Learning Styles 1

8/3/2019 Learning Styles 1

1/7

Individual Differences Research, 2004, 2(3) 169www.idrg.org/idr/

2004 Individual D ifferences Research G roup. All r ights reserved.

The Inde x of Lea rn ing Styles : A n Inv es t iga tionof its Rel iabi l i ty and Concur rent Val id i ty wi ththe Pre fe ren ce TestJere my E. C. G enov ese*

Cleveland State University- The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is a widely used instrument forg s tuden t lea rn ing s ty les . To examine i ts re l iabi li ty and va l id i ty , the ILS and theTes t (PT), a hemisph er ic c og ni t ive s tyle ins t rument , were adm inis te red to 131a t iona l psycho logy s tuden t s . R e l iab il ity ana lys is found the Sequ en t i a l -G loba l s cal ehe ILS to hav e una cce ptably low rel iabi l i ty. In add i t ion , the Sequen tia l - G lobal scaleot co rre la te wi th the PT, which measu res a s imila r cons t ruc t . Fac tor an a lys is of thees t s a two-fac tor s t ruc ture . This resea rch ra i ses ques t ion s about the va l id i ty of the

Many models of lea rn ing s ty les share the assumpt ion tha t a be t te r knowledge ofde n ts ' l ea rn ing d i f fe rences could h e lp improve ins t ruc t ion, both through modi f ica t ionseach ing and improved s tuden t s e lf knowledg e . A l though th is app roach ha s s trongve ap pea l resul t s have been mixed (e .g . Lawson & Joh nso n, 2002, Ford & Chen,D oyle, R ad zicki, R ose , & Tree s, 1997). One stud y by Ford and Chen (2001) isg or mismatching ins t ruc t ion to a D epth-f irs t /Breadth-fi rs t l ea rn ing s ty le

s ion . They found be t te r pe rforman ce when ins t ruc t ion was matched to s tudent

Unfor tuna te ly , much of the work on lea rn ing s tyles lacks theore t ica l c la r itydequ a te measu rement ins t rume nts , a po in t made force fully by Curry (1990).The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) i s a popula r ins t rument for assess ing s tudent

ineer in g edu ca t ion it has become mo re wide ly used . The ILS has been t rans la ted to


2/7

170 Individual Differences R esearch, 2004, 2(3)- Intui t ive, Visual - Verbal , A ct ive - R eflect ive, and Sequentia l - G lobal . An ea rl ive rs ion of the ILS inc luded an Induc t ive - Deduc t ive d imens ion, which has beeabandoned in the most recent version (Felder, 2002).According to Felder (2002) the ILS has not been val idated and one study (VaZwane berg, Wilkinson , & A nd erso n, 2000) found the ILS had low internal re l iabi l itThe purpose of this s tudy is to test the re l iabi l i ty of the ILS and i ts concurrent val idiwith the Preference Test . It is hop ed that crit ica l analysis of exist ing m od els of learn inand cognit ive s tyles wil l contribute to greater theoret ical and methodological c lari ty.

In order to test the val idi ty of the ILS the Preference Test (PT) was chosen as tconcurrent cri terion. The PT is a 20-i tem instrument created by Zenhausem (1978) thmeasures respon den ts on a Left - R ight hemisp her ic cogn i t ive s tyle d imen s ion . Researchas found the PT to have acceptable psychometr ic pro per t ie s (Mercke lbach , Mu ris , PooD eJong , & Scho uten , 1996,) and to corre la te with bioph ysical me asu res of hemisp he ric i(Russo, Persegani , Tor l in i , Papeschi , & Trimarchi , 2001). Zenhausem's (197descr ip t ion of r ight and le f t hemispher ic s ty le i s s imi la r to Fe lder ' s and Si lve rman(1988) descript ion of the Global - Sequentia l learning style .Hemisph eric mo dels of cogn it ive s tyle usu al ly posi t a "Left h emis ph eric" s tyle that both analyt ic and v erbal , and a "Right hem isph er ic" s tyle tha t i s hol i s t and v isua l (Vemo1984, Zen hau sem, 1978). This gro up ing of cog ni t ive s ty les is con t rovers ia l and specifical ly rejected by Riding and Rayner (1998) who have argued for the existence two or thogo na l d imens ions of cogn i tive s ty le ; the Hol i s t - A na lytic d imens ion and thVisual - Verbal dimen sion. On the oth er han d, Silverman (2002), a co -auth or of the ILhas recent ly endo rsed the idea of two bas ic types of lea rners . Visua l-spa t ia l and A ud i torsequentia l , which she ident i f ies with right and left hemispheric funct ioning respect ivelThis d ichotomous typology seems a t odds wi th the model impl ic i t in the ILS. Thubeyond the issue of the re l iabi li ty of the ILS this s tudy ho pe s to inv est igate the fol lowinques t ions:1. What a re the in te rcorre la tions be tween sca les on the ILS? Van Zwanen berg, e t a(2000) found a s ignificant corre la t ion between the sequentia l - global dimension ansens ing- i n tu i t i ve d imens ion {r = A\,p < .0001). Based on Silve rma n's (2002) cla ithat learne rs can be classif ied as Visual-spat ia l o r A ud itory-seque ntia l it is hypo thesizetha t the re shou ld be a corre la tion be tween the Visua l - Verba l sca le and the Sequent i

