Kolb Learning Style Inventory

The Kolb accomplishment behavior inscriptionVersion 3. 1 2005 techno consistent Speci? cations Alice Y. Kolb bewilder Based encyclopaedism Systems, Inc. David A. Kolb Case Western Reserve University whitethorn 15, 2005 snarf The Kolb culture flair Inventory Version 3. 1 (KLSI 3. 1), rewrite in 2005, is the latest revision of the original cultivation direction Inventory cracked by David A. Kolb. Like its predecessors, KLSI 3. 1 is base on existential apprehen dong supposition (Kolb 1984) and is designed to help separates send the expressive style they learn from experience.This revision implicates impudently averages that argon plant on a bouffantr, more diverse, and more representative try of 6977 LSI users. The coif, items, scoring and instructive booklet posit wordfront identical with KLSI 3. The skillful speci? cations atomic government issue 18 designed to adhere to the standards for educational and mental testing developed by the Ameri tush gentilityal question Association, the Ameri asshole Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). scratch 1 of the technical speci? cations describes the excogitationual foundations of the LSI 3. in the surmise of existential larn (ELT). Section 2 provides a description of the stock that includes its purport, history, and change. Section 3 describes the characteristics of the KLSI 3. 1 normative strain. Section 4 includes intra assort reliableness and test-retest dependableness studies of the inventory. Section 5 provides cultivation about look on the inner(a) and out-of-door rigor for the instrument. Internal validatedity studies of the structure of the KLSI 3. 1 emergence correlation and factor analysis argon reported.External validity includes look on demographics, educational differentiation, con trus bothrthy validity with other experiential schooling judgement instruments, aptitude test performance, acade mic performance, experiential accomplishment in teams, and educational applications. Copyright 2005 Experience Based scholarship Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 1. conceptual FOUNDATIONEXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNING STYLES The Kolb study Style Inventory differs from other tests of discipline dah and personality employ in education by creation ground on a comprehensive theory of encyclopedism and teaching.Experiential schooling theory (ELT) draws on the bleed of prominent twentieth century scholars who gave experience a central piece in their theories of valet teaching and development- nonably John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, William James, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers, and others-to develop a holistic stumper of the experiential eruditeness touch and a multi-linear methodl of adult development. The theory, draw in detail in Experiential Learning Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Kolb 1984), is built on vi propositions that be regiond by these scholars. . Learning is best conceived as a work, non in terms of payoffs. To improve learn in blueer education, the aboriginal focus should be on engaging students in a process that best enhances their nurture a process that includes feed jeopardize on the strongness of their study efforts. education must be conceived as a continuing reconstruction of experience the process and goal of education are virtuoso and the same thing. (Dewey 1897 79) 2. All encyclopedism is re skill.Learning is best facilitated by a process that draws out the students beliefs and ideas about a topic so that they merchantman be examined, tested, and integrated with sm stratagem, more re? ned ideas. 3. Learning requires the annunciation of con? icts amongst dialectical on the wholey opposed modes of adaptation to the world. Con? ict, differences, and disagreement are what drive the acquirement process. In the process of attainment, one is cal lead upon to move back and forth amongst opposing modes of re? ection and action and feeling and thinking. 4. Learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world.It is non just the ensue of cognition only if involves the integrated functioning of the total personthinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving. 5. Learning results from synergetic transactions amid the person and the environment. In Piagets terms, cultivation occurs done equilibration of the dialectic processes of assimilating clean experiences into live concepts and accommodating existing concepts to new experience. 6. Learning is the process of creating knowledge. ELT proposes a constructivist theory of encyclopaedism whereby kind knowledge is earnd and recreated in the personal knowledge of the learner.This stands in contrast to the contagion model on which much current educational practice is based, where preexisting ? xed ideas are transmitted to the learner. ELT de? nes reading as the process whe reby knowledge is created through the trans dression of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience (Kolb 1984 41). The ELT model portrays cardinal dialectic altogethery related modes of grasping experience-Concrete Experience (CE) and Abstract linguistic ruletion (AC)-and twain dialectically related modes of transforming experience-Re? ctive Observation (RO) and Active Experimentation (AE). Experiential accomplishment is a process of constructing knowledge that involves a inventive tension among the quadruplet tuition modes that is responsive to contextual contends. This process is portrayed as an regard acquirement rack or spiral where the learner touches all the basesexperiencing, re? ecting, thinking, and acting-in a recursive process that is responsive to the culture situation and what is being learned. Immediate or concrete experiences are the basis for observations and re? ections. These re? ctions are assimilated and distilled into mouse concepts from which new implications for action cease be drawn. These implications can be actively tested and serve as guides in creating new experiences (Figure 1). ELT proposes that this i callized accomplishment cycle will vary by respective(prenominal)s reading dash and skill context. 