Page 1

Learning Theory: Applying Kolb’s Learning Style

Inventory with Computer Based Training
© Copyright Harold Henke, 1996, 2001 all rights reserved

Author’s note: This paper was written in 1996 as a project paper for a course on
Learning Theory. This paper was reformatted in June, 2001.
 Page 2

Organization .................................................................................................3
Introduction .................................................................................................4
Problem Statement........................................................................................4
Literature Review Overview .........................................................................4
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory....................................................................5
Validity of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory .....................................................6
Application of Learning Style Inventory .........................................................8
Recommendations .......................................................................................12
Future Research..........................................................................................13
Validity of Kolb Learning Style Inventory .....................................................13
Review of Other Learning Style Instruments ................................................13
Self-selection and Learning Styles ..............................................................13
Appendix A: Learning Styles ......................................................................... 14
Bibliography ............................................................................................... 15
 Page 3

Organization
This paper is organized as follows:
• Introduction-brief description of the purpose of this paper.
• Problem Statement-short statement on what research problem is described in this
paper.
• Literature Review Overview - brief description of the learning style theory, primarily
Kolb’s, review of the validity of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory, and review of
literature where Kolb Learning style theory was applied to course design.
• Recommendations-set of recommendations on how to apply learning style theory to
computer based training.
• Further Research-discussion on areas where further research could be conducted to
solve this problem statement.
• Bibliography-list of articles referenced in this paper.
 Page 4

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to describe how an aspect of learning theory, specifically
learning styles, can be applied to the development of computer based training.
Information gathered from literature searches on learning theory and computer based
training will be presented along with recommendations and suggestions for further
research.
The reason computer based training was chosen as a variable, instead of traditional
coursework, such as lecture, is that computer based training is a fast growing field.
Filipczak cites statistics that 43 percent of all US organizations with more than 100
employees are using CBT as part of their training programs.(Filipczak, 1993).
On the other hand, Russ-Eft, states that only 40 percent of companies surveyed used
CBT. (Russ-Eft, 1994). Russ-Eft considers this a low number. The disagreement between
the two authors is similar to whether the glass is half-empty or half-full.
I believe that the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web combined with high-
speed modems and Integrated Services Digital Network, which allow one phone line to
simultaneously support both data and voice, the ability to deliver computer based
training to home and office will create demand by consumers. This consumer (or
student) demand will fuel development of computer based training by both industry and
university. (And not to mention the cable television industry.) For this reason, computer
based training was selected as a variable for the following problem statement.

Problem Statement
The research question this paper attempts to answer is:
Should learning styles, as defined and measured by Kolb’s Learning Style
Inventory, be applied to the development of Computer Based Training?
To answer this question, a review of pertinent literature will be presented.

Literature Review Overview

The literature search produced no surprises as there were many articles available with
the keywords of learning theory and computer based training. And the genre of learning
styles was also well represented in the learning theory category. Since Kolb’s Learning
Style Inventory has been available for review since the mid-1970’s, there are quite a few
articles that describe learning styles and whether the test instruments are valid.
Additionally, there are many articles that describe how to integrate learning styles into
course development or whether learning styles is a necessary component of course
development.
Computer based training (and its related topics of computer assisted instruction,
computer assisted learning, distance learning, and technology based training) provided
many articles which seemed to fall into one of three categories: 1) whether computer
based training was as effective or less effective than traditional education; 2) types of
computer based training that are emerging, such as Electronic Performance Support
Systems; and 3) how to create, using authoring tools, computer based training.
 Page 5

A major short coming in the computer based technology literature was a focus on
defining content and on validating content. Articles that provided direction on defining
content seemed few and far between, with the exceptions of articles that provided
checklists. These checklists were often simplistic and included items such as check your
spelling. And there seems to be a dearth of articles that provide insight on how to
validate the content. What there was no lack of were articles that define how to organize
information, select an authoring tool, and so forth. The literature search indicated that
mechanics of using an authoring tool are as important as content.
Lacking in the both literature reviews was a marriage between learning styles and
computer based training design. You could argue that the literature in learning theory
that describes how to incorporate learning styles into course design is applicable to both
traditional and computer based training. (And this is an assumption that will be
described later.)
The following is an outline of the literature review that will be presented to help answer
whether Learning Styles should be applied to computer based training course
development:
1. Brief review of articles that describe Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, which is
referred to in this paper as KLSI. (Read the Future Research section for a
discussion of why Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory was chosen instead of other
learning style measurement instruments, such as Honey and Mumford’s Learning
Style Questionnaire.)
2. Brief review of the articles that support and question the validity of the KLSI
instrument.
3. Review of articles that describe the importance or lack of importance in
developing courses that incorporate learning styles. And also a review of articles
that describe how learning styles can be included into computer based training.

