learning-styles

Recommendations

Info

An overall evaluation of Kolb’s contribution therefore needs to differentiate between the theory of experiential learning and the instrument, the LSI, that is designed to measure individual learning styles. Kolb has not only explicitly based his four learning styles on a theory, he also developed that theory which has been very widely taken up by researchers, tutors and trainers in, for example, education, counselling, management and business more generally. There is now a massive international literature devoted to the topic, which shows no signs of waning. On the other hand, the controversies over the psychometric properties of the first two versions of the LSI continue unabated, while it is still too early to pass judgement on the third version. What, however, cannot be contested is that Kolb’s instrument has created a whole school of adapters and revisers who have used the LSI as the basis from which to develop their own version of a learning styles instrument. Of these, Honey and Mumford (2000) are the best known. But whether the continuing proliferation of ‘eponymous questionnaires that overlap considerably’ is good for the development of the (in)discipline is an important issue raised by Furnham (1992, 437). The unending controversies over the psychometric shortcomings of the LSI have, however, had one unfortunate consequence: they ‘have discouraged conceptual development and testing of the experiential learning theory’ (Romero, Tepper and Tetrault 1992, 172). The debate over the most appropriate measure of reliability of the LSI is not just a technical issue; for some commentators, like Garner (2000, 346), it is a reflection of deeper theoretical contradictions in Kolb’s work because ‘the actual nature of what is being measured is constantly shifting from “flexible” to “stable”’. Garner’s argument is that Kolb has responded to criticism by claiming that his learning styles exhibit ‘stable flexibility’, but they are presented in his published work as highly stable and essentially fixed. Similarly, Garner finds unconvincing Kolb’s reference to the importance of context as a means of avoiding the charge of stereotyping: ‘Kolb attributes learning styles to the learners themselves and, although he recognises the influence of the environment, he makes no attempt to describe exactly what this influence is or how it can be best understood or measured’ (Garner 2000, 343; original emphasis). Kolb clearly believes that learning takes place in a cycle and that learners should use all four phases of that cycle to become effective. Popular adaptations of his theory (for which he is not, of course, responsible) claim, however, that all four phases should be tackled and in order. The manual for the third version of the LSI is explicit on this point: ‘You may begin a learning process in any of the four phases of the learning cycle. Ideally, using a well-rounded learning process, you would cycle through all the four phases. However, you may find that you sometimes skip a phase in the cycle or focus primarily on just one’ (Kolb 1999, 4). But if Wierstra and de Jong’s (2002) analysis, which reduces Kolb’s model to a one-dimensional bipolar structure of reflection versus doing, proves to be accurate, then the notion of a learning cycle may be seriously flawed. There is also a general, and largely unacknowledged, problem with some of the best summaries and descriptions of Kolb’s learning styles, when they turn to a discussion of the relevance of the styles for teaching or instruction. For example, Jonassen and Grabowski, in a highly detailed and fine-grained analysis of Kolb’s contribution, base their two pages of advice to tutors on implications which they have ‘drawn logically from descriptive information regarding the trait’ (1993, 259) rather than on findings from research. The five studies which they review, before offering their advice, include commentators who ‘believe’ in one practice or who ‘recommend’ another. There does not yet appear to be sufficient experimental evidence about Kolb’s learning styles on which to base firm recommendations about pedagogy. Finally, it may be asked if too much is being expected of a relatively simple test which consists of nine (1976) or 12 (1985 and 1999) sets of four words to choose from. What is indisputable is that such simplicity has generated complexity, controversy and an enduring and frustrating lack of clarity.
