Kolb's Learning Model: An innovation towards career ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/33-dec2019.pdf · Brown,...

Kolb's Learning Model: An innovation towards career commitment

Dr. Shaji Kurian

Professor, IFIM Business School, Bangalore

[email protected]

Saswata Chanda

PGDM Student, IFIM Business School, Bangalore

[email protected]

Chandrabhanu Naik

PGDM Student, IFIM Business School, Bangalore

[email protected]

Prof. Namrata Nanda*

Research Mentor, IFIM Business School, Bangalore

[email protected]

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XI, Issue XII, 2019

Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 263

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aims to identify one’s level of career-commitment with the help of self-

effectiveness with their preferred learning style.

Design/ Methodology/ Approach: A structured questionnaire was prepared to collect data.

Out of 200, 151 responses were found to be valid. The data was interpreted using Grey

Analysis in Microsoft Excel.

Findings: The interpretation reveals that the pragmatists are leading, followed by reflectors,

theorists and activists respectively. It is observed that the competency of influencing and

openness, plays a vital role in the career-commitment.

Practical Implications: To identify the mindset of an individual, type of learning, best suited

for them. This helps the process of employee recruitment and retention.

Originality/ Value: Grey analysis segregates individuals based on their preferred learning

style, self-efficacy & effectiveness, to understand their career-commitment. Ultimately,

opening a new door towards the advancement of contemporary learning system.

Keywords: Kolb’s learning style, Self-efficacy, Effectiveness, Career commitment,

Experiential learning.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 264

Introduction

An enhancement in the field of learning, can be highly improved by using Kolb’s

Experiential Learning model. This theory or this philosophy is mainly based on Dewey’s

(1938) “theory of experience”. Kolb (1984), suggested that the learning works by acquiring

abstract concepts and applying it upon various situations. It is a process which provides

knowledge with the help of various experiences. Few researches have been done in this field

by scholars focusing on the enhancement of the learning process in education. Branford,

Brown, & Cocking (2000), worked with Kolb’s model and devised “the new science of

learning”, discussing how the brain works while learning. In this paper, we are focusing on

how Kolb’s model can help to improve self-efficacy & effectiveness and in turn the career

commitment of individuals. This study can help in the training programmes in office as well

as in any educational institutions.

Learning model of Kolb is divided in four stages which creates a circle, representing the

learning process. Each of these styles represents the preferred style of two combinations.

First, “Concrete Experiencers”, who likes to learn by gaining experience. Second is the

“Reflective Observation”, where the observer learns by reflecting, they also look at things

very differently and carefully from every perspective. Third is the “Abstract

Conceptualization”, who are logical and are systematic. They praise deductive thinking

which are based on the carefulness of their understanding. They can create well-structured

and clear ideas. And the fourth one is the “Active Experimentation”, who learn through doing

activities. They like practicing and trying new things but are not at all afraid of taking risks.

They can easily make thing done and appreciate small group activities. That acts as one stable

indicator which tells about the perception of the learner and how they interact with the

learning environment, as well as their response towards it (Keefe, 1979). Keefe & Languis

(1983), suggested an individual approaches educational experiences, with the use behavior &

perception.

Coming to Self-efficacy, which is defined by one’s trust in his or her distinctive ability to

achieve goals. Albert Bandura (1986), characterized this individual judgement of how

prospective situations are dealt with the execution of proper course of action. Psychologists

have contemplated self-efficacy from a various viewpoint. They noticed that several

developmental paths in self-efficacy and its dynamics are in a wide range of settings in

associations with self-efficacy and self-concept. On the other hand, Self or personal-



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 265

Effectiveness is the application of performing certain tasks in life, using all the resources and

materials at your disposal which will in-turn enable you to master your life and attain your

goals. Self-effectiveness touches upon life which includes behavior, physical and mental-

health and responses, their academic pursuit and last but not the least, career choices.

Ormrod, a social cognitive theorist, believes that one’s previous success and failures develop

into effectiveness. It uses one’s resources not only from personal, but also from professional

areas; it includes: talents, skills, strengths as well as time & energy, etc.

