Newstead S E
Department of Psychology, University of Plymouth.
Br J Educ Psychol. 1992 Nov;62 ( Pt 3):299-312. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01024.x.
A study is reported which examined the reliability and validity of two measures of individual differences in learning, a short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983) and the Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1976). Both of these are short and easy to administer, making them attractive for use in the classroom. The Approaches to Studying Inventory was found to be a potentially useful measure: the predicted factors emerged, the scales were moderately reliable and those students adopting a deep approach to learning were more likely to be successful in their exams. The Learning Style Inventory, on the other hand, was relatively unreliable and the underlying factor structure did not correspond to what was predicted; there was, however, a correlation between scores on the active/passive dimension and academic success. It is concluded that the short form of the Approaches to Studying Inventory has some potential in assessing the learning styles of students, but that further refinement is required before it is adopted for general use.
本文报告了一项研究,该研究考察了两种学习个体差异测量方法的信度和效度,即学习方式量表简版(恩特威斯尔和拉姆斯登,1983年)和学习风格量表(科尔布,1976年)。这两种量表都简短且易于实施,使其在课堂上具有吸引力。研究发现,学习方式量表简版是一种潜在有用的测量方法:预测的因素出现了,量表具有适度的信度,并且那些采用深度学习方式的学生在考试中更有可能取得成功。另一方面,学习风格量表相对不可靠,其潜在的因素结构与预测的不符;然而,主动/被动维度的得分与学业成绩之间存在相关性。结论是,学习方式量表简版在评估学生的学习风格方面具有一定潜力,但在普遍采用之前还需要进一步完善。