Learning Style Inventory
I have a problem with the Learning Style Inventory.
Is it just me or does anyone else think the Learning Style Inventory is a flawed descriptive measure?
About the model: It has four stages. The model consists of concrete experience followed by observation and reflection. This leads to the formation of abstract concepts and generalizations which lead to hypotheses to be tested in future action. This action leads to new experiences, which starts the cycle over. The model is comprised of four modes of learning: concrete experience (CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE).
First, let's assume the learning model utilized is accurate--that this is in fact the way all people learn. I have no problem with this assumption; the model is simple and straightforward. It is only one model, but it works.
The model assumes an equal weight and opposing force between the modes. This assumption is shown by the position of the modes on the Cartesian graph. Purportedly, learning styles are determined based on the preferences toward each of the modes by a non-unitary, quantitative analysis. This analysis is derived from ordering a set of four words.
My problem originates with this initial step: the ordering for four words. There is no qualitative basis to this ordering. There is only the ordering and ordinal statistics can not be assigned numerical values. This is a lesson learned within the first two classes of a statistics course. There is a level of degree to my preferences not given by ordinal values. This degree matters, it could vastly change the learning style I receive.
I think this critical flaw invalidates many of the supposed benefits of the SLI.
Comments