2 LSI skillful Manual Concrete Experience Testing Implications of Concepts in New Situations Observation and Reflections Formation of Abstract Concepts and generalisation Figure 1. The experiential accomplishment cycle In The art of changing the brain Enriching teaching by exploring the biology f cultivation, James Zull, a biologist and founding director of CWRUs University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education (UCITE), sees a link between ELT and neuroscience look for, suggesting that this process of experiential schooling is related to the process of brain functioning as shown in Figure 2. Put into words, the ? gure illustrates that concrete experience s come through the sensory cortex, re? ective observation involves the integrative cortex at the back, creating new abstract concepts occurs in the frontal integrative cortex, and active testing involves the motor brain.In other words, the acquire cycle arises from the structure of the brain. (Zull 2002 18-19) 3 Figure 2. The experiential encyclopedism cycle and regions of the cerebral cortex. Reprinted with permission of the author (Zull 2002) ELT posits that acquisition is the major determinant of human development and that how one-on-ones learn shapes the course of their personal development. Previous investigate (Kolb 1984) has shown that learning ports are in? uenced by personality causa, educational specialization, life story choice, and current hypothesize role and proletariats. Yamazaki (2002, 2004a) has recently identi? d heathen in? uences as well. The ELT developmental model (Kolb 1984) de? nes ternary stages (1) acquisition, from birth to adolescence, where basic abilities and cognitive structures develop (2) specialization, from formal schooling through the early work and personal experiences of adulthood, where kindly, educational, and organisational socialization forces shape the development of a crabbed, specialized learning course and (3) integration in midcareer and later life, where non possessive modes of learning are expressed in work and personal life.Development through these stages is characterized by increasing complexity and relativism in adapting to the world and by adjoind integration of the dialectic con? icts between AC and CE and AE and RO. Development is conceived as multi-linear based on an indivi duals naval divisionicular learning de implyor and life pathdevelopment of CE increases affective complexity, of RO increases perceptual complexity, of AC increases symbolic complexity, and of AE increases carriageal complexity.The concept of learning style describes various(prenominal) differences in learning ba sed on the learners p destination for employing diverse phases of the learning cycle. Because of our hereditary equipment, our particular life experiences, and the demands of our present environment, we develop a preferent fashion of choosing among the quartette some(prenominal) learning modes. We square off the con? ict between being concrete or abstract and between being active or re? ective in patterned, characteristic ways.Much of the research on ELT has pore on the concept of learning style, using the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) to assess individual learning styles (Kolb 1971, 1985, 1999). While individuals tested on the LSI show many different patterns of make headway, previous(prenominal) research with the instrument has identi? ed quadruplet learning styles that are associated with different approaches to learningdiverging, learn, converging, and Accommodating. The following summary of the 4 basic learning styles is based on both research and clinical observat ion of these patterns of LSI scores (Kolb1984, 1999a). LSI practiced Manual An individual with diverging style has CE and RO as dominant learning abilities. People with this learning style are best at viewing concrete situations from many different points of view. It is labeled Diverging because a person with it performs better in situations that call for generation of ideas, such(prenominal) as a brainstorming session. People with a Diverging learning style remove broad cultural interests and like to gather selective information. They are implicated in commonwealth, tend to be imaginative and emotional, cook broad cultural interests, and tend to specialize in the humanistic discipline.In formal learning situations, raft with the Diverging style prefer to work in conventions, listening with an rough look to different points of view and receiving personalized feedback. An individual with an assimilating style has AC and RO as dominant learning abilities. People with this l earning style are best at understanding a wide range of information and putting it into concise, logical form. Individuals with an assimilating style are less focused on deal and more interested in ideas and abstract concepts. Generally, people with this style ? d it more all authorised(p) that a theory thrust logical soundness than unimaginative value. The Assimilating learning style is important for effectiveness in information and science careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through. An individual with a converging style has AC and AE as dominant learning abilities. People with this learning style are best at ? nding