ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Original Research

Authors

Ghasemi   N. (* )
Rabi’ei   M. (1 )
Kalantari   N. (2 )
Abdi   H. (2 )






(* ) Psychology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
(1 ) Psychology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
(2 ) Psychology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Isfahan University,Daneshgah Boulevard, Azadi Square, Isfahan, Iran
Phone: +98 7152626810
Fax: +983136683107
nezamghasemi@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  January  18, 2014
Accepted:  October 6, 2014
ePublished:  February 4, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1, 2] The learning styles are categorized as a method for concentration of, processing, and collecting information, learning, and experiences [3,4]. … [5-7] Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) is one of the learning styles and measurement inventories, in which learning is defined via experiences, learning, and composition and transfer of mental experience [8]. In Kolb Learning Inventory, thoughts are not fixed and are changing continuously in different experiences. In the inventory, there is a 4-stage cycle, including Concrete Experiment (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Active Experimentation (AE), and Abstract Conceptualization (AC), in which persons come to learn [3]. … [9-16]

The inventories before 2005 have been used in Iran and their validity and reliability values have been referred. There is no proper normalization of a new version.

The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties, validity and reliability of Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3.1 (KLSI-V3.1-2005) in Iranian students.

This is a descriptive-analytical study in the field of standardization studies.

All undergraduate students of Isfahan University, Iran, were studied in 2011-12 academic year.

1037 female and male students of third and fourth academic years of 8 disciplines were selected, using multi-stage random sampling method.

The inventory semantic matching method, i. e. coordination between a Persian translation and the English text, was used in the utilization of KLSI-V3.1-2005. Form and content of final translation were assessed by 4 university teachers of the Department of Educational Sciences of Isfahan University and its formal and content validities were confirmed. Modified Kolb Learning Style Inventory and VARK Learning Styles Inventory were used. Modified Kolb Learning Style Inventory (V3.1-2005) includes 12 items, each of which has 4 responses. The subjects should respond based on the similarity on a continuum from 1 to 4 (4=maximum similarity; 1=minimum similarity). 3 results will be derived, which are (1) learning moods, (2) learning preferences and methods, and (3) learning styles. The inventory has good validity and reliability [3, 7]. VARK Learning Styles Inventory V.7 includes 16 questions of visual, auditory, reading-writing, and skillful learning domains [4]. Maximum and minimum scores of each domain are 16 and zero, respectively. Higher score in each learning style shows higher tendency towards it. The inventory has good validity and reliability [4]. 0.98 Cronbach’s Alpha has been reported for the inventory [17]. Data was analyzed, using SPSS 19 software, which is used to analyze correlation and for Explanatory Factor Analysis. Mean values of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to test validity of factor structure. Structural Equation Modeling Program AMOS 5 was used. As equivalent and aligned inventory, VARK Learning Styles Inventory was used to investigate convergent validity. Pearson Correlation Test was used to investigate the correlation between Kolb Learning Styles (Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation) and VARK Learning Styles (Visual, Auditory, Reading-Writing, and Skillful). To evaluate reliability of Kolb Inventory (3.1), Cronbach’s Alpha and Guttmann Coefficients methods were used. Explanatory Factor Analysis Method was used to derive the factors of the inventory. Before applying factor analysis, the results of two default tests, i.e. KMO (sample size adequacy index for factor analysis) and Bartlett’s test (assessing the default of formation of a single matrix by correlation coefficients in the population), were assessed. KMO statistic was 0.89 and Bartlett statistic was 6758.8, which were significant. Factor structure of Kolb Inventory (Iranian version 3.1) was tested by mean values of confirmatory factor analysis. Independent T Test was used to investigate the differences between female and male groups in Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation Learning Methods. Cramer’s V Test was used to investigate the correlation between gender and field of study and Kolb Learning Styles (Accommodator, Converger, Diverger, and Assimilator).

627 students (60.5%) were female. 410 students (39.5%) were male. Mean ages of the male and female students were 24.9±1.70years and 23.1±1.61years, respectively. 226 persons (21.8%), 216 persons (20.8%), 293 persons (28.3%), and 302 persons (29.1%) were students of Medical Sciences, Fine Arts, Engineering, and Humanities, respectively. There was a significant moderate correlation between Kolb Learning Styles (Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation) and VARK Learning Styles (Visual, Auditory, Reading-Writing, and Kinesthetic-Tactile). Therefore, convergent validity of Kolb Learning Inventory (3.1) was confirmed (Table 1). Four Kolb Learning Styles (3.1) had proper internal consistency. Abstract Conceptualization received maximum consistency coefficient (Table 2). 4 factors were derived by Exploratory Factor Analysis via Principal Component Analysis and Inclined Final Rotation with sufficient repetitions. The factors totally explained 76% of whole variance. Eigen values for all factors were considered more than one. Factor Weights were at least considered 0.30 (Table 3). Four determined factors had the best fitness with data. GFI, AGFI, RMR, and SRMR were 0.97, 0.96, 0.02, and 0.01, respectively. Therefore, the model was fit. Obtained factors from Exploratory Factor Analysis and former studies were confirmed by the Confirmatory Factor Analysis. There was a significant difference between female and male students in Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation Learning Methods. There was no significant correlation between female and male students in Concrete Experience Learning method. There was no significant difference between female and male students in Kolb Learning Styles (Converger, Diverger, Accommodator, and Assimilator). There was a significant correlation between Humanities, Fine Arts, Engineering, and Medical Sciences in four Kolb Learning Styles. In female students, Converger, Accommodator, Diverger, and Assimilator Learning Styles had the highest frequency, respectively. In male students, Converger, Accommodator, Assimilator, and Diverger Learning Styles had the highest frequency, respectively (Table 4).

Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (2005; 4-item response) had proper psychometric indices in the Iranian students. Cronbach’s Alpha and Guttmann Coefficient in Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation were 0.71 and 0.73, 0.71 and 0.73, 0.92 and 0.89, and 0.90 and 0.90, respectively. The results of other studies [3, 7, 16] are consistent with the present results. … [18, 19] 4 factors, derived by the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis via Principal Components Method and Inclined Final Rotation with sufficient repetitions, totally explained 76% of whole variance. Therefore, factor structure of Persian version of Kolb Inventory (2005) was confirmed by mean values of factor analysis. The results are consistent with the results of other studies [20. 21]. There was no significant difference between female and male persons in the learning styles. Nevertheless, there was significant difference between Humanities, Fine Arts, Engineering, and Medical Sciences in 4 learning styles of Kolb Inventory. There is no significant correlation between female and male persons in the learning styles. However, there is significant correlation between field of study and learning, which is consistent with the present study [22]. There is no significant correlation between gender and the learning styles [23].

Non-declared

Non-inclusion of the graduate students, exclusion of individual characteristics like IQ, and merely inclusion of the state universities were some of the limitations for the present study.

As a valid inventory in the assessment of the experimental learning styles, Kolb Learning Styles Inventory has favorable psychometric indices and good validity and reliability in the Iranian students and it can be applied in the necessary cases.

The researchers feel grateful to all who participated in the study.

Non-declared

Non-declared

Non-declared

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Olson MH, Hergenhahn BR. An introduction to theories of learning. Saif AA (Translator). Tehran: Dowran; 2012. [Persian]
[2]Cassidy S. Learning styles: an overview of theories, models, and measures. Edu Psychol. 2004;24(4):419-44.
[3]Kolb AY, Kolb DA. The Kolb learning style inventory. Version 3.1. Technical specifications. Philadelphia: Hay Group; 2005. Available from: http://www.whitewater-rescue.com/support/pagepics/lsitechmanual.pdf.
[4]Othman N, Amiruddin MH. Different perspectives of learning styles from VARK model. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2010;7:652-60.
[5]Joy S, Kolb D. Are there cultural differences in learning style. Int J Intercult Relat. 2009;33(1):69-85.
[6]Fleming S, McKee G, Huntley-Moore S. Undergraduate nursing students' learning styles: A longitudinal study. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(5):444-9.
[7]D'Amore A1, James S, Mitchell EK. Learning styles of first-year undergraduate nursing and midwifery students: a cross-sectional survey utilising the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(5):506-15.
[8]Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):193-212.
[9]Shams Esfanabad A, Emamipor S. Learning and cognition styles: Theory and tests. Theran: Samt; 2001. [Persian]
[10]Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):193-212.
[11]Suliman SW. The relationship between learning styles, emotional social intelligence, and academic success of undergraduate nursing students. J of Nurs Res. 2010;18(2):136-43.
[12]Rashid NA, Taib MN, Lias S, Sulaiman N, Hj Z, et al. Learners’ Learning Style Classification related to IQ and Stress based on EEG. International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology; 2011.
[13]Metallidou P, Platsidou M. Kolb's Learning Style Inventory-1985: Validity issues and relations with met cognitive knowledge about problem-solving strategies. Learn Individ Differ. 2008;18(1):114-19.
[14]Threeton MD, Walter RA. The Relationship between personality type and learning style: A study of automotive technology students. J Indust Teach Educ. 2009;46(2):75-113.
[15]GHolami Mehrdad A, Ahghar M. Learning styles and learning strategies of left-handed EFL students. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2012;31:536-45.
[16]Kayes DC. Internal validity and reliability of Kolb’s learning style inventory version 3 (1999). J Bus Psychol. 2005;20(2):249-57.
[17]Amini N, Zamani B, Abedini Y. Medical students' learning styles. Iran J Med Educ. 2010;10(2):141-7. [Persian]
[18]Hossainilorgani M, Aliakbar S. The compression of student's learning styles. Q J Res Plan High Educ. 2000;19:93-114. [Persian]
[19]Rezaei A. Relationship between Kolb’s learning modes and Honey and Mamford’s learning styles with students’ age and academic performance. Q Educ Psychol. 2006;6(18);1-18. [Persian]
[20]Loo R. Confirmatory factor analyses of Kolb’s learning style inventory (LSI- 1985). Br J Edu Psychol. 1999; 69(2):213-9.
[21]Romero JE, Tepper BJ, Loo R, Tetrault LA. Development and validation of new scales to measure Kolb’s (1985) learning style dimensions. Educ Psychol Measur. 1992;52:171-80.
[22]Demirbas OO, Demirkan H. Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learn Instruct. 2007;17:345-59.
[23]Metin M, Yilmaz GK, Birisçi S, Coskun K. The investigating pre-service teachers’ learning styles with respect to the gender and grade level variables. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:2728-32.