collaborative-style students are keen group 
participants and enjoy sharing ideas.[4]

Table 2 illustrates that a statistically significant strong Pearson’s correlation 
was found between the set of learning style means for student groups 1 and 
2 (pair 1) in the 17 - 21-year age group (r=0.95; p<0.003). A significant 
but weaker correlation between learning style means occurred between 
student groups in the 22 - 28-year category (pair 4) (r=0.86; p<0.03). Paired 
t-tests showed that there was no significant difference in overall GRLSS 
scores (17 - 21 years) for group 1 (3.3 (0.52)), group 2 (3.3 (0.62)) at 0.02 
(95% confidence interval (CI) −0.19 - 0.23; t (5)=0.249; p=0.813), or a 
significant difference in overall GRLSS scores (22 - 28 years) for group 1 
(3.1 (0.58)), group 2 (3.3 (0.55)) at −0.13 (95% CI −0.44 - 0.17; t (5)=−1.112; 
p=0.317). The null hypothesis (Ho) put forward was that the GRLSS choices 
of physiotherapy students in sequential cohorts would be significantly 
similar. The overall paired t-test results were in agreement with the H0.The 
correlation between student group 1 (22 - 28 years) and the GRLSS norms 
was significant (r=0.87; p<0.031).

Distribution of learning styles by gender 
Fig. 3 illustrates the percentage of students who preferred each learning 
style by gender, across the two cohorts. It showed that female students had 
a high preference for the dependent learning style over both years (group 1: 
n=12; 30.8% and group 2: n=10; 23.3%). Male students showed little or no 
preference for this style. An equal number of female students favoured the 
participant learning style (group 1: n=8; 20.5% and group 2: n=8; 18.6%) and 
the majority of male participants (group 2: n=6; 14.0%) also preferred this 

style. Participant-style students complete coursework, take part in activities 
and work well with others.[4] Male and female students in group 1 (n=5; 
12.8%) equally favoured the collaborative style, but differences occurred in 
group 2, as female participants (n=9; 20.9%) and male participants (n=2; 
5.0%) preferred it. The independent learning style was popular with female 
group 1 students (n=5; 12.8%), group 2 students (n=6; 14%) and male group 
2 students (n=2; 4.7%).

Teaching styles of anatomy lecturers 
The mean age for lecturer group 1 was 33.8 (1.64) years and the ratio 
of male to female was 3:2. The mean age for lecturer group 2 was 33.7 
(0.58) years and the ratio of male to female was 1:2. In 2015, of a total 
of 5 respondents, 1 lecturer had a PhD degree (20%) and 4 lecturers had 
Master’s degrees (80%). In 2016, of a total of 3 respondents, 2 lecturers had 
PhDs (66.7%) and 1 lecturer had a Master’s degree (33.3%). All lecturer 
group 2 respondents had previously responded to the GRTSS in 2015, as 
they were also teaching the students in 2015. 

Table 3 records the lecturers’ teaching style preferences based on a 
5-point Likert scale allocation. Although mean (SD) scores may be higher 
in one category than in another, the ratings from low to high are based on 
a comparison with mean scores found by Grasha.[17] A high rating denotes 
preference for that teaching style by a respondent. More than one teaching 
style can be rated highly within a group. Respondents in both groups 
scored highest for the expert category, where the teacher offers detailed 
and expert coverage of the work and challenges students to achieve.[15] 

Grasha[15] described four types of teaching style clusters. Scores rated 
from highest to lowest for the different style categories on either the 
GRLSS or the GRTSS, which determined into which cluster the teacher 
and student should be placed. Table 3 shows that for lecturer group 1 
the formal authority-expert and personal models had the highest rating 
overall. Lecturer group 2 showed highest teaching style preferences for the 
expert-personal model, facilitator and delegator categories. 

The clusters are as follows: cluster 1: student learning styles – 
participant-competitive-dependent; teaching styles – formal authority-
expert. Cluster 2: learning styles – collaborative-participant-dependent; 
teaching styles – formal authority-personal model-expert. Cluster 3: 
learning styles – independent-participant-collaborative; teaching styles 
– expert-facilitator-personal. Cluster 4: learning styles – participant-
collaborative-independent; teaching styles – expert-delegator-facilitator. 

In lecturer group 1, 3 respondents (60%) fell into the Grasha cluster 
2 and 1 respondent (20%) into clusters 1 and 4, respectively. In lecturer 
group 2, 1 respondent (33.3%) fell into cluster 2 and 2 respondents into 
cluster 4.

