c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 207 varia
doi: 10.26529/cepsj.613
Changes in Learning Style Preferences of Physical 
Education Students 
Ceyhun Alemdağ
1
• Identification of learning styles is one way of contributing to a more effi -
cient teaching process, and it helps teachers choose an effective teaching 
strategy. This study reports a three-year process to explain the change 
in the learning styles of physical education students. It also involves an 
assessment of the overall academic achievement of physical education 
students based on their learning style preferences throughout this pro -
cess. Forty-one physical education students, 41.5% of whom were female, 
comprised the sample. The study used a longitudinal study/panel study 
design to observe the time-dependent variation of learning styles. The 
data were collected using the Kolb Learning Style Inventory 3 and ana -
lysed using a Chi-Squared (χ2) test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, and Mann-
Whitney U test. The results of the analysis showed that the curriculum 
of the PE teaching department did not lead to a change in the learning 
styles of students studying in this department. Additionally, the overall 
academic achievement of the physical education students did not vary 
for the first (Semester 3) and second measurements (Semester 5) based 
on their learning style preferences. However, for the third measurement 
(Semester 7), learning style preferences had differing effects on their 
academic achievement.
 Keywords: study process, learning style, longitudinal study, teacher 
candidate 
1 Faculty of Sport Sciences, Trabzon University, Turkey; ceyhunalemdag61@gmail.com.

208 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
Spremembe v izbranih učnih stilih študentov športne 
vzgoje
Ceyhun Alemdağ
• Določitev učnih stilov je eden izmed načinov, ki prispeva k učinkovitej- Določitev učnih stilov je eden izmed načinov, ki prispeva k učinkovitej -
šemu procesu poučevanja in pomaga učiteljem pri izbiri učinkovite stra -
tegije poučevanja. Študija pojasnjuje spremembe učnih stilov študentov 
športne vzgoje skozi triletno obdobje in vključuje oceno njihovega splo -
šnega akademskega uspeha na osnovi izbranih učnih stilov v tem pro -
cesu. Vzorec je obsegal 41 študentov športne vzgoje, od katerih je bilo 
41,5% žensk. Namen longitudinalne/panelne študije je bil spremljanje 
kronološke spremembe učnih stilov. Podatki so bili zbrani s pomočjo 
Kolbovega modela učnih stilov 3 in analizirani s hi-kvadrat testom (χ2), 
Kruskal-Wallisovim H-testom, in Mann-Whitneyjevim U-testom. Re -
zultati analize so pokazali, da se zaradi kurikuluma oddelka za športno 
vzgojo niso spremenili učni stili študentov tega oddelka. Prav tako se 
njihov splošen akademski uspeh ob izbranih učnih stilih ni razlikoval 
pri prvem (3. semester) in drugem (5. semester) merjenju, pri tretjem 
merjenju pa so se pokazali različni vplivi izbranih učnih stilov na aka -
demske dosežke študentov športne vzgoje.
 Ključne besede: študijski proces, učni stili, longitudinalna študija, 
študentje pedagoških smeri

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 209
Introduction
Literature Review
The extent to which students make use of teaching practices varies based 
on their individual characteristics (Felder & Brent, 2005; Kuzgun & Deryakulu, 
2006). This variation is revealed by associating the content to be learned with 
that previously learned and structuring it in the mind (Connell & Franklin, 
1994; Felder & Brent, 2005; G. H. Hein, 1991; Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, 
Campbell, & Haag, 1995; Yaşar, 1998). Thus, teachers are expected to take into 
account students’ characteristics and needs while deciding on many topics in -
cluding which method, approach or strategy to use, how to organise the content 
of courses, or which measurement and assessment approach to use (Kuzgun & 
Deryakulu, 2006). Learning styles refer to an approach of perception, process -
ing, and interpretation that occurs as an individual difference (Kolb & Kolb, 
2005). Learning styles provide many clues as to students’ learning character -
istics and provide teachers with background information on how to plan the 
teaching process. Although the results of research on which learning style is 
more functional in educational processes are not consistent, learning styles are 
generally known to affect learning and facilitate the acquisition of certain types 
of learning outcomes (Şimşek, 2006).
