■ Dissertation Presentation Script

Examining the Influence of Learning Styles on Self-Efficacy in the Corporate Workplace

Mrudula Dukhande | MA Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Under the Guidance of Ms. Nikita Gautam

■ Keep this script with you during your presentation. Read slowly and breathe!

SLIDE 1 — TITLE SLIDE

"Good [morning / afternoon] everyone."

"My name is Mrudula Dukhande, and I am a student of MA Industrial and Organizational

Psychology."

"Today I will be presenting my dissertation titled —"

■ "Examining the Influence of Learning Styles on Self-Efficacy in the Corporate

Workplace."

"This research was done under the guidance of Ms. Nikita Gautam."

SLIDE 2 — ABSTRACT

"So let me start with a quick overview of what this study is about."

"In today's corporate world, employees are constantly expected to learn new things and adapt
quickly."

"But here's an interesting question —"

■ "Why do some employees feel more confident than others, even when they go through
the same training?"

"My study tries to answer this by looking at two things —"

➤ How people prefer to learn — this is called Learning Style

➤ How confident they feel at work — this is called Self-Efficacy

"I wanted to understand if there is a relationship between the two."

SLIDE 3 — THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

"To understand this, I used two well-known theories."

■ Theory 1: Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory (1984)

According to Kolb, people have four different learning styles:

➤ Diverging — they like to observe and think

➤ Assimilating — they prefer ideas and logic

➤ Converging — they like solving practical problems

➤ Accommodating — they love hands-on, real-world experience

■ Theory 2: Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory (1977)

Bandura said self-efficacy — your belief in your own ability — comes from four sources. The most
powerful source is:

■ Mastery Experience — when you actually DO something successfully, your confidence

grows.

"So the connection I was looking at is — employees who prefer doing and experimenting are more
likely to have mastery experiences, and therefore, higher self-efficacy."

SLIDE 4 — RESEARCH GAP

"A lot of research has already been done on this topic — but mostly with students in academic
settings."

■ Three key gaps this study fills:

➤ Very few studies looked at working professionals

➤ Very few studies were done in the Indian corporate context

➤ Not many studies combined Kolb's and Bandura's theories together

"So that is the gap my study is trying to fill."

SLIDE 5 — METHODOLOGY

"For my study, I used a quantitative research design."

■ Sample Collection:

I initially collected data from 241 corporate employees through an online Google Form shared via
social media.

From these 241 responses, I carefully selected 40 participants from each learning style group —
so 40 Accommodating, 40 Converging, 40 Diverging, and 40 Assimilating — giving me a final
sample of 160 participants.

■ I did this to ensure equal group sizes, which is important for running a One-Way ANOVA
accurately and fairly.

All participants were:

➤ Between 21 to 40 years of age

➤ Had at least 6 months of work experience

Two tools were used:

➤ Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (LSI) — to identify each person's learning style

➤ SES-SANS Self-Efficacy Scale — to measure their confidence levels

Statistical Analysis: Descriptive Statistics, One-Way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD Post-Hoc Test

SLIDE 6 — DEMOGRAPHICS

■ Key Sample Details:

➤ 160 total participants — corporate employees across various departments

➤ Age range: 21 to 40 years (purposive sampling)

➤ Equal groups — 40 participants in each learning style group

➤ Tools used: Kolb's LSI v4.0 and SES-SANS Scale

➤ Data collected via Google Forms and social media

SLIDE 7 — MEAN SELF-EFFICACY SCORES

"Now let me share what I found."

"When I looked at the average self-efficacy scores across the four groups, here is what came up:"

■ Self-Efficacy Score Rankings:

■ Accommodating learners — 95.53 (Highest)

■ Converging learners — 84.83

■ Diverging learners — 60.15

4■■ Assimilating learners — 32.48 (Lowest)

■ "Employees who prefer hands-on and action-oriented learning had much higher
confidence levels compared to those who prefer observing and thinking."

SLIDE 8 — ANOVA RESULTS

"To check if these differences were statistically significant, I ran a One-Way ANOVA."

■ Key Result:

F(3, 156) = 982.13, p < .001

"This means the differences in self-efficacy scores across the four groups were highly significant —
not by chance at all."
"The between-group variance was much larger than the within-group variance, which tells us that
learning style is a strong predictor of self-efficacy."

