| Abstrakt: |
This study compared four learning style models, including Felder-Solomon (1993), Grasha-Riechmann (1974), Myers-Briggs (1962), and Dunn and Dunn (2000a), to determine which one best-explained students' academic achievement. Four linear regressions were estimated, one for each learning style model, using students' learning style preferences as independent variables, and student achievement, measured by test scores, as the dependent variable. In terms of explaining differences in student achievement, goodness-of-fit results ranked Dunn and Dunn (2000a) first, Grasha-Riechmann (1974) second, Myers-Briggs (1962) third, and Felder-Solomon (1993) fourth. Consistent with the goodness-of-fit results, non-nested J-tests indicated that Dunn and Dunn (2000a) ranked first, and Felder-Solomon (1993) last. However, contrary to the goodness-of-fit rankings, the J-tests could not distinguish a difference between the explanatory power of the Grasha-Riechmann (1974) and Myers-Briggs (1962) models, suggesting that the best model may be a combination of the two. Utilizing a sample of first-year students enrolled in an introductory macroeconomics course, the results of this study provided evidence in a hypothesis-testing framework as to whether the differences between alternative learning style models to explain student achievement are statistically significant. The best learning style model was determined in this manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
