A reader responds to andreou, andreou, and vlachos’s ‘‘learning styles and performance in second language tasks’’

THE FORUM
The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the
TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks
published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

A Reader Responds to Andreou, Andreou, &
Vlachos’s ‘‘Learning Styles and Performance in
Second Language Tasks’’
Learning Styles and Performance in Second Language
Tasks: Instrumentation Matters
PHILLIP DAVID JONES
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Hong Kong SAR, China

& In the December 2008 issue of TESOL Quarterly Andreou, Andreou
and Vlachos reported on a study that examined the learning styles of 452
undergraduate students and their performance in second language
tasks. First, I would like to say how delighted I was to read an article in
TESOL Quarterly that deals with this underexplored yet important aspect
of TESOL. Further, I would like to publicly state my agreement with
some of the issues raised in the report. This agreement can be briefly
summarized as a call for more research concerning the effect of
learners’ learning styles on second language acquisition (SLA) and their
performance in second language tasks; the stability of these styles over
time; and the formulation of intervention strategies, curricula, materials,
and activities based on these styles.
However, although, I am convinced that these areas of further
research are indeed important for exploration, and that, if undertaken,
such exploration will result in a better understanding of how individuals
learn language and how this understanding can be exploited through
course design and pedagogy, I believe we must tread carefully to ensure

that the instrumentation used produces valid and reliable results. My
concern with the work of Andreou et al. is that they have not fully
considered which instrument should be used for establishing the
learning styles of the subjects in their study. This consideration is
722

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 43, No. 4, December 2009

Tesol Quarterly tesol208126.3d 31/12/09 19:00:45
The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)


important because if the instrument used to establish the learning style
of the participants can be criticized for its reliability in predicting
learning styles, then the results of the study overall are compromised.

CRITICISM OF KOLB’S LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY (LSI)
There are issues surrounding the reliability and validity of Kolb’s LSI,
although Andreou et al. do not consider them in their report. Newstead
(1992), DeCiantis and Kirton (1996), and Wierstra and DeJong (2002)
have criticized its validity, but of even more concern in this instance is
its test–retest reliability (see Cornwell, Manfredo, & Dunlap, 1991;
Freedman & Stumpf, 1978; Lam, 1997; Newstead, 1992; Stumpf &
Freedman, 1981; Veres, Sims, & Shake, 1987; Wilson, 1986). Although
the subjects of Andreou et al.’s study may have exhibited a preference
for one learning style over another at the time of testing, it is possible
that if retested a little later, say, within a few weeks, they may have
switched to another or even opposite style. Unfortunately, this lack of

consideration for the reliability and validity of Kolb’s LSI raises questions
about the reliability of the Andreou et al.’s results and any inferences
drawn from them.
Another worrying aspect of Andreou et al.’s work is which version of
the LSI was used. Three different versions of the LSI have been issued, in
1976, 1985, and 1999. Each version has seen improvement in regard to
reliability; however, as yet, the LSI is still not at a stage of development
where, empirically speaking, it has been proved to be suitable for
research. From reading Andreou et al.’s report, I am concerned that
perhaps the 1985 version was used, which would be another reason to
question the results and conclusions of the report. For readers ease of
use, I have included the reference for Kolb (1999) in the reference
section of this article.
OTHER POSSIBLE INSTRUMENTS
Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004a, 2004b) provide
valuable meta-analyses of 13 well-known learning style instruments
according to four criteria: internal consistency, test–retest reliability,
construct validity, and predictive validity. The only instrument that
Coffield et al. showed to have acceptable reliability and validity for
research is Allison and Hayes’s (1996) Cognitive Style Index (CSI).
The CSI is a psychometric test originally designed to be used with
professionals. It has been used with people from many different
countries, such as Nepal, Jordan, Russia, India, Singapore, Hong
Kong, France, and Germany. The test comprises 38 questions and can
be completed relatively quickly by students at the start or end of a class.
Low scores indicate a strong preference for an intuitive cognitive style,
THE FORUM

