Student Teaching Changed Me: A Look at Kolb's Learning Style Inventory Scores before and after the Student Teaching Experience.

Conceptualization Learning by thinking Analyzing ideas logically, planning systematically, acting on an intellectual understanding of a situation Validity of the KLSI v. 3.2 has been widely established for use in the field of education (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a). Validity was determined to be acceptable for the purposes of this study. Previous measures of internal reliability for the four learning modes included in the KLSI range from α = 0.77 to α = 0.84 (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a). As such, we determined the internal reliability to be suitable for use in this study. Of specific interest to this study, which employed the use of the KLSI as a pre and post measure, was the test-retest reliability of the instrument. Test-retest reliability for the instrument was calculated using Cohen’s kappa coefficient, and is reported in instrument documentation to be above  = 0.90 for multiple research studies (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a). Although test-retest reliability is sufficient for the purposes of this study, several studies reported lower test-retest reliability estimates (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a). In these cases, Kolb states “learning style is situational, varying in response to environmental demands; changes in style may be the result of discontinuous intervening experiences between test and retest” (Kolb & Kolb, 2005a, p. 16). As the purpose of this study was to determine if changes occur in KLSI score with the intervening variable of a student teaching experience, the test-retest reliability was deemed to lend to the strength of analysis. Upon the completion of the KLSI, respondents yield calculated scores highlighting their preference for each of the four learning modes (AE, RO, AC, CE), along with a score for preferences in grasping (AC CE) and transforming (AE RO) experience. In addition to the raw scores of the KLSI, Kolb and Kolb (2013) identify nine categorized learning styles which are based Smith & Rayfield Student Teaching Changed Me:. Journal of Agricultural Education 108 Volume 58, Issue 1, 2017 on an individual’s scores for grasping and transforming experience. The nine learning styles of KLSI v. 3.2 replace the four learning styles of the KLSI v. 3.1 (Kolb, 2015), and are based on preferences on both the grasping and transforming continuums. Scores for learning style are scaled to reflect normative groups, with a score of +7 as an equal preference between the dimensions for grasping experiences (AC-CE) or transforming experiences (AE-RO). The nine learning styles in relation to KLSI scores are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Kolb’s nine learning styles as related to KLSI scores on grasping and transforming dimensions. Copyright Haygroup, 2013. Reprinted with permission. Scoring the KLSI was completed by hand, with the assistance of an Excel spreadsheet, using the guidelines set by Kolb and Kolb (2013). Scores were calculated for each of the four learning modes. Potential scores for each of the learning modes range from 12 (lowest rank given on all instrument items) to 48 (highest rank given on all instrument items). In addition, scores for grasping knowledge (AC-CE) and transforming knowledge (AE-RO) were calculated per the guidelines of Kolb and Kolb (2005a). Scores for grasping and transforming data range from -36 to +36. To determine change, the difference between data points were calculated, and the absolute value of the changes were used in analysis. Resulting data were analyzed using IBM ® SPSS version 22. Findings On the KLSI assessment taken prior to student teaching, we found that more student teachers were most commonly classified in the initiating (n = 8) and analyzing (n = 6) learning Smith & Rayfield Student Teaching Changed Me:. Journal of Agricultural Education 109 Volume 58, Issue 1, 2017 styles, with acting and balancing (n = 5) closely following in number of students. It is worth noting that all nine of Kolb and Kolb’s (2013) learning styles were represented in the population. Frequencies and percentages of student teacher learning styles before the student teaching experience are shown in Table 2.