Learning style

From EduTech Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


This article can be used to find models. It's overall organization has to be improved some day - Daniel K. Schneider 15:45, 27 June 2007 (MEST)

1 Definition

According to Wikipedia: “ Learning styles are different ways that a person can learn. It's commonly believed that most people favor some particular method of interacting with, taking in, and processing stimuli or information. Psychologists have proposed several complementary taxonomies of learning styles. But other psychologists and neuroscientists have questioned the scientific basis for some learning style theories. A major report published in 2004 cast doubt on most of the main tests used to identify an individual's learning style.”

Here are a few definitions found in Internet glossaries:

  • The manner in which a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. Components of learning style are the cognitive, affective and physiological elements, all of which may be strongly influenced by a person's cultural background. [1]
  • A preferential mode, through which a subject likes to master learning, solve problems, thinks or simply react in a pedagogical situation. [2]
  • A consistent pattern of behavior and performance by which an individual approaches educational experiences; learning style is derived from cultural socialization and individual personality as well as from the broader influence of human development. [3]
  • Learning styles can be defined as a set of cognitive, emotional, characteristic and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment (Keefe, 1979) according to [4]

2 Foundations

Learning style research is related to research on cognitive styles, interaction styles, brain science, etc.

“ Conflicting assumptions about learning underpin mainstream ideas about learning and the best-known models of learning styles. For example, some theories discussed in this report derive from research into brain functioning, where claims are made that specific neural activity related to learning can be identified in different areas of the brain. Other influential ideas derive from established psychological theories, such as personality traits, intellectual abilities and fixed traits which are said to form learning styles.” (Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone, 2004)

According to critical reports like Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004), many models popular with practitioners do not meet academic standards. Many learning style models seem to have rather weak academic foundations and are grounded on dubious methodology at worst or do not provide reliable measurement instruments at best. (Stahl, 1999). In addition, customization of instruction to improve learning outcomes has proven to be very difficult, except for a few very precise questions.

“Our findings indicate that cognitive style is a complex variable with multiple dimensions. Although many of the measures seem to overlap conceptually, we found no simple, strong, interrelationships among them” ((Leonard et al., 1999: 418)

3 Kinds of learning style research and practise

There are many learning style models, e.g. Coffield et al. (2004) reviewed over 800 texts and studied 13 models in depth. The authors of this critical report identify five major families:

  1. Constitutionally-based learning styles and preferences
    • These models claim that styles are fixed or at least difficult to change. “ To defend these beliefs, theorists refer to genetically influenced personality traits, or to the dominance of particular sensory or perceptual channels, or to the dominance of certain functions linked with the left or right halves of the brain.” (Coffield et al., 2004: 22)
  2. Cognitive structure
    • These models see learning styles as structural properties of the cognitive system itself and deeply embedded in personality structure.
  3. Stable personality type
    • “ The instruments and models grouped in this family have a common focus upon learning style as one part of the observable expression of a relatively stable personality type, a theory primarily influenced by the work of Jung [..] the theorists in this family are concerned with constructing instruments which embed learning styles within an understanding of the personality traits that shape all aspects of an individual\u2019s interaction with the world.” (Coffield et al., 2004: 55)
    • Example: Myers-Briggs
  4. Flexibly stable learning preferences
    • “ For Kolb and for those who have followed in his tradition, a learning style is not a fixed trait, but 'a differential preference for learning, which changes slightly from situation to situation. At the same time, there is some long-term stability in learning style' (2000, 8).” (Coffield et al., 2004: 69)
    • Other example: Honey and Mumford.
  5. Learning approaches and strategies.
    • “ During the 1970s, a body of research on learning explored a holistic, active view of approaches and strategies - as opposed to styles - that takes into account the effects of previous experiences and contextual influences. This body of work has been led for over 25 years in the UK by Noel Entwistle at the University of Edinburgh.” (Coffield et al., 2004: 99)

There are other attempts to categorize various learning style models:

McLoughlin (1991), provides a definition table of similar terms relating to learning styles

Learning preferencefavouring one method of teaching over another
Learning strategyadopting a plan action in the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes
Learning styleadopting a habitual and distinct mode of acquiring knowledge
Cognitive strategyadopting a plan of action in the process of organising and processing information
Cognitive stylea systematic and habitual mode of organising and processing information

Acharaya (2002)suggests that many theories of learning styles can be condensed and examined in four dimensions as follows:

  1. Personality of the Learners
    • Field dependence/independence, i.e. some look at patterns or relationships between parts first before looking at the at a whole picture / some look at the whole picture first and isolate or break it down into smaller parts after (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981)
    • Impulsive vs. reflective learners, i.e. quick response vs. thinking before acting (Schmeck, 1988)
  2. Information Processing
    • Cognitive styles, i.e. typical modes of perceiving, thinking, remembering, and problem-solving (see Kolb)
    • How people construct their views (related to the way he uses metacognition / learning strategy (Deci, Vallerand, Pellertier & Ryan, 1991).
  3. Social and Situational Interaction Among Learners
    • E.g. independent/dependent, collaborative/competitive, and participant/avoidant (Reichmann and Grasha, 1974)
  4. Instructional Methods

Santally and Senteni (2005) list the following Criteria

  • Cognitive Styles
    • Information Organizing (Serial/holist)
    • Information Gathering (Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic)
  • Cognitive Controls
    • Field dependence/independence
    • Cognitive Flexibility v/s Cognitive Constriction
  • Learning Style preferences
    • E.g. the Honey & Mumford model

Curry (1983, 1987), categorized different research approaches with an onion metaphor, working from the center outwards (from the most to the least stable):

  1. Cognitive personality style: most stable and therefore less easily modified -
  2. Information processing style: the way new learning is used as defined for example by Kolb's experiential learning model (to accomodate, converge, assimilate, diverge)
  3. Social interaction style (added later): individual preference for social interaction while learning
  4. Instructional preferences: (least stable and dependent on cognitive style (Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999) ): learners' comfort and ability to gain knowledge through particular instructional methods and materials

Rayner and Riding (1997, in Cassidy 2004) define three categories from which to approach learning styles:

  1. Cognitive-centred: focus on the differences in cognitive and perceptual functioning of individual learners (this incorporates Rayner & Riding's CSA)
  2. Learning (activity)-centred: focus on process-based (information perceiving and processing models - e.g. Kolb's Experiential learning model and learning styles), preference-based (individual preferences for learning situations), and cognitive skills-based (application of cognitive style to learning situations) models
  3. Personality-centred
Taxonomy of learning style models

An extensive taxonomy of many of the learning style models described here and some others was put together by Cassidy (2004).

Cassidy (2004) learning style models taxonomy

To conclude (provisionally) we think that an educational technologist should make a distinction between (1) models that are based on serious research on personality differences (including "stable" cognitive styles), (2) models that describe behavior patterns and subjective preferences that can be measured in a given educational context and are often related to intention and motivation, and (3) models popular with practitioners that allow to think about pedagogic strategies and that are somehow related to various learning levels and learning types

4 A list of rather cognitive style models

4.1 Pask’s Information Processing Styles and Strategies

In a series of experiments in the 70's, Pask observed the way students worked complex acedemic subject matter. He observered that learners tended to use one of two approaches to greater or lesser extents. Pask (in from Ford, 2000) categorized learners as

serialist holist
local, procedure building global, description building
concentrates on simple chains of logical argument seeks patterns of interrelationships including analogies
improvidence pathology — fragmented understanding Globetrotting pathology — overgeneralization
operation learners comprehension learners

4.2 Kolb's learning styles

David Kolb's taxonomy is grounded in his experiential learning theory and it is based on the idea that a given learning style is shaped by the transaction between people and their environment (e.g. education, career, job role). According to Susan Santo [5], Kolb states that learners have two preferred ways to deal with information:

  1. Concreteness or Abstractness
  2. Activity or Reflection

However, Kolb also states that the learning process itself always engages these 4 components in a cyclical fashion.

  1. Events we are involved with (concreteness)
  2. .. lead to reflection and information collection (reflexion)
  3. .. that let us develop ideas (abstractness)
  4. .. that lead to decisions that in turn create events (activity)

To each of these four steps of the learning process we can associated four learning modes:

  1. Concrete Experience (CE) - learning by feeling (involvement in an experience)
  2. Reflective Observation (RO) - learning by reflection, watching, and listening
  3. Abstract Conceptualization (AC) - learning by thinking
  4. Active Experimentation (AE) - learning by doing

In other words, he argues that all people apply these four processes but some people tend to engage in some learning modes more than in others.

His learning styles typology [6] is based on a combination of these learning modes according to 2 dimensions

  1. Abstract conceptualization (thinking, AC) vs. concrete experience (experiencing, CE)
  2. Reflective Observation (reflecting, RO) vs. active experimentation (doing, AE)

Or to look at it in another way: they prefer either steps 1-2, 2-3, 3-4 or 4-1.

