978-1-4244-6742-6/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE

LEARNING STYLES, A CORRELATIONAL STUDY IN ENGINEERING STUDENTSLagos S. José A.,Zapata Pedro N.

ABSTRACT.

The investigation was originated in the proposal of the Master of Teaching in the Macro Project on Teaching Styles, Learning, Cognitive, and particularly in the line of Learning Styles, which are involved authors such as Kolb, Grasha - Riechmann and Alonso -Gallego-Honey.

The diversity of instruments in the Learning Styles in a certain way has prevented the educational approach based on theories of learning styles take stronger teaching, has also made it lose validity in the eyes of the educational community, making it more difficult and less implement relevant educational processes based on learning styles.

Making a historical in the evolution of Learning Styles, we see that some studies have compiled the various approaches to learning styles depending on the item to stress, psychological, cognitive, and so on.But little is known about studies that been devoted to relate the models proposed categorizations Learning Styles.Based on the foregoing, the study of the possible relationship between the categories proposed by Grasha - Riechmann (1976), Kolb (1974) and Alonso, Gallego and Honey (1991) was the primary purpose of this project and for this purpose test applied to the respective classification proposed by the same authors to sixty-three (63) students in engineering, then this information is analyzed to look for possible correlations between the ratings result of applying the three tests on students.

The analysis of the project is implemented through the correlation, which is a statistical process that results in the index of relationship between two or more variables and allows us to see if the process is somehow a characteristic equation is linear or no.Here the correlation is used to relate the categories of learning styles and determine its value, then graphing the result and then get the equation that characterizes the process of Learning Styles relationship.

Keywords.

Learning Styles, Correlation, Tests, Classification, Kolb, Grasha, Alonso.

INTRODUCTION.

The investigation is originated in the proposal of the Master of Teaching in the Macro Project on Teaching Styles, Learning, Cognitive, and particularly in the line of Learning Styles, which are involved authors such as Kolb, Grasha - Riechmann and Alonso - Gallego - Honey. The diversity of instruments in the Learning Styles in a certain way has prevented the educational approach based on theories of learning styles take stronger teaching, has also made it lose validity in the eyes of the educational community, making it more difficult and less implement relevant educational processes based on learning styles. Making a historical in the evolution of Learning Styles, we see that some studies have compiled the various approaches to learning styles depending on the item to stress, psychological, cognitive, and so on. UVT little is known about studies that been devoted to relate the categorizations proposed models and learning styles based on this finding common points within the various models to more accurately determining the learning styles of students. The study of the possible relationship between the categories proposed by Grasha - Riechmann (1976), Kolb's (1974) and Alonso, Gallego and Honey (1991) was the primary purpose of this project and for this purpose test applied to the respective classification proposed by the authors to sixty-three (63) Electronic engineering students from La Salle University (USTA) and Biomedical Engineering of the Escuela Colombiana de Carreras Industriales (ECCI), then this information is analyzed for search for possible correlations between the ratings result of applying the three tests on students.

Previous instruments have different elements of analysis to determine the learning styles and Kolb's test consists of a matrix or grid made up of nine rows and four columns, where the question to answer is how I learn best?, Likewise Grasha- Riechmann test consists of sixty (60) questions or items that are validated from 1 to 5 according to whether or not one agrees with the premise and similarly proposed in Test Alonso, Gallego and Honey down eighty (80) questions to be answered as this more or less agree with the premise stated.

The analysis of the project is implemented through the correlation, which is a statistical process that results in the rate of relationship between two or more variables and allows us to see if this process is somehow a characteristic equation is linear or no. Here the correlation is used to relate the categories of learning styles and determine its value, then graphing the result and get the equation that characterizes the process of Learning Styles relationship.

PROBLEM: BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTION.