operable uses for ideas and theories. They have the ability to solve problems and make decisions based on ? ding solutions to questions or problems. Individuals with a converge learning style prefer to deal with technical tasks and problems rather than with social issues and interpersonal issues. These learning skills are important for effectiveness in specialist and technology careers. In formal learning situations, people with this style prefer to experiment with new ideas, simulations, laboratory pleadments, and practical applications. An individual with an accommodating style has CE and AE as dominant learning abilities.People with this learning style have the ability to learn from chiefly hands-on experience. They enjoy carrying out plans and involving themselves in new and challenging experiences. Their tendency may be to act on gut feelings rather than on logical analysis. In solving problems, individuals with an Accommodating learning style rely more heavily on people for information than on their own technical analysis. This learning style is important for effectiveness in action-oriented careers such as marketing or sales.In formal learning situations, people with the Accommodating learning style prefer to work w ith others to get assignments done, to set goals, to do ? eld work, and to test out different approaches to completing a project. 5 FACTORS THAT blueprint AND INFLUENCE LEARNING STYLES The in a higher place patterns of behavior associated with the four basic learning styles are shaped by transactions between people and their environment at ? ve different levelspersonality, educational specialization, master copy career, current job role, and accommodative competencies.While some have interpreted learning style as a personality variable (Garner 2000 Furnam, Jackson, and Miller 1999), ELT de? nes learning style as a social psychological concept that is only partially dictated by personality. Personality exerts a small but pervasive in? uence in nearly all situations but at the other levels, learning style is in? uenced by increasingly speci? c environmental demands of educational specialization, career, job, and tasks skills. tabularize 1 summarizes previous research that has i denti? ed how learning styles are determined at these various levels. Table 1.Relationship Between Learning Styles and Five Levels of deportment Behavior Level Personality types Educational Specialization Professional charge menstruation Jobs Adaptive Competencies Diverging introspective Feeling artistic productions, English tarradiddle Psychology Social Service humanities Personal jobs Valuing skills Assimilating draw in Intuition Mathematics Physical Science Sciences Research learning Information jobs Thinking skills meet Extraverted Thinking applied science Medicine Engineering Medicine Technology Technical jobs Decision skills Accommodating Extraverted angiotensin converting enzyme Education Communication Nursing Sales Social Service Education Exe clipive jobs Action skills Personality Types Although the learning styles of and learning modes proposed by ELT are derived from the works of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget, many have noned the similarity of these concepts to Ca rl Jungs descriptions of individuals preferred ways for adapting in the world.Several research studies relating the LSI with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) indicate that Jungs Extraversion/Introversion dialectical dimension correlates with the Active/Re? ective dialectic of ELT, and the MBTI Feeling/Thinking dimension correlates with the LSI Concrete Experience/ Abstract conceptualisation dimension. The MBTI Sensing type is associated with the LSI Accommodating learning style, and the MBTI Intuitive type with the LSI Assimilating style. MBTI Feeling types hold still for to LSI Diverging learning styles, and Thinking types to Converging styles. The above discussion implies that the Accommodating learning style is the Extraverted Sensing type, and the Converging style the Extraverted Thinking type.The Assimilating learning style corresponds to the Introverted Intuitive personality type, and the Diverging style to the Introverted Feeling type. Myers (1962) descriptions of the se MBTI types are very similar to the corresponding LSI learning styles as described by ELT (Kolb 1984, 83-85). Educational Specialization Early educational experiences shape peoples individual learning styles by instilling positive attitudes toward speci? c sets of learning skills and by teaching students how to learn. Although elementary education is generalized, an increasing process of specialization mystifys in high school and becomes sharper during the college years. This specialization in the realms of social knowledge in? ences individuals orientations toward learning, resulting in particular relations between learning styles and early training in an educational specialty or discipline. For lesson, people specializing in the arts, history, political science, English, and psychology tend to have Diverging learning styles, while those majoring 6 LSI Technical Manual in more abstract and applied areas such as medicine and engineering have Converging learning styles. Individua ls with Accommodating styles often have educational backgrounds in education, communications, and nursing, and those with Assimilating styles in mathematics and physical sciences. Professional Career A thirdly set of factors that shape learning styles stems from professional careers.Ones professional career choice not only exposes one to a specialized learning environment, but it similarly involves a commitment to a generic professional problem, such as social service, that requires a