Research on learning styles in the field of PE and sports has mostly used 
a cross-sectional survey design and associated learning styles with independ -
ent variables including gender, grade level, sportsmanship, education level, the 
field of graduation, and academic achievement (Alemdağ et al., 2018; Alemdağ 
et al., 2016; Alemdağ & Öncü, 2015; Çağlayan, 2011; Çelik & Şahin, 2011; Coker, 
1996; Ristori et al., 2011; Yalız & Erişti, 2010). Considering the methodological 
approach of previous research, researchers generally use a cross-sectional, not 
a longitudinal design as a way of investigating learning styles. The difference 
in how researchers deal with the issue stems from their conception of learn -
ing styles as a »structure« or the way they think learning styles are related to a 
»process«. It is assumed that it is challenging to intervene if learning styles are 
seen as a structure; however, it is much easier if they are seen as a process. An 
interaction between content and practice is accepted to exist if learning styles 
are regarded as both a structure and a process (Şimşek, 2006).
Researchers outside the field of sports have examined the change in 
students’ learning styles over time (Busato et al., 1998; Cimermanová, 2018; 
Pinto & Geiger, 1991; Rakoczy & Money, 1995). However, the field of sports has 
failed to conduct studies observing changes in the learning styles of students. 

210 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
Accordingly, this study seems to be of importance in observing the learning 
characteristics of PE students and thereby helping sports educators take some 
action.
This study is concerned with changes in students’ learning styles in 
departments of PE and sports teaching that teach mainly applied courses as 
well as theoretical courses. Research on learning styles suggests that students 
have higher academic achievement in programmes that are designed taking 
into consideration the learning characteristics of students (Birrell et al., 1985; 
Burns et al., 1998; Fan et al., 2015; Gökalp, 2013; Hein & Budny, 2000; Horton & 
Oakland, 1997; Komarraju et al., 2011; Reynolds & Gerstein, 1992; Uzuntiryaki, 
2007; Yazıcılar & Güven, 2009). Against this background, this study analysed 
the overall academic achievement levels of PE students based on their learning 
style preferences. 
Research Questions (RQ): 
RQ1.  Is there a significant association between the learning style preferences 
of PE students and the teaching process in which they are involved?
RQ2.  Does PE students’ overall academic achievement differ based on their 
learning style preferences (for each measurement/semester)?
Method
Model
The study used a longitudinal design. The status and characteristics of 
the cohort were identified through a tracking approach. The sample was se -
lected by cluster sampling among individuals who shared common charac -
teristics and experiences (Ekiz, 2009). The data were collected from students 
studying at the Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching at Ka -
radeniz Technical University. Repeated measurements were performed on the 
same respondents in certain intervals over time in line with the principles of 
longitudinal studies (Figure 1) (Cohen et al., 2000; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). 
Measurements were repeated three times at the beginning, middle, and end of 
the study. The first measurement (Time 1) was performed in the fall term of 
the 2015/2016 academic year (at the beginning of Semester 3) and the last two 
(Time 2 and Time 3) in one-year intervals.

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 211
Figure 1
A sample for developmental research. Adapted from Research methods in 
education (p. 175), L. Cohen et al., 2000, Routledge Falmer, Taylor & Francis 
Group.
The data were collected using the questionnaire method, which is fre -
quently used for surveying (Erkuş, 2009). The questionnaire forms were ad -
ministered by the researcher after obtaining informed written consents.
Sample
The sample consisted of 41 PE and sports students, among whom 41.5% 
were female (the last measure was performed on 40 students due to the with -
drawal of a student). First-year students were not involved in the measure -
ments since they had just started university and were adjusting to a new level 
of education.