Most authors who have constructed theories of learning styles and providing tools that enable the diagnosis of the characteristic style of learning, but this plurality of definitions is what has prevented further development in this educational approach. If we analyze and compare the various proposals as presented by Curry (1987) presents a seminal work in this regard, just as Hickcox (1995) applied the process in the United States as a reinforcement to the theories of Curry. In terms of correlation, it is important to see the work carried out in Chile by authors such as Moya N, Vera N, J Haran on correlation between learning styles and academic performance in high school students, according to three measuring instruments (2005) , plus contributions from Felix Nunez Paris' memory and learning styles in teaching French as a foreign language "in his master's thesis at the University of Segovia (Spain), and correlation contributions in Geijo P. M. (2004), in investigation and analysis of the learning styles of teachers in Laredo (Spain). We can also quote Marco Antonio Moreira to their work "concept maps and meaningful learning: a necessary relationship?", Which describes the importance of observing a good correlation between concept map and a significant learning. In Colombia we highlight the work research for the group Multivariate on Pereira´s Technological University (2006) on multivariate analysis of the predominant learning styles of engineering

students, which describes learning as the style becomes a key determinant of performance Academic Engineering. In addition we also Pereira Thesis Management "Management styles and learning styles: a view from the industry of cosmetics and toiletries" in this study the rate charged documentary and correlation, we determined the type of correlation between the Leadership Styles (Leadership) and Learning Styles (Cognitive) in the management of the strategic level of the industry of cosmetics and toiletries. We can also mention some work yet unfinished or under development as the work by the group INVEDUSA of Sergio Arboleda University in Bogotá, worked by Suarez C. C., Burgos, C. E., Molina B. I., Hall R. M. C. Entitled "The teaching style and its impact on student learning."The above authors approach the subject from different angles, but most of them only characterized the population or the predominant style and presented with respect to correlation is intended to contrast the same author and their own categorizations or with respect to the distinctive style and the level of academic performance and not with respect to prevailing styles of different authors, except perhaps the work presented by Moya and others in Chile, which establishes a link from the point of view of the intelligence and neuro-linguistic programming. Some of these works helped focus the project in relation to the style classifications proposed by the authors and obtain the correlation between the various classifications. Such diversity in approaches to learning styles, makes mistakes when implementing a tool to measure the learning style of a group, not having clarity, enhance certain features, and overshadow others. This has really prevented the teaching in the field of learning styles approach is a bit careless and it was not given the importance or the place it deserves in the process of teaching and learning in the classroom. Thus, this project seeks to determine whether the approach Kolb classifications have some connection with the proposed classifications, with Grasha-Riechmann approach or the approach proposed in Alonso, Gallego and Honey.Then came the question of ¿what is the relationship between the categories of learning styles proposed by Kolb, Grasha-Riechmann, and Alonso, Gallego and Honey?.

CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL REFERENCES.

Learning Styles. In this project the term 'learning style' refers to the fact when you want to learn something each of us uses his own form, manner, method or set of strategies, which vary according to what we want to learn, but generally remain a common line in the process of learning that distinguishes us from others and makes our way of learning is different from the other, that's our style of learning.

The Kolb Model David Kolb developed a model of learning through experience to be applied in adult life of people. Kolb says that the learner needs four different kinds of abilities: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Kolb made an instrument which he called Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) is a questionnaire composed of twelve series of words that must be ordered by preference. Each word represents one of the learning styles proposed by Kolb: convergent, divergent, assimilative and usher. In 1985 Kolb amending the questionnaire and make a new version which increases six items which can obtain more reliable results. In 1999 appears the third version of the questionnaire to improve its presentation and including a notebook with notes of scores and color guides to follow the learning cycle itself. This model is based on a categorization of four learning styles: "Convergence," Divergent "," assimilated " and " Accommodates." To determine the style that is used to learn, this test explores four learning modalities:

�� Experience concrete. �� Remark reflection . �� Abstract conceptualization. �� Active experimentation.

More likely is that the learning styles that considers this test does not fully describe the way a person learns. This occurs because the individual learning style is a combination of the four basic forms. However, the test result is a guiding factor when deciding what is the strategy used by the student applicant when learning.

Figure 1. Learning Styles Kolb Model.

Model of Grasha – Riechmann.

The authors take into account the context of learning in groups and develop a model based on interpersonal relationships and they proposes six learning styles: independent, dependent, collaborative, avoidant, competitive and participatory.Riechmann and Grasha constructed an instrument consisting of a questionnaire of 90 items, which is then modified to 60 items. The questionnaire seeks to ascertain the attitudes of students about courses and higher average level and thus of their learning style. The learning styles model called Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales is based on student preferences regarding interaction with peers and teachers and refers to the combination of styles that a student can become evident.