specialized adaptive orientation. In addition, one becomes a member of a reference group of peers who region a professional mentality and a common set of set and beliefs about how one should behave professionally. This professional orientation shapes learning style through habits acquired in professional training and through the more nimble normative pressures complex in being a competent professional. Research over the years has shown that social service and arts careers attract people with a Di verging learning style. Professions in the sciences and information or research have people with an Assimilating learning style.The Converging learning styles tends to be dominant among professionals in technology-intensive ? elds such as medicine and engineering. Finally, the Accommodating learning style characterizes people with careers in ? elds such as sales, social service, and education. Current Job Role The fourth level of factors in? uencing learning style is the persons current job role. The task demands and pressures of a job shape a persons adaptive orientation. Executive jobs, such as general management, that require a strong orientation to task accomplishment and decision making in uncertain emergent mass require an Accommodating learning style.Personal jobs, such as counseling and military group administration, which require the establishment of personal relationships and effective communication with other people, demand a Diverging learning style. Information jobs, such as preparedness and research, which require data gathering and analysis, as well as conceptual modeling, require an Assimilating learning style. Technical jobs, such as judicatory engineering and production, require technical and problem-solving skills, which require a convergent learning orientation. Adaptive Competencies The ? fth and just about immediate level of forces that shapes learning style is the speci? c task or problem the person is currently works on. to each one task we face requires a corresponding set of skills for effective performance.The effective matching of task demands and personal skills results in an adaptive competence. The Accommodative learning style encompasses a set of competencies that can best be termed playing skills Leadership, Initiative, and Action. The Diverging learning style is associated with Valuing skills Relationship, Helping early(a)s, and Sense Making. The Assimilating learning style is related to Thinking skills Information Gat hering, Information Analysis, and Theory Building. Finally, the Converging learning style is associated with Decision skills like Quantitative Analysis, Use of Technology, and goal Setting (Kolb1984). 7 2. THE LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY PURPOSE The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was created to ful? l ii purposes 1. To serve as an educational beast to increase individuals understanding of the process of learning from experience and their anomalous individual approach to learning. By increasing awareness of how they learn, the aim is to increase learners capacity for meta-cognitive control of their learning process, enabling them to monitor and accept learning approaches that work best for them in different learning situations. By providing a language for talking about learning styles and the learning process, the inventory can foster conversation among learners and educators about how to create the most effective learning environment for those involved.For this purpose, the invent ory is best presented not as a test, but as an experience in understanding how one learns. Scores on the inventory should not be interpreted as de? nitive, but as a starting point for exploration of how one learns best. To facilitate this purpose, a self-scoring and interpretation book that explains the experiential learning cycle and the characteristics of the different learning styles, along with scoring and pro? ling instructions, is included with the inventory. 2. To provide a research tool for investigating experiential learning theory (ELT) and the characteristics of individual learning styles. This research can contribute to the broad advancement of experiential learning and, speci? ally, to the validity of interpretations of individual learning style scores. A research version of the instrument, including only the inventory to be scored by the researcher, is available for this purpose. The LSI is not a criterion-referenced test and is not intended for use to predict behavior for purposes of selection, placement, job assignment, or selective treatment. This includes not using the instrument to assign learners to different educational treatments, a process sometimes referred to as tracking. much(prenominal) categorizations based on a single test score do to stereotyping that runs counter to the philosophy of experiential learning, which emphasizes individual uniqueness. When it is used in the simple, straightforward, and open way intended, the LSI usually provides a valuable self-examination and discussion that recognizes the uniqueness, complexity, and variance in individual approaches to learning. The danger lies in the rei? cation of learning styles into ? xed traits, such that learning styles become stereotypes used to pigeonhole individuals and their behavior. (Kolb 1981a 290-291) The LSI is constructed as a self-assessment exercise and tool for construct validation of ELT. Tests designed for predictive validity typically begin with a criterion, such as academic fall uponment, and work backward to identify items or tests with high criterion correlations.Even so, make up the most sophisticated of these tests seldom rises above a . 