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, as defined by (Kolb et al. 1979), includes four learning
styles:
1. Converger who can be classified as someone who wants to solve a problem and who
relies heavily upon hypothetical-deductive reasoning...to focus on specific problems.
(Kolb et al., 1979)
2. Diverger who can be classified as someone who solves problems by viewing
situations from many perspectives and who relies heavily upon brainstorming and
generation of ideas. (Kolb et al., 1979)
3. Assimilator who can be classified as someone who solves problems by inductive
reasoning and ability to create theoretical models. (Kolb et al., 1979)
4. Accommodator who can be classified as someone who solves problems by carrying
out plans and experiments...and adapting to specific immediate circumstances. (Kolb
et al., 1979)

These four style are based upon established learning theories as described by Kolb: The
ideas behind assimilation and accommodation originate in Jean Piaget’s definition of
 Page 6

intelligence as the balance between the process of adapting concepts to fit the external
world (accommodation) and the process of fitting observations into the world of existing
concepts (assimilation). Convergence and divergence are the two essential creative
processes identified by J.P. Guilford’s structure-of-intellect model. (Kolb, 1985).
To determine a person’s learning style, the person completes an instrument called
Learning-Style Inventory by answering questions contained in the Self-Scoring
Inventory and Interpretation Booklet (Kolb, 1985).
An additional note should be made about Kolb’s learning cycles as the KLSI also
measures learning cycle preference. Kolb defined four learning cycles:
1. Concrete experience: where learning from feelings (Kolb, 1995) or reactions to
experience influence your learning.
2. Reflective observation: where learning from watching and listening (Kolb, 1985)
influence your learning.
3. Active conceptualization: where learning from thinking (Kolb, 1985) or analyzing
problems in a systematic method influence your learning.
4. Active Experimentation: where learning by doing (Kolb, 1985) or results driven
influence your learning.

These four cycles are tied into learning styles. For instance, a converger favors a learning
cycle of Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation, which fits since these
two learning cycles are characterized by learning by doing and thinking. And since
Convergers focus on reasoning and solving problems, the cycles and learning styles are
closely tied together. But, it should be noted, that while students prefer one learning
style to another, students will move between learning cycles as Kolb states actual
process of growth in any single individual...probably proceeds through successive
oscillations form one stage to another. (Kolb, et al., 1979)
Since students change or adapt to one learning cycle to another, whereas students have a
preferred learning style, the problem statement does not include learning cycles as a
variable.

Validity of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory

Ruble and Stout present an analysis of an article by Bostrom, Olfman, and Sein that
reported when designing a training course, training methods must match individual
learning styles. This article states that the Bostrom et al. findings, which concluded that
learning styles are important factors in training, is an invalid conclusion.
Key points of why the Bostrom et al. findings were not supported included reliance on
the Kolb Learning Style Inventory-1976 (based on Kolb’s 1976 model, referred to as
KLSI-1976). Some studies about the KLSI indicate that the there is low test-retest
reliability; other studies show that there is little or no correlation between factors that
should correlate with the classification of learning styles. For example, one study could
not classify learning styles of graduate students with factors such as undergraduate
major which meant that a converger might be expected to be a math major and then
pursue a graduate degree in mathematics whereas the student might have actually
chosen philosophy.
 Page 7