Instruments
The data were collected using the original Kolb Learning Style Inven -
tory 3 (KLSI-3) developed by Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre (1971). The inventory 
that was developed to identify preferred learning styles was adapted to Turk -
ish by Evin Gencel (2007). It consists of 12 sentence-completion items that ask 
respondents to rank four sentence endings from 1 (least like me) to 4 (most 
like me). Item scores (ranging from 18 to 48) result in four different values. 
Each value represents one learning mode of the learning cycle (concrete ex -
perience-CE, abstract conceptualisation-AC, reflective observation-RO, and 
active experimentation-AE). Subsequently, combination scores are computed. 
Combination scores range from -36 to +36. Two combination scores measure 
an individual’s learning style preference, that is, abstractness over concrete -
ness (AC-CE) and action over reflection (AE-RO). Two combination scores are 
placed on the horizontal and vertical lines (x-axis and y-axis) in Kolb’s coordi -
nate system (Devid A Kolb, 1999), and the intersection of the scores represents 
an individual’s learning style. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the learning style 
dimensions was found to range from .71 to .80 ( n = 320) in Evin Gencel’s study 

212 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
(2007). In this study, the value of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to 
range from .75 to .86 ( n = 41) using the data collected in the first measurement.
The overall academic achievement of the respondents was determined by 
considering their grade point average (GPA) in each measurement term (at the 
beginning of Semesters 3, 5, and 7).
Data Analysis
A frequency analysis was performed to determine missing or incorrect 
data, but no missing or incorrect data were found. The data were analysed by 
SPSS statistics 22.0 using the Chi-Squared (χ
2
) test, Kruskal-Wallis H test and 
Mann-Whitney U test.
Results
The study first aimed to determine whether the curriculum of the PE 
teaching department caused a change in the learning styles of students studying 
in this department (RQ1). The frequency and percentage distributions of the PE 
students were analysed to determine their learning style preferences. T able 1 shows 
the χ
2
 test results of the measurements performed in three different time intervals.
Table 1
The distribution of learning styles by time
Learning Styles
Total
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating
Time 1 n(%) 18(43.9) 11(26.8) 7(17.1) 5(12.2) 41(100)
Time 2 n(%) 10(24.4) 13(31.7) 7(17.1) 11(26.8) 41(100)
Time 3 n(%) 11(27.5) 8(20) 9(22.5) 12(30) 40(100)
Total n(%) 39(32) 32(26.2) 23(18.9) 28(23) 122(100)
Note. χ
2
 = 7.5, df = 6, p = .28
Considering the χ
2
 test results on learning styles, the respondents with 
assimilating and converging learning styles had similar/close ratios for the three 
measurements. The ratio of those with diverging and accommodating learning 
styles changed more markedly in the second and third measurements in com -
parison to the first measurement (Figure 2). The ratio of those with a diverging 
learning style was 43.9% in the first measurement but dropped to 24.4% and 
27.5% in the second and third measurements, respectively. The ratio of those 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 213
with an accommodating learning style was 12.2% in the first measurement, but 
this ratio rose to 26.8% and 30% in the second and third measurements, re -
spectively (Table 1). This difference found in learning styles in different time 
intervals was not statistically significant ( χ
2
(6) = 7.5, p > .05).
Figure 2
The cycle of learning of PE students
RQ2 asked whether PE students’ overall academic achievement differed 
based on their learning style preferences throughout this process. Table 2 pres -
ents the Kruskal-Wallis H test results on the overall academic achievement of 
PE students with different learning styles. 