5 correlation with the criterion. For example, while Graduate prove Examination Subject Test scores are better predictors of ? rst-year tweak school grades than either the General Test score or undergrad GPA, the combination of these cardinal measures only produces multiple correlations with grades ranging from . 4 to . 6 in various ? elds (Anastasi and Urbina 1997). Construct validation is not focused on an outcome criterion, but on the theory or construct the test measures. here(predicate) the emphasis is on the pattern of convergent and discriminant theoretical predictions made by the theory. Failure to con? m predictions calls into question the test and the theory. However, even if each of the correlations proved to be quite low, their cumulative effect would be to expect the validity of the test and the underlying theory. (Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook 1960 160) Judged by the standards of construct validity, ELT has been widely accepted as a useful framework for learning-centered educational innovation, including instructional design, curriculum development, and life-long learning. Field and job classi? cation studies viewed as a whole also show a pattern of results consistent with the ELT structure of knowledge theory. 8 LSI Technical ManualHISTORY Five versions of the Learning Style Inventory have been published over the last 35 years. During this time, attempts have been made to openly share information about the inventory, its scoring, and its technical characteristics with other interested researchers. The results of their research have been instrumental in the continuous improvement of the inventory. Learning Style Inventory-Version 1 (Kolb 1971, Kolb 1976) The original Learning Style Inventory (LSI 1) was created in 1969 as part of an MIT curricul um development project that resulted in the ? rst management textbook based on experiential learning (Kolb, Rubin, and McIntyre 1971).It was originally developed as an experiential educational exercise designed to help learners understand the process of experiential learning and their unique individual style of learning from experience. The term learning style was coined to describe these individual differences in how people learn. Items for the inventory were selected from a longer list of words and phrases developed for each learning mode by a panel of four behavioral scientists familiar with experiential learning theory. This list was given to a group of 20 tweak students who were asked to rate each word or phrase for social desirability. Attempting to select words that were of equal social desirability, a ? nal set of 12 items including a word or phrase for each learning mode was selected for pre-testing.Analysis showed that three of these sets produced nearly hit-or-miss resp onses and were thus eliminated, resulting in a ? nal version of the LSI with 9 items. These items were further re? ned through item-whole correlation analysis to include six scored items for each learning mode. Research with the inventory was stimulated by classroom discussions with students, who found the LSI to be helpful to them in understanding the process of experiential learning and how they learned. From 1971 until it was revised in 1985, there were more than 350 published research studies using the LSI. Validity for the LSI 1 was established in a number of ? elds, including education, management, psychology, computer science, medicine, and nursing (Hickcox 1990, Iliff 1994).The results of this research with LSI 1 provided provided existential support for the most complete and systematic statement of ELT, Experiential Learning Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (Kolb 1984). Several studies of the LSI 1 identi? ed psychometric weaknesses of the instrument, particularly low theater of operationsive consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. Learning Style Inventory-Version 2 (Kolb 1985) Low reliability coef? cients and other concerns about the LSI 1 led to a revision of the inventory in 1985 (LSI 2). Six new items chosen to increase informal reliability (alpha) were added to each eggshell, making 12 scored items on each ordered series. These changes increased scale alphas to an reasonable of . 81 ranging from . 73 to . 88.Wording of all items was simpli? ed to a seventh grade reading level, and the format was changed to include sentence stems (e. g. , When I learn). Correlations between the LSI 1 and LSI 2 scales averaged . 91 and ranged from . 87 to . 93. A new more diverse normative reference group of 1446 men and women was created. Research with the LSI 2 continued to establish validity for the instrument. From 1985 until the publication of the LSI 3 1999, more than 630 studies were published, most using the LSI 2. While interior(a) reliability estimates for the LSI 2 remained high in self-governing studies, test-retest reliability remained low. Learning Style Inventory-Version 2a (Kolb 1993)In 1991 Veres, Sims, and Locklear published a reliability study of a disarrange version of the LSI 2 that showed a small decrease in internal reliability but a dramatic increase in test-retest reliability with the random scoring format. To study this format, a research version of the random format inventory (LSI 2a) was published in 1993. 9 Kolb Learning Style Inventory-Version 3 (Kolb 1999) In 1999 the randomized format was adopted in a revised self-scoring and interpretation booklet (LSI 3) that included a color-coded scoring tag to simplify scoring. The new booklet was organized to follow the learning cycle, emphasizing the LSI as an experience in learning how you learn. New application information on teamwork, managing con? ct, personal and professional communication, and career choice and develo pment were added. The LSI 3 continued to use the LSI 2 normative reference group until norms for the randomized version could be created. Kolb Learning Style Inventory-Version 3. 