Table No. 1. Learning Styles Grasha - Riechmann.

ParticipatoryThey are good elements in class. Enjoy the session and try to watch for most of the time. They have lots available for school work.

EvasiveDo not show enthusiasm in class. Not participate and are isolated. They are apathetic and disinterested in school activities. They do not like spending much time in the classroom.

CompetitiveStudy to demonstrate to others their supremacy in terms of achievement or qualification. They like being the center of attention and receive recognition for their achievements.

CollaborativeThey like learning by sharing ideas and talents. They like to work with peers and teachers.

DependentShow little intellectual curiosity and learn only what they have to learn. Visualize and fellow teachers as figures of guide and / or authority to do business.

IndependentThey like to think for themselves. They are autonomous and confident in their learning. Decide what is important from what is not, and like them so lonely. Avoid teamwork.

(Adapted from Lozano, 2000)

Model of Alonso, Gallego And Honey (Chaea).Based on the Honey and Mumford model, whose build the instrument based on the theory and questionnaires of D. Kolb, returning to the circular process of learning into four stages and the importance of learning from experience.However, in some respects differ from the Kolb model since the questionnaire and descriptions of learning styles do not seem entirely adequate.So try to increase learning effectiveness and to seek a comprehensive tool geared towards the improvement of learning.

Then generate descriptions of the styles are based on detailed action subjects. Also, take the responses to the questionnaire or test as a starting point and not as an end. They also analyze more variables that the test proposed by Kolb. Ideally, says Honey (1986, Alonso, et al. 1997) "should be that everyone was able to experience, reflect, develop hypotheses and apply equally. This means that all the virtues were distributed evenly. But the fact is that individual are more capable of something that otherwise. "

CHAEA In comparison is made between the model proposed by Kolb and the original model proposed by Honey as an interplay of four main elements that can score some similarities and differences between models, where Kolb Usher appears as the Pragmatic - Active Honey, the divergent as the Active - Reflective, convergent and theoretical - pragmatic and thoughtful as the assimilator - theoretical.

Table No.2. Features categories of CHAEA model.

STYLE FEATURESACTIVE �� Encourage.

�� Improviser.�� Discoverer. �� Risky. �� Spontaneous.

REFLEXIVE �� Weighted.�� Conscientiousness.�� Receptive.�� Analytical. �� Comprehensive.

THEORETICAL �� Method.�� Logic.�� Critical. �� Structured

PRAGMÁTIC �� Experimenter.�� Practical.�� Direct.�� Effective.�� Realistic.

Inferential statistics. Regression and correlation.

Regression as a statistical technique, one simple linear regression and multivariate regression, analyzes the relationship between two or more continuous variables. When analyzing the two variables is called a bivariate variable which may correspond to qualitative variables. Regression allows us to change in a variable called response that corresponds to another known as an explanatory variable, regression is a technique used to infer data from others and find an answer of what can are happen.

As the regression is a statistical technique used to interpret real situations, though sometimes badly handled by what is necessary to make a proper selection of variables to construct the mathematical formulas that represent the regression, which is why we must taking into account variables that have connected, otherwise it would mathematized like gibberish.

For a regression model is sufficient to establish the regression that makes use of correlation coefficient R.

R = coefficient of correlation, this method measures the degree of relationship between two variables, the value of R varies from -1 to 1, but in practice it works with the absolute value of R.

The value of the correlation coefficient is interpreted that as R approaches 1, is bigger than the relationship between data, therefore R (correlation coefficient) measures the closeness between the variables.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS.

The completion of the research project, which is an analytical process was carried out within the University of Santo Tomas Bogota (USTA), and the Escuela Colombiana de Carreras Industriales (ECCI) in Bogotá, a population of sixty three (63) students in tenth, ninth, eighth and fourth semesters of engineering, during

the second quarter of 2009. The development project was conducted following the next steps:

Subject Population.