Literature Review

Kolb (1976), depicted a model of learning, demonstrating a new way in which the method of

learning and the learning style of an individual, motivates the management education, in the

field of managerial decision making and critical thinking. Kolb used this ELT for developing

a tool to measure learning characteristics also known as the Learning Style Inventory (LSI).

This LSI was widely accepted and used by educators around the globe, such as Carlisle in

2002, then by Boyatzis and Mainemelis in 2001. This LSI instrument over the years, has been

successfully used in higher education and in business environments (Kolb, 2001). It is one of

the most significant and widely distributed tools, that has been used for measuring

individual’s learning preference.

Kolb’s model serves as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interact and

responses to the learning environment (Keefe, 1979). They are clearly shown in a way of

behavior and performances by which an individual approach the educational experiences

(Keefe & Languis, 1983).

Learning Style

Kolb & Kolb (1984), suggested Experiential learning Theory (ELT) is the acquisition and

transformation of experience, which is the central idea of the learning process. Learning

works in four-stages of the cycle, each representing one learning style. First one is Concrete

Experiences, is the learning style which is preferred by those who like to learn from their

experiences. Secondly, the Reflective Observation explains that the observer learns by

looking at things from every perspective. Third is the Abstract Conceptualization, these are

the people who are logical and are systematic. They have the deductive thinking capability,

which are based on the carefulness of their understanding. They can create well-structured

and clear ideas. Fourth and the last one is the Active Experimentation, people learning by



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 266

doing activities. They like to practice and try new things and are not afraid of taking risks.

They can easily make thing done.

David A. Kolb et al. (2005), suggested the use of Learning Styles and Learning Space which

enhances Experiential Learning in Higher Education. This was defined earlier that the ELT is

an integration of previous knowledge, perception, cognition, and experience (Kolb et al,

1984). It provided the opportunity to find out why most of the population communicate

differently and how they gain and transform one information, in various ways. It showed how

they are combined with existing knowledges, and why it creates different opportunity,

recognition and exploitation abilities for different people. Learning has been defined by ELT

is to gain knowledge by modifying experiences. Knowledge effects as a mixture of,

understanding and convert experiences (Kolb, 1984). This paper introduced new progresses

in the field of ELT, using the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). It represented the thought of

learning space, as a way of understanding the relation of learning styles and the instructive

learning conditions.

Kolb and Kolb (2011), suggested on how ELT can be used to design and implement in

management education programs in higher educational institutions. They invented several

models to explain and study the learning process at an individual level. It represented the

Learning Theory from a Dynamic & Holistic viewpoint towards Management Learning as

well as Education and Development.

Armstrong and Mahmud (2008), found out that the levels of accumulated managerial tacit

knowledge (LAMTK) are associated with the dominant learning styles of managers and

students. Findings included, that the people who are frequent in performing management

functions, had a significantly higher LAMTK score than those with different functionalities.

Kayes (1999), had made changes to this instrument, which Kolb has made since the 70’s.

Like, he revised the initial instrument so that the psychometric properties could be improved.

The LSI has been designed in such a way that the teachers who use it in their classes can

understand each student’s learning style in a better way and this helps in adjusting their own

teaching style for the students to yield maximum potential achievement. This also helps the

students to increase their own learning potential and use it to produce maximum result.

Further research has been done on the same. (Svinicki and Dixon, 1987; Sutliff and Baldwin,

2001).



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 267

http://amle.aom.org/search?author1=Steven+J.+Armstrong&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

http://amle.aom.org/search?author1=Anis+Mahmud&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

Kolb (1976), endorsed learning as one of the challenges or a lie-long process of every

individual in the world. He suggested that there is always a big and strong relationship

between how people learn and how they response in every situation in their life. Recent

researches on the adult learning and development have focused on the differences between

learners and the problems they face. (Cross, 1981; Knox, 1977).

Self- Efficacy & Effectiveness

Alexander Murdock & Scutt (2007), discussed on the development of self-knowledge in daily

tasks to improve the effectiveness which acts as a guide for managers, in improving their

effectiveness.