This leads to four types of learning style preference:

  • Diverging: combines preferences for experiencing (CE) and reflecting (RO)
  • Assimilating: combines preferences for reflecting (AC) and thinking (RO)
  • Converging: combines preferences for thinking (AC) and doing (AE)
  • Accommodating: combines preferences for doing (AE) and experiencing (CE)

The figure summarizes: Kolb-learning-style.png

4.3 Honey and Mumford's Typology of Learners

Based on Kolb's (1982) experiential learning model, Honey and Mumford proposed a similar categorization of individual learning styles and which seems to be popular in management education:

  1. Activists, prefer to act and are well equipped to experiment (experiencing)
  2. Reflectors, prefer to study data and are well equipped to review (reviewing)
  3. Theorists, need to tidy up and have answers, are well equipped for concluding (concluding)
  4. Pragmatists, like things practical, are well equipped for planning (planning)

According to various practionners' websites (e.g. [7] [8] [9] ) there are important consequences for instructional designers:

  • Activists:
    • learn best when: they can immediately do something, when they are exposed to new experiences and problems, work with others in task teams
    • learn least when: they have to listen to long explanations, absorb a lot of data, follow precise instructions, read, write and think a lot on their own, ...
    • Pedagogical activities: brainstorms, problem solving, group discussions, role plays, competitions, etc.
  • Reflectors:
    • learn best when: they can observe, review and think about what is happening
    • learn least when: they are rushed, have to act as leaders,
    • Pedagogical activities: observing activities, paired discussions, coached activities, questionnaires, interviews, ...
  • Theorists:
    • learn best when: they can study theories, models, concepts, stories etc. behind, they can ask questions and engage in analysis and synthesis.
    • learn least when: the activity is ill structured, no principles are taught, ...
    • Pedagogical activities: Provide models, background information, ...
  • Pragmatists
    • learn best when: they can apply new information to a real world problem, etc.
    • learn least when: "everything is theory", the isn't an immediate benefit, etc.
    • Pedagogical activities: Case studies, discussion, problem solving

4.4 Myers-Briggs (MBTI)

According to Felder (1996), this model classifies students according to their preferences on scales derived from psychologist Carl Jung's theory of psychological types. Students may be:

  1. Extraverts (try things out, focus on the outer world of people) or introverts (think things through, focus on the inner world of ideas);
  2. Sensors (practical, detail-oriented, focus on facts and procedures) or intuitors (imaginative, concept-oriented, focus on meanings and possibilities);
  3. Thinkers (skeptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules) or feelers (appreciative, tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations);
  4. Judgers (set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data) or perceivers (adapt to changing circumstances, resist closure to obtain more data).

The MBTI type preferences can be combined to form 16 different learning style types. For example, one student may be an ESTJ (extravert, sensor, thinker, perceiver) and another may be an INFJ (introvert, intuitor, feeler, judger).

Myer-Briggs types do have similar practical implications for education to the Honey-Mumford approach.

4.5 Jonassen and Grabowski

Jonassen and Grabowski provide the following criteria - grouped in two families - to identify a learning style.

Cognitive Style - Information Gathering
Visual / Haptic
Visualiser / Verbaliser: preference for either graphics, diagrams, illustrations or words
Levelling / Sharpening:
Cognitive Style - Information Organising
Serialist / Holist
Conceptual Style (Analytical / Relational)

These authors base their work on several theories, including the popular visual/verbal distinction that we will address in the multimedia articles.

4.6 Field dependence

1) Field Dependence: the individuals are considered to have a more social orientation than Field Independent persons since they are more likely to make use of externallydeveloped social frameworks. They tend to seek out external referents for processingand structuring their information, are better at learning material with human con-tent, are more readily influenced by the opinions of others, and are affected by the approval or disapproval of authority figures (Witkinet al, 1977).

1) Field Independence: the individuals tend to exhibit more individualistic behaviourssince they are not in need of external referents to aide in the processing of informa-tion. They are more capable of developing their own internal referents and restructuring their knowledge, are better at learning impersonal abstract material, are not easily influenced by others, and are not overly affected by the approval or disapproval of superiors (Witkinet al, 1977)

(Chen, 2002: 451)

4.7 Entwistle

Entwistle is known for a relatively clear concept of quality distinction in student learning styles. According to Mockford & Denton (1998) the model distinguishes three styles strongly related to students' intentions, each of which can be dominant:

  • Deep learning: based on high levels of intrinsic motivation, pursuing new ideas and materials through a variety of strategies in the search for understanding. This is a powerful way of learning, but does not necessarily lead to best grades.
  • Surface apathetic: students put in a minimal effort and focus on assessment requirements.
  • Deep, non-apathetic (strategic): students focus on the product of learning rather than the process and the achievement of high grade.