Ruble and Stout also point out that Bostrom et al. state that the KLSI is expected to give
unstable outcomes for an individual across learning contexts but is stable within a
specific context. (Ruble and Stout, 1993). The authors contend that an instrument that is
inconsistent on one administration, will be inconsistent for two administrations. In
other words, the authors reject the notion that as learning cycles change, the instrument
will produce different results because the author’s believe the instrument does not
produce meaningful results at any given point in the learning cycle.
Ruble and Stout cite a number of studies that range from 1980 through 1991 which lead
them to conclude that KLSI-1976 does not enjoy a general acceptance of its usefulness,
particularly for research purposes. (Ruble and Stout, 1993). Based on this statement, the
authors say that the Bostrom et al. study has no validity and that research conducted
with the KLSI-1976 is tainted.
Bostrom et al. rebut the claims made in Ruble’s and Stout’s article. The central points
made by the authors are that research cannot be held up until a validated, approved tool
is ready and that the problems associated with KLSI-1976 did not significantly affect
their results. The authors state the KLSI-1976 was the best tool available for their
research. Furthermore the authors state that other popular research tools, such as the
Job Diagnostic Survey has been criticized for its validity but is still widely used.
Ruble and Stout refute these points by stating that: 1) Bostrom et al. findings that
learning styles are important factors in training design are not supported and 2)KLSI-
1976 is not a valid tool for research. The authors state that Kolb has revised this tool in
1985 but that the KLSI-1985 tool, while improved, still is not valid and the authors
believe the tool needs more revision and validation.
Bostrom et al. make an interesting case supporting their findings. The authors do not
deny that the KLSI-1976 may be flawed but that there are no other tools available,
therefore the tool may be flawed but the study itself is valid. Furthermore, the authors
suggest that other research is conducted with tools that are not validated but yet this
research is accepted. In essence, this is the only game in town.
Another key point made by Bostrom et al. that relates directly to this paper is that Many
of the studies that use KLSI-1976 focus on university-style classroom learning. Our
concern was with short, one-shot organizational training sessions. In the former, there is
time for changing learning styles, over several months of instruction. In the latter, there
is little likelihood of change in a one-day (or less) time frame.... (Bostrom et al., 1993).
I believe this point applies to computer based training, where typically, the user will
complete the training in a short-period of time. Though the user may start and stop at
their convenience, most computer based training is designed to be completed in a short
time span.
Both articles have merit. But the Kolb Learning Style Inventory has been in use since
1976 and continues to be used today. So whether the tool is flawed or not, I believe the
inventory has been administered enough that the results are sufficient to use as
benchmarks. I agree with the summations of Bostrom et al. who said Our contribution
to the body of knowledge on end-user training was that we explained a specific
variable...learning style (not KLSI-1976 itself)...based on a model with sound theoretical
underpinnings.... (Bostrom et al., 1993)
 Page 8

Another article by Sheehan and Kearns also points out some problems with the KLSI but
the authors, grudgingly, endorse the use of the instrument. Sheehan and Kearns state
that The original KLSI-1976 instrument has been criticized for its psychometric
weaknesses such as poor construct and face validity, poor reliability, and an abnormal
distribution and general psychometric limitations. This criticism has continued to other
similar instruments. (Sheehan and Kearns, 1995). The authors continue to say that As a
solution to providing some reference for analyzing a person’s learning profile without
recourse...we decided to continue using the Kolb learning model.... (Sheehan and
Kearns, 1995).
The last statement that providing some reference (Sheehan and Kearns, 1995) is a key
phrase also echoed by Bostrom et al. that this is the only one of several instruments
available to measure learning styles. The validity of the other instruments has also been
questioned.
The literature indicates that there is acceptance of the concept of learning styles but
there is much disagreement over how to measure learning styles.
It should be noted that Kolb updated the KLSI-1976 in 1985 and Kolb has since created
two more instruments which are Learning Skills Profile and Executive Skills Profile
which measures learning skills. (Broyatzis and Kolb, 1995).
But for now, the KLSI-1976 and the updated 1985 version are commonly used
instruments and continue, despite criticism, to be used in current research, as
demonstrated by Sheehan and Kearns. Robotham states that The two most widely used
inventories of learning styles have been those of Kolb... and Honey and Mumford’s.
(Robotham, 1995).