LSRC reference Section 6 page 70/71 Table 20 Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) General Strengths Learning styles are not fixed personality traits, but relatively stable patterns of behaviour. 30 years of critique have helped to improve the LSI, which can be used as an introduction to how people learn. Weaknesses Should not be used for individual selection. Design of the model Learning styles are both flexible and stable. Based on the theory of experiential learning which incorporates growth and development. Three elements need to be separated: process = the four stages of the learning cycle level = how well one performs at any of the four stages style = how each stage is approached. Reliability Changes to the instrument have increased its reliability. Long, public dispute over reliability of LSI. Third version is still undergoing examination. Validity The construct validity of the LSI has been challenged and the matter is not yet settled. It has low predictive validity, but it was developed for another purpose – as a self-assessment exercise. Implications for pedagogy In general, the theory claims to provide a framework for the design and management of all learning experiences. Teachers and students may be stimulated to examine and refine their theories of learning; through dialogue, teachers may become more empathetic with students. All students to become competent in all four learning styles (active, reflective, abstract and concrete) to produce balanced, integrated learners. Instruction to be individualised with the help of IT. The notion of a learning cycle may be seriously flawed. The implications for teaching have been drawn logically from the theory rather than from research findings. Evidence of pedagogical impact There is no evidence that ‘matching’ improves academic performance in further education. The findings are contradictory and inconclusive. No large body of unequivocal evidence on which to base firm recommendations about pedagogy. Overall assessment Key source One of the first learning styles, based on an explicit theory. Problems about reliability, validity and the learning cycle continue to dog this model. Kolb 1999
Page 1 and 2:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 3 and 4:
LSRC reference Learning styles and
Page 5 and 6:
LSRC reference Contents 1 9 13 37 4
Page 7 and 8:
LSRC reference Figures and tables L
Page 9 and 10:
LSRC reference Acknowledgements The
Page 11 and 12:
Section 1 A systematic review of le
Page 13 and 14:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 2/3 E
Page 15 and 16:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 4/5 T
Page 17 and 18:
LSRC reference Section 1 page 6/7 T
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 3 Vermunt’s model of learn
Page 21 and 22:
We devised this classificatory syst
Page 23 and 24:
The popular appeal of the notion th
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 5 Gregorc’s four-channel l
Page 27 and 28: From the evidence available, we con
Page 29 and 30: Table 1 Gregorc’s Mind Styles Mod
Page 31 and 32: Table 2 Variables and factors in th
Page 33 and 34: The measures Over 25 years, Dunn an
Page 35 and 36: Table 4 Percentages of respondents
Page 37 and 38: The BES instrument has elements for
Page 39 and 40: Shwery (1994) also questioned aspec
Page 41 and 42: However, the notion of ‘gifted’
Page 43 and 44: Second, the model encourages teache
Page 45 and 46: Table 6 Dunn and Dunn’s model and
Page 47 and 48: The most influential member of the
Page 49 and 50: Table 9 Studies of the interaction
Page 51 and 52: Riding and Rayner (1998) do not def
Page 53 and 54: Implications for pedagogy Riding (2
Page 55 and 56: Section 5 Stable personality type L
Page 57 and 58: LSRC reference Section 5 page 48/49
Page 69 and 70: Section 6 Flexibly stable learning
Page 77: LSRC reference Section 6 page 68/69
Page 99 and 100: Section 7 Learning approaches and s
Page 127 and 128: Section 8 Implications for pedagogy
Page 129 and 130:
LSRC reference Section 8 page 120/1
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Our recommendation in favour of inc
Page 143 and 144:
As for the research evidence in fav
Page 145 and 146:
Learning styles in practice: labell
Page 147 and 148:
Table 44 13 learning-styles models
Page 149 and 150:
It may be argued that it is importa
Page 151 and 152:
The comparative neglect of knowledg
Page 153 and 154:
LSRC reference page 146/147 Referen
Page 155 and 156:
LSRC reference References page 148/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
LSRC reference page 166/167 Author(
Page 175 and 176:
LSRC reference Appendix 1 page 168/
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 3 Glossary of terms LSRC r
Page 179 and 180:
LSRC reference Appendix 3 page 172/
show all

learning-styles

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?