Please consider negative evidence. There is ample research debunking learning styles in favor of the concept everyone learns by being stimulated with multiple modes of presentation.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological science in the public interest, 9(3), 105-119.

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266-271.

I agree. Please consider revising your research. While we all have various preferences for learning, there is no evidence that matching the learning modality and preference will lead to greater learning outcomes. Therefore, this is not an avenue worth pursuing. It may be more helpful to look at which types of content or skills are best learned in particular modalities or which study strategies students use and their efficacy, but not learning styles.

Hi Anne,

I liked your response. But could you please elaborate on "which types of content or skills are best learned in particular modalities or which study strategies students use and their efficacy"?

Determining the reliability and validity of learning styles, such as the VARK model, Kolb's learning style, and Honey and Mumford's learning style, involves several steps, including conducting factor analysis and calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Here's a step-by-step approach to apply these methods to assess the reliability and validity of different learning styles:

Step 1: Data Collection

Obtain the learning styles questionnaires used in the research papers you referenced (or similar ones) for the VARK model, Kolb's learning style, and Honey and Mumford's learning style.

Collect responses from a diverse and representative sample of participants. Aim for a sufficient sample size to ensure the statistical validity of the analysis.

Step 2: Data Preparation

Clean and organize the data, ensuring that it is ready for analysis.

Verify that all questionnaires have the same scale and response options.

Step 3: Factor Analysis

Apply factor analysis to identify the underlying factors or dimensions within each learning style questionnaire. Factor analysis helps to uncover patterns and relationships between the items and assess the structure of the learning style constructs.

Step 4: Cronbach's Alpha for Reliability

Calculate Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each identified factor or dimension within the learning style questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha measures the internal consistency or reliability of the items within a scale.

The formula to calculate Cronbach's alpha is as follows:

Alpha = (N / (N - 1)) * [(Σ Var(Xi)) / Var(Total)]

Where:

N = the number of items in the scale

Var(Xi) = variance of the individual item

Var(Total) = variance of the total score

A Cronbach's alpha value of 0.70 or higher is generally considered acceptable for reliable scales. However, higher values indicate stronger internal consistency.

Step 5: Validity Assessment

For content validity, ensure that the items in each learning style questionnaire are relevant and accurately measure the intended learning style construct. This can be verified by expert reviews and the existing literature on learning styles.

For criterion validity, compare the results of each learning style questionnaire with other established measures or outcomes related to learning preferences or academic performance.

For construct validity, explore the relationships between the identified factors from factor analysis and other relevant constructs in the learning and cognitive psychology domain.

Step 6: Interpretation

Interpret the results of the factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha calculations, and validity assessments to determine the reliability and validity of each learning style model.

Consider the strengths and limitations of each learning style theory and its associated questionnaire in light of the analysis.

Step 7: Compare and Contrast

Compare the results across different learning style questionnaires to understand the similarities and differences between the models' reliability and validity.

Step 8: Recommendations

Based on your findings, provide recommendations for educators and researchers on the use and application of these learning style models in educational settings.

Remember that assessing the reliability and validity of learning styles is an ongoing process, and further research and validation studies may be necessary to establish the robustness of these models. Be critical of the limitations and controversies surrounding learning style theories and consider multiple perspectives in your analysis.

Fuentes Jimbo Thanks for the explanation provided. I have collected and cleaned the data (for all three learning styles) per your explanation's first two steps. Could you please share some more explanations on steps 3 and 5? How shall I apply factor analysis to all three learning styles data? After calculating Cronbach's alpha, how shall I proceed with the validation mentioned in step 5?

Fuentes Jimbo's steps are great - but they must be preceeded by thorough literature review (as other people have indicated). I recommend starting with Coffield and colleagues' exhaustive review of validation/reliability of various learning styles models. Please do read it before investing more of your time in this area. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K., Coffield, F., Moseley, D., ... & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.

First, all the questionnaires in question have reliability/validity studies. You can follow their models with your population, and your study must provide something new (as test structure and reliability/validity have already been studied). Secondly, if one ignores the problem reported by me and Anne, then your research will be highly dubious. Learning styles have been debunked. Thirdly, you will need to become highly qualified in statistics and understand factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha (e.g., do you know the limitations of Cronbach's alpha?). Fourth, you must get permission to use the questionnaires. Finally, you will probably need a sample size of 250+ at minimum to conduct adequate statistical analysis (including preferable test-retest). In the end, you will establish a questionnaire on a concept which has been researched exactly as described but whose use as "learning style" has been debunked and rejected. With that in mind, choose your research questions wisely.

