Using Learning Style Instruments to Enhance Student Learning

The emergence of numerous learning style models over the past 25 years has brought increasing attention to the idea that students learn in diverse ways and that one approach to teaching does not work for every student or even most students. We have reviewed five learning style instruments (the Kolb Learning Style Indicator, the Gregorc Style Delineator, the Felder–Silverman Index of Learning Styles, the VARK Questionnaire, and the Dunn and Dunn Productivity Environmental Preference Survey) in this article in order to describe the learning style modes or dimensions measured in the instruments; find the common measures and the differences; report on research on instrument validity, reliability, and possible improvement in student performance; suggest classroom activities that work with the different student learning styles; and recommend selection of models under several conditions. We also review one additional learning style instrument, the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory, as a complementary approach to using one or more of the first five learning style instruments.

[1]  A. Gregorc,et al.  A New Definition for Individual , 1977 .

[2]  N. Entwistle,et al.  Identifying distinctive approaches to studying , 1979 .

[3]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , 1983 .

[4]  N. Dixon,et al.  The Kolb Model Modified for Classroom Activities , 1987 .

[5]  C. Claxton,et al.  Learning Styles: Implications for Improving Educational Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, 1987. , 1987 .

[6]  Scott G. Isaksen,et al.  The Gregorc Style Delineator: Internal Consistency and its Relationship to Kirton's Adaptive-Innovative Distinction , 1988 .

[7]  R. Felder,et al.  Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education. , 1988 .

[8]  Ronald R. Sims,et al.  An Exploratory Examination of the Convergence between the Learning Styles Questionnaire and the Learning Style Inventory II , 1989 .

[9]  Terrance P. O'Brien.  Construct Validation of the Gregorc Style Delineator: An Application of Lisrel 7 , 1990 .

[10]  R. Dunn.  UNDERSTANDING THE DUNN AND DUNN LEARNING STYLES MODEL AND THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL DIAGNOSIS AND PRESCRIPTION , 1990 .

[11]  Charles Hunter Iliff.  Kolb learning style inventory: a meta-analysis , 1994 .

[12]  J. Cornwell,et al.  Kolb'S Learning Style Theory Revisited , 1994 .

[13]  Jeffery E. Olson,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Validation of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences , 1995 .

[14]  Carl S. Bozman,et al.  Student Learning Style: A Segmentation Strategy for Higher Education , 1996 .

[15]  Angus Duff,et al.  A note on the reliability and validity of a 30‐item version of Entwistle & Tait's Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory , 1997 .

[16]  Kenneth A. Kavale,et al.  Meta-Analytic Validation of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences: A Critique of What Was Dunn. , 1998 .

[17]  R. Vince.  Behind and Beyond Kolb's Learning Cycle , 1998 .

[18]  D. Christopher Kayes,et al.  Experiential Learning and Its Critics: Preserving the Role of Experience in Management Learning and Education , 2002 .

[19]  A. Duff.  Approaches to learning: factor invariance across gender , 2002 .

[20]  J. Zull.  The art of changing the brain : enriching teaching by exploring the biology of learning , 2002 .

[21]  Angus Duff,et al.  The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) and its Use in Management Education , 2004 .

[22]  F. Coffield.  Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review , 2004 .

[23]  D. Kolb,et al.  Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Experiential Learning in Higher Education , 2005 .

[24]  D. McAdams,et al.  A new Big Five: fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. , 2006, The American psychologist.