Table 2. Comparison of means for combined GRLSS score differences and correlations between student groups 1 and 2 and GRLSS norms 

Group pairs
Mean
difference (SD)

95% CI lower, 
upper t-value df

p-value 
(2-tailed) Correlation  p-value

Pair 1: Student groups 1 and 2 (17 - 21 years)  0.02 (0.20) −0.19, 0.23  0.249 5 0.813 0.954 0.003*
Pair 2: Student group 1 and GRLSS norms (17 - 21 years)  0.11 (0.41) −0.32, 0.54  0.651 5 0.544 0.767 0.075
Pair 3: Student group 2 and GRLSS norms (17 - 21 years) −0.09 (0.47) −0.58, 0.40 −0.463 5 0.663 0.721 0.106
Pair 4: Student groups 1 and 2 (22 - 28 years) −0.13 (0.29) −0.44, 0.17 −1.112 5 0.317 0.868 0.025**
Pair 5: Student group 1 and GRLSS norms (22 - 28 years)  0.07 (0.64) −0.60, 0.74 −0.403 5 0.704 0.865 0.026**
Pair 6: Student group 2 and GRLSS norms (22 - 28 years) −0.06 (0.39) −0.47, 0.34  0.263 5 0.803 0.560 0.247

GRLSS = Grasha-Riechmann learning style scale; SD = standard deviation ; CI = confidence interval; df = degrees of freedom.
*p<0.01, **p<0.05. 



December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE         232

Research

Using the cluster combinations listed above, it was seen that in 2015, where 
the top three ranked learning styles chosen were dependent, participant 
and collaborative, the most appropriate teaching style cluster would be 
cluster 2. In that year, 60% of faculty subscribed to cluster 2. Other lecturers 
were in clusters 1 and 4 and would be able to relate to 2 of 3 of the most 
preferred learning styles. In 2016, the top three ranked learning styles were 
independent, dependent and collaborative. It was apparent that in 2016, 1 of 
the lecturer participants had ‘accommodated’ from cluster 1 or 2 to cluster 4. This 
meant that 2 of the lecturers had now aligned themselves with the teaching 
styles represented in cluster 4 and therefore would facilitate and delegate 
in their teaching methodology. This would be more in line with the more 
independently orientated student group 2. 

Discussion 
In the overall scenario, age influenced student learning style preferences. 
Marked preferential differences were seen between the 17 - 21-year age 
cohorts and the related 22 - 28-year age cohorts. A comparison of the 
means for the two groups for 2015 and 2016 showed more compatibility 
between the younger age groups (50%) than the older age groups (17%). 
Life experience and environmental factors may have influenced diversity 
in older students’ thinking.[18] Overall student participants were millennials 
from generation Y, born between 1982 and 2003, which might have played a 
part in age-related learning style preference. Coates[19] describes children of 
the millennial generation as being mollycoddled by their parents and unable 
to make decisions or manage conflict. Hence, these students possibly lack 

Table 3. Teaching style scores of anatomy lecturer, groups 1 and 2 

Teaching style Respondent group Group, mean (SD) 
Mean scores of individual 
respondents Rating level

Expert Lecturer, group 1 3.96 (0.47) R1=3.8
R2=4.3
R3=4.2
R4=4.3
R5=3.2

High
High
High
High
Moderate

Lecturer, group 2  4.37 (0.40) R1=4.0
R2=4.8
R3=4.3

High
High
High

Formal authority Lecturer, group 1 3.52 (0.32) R1=3.0
R2=4.0
R3=4.3
R4=2.6
R5=3.7

Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High

Lecturer, group 2 3.37 (0.76) R1=3.2
R2=4.2
R3=2.7

Moderate
High
Moderate

Personal model Lecturer, group 1 3.56 (0.46) R1=3.3
R2=4.3
R3=3.1
R4=3.3
R5=3.6

Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
High

Lecturer, group 2 3.70 (0.98) R1=4.0
R2=4.5
R3=2.6

High
High
Low

Facilitator Lecturer, group 1 3.43 (0.53) R1=4.0
R2=3.7
R3=3.2
R4=2.9
R5=2.8

Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low

Lecturer, group 2 3.87 (0.51) R1=4.3
R2=4.0
R3=3.3

High
High
Moderate

Delegator Lecturer, group 1 2.68 (0.39) R1=2.7
R2=3.0
R3=2.5
R4=2.4
R5=2.2

Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate

Lecturer, group 2 3.05 (0.07) R1=3.1
R2=3.0
R3=2.1

High
High
Moderate

SD = standard deviation; R = respondent.



233         December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE

Research

independence and are more suited to the Grasha dependent style category 
seen to dominate learning style preference in the 2015 student cohort. The 
2016 student cohort’s preference for the independent learning style may 
appear to contradict this assumption, but consideration should be given to 
the result being marginal, with the dependent style ranked as a close second 
preference. 