We worked with a population of sixty-three (63) students, of which fifteen (15) are of the tenth semester of Electronic Engineering at the University of Santo Tomas De Bogota (USTA) and the other forty-eight (48) are remaining ninth, eighth and fourth semesters of Biomedical Engineering in the Escuela Colombiana de Carreras Industriales (ECCI) in Bogota.

Data Collection Techniques.

Students was performed to study tests Kolb, Grasha - Riechmann, and Alonso, Gallego and Honey (CHAEA) to identify learning styles.

Test Of Grasha - Riechmann.

For this test score is proceeded based on three steps as follows:

First joined the weights given to the items for each categorization or classification by the students. Second, the result of this sum was divided by ten to get a smaller number to five.

Thirdly, as the value obtained in the previous step is compared with the table of ranks (see Table 3) and indicated if the value corresponding to a low weight, moderate or high.

Table No. 3. Measurements ranges, Test Grasha-Riechmann.

MEASURING RANGES CATEGORY LOW MODERA

TEHIGH

INDEPENDENT 1.0 – 2.7

2.8 – 3.8 3.9 – 5.0

AVOIDANCE 1.0 – 1.8

1.9 – 3.1 3.2 – 5.0

COLLABORATIVE

1.0 – 2.7

2.8 – 3.4 3.5 – 5.0

DEPENDENT 1.0 – 2.9

3.0 – 4.0 4.1 – 5.0

COMPETITIVE 1.0 – 1.7

1.8 – 2.8 2.9 – 5.0

PARTICIPATIVE 1.0 – 3.0

3.1 – 4.1 4.2 – 5.0

Table No. 4. Evaluation of test results Grasha-Riechmann.

QUEST. QUEST. QUEST. QUEST. QUEST. QUEST.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 2425 26 27 28 29 3031 32 33 34 35 3637 38 39 40 41 4243 44 45 46 47 4849 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60

TOTAL = 45TOTAL

=32 TOTAL =37 TOTAL =37 TOTAL

=16 TOTAL =38

INDEPENDENT ADVOIDANCE COLABORATIVE DEPENDENT COMPETITIVE PARTICIPATIVE

4,5 3,2 3,7 3,7 1,6 3,8

HIGH HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW MODERATE

Test of Kolb.

Kolb's test evaluates the table watching as the four columns, corresponding to the four learning modalities proposed in the model, so that the first column (the left) corresponds to the concrete experience (CE), the second column corresponds to reflective observation (RO), the third column corresponds to the Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and finally, the fourth column corresponds to the Active Experimentation (AE), later joined the scores for each mode of learning:

Concrete experience (CE), adding the scores of the rows B, C, D, E, G and H. Reflective Observation (RO), add the scores of the rows A, C, F, G, H, and I. Abstract Conceptualization (AC), adding the scores of the rows B, C, D, E, H, and I. Active Experimentation (AE), add the struts of the rows A, C, F, G, H, and I. To determine the learning style, we calculated the relationship established between the four modes of learning measures in the test. This was achieved using two combinations of scores: "CA" less "EC" and "EA" less "OR." We used a chart like the one below to record these subtractions.

Table No. 5. Rating Subtraction Measurement Kolb Learning Styles.

CA Column scores

EA column scores

EC column scores

OR column scores

Subtraction CA – EC

Subtraction EA - OR

The values obtained in these subtractions are marked on the coordinate system Kolb (See Figure No. 2.). The vertical axis is marked by the score obtained in the subtraction CA - EC, and the horizontal axis the value obtained from the subtraction of EA - OR.

In the graph of Kolb (Figure No. 2.), It marked the point of intersection of these two values and determined the quadrant that corresponded to the Learning Style (Usher, diverging, converging or similar).

CA -EC

4ACCOMMODATES 3 DIVERGENT

21 EA - OR

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8-1

CONVERGENT -2 SIMILAR-3

Figure No. 2. Kolb styles.

The closer to the center is a point of intersection, the more balanced is the subject's learning style. The closer to one of the four corners, defined better is the subject in his particular style of learning.

Test Alonso, Gallego and Honey (CHAEA).

To evaluate this test items were organized or questions, placed one point to each item marked with the plus (+), joined the total in each column and determines the style or way of learning.

