Development and Validation of KOLB 4.0 Learning Style Questionnaire

Rashvand Semiyari, Shokouh; Azad, Mahnaz

doi:10.22049/jalda.2022.27097.1254

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

¹ Assistant Professor, TEFL Department, Faculty of Humanities, IAU University, East Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0126-9875

² Assistant Professor, TEFL Department, Faculty of Humanities, IAU University, East Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5782-5108

https://doi.org/10.22049/jalda.2022.27097.1254

Abstract

A great deal of individual difference with reference to learners’ beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors can be explained in terms of the learning style the individuals adopt during the learning process. These learning styles have been labeled initiating, experiencing, creating / imagining, reflecting, analyzing, thinking, deciding, acting, and balancing according to Kolb and Kolb (2013). This research was conducted to develop and validate a multidimensional structure of the Kolb learning style inventory v. 4.0 (KLSI 4.0) in an Iranian context. KLSI 4.0 which is conceptualized in Experiential Learning Theory was then developed and evaluated through a series of validation procedures. Eight hundred thirty-three EFL learners studying English as ESP in IAU East Tehran Branch participated in the main phase of this study. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) through Structural Equation Modeling validated the proposed nine types KLSI 4.0. The outcomes of the initial piloting of the KLSI 4.0 did not show an acceptable fit due to high degree of correlation between some factors under the broad construct of learning style. Three factors indicating the highest degree of correlation were thus merged and the model was run again with modified six-factor LSI. Findings confirmed that learning style is a multidimensional construct in which the six factors are conceptually related. Reliability and validity estimates were examined and provided satisfactory psychometric properties of the inventory. In fact, the six-factor-correlated model of KLSI 4.0 revealed an acceptable model fit. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research were also discussed. The CFA applied in the research is distinguished from the initial assumptions in the literature and is more straightforward than originally presumed. This paper might be therefore used as a starting empirical point for further cross-validation analyses and educational implications.

Keywords

20.1001.1.28208986.2022.10.1.3.6

Main Subjects

Language Assessment and Testing

Article Title [Persian]

تهیه و اعتبار سنجی پرسشنامه سبک یادگیری کلب ورژن ۴

Authors [Persian]

دکتر شکوه رشوند سمیاری ¹
دکتر مه ناز آزاد ²

¹ استادیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران شرق، تهران، ایران

² استادیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد سلامی واحد تهران شرق، تهران، ایران

Abstract [Persian]

بسیاری از تفاوت های فردی مرتبط با عقاید، افکار، و رفتار فراگیران بر حسب سبک یادگیری که آنها در طی فرآیند یادگیری انتخاب می کنند، قابل تعبیر است. این سبک های یادگیری طبق نظر کلب و کلب (۲۰۱۳) عبارتند از شروع کننده، تجربه کننده، مبتکر / خلاق، متفکر، تحلیل گر، تامل کننده، تصمیم گیرنده، عمل گرا، و متعادل. این تحقیق به منظور تهیه و اعتبار سنجی ساختار چند بعدی پرسشنامه سبک یادگیری کلب ورژن ۴ در کشور ایران انجام شده است. پرسشنامه فوق به نظریه یادگیری تجربی منوط شده و توسط رویکردهای اعتبار سنجی تهیه و ارزیابی گردیده است. ۸۳۳ دانشجو که زبان انگلیسی را بعنوان زبان خارجی فرا می گیرند و در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شرق درس می خوانند، در این تحقیق مشارکت داشته اند. تحلیل عاملی تاییدی با استفاده از الگوی معادلات ساختاری جهت اعتبار سنجی پرسشنامه فوق (شامل ۹ سبک یادگیری) استفاده گردیده است. نتایج بررسی اولیه پرسشنامه کلب ورژن ۴ برازش قابل قبولی را نشان نداد، چرا که همبستگی بالایی بین سبک های یادگیری وجود داشت. بمنظور حل مشکل فوق، ۳ سبک یادگیری که بالاترین مقدار همبستگی را نشان می دادند با یکدیگر تلفیق گردیده و مدل دیگری برای پرسشنامه جدید که حالا شامل ۶ سبک یادگیری بود، ترسیم گردید. نتایج نشان داد که پرسشنامه جدید قابل قبول بوده و از برازش مناسبی برخوردار بوده است. پایایی و روایی مدل نیز رضایتبخش بود. در حقیقت پرسشنامه سبک یادگیری کلب ورژن ۴ شامل ۶ سبک یادگیری برازش مناسبی را نشان داد. کاربرد آموزشی و پیشنهاداتی به منظور تحقیقات آتی نیز ارائه گردید.

Keywords [Persian]

سبک یادگیری
مراحل اعتبار سنجی
تحلیل عاملی تاییدی
الگوی معادلات ساختاری

References

Abante, M. E. R., Almendral, B. C., Manansala, J. E., & Manibo, J. (2014). Learning styles and factors affecting the learning of general engineering students. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 3(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v3-i1/500

Alvarado, F. C., Leon, M. P., & Colon, A. M. O. (2016). Design and validation of a questionnaire to measure research skills: Experience with engineering students. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 6(3), 219-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jotse.227

Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM SPSS Amos 22 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation. URL: http://amosdevelopment.com.

