Discussion of the results in context
One of the reasons for originally modelling this study around Kolb’s learning styles was due to its popularity within education and areas wishing to gain an insight into learning. What should be noted however, is that popular usage does not necessarily translate into active critical research into the actual inventory or learning style theory. From a review of the literature the bulk of the citations to Kolb work are within articles which use Kolb’s learning styles in a non-critical way, most often the inventory is simply use to assign students to groups or Kolb’s experiential cycle is used to describe the learning process. This literature is of little use here as it simply reflects Kolb’s popularity. Much of the work measures learning styles then moves on, the problems brought to light within this study will not appear problematical in such usage as test re-test reliability is not apparent if the learning styles are measured only once, hence no questions about reliability of Kolb’s LSI will be raised. The theoretical foundations of the work will also not be investigated but rather accepted, probably because the theory’s popularity.
However, it could be argued that the learning styles must be of some positive use to the researchers, teachers and educational practitioners or they would not use the theory, thus indicating a degree of reliability within the theory and LSI. This behavioural reinforcement argument leaves unelaborated what the ‘positive use’ is. The positive use may be extrinsic to the real purpose of the LSI.
The research that actually engages with Kolb’s work in a critical evaluative manner is surprisingly sparse, this may well reflect the strong face validity which Kolb’s work exhibits, along with the notion that Kolb is commonly used in all manner of learning environments, leading to the assumption that it is a useful and reliable etc. measure. (An assumption which was made early on in this study). Of the evaluative work that was uncovered by a review of the literature one area that was relatively frequently investigated was the reliability and validity of the
(Freeman and Stumpf, 1978: Freeman and Stumpf, 1980; Stumpf and Freeman, 1981; Lamb and Certo, 1978: Lamb and Certo, 1980; Fox, 1984; Geller, 1979; Marshall and Meritt, 1984,1985; West, 1982; Bonham, 1988; Rule and Grippin,
1988). All these studies strongly questioned the reliability and validity of Kolb’s learning styles and learning styles measures. The analysis undertaken revealed a significant difference between the first and second learning style measurement (P<= 0.05).
Kolb does attempt to counter such criticisms with the argument that the research which such studies undertakes is not appropriate to the LSI test.
“This idea of variability seems essential, since change and adaptation to environmental circumstances are essential to any concept of learning. (1981, pg 290).
Kolb goes on to argue that in light of this, test re-test measures are not appropriate and should be abandoned in favour of split half reliability measure which he
argues are more appropriate for assessment of a state. This study was not able to
identify any research which had undertaken such reliability measures and even
Kolb does not present any to support his work within Experiential Learning.
However, as has been demonstrated here (see pg 213 - 252) Kolb may wish his learning styles to be perceived as flexible but he does not accommodate such wishes within the design of his theory. In fact Tyler’s (1978) Possibility Processing20 that work leads Kolb’s learning styles down the track to ultimate stability. The argument that the learning styles are states not traits may counter the questionable reliability (That is test re-test measures are not appropriate for state measurements). But states like ‘learning styles’ are cast in serious doubt by possibility processing. A theory which leads to more rigid approaches not the flexible approaches which Kolb theory demands. Hickcox, (1990), also argues
20 Possibility processing is outlined in detail in nine, but basically is the idea the experiences we have shape future experiences and interpretations of experiences.
that research which is critical of the reliability and validity of Kolb’s learning styles is carried out by researchers;
“who opposed the LSI format without understanding the underlying theory of Kolb’s formulation of experiential learning” (1990, pg306).
Although not clearly stated, it appears that Hickcox is referring to the apparent flexible ‘state’ nature of learning styles. It is agreed that most of the studies that are critical of Kolb’s reliability and validity view the theory as postulating a stable trait, but this view does not show that the researchers are working ‘without
understanding’ as Hickcox argues, but rather that they are treating the learning
21
styles as the Kolb theory ultimately presents them as being - ‘stable’.
The results of this study concerning the LSI and learning styles in general appears to align with most of the research assessing their reliability and validity, that is Kolb’s LSI is not reliable and the distinctions between learning styles and their associated behaviours is not clear.
There is a considerable body of research which positively reports Kolb’s work and views learning styles as a welcome addition to our knowledge about learners. Conclusions which appear to be at a tangent with the results gained by this study include: Abbey, Hunt and Weiser, (1985); Kurzich, Friesen and VanSest, (1986); Pelsma and Borgers, (1986); Pelsma, (1982); Sugarman, (1985). These studies from the field of counselling and social work all strongly emphasised the
usefulness of Kolb’s learning style theory with respect to individual development and the learning process. Baker, Cooke, Bromley, Hull, and Alpert, (1986); Baker Wallace, Cooke, Alpert, and Ackerly, (1988); Baker, Wallace and Cooke, (1987); and Whitney and Caplan, (1988), all research from the field of medicine, come to
21 It should be noted that Kolb’s theory presents the learning styles as relatively stable (see Kolb, 1984, pg 63) and indeed this is a necessity of learning styles if they are to be associated with