Multivariate relationships between measures of learning style and memory

Abstract Three self-report instruments assessing “learning style” were administered to 106 undergraduate students: the Inventory of Learning Processes, the Study Behavior Questionnaire, and the Learning Style Inventory. Performance measures on word list and prose learning tasks were also obtained using both immediate and delayed retention tests. Canonical correlation analysis of the pairs of learning style instruments indicated that there was a small to moderate amount of overlapped variance. Inspection of the canonical variates revealed that what overlap existed was generally due to a common factor related to the depth of processing conception of memory. No significant canonical correlations were obtained between any of the learning style instruments and word list retention measures. However, the Inventory of Learning Processes and the Learning Style Inventory each obtained one significant canonical correlation with the set of prose retention measures. There was little overlap between sets of retention measures derived separately from prose and word list tasks. The findings have implications concerning (a) the validity and equivalency of available self-report instruments assessing learning style, (b) the role of the learning task in studying individual differences in learning and memory processes, and (c) the assessment of “depth of processing” at the level of individual differences.

[1]  F. Craik,et al.  Depth of processing and the retention of words , 1975 .

[2]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  D. Weiss.  Canonical correlation analysis in counseling psychology research. , 1972 .

[4]  L. Navran.  A Canonical Correlational Analysis of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the Holland Vocational Preference Inventory, and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. , 1971 .

[5]  R. Schmeck,et al.  Construct Validation of the Inventory of Learning Processes , 1978 .

[6]  R. Schmeck,et al.  Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes , 1977 .

[7]  Michael J. A. Howe,et al.  Using Students' Notes to Examine the Role of the Individual Learner in Acquiring Meaningful Subject Matter , 1970 .

[8]  E. G. Aiken,et al.  Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. , 1975 .

[9]  D. Stewart,et al.  A general canonical correlation index. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  John Biggs,et al.  Faculty patterns in study behaviour , 1970 .

[11]  Sam C. Brown,et al.  Comparison of measures for the estimation of clustering in free recall. , 1971 .

[12]  John Biggs.  Personality correlates of certain dimensions of study behaviour , 1970 .

[13]  RICHARD E. MAYER,et al.  Effects of meaningfulness and organization on problem solving and computability judgments , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Michael Friendly,et al.  Computer processing of free recall data: Program RECALL , 1975 .

[15]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Integration of information during problem solving due to a meaningful context of learning , 1976, Memory & cognition.

[16]  John Biggs,et al.  DIMENSIONS OF STUDY BEHAVIOUR: ANOTHER LOOK AT ATI , 1976 .

[17]  D. Kolb.  Management and the Learning Process , 1976 .

[18]  W. Montague,et al.  Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms , 1969 .

[19]  Jerome L. Myers,et al.  Effect of Prose Organization upon Free Recall. , 1973 .

[20]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS* , 1976 .

[21]  Ronald R. Schmeck,et al.  Academic Achievement and Individual Differences in Learning Processes , 1979 .

[22]  Benton J. Underwood,et al.  Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. , 1975 .

[23]  Free Recall Transfer and Individual Differences in Subjective Organization. , 1974 .

[24]  A. Paivio.  Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[25]  Diane L. Schallert,et al.  Improving Memory for Prose: The Relationship between Depth of Processing and Context. Technical Report No. 5. , 1975 .