Table No. 6. CHAEA test result in a student.

Subsequently the results were tabulated according to the analysis and classification process established by each of the authors for each test and thus determined the learning style of students in each group, to see a sample of this tabulation of the respective tests with a case.

Statistical analysis for correlation.

Finally, the correlation was applied to the various categorizations obtained for each student based on placement tests administered and analyzed the information for similarities or differences between these categories. Based on the results matrices to calculate the correlation coefficient for each pair of variables (categories), and the results are shown in the table below.

Table No. 7. Correlation coefficients CHAEA Vs. Kolb.

CATEGORIES A RELATIONSHIP COEFICIENT

ACTIVE - ACCOMMODATES 0.25398725

ACTIVE-DIVERGENT -0.205916939

ACTIVE- SIMILAR -0.006659402

ACTIVE-CONVERGENT -0.229624466REFLEXIVE-

ACCOMMODATES -0.1216789

REFLEXIVE - DIVERGENTE -0.022697752

REFLEXIVE - SIMILAR 0.225433598

REFLEXIVE -CONVERGENTE -0.022683133

THEORETICAL - -0.060410427

ACTIVE REFLEXIVE THEORETICAL PRAGMATIC

ITEM. ITEM. ITEM. ITEM.3 10 2 15 16 4 87 18 6 129 19 11 1413 28 15 22

20 31 17 24

26 32 21 30

27 34 23 38

35 36 25 40

37 39 29 47

41 42 33 5243 44 45 5346 49 50 56

48 55 54 57

51 58 60 5961 63 64 6267 65 66 6874 69 71 7275 70 78 73

77 79 80 76

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

ACCOMMODATES

THEORETICAL -DIVERGENTE -0.050880229

THEORETICAL - SIMILAR 0.10623902THEORETICAL –CONVERGENTE 0.118006449

PRAGMATIC- ACCOMMODATES 0.246756039

PRAGMATIC-DIVERGENTE -0.024331586

PRAGMATIC- SIMILAR -0.139095855

PRAGMATIC-CONVERGENTE 0.069235272

In the table above we can see that the relations between these categories are weak correlation to be below 0.3, except between the categories Active and Usher, where the relationship is relatively strong. Besides, it makes the tabulation of results for involving Grasha-Riechmann test the process and presents results in the table shown below. By relating of the results of Kolb and Reichmann obtain the following table of correlation coefficients.

Table No. 8. Correlation coefficients between Kolb and Grasha-Riechmann.

CATEGORIES A RELATIONSHIP COEFICIENT ACCOMMODATES -

INDEPENDENT 0.068800169

ACCOMMODATES - AVOIDANCE 0.275691347ACCOMMODATES - COLLABORATIVE 0.0315553

ACCOMMODATES -DEPENDENT -0.055493106ACCOMMODATES -

COMPETITIVE 0.146216541ACCOMMODATES -

PARTICIPATIVE 0.015881402

DIVERGENT - INDEPENDENT 0.012541115

DIVERGENT - AVOIDANCE 0.1258621

DIVERGENT - COLLABORATIVE 0.138069843

DIVERGENT - DEPENDENT 0.223599864

DIVERGENT -COMPETITIVE 0.014309241

DIVERGENT - PARTICIPATIVE -0.260415459

SIMILAR- INDEPENDENT 0.059032544

SIMILAR - AVOIDANCE -0.05927716

SIMILAR - COLLABORATIVE -0.024571936

SIMILAR - DEPENDENT 0.066176283

SIMILAR - COMPETITIVE 0.127485241

SIMILAR - PARTICIPATIVE 0.36706686

CONVERGENT - INDEPENDENT 0.055711844

CONVERGENT - AVOIDANCE -0.1637075CONVERGENT -

COLLABORATIVE -0.269040645

CONVERGENT - DEPENDENT -0.171229545

CONVERGENT - COMPETITIVE -0.286531151

CONVERGENT - PARTICIPATIVE -0.366920245

In this case we see how the correlation coefficient is less than 0.4 in all cases and is therefore a weak correlation between categories.

Finally we relate the results of Grasha-Riechmann with the results of Chaea. Thus obtaining the final mapping table.