-Global scale of the ILS.2. A re there any significant co rre la t ion s between ILS scales and the Righ t - Lehemispher ic pre fe rence as measured on the PT? A reasonable hypothe s i s i s tha t theshould be a s t rong corre la tion be tween the sequen t ia l - g loba l ILS dimens ion and tR ight - Left prefe renc e on the PT. .M e t h o d

ParticipantsOne hundred th i r ty one educa t iona l psychology s tudents (95 females , 36 malecomp leted the ILS and the PT. Their mean ag e was 27.9 years (SD = 8.5, ran ge 19 - 5


3/7

Individual Differences Research, 2004, 2(3) 171lidated (Felde r, 2002) and on e stud y (Van Zwan eberg , e t a l ., 2000) found the ILS hadThe Preference Test (PT). The PT is a 20-i tem instrument created by Zenhausern978) tha t mea sures re spo nd en ts on a Left - Right hemispher ic cogn i t ive s tyle d imens io n .

la tes wi th b iop hysica l measu res of h emispher ic i ty (Ru sso, e t a l . , 2001).AnalysisD ata ana lys is was performed us ing SPSS (1999). Fol lowing the proc ed ure used by

e PT were assessed sep ara te ly. For the corre la tiona l ana lys is the PT di f fe rence scores

Resul t sTable 1 disp lays the d esc r ip t ive s ta t i s ti c s for the ILS. The samp le was s l ight ly more

Table 1ILS and PT Scores: Descriptive Statisticsg - In tu i t ive

- G lobal

g - In tu i tive- G lobal

(PT)

Mean0.742.592.481.530.89

In te rna ta.63.72.71.53.68.58

SD2.382.732.542.1513.91Tabte 2R eliability of th e ILS and PT scales

Classification by DeVellis (1991) C r i t e r i aUndesi rab leRespec tab leRespec tab leUnaccep tab leMinimal ly accep tab leUnaccep tab le

R el iabi l ity coeff ic ients (Cro nba ch ' s a ) for the 4 sca le scores of the ILS and two sca les o f th e PT are shown in Table 2 . R e l iabi li ty for the ILS sca les a re a l l h igher than


4/7

' 72 Individual Differences Research, 2004, 2(3)D ropping i tems with low or nega t ive corre la t ions to i tem to ta ls would no t have chang ethe D cVell is c lassificat ion of any of the scales .The re l iabil i t ies of the PT scales were found to be lower than reported in othe r resea rc(Merckc lbach e t a l . , 1996). Using the D eVe l l i s ( 1991) cri teria the Left He misph ere sc a(a = .68) would be labeled m inimally acce ptable and the R ight Hemisphe re scale (a = .58would be labeled u nac cep table . D rop ping i tems would ra ise the re l iabi l i ty of the two Psca les but some write rs have ra ised que s t ions about the adv isabi li ty of such a pro ced urbecause it may resul t in an o verest imation of re l iabi l ity (Kop alle & Lehman n, 1997) anit was not pu rsued in this s tudy.The corre la t ions between scale scores are shown in Table 3. This s tudy confirms thfinding of Van Zwanen berg, e t a l . (2000) of a s ign i f i c an t co r re l a t i on be tween Sens ingIntui tive and Sequentia l - G lobal scales of the ILS (r = .37,/ ; < .05). Howev er, while VaZwanenberg, e t a l . found no other s ignificant intercorre la t ions between ILS scales, thresearch found a s igni f icant corre la t ion be tween the Act ive - Ref lec t ive Sca le and thVisual - Verbal scale (/= . 2 1 ,p < .05).