Cohen, Ledford & Spreitzer (1996), tested effectiveness with a theoretically-driven model of

self-managing work teams. With the help of theoretical perspectives of work design & self-

leadership, four categories of variables are theorized to predict self-managing work team’s

effectiveness. These four, are group task design, encouraging supervisor behaviors, group

characteristics, and employee involvement.

McCormick (2001), focused on one of the most routinely reported finding of leadership

literature which is the relation of self-confidence and successful leadership. It is a theoretical

enlightenment of the long-recognized theory of effectiveness.

Bandura (1986), by using social cognitive theory, proposed a new leadership approach. This

hypothesis recommended, the leadership self-efficacy as the key psychological variable for

directing a leader, working in a dynamic situation. This full model considers leader’s insights

withstanding leader’s practices and the circumstances, bringing about a more extensive

perspects of the Leadership Procedure. It also discussed the implication of “Personal

Effectiveness", which in turn inspires one to persistently create and upgrade their own skill

sets or abilities, as well as their knowledge & practices to be appropriate for the perceivers.

When one manages themselves, it impacts their own personal effectiveness.

Gist and Mitchell,(1992), argued that the People who think they can perform well in a task,

do better then those who think that they will fail. Differences in self-efficacy are associated

with bona fide differences in skill level; however, perceptions of efficacy also can be altered

by altering personalities.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 268

Kwantes & Boglarsky (2007), discussed leadership-effectiveness and personal-effectiveness

across six different countries as well as the perceptions of organizational culture of each

country. It was argued that the aspects of organizational culture that promote employee

fulfillment and satisfaction, were uniformly viewed as positively related to leadership and

self-effectiveness.

Mathieu, Martineau & Tannenbaum (1993), had proposed a model that included individual

and situational antecedents of self-efficacy for the improvement of Training programs. Self‐

efficacy showed the importance of positive influences on the training and their subsequent

performance. However, the estimated relationship was not supported by the modern

researchers, but the implications of the findings are used to build Training Effectiveness.

Career Commitment

Ballout (2009), found out that the people who have average to high self-efficacy, are very

much successful; but not for those people who are low in self-efficacy. Watkins & Yuen

(2009), examined the career commitment with five factor personality model and their self-

efficacy in a sample size of 785 Chinese graduate students. Findings implies, career decision

and self-efficacy is associated with greater progress in vocational commitment as well as with

the tendency to foreclose.

Niu (2010), examined the relationship between self-efficacy and career commitment in the

food service sector. And the findings suggested that the higher an employees’ self-efficacy,

the higher their career commitment is.

Cherniss (1991), analyzed 25 human service professionals and discovered that the age,

attitude toward life, and job satisfaction were positively correlated with career commitment.

Married people are more committed than singles, and those who had already switched their

jobs were less committed to their present careers than were those who had not changed their

careers.

The objective of our model to investigate the competency, specifically towards the openness

of one individual and their work effectiveness, as well as how they express their feelings &

their reaction towards seniority in work-place. Which in turn will signify the level of career

commitment they have towards their job.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 269

The Conceptual Model

This paper aims to identify the linkages from the learning style of people with self-efficacy

and effectiveness which ultimately leads to carrier commitments. Kolb (2005), elaborated

how we approach to the task of learnings and how one responds towards it. When

approaching for a task, there are sets of preference which is different for every individual. It

can be in ways of doing or watching; and the experience it provides will in turn, influence

feelings and mind-set of an individual. The combination of these set of preferences creates

the four main learning styles. These 4 styles are: Activists, Theorist, Reflector and

Pragmatist. This could also ultimately influence an individual’s self-efficacy and self-

effectiveness. Gist and Mitchell, (1992) argued that an individual’s confidence in their ability

or the self-efficacy, is directly related to the job performance. Personal effectiveness is the

ability that contributes to a individual’s overall skills which is based on practical learning

(Johnson, 1972).

The current model is aimed to create a clear relationship between learning style, self-efficacy,

and effectiveness with career commitment. Personal effectiveness makes use of all resources,

for example strength, time-skills and energy and this effectiveness come from the learnings

which incorporates with the self-efficacy level of the individual. Finally, their effectiveness

and efficacy will indicate their career commitment.

