learning-styles
learning-styles
learning-styles
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
LSRC reference Section 6<br />
page 66/67<br />
More recently, Wierstra and de Jong (2002) have<br />
again empirically analysed the two-dimensional model<br />
behind the 1985 version of the LSI and have suggested<br />
yet another configuration. They argue that there has<br />
been no conclusive evidence for the existence of Kolb’s<br />
two dimensions – AC-CE and RO-AE – and indeed,<br />
other researchers have found different two-dimensional<br />
structures or no two-dimensional structure at all<br />
(eg Cornwell, Manfredo and Dunlap 1991; Geiger<br />
and Pinto 1992). Their own research found two<br />
configurations of the relations between the four<br />
constructs, both of them different from the structure<br />
proposed by Kolb. Their preferred solution, which<br />
is suggested by all the types of analysis they carried<br />
out and which is not influenced by the problem of the<br />
‘ipsative’ scoring system (see below for explanation)<br />
is ‘a one-dimensional bipolar representation: (AC+RO)<br />
versus (AE+CE) or “reflective <strong>learning</strong> versus <strong>learning</strong><br />
by doing”’ (Wierstra and de Jong 2002, 439). This<br />
finding now needs to be replicated with other samples,<br />
but there is no doubt that, for the present, their<br />
research and that of De Ciantis and Kirton constitute<br />
a serious challenge to the construct validity of the LSI.<br />
General issues<br />
Another recurrent criticism of the LSI has concerned<br />
the scoring method. There are, in effect, two separate<br />
issues which are sometimes combined by some<br />
commentators. First, all three versions of the LSI<br />
employ the forced-choice method which Kolb chose<br />
deliberately, partly to increase the ecological validity<br />
of the instrument (ie the learner is forced to make a<br />
choice between different ways of <strong>learning</strong> in accordance<br />
with Kolb’s theory), and partly to avoid the ‘social<br />
desirability response’ set. To control for this response,<br />
Kolb chose four words ‘of equally positive social<br />
desirability’ (1981, 293), although it is questionable<br />
whether this objective has been achieved.<br />
Second, the LSI is what is technically described<br />
as ‘ipsative’: that is, the interdependence of the four<br />
<strong>learning</strong> modes is built into the test. To explain in<br />
more detail, a learner is forced to assign one of the<br />
four scores (1, 2, 3 or 4) to one of four endings to<br />
a sentence so that the total score for each learner<br />
for each sentence is always 10 (ie 1+2+3+4). For<br />
example, ‘When I learn: I am happy (1). I am fast (3).<br />
I am logical (2). I am careful (4)’. For Wierstra and<br />
de Jong (2002, 432), ‘ipsativity obscures the real<br />
relation between the four <strong>learning</strong> modes and it<br />
hampers research into the dimensionality of the test’.<br />
Mainemelis, Boyatzis and Kolb (2002, 10) responded<br />
to these problems by arguing as follows: ‘In the LSI, the<br />
four scale scores (AC, CE, AE, RO) are clearly ipsative,<br />
but the two dimensional scores (AC-CE and AE-RO)<br />
are not … <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> in the LSI are determined<br />
on the basis of the two non-ipsative dimensional scores<br />
and not the four ipsative scale scores’.<br />
Implications for pedagogy<br />
Kolb argues that his theory of experiential <strong>learning</strong><br />
provides a useful framework for the design and<br />
management of all <strong>learning</strong> experiences and, moreover,<br />
he makes three practical suggestions. Both types<br />
of contribution are briefly explored here.<br />
According to Kolb (1984, 196), the main weakness<br />
of current pedagogy is ‘the failure to recognise and<br />
explicitly provide for the differences in <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
that are characteristic of both individuals and subject<br />
matters’. As a result of studying the instructional<br />
preferences of students of business and architecture,<br />
Kolb produced a table which lists in great detail the<br />
characteristics of <strong>learning</strong> environments that help<br />
or hinder learners with four different <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
For example, the students scoring highest in active<br />
experimentation were, it is claimed, helped in their<br />
<strong>learning</strong> by small-group discussions, projects,<br />
peer feedback and homework, but not by lectures.<br />
Kolb’s first practical suggestion is that teachers and<br />
learners should explicitly share their respective theories<br />
of <strong>learning</strong>, a process which would create four benefits.<br />
Students would understand why the subject matter<br />
is taught as it is and what changes they would need<br />
to make to their <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong> to study this subject.<br />
Teachers would identify the range of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong><br />
among the student body and would modify their<br />
teaching accordingly.<br />
Both teachers and students would be ‘stimulated<br />
to examine and refine their <strong>learning</strong> theories’<br />
(Kolb 1984, 202).<br />
Through dialogue, teachers would become more<br />
empathetic with their students and so more able to<br />
help them improve their knowledge and skills. Freedman<br />
and Stumpf (1978) make, however, the reasonable<br />
point that such dialogues will not always take place in<br />
ideal conditions – that is, in small classes which provide<br />
individual attention from a tutor who is trained in the<br />
theory and practice of <strong>learning</strong> <strong>styles</strong>.<br />
The need to individualise instruction is the second<br />
practical conclusion that Kolb draws from his research<br />
into <strong>learning</strong> environments. This is, of course, easier<br />
said than done, particularly in further education with<br />
large group sizes and a modular curriculum, but Kolb<br />
believes that information technology (IT) will provide the<br />
breakthrough, together with a shift in the teacher’s role<br />
from ‘dispenser of information to coach or manager<br />
of the <strong>learning</strong> process’ (1984, 202). Kolb’s Facilitator’s<br />
guide to <strong>learning</strong> presents a table which ‘summarizes<br />
<strong>learning</strong> strengths and preferred <strong>learning</strong> situations<br />
that have been discussed in <strong>learning</strong> style research’<br />
(Kolb 2000, 17). No further details about the research<br />
are given. The table claims, for example, that those<br />
whose strength lies in <strong>learning</strong> by experiencing prefer<br />
games and role plays, whereas those whose strength<br />
lies in <strong>learning</strong> by reflecting prefer lectures.