Table 2
The distribution of overall academic achievement according to learning styles
Learning Styles n Mean Rank df χ
2
p Significance
Time 1
Diverging (Di) 18 16.11
3 6.09 .11 -
Assimilating (As) 11 23.77
Converging (Co) 7 23.57
Accommodating (Ac) 5 28.9

214 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
Learning Styles n Mean Rank df χ
2
p Significance
Time 2
Diverging (Di) 10 19.95
3 3.58 .31 -
Assimilating (As) 13 16.65
Converging (Co) 7 25.5
Accommodating (Ac) 11 24.23
Time 3
Diverging (Di) 11 16.09
3 7.93 .04
*
As-Ac
Assimilating (As) 8 14.31
Converging (Co) 9 22.61
Accommodating (Ac) 12 27.08
Note. 
*
p < .05.
The result of the analysis showed that the overall academic achievement 
of PE students did not differ based on their learning style preferences for the first 
(χ
2
 (df = 3, n = 41) = 6.09, p > .05) and second ( χ
2
 (df = 3, n = 41) = 3.58, p > .05) 
measurements.
For the third measurement, however, the participants’ academic achieve -
ment differed based on their learning style preferences ( χ
2
 (df = 3, n = 40) = 7.93, 
p < .05). This result demonstrated that preferred learning styles had different 
effects on the academic achievement of the PE students. The mean ranks of the 
groups showed that the PE students with an accommodating learning style en -
joyed the highest academic achievement, and they were followed by those with 
convergence, divergence, and assimilations in order. The source of the significant 
difference between the learning styles was analysed by the paired combinations 
of the groups (using the Mann-Whitney U test). Accordingly, the PE students 
with an accommodating learning style enjoyed higher academic achievement 
than assimilators did. According to the sequential measurements, accommoda -
tors enjoyed high academic achievement in all three measurements, while the 
academic achievement of assimilators showed a downward trend starting with 
the first measurement.
Discussion
This study found that although there were some variations in the PE stu -
dents’ learning style preferences in the measurements made in different time in -
tervals, these variations were not statistically significant. This result means that 
learning styles are more stable for PE students to change in time. Although a 
considerable volume of cross-sectional research has found significant differences 
among the grades of an education level (high school, university etc.) in terms 
of preferred learning styles (Alemdağ & Öncü, 2015; Baldwin & Reckers, 1984; 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 215
Cavas, 2010; Evin Gencel & Köse, 2011; Katrancı & Bozkuş, 2014; Kurbanoğlu & 
Akkoyunlu, 2008; Özdemir & Kesten, 2012), research on the same groups has 
reported that the change in preferred learning styles is not very marked (Busato 
et al., 1998; Pinto & Geiger, 1991; Rakoczy & Money, 1995). Considering previous 
research reporting a significant difference among grades in terms of preferred 
learning styles, researchers used a cross-sectional survey design. Indeed, they 
noted that it is inconvenient to use cross-sectional data to explain a longitudinal 
phenomenon (Pinto & Geiger, 1991). In this study, therefore, the results derived 
from the measurements performed on the same respondents at different intervals 
had similar characteristics to the results of other longitudinal research.
A review of literature in the field of sports (sports sciences faculties, 
sports high schools, student-athletes, etc.) (Alemdağ et al., 2016, 2018; Alemdağ 
& Öncü, 2015; Çelik & Şahin, 2011; Ristori et al., 2011; Yalız & Erişti, 2010) 
showed that diverging and assimilating were the most preferred learning styles 
while accommodating was the least preferred learning style. Considering the 
distribution of learning styles in the sum of three measurements (see Table 1) in 
this study, the students mostly had diverging and assimilating learning styles. 
This result was consistent with research on learning styles in the field of sports 
(unlike other research reports, accommodating was the least preferred learn -
ing style for the respondents in this study). After taking sports into considera -
tion as a defining feature, it seemed that the similarity between the results was 
due to the measurements performed on students with similar qualifications. 