(Insert Figure 1)

Research Methodology

This study aims to identify Kolb’s Learning Styles depending on various groups of working

professionals. The learning styles included Activist, Reflector, Pragmatist and Theorist. The

paper, not only focused on Kolb’s Learning Style, but also quantified efficacy and

effectiveness of an individual towards influencing others. The research quantified a

qualitative data. The study observed how the individuals express their feeling and react

towards hierarchy, in their work-place. A sample size of 200 surveys was shared with the

working professionals, spread all over India. The primary data was collected using 4 set of

items and compiled into one questionnaire. This was done to find out, the learning style along

with the effectiveness, efficacy and career commitment. Out of those 200 responses, 151

responses were found to be valid. This validity of the responses were based on the

completeness of the survey and the eagerness and interest shown by the respondents. This

interest has shown the uniqueness of responding by the students and hence reduces the



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 270

chance of perceptual biases thus making this response rate of 75.5 % a valid set of data to be

analysed. This data was collected through Google Forms and stored into one single excel

sheet. Further, based on the responses, the data was analyzed using Grey Relational Analysis

(GRA). This analysis could overcome the disadvantages of the statistical method. GRA had

been applied successfully in solving a variety of Multi-Criterion Decision Making (MCDM)

problems. This was a method of convenient operation, less data and clear conclusions. The

response received from the questionnaires would derive the learning style and the

effectiveness in influencing others. It would also derive the efficacy to define how an

individual would approach his own goal or target, which would further lead to the answer of

their career commitment.

The response rate observed through the survey was 151/200*100=75.5%. The mean of the

observation is created for the priority matrix using the formula:

V1=(min+0.5*max)/(Δ1+0.5*max)

The above formula is the main algorithm which has calculated the priority of learning style

with self-efficacy & effectiveness along with career commitment. So, each cell has its own

correspondent priority value. This is known as the priority weight. Finally, average value was

derived. On every criterion, we calculated the priority weight by taking the mean of the

criteria. This average value of each criteria (efficacy, effectiveness and career commitment)

forms the basis of the ranking in accordance to the Learning Style. For every learning style

there will be different efficacies, effectiveness and career commitment. It was also observed

that the criteria varied in ranks depending upon the learning styles. The highest value is

ranked as first because it has the maximum impact on the learning style. Each of the learning

style is again ranked based on global weights calculated by averaging all the efficacy levels.

Similar calculation is done to obtain the priorities of learning style depending upon the

weighted average of the other two criteria (effectiveness and career commitment). The Grey

system theory is also known as Deng’s Grey Incidence Analysis and was created by Professor

Julong Deng of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in 1982. It tells us about the

positivity and negativity of these responses.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Grey relational analysis (GRA) is a part of the Deng’s Grey Incidence Analysis Theory. It is

an effective means of analyzing the relationship between factors, to determine the important



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 271

factors that influences a defined objective. Factors of this paper being, Learning Style, Self-

Efficacy and Effectiveness as well as Career Commitment. GRA solves MCDM problems by

combining the entire range of performance attribute values for each alternative into one

single value. This reduces the original problem and helps in faster decision making.

Sample Demography

(Insert Figure 2)

Most respondents were from the urban India being 58.28% of population among the sample

size. Very few of the data were from From Rural India, which is 5.96% of the population

sample. The rest were from Semi Urban area, which was 36.76%. This chart deciphers that

most of the responses were from urban section.

(Insert Table 1)

As per the style of learning, efficacy has been used to check what style is accepted by an

individual of particular efficacy level.

So, let us talk about Activists first. It can be observed in efficacy 4, i.e. “I am adaptable to

change” which reflects the adaptability level of an individual, ranks the highest among all

other efficacies. Whereas efficacy no 7, i.e.” my communication is weak” that reflects the

openness of an individual, comes across as the lowest for an Activist. Both efficacy 4 and 7

scores are 0.712 & 0.526 respectively.

Similarly, in the case of Reflectors, efficacy 8: “I work to meet deadline”, representing the

goal-oriented attitude of an individual, turns out to be the top scorer & the efficacy 7, i.e.” my

communication is weak” reflecting the openness of an individual, as the lowest for a reflector

among all other efficacies. The scores for efficacy 8 and 7 are, 0.846 and 0.482 respectively.