Application of Learning Style Inventory

This section describes some examples of how and why learning style theory has been
applied to course development. And includes a discussion of the usefulness of applying
learning styles to course design.
Mumford states that research of Knowles and Kolb must be integrated into the design of
training courses and makes a key point necessary for effective course design which is
effective design must integrate the principles of learning cycle, learning styles, and
encouragement of learning to learn.
Mumford did design and implement a course that included learning styles theory and
action learning. The author points out that very little attention is paid to how learner’s
learn in many institutions, such as MBA programs, and his course was quite unique
given the setting, which was a management course for working professionals and not
traditional students.
This, I believe, is the same state that course design for computer based training is in.
Much attention is focused on the mechanics or what types of media are used, but I think
less attention is focused on integrating theory with content.
Mumford also believes that by helping students to identify their learning style, you are
helping them to understand how they learn (learning to learn). This is perhaps an added
benefit of incorporating learning styles into course design.
 Page 9

Sloan states that Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) is being widely used because CAL
can be adjusted to each learner’s style and help learner’s overcome their learning
weaknesses. Sloan maintains that students learn in a variety of methods but that each
student has a preferred learning style. And as such, good course design must be
developed to be flexible enough to meet each student’s preferred learning style.
Sloan believes that attention must be paid to fundamental issues such as identifying a
student’s learning style and avoiding focusing only on the technology for the sake of
technology. Sloan suggest that many CAL courses have been designed to focus on
delivery and not content which has created a credibility gap (Sloan, 1995) between
academics who feel they have created excellent courses and students who feel the
courses fall short of teaching them the subject matter.
Sloan concludes that more focus must be placed on the pedagogical issues and not on
the technology but that acceptance of CAL within academic communities is hampering
the development of relevant (Sloan, 1995) CAL courses and hence lessening of attention
to content and theoretical issues, such as learning styles. I believe the literature search
supports Sloan’s contention.
In the literature review, a point was developed that educators must not ignore the
presentation of material, and in the Sloan article, educators must not ignore the creation
of content. So an educator must be a course designer/developer who can create relevant
content while presenting the material using the best elements of technology. The lack of
acceptance of CAL courses by academics creates a chicken and egg issue. If academics
will only use home grown courses, then will industry create courses for academic
institutions? Without industry support, can academic institutions create a wide variety
of CAL courses? If not, then how will students become familiar with, and perhaps
accepting of, CAL courses as a viable education tool?
And if educators are not actively creating CAL (CBT) courses, then where will the
direction come to apply learning theory to course development? If course development
is left solely to professional trainers; will professional trainers spend time to incorporate
or even consider applying learning theory to course design?
For learning theory, specifically learning styles to be incorporated into CBT design,
academia will need to participate. Much research has been conducted on learning styles,
but academic research on learning styles and course design is not robust enough to
encourage practitioners to seriously consider incorporating learning styles into their
course design.
In another article, that applies learning style to a course, Currie describes how Honey
and Mumford’s learning styles were applied to a course. Since Honey and Mumford’s
learning styles are similar to Kolb’s learning styles, how these learning styles were
applied to course development can be used as a method for applying Kolb’s learning
systems
Currie states Building on Kolb, Honey and Mumford’s categorization of learning styles
proved useful in the design of modules, as a number of participants’ comments
reinforced their findings. I preferred groupwork, role plays were useful, I was relieved
that you were not expected to role play, case study was useful were among relevant
 Page 10

comments. In designing the module, a variety of activities was built in to cater for all
learning styles. (Currie, 1995).
Currie lists the activities that were included in the course design to match the learning
styles of the students: Role-playing exercises and other techniques which involve being
thrust into the limelight were appropriate for activists. Reflectors preferred self-
assessment exercises and...paper-based material which they could take away and chew
over...Theorists preferred a lecture and discussion within the program. Pragmatists
found specific techniques (such as force-field analysis for problem solving) useful,
particularly where given the opportunity to try them out in a situation similar to the
workplace. (Currie, 1995)
Currie states that based on student comments: ...principle is that the trainer should
encourage participants to develop a broader range of learning styles, so that they
become more effective learners from life’s events, and so that they can utilize fully the
cycle of learning as espoused by Kolb. Currie concludes that Trainers should use a
variety of techniques and training aids, encourage an awareness of learning style, and a
broadening of the learner’s range of styles. (Currie, 1995)
By designing a course that takes into account the learning styles of students, you can
generate two benefits: 1) improve student response to the material and 2) help students
become better learners.
Filipczak presents hands-on examples of learning styles outside of the traditional
classroom setting. Author states that people are now expected to become lifelong
learners (Filipczak, 1995) and as such, they must learn their learning preferences to
better cope with what they learn, and how they learn. Learners must know how to adjust
to fit the information they are learning.
The author also makes a few other points which prove that determining learning styles
can provide some ancillary benefits. For instance, the author quotes a professional
trainer as saying that many employees feel they are stupid (Filipczak, 1995) but by
helping them to realize they have a learning style, the employees can begin to accept the
fact that they can learn, and therefore, they are not stupid people. This is an important
point for the design of computer based training as there may not be someone to ask.
Armed with the knowledge that you have a learning style, you can challenge situations
where you are asked to learn in a manner not best suited for you. As the author states, to
be a life-long learner, knowing how you learn is as important as learning. And for
computer based training, this could mean the difference between a student selecting the
parts of the training that fits their learning style or just giving up.
Lowe and Skitmore investigated how experiental learning theory and factors affect the
accuracy of purchasing agents (pre-tender estimators in England). The authors studied
ten purchasing agents, with a mean age of 43.3 years and who are considered
experienced in their professions (half said they were experts; the other half considered
themselves professional). To determine the purchasing agent’s learning styles, the
following tools were administered: Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and Learning Style
Questionnaire (LSQ).
 Page 11

