University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Introduction: The present study aimed to investigate the psychometricproperties of Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles Scale.Method: The participants included 1039 students (421 students in human and 618 students in technical sciences), selected through the stratified sampling method from Tehran University. They answered the Grasha-Riechmann student learning style scale and the data was analyzed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.Results: The findings acquired from exploratory factor analysis (n=561), using principal components analysis with varimax rotation showed that Grasha- Riechmann Student Learning Styles Scale includes six factors: Avoidant, Collaborative, Participative, Dependent, Competitive, and Independent. The factors acquired from confirmatory factor analysis (n=478), as model fit indices indicated, was confirmed by indices in exploratory factor analysis. The internal consistency of each subscale, ranging from 0.58 to 0.80, was at an acceptable level.Conclusion: According to the findings, it seems that Participative Styles Scale to be an instrument qualifying validity and reliability for measuring learning interactive styles.Keywords: Validity, Reliability, Grasha-Richmann scale, Learning styles

  1. Zhang LF, Sternberg RJ. Thinking styles, abilities, and
  2. academic achievement among Hong Kong university
  3. student. Hong Kong educational research association.
  4. ;13:41-62.
  5. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko E.L. Are cognitive styles still
  6. in style? American psychologist. 1997;52(7):700-12.
  7. Zhang LF. Thinking styles: Their relationships with
  8. modes of thinking and academic performance.
  9. Educational Psychology. 2002; 22:331–48. doi:
  10. 1080/0144341022013855.
  11. Grasha AF, Riechmann S.W. A rational to developing
  12. and assessing the construct validity of a student
  13. learning styles scale instrument. Journal of Psychology.
  14. ; 87: 213-23.
  15. Imamipour S, Shams Esfandabad, H. Learning and
  16. cognitive styles. Tehran: Samt; 2011. Persian.
  17. Seyf AA. Modern Educational Psychology. Tehran:
  18. Nashre Doran; 2011. Persian.
  19. Montgomery SM. Student learning styles and their
  20. implications for teaching. University of Michigan Ann
  21. Arbor, MI 1998.
  22. Seidel LE, England EM. Gregorc’s cognitive styles: college
  23. students’ preferences for teaching methods and testing
  24. techniques. Percept Motor Skills. 1999;88(3):859-75.
  25. Entwistle NJ, Ramsden P. Understanding Student
  26. Learning. London: Croom Helm; 2007.
  27. Grasha AF. Teaching with style: A practical guide to
  28. enhancing learning by understanding teaching and
  29. learning style. Pittsburgh: Alliance publishers; 1996.
  30. Ahmadi S, Khezri H. The relationship between math
  31. anxiety and students’ learning styles. New thought in
  32. education of Roudehen Azad University. 2006;1(4).
  33. Persian.
  34. Arizi HR, Abedi A. Taji M. The relationship between
  35. learning styles profile of guidance school students in
  36. Isfehan and their academic performance in math and
  37. science. Educational Innovations Quarterly. 2010;34.
  38. Persian.
  39. Elahi T. The relationship between field-Dependent and
  40. field-independent learning styles and achievement in
  41. English: Tarbiat Modarres University; 2002. Persian.
  42. Hoseininasab D, Valinejad Y. Examination of field-
  43. Dependent and field-independent cognitive styles
  44. and self-regulated learning with math performance
  45. of third grade students in guidance school. Journal of
  46. Psychology & education. 2003;3(3/4): 65-78. Persian.
  47. Kadivar P, Homayouni A.R, Abdollahi M.H. The
  48. Relationship between cognitive learning styles and
  49. course choosing among male students in high school
  50. Persian.
  51. Meyers LS, Gamst G.C, Guarino A.J. Applied
  52. multivariate research. Tehran: Roshd; 2011. Persian.
  53. 17. Hooman HA. Structural Equation Modeling by
  54. LISRELL software. Tehran: Samt; 2009. Persian.
  55. Aijaz AG, Rabia T. Assessing learning styles of student
  56. teachers at federal college of education. Procedia Social
  57. and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 30: 267 – 71. Persian.
  58. Amir R, Jelas Z.M. Teaching and learning styles in
  59. higher education institutions: Do they match. Procedia
  60. Social and Behavioral Sciences.7(C):680–4. Persian.
  61. Baykul Y, Gürsel M, Sulak H, Ertekin E, Yazıcı E,
  62. Dülger O. et al. Validity and reliability study of Grasha-
  63. Riechmann student learning style scale. International
  64. Journal of Human and Social Sciences. 2010;5(3): 177-
  65. Hamidah JS, Sarina M. N, Kamaruzaman J. The Social
  66. interaction learning styles of science and social science
  67. students. Asian Social Science. 2009;5(7):58-64. Persian.