The Problem Since the presentation of Learning Styles Inventory late 1970s, educators, teachers, trainers from various fields applied the concept of learning styles with the assumption that students have different learning styles and the instructors need to structure their teaching to be inclusive of all learning styles. Thus, it is argued that awareness of learning styles can be valuable across the teaching podium as students come to understand why their instructors use different teaching methods and activities to reach all. However, all these positive statements about learning styles are not based on any empirical evidence but mere assumptions on part of its proponents. In other words, we do not know, if indeed, structuring our classroom teaching enhances students' classroom experience and consequently improve student learning.

Methodologies & Types of Evidence of Student Learning Gathered This is an experimental design study, involving the assessment of two--and the conditioning of one--of these large (n@115x2) introductory Human Resource Management (HRM) classes at a large Midwestern university. One class was treated as an experimental group and the other as a control group. The classes are specifically designed to include a variety of activities which reflect differences in learning styles. Based on the Kolb's learning styles, a variety of teaching methods were used which are directed toward the variety of learning styles possible. The idea was for these students to experience the classroom material through a variety of learning methods with one class being conditioned as to why this was being done and what this meant to the learning process while the control class was given no such explanation; the other class had no such conditioning.

Project Summary This study is an inquiry into the use of the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (KLSI) as a learning tool rather than strictly as a diagnostic tool. The idea is to assess whether it is possible to alter the perception of learners on the divergence of learning styles through an appropriate conditioning process so as to improve learning. Using an experimental/control group design this study examines the implications of KLSI in one particular type of learning setting and presents findings related to a basic set of research questions.

Career Relevance & Impact My WTF experience allowed me to approach the concept of teaching from a scholarly and scientific perspective. I strongly believe that it is a crucial step to conceptualize and test best practices of teaching. Hearing different approaches from other fellows and scholars helped me become familiar with other techniques and methods to teaching. Most importantly, it made me realize the teaching is an art!

Research Questions ; Findings, Results, Conclusions, & Implications Research Questions 1. The average scores for the class will be unchanged from the initial administration of the KLSI for both the experimental and control groups. 2. The variance of scores by class on the KLSI for the experimental group on the second taking of the instrument will be increased over the initial/starting variance of the group. 3. The variance of scores by class on the KLSI for the control group will be unchanged from the initial offering of the instrument. 4. The academic performance/grades of those in the experimental group will be higher/better than the performance/grades of those in the control group. Findings 1. It is evident that there are differences in learning styles, on average, famong various colleges. That is, the patterns exhibited in the four classifications of the Cycle of Learning reveal differences which may be significant in some contexts although this is beyond the scope of this inquiry. 2. There were no significant differences under the experimental and control situations. Of the eight possible comparisons, five were lower and three were higher. The lack of statistical significance does not suggest there is any meaning to these findings. 3. There is no significance in variances in Pre-Treatment and Post-Treatment KLSI learning mode scores, contrary to the hypothesis for the experimental group but consistent with the hypothesis for the control group. While it is clear that the variances in learning mode scores were not identical for both of the measured periods, they were so close as to indicate no difference of any significance. 4. The processes of learning about and working exercises in different learning styles had little impact on the participants in the experimental portion of this inquiry. 5. There is no indication of any relationship--positive or negative--between the four individual learning modes of the LSI and class performance. 6. Knowing about learning styles and reinforcing that knowledge through the term not only did not improve classroom performance as was anticipated but the knowledge negatively impacted performance and spread the range of performance to where it was twice the range of the control group. Results & Conclusions * The statistical results for the first part of this inquiry revealed no differences on average on the KLSI instrument between the experimental and control groups, as expected, as well as revealing variances that were statistically unchanged pre- and post-experiment for both groups and contrary to our hypotheses. These results are in line with other, but different, studies of learning styles (Cassidy, 2004; Coffield et al., 2004; Laight, 2004). *What is fascinating about these results is they raise the possibility of overload or too much information being transmitted for those in the experimental group. Without knowing the precise mechanisms which led the experimental group to do worse and be more varied in performance, it is possible that their understanding of how others learn may have diverted their learning activity from what was best for them as individuals. Knowing, in principle, that there were other ways that were appropriate to the learning of certain materials may have caused them to learn in ways with which they were not comfortable and/or they may have come to be (slightly) distrustful of their learning approach which led them to be hesitant and in some way learning their learning experience. Implications Do these results mean that the Kolb learning inventory cannot ever be used as a tool to enhance student learning? The study would not reach that conclusion. Is this study an outlier or has it identified another of those situations where too much information truly may be harmful? There are likely many other research designs which might be addressed to this conundrum.

References Black, J. M. (2004). Assessing learning preferences. Plastic Surgical Nursing, 24(2), 68-69. Bacon, D. R. (2004). An examination of two learning style measures and their association with business learning. Journal of Education for Business, 79(4), 205-208. Baldwin, L., & sabry, K. (2003). Learning styles for interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 325-340. Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419-444. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles: What research has to say to practice. London, England: The Learning and Skills Research Centre, Learning and Skills Development Agency. Curry, L.(1991). Patterns of learning styles across selected medical specialties. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 247-278. Desmedt, E., & Valcke, M. (2004). Mapping the learning styles "jungle": An overview of the literature based on citation analysis. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 445-464. Genovese, J. E. C. (2004). The index of learning styles: An investigation of its reliability and concurrent validity with the preference test. Individual Differences Research, 2(3), 169-174. Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students' learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(2), 363-375. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A., & Wolfe, D. M. (1981). Lifelong learning and adult development project: Final report. Cleveland, OH: Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Lemire, D. (2000). Research report--A comparison of learning styles scores: A question of concurrent validity. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 31(1), 109-116. Loo, R. (2004). Kolb's learning styles and learning preferences: Is there a linkage? Educational Psychology, 24(1), 99-108. Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Almeida, P., & Watts, M. (2004). Questioning styles and students' learning: Four case studies. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 531-548. Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (2004). Developing teacher sensitivity to individual learning differences. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 466-486. Sims, R. R. (1983). Kolb's experiential learning theory: A framework for assessing person-job interaction. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 501-508. Sonnenwald, D. H., & Li, B. (2003). Scientific collaboratories in higher education: Exploring learning style preferences and perceptions of technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 419-431. Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2001). The learning styles questionnaire: Closing comments? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(3), 215-216.