Lowe and Skitmore point out that the LSI and LSQ are not directly (Lowe and Skitmore,
1994) comparable because the tools use different ranges and different scoring systems.
This explains the reason that the LSI showed a strong preference for accomodator, who
prefers concrete experience, while the LSQ shows a strong preference for theorist and
pragmatist. (Theorist is at odds with the accomodator style.)
Lowe and Skitmore conclude that another offshoot of this research was that the
experienced purchasing agents did little to understand how they learn or perform their
jobs and that they could improve by following an eight step program, which includes
items such as building a portfolio of learning activities and reflective analysis using
checklists to review how they performed and learned a task.
Though this study may be flawed by the fact that a small sample comprised of ten
purchasing agents may not be significant, this article does show that learning theory can
be measured and implemented in a program using the eight step program.
Lowe and Skitmore conclude that On the evidence presented, it is likely that the
introduction of experiential learning theory...will provide some noticeable
improvements in performance. (Lowe and Skitmore, 1994).
Fatt describes combines Kolb’s LSI and McCarthy’s theory that learning styles are
influenced by hemispheric (right mode/left mode) preferences. Fatt married the LSI
with research on hemispheric preferences to create a tool to measure the following four
parts and specific items: 1) Left/right brain has 27 items; 2) Auditory/kinesthetic/visual
modes of thinking has 30 items; 3) Convergent/divergent thinking has 18 items; and 4)
Problem solving style/open/focused/reflective has 9 items.
Fatt believes administering his instrument will determine a student’s learning style and
which hemisphere influences their learning process.
This is an interesting article for two reasons: 1) Fatt has created his own measurement
tool that combines items to measure learning style and hemispheric preferences; 2) Fatt
tries to tie together hemispheric preference (right versus left brain) with learning style.
But the author does not provide much information on the measurement tool other than
to say the tool was adapted from Education Media Corporation, 1981. This provides no
clue as to what instrument was used as the basis for this new measurement tool.
Furthermore, the test instrument is only described in high level terms as being in four
parts with a number of items in each part.
And the author ends the article with a precise comment: Courses are usually designed by
course designers...More often than not, the courses reflect the learning styles of the
course designers, rather than the learning styles of the learners for whom the courses
are meant. (Fatt, 1993).
Robotham questions whether tools, such as KLSI, are being used effectively. For
instance, should students be forced to use a different learning style to stimulate growth?
Can students come to expect only to be taught in a style that matches their preferred
style, thus causing students to become dissatisfied or turn off? Robotham argues that a
truly proficient learner is someone who can switch between styles to take advantage of
all educational offerings and is someone who directs their own education. Robotham
 Page 12

believes that course design should focus on teaching students to self-direct their
learning and not force students (or stereotype) students into a learning style.
Robotham questions relying too much on learning styles as a method for creating a
course that satisfies all student needs. Author questions if slotting people into pre-
ordained categories is actually appropriate. (Robotham, 1995). Author believes this
causes students to become stagnant in their ability to understand how they learn,
whereas forcing students into different learning styles can help them grow.
Robotham has some valid criticisms and the author presents a tool, developed by Dr.
Lucy Guglielmino, that measures a person’s willingness and ability to engage in self-
directed learning. (Robotham, 1995). But author also states that Able self-directed
learners may still choose to use a particular learning style.... Author does not make a
convincing case that using learning style in course development is actually detrimental
to a student’s ability to learn. Robotham only says it is questionable. (Robotham, 1995).

