A Comparative Analysis of Economics Graduates' Learning Attitudes : Implications for Teaching

We report on the results of a two-phase survey aiming to explore the learning preferences of graduates in economics, compare the findings with graduates in other disciplines, and identify the determinant dimensions of their developed learning preferences. Economics graduates are compared against business administration, engineering, accounting-finance-banking, trading-maritime-marketing, maths-stats-informatics, and public administration graduates. A group of miscellaneous graduates is also included for graduates not-classifiable in the aforementioned groups. Kolb's LSIv3 has been utilized in identifying student learning styles. First-phase sample consists of 288 graduates and second-phase sample consists of 496 graduates. All these graduates attended post-graduate programs classes at nine Greek major universities. Both samples are relatively balanced as regards gender participation with a small female prevalence over males. Results show assimilating types to be the prevailing group, followed by converging, diverging, and accommodating types for both phases. Economics graduates are predominantly assimilators, while significant differences are found mainly in the perceiving dimension of learning ((AC-CE) dimension in Kolb's model) between them and same learning style type graduates in other disciplines. A grid presentation of individual scores for all participants reveals a higher concentration of assimilating types for the second phase sample, while accommodating types are in relative scarcity in both phases. Factor analyses reveal that processing and transforming of information and experience into knowledge ((AE-RO) dimension in Kolb's model) is the most significant determinant dimension in student learning for all groups of graduates for both phases. Overall, results have implications for teaching of economics. The impact of selecting and implementing teaching strategies based on lectures is discussed and we argue in favor of active student engagement in the teaching-learning procedure. Finally, we put forward some propositions for further research