1 (Kolb 2005) The new LSI 3. 1 described here modi? ed the LSI 3 to include new normative data described below. This revision includes new norms that are based on a larger, more diverse and representative sample of 6977 LSI users. The format, items, scoring, and interpretative booklet remain identical to KLSI 3. The only change in KLSI 3. 1 is in the norm charts used to convert raw LSI scores. FORMATThe Learning Style Inventory is designed to measure the arc point in time to which individuals display the different learning styles derived from experiential learning theory. The form of the inventory is determined by three design parameters. First, the test is brief and straightforward, making it useful both for research and for discussing the learning process with individuals and providing feedback. Second, the test is constructed in such a way that individuals respond to it as they would respond to a learning situation it requires them to resolve the tensions between the abstract-concrete and active-re? ective orientations. For this reason, the LSI format requires them to rank order their preferences for the abstract, concrete, active, and re? ective orientations.Third, and most obviously, it was hoped that the measures of learning styles would predict behavior in a way consistent with the theory of experiential learning. All versions of the LSI have had the same formata succinct questionnaire (9 items for LSI 1 and 12 items for subsequent versions) that asks respondents to rank four sentence endings that correspond to the four learning modes Concrete Experience (e. g. , experiencing), Re? ective Observation (re? ecting), Abstract Conceptualization (thinking), and Active Experimentation (doing). Items in the LSI are geared to a seventh grade reading level. The inventory is intended f or use by teens and adults. It is not intended for use by younger children.The LSI has been translated into many languages, including, Arabic, Chinese, French, Japanese, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, and Thai, and there have been many cross-cultural studies using it (Yamazaki 2002). The Forced-Choice Format of the LSI The format of the LSI is a forced-choice format that ranks an individuals proportional choice preferences among the four modes of the learning cycle. This is in contrast to the more common normative, or free-choice, format, such as the widely used Likert scale, which rates absolute preferences on independent dimensions. The forced-choice format of the LSI was dictated by the theory of experiential learning and by the first purpose of the instrument.ELT is a holistic, dynamic, and dialectic theory of learning. Because it is holistic, the four modes that make up the experiential learning cycle-CE, RO, AC, and AE- are conceived as mutualist. Learning involves r esolving the creative tension among these learning modes in response to the speci? c learning situation. Since the two learning dimensions, AC-CE and AE-RO, are related dialectically, the choice of one pole involves not choosing the opposite pole. Therefore, because ELT postulates that learning in life situations requires the resolution of con? icts among interdependent learning modes, to be ecologically valid, the learning style assessment process should require a similar process of con? ct resolution in the choice of ones preferred learning approach. ELT de? nes learning style not as a ? xed trait, but as a dynamic state arising from an individuals preferential resolution of the dual dialectics of experiencing/conceptualizing and acting/re? ecting. The stability and endurance of these states in individuals comes not altogether from ? xed genetic qualities or characteristics of human beings nor, for that matter, does it come from the electrostatic ? xed demands of environmental c ircumstances. Rather, stable and enduring patterns of human individuality arise from consistent patterns of transaction between the individual and his or her 10 LSI Technical Manual environment.The way we process the possibilities of each new emerging event determines the range of choices and decisions we see. The choices and decisions we make to some extent determine the events we live through, and these events in? uence our future choices. Thus, people create themselves through the choice of actual occasions they live through. (Kolb 1984 63-64) The primary purpose of the LSI is to provide learners with information about their preferred approach to learning. The most relevant information for the learner is about intra-individual differences, his or her relative preference for the four learning modes, not inter-individual comparisons.Ranking relative preferences among the four modes in a forced-choice format is the most direct way to provide this information. While individuals who pose the inventory sometimes report dif? culty in making these ranking choices, they report that the feedback they get from the LSI gives them more insight than had been the case when we used a normative Likert rate scale version. This is because the social desirability response persuade in the evaluation scales fails to de? ne a clear learning style, that is, they say they prefer all learning modes. This is supported by Harlands (2002) ? nding that feedback from a forced-choice test format was perceived as more accurate, valuable, and useful than feedback from a normative version.The borrowing of the forced-choice method for the LSI has at times placed it in the center of an ongoing debate in the research literature about the merits of forced-choice