learning-styles

LSRC reference Section 6
page 74/75
Although the questionnaire appears to be a stable
and internally consistent measure of two behavioural
or attitudinal dimensions, it is still not clear that it
provides a satisfactory alternative to Kolb’s inventory
as a method of assessing learning styles. More
evidence of its validity is necessary before it can be
adopted with confidence.
In 1999, Swailes and Senior surveyed 329 British
managers, using cluster and factor analysis, to
assess the validity of the LSQ. Their findings indicated
a three-stage learning cycle of action, reflection and
planning as opposed to the four stages in Honey
and Mumford’s model. Moreover, they noted the poor
discrimination of some LSQ items, claiming that over
one-third of the items failed to discriminate between
learning styles. They conclude (1999, 9–10) that
the scale scores ‘do not appear distinctive enough
to allow individuals to be categorized on the basis
of their learning style profiles’, and they recommend
that the LSQ be redesigned to overcome the
weaknesses they identify.
Sadler-Smith (2001a) examined the claims of Swailes
and Senior by administering the LSQ to 233 business
and management undergraduates in the UK, and used
confirmatory factor analysis to test the Honey and
Mumford model against competing explanations.
His data indicates that ‘the LSQ does not measure
two bipolar dimensions of learning style as might be
anticipated from its origins in the theory by Kolb (1984).
Rather, the LSQ and Honey and Mumford’s version
of the learning cycle appear to consist of four uni-polar
elements’ (Sadler-Smith 2001a, 212). In an important
rejoinder, Swailes and Senior quoted Mumford as
stating in a personal communication that ‘the LSQ
is not based upon Kolb’s bi-polar structure as the
academic community seems to think’ (2001, 215).
Unfortunately, no alternative theoretical structure has
so far been suggested by Honey and Mumford.
More recently still, Duff (2001) and Duff and Duffy
(2002) have usefully summarised the estimates
from a number of research studies of the psychometric
properties of the LSQ. A study by Fung, Ho and
Kwan (1993) is omitted from what follows because
a short form of the LSQ was used which was probably
responsible for relatively low reliability scores.
On the other hand, a study of the learning styles and
academic performance of engineering and business
students by Van Zwanenberg, Wilkinson and Anderson
(2000) is included because its findings are consonant
with those of the other researchers, including
Duff and Duffy (2002).
First, Duff and Duffy (2002) examined the internal
consistency reliability of the LSQ (ie the extent to
which the items in the questionnaire are measuring
the same thing) by summarising the findings of previous
research as well as by conducting their own studies.
The results from Allinson and Hayes (1988), Sims,
Veres and Shake (1989), Tepper et al. (1993),
Jackson and Lawty-Jones (1996), De Ciantis and
Kirton (1996) and Van Zwanenberg, Wilkinson and
Anderson (2000) are remarkably consistent: they show
only a moderate internal consistency reliability of the
order of 0.52 to 0.78, when 0.8 is usually regarded
as the acceptable criterion of reliability. Duff and Duffy
also used both exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis in order to identify the four learning styles
and two bipolar dimensions proposed by Honey and
Mumford, but they failed to do so. Moreover, learning
style proved to be only a weak predictor of academic
performance. Mumford (2003) objected to this
inference because the course design and methods
are likely to dictate the learning style. If, for example,
a course is biased towards theorist preferences,
then in order to pass, most students, regardless of their
real preferences, will learn in that way. It would then
be unsurprising if the LSQ scores were poor predictors.
Duff and Duffy (2002, 160) concluded as follows:
Caution should be employed if adopting the LSQ
to select appropriate instructional materials or to
categorise individual students. The findings indicate
the LSQ is not a suitable alternative to either [Kolb’s]
LSI or LSI-1985.
Honey (2002b) countered that these academic
criticisms miss the point and are ‘unhelpful in
undermining confidence in a diagnostic [tool] that
has proved to be helpful to so many people for 20 years’.
Moreover, he argued that the academics are treating
the LSQ as a psychometric instrument which it was
never intended to be:
The LSQ is simply a checklist that invites people to
take stock of how they learn. It is purely designed
to stimulate people into thinking about the way they
learn from experience (which most people just take
for granted). There is nothing remotely sophisticated
about it: it is an utterly straightforward, harmless
self-developmental tool.
Honey (2002c) summed up as follows: ‘The LSQ
is therefore merely a starting point, a way to get people
who haven’t thought about how they learn to give
it some consideration and to realise, often for the first
time, that learning is learnable’. Finally, he challenged
the academics by asking what questionnaire they
would recommend and, if they are unable to do so,
what questionnaire they have themselves designed.