Bodnar, M., Namiesnik, J., & Konieczka, P. (2013). Validation of a sampling procedure. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 51, 117-126. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.trac.2013.06.011

Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2000). An empirical study of pluralism of learning and adaptive styles in a MBA program. (Working paper). Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (1999). Reflection in service learning: Making meaning or experience. Educational Horizons, 77(4), 179-85. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/slceeval/23

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421

Dornyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.

Eickmann, P., Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2004). Designing learning. In F. Collopy & R. Boland (Eds.), Managing as designing: Creating a new vocabulary for management education and research (pp. 241-247). Stanford University Press.

Fletcher, S., Potts, J., & Ballinger, R. (2008). The pedagogy of integrated coastal management. The Geographical Journal, 174(4), 374–386. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40205256

Guyton, E. (2000). Social justice in teacher education. The Educational Forum, 64,108–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720008984738

Gyeong, J. A., & Myung, S. Y. (2008). Critical thinking and learning styles of nursing students at the baccalaureate nursing program in Korea. Contemporary Nurse, 29(1), 100–109. https://doi.org /10.5172/conu.673.29.1.100

Herrmann, K. J., & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2017). Validation of the quality in PhD processes questionnaire. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 8, 2, 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-D-17-00017

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1986). Using your learning styles, 2nd ed. Peter Honey.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Ishii, H., Shimatsu, A., Okimura, Y., Tanaka, T., Hizuka, N., Kaji, H., Hanew, K., Oki, Y., Yamashiro, S., Takano, K., & Chiharak, K. (2012). Development and validation of a new questionnaire assessing quality of life in adults with hypopituitarism: Adult hypopituitarism questionnaire (AHQ). PLoS ONE, 7(9), 1-9. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044304

Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of Kolb's learning style inventory version 3 (1999). Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-8262-4

Kline, R. B. (2013). Beyond significance testing: Statistical reform in the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.

Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4^th ed.). Guilford.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005a). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005b). The Kolb learning style inventory 3.1: Technical specifications. Hay Resources Direct.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2006). Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of experiential learning theory in higher education. In R. R. Sims, & S. J. Sims (Eds.), Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education (pp. 45–92). Nova Science Publishers.

Kolb, A.Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2013). The Kolb learning style inventory 4.0: A comprehensive guide to the theory, psychometrics, research on validity and educational applications. Experience Based Learning System.

Kumar, L. R., Voralu, K, Pani, S. P., & Sethuraman, K. R. (2011). Association of kinesthetic and read-write learner with deep approach learning and academic achievement. Can Med Educ Journal, 2, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.36538

Laguador, J. M. (2013). Developing students’ attitude leading towards a life-changing career. Educational Research International, 1(3), 28-33.

Lohri-Posey, B. (2003). Determining learning style preferences of students. Nurse Educator, 28(2), 54-64. https://doi.org /10.1097/00006223-200303000-00002

Lucas, M., & Corpuz, B. (2007). Facilitating learning: A meta-cognitive process. Lorimar Publishing.

Luqman, N. & Khalid, R. (2021). Development and validation of LS scale for E-learners. SAGE Open, 11(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211022324

Manolis, C., Burns, D., Assudani, R., & Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb learning style inventory. Learning & Individual Differences, 23(1), 44-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009

Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Indian Journal of Statistics, 37(2), 115–128. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25051892

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2014). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129

Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org /10.4135/9781412995627

O'Connor, D., & Yballe, L. (2007). Team leadership: Critical steps to great projects. Journal of Management Education, 31(2), 292–312. https://doi.org /10.1177/1052562905282158

Pedrosa de Jesus, H. T., Almeida, P. A., Teixeira-Dias, J. J., & Watts, M. (2006). Students' questions: Building a bridge between Kolb's learning styles and approaches to learning. Education and Training, 48(2/3), 97–111 https://doi.org /10.1108/00400910610651746

Pfeifer, S., & Borozan, D. (2011). Fitting Kolb's learning style theory to entrepreneurship learning aims and contents. International Journal of Business Research, 11(2), 216–223. URL: http://www.aibe.org/1555-1296, 1554-5466

Rogers, K. (2009). A preliminary investigation and analysis of student learning style preferences in further and higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770802638234

Santrock, J. (2005). Psychology essentials 2. McGraw-Hill.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056004411

Teng, L. S. (2016). Changes in teachers’ beliefs after a professional development project for teaching writing: Two Chinese cases. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1135228

Viswanathan, M. (2005). Measurement error and research design. SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984935

Turesky, E. F., & Gallagher, D. (2011). Know thyself: Coaching for leadership using Kolb's experiential learning theory. Coaching Psychologist, 7(1), 5–14. URL: http://www.bps.org/1748–1104

Yahya, I. (1998). Wilcoxson and Prosser's factor analysis on Kolb's (1985) LSI data: Reflections and re-analysis. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 281-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1998.tb01290.x

Yasar, S., & Cogenli, A. G. (2013). Determining validity and reliability of data gathering instruments used by program evaluation studies in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 504-509. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.156

Yousef, D. A. (2019). Exploring the reliability and validity of the learning styles questionnaire (LSQ) in an Arab setting. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(4), 446-464. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2018-0113

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Applied Literature: Dynamics and Advances

Development and Validation of KOLB 4.0 Learning Style Questionnaire

References

References

Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 19
April 2022
Pages 35-55

Development and Validation of KOLB 4.0 Learning Style Questionnaire

References

References

Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 19April 2022Pages 35-55

Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 19
April 2022
Pages 35-55