723

Tesol Quarterly tesol208126.3d 31/12/09 19:00:45
The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)


whereby attention is focused on the big picture and thinking is
unstructured, whereas high scores indicate a strong preference for an
analytical cognitive style whereby thinking occurs logically, step by step.
The CSI has very sound results for test–retest reliability as confirmed by
Murphy, Kelleher, Doucette, and Young (1998). Additionally, there is
evidence of high internal consistency as confirmed by Murphy et al. and
Sadler-Smith, Spicer, and Tsang (2000). The CSI, therefore, offers good
reliability, although it should be noted that according to Hodgkinson
and Sadler-Smith (2003), it seems that the CSI should be considered as
measuring two moderately correlated factors, analysis and intuition, and
on this basis makes a very sound instrument for research. The CSI,
therefore, offers an opportunity to TESOL researchers to explore the
relationship between cognitive style and performance in second
language tasks and adjust pedagogical approaches accordingly. It is
interesting to note that the CSI could have replaced the LSI in the study
currently under discussion because a key objective was to explore the
effect of learning styles on performance in second language tasks.

RESITUATING FURTHER RESEARCH
At the start of this response, I agreed that further research in this area
is both necessary and important. In particular, I put forward domains in
which I see valuable research opportunities. However, given this
response and the unreliable nature of most instruments in this area, I
suggest that the CSI (valid and reliable translated versions, if necessary)

be used for the purpose of this research and that further research is
resituated in the following way. More research is required concerning
the effect of learners’ cognitive styles (as determined by the CSI) on
second language acquisition and their performance in second language
tasks; the stability of these styles over time; and the formulation of
intervention strategies, curricula, materials, and activities based on these
styles.
REFERENCES
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index. Journal of Management
Studies, 33, 119–135.
Coffield, F. J., Moseley, D. V., & Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004a). Learning styles and
pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and
Skills Research Centre, Learning and Skills Development, Department for
Education and Skills. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from agogy.
ir/images/pdf/learning-styles-pedagogy.pdf.
Coffield, F. J., D.V. Moseley, D. V., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K. (2004b). Should we be
using learning styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills
Research Centre, Learning and Skills Development, Department for Education

724

TESOL QUARTERLY

Tesol Quarterly tesol208126.3d 31/12/09 19:00:46
The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)


and Skills. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from />Cornwell, J. M., Manfredo, P. A., & Dunlap, W. P. (1991). Factor analysis of the 1985

revision of Kolb’s learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 51, 455–462.
DeCiantis, S. M., & Kirton, M. J. (1996). A psychometric re-examination of Kolb’s
experiential learning cycle construct: A separation of level, style and process.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 809–820.
Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1978). What can one learn from the learning style
inventory? Academy of Management Journal, 21, 275–282.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and
empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 76, 243–268.
Kolb, D. A. (1999). The Kolb learning style inventory, version 3. Boston: Hay Group.
Lam, S. S. K. (1997). Reliability and classification stability of learning style inventory
in Hong Kong. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 141–142.
Murphy, H. J., Kelleher, W. E., Doucette, P. A., & Young, J. D. (1998). Test–retest
reliability and construct validity of the cognitive style index for business
undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 82, 595–600.
Newstead, S. E. (1992). A study of two ‘‘quick-and-easy’’ methods of assessing individual
differences in student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 299–312.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D. P., & Tsang, F. (2000).Validity of the cognitive style
index: Replication and extension. British Journal of Management, 11, 175–181.
Stumpf, S. A., & Freedman, R. D. (1981). The learning style inventory: Still less than
meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 6, 297–299.
Veres, J. G., & Sims, R. R., & Shake, L. G. (1987). The reliability and classification
stability of the learning style inventory in corporate settings. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 47, 1127–1133.
Wierstra, R. F. A., & DeJong, J. A. (2002, June). A scaling theoretical evaluation of Kolb’s
learning style inventory–2. In M. Valcke & D. Gombeir (Eds.), Learning styles:
Reliability and validity. Proceedings of the 7th Annual European Learning Styles Information
Network Conference (pp. 431–440). Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent.
Wilson, D. K. (1986). An investigation of the properties of Kolb’s learning style

inventory. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 7(3), 3–15.

The Authors Reply
ELENI ANDREOU, GEORGIA ANDREOU AND FILIPPOS VLACHOS
University of Thessaly
Volos, Greece

& It is well known that Kolb’s work has been criticized for logical
inconsistencies in theory construction but mainly for the psychometric
properties of the LSI-1985. While relevant research has generally
supported the internal reliability of the revised LSI-1985 (although with
concerns about the stability of test–retest reliability scores), it has
demonstrated inconclusive results in terms of its construct validity (e.g.,

THE FORUM

725

Tesol Quarterly tesol208126.3d 31/12/09 19:00:46
The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 -

Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003)