Gender has been shown to influence learning style preference.[20] 
Gender considerations impacted results of this study, with some clear 
differences between male and female learning style preferences. While 
both female student cohorts clearly ranked the dependent learning style 
highly, male students did not. Furthermore, the predominantly female 
nature of both student cohorts skewed the overall learning style preference 
towards the dependent category, especially in 2015. However, this may 
not be problematic, as Kulac et al.[21] found that female medical students 
preferring the dependent style scored higher than their male counterparts 
in examinations. Unpopularity of the avoidant and competitive categories 
was seen across all genders in both cohorts, which could be considered a 
similarity between gender preferences. Using the participant, collaborative 
and independent learning style markers for guidance, most gender style 
preference alignment was in the collaborative category in 2015, but in the 
participant category in 2016. The collaborative category is associated with 
the desired deep-learning approach that produces better academic results.[20] 

Hence, the prominence of the selection of the collaborative learning style 
in both female groups and male group 1 may augur well for beneficial 
outcomes in these groups. 

It has also been postulated that different learning styles pertain to 
specific student groups.[10,15] Based on the evidence, the learning styles of 
medically orientated student bodies appear to coalesce and are dissimilar 
to other student group preferences.[16] This study aimed to assess whether 
physiotherapy students favoured particular learning styles. It was shown that 
while the order of preference differed over the 2 years, there was consistency 
in the first four listed preferences. Furthermore, the collaborative category 
was similarly selected according to mean scores for both years. However, 
to address the diversity of learning styles possible in student groups, more 
accurate diagnostics may be achieved from more than one learning style 
instrument being used in this type of research.[22]

The 2015 and 2016 GRTSS survey results showed characteristic cluster 
groupings of lecturers’ styles.[15] It can be challenging for faculty to match 
learning styles of specific student populations to teaching styles to ensure 
clinical readiness.[23] In 2011, King[24] stated that the teaching/learning 
process is less effective if there is no cohesion between the teaching style 
of the teacher and learning style of the student. Furthermore, anxiety 
levels are lowered and the degree of learning and teaching satisfaction is 
increased when the learning styles of students and the teaching styles of 
staff are matched appropriately.[12] The results of this study showed a degree 
of cohesion between the learning styles of 2 student cohorts surveyed in 
2015 and 2016 and the respective teaching styles of their lecturers. This 
is in line with Grasha’s[16] suggestion that teachers vary their teaching 
style to accommodate the multiplicity of student learning styles, as such 
compatibility would augur well for establishing a sustained learning 
environment in future.[15] 

Study strengths and limitations
With regard to the strengths of the study, although the study samples 
were small and limited to the same institution, data were collected from 

two sequential student and staff cohorts. The significantly strong positive 
correlation of results between samples for the 17 - 21-year age cohorts 
and the 22 - 28-year age cohorts meant the two samples could be pooled, 
leading to more valid and reliable conclusions being made. There was a high 
response rate for the student cohorts each year. Lecturer groups were small 
and the response was not favourable in 2016. However, it was apparent that 
in 2016, 1 respondent who had also participated in 2015 ‘accommodated’ to 
a different teaching style cluster more in line with student group 2 learning 
requirements, adding a new dimension to the results. A weakness was 
that there was paucity of information in the literature for comparison of 
GRLSS findings with regard to student groups’ learning styles; therefore, 
comparisons had to be drawn with studies using other learning style 
instruments for data collection. This process was akin to matching ‘apples’ 
with ‘pears’ – an unsatisfactory situation. Furthermore, since the data were 
collected for this study, the movement debating the learning style ‘myth’ 
has gathered momentum, with researchers noting that moves towards 
‘debunking’ such data collection are not necessarily effective, but suggesting 
that there should be a progression towards evidence-based research in its 
place.[25]

Conclusion
This study gives insight into the possible learning styles of physiotherapy 
students as applied to the anatomy scenario. It is therefore useful for faculty 
involved in gross anatomy education of this student population to consider 
the outcomes to perhaps adapt their teaching styles to facilitate beneficial 
outcomes for their students. However, the question remains whether this 
study is sufficient to evaluate the learning styles of physiotherapy students 
in anatomy definitively – generally and in particular – in relation to age and 
gender considerations. A larger longitudinal study may provide answers 
to this question and give new direction to gross anatomy learning for this 
student population. However, there is an ongoing debate as to whether 
continued use of learning style instruments is valid, and although this 
study did produce some plausible findings, consideration has to be given 
to conducting the suggested longitudinal research using more verifiable 
evidence-based research methodology.