Even if students are involved in different levels of education (high school, uni -
versity, etc.), the results are close due to their shared characteristics, mainly 
including sports. Alemdağ et al. (2018) argued that it would be expedient to 
pay attention to group work in practical courses and give feedback during 
sports practice in line with the general characteristics of the diverging learn -
ing style. They emphasised the importance of active participation within the 
group in terms of students’ social and emotional development and noted that 
feedback would facilitate practising and remembering sports skills. Although 
the dominant learning style of the PE students was diverging, it will be useful 
to know what the approaches that are suitable for other learning styles are. This 
is because knowing about the dominant learning style of the group in question 
does not mean those with other learning styles may be neglected. In this sense, 
considering the characteristics of those with the assimilating learning style, it 
was emphasised that they are highly competent in putting very comprehensive 
knowledge into a short and logical form.
Additionally, the theory has a more logical robustness than practice for 
them, and they are interested in ideas and abstract concepts more than they are 

216 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
interested in people (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Individuals with the converging learn -
ing style are highly competent in finding practical implementations for ideas and 
theories, they have problem-solving skills and prefer dealing with technical tasks 
and problems rather than social and interpersonal issues (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). 
Based on all these characteristics related to learning styles, there is a clear need for 
teachers to focus on these features that represent learning styles.
In the search for an answer to RQ2, the overall academic achievement 
levels of the PE students were analysed at different intervals in relation to their 
learning style preferences. The primary purpose of this study for analysing PE 
students’ academic achievement based on their learning styles was not to reveal 
which learning style is more useful or helpful, but rather to examine the com -
patibility or incompatibility between learning style preferences and academic 
achievement. The result of the analysis showed that the dominant learning styles 
of the PE students were diverging and assimilating, considering the total of the 
three measurements. However, those with an accommodating learning style en -
joyed the highest academic achievement in the measurements taken in three dif -
ferent intervals. This incompatibility between the PE students’ dominant learning 
styles and academic achievement levels may mean attention was not paid to PE 
students’ learning style preferences at the beginning and end of the programme. 
In other words, this may suggest that the PE students’ dominant learning styles 
were not identified, and lecturers did not design their semester or annual syllabus 
in line with these learning styles. A similar incompatibility was previously report -
ed in a study on sports high school students (Alemdağ et al., 2018). The fact that 
students with an accommodating learning style have high academic achievement 
may suggest that courses are mostly taught in line with the learning characteris -
tics of these students. Kolb (1984) described accommodators as individuals who 
engage in new experiences, plan frequently, seek opportunities, take risks and 
adapt to changing circumstances. Additionally, accommodators prefer to work 
with others and pay attention to effectively communicate with athletes, coaches 
and other colleagues (Stradley et al., 2002).
Conclusion
The primary results of the study showed that the learning styles of the 
PE students were more stable in time based on the measurements performed 
at different intervals. This situation suggests that when PE students’ learning 
styles are identified, one can be informed about their learning characteristics 
for a specified period (2-3 years). This period may be regarded as reasonable, 
considering the duration of the PE teaching programme. Thus, lecturers or 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 217
those who do not manage teaching programmes will not have to apply a very 
strict programme to identify PE students’ learning styles.
The secondary result of the study showed an incompatibility. The domi -
nant learning styles of the PE students were diverging and assimilating, con -
sidering the sum of the three measurements. However, the highest academic 
achievement was obtained by convergers and accommodators in three different 
intervals.
Lecturers should be willing to identify students’ learning characteris -
tics before designing their semester syllabus so that they can adopt an effective 
teaching strategy. Provided that students with different learning characteristics 
are not disregarded, a course design conforming to dominant learning styles 
will result in a more effective and efficient education process. Especially in PE 
and sports departments, which teach both theoretical and practical courses, it 
is useful for lecturers to frequently review their teaching strategies to keep up 
with students’ learning characteristics.
Future research may adopt a qualitative approach to investigate whether 
courses are taught in keeping up with the learning characteristics of students. 
If any relevant compatibility or incompatibility is discovered, more appropri -
ate measures may be taken regarding the education and teaching process of PE 
students. 
