The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1 2005 - Whitewater ...

Recommendations

Info

Sample N ACCE /AERO Total Norm Group On-line Users Research University Freshmen Lib. Arts College Students Art College UG Research University MBA Distance E-learning Adult UG 6977 -.21 p
and AE as the other in factor one. In factor two, RO is the dominant pole and CE and AE are the other pole. The art sample shows two different bipolar factors, with RO and CE as poles in factor one and AC and AE as poles in factor two. The percent of variance explained by the two factors is about the same in all seven analyses, with the total being between 70 and 75%—factor one 36-41% and factor two 29-35%. Table 8. Norm Group Factor Analysis of KLSI 3.1 Scales Sample Factor CE RO AC AE Total Norm 1 2 On-line Users Research University Freshmen Lib. Arts College Students Art College Undergrad Research University MBA Distance E-learning Adult UG 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 .525 .438 .471 .511 .686 .116 .167 -.775 .780 .180 .665 -.215 .512 .397 .053 -.998 .056 -.996 .152 -.906 -.918 .044 -.937 .021 .064 .952 -.019 -.992 -.988 .148 -.991 .120 -.945 .077 .041 .856 .048 -.918 -.965 -.030 .520 .475 .582 .433 .216 .760 .781 -.079 .209 .752 .339 -.694 Overall the results of correlation and factor analysis studies show similar results. As Loo notes, “...with only four scale scores, factoring may be unnecessary because the factor pattern structure can be accurately estimated from an inspection of the correlation pattern among the four scales” (1999: 216). These data are consistent with previous versions of the LSI (Kolb 1976b, 1985b) and give qualifi ed support for the ELT basis for the inventories. The support must be qualifi ed because the higher-than-predicted negative correlations between AC and AE, and CE and RO in the KLSI 3.1 normative groups is not predicted and results in the slightly increased negative correlation between AC-CE and AE-RO and the mixed-factor analysis results for all but the research university freshmen, the liberal arts college students, and the distance e-learning sample. -.931 .342 .613 .333 23
Page 1 and 2: Abstract The Kolb Learning Style In
Page 3 and 4: Testing Implications of Concepts in
Page 5 and 6: An individual with diverging style
Page 7 and 8: in more abstract and applied areas
Page 9 and 10: HISTORY Five versions of the Learni
Page 11 and 12: environment. The way we process the
Page 13 and 14: 3. NORMS FOR THE LSI VERSION 3.1 Ne
Page 15 and 16: Recent theoretical and empirical wo
Page 17 and 18: 5. VALIDITY This section begins wit
Page 19 and 20: Computer and Information Science Th
Page 21: Most of the debate and critique in
Page 25 and 26: Mean Educational Level 9 8 7 6 5 4
Page 27 and 28: The distinct value systems and educ
Page 29 and 30: The Adaptive Style Inventory The Ad
Page 31 and 32: simulation intended to measure clin
Page 33 and 34: Gardner and Korth used ELT, learnin
Page 35 and 36: To help students deal with diffi cu
Page 37 and 38: Specht (1991) examined the effect o
Page 39 and 40: Nursing. Stiernborg, Zaldivar, and
Page 41 and 42: Stice argues that the low knowledge
Page 43 and 44: History. Sprau and Keig, contend th
Page 45 and 46: Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., and
Page 47 and 48: Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., and Mi
Page 49 and 50: Katz, N. (1990). Problem-solving an
Page 51 and 52: Loo, R. (2002a). A meta-analytic ex
Page 53 and 54: Rosenthal, C. S. (1999). One experi
Page 55 and 56: White, J., and Manolis, C. (1997).
Page 57 and 58: Refl ective Observation Valid Cumul
Page 59 and 60: Active Experimentation Cumulative R
Page 61 and 62: Cumulative Raw Score 6 Frequency 24
Page 63 and 64: Valid Cumulative Raw Score 7 Freque
Page 65 and 66: Active 55 398 32.01 6.482 .325 31.3
Page 67 and 68: Descriptives Gender N Mean APPENDIX
Page 69 and 70: APPENDIX 4. Learning Style and Educ
Page 71 and 72: APPENDIX 5. Learning Style Type and

The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1 2005 - Whitewater ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?