Declaration. This study was undertaken and published as part of the PhD degree 
requirements of the first author.
Acknowledgements. We wish to acknowledge the willing involvement of the 
participants.
Author contributions. All authors were involved in the study design. The first 
author was responsible for data collection, statistical analysis of the data, writing 
the drafts and for submission and re-submission of the article. All authors 
reviewed the drafts before they were submitted or resubmitted for publication.
Funding. South African Society of Physiotherapy Research Foundation (grant 
no. RC2016/01/03).
Conflicts of interest. None.

1. Shead D, Roos R, Olivier B, et al. Gross anatomy curricula and pedagogical approaches for undergraduate 
physiotherapy students: A scoping review protocol. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2016;14(10):98-104. 
https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003164 

2. Claxton CS, Rolston Y. Learning Styles: Their Impact on Teaching and Administration. 1st ed. Washington, DC: 
American Association for Higher Education, 1978. 

3. Cassidy S. Learning styles: An overview of theories, models and measures. Educ Psychol 2004;24(4):419-444. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000228834 

4. Rollins M. Learning style diagnostics: The Grasha-Riechmann student learning styles scale. 2015. http://www.
elearningindustry.com/learning-style/ (accessed 1 March 2017).

5. Fleming ND. The case against learning styles: ‘There is no evidence … .’ 2012. http://vark-learn.com/wp-content/
uploads/2014/08/The-Case-Against-Learning-Styles.pdf (accessed 27 April 2018).

https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003164
http://www.elearningindustry.com/learning-style/
http://www.elearningindustry.com/learning-style/
http://vark-learn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Case-Against-Learning-Styles.pdf
http://vark-learn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Case-Against-Learning-Styles.pdf


December 2018, Vol. 10, No. 4  AJHPE         234

Research

6. Pashler H, McDaniel MA, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest 
2008;9(3):105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

7. Willingham DT, Hughes EM, Dobolyi DG. The scientific status of learning style theories. Teach Psychol 
2015;42(3):266-271.

8. Husmann PR, O’Loughlin VD. Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate 
anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anat Sci Educ 
2018;(epub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777 

9. Grasha AF, Yangarber-Hicks N. Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. 
Coll Teach 2000;48(1):2-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550009596080 

10. Kolb DA. Experiential Learning. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
11. Spoon JC, Schell JW. Aligning student learning styles with instructor teaching styles. J Industr Teach Educ 

1998:35(2). 
12. Curry A. An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Am Educ Res Ass 1983:1-25. 
13. Grasha AF, Riechmann-Hruska S. Grasha-Riechmann teaching style scale (GRTSS). 1996. http://www.longleaf.

net/teachingstyle.html (accessed 9 October 2018). 
14. Mohammadi S, Mobarhan MG, Mohammadi M, Ferns GAA. Age and gender as determinants of learning style 

among medical students. Br J Med Med Res 2015;7(4):292-298.
15. Grasha AF. Teaching With Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding Teaching and 

Learning Styles. 2nd ed. San Bernadino, CA: Alliance, 2002.
16. Baykul Y, Gürsel M, Sulak H, et al. A validity and reliability study of Grasha-Riechmann learning style scale. Int 

J Educ Pedagog Sci 2010;4(3):323-330. 

17. Alami M, Ivaturi P. Typical teaching styles among ELC lecturers at Salalah College of technology, Oman. J Appl 
Ling Lang Res 2016;3(7):251-261. 

18. Smith DM, Kolb DA. User’s Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory. 1st ed. Boston, MA: McBer, 1986.
19. Coates J. Generational Learning Styles. 1st ed. River Falls: LERN Books, 2007.
20. Azarkhordad F, Mehdinezhad V. Explaining the students’ learning styles based on Grasha-Riechmann’s student 

learning styles. J Admin Manage Train 2016;12(6):241-247. 
21. Kulac E, Sezik M, Asci H, et al. Learning styles, academic achievement, and gender in a medical school setting. 

J Clin Anal Med 2015;6(5):608-611. https://doi.org/10.4328/JCAM.2317 
22. Hawk TF, Shah AJ. Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decis Sci J Innov Educ 

2007;5(1):1-19.
23. Meehan-Andrews TA. Teaching mode efficiency and learning preferences of first year nursing students. Nurs 

Educ Today 2009;29(1):24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.06.007 
24. King A. Culture, learning and development: A case study on the Ethiopian higher education system. High Educ 

Res Net J 2011;4:5-13. 
25. Newton PM, Miah M. Evidence-based higher education – is the learning styles ‘myth’ important? Front Psychol 

2017;8:444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444

Accepted 31 May 2018.

https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550009596080
http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html
http://www.longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html
https://doi.org/10.4328/JCAM.2317
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.06.007
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00444