Table No. 9. Correlation coefficients Grasha –Riechmann Vs CHAEA.

CATEGORIES A RELATIONSHIP COEFICIENT ACTIVE-INDEPENDENT -0.247843959ACTIVE - AVOIDANCE 0.047539445

ACTIVE -COLLABORATIVE 0.269373882ACTIVE -DEPENDENT -0.013149742

ACTIVE -COMPETITIVE 0.102095266ACTIVE -PARTICIPATIVE 0.2121035

REFLEXIVE - INDEPENDENT 0.216708674REFLEXIVE - AVOIDANCE 0.017939819

REFLEXIVE - COLLABORATIVE 0.209452277REFLEXIVE - DEPENDENT 0.201655009

REFLEXIVE - COMPETITIVE 0.027091996REFLEXIVE - PARTICIPATIVE 0.00784621

THEORETICAL - INDEPENDENT 0.035318357THEORETICAL - AVOIDANCE -0.175951446

THEORETICAL - COLLABORATIVE -0.016197023THEORETICAL - DEPENDENT 0.185966572

THEORETICAL - COMPETITIVE 0.039306368THEORETICAL - PARTICIPATIVE 0.227288858

PRAGMATIC- INDEPENDENT -0.049639682PRAGMATIC - AVOIDANCE -0.143482039

PRAGMATIC - COLLABORATIVE 0.120508539PRAGMATIC - DEPENDENT -0.033110306

PRAGMATIC - COMPETITIVE -0.107664295PRAGMATIC- PARTICIPATIVE 0.025005188

For this case we also see that the correlation is weak in some cases above 0.2 are more but can not be considered moderate or severe.

CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS.

We see that in the classification of learning styles proposed by each author there is no specific dominance categorization or style, but rather students share two or more categories in their learning style, this maybe because when students have completed five or more

semesters and have been influenced by different teaching styles of their teachers and therefore have adapted their learning to achieve good academic performance.

The correlation between the categories proposed by the three authors is low, it is below 0.5, which allows us to say that although there was a relationship between the learning characteristics of some categories between two or more authors, these are not decisive in identifying the styles. However, when analyzing each case separately (student) is a clear trend towards a style more than another and only in four cases gives the student has two styles with the same rating. In addition, we can say that each proposed categorization focuses different qualities in students, as explored or desired by each author and that at some point allow us to choose more informed a tool used to determine the learning style.

The correlation analysis method allowed to observe different categorizations even taking difference in the number of variables and / or differences in perspective. Showed partial relationships between Learning Styles, also enabled us to see that psycho-educational research work can be done by strengthening statistical validity of studies in this field and making a way in the choice of instruments to determine learning styles.

The categories on the Kolb Learning Styles, Grasha-Riechmann, Alonso, Gallego and Honey are related in that they are ways to determine and / or measure the learning styles of students as the three try to be comprehensive, looking for different areas where the student, however, differences in the way of measurement approaches and are given each of them is a valuable tool in current pedagogy, which can be applied in the style of the teacher, even though none of them is absolutely crucial to the measurement of learning style a student, because everything depends on the interest of teachers to identify learning styles of their students and how it will handled the relationship between these categories to facilitate and enhance the improvement of educational performance.

REFERENCES.

Alonso, C. M., Gallego, D. J. (1994), Estilosindividuales de Aprendizaje: implicaciones en la conducta vocacional en Rivas, F. Editorial Manual de Asesoramiento y Orientación.

Alonso, C. M., Gallego D. J., Honey P. (1999). Estilos de Aprendizaje. Bilbao (España), Edit. Mensajero.

Biggs, J B (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.

Canada, Canadian College of Health Service Executives. (1897). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometrics standards. Otawa. Curry, L.

Cannavos, G. (1995). Probabilidad y Estadística, Aplicación y métodos. México D. F. Editorial Graw- Hill / interamericana.