Now coming to the Theorist style of learning, which has efficacy 1: “I want to serve my

organization as a team player”, representing the desire of an individual to be a team-player, as

the highest among all the efficacies. While the efficacy 7 had the lowest score once again,

which is, ”My communication is weak”. Both efficacy 1and 7 scored, 0.776 and 0.433

respectively.

The Pragmatist style of learning shows efficacy 6 to be the highest. It reflects the decision-

making skills. Once again efficacy 7, i.e.” my communication is weak” which reflects the



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 272

openness of an individual, turned out to be the lowest for a Pragmatist among all other

efficacies. Scores of efficacy 6 and 7 being 0.851 and 0.5894 respectively.

It is a general belief in Leadership that communication is not a primary competency.

However, the responses showed different results. All the people from different learning styles

ranked efficacy7, i.e.” my communication is weak” which reflects the openness of an

individual, as the lowest. It in-turn, tells that the leadership style depends on how well you

communicate.

Overall, it is observed that when we take all the criterias together from the efficacy levels, the

Pragmatists leads with the score of 0.775, followed by the Reflectors with0.751, then comes

Theorists with the score of 0.678, and finally Activists with the score of 0.647.

(Insert Table 2)

Now coming to effectiveness of an individual, let us discuss about Activists first. In the case

of Activists, the results showed that the effectiveness question 4, i.e. “I respect what my

senior colleagues have to say about my behavior and competence” which reflects the ability

of an individual in taking criticism, ranks the highest among all other effectiveness. Whereas,

effectiveness question 6, i.e.” I unknowingly say things which disturbs people” which reflects

insensitive behavior of an individual, to be the lowest for an Activist. The effectiveness 4 and

6 scores are, 0.630 & 0.530 respectively.

Similarly, Reflector shows that the effectiveness 4: “I respect what my senior colleagues have

to say about my behavior and competence”, representing goal orientation of an individual, to

be on the first rank & effectiveness question 6, i.e.” I unknowingly say things which disturbs

people” which reflects insensitive behavior of an individual, to be the lowest for a Reflector.

The effectiveness scores of 4 and 6 are, 0.818 & 0.436 respectively.

Now coming to the Theorist style of learning, which has effectiveness 4: “I respect what my

senior colleagues have to say about my behavior and competence”, which represents the goal

orientation of an individual, to be the first & effectiveness question 6, i.e.” I unknowingly say

things which disturbs people” which reflects insensitive behavior of one individual, to be the

lowest for a Theorist. Both effectiveness 4 and 6 scores, 0.696 & 0.490 respectively.

The Pragmatist style of learning shows that the effectiveness 1: “I am not frank with the

person unless I know them very well”, which represents goal orientation of an individual, to

be the first & effectiveness question 6, i.e.” I unknowingly say things which disturbs people”



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 273

which reflects insensitive behavior of one individual, to be the lowest for a Pragmatist. Both

effectiveness 1 and 6 scores, 0.714 & 0.505 respectively.

Overall, it is observed that when all the criterias are taken together from the effectiveness

levels, the Pragmatists leads with the score of 0.6198, followed by Reflectors with 0.611

followed by Theorists with the score of 0.581, and lastly Activists with the score of 0.569.

(Insert Table 3)

Next in line, is the career commitment. First, let us consider Activists. It shows the career

commitment choice question 1, which was:” My career is a central interest in my life”, to be

the highest among other factors taken in consideration. It reflects on the individual’s interest

and motivation. Whereas career commitment 3:” Changing my career now would be

difficult”, have attained lowest scores from the responses. This choice indicates, the level of

devotion of an individual towards his work. The scores of choice 1 & 3 are 0.655 & 0.567

respectively.

Similarly, Reflectors shows, the career commitment 1, which was:” My career is a central

interest in my life”, to be the highest among other factors taken in consideration. It reflects on

the individual’s interest and motivation. Whereas, career commitment 4:” I would leave my

profession if I could”, had the lowest scores from the responses. This choice indicated, their

commitment towards their own goal in worklife. The scores of question 1 & 4 are 0.813 &

0.497 respectively.