“ If students move towards surface and strategic learning styles in reaction to assessment systems, there can be a degradation in the learning experience. Opportunities for creative thinking can be reduced or even lost if the focus of learning moves towards assessment and attainment is measured only against stated performance criteria. What can emerge is a student who seeks to please staff by judging what is the preferred design style or practical outcome required. In this learning framework students are unlikely to engage their minds deeply in an active, yet considered, reflective exploration for new ways of doing things: they will stay within the guidelines of what output is required to satisfy the instructor and the stated assessment criteria. In the search for more effective design and technology teaching, assessment strategies that encourage students towards the opposite of this characteristic, namely a deep approach to learning, can offer considerable gains in learning.” (Mockford & Denton , 1998)

In later research, Entwistle also created more sophisticated constructs. E.g. in honor of Gordon Pask's contribution to higher education he presented in 1991 a model that combine students intentions with their dominant learning approach / style.

table in png format (Access restricted) ?

An earlier Typology (??)
  • Non-committers (cautious, anxious, disinclined to take risks)
  • Hustlers (competitive, dynamic, but insensitive)
  • Plungers (emotional, impulsive and individualistic).
  • Reasonable adventurers who combines curiosity and the ability to be critical and reflective

4.8 Cognitive Styles Analysis

Richard Riding (1991) proposed a two-dimensional distinction of learners and learning styles:

  • wholist-analytic - the structure and ordering of the content of instruction ( global, random vs. explicit order, high structure)
  • verbaliser-imager - corresponds to the presentation of instructional material (textual vs. graphic)

Riding (1994) further associates learning style with personality traits:

  • verbalisers>extroverts, imagers>introverts,

and social behaviour:

  • wholists>dependent and gregarious, analytics>isolated and self-reliant

4.9 Perceptual Learning Style Preferece

Joy Reid (1987) defined learning styles according to perceptual preferences.

  • visual - written or visual information
  • auditory - verbal
  • kinesthetic - physical activity
  • tactile - working with materials
  • social group
  • social individual

These were further qualified as beign strong, minor or negligible.

4.10 More models

  • Inventory of Learning Styles (Vermunt, 1994) - meaning-directed, application-directed, reproduction-directed, undirected.
  • Cognitive Styles Index (Allinson and Hayes, 1996) - intuition/analysis
  • Adaptor-Innovator Theory (Kirton, 1994) - adaptation/innovation
  • A-E Inventory: (Kauffmann, 1994) - assimilator/explorer

5 A list of rather instructional style models

5.1 Gregorc Learning Styles

Anthony Gregorc's learning styles are based on brain hemisphere research. One's learning style can be measured through the use of the Gregorc Style Delineator that places ones learning style on a continuum of polar extremes. There are two dimensions of learning preferences:

  • Perceptual preference: abstract (reason and intuition) or concrete (sensing)
  • Ordering preference: sequential or random
AS - prefer analytical approaches, structured written and verbal instruction that is organized and authoritative CS - highly structured, linear, hands-on activities
AR - prefer visual instruction, group discussions and opportunity to reflect CR - prefer experimentation, trial-and-error and materials that provide opportunity for 'play'.
  • For details on instructional focus and strategies that can be used to match the Gregorc learning style see the chart at Tennesee Technological University.

NOTE: Harasym, PH et al (1996) found a strong relationship between #Myers-briggs Type Indicator and Gregorc Style Delineator:

  • CS exhibited sensing and judging traits
  • CR exhibited intuition and perceiving traits
  • AS exhibited thinking (vs feeling) traits
  • AR exhibited feeling traits

5.2 Sadler-Smith instructional preferences

Sadler-Smith (1996) identify three instructional style preferences (individual's preference for particular instructional methods, techniques and materials):

  1. dependent learners: prefer teacher-directed, highly structured programmes with explicit assignments set and assessed by the teacher;
  2. collaborative learners: are discussion-oriented and favour group projects, collaborative assignments and social interaction;
  3. independent learners: prefer to exercise an influence on the content and structure of learning programmes within which the teacher or instructor is a resource.

6 General implications for instructional design

There are a number of approaches to acknowledging and accommodating individual differences in preference and style:
  1. matching learners’ preferences with the intention that this will have some beneficial effect on learning performance;
  2. mismatching learners preferences in order that they may become more ‘rounded’ as learners (as suggested by Honey & Mumford, 1992)
  3. selecting instructional methods and media on the basis of their intended purpose without reference to learner preferences.
The second of these approaches assumes some malleability (Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999)

Papanikoloaou et al. (2006) derived three general categories for the ways in which learning style assessments are used in instructional systems design.

