BLOG #04 : Learning Styles — Kolb, Honey & Mumford, and VAK

 

Learning Styles — Kolb, Honey & Mumford, and VAK

 

Introduction

Learning is more than absorbing content; it’s about how people engage with experience, make sense of it, and apply it. “Learning styles” promise tailored instruction, yet the evidence is mixed. This blog critically evaluates three influential frameworks—Kolb’s experiential learning styles, Honey & Mumford’s workplace-oriented adaptation, and the popular VAK model—so you can design organisational learning that is effective, inclusive, and defensible. We’ll use practical scenarios from banking as illustrative examples, while keeping the topic general for MBA standards.

Overview of theories: Kolb, Honey & Mumford, VAK

Kolb's experiential learning styles

Kolb’s model describes learning as a cycle of four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). From this cycle, Kolb derived four styles:

•  Diverging: Prefers experience and reflection; thrives on idea generation and empathy.

•  Assimilating: Prefers reflection and conceptualization; values logic, models, and analysis.

•  Converging: Prefers conceptualization and experimentation; focuses on technical problem-solving.

•  Accommodating: Prefers experience and experimentation; relies on action, intuition, and trial-and-error.

Honey & Mumford’s workplace adaptation

Honey & Mumford (1986) adapted Kolb’s styles into four pragmatic profiles for organizational contexts:

•  Activist: Learns by doing; enjoys new challenges and group activities.

•  Reflector: Learns by observing and reviewing; prefers careful consideration.

•  Theorist: Learns by fitting observations into frameworks; values clarity and structure.

•  Pragmatist: Learns by applying ideas; seeks relevance and immediate utility.

VAK: Visual–Auditory–Kinesthetic

VAK suggests learners have a dominant sensory modality—visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (Fleming and Mills, 1992). It encourages multimodal design (e.g., diagrams, spoken explanations, hands-on practice). However, the “meshing hypothesis”—that instruction matched to individual modality improves learning—has limited support; reviews find little robust evidence that matching improves outcomes (Pashler et al., 2008).

Comparative table: What to use, where to be cautious

Practice: Applying learning styles without the pitfalls

• X-Design around tasks and outcomes, not labels. Begin with capability needed, such as risk analysis, stakeholder communication; then select methods

• Sequence learning through Kolb’s cycle, whereby in every intervention, use experience, reflection, theory, and experimentation.

• Diversify modalities—judiciously. Provide visuals, discussion, and hands-on practice to widen access without assuming fixed styles.

• Use diagnostics as conversation starters. Honey & Mumford profiles can prompt reflection, but avoid pigeonholing.

• Emphasize feedback and retrieval practice. Frequent practice tests and spaced reviews improve retention and transfer (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006).

Examples of banking scenarios

•  Risk management workshop: Begin with a simulated market shock (concrete experience), facilitate a structured debrief (reflective observation), present risk frameworks (abstract conceptualisation), and run hedging experiments in a sandbox (active experimentation).

•  AML training: Combine case studies listened to, visuals about transactions, and sandbox testing; follow the Kolb's learning cycle with judgment, not compliance facts.

•  Customer Experience Lab: Practice service interactions with role-plays, watch recordings, model service principles and new script piloting. Apply Honey & Mumford profiling in balancing team participation without stereotyping.

 

Analysis: What the evidence says-and doesn't

The key research question is whether matching instruction to declared styles improves learning outcomes. High-quality reviews conclude there’s limited evidence supporting style-matching benefits (Pashler et al., 2008). Coffield et al. (2004) critically appraise multiple inventories and caution against uncritical adoption. More consistently supported are:

• Sequenced, experiential design aligned to Kolb’s cycle.

• Multimodal delivery that supports comprehension and engagement.

• Retrieval practice and feedback loops that reinforces long-term retention (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006)

• Appropriate task-methods, selecting the pedagogy to fit the complexity and performance demands.

Analytical graph: Relative impact on performance over six months

Assume average performance improvement indices due to different design approaches:

• Style-matching only: 4, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9

• Multimodal + Kolb sequencing: 6, 11, 17, 23, 28, 34

• Retrieval practice + feedback: 7, 13, 20, 27, 35, 42

These trends indicate that sequencing and practice surpass the style-matching paradigm.

Analytical table: Method-to-outcome mapping

 

Critical insight

Consider learning styles as design prompts, not prescriptions. Labels are likely to narrow opportunities and facilitate unknowingly biased facilitation. On the other hand, one should:

• Experiencing, reflecting, theorizing and trying out in every program.

• Use multimodal elements to widen access and engagement.

• Embed robust feedback and retrieval practice into the workflow.

• Measure with actual performance indicators: error rates, compliance scores, time-to-proficiency, and customer outcomes.

Conclusion

Where Kolb, Honey & Mumford, and VAK usefully provide a language with which to discuss preference, their value lies in informing rather than dictating design. The strongest results come from sequenced experiential learning, multimodal delivery, and deliberate practice with feedback. For organizational learning and development, this translates into programs that feel tailored yet remain evidence-informed, scalable, and strategically aligned.

Takeaway

• Use learning styles to enhance design, not to stereotype learners.

• Sequence interventions through Kolb’s cycle to deepen understanding and application.

• Diversify modalities to amplify engagement; avoid strict style matching.

• Feedback and retrieval practice build to cement learning and improve transfer.

• Measure what matters: performance, compliance, and customer outcomes.

References 

• Beard, C. and Wilson, J.P. 2013. Experiential learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching. London: Kogan Page.

• Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. and Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

• Fleming, N.D. and Mills, C. (1992) Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, pp.137–155.

• Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986) The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.

• Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (2008) Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), pp.105–119.

• Roediger, H.L. and Karpicke, J.D. (2006) Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), pp.249–255.