instruments between what cleverness be called rigorous statisticians and pragmatic empiricists. Statisticians have questioned the use of the forced-choice format because of statistical limitations, called ipsativity, that are the result of the ranking procedure. Since ipsative scores represent the relative fortissimo of a variable compared to others in the ranked set, the resulting dependence among scores produces methodinduced damaging correlations among variables and violates a fundamental assumption of classical test theory necessary for use of techniques such as analysis of variance and factor analysis- license of computer error variance.Cornwell and Dunlap (1994) stated that ipsative scores cannot be factored and that correlation-based analysis of ipsative data produced uninterpretable and invalid results (cf. Hicks 1970, Johnson et al. 1988). Other criticisms include the point that ipsative scores are technically ordinal, not the separation scales required for parametric statistical analysis that they produce lower internal reliability estimates and lower validity coef? cients (Barron 1996). While critics of forced-choice instruments acknowledge that these criticisms do not detract from the valid ity of intra-individual comparisons (LSI purpose one), they argue that ipsative scores are not appropriate for inter-individual comparisons, since inter-individual comparisons on a ranked ariable are not independent absolute preferences, but preferences that are relative to the other ranked variables in the set (Barron 1996, Karpatschof and Elkjaer 2000). However, since ELT argues that a given learning mode preference is relative to the other three modes, it is the comparison of relative not absolute preferences that the theory seeks to assess. The pragmatic empiricists argue that in spite of theoretical statistical arguments, normative and forced-choice variations of the same instrument can produce empirically comparable results. Karpatschof and Elkjaer (2000) move on this case in their metaphorically titled paper Yet the bumblebee Flies. With theory, simulation, and empirical data, they presented point for the comparability of ipsative and normative data.Saville and Wilson (19 91) found a high correspondence between ipsative and normative scores when forced choice involved a large number of alternative dimensions. Normative tests also have serious limitations, which the forced-choice format was originally created to deal with (Sisson 1948). Normative scales are subject to numerous response biasescentral tendency bias, in which respondents avoid uttermost(prenominal) responses, acquiescence response, and social desirability responding-and are easy to fake. Forced- choice instruments are designed to avoid these biases by forcing choice among alternatives in a way that re? ects real live choice making (Hicks 1970, Barron 1996).Matthews and Oddy found large bias in the extremeness of positive and negative responses in normative tests and reason that when sources of artifact are controlled, individual differences in ipsative scores can be used to rank individuals meaningfully (1997 179). Pickworth and Shoeman (2000) found signi? cant response bias in two norm ative LSI formats developed by Marshall and Merritt (1986) and Geiger et al. (1993). Conversely, Beutell and Kressel (1984) found that social desirability contributed less than 4% of the variance in LSI scores, in spite of the fact that individual LSI items all had very high social desirability. 11 In addition, ipsative tests can provide external validity evidence comparable to normative data (Barron 1996) or in some cases even better (Hicks 1970). For example, attempts to use normative rating versions of theLSI report reliability and internal validity data but little or no external validity (Pickworth and Shoeman 2000, Geiger et al. 1993, Romero et al. 1992, Marshall and Merritt 1986, Merritt and Marshall 1984). Characteristics of the LSI Scales The LSI assesses six variables four primary scores that measure an individuals relative emphasis on the four learning orientationsConcrete Experience (CE), Re? ective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimenta tion (AE)and two combination scores that measure an individuals preference for abstractness over concreteness (AC-CE) and action over re? ection (AE-RO). The four primary scales of the LSI are ipsative because of the forced-choice format of the instrument.This results in negative correlations among the four scales, the mean magnitude of which can be estimated (assuming no underlying correlations among them) by the formula -1/(m 1) where m is the number of variables (Johnson et al. 1988). This results in a predicted average method- induced correlation of -. 33 among the four primary LSI scales. The combination scores AC-CE and AE-RO, however, are not ipsative. Forced- choice instruments can produce scales that are not ipsative (Hicks 1970 Pathi, Manning, and Kolb 1989). To demonstrate the independence of the combination scores and interdependence of the primary scores, Pathi, Manning, and Kolb (1989) had SPSS-X randomly ? ll out and take apart 1000 LSIs according to the ranking ins tructions. While the mean intercorrelation among the primary scales was -. 3 as predicted, the correlation between AC-CE and AE-RO was +. 038. In addition, if AC-CE and AE-RO were ipsative scales, the correlation between the two scales would be -1. 0 according to the above formula. Observed empirical relationships are always much smaller, e. g. +. 13 for a sample of 1591 ammonium alum students (Freedman and Stumpf 1978), -. 09 for the LSI 2 normative sample of 1446 respondents (Kolb 1999b), -. 19 for a sample of 1296 MBA students (Boyatzis and Mainemelis 2000) and -. 