Learning Style Inventory (Kolb Models) and the Achievement of Learning Outcomes Geometry
Abstract
A person will be more effective in learning if he already understands his character in learning. There are various kinds of ways that a person has in learning, namely by hearing, reading, or seeing and learning by finding. The way to process this information is known as learning style. This paper aims to explain the tendency of Kolb’s learning style and the achievement of geometry learning outcomes in junior high school students. This is quantitative research with an ex-post facto design, with 120 subjects and data collection techniques using the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) questionnaire and geometry learning outcomes test. The results showed that students who learn through concrete experience were 17.3%, reflective observation 32.7%, abstract conceptual 22.5%, and active experiment 27.5%. Whereas in the learning style dimension which has a diverger type of 39.3%, assimilator 41.1%, converger 11%, and accommodator 8.6%. So students who have a diverger learning style are more appropriate if their learning uses the lecture and question and answer method, accommodators are more appropriate to use the problem-based method, while students having a converger learning style will have better learning outcomes using investment-based learning strategies.
Keywords: geometry, kolb models, learning outcomes, learning style inventory
References
[1] Ariati A, Pramuniati I, Eviyanti E. Students’ critical thinking ability, creative and learning style in bahasa indonesia learning for grade iv sd negeri Sepadan Jaya. J. Ilm. Teunuleh. 2020;1(2):167–82.
[2] Turmudi SE. “Cognitive process students in mathematical problem solving in productive connectivity thinking,” vol. 160, no. Incomed 2017, pp. 319–323, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2991/incomed-17.2018.68.
[3] Herianto H. Penerapan metode accelerated learning for the 21st century dalam meningkatkan hasil belajar matematika siswa. Delta J. Ilm. Pendidik. Mat. 2019;7(2):37.
[4] Idkhan AM, Idris MM. Dimensions of students learning styles at the university with the kolb learning model. Int. J. Environ. Eng. Educ. 2021;3(2):75–82.
[5] Prastiwi AI. “The role of students’ attitude towards efl learning processes in their achievements.” English Lang. Educ. Dep. Fac. Lang. Arts, Yogyakarta State Univ. 2018;7:265–274.
[6] James WB, Gardner DL. “Learning styles: implications for distance learning,” vol. 83, no. 3, 1992.
[7] Y. Saba’ Pasinggi. et al., “Studi literatur: quantum learning sebagai upaya meningkatkan hasil belajar siswa,” Journal.Citradharma.Org, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 390– 401, 2022, [Online]. Available: http://journal.citradharma.org/index.php/eductum/ article/view/769
[8] Kolb DA. “Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development,” Prentice Hall, Inc., no. 1984, pp. 20–38, 1984, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 7506-7223-8.50017-4.
[9] Kolb AY, Kolb DA. The Kolb learning style inventory - version 4.0. Exp. Based Learn. Syst. Inc.; 2013. pp. 1–34.
[10] Mainemelis C, Boyatzis RE, Kolb DA. Learning styles and adaptive flexibility. Manag Learn. 2002 Mar;33(1):5–33.
[11] Ritzer G. Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology, vol. 44, no. 11. 2007.
[12] Tulbure C. Do different learning styles require differentiated teaching strategies? Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2011;11:155–9.
[13] Demirbas OO, Demirkan H. Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learn Instr. 2007 Jun;17(3):345–59.
[14] Kablan Z, Kaya S. Science achievement in timss cognitive domains based on learning styles. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 2013;(53):97–114.