Recommendations
Here are recommendations for applying Learning Style theory to the design and
development of Computer Based Training:
1. Conduct more research, especially by academics, on how Learning Style theory
can be applied to course development and as an off-shoot Computer Based
Training development. The literature is quite abundant in articles that determine
Learning Styles, in articles that question the instruments used to determine
Learning Styles, and in articles that describe experiential learning, the
underpinning theory to learning styles. What seems to be missing is a robust
body of literature that describes how Learning Style theory has been incorporated
and tested in actual course design and development. And in this regard, to
computer based training, the literature seems less than robust.
2. Include elements of learning that match learning styles into course design and
development. As defined and discussed earlier in the Currie article (Currie, 1995),
elements such as case study and role playing should be added to course design.
Here are some suggestions for computer based training design:
3. Administer an instrument to determine student’s learning style (either KLSI or
LSQ) and explain the student’s learning style. (If the instruments are too
expensive to use because of fees or copyright issues, then describe the learning
styles and provide descriptions which students can identify with.)
4. Add elements that fit each of the four learning styles as listed in Appendix A:
Learning Styles.
5. Include elements of related learning style theories such as Dunn’s visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, and tactual (Filipczak, 1995), and Fatt’s work using
McCarthy’s theory that learning style is influenced by hemispheric section s of the
brain. (Fatt, 1993). Some of these elements can be added easily by using multi-
media (sights and sounds). Others would take additional research such as Fatt’s
blending of learning styles with hemispheric brain influences.
6. Design the course for the learner with their learning styles in mind. Avoid making
the ...courses reflect the learning styles of the course designers, rather than the
learning styles of the learners for whom the courses are meant. (Fatt, 1993).
 Page 13

Future Research
Below are areas where additional research is indicated:

Validity of Kolb Learning Style Inventory

Since the instrument uses ispative scales (ranking), each element cannot be viewed as
independent measurements and with all instruments that use ranking, there is question
on the values assigned to each item. Ruble and Stout and also Sheehan and Kearns cite
a continuous body of information that suggest the KLSI is flawed. Therefore, more
research is merited into the validity of KLSI-1976.

Review of Other Learning Style Instruments

This paper focuses on only one of the instruments, which is the KLSI-1976 and 1985.
The reason is that the other instruments that measure learning style are in essence
derivatives of the KLSI-1976 instrument. But though these instruments are derivatives,
it cannot be said that these instruments are directly (Lowe and Skitmore, 1994)
comparable because the instruments use different ranges and scoring systems. But the
KLSI-1976 has been used the longest and is well represented in the literature and for
these reasons, was chosen as the basis for determining learning styles and applying
learning styles to computer based training.
Other key instruments include Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire
(which was reviewed in the learning theory literature review), the Merritt and Marshall
Learning Style Questionnaire-Extended, the Broyatzis and Kolb Learning Style Profile
(which was reviewed in the learning theory literature review), and Mumford’s Learning
Diagnostic Questionnaire, and Broyatzis’ and Kolb’s Executive Skills Profile (which was
reviewed in the learning theory literature review).
A review of these other instruments might help determine if one instrument is superior
over another instrument in determining learning styles and also implementing aspects
of learning styles into computer based training.

Self-selection and Learning Styles

Terrell (1995) predicted that students taking computer-mediated coursework would
primarily be convergers and assimilators. Terrell’s findings indicated that 73.3 percent
of student’s learning styles were either convergers or assimilators. Terrell also states
that because of the nature of the coursework, the findings may be explained self-
selection inherent in a program, (Terrell, 1995) which in this case is a distance education
program that uses computer mediated coursework.
This same self-selection may hold true for students who complete Computer Based
Training instead of traditional coursework. It can be postulated that convergers and
assimilators might be more comfortable with Computer Based Training than other
students with different learning styles. A review of literature and perhaps administration
of the KLSI to users of Computer Based Training may be in order.
 Page 14