To get you started on Cronbach's alpha limitations:

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.

I like Fuentes' reply. Very interesting. Thank you!

Learning style models aim to classify individuals based on their preferences for processing and retaining information. Among the various learning style models, the VARK model, Kolb's learning style theory, and Honey and Mumford's learning style model are widely recognized and utilized in educational settings. However, to ensure their effectiveness in understanding learners' needs and improving instructional strategies, it is essential to evaluate the reliability and validity of these models. This paper explores the methods used to determine the reliability and validity of the VARK, Kolb's, and Honey and Mumford's learning style models.

The VARK model, developed by Neil D. Fleming, categorizes learners into four main preferences: Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic. To assess its reliability and validity, various approaches can be applied:

a. Reliability: Test-retest reliability can be employed by administering the VARK questionnaire to a sample of individuals at two different time points. A high correlation between the scores obtained on both occasions indicates good test-retest reliability.

b. Validity: Content validity can be assessed by ensuring that the VARK questionnaire includes a balanced representation of questions for each learning preference. Criterion-related validity can be evaluated by comparing the VARK scores with other learning outcomes or performance indicators.

David A. Kolb's experiential learning theory proposes that learners fall into four categories: Converging, Diverging, Assimilating, and Accommodating. To determine the reliability and validity of Kolb's model, the following methods can be employed:

a. Reliability: Internal consistency can be assessed through techniques like Cronbach's alpha, ensuring that the items within each learning style category measure the same underlying construct consistently.

b. Validity: Criterion-related validity can be established by examining the correlation between learners' identified styles and their performance in activities related to each style. Construct validity can be evaluated by comparing Kolb's learning styles with other established learning style models to check for similarities and differences.

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford's model classifies learners into four styles: Activist, Reflector, Theorist, and Pragmatist. To assess its reliability and validity, the following methods can be used:

a. Reliability: Split-half reliability can be applied by dividing the learning style assessment into two halves and comparing the scores obtained from each half. A high correlation between the halves indicates good reliability.

b. Validity: Content validity can be ensured by including a diverse set of questions that capture the essence of each learning style. Criterion-related validity can be established by examining the relationship between learners' identified styles and their learning preferences and behaviors.

Conclusion:

Evaluating the reliability and validity of learning style models, such as the VARK model, Kolb's learning style theory, and Honey and Mumford's learning style model, is essential for their effective application in educational settings. By employing various techniques like test-retest reliability, internal consistency, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity, educators and researchers can gain confidence in using these models to better understand learners' preferences and tailor instructional approaches accordingly. However, it is crucial to recognize that learning styles are just one aspect of the complex learning process, and a combination of approaches, including individualized instruction and diverse teaching strategies, is necessary to cater to the needs of all learners effectively.

Dear doctor

Go To

Learning Styles: A Review of Validity and Usefulness

Yulong Li , Jane Medwell , David Wray , Lixun Wang , Xiaojing Liu

Journal of Education and Training Studies Vol. 4, No. 10; October 2016 ISSN 2324-805X E-ISSN 2324-8068 Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://jets.redfame.com

"Introduction

While working as an English language teacher at some English training schools in China from 2007 to 2014, I witnessed that a popular method of teaching English pronunciation involved using hand gestures and dancing: an approach which symbolizes a kinaesthetic approach of VAK, one of the categorizations of learning styles. Such approach to teaching received its popularity at many institutions, although it has attracted considerable criticism. Therefore, it has become a key interest of mine when engaging in discussions over learning styles. Learning style has become a popular word in the field of education, albeit its popularity, its validity has incurred debate. Learning styles is also a broad terminology, containing categorizations and concepts of various kinds, which might produce troubles for new comers to have a panoramic understanding of the field. This study would start the discussion from the diversity in categorizations of learning styles, and then discuss its limitations and usefulness separately

Abstract

The debate about learning styles has been on going for nearly half a century, many researchers have categorised them into style families. For some reasons, VAK is the most often heard, however, it is only one of the many categories. Current study gives a synthetic introduction of the existing strands of learning style categorizations, and critically discusses the limitations and chances of learning styles in educational studies."

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/05/learning-styles-myth

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/PSPI_9_3.pdf

Please be aware that learning styles are a myth and are not, as far as I know, validated or reliable instruments to support learning. For extensive information, consult the enclosed links. Best.