{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0462085308056872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2592592592592595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Kolb'S Learning Style Theory Revisited

The use of nominal-level analysis of four primary learning styles (PLS) (i.e., doing, thinking, watching, and feeling), based on the Learning Style Inventory demonstrated their discriminant/convergent validity but not the validity of Kolb's learning style types (LST) (i.e., accommodator, diverger, converger, and assimilator). The LST typology is derived from the difference of two sets of ipsatively scored variables-a circumstance that contributes to its lack of validity, whereas the PLS categories are based directly on the rank ordering given by subjects. The PLS category, thinking, was associated with having higher scores on a mental ability measure, whereas doing was associated with higher levels of learning and performance on an origami paper-folding task (i.e., an archetypical doing task).