References
Alemdağ, C., Alemdağ, S., & Özkara, A. B. (2018). The analysis of sports high school students’ 
learning styles in terms of overall academic success. Education and Science , 43(195), 269–278. https://
doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7327
Alemdağ, C., Kalkavan, A., Alemdağ, S., & Özkara, A. B. (2016). The learning styles of student 
athletes according to alma mater and academic achievement. International Journal of Science Culture 
and Sport , 4(Special Issue-1), 146–155.
Alemdağ, C., & Öncü, E. (2015). Pre-service physical education teachers according to Kolb’s model 
of learning style. Journal of Subject Teaching Research , 1(1), 1–12. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/aleg/
article/view/5000105292
Baldwin, B. A., & Reckers, P . M. J. J. (1984). Exploring the role of learning style research 
in accounting education policy. Journal of Accounting Education , 2(2), 63–76. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0748-5751(84)90006-X
Birrell, H. V , Phillips, C. J., & Stottc, D. H. (1985). Learning style and school attainment in young 
children: a follow-up study. School Psychology International , 6, 207–218.
Burns, D. E., Johnson, S. E., & Gable, R. K. (1998). Can we generalize about the learning style 
characteristics of high academic achievers? Roeper Review , 20(4), 276–281. 

218 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553907
Busato, V . V ., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1998). Learning styles: A cross-sectional and 
longitudinal study in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 68, 427–441. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01302.x
Çağlayan, H. S. (2011). The investigation of academicians’ learning styles in school of physical 
education and sports in Turkey. Educational Research and Reviews , 6(3), 326–333. http://search.
ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ923665&site=ehost-
live&scope=site%5Cnhttp://www.academicjournals.org/ERR/PDF/Pdf 2011/Mar/Caglayan.pdf
Cavas, B. (2010). A study on pre-service science, class and mathematics teachers’ learning styles in 
Turkey. Science Education International , 21(1), 47–61.
Çelik, F., & Şahin, H. (2011). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenliği öğretmen adaylarının cinsiyet 
ve öğrenim gördükleri sınıf düzeyi bakımından öğrenme stillerinin incelenmesi (MAKÜ örneği) 
[Investigation of learning styles of pre-service physical education and sport teachers according to 
gender and graduate levels (MAKU sample)]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 
31, 23–38.
Cimermanová, I. (2018). The effect of learning styles on academic achievement in different forms of 
teaching. International Journal of Instruction , 11(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11316a
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). Routledge 
Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group.
Coker, C. (1996). Accommodating students’ learning styles in physical education. Journal of Physical 
Education, Recreation & Dance , 67(9), 66–68.
Connell, T., & Franklin, C. (1994). The Internet: Educational issues. Library Trends , 42(4), 608–625. 
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7928/librarytrendsv42i4d_opt.pdf?sequence=1
Ekiz, D. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (2nd ed.). Anı Y ayıncılık.
Erkuş, A. (2009). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci [Scientific research process for 
behavioral sciences] (2nd ed.). Seçkin Y ayıncılık.
Evin Gencel, İ. (2007). Kolb’un deneyimsel öğrenme kuramına dayalı öğrenme stilleri envanteri-III’ü 
Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması [Adapting Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory-III based on experiential 
learning theory into Turkish]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 9(2), 
120–139.
Evin Gencel, İ., & Köse, A. (2011). Relationship between the prospective science teachers’ learning 
styles, learning and study strategies, and self-efficacy beliefs in science teaching. Journal of Theory 
and Practice in Education , 7(2), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.86666
Fan, K. K., Xiao, P ., & Su, C. H. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the 
learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, 
Science & Technology Education , 11(5), 1211–1229. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering 
Education , 94(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). 

c e p s Journal | V ol.10 | N
o
4 | Y ear 2020 219
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Gökalp, M. (2013). The effect of students’ learning styles to their academic success. Educational 
Research and Reviews , 8(17), 1634–1641. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1575
Hein, G. H. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. In The museum and the needs of people - CECA 
(International Committee of Museum Educators) – Conference .