■ Both H1 and the overall direction of H3 are supported by this result.

 SLIDE 9 — POST HOC RESULTS — TUKEY HSD

"To find out which specific groups were different from each other, I used the Tukey HSD Post-Hoc
Test."

■ Result: Every single pair of groups was significantly different — all at p < .001

➤ Accommodating vs Converging: Mean difference = 10.70

➤ Accommodating vs Diverging: Mean difference = 35.38

➤ Accommodating vs Assimilating: Mean difference = 63.05

➤ Converging vs Diverging: Mean difference = 24.68

➤ Converging vs Assimilating: Mean difference = 52.35

➤ Diverging vs Assimilating: Mean difference = 27.68

"Each learning style group has its own distinct self-efficacy profile. So H2 is also accepted."

SLIDE 10 — HYPOTHESIS SUMMARY

■ All three hypotheses were ACCEPTED ■

■ H1: Active learners (Converging & Accommodating) have higher self-efficacy than reflective
learners — ACCEPTED

■ H2: Self-efficacy differs significantly across all four learning style groups — ACCEPTED

■ H3: Learning styles significantly predict self-efficacy among corporate employees —

ACCEPTED

"The way a person prefers to learn does significantly influence how confident they feel at work."

SLIDE 11 — DISCUSSION

"Now why does this happen? Let me explain."

■ Accommodating learners — Highest SE (95.53)

They love doing things, taking risks, and jumping into new experiences. This gives them more
mastery experiences — the strongest source of self-efficacy (Bandura).

■ Converging learners — Second Highest SE (84.83)

They are practical problem-solvers. They engage actively with tasks and achieve real results — so
confidence is also high.

■ Assimilating learners — Lowest SE (32.48)

They prefer to sit back, think, and analyze. Fewer hands-on interactions = fewer mastery experiences
= lower self-efficacy.

■ The Kolb–Bandura Pathway:

Active Learning Style → Active Experimentation → Mastery Experience → Higher Self-Efficacy

SLIDE 12 — THEORETICAL & EMPIRICAL SUPPORT

"My findings are also supported by previous research."

■ Yamazaki (2018) — Managers with active experimentation learning styles had higher
self-efficacy in Japanese corporations.

■ Harrison (2024) — Experiential training modules significantly raised employee self-efficacy.

■ Gupta & Joshi (2019) — Accommodating learners in India showed stronger efficacy beliefs.
*(Most relevant to our study!)*

■ Cassidy & Eachus (2000) — Action-oriented learners reported greater task confidence.

SLIDE 13 — PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

"So what does this mean for organizations?"

■ 1. Personalized Training Design

Include simulations, role plays, and hands-on activities — especially to support Diverging and
Assimilating employees.

■ 2. Onboarding & Leadership Development

Identify employees' learning styles early using Kolb's LSI to provide the right kind of developmental
support.

■ 3. Performance Management

Assimilating and Diverging employees may need more mentoring and structured mastery
opportunities to build workplace confidence.

■ 4. Theoretical Contribution

This study provides Indian corporate evidence for the AE → Mastery Experience → Self-Efficacy
pathway.

SLIDE 14 — CONCLUSION

■ Central Question: Did learning styles significantly influence self-efficacy among

corporate employees?

YES — All 3 Hypotheses Accepted ■

➤ Learning styles predict self-efficacy — F(3,156) = 982.13, p < .001

➤ Active styles → Higher SE: Accommodating (95.53) and Converging (84.83) — driven by
hands-on mastery experiences
➤ Reflective styles → Lower SE: Diverging (60.15) and Assimilating (32.48) — fewer direct task
engagements

■ "Understanding individual learning preferences allows organizations to design inclusive,

confidence-building training — improving performance, engagement and adaptability."

"Thank you so much for listening. I am happy to take any questions."

■ Speak slowly — you know this research better than anyone in the room.
■ If you forget something, take a breath and look at this script.
■ The numbers are on your slides — just explain what they mean in simple words.
■ It is okay to pause. Pausing shows confidence, not weakness.
■ You have done all the hard work already. The presentation is just sharing it!