Colombia, UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE MANIZALES. (2002). en línea a través de Google.com.co,http://hdl.handle.net/10245/397, Repositoriodigital UN, Tesis y trabajos de grado - Facultad de Administración (Manizales).Colombia, Universidad Sergio Arboleda. (2009). “De los estilos pedagógicos y su impacto en el aprendizaje de los Alumnos”.Grupo INVEDUSA. Bogotá. Suárez, M. C., Burgos, C. E., Molina, B. I., y Corredor, R. M.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K. (1984). La enseñanza y el estilo individual de aprendizaje. Madrid. Anaya Editores.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A. (1998). Learning Styles and Nursing Profesion. New York. NLN Press.

España, UNED, Formación permanente. (2003). Cómo diagnosticar y mejorar los Estilos de Aprendizaje. Madrid: Alonso, C. M., Gallego, D. J.

España, UNED. Estilos de aprendizaje: Teoría y práctica. (2004). Madrid. Alonso, C. M., Gallego, D.J.

España, Universidad Complutense. (1991), Estilos de Aprendizaje: Análisis y diagnóstico en Estudiantes Universitarios. Madrid. Alonso, C. M.

Entwistle N. & Ramsden P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm, Editors.

Galdos, M. (2005). Cálculo y Estadística III Edición Única. Grupo La Republica. Lima Perú.

Gallego, G., Domingo., (2004). “Diagnosticar los estilos de aprendizaje “en Educar la Inteligencia Emocional en el Aula. Madrid, UNED. 300 pp. ISBN: 84-288-1899-1.

Garder, R. W., y Otros. (1959). Cognitive Control. A study of individual consistencies in cognitive behavior. In Phsychological Issues, V1, p. 4- 8. ISSN: 314 345-6789.

Grasha, A., Richlin, L. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles,Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers.

Grasha, A., Riechmann, S. (1974). Cuestionariode Estilos de Aprendizaje de Estudiantes (Student Learning Styles Questionnaire). Dirección: http://longleaf.net/learningstyle.html . Hudson, C. (1999). “Acción educadora de los padres”, Edit. Merril. Madrid - España.

Inglaterra, Departament of Education and Science. (1996). Learning Styles Analysis and Technology Based Training. Sheffield. Riding, R. J.

Kolb, D. (1985). LSI (Learning Style Inventory): User´s guide, Boston: McBer and Compañy.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experimental Learning: Experience as the source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

Letteri, C. (1980). Cognitive Profiles in International Perspectives on Individual Differences, Cognitive Styles. Edited by Richard J y otros, Vol 1. p. 23-25. ISSN: 1397- 2376.

Olaya, C. P., Trejos C. A. A., y Otros, “análisisestadístico multivariado de los estilos de aprendizaje predominantes en estudiantes de ingenierías de la universidad tecnológica de Pereira” a través de Scientia et Technica Año XIII, No 34, Mayo de 2007. Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira. ISSN 0122-1701. 325.

Ortega, C. (2002), Cayuela Domínguez A, Regresión Logística No condicionada y tamaño de muestra: una revisión bibliográfica. RevistaEspañola de salud Publica [serie en Internet]. [Citada 16 08 09] Vol. 70Nº2 [12 páginas]

dirección http://www.scielospphp?piol=s1135-5727200200020000&scrip[=sciartePerrin, J. (1982). “The identification of learning Styles Among Young Children” en Students Learning styles and Brain Behaviour; programs, instrumentation. Reston. VA, NASSP Editor.

USA, Atkins Katcher Associates, Inc. (1976). Lifo Aprendizaje. Florida. Atkins, Katcher.

USA, Consulting Psychologist. (1962). TheMyers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA. Myers, I. B.

USA, Fl., Centre for Applications of Psychological Types. (1982). People types stripes: A practical guide to learning styles.Florida - Gainesville. Lawrence, G.

USA, University of Cincinnati Faculty Resource Center. (1975), Student Learning Styles Questionnaire. Cincinnati Ohio. Grasha, A., Reichmann, S. W.

AUTHORS.

JOSÉ ARTURO LAGOS SANDOVAL: Msc. In teaching of La Salle University, Bogotá. Electronic Engineering of Distrital University Francisco José de Caldasl, Bogotá. Engineering teacher in St. Thomas University.

PEDRO NEL ZAPATA: PhD in Education of National Pedagogical University in Bogota. Master Teacher in La Salle University in Bogota.