Now coming to the Theorist style of learning, which has the career commitment 2, which

was: ”Working in my current profession is important to me”, to be the highest among other

factors. It reflects on the individual’s dedication towards his job. Whereas career commitment

4: ”I would leave my profession if I could”, attained the lowest scores from the responses.

This choice indicates, their commitment toward own goal in their career. The scores of

question 2 & 4 are 0.718 & 0.536 respectively.

The Pragmatist style of learning shows that the career commitment 1, which was: ”My career

is a central interest in my life”, to be the highest again, among the other factors, taken in

consideration. It reflects on the individual’s interest & motivation. Whereas career

commitment choice question 3:” Changing my career now would be difficult”, got the lowest

scores from the responses. This choice indicated, the level of devotion of an individual

towards his work. The scores of question 1 & 3 are 0.947 & 0.709 respectively.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 274

Overall, it is observed that when we take all the criteria together from the career commitment,

the Pragmatists leads with the score of 0.811, followed by Reflectors with 0.669, then comes

Theorists with the score of 0.654, and lastly Activists with the score of 0.619.

Discussion

This paper highlights several facts. First, it speaks about individual learning styles, then

proceeds into their work effectiveness & efficacy and finally into their career commitment.

To achieve this, Kolb’s learning style is corelated with the other three factors, which are:

Efficacy, effectiveness & career commitment.

Using a structured questionnaire, we collected 200 responses; and out of those 151 were

valid. The findings from the analysis shows the pragmatists to be the leading style for

learning, and when the learning style is mapped with efficacy levels Pragmatists are followed

by Reflectors, then by Theorists and lastly by Activists. This indicates, the Pragmatists have

the highest efficacy for a given work. As we know pragmatists are those who are guided

more by practical considerations than by ideals. So, it is evident that this type of learning

helps one, to grow the ability to produce a desired result or output. Activists, with their “Let’s

do it”-attitude, are left behind by all the other styles of learning. This type of learning does

not provide one the desire to produce better results. On the other hand, when an individual

reflects before a task and thinks out a plan for execution, they are given more priority than

Activists as well as Theorists; which made the Reflectors to hold the second rank & theorists

to have the third rank.

It is also observed that the outcomes of the other two factors including effectiveness and

career commitment, when corelated with Kolb’s Learning Style, have the same scores. This

in turn tells that the Pragmatist have high effectiveness in their jobs and their career

commitment towards their job is also high. This could be because of a simple fact, that the

pragmatist is the one who learns through experiences and they prefer new ideas over old. This

means that they are always actively looking for opportunities to implement new ideas that

they have learnt recently, provided it can be put to practice. Thus, they differentiate

themselves from the others. Pragmatists are followed by the Reflectors, because of simple

reasons like their thoughtful thinking & their thorough and methodical approach. It is one of

the crucial factors, having its effect on effectiveness and efficacy which in turn has their

effect on career commitment. This is one of the reasons behind them getting the second spot.

Right after Reflectors, comes the Theorists on 3rd. The reason for their 3rd spot could be the



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 275

prime weakness which is evident in most of the theorists. The weakness being that they tend

to over analyze and this in turn lowers the effectiveness, efficacy and career commitment.

Activists are the last one in this ladder, due to various reasons. The largest one would be

because they take the immediately obvious course of action without weighing up other

possibilities & they jump into action without enough preparation. So, this inference shows

that the Activists though are the most enthusiastic among all, lack in proper planning and

thorough thinking which is the reason behind their downfall.

Conclusion

Using the Grey Relational Analysis method, we could simply segregate and analyze the

individual learning style with their self-efficacy, effectiveness which in turn leads to career

commitment.

When using grey relational analysis methods, the findings were always the same as

the Pragmatists have the highest score among all the criteria. Pragmatists are guide by

practical considerations than by ideals. So, it is evident that this type of learning style

helps one, to strengthen the ability to produce a desired result or output. Activists,

with their “Let’s do it”-attitude, are left behind by all the other styles of learning. This

type of learning does not provide one the desire to produce better results.