Hein, T. L., & Budny, D. D. (2000). Styles and types in science and engineering education. In 
International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education . 
Horton, C. B., & Oakland, T. (1997). Temperament-based learning styles as moderators of academic 
achievement. Adolescence , 32(125), 131–141.
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and 
computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education , 
9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885
Katrancı, Y ., & Bozkuş, F. (2014). Learning styles of prospective mathematics teachers: Kocaeli 
University case. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 116, 328–332.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.216
Kolb, A. Y ., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential 
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education , 4(2), 193–212.  
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning . Prentice Hall. http://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0071ML6FI
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1971). Organizational psychology: An experiential 
approach . Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1999). Learning style inventory, Version 3 . Hay Resources Direct.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, 
learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences , 51(4), 472–477. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
Kurbanoğlu, S., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2008). Learning styles of the students of the department of 
information management. Turkish Librarianship , 22(3), 296–307.
Kuzgun, Y ., & Deryakulu, D. (2006). Bireysel farklılıklar ve eğitime yansımaları [Individual 
differences and their reflections on education]. In Y . Kuzgun & D. Deryakulu (Eds.), Eğitimde 
Bireysel Farklılıklar [Individual differences in education] (2nd ed., pp. 1–11). Nobel Y ayın.
Özdemir, N., & Kesten, A. (2012). The learning styles of prospective social studies teachers’ and the 
relationship between demographic characteristics. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences , 16(1), 
361–377.
Pinto, J. K., & Geiger, M. A. (1991). Changes in learning-style preferences: A prefatory report of 
longitudinal findings. Psychological Reports , 68, 195–201. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.68.1.195-201
Rakoczy, M., & Money, S. (1995). Learning styles of nursing students: A 3-year cohort longitudinal 
study. Journal of Professional Nursing , 11(3), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(95)80116-2
Reynolds, J., & Gerstein, M. (1992). Learning style characteristics: An introductory workshop. The 
Clearing House , 66(2), 122–126.

220 changes in learning style preferences of physical education students
Ristori, C. A., Eberman, L. E., Tripp, B. L., & Kaminsky, T. W . (2011). Athletic training student 
learning style. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training , 16(2), 33–37.
Şimşek, A. (2006). Öğrenme biçimi [Learning style]. In Y . Kuzgun & D. Deryakulu (Eds.), Eğitimde 
Bireysel Farklılıklar (2nd ed., pp. 97–138). Nobel Y ayın.
Stradley, S. L., Buckley, B. D., Kaminski, T. W ., Horodyski, M., Fleming, D., & Janelle, C. M. (2002). 
A nationwide learning-style assessment of undergraduate athletic training students in CAAHEP-
accredited athletic training programs. Journal of Athletic Training , 37(4 suppl), 141–146.
Uzuntiryaki, E. (2007). Learning styles and high school students’ chemistry achievement. Science 
Education International , 18(1), 25–37.
Y alız, D., & Erişti, B. (2010). Learning styles of students in the Department of Physical Education and 
Sports Teacher at Anadolu University. Celal Bayar University Journal of Physical Education and Sport 
Sciences , 4(4), 156–163.
Y aşar, Ş. (1998). Y apısalcı kuram ve öğrenme-öğretme süreci [Structuralism and learning-teaching 
process]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 8(1–2), 68–75.
Y azıcılar, Ö., & Güven, B. (2009). The effects of learning style activities on academic achievement, 
attitudes and recall level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 1 (1), 2578–2583.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.455
Biographical note
Ceyhun Alemdağ, PhD, is an assistant professor in the field of physi -
cal education and sports on the Faculty of Sport Sciences at Trabzon Univer -
sity, Turkey. He focuses on the professional development of physical educa -
tion teachers in terms of educational psychology. His research interests include 
teaching and learning, epistemological beliefs and academic self-efficacy in 
teacher education.