learning-styles

The BES instrument has elements for learners
to self-assess ‘analytic’ versus ‘global’, and ‘reflective’
versus ‘impulsive’ processing. In a survey of 73 trainee
teachers using the BES, 71.3% identified themselves
as strong to moderately analytic while 49.4% identified
themselves as strong to moderately reflective.
These findings were used to support the claim that
trainee teachers who are themselves more likely to
be analytic need to be prepared to teach ‘a relatively
high number of global processors amongst youngsters’
(Honigsfeld and Schiering 2003, 292).
Evaluation by authors
Rita Dunn makes strong claims for reliability, validity
and impact; for example (1990b, 223):
Research on the Dunn and Dunn model of the learning
style is more extensive and far more thorough than
the research on any other educational movement, bar
none. As of 1989, it had been conducted at more than
60 institutions of higher education, at multiple grade
levels … and with every level of academic proficiency,
including gifted, average, underachieving, at risk,
drop-out, special education and vocational/industrial
arts populations. Furthermore, the experimental
research in learning styles conducted at St John’s
University, Jamaica [in] New York has received one
regional, twelve national, and two international awards
and citations for its quality. No similar claim can be
made for any other body of educational knowledge.
By 2003, the number of research studies had
increased, being conducted in over 120 higher
education institutions (Lovelace 2003).
Reliability
The LSI manual (Price and Dunn 1997) reported
research which indicated that the test–retest
reliabilities for 21 of the 22 factors were greater
than 0.60 (n=817, using the 1996 revised instrument),
with only ‘late morning’ preferences failing to achieve
this level (0.56). It is important to reiterate here
that the number of elements varies between the
different inventories because the PEPS omits elements
for motivation in the case of adults. For the PEPS,
Price (1996) reported that 90% of elements had
a test–retest reliability of greater than 0.60 (n=504),
the ‘rogue element’ in this case being the ‘tactile
modality’ preference (0.33). It is important to note
that the 0.60 criterion for acceptable reliability is a lax
one, since at that level, misclassification is actually
more likely than accuracy. The PEPS was tested with
975 females and 419 males aged 18 to 65 years.
Test–retest reliabilities for the 20 sub-scales ranged
from 0.39 to 0.87 with 40% of the scales being over
0.8 (Nelson et al. 1993).
Although at the time of writing, there are no academic
articles or book chapters dealing with the reliability
and validity of the Building Excellence Survey (BES),
in 1999, one of Rita Dunn’s doctoral students made
a detailed statistical comparison of the PEPS and the
BES (Lewthwaite 1999). Lewthwaite used a paper-based
version of the BES which contained 150 items and
resembled the current electronic version in ‘look
and feel’. Both the PEPS and the BES were completed
by an opportunity sample of 318 adults, with the
PEPS being done first, followed by part of the BES,
the rest being completed by most participants at home.
Lewthwaite felt the need to preface the questionnaire
with a 20–30 minute lecture about the Dunn and Dunn
learning styles model and an explanation about how
to self-score the BES. There was therefore ample
opportunity for participants to revise their choices
in response to section-by-section feedback, since they
had a fortnight before bringing their completed booklets
to a follow-up session. This was hardly an ideal way
to study the statistical properties of the BES, since
both the lecture and the way in which the BES presents
one strand at a time for self-scoring encouraged
participants to respond in a consistent manner.
What is of particular interest about Lewthwaite’s
study is the almost total lack of agreement between
corresponding components of the PEPS and the
BES. Rita Dunn was closely involved in the design
of both instruments, which are based on the same
model and have similarly worded questions. Yet
the correlations for 19 shared components range
from –0.14 (for learning in several ways) and 0.45
(for preference for formal or informal design and
for temperature), with an average of only 0.19. In other
words, the PEPS and the BES measure the same things
only to a level of 4%, while 96% of what they measure
is inconsistent between one instrument and the
other. The only conclusion to be drawn is that these
instruments have virtually no concurrent validity even
when administered in circumstances designed to
maximise such validity.
The literature supporting the model presents
extensive citations of studies that have tested the
model in diverse contexts (see Dunn et al. 1995;
Dunn and Griggs 2003). The authors claim that age,
gender, socio-economic status, academic achievement,
race, religion, culture and nationality are important
variables in learning preferences, showing multiple
patterns of learning styles between and within
diverse groups of students (eg Ewing and Yong 1992;
Dunn et al. 1995). The existence of differences both
between and within groups means that the evidence
does not support a clear or simple ‘learning styles
prescription’ which differentiates between these groups.