On the other hand, when an individual reflects before a task and thinks out a plan for

execution, they are given more priority than Activists as well as Theorists; which

made the Reflectors to hold the second rank & theorists to have the third rank.

Contributions of this study can help to have a successful training program and it can also be

used for educational purposes. Such a result strengthens the link between the learning style

and the level of self-efficacy as well as the effectiveness level which can result into their

career commitment. It will also help the trainers to identify the state of mind of an individual;

and also, the type of learning best-suited for them. This can also provide help in the process

of recruitment and retention of employees with future research. This paper provides the

opportunity to learn how learning style can be used to improve individual self-efficacy and

effectiveness in strengthening their career commitment.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 276

Acknowledgement

The satiation and euphoria that accompany the successful completion of this research would

be incomplete without the mention of the people who made it possible. We thank the research

team of Accendere Knowledge Management Services, CL Educate Ltd. for their unflinching

guidance, continuous encouragement and support to successfully complete this research

work.

References

Al-Swidi, A., & Al Yahya, M. (2017). Training transfer intention and training effectiveness:

Assessing the gender differences using multi-group structural equation modelling

approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(5), 839-860.

Armstrong, S. J., & Mahmud, A. (2008). Experiential learning and the acquisition of

managerial tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2),

189-208.

Ballout, H. I. (2009). Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-

efficacy. Career Development International, 14(7), 655-670.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Assessing individuality in learning: The learning skills

profile. Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 279-295

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). From learning styles to learning skills: The executive

skills profile. Journal of managerial psychology, 10(5), 3-17.

Cherniss, C. (1991). Career commitment in human service professionals: A biographical

study. Human relations, 44(5), 419-437.

Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2017). The effect of organizational responses to service failures

on customer satisfaction perception. Service Business, 11(4), 767-784.

Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender

and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of career Development, 28(4),

277-284.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford Jr, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-

managing work team effectiveness. Human relations, 49(5), 643-676.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 277

Demerouti, E., van Eeuwijk, E., Snelder, M., & Wild, U. (2011). Assessing the effects of a

“personal effectiveness” training on psychological capital, assertiveness and self-

awareness using self-other agreement. Career Development International, 16(1), 60-

81.

Demerouti, E., van Eeuwijk, E., Snelder, M., & Wild, U. (2011). Assessing the effects of a

“personal effectiveness” training on psychological capital, assertiveness and self-

awareness using self-other agreement. Career Development International, 16(1), 60-

81.

Gheni, A. Y., Jusoh, Y. Y., Jabar, M. A., & Ali, N. M. (2017). Measuring the Global Virtual

Teams (GVTs) Performance: Confirmation Study. Indian Journal of Science and

Technology, 10(8).

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants

and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants

and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211.

Harrelson, G. L., & Leaver-Dunn, D. (2002). Using the experiential learning cycle in clinical

instruction. Athletic Therapy Today, 7(5), 23-27.

Jin, L., Watkins, D., & Yuen, M. (2009). Personality, career decision self-efficacy and

commitment to the career choices process among Chinese graduate students. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 47-52.

Johnson, D. W. (1972). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization.

Katz, E., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Roper, E. (2017). Personal influence: The part played by people

in the flow of mass communications. Routledge.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing

experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning &

education, 4(2), 193-212.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic

approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook

of management learning, education and development, 42-68.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 278

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic

learning space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26-50.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential Learning Theory:

Previous Research and New Directions in Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and

Cognitive Styles (Educational Psychology Series).

Kvan, T., & Jia, Y. (2005). Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in

architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34.

Kwantes, C. T., & Boglarsky, C. A. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership

effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of International

management, 13(2), 204-230.

Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Learning styles and adaptive

flexibility: Testing experiential learning theory. Management learning, 33(1), 5-33.

Massey, M. G., Kim, S. H., & Mitchell, C. (2011). A study of the learning styles of

undergraduate social work students. Journal of evidence-based social work, 8(3), 294-

303.

Mumford, A. (1995). Learning styles and mentoring. Industrial and Commercial

Training, 27(8), 4-7.