Appendix A: Learning Styles

Accomodator: Include role-playing situations where the computer provided a problem
with many scenarios and people that could be chosen to solve the problem. Since
Divergers are risk takers and are considered able to adapt to situations, then each
scenario would have several different endings, some endings offering more reward,
other endings less reward. The intelligence for this type of role playing is already
available in interactive games, such as Doom.
Diverger: Include case studies that offered several solutions to each case study based on
many inputs which would need to be sorted out. Since Divergers are characterized as
brainstormers (Kolb, 1979), the course needs to provide them with the ability to choose
from multiple inputs to come up with an answer. This could even be accomplished by
using adaptive learning, where one answer leads the learner to another subject, thus
bypassing subject matter that the learner already knows.
Converger: Provide hands-on examples that could be solved for a single answer. Role-
playing could also be applied as the student could be given a problem and several
solutions,. The student would need to pick the best solution based on he facts presented.
For these types of problems, many facts need to be presented so that the converger can
sort the facts out and use their hypothetical-reasoning (Kolb, 1979) to solve the problem.
This technology already exists in games, such as Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective.
Assimilator: Provide detailed background information on how and why something is
supposed to work and then supply examples that show the how but also illustrate the
why. In other words, describe both the theory and practice. Problems where assimilators
need to apply a theory would work best because assimilator’s greatest strength lies in
creating theoretical models (Kolb, 1979). Another technique that could work would be to
present the assimilators with a problem, and ask the assimilators to provide reasons why
the problem exists.
 Page 15

Bibliography
Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L., and Sein, M.K., (1993, March) Learning Styles and End-User
Training: A First Step, MIS Quarterly, pages 118-120
Broyatzis, R.E. and Kolb, D.A., (1995), From Learning Styles to Learning Skills: The
Executive Skills Profile, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Volume 10, Number 5, pages
3-17. CD ROM, MCB University Press
Currie, G., 1995, Learning Theory and the Design of Training in a Health Authority,
Health Manpower Management, Volume 21, Number 2, Pages 13-19. CD ROM, MCB
University Press Ltd., 1995
Fatt, J.P.T., (1993), Learning Styles in Training,: Teaching Learners the Way They
Learn, Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume 25, Number 9, pages 17-23.
Filipczak, B. (1995, March), Learning Styles Escape the Classroom! Panic in the City,
Details at 11, Training, Volume 32, Number 3, Pages 46, CD ROM, Lakewood
Publications.
Filipczak, B. (1995, March), Learning Styles Escape the Classroom! Panic in the City,
Details at 11, Training, Volume 32, Number 3, Pages 46, CD ROM, Lakewood
Publications.
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I.M., and McIntyre, J.M (1979), Organizational Psychology, A Book
of Readings.
Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 07632, Chapter 11:
Personal Growth and Career Development, Career Development, Personal Growth, and
Experiential Learning, pages 543-549.
Kolb, D.A., (1985), LSI Learning-Style Inventory, McBer & Company, Training
Resources Group, 116 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02116.
Lowe, D. and Skitmore, M., (1994), Experiental Learning in Cost Estimating,
Construction Management and Economics, Number 12, pages 423-431.
Mumford, A. (1992), Individual and Organizational Learning: The Pursuit of Change,
Management Decision, Volume 30, Number 6, pages 143-148.
Robotham, D. (1995), Self-Directed Learning: The Ultimate Learning Style?, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Volume 19, Number 7, Pages 3-7, CD ROM, MCB
University Press.
Ruble, T.L. and Stout, D.E., (1993, March) Learning Styles and End-User Training: An
Unwarranted Leap of Faith, MIS Quarterly, pages 115-117
 Page 16

Sheehan, M. and Kearns, D., (1995), Using Kolb: Implementation and Evaluation of
Facilitation Skills, Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume 27, Number 6, Pages 8-
14, CD ROM, John Wellens, Ltd., 1995
Sloan, B., (1995, September), In Search of Excellence in Learning: The Strategic Value of
Computer Assisted Learning, Construction Management and Economics, Volume 13,
Number 5, Pages 435-439.
Terrell, S., (1995, October), Predicting Success in Computer-Mediated Coursework, 6th
International Conference on Technology and Distance Education, San Jose, Costa Rica.

© Copyright Harold Henke, 1996, 2001 all rights reserved