learning-styles

The long history of public dispute over the reliability
of the LSI can be portrayed as the action of two
opposing factions of supporters and detractors.
But this complex picture is made more complicated still
by one of the sharpest groups of critics having a change
of heart as a result of research with a modified version
of the 1985 version of the LSI. In a number of studies,
Veres, Sims and their colleagues had criticised the
1985 version because the minor improvements in
test–retest reliability as compared to the 1976 version
were not sufficient to support Kolb’s theory (Sims et al.
1986; Veres, Sims and Shake 1987; Sims, Veres
and Shake 1989). However, when they changed the
instrument by randomly presenting the order of the
sentence endings to eliminate a probable response
bias, the test–retest reliabilities ‘increased
dramatically’ (Veres, Sims and Locklear 1991, 149).
As a result, they now recommend that researchers
should use the modified version of the LSI to study
learning styles.
Their stance is supported by Romero, Tepper and
Tetrault (1992) who likewise, in order to avoid problems
with scoring the LSI, developed new scales which
proved to have adequate levels of reliability and validity.
In the technical specifications of the 1999 version
of the LSI, Kolb (2000, 69) uses the data produced
by Veres, Sims and Locklear (1991) to claim that its
reliability has been ‘substantially improved as a result
of the new randomized self-scoring format’.
Validity
The continuing conflict over the reliability of the
LSI is replicated with respect to its validity and shows
little sign of the kind of resolution which the theory
of experiential learning suggests is necessary for
learning to take place. The latest version of the guide
to the LSI (Kolb 2000) contains one general paragraph
on the topic of validity. This refers the reader to the
vast bibliography on the topic, but does not provide any
detailed statistics or arguments beyond claiming that
in 1991, Hickox reviewed the literature and concluded
that ‘83.3 per cent of the studies she analyzed provided
support for the validity of Experiential Learning Theory
and the Learning Style Inventory’ (Kolb 2000, 70).
In sharp contrast, Freedman and Stumpf (1978, 280)
reported that in studies of undergraduates following
different courses, ‘on average, less than 5 percent
of between-group variance … can be accounted for by
knowledge of learning style’. While they accepted that
the LSI has sufficient face validity to win over students,
factor analysis provided only weak support for the
theory; furthermore, they claimed that the variance
accounted for by the LSI may be simply a function
of the scoring system.
Further confusion arises because for every negative
study, a positive one can be found. For example,
Katz (1986) produced a Hebrew version of the
LSI and administered it to 739 Israeli students to
investigate its construct validity. Factor analysis
provided empirical support for the construct validity
of the instrument and suggested that ‘Kolb’s theory
may be generalised to another culture and population’
(Katz 1986, 1326). Yet in direct contradiction,
Newstead’s study (1992, 311) of 188 psychology
students at the University of Plymouth found that,
as well as disappointingly low reliability scores,
‘the factor structure emerging from a factor analysis
bore only a passing resemblance to that predicted
by Kolb, and the scales did not correlate well with
academic performance’.
Again, Sims, Veres and Shake (1989) attempted
to establish construct validity by examining the
LSI and Honey and Mumford’s LSQ for convergence.
The evidence, based on both instruments being
administered to 279 students in two south-eastern
US universities, was ‘disappointingly sparse’
(1989, 232). Goldstein and Bokoros (1992, 710)
also compared the two instruments and found
a ‘modest but significant degree of classification
into equivalent styles’.
A more serious challenge to Kolb’s theory and
instrument is provided by De Ciantis and Kirton (1996)
whose psychometric analysis revealed two substantial
weaknesses. First, they argued (1996, 816) that
Kolb is attempting, in the LSI, to measure ‘three
unrelated aspects of cognition: style, level and process’.
By ‘process’, they mean the four discrete stages of the
learning cycle through which learners pass; by ‘level’,
the ability to perform well or poorly at any of the
four stages; and by ‘style’, the manner in which
‘each stage in the learning process is approached and
operationalised’ (1996, 813). So, as they concluded:
‘each stage can be accomplished in a range of styles
and in a range of levels’ (1996, 817). The separation
of these three cognitive elements – style, level
and process – is a significant advance in precision
over Kolb’s conflation of styles, abilities and stages
and should help in the selection of an appropriate
learning strategy.
De Ciantis and Kirton go further, however, by casting
doubt on Kolb’s two bipolar dimensions of reflective
observation (RO)-active experimentation (AE) and
concrete experience (CE)-abstract conceptualisation
(AC). Interestingly, the two researchers elected to use
Honey and Mumford’s LSQ in their study of the learning
styles of 185 managers in the UK and the Republic
of Ireland, because they considered it more reliable
than Kolb’s LSI. Kolb’s four learning styles emerged from
their factor analysis, but in a different configuration,
with CE at one pole and RO at the other; and AC at one
pole and AE at the other.