  1. to inform the design the content of instruction: select the type and sequence of educational material based on proposed frameworks or research on learning styles and preferences in type and sequencing instructional material. E.g.: the Felder design model,
  2. to design tools/representations that support the learners’ orientation and navigation within an instructional environment, focussing on the type of cognitive activity in which the learner is engaged.
  3. to design specific functionalities: provide learners with multiple representations of the domain or the learner model in order “ promote reflection by learners about their knowledge and learning, by externalising the contents of their learner model to them” (Papanikoloaou et al. 2006, p. 359

The literature on learning styles suggests that an instructional design should look at several issues related to cognitive styles, learning styles, etc. Of particular interest is the question on how to match or not to match cognitive and instructional styles.

  • When to use examples and practice vs. exposure to theory
  • Levels and mixture of concreteness/abstraction or visual/verbal etc. in learning materials and lecturing.
  • Various forms of collaboration and cooperation between students
  • Level of learner control (related to their learning strategies and metacognitive abilities and the question on how to favor higher order learning)

As for the general value regarding learning style models, Merril (2002) argues that “ Learning style is secondary in selecting the fundamental components of instructional strategy appropriate for and consistent with a given learning goal. However, learning style should be considered in selecting instructional style and adjusting the parameters of a given instructional strategy.”. His bottom line is that “ Appropriate, consistent instructional strategies are determined first on the basis of the type of content to be taught or the goals of the instruction (the content-by-strategy interactions) and secondarily, learner style determines the value of the parameters that adjust or fine-tune these fundamental learning strategies (learning-style-by-strategy interactions). Finally, content-by-strategy interactions take precedence over learning-style-by-strategy interactions regardless of the instructional style or philosophy of the instructional situation.”

As an example on how to take into account learning styles, Merril (2002) presents some possible learning-style-by-strategy interactions. However, he insists that each type of learner always should engage with various strategies and content types.

  • Content sequence. Cognitive-restricted and serialist learners learn better from content arranged in a logical sequence and prefer to learn each topic in order. Cognitive-flexible or holist learners learn better when they are able to select which topic to study next and to review each topic to get a whole picture before studying each topic in detail. Note however, that when the detail study comes each type of learner must engage in the instructional strategy that is appropriate for and consistent with the instructional goal. (Merril, 2002:3)
  • Transaction Sequence. Holist learners prefer an inductive-sequence where they are presented examples and demonstrations first prior to figuring out a definition or seeing the steps listed. Serialist learners prefer a deductive-sequence where they see the definition or list of steps first prior to seeing examples or a demonstration. Nevertheless, both the inductive and deductive sequence of transaction components must still contain all the components of the appropriate and consistent strategy or there will be a decrement in learning. (Merril, 2002:3)
  • Transaction Configuration. Instruction is characterized by the representation of the content information included and by the addition of information, directions, and learner guidance that enhances the students ability to acquire the information presented. It is in the area of learner guidance where learning-style-by-strategy interactions may also play a significant role. Visual learners learn best when information is presented in graphic form. Verbal learners prefer textual presentations or lectures. Haptic learners prefer information they can manipulate. Nevertheless visual, verbal or haptic learners must still have all the components of an appropriate and consistent instructional strategy even though these components may have different forms of representation. (Merril, 2002:3)
  • Concept Instruction. In learning a concept all learners need to see examples and non-examples. However, holist learners tend to have a problem with undergeneralization, they need to see more divergent examples to promote generalization. Serialist learners tend to have a problem with overgeneralization, they need to see more matched example non-example pairs to facilitate their ability to discriminate among examples and non-examples. Both of these types of learners need examples and nonexamples as these are essential components of a concept instruction strategy. However, each type of learner requires a different emphasis in the relationships among these instances. (Merril, 2002:3)

Felder (1996) argues in a similar direction: “ A learning style model is useful if balancing instruction on each of the model dimensions meets the learning needs of essentially all students in a class. [...] Which model educators choose is almost immaterial, since the instructional approaches that teach around the cycle for each of the models are essentially identical.” In other words, a good pedagogical design includes several strategies to present information and engages students in different kinds of information processing. Felder (1996) then presents a list of strategies that ensure that a course appeals to a wide range of learning styles. These suggestions are based on the Felder-Silverman model. See the Felder design model.

According to Becta, also Sadler-Smith and Smith (2004) offer the following recommendations for accommodating learners' cognitive styles:

  • give a structured route through learning
  • provide a global perspective of the content
  • present information both visually and verbally (written or spoken)
  • make the structure and scope of content, as well as its relationship to other topic areas, as explicit as possible

Entwistle (1991) argues that teachers should: take account of the range of learning styles their students will inevitably exhibit, recognise that their own learning style is likely to be reflected in their teaching and acknowledge the dangers of allowing one particular approach to teaching to exclude the voice of others.