Table 3Co rrelatio ns betw een ILS and PT scale scores (n = 131)Sca i ei . Ac t ive - Ref lect ive2. Sensing - in tu i tive

3. Visuai - Verbai4. Sequential - G lobal5. Rigiit - Uf t (PT)

1 2.02-3

.21*-.03-

4.04.37*.02-

5.27*-.28**.37**-.08-*p < .05. '

Table 4Factor Loadings for Varimax Orthogonal Two-F actor SolutionA ctive - Ref lect iveSensing - in tu i tiveVisuai - VerbaiSequential - G iobaiRight - Left (PT)

Factor Loadingsi.67.74.75

2.83.79

Communaiities.46.70.55.63.66

% Of totai varia nce explained 33.30 27.05

Three of the ILS scales are s ign ificant ly c orre la ted with PT; A ctive - R eflective {r.27,p < .05), Se n s i n g - In tu i tive (r= -.2S,p


5/7

Individual Differences Research, 2004, 2(3) 1 ^3D i s cu s s i on

As no t e d , ILS co-dev e lope r Sil ve rman (2002) has recent ly end orsed the idea " tha t the retwo bas ic lea rn ing s ty les" (p . 56), the A u d i to ry-Se qu en t ia l and the Visua l - Spa t ia l .de rg i rd the ILS. Because the ILS has 4 bipola r sca les tha t ca tegor ize respo nd ents in toth is ins t rument impl ic it ly assume s the exis tence of 16 po ss ible lea rn ing styles . Two

rma n's new mod el . This s tud y hypoth es izes tha t if the ILS sca les a re va lidhe a s soc i a ted con s t ruc t s and if S ilve rman 's new d icho tomou s mode l o floba l and the Visua l Verba l sca les of the ILS.

The resu l ts he re a re c lea r ly neg a t ive ; these sca les show a non -s igni f icant corre la t ionf .02. These resu l t s sugg es t tha t the Sequent ia l - G loba l and the Visua l - Verba l sca leson a l and it must be dec ided if the fault l ie s wi th the ins t rument , the con s t ruc ts ,o th . This s tudy sug ges ts tha t the re a re good reason s to ques t ion the use fulness of theSequent ia l and G loba l sca le . Fi rs t becau se of its low internal re l iabi l i ty and, second,of i ts low corre la t ion ( r = - .08) with th e PT, a measure of a s imi la r co ns t ruc t .s the Sequen t ia l - G loba l sca le of the ILS can be sa id to lack con curren t va l id i ty withThe Visua l - Verba l sca le of the ILS does co rre la te a t a reason able leve l with the PTr = .37, p < .01) and Sil ve rman (2002) sees her mode l as be ing re la ted to h emispher ice l s of cog ni t ive s ty le . Tlie two remaining sca les of the ILS (Act ive - R ef lec tive and

Intu i tive) a l so corre la te wi th the PT.Unt i l addi t iona l resea rch i s conduc ted wi th la rger and more representa t ive samplesS shou ld be cau t ioned about the low re l iabi li ty of the Sequentia l - Globala le ' s lack of conc urre nt v a l id i ty wi th the PT. In addi t ion , be t te r ev idenceneeded for the con s t ruc t v a l id i ty of the remaining three sca les before ap pl ica tion in theLike many lea rn ing s ty le ins t ruments the ILS groups toge ther cons t ruc ts tha t cannotper ly be con s idered lea rn ing s ty les (for use ful d i scu ss ion s of lea rn ing s ty le taxono my& Rayner , 1999). For example , the Sens ing - In tu i tive d imens ion in the I LS

clearly drawn from the M yers B riggs /Jung ian typolog y (Myers & Myers, 1995) and isl ly cons idered a perso na l i ty d imens ion . The fac tor a na lys is sugg es ts tha t the ILS mayIntui t ive pe rson a l i ty fac tor .

