Fig. 17.1
Learning styles according to the questionnaire by Escanero and Soria (CESEA, Spanish Acronym of Cuestionario de Escanero y Soria de Estilos de Aprendizaje). Source: Escanero and Soria 2014. Intellectual Property Registration Z-21-14
It is assumed, as Kolb did, that the learning cycle can start in any of the four poles, although generally it starts with the perception. The sequence (EC-OR-CA-EA) described by Kolb [16] does not always appear in the established order. In our model, there are two learning cycles which focus on every cognitive dimension:
In the analytical cycle, the following elements are included: sight-hearing, reflection, abstract conceptualization, and resolution
In the intuitive cycle the following elements are included: kinesthesia, reflection, abstract conceptualization and resolution
These cycles show action preferences, not implying an obligation, which enable the interaction of both regions (cycles). Furthermore, the end of one of them can be the start of either of the two regions.
Furthermore, each cognitive dimension is constituted by two quadrants, each one representing one pedagogical or learning style (see Fig. 17.1).
Results
The test was carried out with a total of 199 students from Physiology III (Heart, Circulatory, Respiratory and Digestive System), from the second academic year of the Degree of Medicine (third semester) of the University of Zaragoza (Spain). In this group, 135 students (68 %) were women and 64 students (32 %) were men. The descriptive analysis showed that the theorist learning pole is the one with the higher average score (37, 25 points-maximum 48-) and the dynamic is the lowest score (34, 43). In general, the scores of the students are much more homogeneous than those obtained with other questionnaires that we think that best defines our students.
The consistency of the internal reliability was measured with the Cronbach’s alpha and the analysis has shown that the scale used to measure the 48 variables has a good index (0.822). The scales used to measure each of the four learning poles were analyzed individually and the values have been satisfactory (between 0.6 and 0.8).
Use for Improvement
In the validation of the new questionnaire (Appendix) the characteristics which stand out in each of the poles were evaluated. The factorial exploratory analysis was used for each pole with 12 items. In this stage, the factors of each learning pole were identified following the Kreiser-Gutman Test (eigenvalue > 1). Each identified factor has been analyzed and has received a name related to a characteristic of the pole to which it belongs. As stated in Table 17.1, this has allowed the identification of the most important pole characteristics.
Table 17.1
Characteristics of the learning poles
Theorist | Dynamic | Reflexive | Operative |
|---|---|---|---|
Methodological | Creator | Conscientious | Solver |
Logical | Explorer | Mediator | Decisive |
Concrete | Experimenter | Compiler | Practical |
Coherent | Inductor | Researcher | Realistic |
Receptive |
Moreover, each factor is defined by an item series. If they have low scores (0, 1, or even 2) the teacher must work with them to improve the style (pole) to which they belong.
Tables 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, and 17.5 list the questions that define each feature of the poles, as well as the factorial loadings of each one.
Table 17.2
Characteristics/factors of the theorist pole. Items that define each characteristic and factor loading of each item
Items | Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Methodological | Logical | Concrete | Coherent | |
10A | 0.743 | 0.189 | 0.199 | −0.079 |
13B | 0.743 | 0.010 | −0.032 | 0.257 |
6B | 0.641 | 0.138 | 0.206 | 0.310 |
2B | −0.222 | 0.704 | 0.088 | 0.303 |
1A | 0.222 | 0.654 | 0.294 | −0.082 |
4A | 0.193 | 0.609 | −0.010 | −0.003 |
24A | 0.429 | 0.483 | −0.183 | 0.106 |
15B | −0.035 | 0.141 | 0.789 | 0.129 |
16A | 0.209 | −0.062 | 0.738 | −0.095 |
21A | 0.074 | 0.323 | 0.393 | 0.352 |
19B | 0.076 | 0.176 | 0.015 | 0.734 |
17B | 0.236 | −0.083 | 0.023 | 0.728 |
Eigen value | 3.017 | 1.366 | 1.246 | 1.101 |
Variance | 25.14 | 11.38 | 10.36 | 9.18 |
Table 17.3
Characteristics/factors of the dynamic pole. Items that define each characteristic and factor loading of each item
Items | Factors | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Creator | Explorer | Experimenter | Inductor | |
17A | 0.755 | 0.41 | 0.054 | 0.269 |
24B | 0.713 | 0.103 | 0.169 | 0.035 |
13A | 0.710 | −0.217 | 0.055 | 0.206 |
19A | 0.651 | 0.153 | −0.081 | −0.083 |
16B | −0.001 | 0.794 | 0.041 | 0.120 |
21B | −0.037 | 0.603 | 0.090 | 0.426 |
4B | 0.290 | 0.562 | 0.285 | −0.317 |
2A | 0.066 | 0.183 | 0.789 | −0.131 |
1B | −0.080 | −0.081 | 0.756 | 0.309 |
15A | 0.225 | 0.162 | 0.332 | 0.120 |
10B | 0.088 | 0.212 | 0.046 | 0.699 |
6A | 0.333 | −0.047 | 0.156 | 0.544 |
Eigenvalue | 2.767 | 1.612 | 1.121 | 1.071 |
Variance | 23.059 | 13.436 | 9.340 | 8.929 |
Table 17.4
Characteristics/factors of the reflexive pole. Items that define each characteristic and factor loading of each item
Items | Factors | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conscientious | Meditator | Compiler | Researcher | Receptive | |
11ª | 0.765 | 0.159 | −0.001 | 0.105 | −0.078 |
18ª | 0.662 | −0.141 | 0.378 | −0.127 | −0.016 |
8B | 0.593 | 0.180 | 0.032 | 0.481 | −0.012 |
20B | 0.472 | 0.370 | −0.154 | −0.197 | 0.432 |
22B | 0.037 | 0.840 | 0.051 | 0.043 | −0.026 |
14B | 0.048 | 0.550 | 0.274 | 0.311 | 0.190 |
23A | 0.401 | 0.517 | 0.090 | −0.344 | −0.173 |
5B | 0.044 | 0.133 | 0.787 | 0.187 | 0.090 |
12A | 0.046 | 0.311 | 0.550 | −0.401 | −0.282 |
3A | 0.401 | −0.017 | 0.464 | −0.006 | 0.263 |
9B | 0.034 | 0.051 | 0.070 | 0.812 | −0.088 |
7A | −0.080 | −0.016 | 0.108 | −0.020 | 0.816 |
Eigenvalue | 2.711 | 1.381 | 1.160 | 1.113 | 1.044 |
Variance | 22.593 | 11.506 | 9.668 | 9.277 | 8.701 |
Table 17.5
Characteristics/factors of the operative pole. Items that define each characteristic and factor loading of each item