To present apposing view to that of the few authors we reviewed, some researchers in fields like Adaptive hypertext seem to claim that different learning modes and learning path should be proposed to each learner. Papanikolaou et al. (2006, p. 358) suggest that “ it is more useful to recommend educational interactions based on the learner’s observable behaviour, allowing learners to make the final choice, selecting amongst alternative approaches”. The system should adapt to the learner's actual behaviour rather than the what is inferred from learning style evaluations. The system should be designed to accomodate a variety of learning styles, but should propose interactions based on user behaviour within the system to select the appropriate approach for the context. This information can be made explicit to learners so that they can gain awareness of their cognitive styles and strategies. The style and form of content presented can be varied to match or mismatch content and learning style accordingly.

Such an appoach:

  • is very costly
  • may inhibit to large extent most sorts of collaborative learning (which does seem to have a positive effect on learning outcomes)
  • may be counter-productive, since every learner should at some point be able to deal with differents sorts of input and he also should be trained to produce knowledge and output requiring a wide range of cognitive processing.
  • may lead to "labelling", i.e. confine students to initial behavior patterns as show or perceived by an instructor (like "this person can never grasp the principle behind a word processor and can only repeat demonstrated procedures").
  • may be cognitively couterproductive. I.e. Solomon (1986) reported that learners learners presented with material in their preferred format tend to exhibit overconfidence and consequently invest less effort and perform finally more poorly.
( this needs verification / elaboration )
  • learning styles may be mutable, changing in time or according to the task at hand. From David Robotham (1999) [10]

“ Messick (1984) and Streufert & Nogami (1989) found evidence learners adapt their learning style based on perceptions of the requirements of a learning task. A contention supported by Talbot (1985) who suggests that learning style varies according to the learning task being undertaken, while Barris, Kielhofner & Bauer (1985) argue that it is possible for learning to change during the duration of a course of study.” To deal with the seemingly boundless combinations of learning styles in learners and instructors and their effects on learning and teaching, Robotham further suggests a paradigm shift that focusses not on learning styles but on enabling learners to direct their learning: “ Higher education teaching should seek to move beyond the enhancement of performance within a narrow spectrum of activities, and consider the development of foundation skills, such as self-directed learning. An able self-directed learner may still choose to use a particular learning style that is relatively narrow in nature, but they are consciously taking that decision, in view of their perception of the needs of a particular situation.”


Comment: Kalli Benetos questions the validity of some tests based on learners' subjective self-assessment of their preferences as these may project a learner's value system or reflect an erroneous self-perception rather than actual learning style. In addition, their perception of the conditions under which they learn more effectively may be a projection of what they perceive as optimal conditions (best results for the smallest effort) and may not be directly linked to improved learning.

Sadler-Smith & Riding (1999) found “ students’ overall preferences were for dependent methods (lectures, tutorial and surgeries) using print-based media (handouts, workbooks, textbooks and journal articles) and assessed by informal methods (individual and group assignments and multiple choice and short answertype questions)." This seems to show that students had motives other than true learning. They perhaps expressed preferences for the instructional style they perceived would allow them to acheive the best grades.”

Felder & Spurlin (2005) try to remedy the potential misuse of learning styles by pointing out that:

  • Learning style dimensions are scales, mild, moderate or extreme tendencies can be exhibited.
  • Learning style profiles are indicative of tendencies and individuals at one time or another will exhibit tendencies of the opposing characteristic.
  • Learning style preferences do not indicate a learner's strengths and weaknesses, only the preferred activity.
  • Learning style preferences may be subject to a learner's educational experience and 'comfort'.

The most agreed upon use of learning style analysis seems to be to give learners insight into their own learning preferences and learning styles and highlight their potential strengths and weaknesses (Riding, 1999, Felder & Spurlin, 2005, Robotham, 1999, Bull, 2004, Kay, 1997). This points to the emerging literature on the role of learning style assessments in building self-directed learners that are able to engage in metacognitive reflection about their learning processes and engage in learning strategies that will yield the desired learning outcomes. (See Open learner model) -K.Benetos

8 Links

8.1 Tests & practical stuff

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

Felder and Spurlin (2005) suggest these principal applications for the ILS:

  1. The first is to provide guidance to instructors on the diversity of learning styles within their student population and to help them design instruction appropriately
  2. The second is to provide insight to students into their possible learning strengths and weaknesses.