21 for the normative sample of 6977 LSIs for the KLSI 3. 1 described below. The independence of the two combination scores can be seen by examining some example scoring results.For example, when AC-CE or AE-RO on a given item takes a value of +2 (from, say, AC = 4 and CE = 2, or AC = 3 and CE = 1), the other score can take a value of +2 or -2. Similarly when either score takes a value of +1 (from 4 -3, 3-2, or 2-1), th e other can take the values of +3, +1, -1, or -3. In other words, when AC-CE takes a particular value, AERO can take two to four different values, and the score on one dimension does not determine the score on the other. 12 LSI Technical Manual 3. NORMS FOR THE LSI VERSION 3. 1 New norms for the LSI 3. 1 were created from responses by several(prenominal) groups of users who completed the randomized LSI 3. These norms are used to convert LSI raw scale scores to percentile scores (see Appendix 1).The purpose of percentile conversions is to achieve scale comparability among an individuals LSI scores (Barron 1996) and to de? ne cutpoints for de? ning the learning style types. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for KLSI 3. 1 scale scores for the normative groups. Table 2. KLSI 3. 1 Scores for Normative Groups sampling TOTAL NORM GROUP On-line Users Research Univ. Freshmen Lib. Arts College Students Art College UG Research Univ. MBA Distance E-learning Adult UG N 6977 Mn. S. D. 5023 288 CE 25. 39 6. 43 25. 22 6. 34 23. 81 6. 06 24. 51 6. 39 28. 02 6. 61 25. 54 6. 44 23. 26 5. 73 RO 28. 19 7. 07 27. 98 7. 03 29. 82 6. 71 28. 25 7. 32 29. 51 7. 18 26. 98 6. 94 27. 64 7. 04 AC 32. 22 7. 29 32. 43 7. 32 33. 49 6. 91 32. 07 6. 22 29. 06 6. 4 33. 92 7. 37 34. 36 6. 87 AE 34. 14 6. 68 34. 36 6. 65 32. 89 6. 36 35. 05 7. 08 33. 17 6. 52 33. 48 7. 06 34. 18 6. 28 AC-CE 6. 83 11. 69 7. 21 11. 64 9. 68 10. 91 7. 56 10. 34 1. 00 11. 13 8. 38 11. 77 11. 10 10. 45 AE-RO 5. 96 11. 63 6. 38 11. 61 3. 07 10. 99 6. 80 12. 37 3. 73 11. 49 6. 49 11. 92 6. 54 11. 00 221 813 328 304 TOTAL NORMATIVE GROUP Normative percentile scores for the LSI 3. 1 are based on a total sample of 6977 valid LSI scores from users of the instrument. This user norm group is sedate of 50. 4% women and 49. 4% men. Their age range is 17-75, broken down into the following age-range groups 19 = 9. 8%, 19-24 = 17. %, 25-34 = 27%, 35-44 = 23%, 45-54 = 17. 2%, and 54 = 5. 8 %. Their educational level is as follows primary school ammonia alum = 1. 2%, secondary school degree = 32. 1%, university degree = 41. 4%, and post- ammonia alum degree = 25. 3%. The sample includes college students and working adults in a wide variety of ? elds. It is made up primarily of U. S. residents (80%) with the remaining 20% of users residing in 64 different countries. The norm group is made up of six subgroups, the speci? c demographic characteristics of which are described below. 13 On-line Users This sample of 5023 is composed of individuals and groups who have signed up to take the LSI on-line.Group users include undergraduate and graduate student groups, adult learners, business management groups, military management groups, and other organizational groups. Half of the sample are men and half are women. Their ages range as follows 55 = 8. 1 %. Their educational level is as follows primary school graduate = 1. 7%, secondary school degree = 18. 2%, university degree = 45. 5%, and postgraduate d egree = 34. 6%. Most of the on-line users (66%) reside in the U. S. with the remaining 34% living in 64 different countries, with the largest representations from Canada (317), U. K. (212), India (154), Germany (100), brazil (75), Singapore (59), France (49), and Japan (42). Research University FreshmenThis sample is composed of 288 entering freshmen at a top research university. 53% are men and 47% are women. All are between the ages of 17 and 22. More than 87% of these students intend to major in science or engineering. Liberal Arts College Students Data for this sample were provided by Kayes (2005). This sample includes 221 students (182 undergraduates and 39 part-time graduate students) enrolled in business courses at a private liberal arts college. Their average age is 22, ranging from 18 to 51. 52% are male and 48% are female. Art College Undergraduates This sample is composed of 813 freshmen and graduating students from three undergraduate art colleges. Half of the sample ar e men and half are women.Their average age is 20, distributed as follows 35 = 1%. Research University MBA Students This sample is composed of 328 full-time (71%) and part-time (29%) MBA students in a research university management school. 63% are men and 37% women. Their average age is 27, distributed as follows 19-24 = 4. 1%, 25-34 = 81. 3%, 35-44 = 13. 8%, 45-54 = 1%. Distance E-learning Adult Undergraduate Students This sample is composed of 304 adult learners enrolled in an e-learning distance education undergraduate degree program at a large state university. 56% are women and 44% men. Their average age is 36, distributed as follows 19-24 = 6. 3%, 25-34 = 37. 5%, 35-44 = 40. %, 45-54 = 14. 5%, and 55 = 1. 6%. CUT-POINTS FOR LEARNING STYLE TYPES The four basic learning style typesAccommodating, Diverging, Assimilating, and Converging-are created by dividing the AC-CE and AE-RO scores at the ? ftieth percentile of the total norm group and plotting them on the Learning Style Type Grid (Kolb 1999a 6). The cut point for the AC-CE scale is +7, and the cut point for the AE-RO scale is +6. The Accommodating type would be de? ned by an AC-CE raw score =7, the Diverging type by AC-CE =7, and the Assimilating type by AC-CE =8 and AE-RO +12) while the re? ective regions are de? ned by percentiles less than 33. 33% (