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

ABSTRACT

Aims Kolb Learning Style Inventory as one of the valid scales for the experimental measurement of learning styles is used in numerous studies and its validity and reliability have confirmed. The present study aimed to examine the psychometric properties and reliability and validity of Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3.1 (KLSI-V3.1-2005) in Iranian students.
Materials & Methods In this descriptive-analytical study 1037 Bachelor degree students of Isfahan University were selected from Humanities, Engineering, Arts, and Medicine faculties of 8 fields by multi-stage random sampling in 2011-12. Data gathered by modified Kolb Learning Style Inventory and VARK Learning Styles Inventory. To evaluate reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Guttmann and correlation coefficients and assessing validity was applyed by concurrent validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using SPSS 19 and AMOS 5 software.
Findings There was a correlation between VARK and Kolb learning styles.Cronbach’s alpha Gutman coefficient was obtained 0.71 and 0.73 for concrete experience, 0.71 and 0.73 for reflective observation, 0.92 and 89.0 for abstract conceptualization and 90.0 and 90.0 for active experimentation.Exploratory factor analysis extracted four factors that were explained 76% of total variance and confirmed their confirmatory factor analysis.Learning styles were not different in terms of gender, but were significantly difference in terms of educational field.
Conclusion Kolb Learning Style Inventory has appropriate validity and reliablity in Iranian sample and can be used in emergency cases.

Keywords: Learning, Education, Students,

CITATION 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.