9 References

  • Acharya, Chandrama (2002), Students' Learning Styles and Their Implications for Teachers, CDTL Brief, September 2002, Vol. 5 No. 6 HTML
  • Allinson, C. W. & Hayes, J. (1996) The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organisational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33, pp. 119-135.
  • Aragon, Steven R.; Scott D. Johnson and Najmuddin Shaik, (2002). The Influence of Learning Style Preferences on Student Success in Online Versus Face-to-Face Environments. The American Journal Of Distance Education, 16(4), 227-244. PDF (Access restricted).
  • Atherton, J.S. (2005) Learning and Teaching: Experiential Learning On-line UK: Accessed: 12 July 200
  • BECTA Report (2006), Learning styles - an introduction to the research literature Abstract/PDF/Word
  • Becker, D. and M. Dwyer, (1998). "The impact of student verbal/visual learning style preference on implementing groupware in the classroom," Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, volume 2, number 2 (September),HTML
  • Bull, S. (2004). Supporting Learning with Open Learner Models. 4th Hellenic Conference with International Participation: Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Athens, 2004. (Keynote)
  • Cassidy, S (2004), Learning styles: an overview of theories, models and measures, Educational Psychology, 24(4), 419–444.
  • Chen, Sarah (2002). A cognitive model for non-linear learning in hypermedia programmes, British Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (4), 449-460.
  • Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. PDF
  • Cornelius, Sarah, Learning Online: Models and Styles, Online Tutoring e-Book, OTIS (Heriot-Watt University and The Robert Gordon University). HTML
  • Curry, L. (1983a), Learning Styles in Continuing Medical Education, Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa.
  • Curry, L. (1983) An organisation of learning style theory and constructs, in: L. Curry (Ed) Learning Style in Continuing Education. (Canada, Dalhousie University).
  • Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs, aper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (67th, Montreal, Quebec, April 11-15, 1983.
  • Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 50-56.
  • Curry, L.(1991). Patterns of learning style across selected medical specialties. Educational Psychology 11:247-277.
  • Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). "Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective". Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 325-346.
  • Duff, Angus, Learning Styles Measurement, The Revised Approaches To Studying Inventory (RASI)HTML
  • Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. New York: John Wiley.
  • Entwistle, N., Thompson, S., & Tait, H. (1992). Guidelines for promoting effective learning in higher education. University of Edinburgh, Scotland: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction.
  • Entwistle, N., Styles of learning and approaches to studying in higher education, Kybernetes, Vol. 30 No. 5/6, 2001, pp. 593-602. PDF
  • Felder, R.M., Spurlin, J. (2005) Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 103-112.
  • Felder, R.M. (1996). "Matters of Styles". ASEE Prism, 6(4), 18-23. HTML
  • Felder, R.M. and L.K. Silverman. "Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education." Engr. Education, 78 (7), 674-681 (1988).
  • Felder, R.M. (1993. "Reaching the Second Tier: Learning and Teaching Styles in College Science Education," J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 23(5), 286--290 (1993). HTML
  • Felder, R.M. and Barbara A. Solomon, Learning Styles And Strategies, webpage HTML retrieved 20:37, 24 August 2006 (MEST).
  • Felder, R.M. and Spurlin, J.E. (2005). A validation study of the Index of Learning Styles. Applications, Reliability, and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles, Intl. Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112 . PDF Reprint
  • Felder, R.M. and Brent, R. (2005). An exploration of differences in stud. ent learning styles, approaches to learning (deep, surface, and strategic), and levels of intellectual development. Understanding Student Differences. J. Engr. Education, 94(1), 57-72 PDF
  • Ford, N. (2000). Cognitive Styles and Virtual Environments. Journal of the American Society of Information Science. April, 2000.
  • Kay, J. (1997). Learner Know Thyself: Student Models to Give Learner Control and Responsibility, in Z. Halim, T. Ottomann & Z. Razak (eds), Proceedings of International Conference on Computers in Education, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 17-24.
  • Keefe, J.W. (1979). "Learning Style: An Overview". In NASSP"s Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1\u201317.
  • Keefe, J.W. (1989). Learning Style Profile Handbook: Accommodating Perceptual, Study and Instructional Preferences, Vol. II. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals
  • Kim, Kyung-Sun and Joi L. Moore (2005). Web-based learning: Factors affecting students' satisfaction and learning experience, First Monday, volume 10, number 11 (November 2005) HTML
  • Kolb, Alice Y. & David A. Kolb (2005), The Kolb Learning Style Inventory- Version 3.1 2005 Technical Specifications, Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc., Case Western Reserve University, PDF
  • Harasym PH, Leong EJ, Juschka BB, Lucier GE, Lorscheider FL. (1996) Relationship between Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Gregorc Style Delineator. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Jun;82(3 Pt 2):1203-10.
  • Hodgkinson, Gerard P., & and Eugene Sadler-Smith (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson– Hayes Cognitive Style Index, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2003), 76, 243–268.
  • Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982) Manual of Learning Styles London: P. Honey.
  • Irvine, J.J. & York, D.E. (1995). "Learning Styles and Culturally Diverse Students: A Literature Review". In Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. James A. Banks (Ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 484-97.
  • Jonassen, David H. & Grabowski, Barbara L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Difference, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  • Kaufmann, G., Martinsen, O. (1991). The Explorer and the Assimilator: A Theory and Measure of Cognitive Styles in Problem Solving. International Creativity Network Newsletter, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 8-9. [11]
  • Kirton, M.J. (1994). Adaptors and Innovators, London: Routledge.
  • Ma del Puerto Paule Ruiz, Ma Jesús Fernández Díaz, Francisco Ortín Soler, Juan Ramón Pérez Pérez, Adaptation in current e-learning systems, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Volume 30, Issues 1–2, January 2008, Pages 62-70, ISSN 0920-5489, 10.1016/j.csi.2007.07.006. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920548907000517)
  • Leonard, N. H., Scholl, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B. (1999). Information processing style and decision making. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 20 , 407– 420.
  • Myers, I. (1978). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Mayes, Terry, JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study, Stage 2: Learner-centred pedagogy: Individual differences between learners, PDF
  • McLoughlin, Catherine, The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material, Australian Journal of Educational Technology 1999, 15(3), 222-241 HTML
  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). Instructional strategies and learning styles: which takes precedence? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology. (pp. 99-106). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. PDF Preprint