Murdock, A., & Scutt, C. N. (2007). Personal effectiveness. Routledge.

Niu, H. J. (2010). Investigating the effects of self-efficacy on foodservice industry

employees’ career commitment. International Journal of Hospitality Management,

29(4), 743-750.

Schellhase, K. C. (2006). Kolb's experiential learning theory in athletic training education: a

literature review. Athletic Training Education Journal, 1(2), 18-27.

Singh, R., Kumar, N., & Puri, S. (2017). Thought self-leadership strategies and sales

performance: integrating selling skills and adaptive selling behavior as missing

links. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 652-663.

Thieme, P., Brusch, M., & Büsch, V. (2015). The role of continuing training motivation for

work ability and the desire to work past retirement age. European Journal for

Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 6(1), 25-38.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 279

Vignoli, M., Mariani, M. G., Guglielmi, D., & Violante, F. S. (2018). Leadership styles and

self-efficacy in determining transfer intentions of safety training. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 30(1), 65-76.

Wiesner, F. (1971). Learning Profiles and Managerial Styles of Managers (Doctoral

dissertation, MIT, Sloan Mgt School).

Appendix A (Figures)

Figure 1 The conceptual model

Figure 2 Sample demography

Learning Style

Activist

Reflector

Theorist

Pragmatist

Self-Efficacy

Team Player

Planning

Orientation

Future Orientation

Self-Effectiveness

Self-disclosure

Openness

Perceptiveness

Career Commitment

Interest

Importance

Attraction



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 280

Appendix B (Tables)

Table 1 Learning style versus Efficacy

Items of

Efficacy

Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist

Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking Rating Ranking

Efficacy1 0.677273 2 0.846154 2 0.776444 1 0.842105 2

Efficacy2 0.64697 7 0.692308 7 0.740889 2 0.810526 5

Efficacy3 0.655303 4 0.812821 4 0.717778 4 0.824561 4

Efficacy4 0.712121 1 0.766667 6 0.735556 3 0.842105 3

Efficacy5 0.675 3 0.807692 5 0.689778 6 0.789474 6

Efficacy6 0.651515 6 0.679487 8 0.715556 5 0.850877 1

Efficacy7 0.525758 9 0.482051 9 0.432889 9 0.589474 9

Efficacy8 0.626515 8 0.846154 1 0.659556 7 0.682456 8

Efficacy9 0.653788 5 0.825641 3 0.637333 8 0.747368 7

Overall 0.647138 4 0.750997 2 0.67842 3 0.775439 1

Table 2 Learning style versus Effectiveness

Items of

Effectiveness



Effectiveness1 0.599242 2 0.748718 2 0.652444 2 0.714035 1

Effectiveness2 0.560606 3 0.728205 3 0.578667 4 0.65614 4

Effectiveness3 0.557576 4 0.458974 6 0.546667 5 0.519298 6

Effectiveness4 0.630303 1 0.817949 1 0.696444 1 0.684211 2

Effectiveness5 0.55 6 0.523077 5 0.521778 6 0.668421 3

Effectiveness6 0.530303 7 0.435897 7 0.490222 7 0.505263 7

Effectiveness7 0.553788 5 0.561538 4 0.583556 3 0.591228 5

Overall 0.568831 4 0.610623 2 0.581397 3 0.619799 1



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 281

Table 3 Learning style versus Career commitment choices

Items of Career

Commitment



Career

Commitment 1 0.655303 1 0.812821 1 0.710667 2 0.947368 1

Career

Commitment 2 0.65 2 0.769231 2 0.717778 1 0.845614 2

Career

Commitment 3 0.566667 4 0.594872 3 0.651111 3 0.708772 4

Career

Commitment 4 0.602273 3 0.497436 4 0.536 4 0.740351 3

Overall 0.618561 4 0.66859 2 0.653889 3 0.810526 1



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 282

Kolb's Learning Model: An innovation towards career ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/33-dec2019.pdf · Brown,...

Documents

Transcript of Kolb's Learning Model: An innovation towards career ...xajzkjdx.cn/gallery/33-dec2019.pdf · Brown,...