This i s not to say tha t the d imen s ion s identi fied in the ILS are i r re levant to ins t ruc t ion ,he fa i lure to make appro pr ia te d i s t inc t ion s is ind ica tive of the theoret ical confusionI t i s important to acknowledge ce r ta in l imi ta t ions of th i s s tudy. Because theden t s we re s tuden t s a t a co l l ege o f educ a t ion , t he sample may no t be rep re sen ta t ive

l s tud ents and gen era l izabil i ty of the f indings may be l imited . In add i tion on ly oneon measu re , the PT, was used . It would be impo rtant in fu ture resea rch to compare


6/7

74 Individual D ifferences R esearch, 2004, 2(3)Author Note

The author wishes to thank Dr. Rosemary Sutton and Dr. Aida Medina Adams for thassistance.

ReferencesCurry, L. (1990). Learning styles in secondary schools: A review of instruments aimplicatio ns for their use. Ottawa; Curry A dams and A ssoc ia tes , Inc .D eVe llis, R. F. (1991). Scale developm ent: T heo ry and application. Newbury Park, CSage Publ ica t ion sDoyle, J. K., Radzicki, M. J., Rose, A., & Trees, W. S. (1997). Using cognitive stytypology to explain individual differences in dynamic decision making: Much aabout noth ing . Center for the Quality of Manag ement Jo urnal, (5, 5 - 15.Felder, R. M. (2002). Author 's preface - June 2002. Retrieved January 7, 2003 froht tp://www2.ncsu.edu:8010/unity/lockers/users/f/fe lder/public/Papers/LS-1988.pdfFelder, R. M. & Silverman, I. K. (1988). Learning styles and teaching styles eng inee r ing educa t ion . E ngineering E ducation, 7 5 , 6 7 4 - 6 8 1 .Ford, N. and Ch en, S. Y. (2001). Match ing /mismatching revisi ted: An empirical s tud ylea rning and teaching s tyles . British Journal o f Educational Technolog y, 32, 5 - 2Kop alle , P. K. & Lehman, D . R. (1997). A lpha infla t ion ? The impact of e l iminat ing scai tems on Cro nba ch 's a lpha . Org anizational Behavior and Human Decision Process70, 1 8 9 - 1 9 7 .Lawson, A. E. & Johnson, M. (2002). The val idi ty of Kolb learning styles and nePiage t ian deve lop menta l leve ls in co l lege b io log y. Studies in Higher Education, 279 - 90.Merckelbach, H.,Mu ris, P., Poo l, K. D e Jong , P. J., & Scho uten , E. (1996). R el iabi land va l id i ty of a pape r-and -pen c i l t e s t measur ing hemisph er ic pre fe rence . EuropeJournal o f Personality, / 0, 221 -231.Myers, I. B. & M yers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding perso nality type. PaAl to , CA: Dav ies-Black Publ i sh ing .R iding , R. & Rayne r, S. (1999). Co g nitive styles and learning strategies. London : DavFulton Publishers Ltd.Russo, P. , Persegani, C, Torl ini , M., Papeschi , L. L, & Trimarchi , M. (2001). Sdi f fe rences in EEG corre la tes of a se l f- repor t measure of hemisphere pre fe rencInternational Journal of Neuroscience, 106, 1 09 - 121.Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visual-spatial learner. D enver ,Deleon Publ i sh ing .Solomo n, B. A . , & Felder, R. M. (2002). Index of Learning Styles, R etr ieved January2003 from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html.SPSS Inc. (1999). SPSS Base 1 1.0 for Windo w s User's Guide. SPSS Inc. , Chica go ILVan Zwaneberg, N., Wilkinson, L. J. , & Anderson, A. (2000). Felder and SilvermaIndex of Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Quest ionnaiHow do they compare and do they predic t academic performance? EducationPsycholog y. 20, 365 - 380.Vemo n, P. E. (1984). Inte l l igen ce, cog nit ive s tyles, and brain la tera l izat ion. (p p. 135

155). In P. S. Fry (Ed). Changing conceptions of intelligence and intellectufunctio ning: Current theory and research. Amsterdam: North Hol land.


7/7

Documents

Learning Styles 1