PDF Preprint (dead link)

  • Mockford, Clive and Howard Denton (1998), Assessment Modes, Learning Styles, and Design and Technology Project Work in Higher Education, The Journal of technology studies, Volume XXIV, Number 1, Winter/Spring 1998
  • Papanikolaou, K. A., Mabbott, A. Bull, S. Grigoriadou, M. (2006). Designing learner-controlled educational interactions based on learning/cognitive style and learner behaviour. Interacting with Computers 18, p. 356–384.
  • Pask, G. (1988). Learning Strategies, Teaching Strategies and Conceptual or Learning Style , in R. Schmeck (ed) (1988) Perspectives on Individual Differences, Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, New York & London: Plenum Press, pp. 83-100.
  • Reid, J.M. (1987). The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students.” TESOL Quarterly 21:87-111.
  • Riding, R.J. & Pearson, F. (1994). The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence.Educational Psychology 14(4) 413–425.
  • Robotham, D. (1999). The application of learning style theory in higher education teaching. HTML
  • Sadler-Smith, E (2001), The relationship between learning style and cognitive style, Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 609-616.
  • Sadler-Smith, E, Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences, Instructional Science 27: 355–371.
  • Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Learning styles: A holistic approach. Journal of European Industrial Training 20(7): 29–36.
  • Sampson, Demetrios; Charalampos Karagiannidis, Kinshuk (2002). Personalised Learning: Educational, Technological and Standarisation Perspective, Digital Education Review 4 (2002)
  • Santally, Mohammad, I. and Alain Senteni (2005), A Learning Object Approach to Personalized Web-based Instruction, European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, HTML
  • Santally, M. (2003). Students Learning Styles & Computer Conferencing as a pedagogical tool to enhance and support the teaching and learning process. World Conference on E-Learning in Corp., Govt., Health., & Higher Ed. 2003(1), 1165-1168. Abstract - PDF
  • Schmeck, R. (1983). "Learning Styles of College Students". In Individual Differences in Cognition. R. Dillon & R. Schmeck (Eds.). New York: Academic Press, 233-279.
  • Schmeck, R. (1988). Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Solomon C. (1986), Computer environments for children: a reflexion on theories of learning and education, Cambridge (MA), Londres, The MIT Press.
  • Stahl, S.A. (1999). Different Strokes for Different Folks? A Critique of Learning Styles. American Educator, 23(3), 27-31.
  • Stahl, S. A. (2002). Different strokes for different folks? In L. Abbeduto (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing on controversial issues in educational psychology (pp. 98-107). Guilford, CT, USA: McGraw-Hill.
  • Witkin, H.A. (1954). Personality Through Perception: An Experimental and Clinical Study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  • Witkin, H.A. & Goodenough, D. (1981). Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. New York: International University Press.
  • Witkin H A, Moore C A, Goodenough D R and Cox P W (1977) Field-dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications, Review of Educational Research 47(1) 1–64.
  • Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Learning styles and guidance of learning processes in higher education. Amsterdam: Lisse Swets and Zeitlinger.