See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279749704
Rayner, S. G. (2015) Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles. In, J. D. Wright, (Ed.).
International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition), Vol
4, pp. 110–117....
Article · April 2016
CITATIONS
READS
0
5,037
1 author:
Steve Rayner
Newman University
106 PUBLICATIONS 2,122 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
epistemic style differences in learners View project
Ways of Thinking Survey View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Rayner on 08 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Author's personal copy
Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.
Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.
This article was originally published in the International Encyclopedia of the Social
& Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy
is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the
author’s institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including
without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues who you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including
without limitation commercial reprints, selling or
licensing copies or access, or posting on open
internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or
repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s
permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
From Rayner, S.G., 2015. Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles. In: James D. Wright
(editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences,
2nd edition, Vol 4. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 110–117.
ISBN: 9780080970868
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved.
Elsevier
Author's personal copy
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
Stephen G Rayner, Newman University, Birmingham, UK
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract
The psychological construct of style in personality, cognition, and learning is explained in this article. The development of
a styles theory is interpreted as the evolution of a generic concept of individuality and its status as an individual difference in
cognition and learning. The emergence of popular applications of learning styles as well as a wave of critical revisionism and
new directions in researching style differences is related to this development. An application of style differences for lifelong
learning in both education and workplace are then considered, including implications for further study of differential
psychology, pedagogy, training, and the nature of an individual’s personal approach to learning (style).
Style Differences and Individuality: Cognition,
Behavior, and Affect
The commonsense idea of style is one of the distinctive and
personal signatures or hallmarks woven into an individual’s
performance (Rayner, 2000, 2001). Less clear, however, is use
of the term ‘style’ when applied in personal or differential
psychology, involving aspects of affect, behavior, cognition,
intelligence, personality, self-perception, and social identity
(Rayner and Peterson, 2009; Peterson et al., 2009). The
implications of style differences for understanding how affect,
behavior, and cognition in the person combine to form individuality is reflected in a traditional contribution to psychometric assessment and factor analytic research across three key
areas of human performance: first, profiling individual differences in workplace and educational settings (Messick, 1976;
Jonassen and Grabowski, 1993); second, exploiting the presence and effect of style features as variables in learning and
teaching (Kolb, 1976; Entwistle, 1981; Schmeck, 1988); and
third, reasserting the conceptual basis of the style construct in
personal and social behavior (Witkin et al., 1962; Sternberg,
1996; Rayner and Riding, 1997; Peterson et al., 2009).
An aim in the research over time has arguably been to
describe a holistic but valid and reliably consistent theory
of style, distinct from and separate to other individual
differences (constructs) such as personality, intelligence,
identity, and gender (Miller, 1987; Curry, 1987; Rayner and
Riding, 1997). In more recent work (Rayner and Cools,
2011; Zhang et al., 2012), an account is made reexamining
the basis of styles as traits, states, identities, and intellectual
processes. Renewed interest in style research has also coincided with calls for developing alternative ways of researching
style combining new forms of research methodology and
epistemology (Rayner and Peterson, 2009; Cools and Rayner,
2011; Rayner, 2011).
The Style Construct in the Psychology of Education
The exact structure and nature of the style construct remains
contested (Messick, 1976, 1994, 1996; Ritter, 2007). Similarly,
the effect size associated with various measurements of a style
factor in educational research (variously described as cognitive,
110
thinking, learning, or intellectual styles) remains disappointingly
small when applied to contexts of learning and work-related
behavior (Kavale and Forness, 1987; Coffield et al., 2004;
Pashler et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2009). This is an
important issue to which we will again return later in this
discussion. The utility and integrity of style as a construct,
however, is clearly reliant upon a well-established theory,
which is both coherent and consistent in terms of conceptual
rigor, distinctive validity, independence as a construct, and
epistemic robustness.
The following recategorization of cognitive styles begins by
distinguishing research in the mid part of the twentieth century,
as the production of a styles construct associated with:
(1) personality-based styles reflecting type and trait as key
indicators of an individual’s innate behavior across different
contexts of performance; (2) more stable cognition-centered
structures and/or dimensions of a person’s cognitive style
associated with traitlike differences in an individual’s tendency
to think, feel, or act; (3) less stable cognitive processes linked
to the ways in which cognitive controls, strategies, and
processes combine in an individual’s approach to demand or
task in a range of contexts; and (4) preferences for learning
and thinking affected by modality, cognitive processes, and
learning experiences, while engaged in completing an assigned
activity. The first is related to constructs associated with
‘personality-based styles,’ the second to ‘cognition-centered
styles,’ the third learning strategies, learning patterns, and an
orientation to learning, and the fourth, generic ‘learning-based
styles.’
The fourth part of this style recategorization which involves
the identification and development of ‘learning styles’ reflects
a refocused interest upon the question of ‘person-environment
fit,’ and so is associated with a widening range of executive
functions in the psychology of the individual when engaged with
a task-related performance. This includes intellectual styles
related to the following: multiple intelligences or abilities,
problem solving, creativity, intuition, decision-making, and
a wider range of style-based learning behaviors integrating
learning styles with learning strategies as part of an effort to
create a framework for applying ‘holistic’ style profiles
(for example, combining personal learning style, learning
preferences, experiential learning, learning motivation, and
forms of accelerated, extended, or enhanced learning).
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92008-7
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
Personality Styles – Types of Individuality
An early influence in the development of style as type may be
linked to the work of Jung’s typology of personality constructs
and ‘psychoanalytic ego psychology’ (Jung, 1923). The most
influential style model emerging from this paradigm was the
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1978; Myers-Briggs, 1980).
This test is generally recognized as a measure of personal style
but conversely is described as a personality test (Isaksen et al.,
2003; Hough and Ogilvie, 2005). The Myers–Briggs Type
Indicator is purported to have become one of the most widely
used measures of psychological types in business and public
sector organizations. Few studies, however, have been
published examining its efficacy (Kelley, 2005).
A separate development to both the theorizing and
measuring aspects of personality as individual preferences was
constructed by Holland (Holland, 1973, 1985; Gottfredson and
Holland, 1996), focusing upon individual career choices or
planning. Holland’s theory is based upon the idea of defining
personality types in terms of occupational preferences: these
include Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and
Conventional (Holland, 1973). Much of this ‘type’ theory
reflects a similar set of ideas about preferences and trait underpinning the application of a range of style theories including the
fundamental idea of the ‘matching hypothesis,’ which supposes
that a deliberate style-led matching of different personality types
with task, mode of work, grouping, and context can enhance
performance.
According to Sternberg (1997), intellectual styles function at
the interface between ability and personality. The psychological
structure of style posited in this way describes a relatively stable
but complex interactive system that embodies psychological
controls, processes, and states but also reflects an executive
function regulating personal, physiological, and sociological
aspects of the individual’s mind at work. For some psychologists, it is self-evident that style and personality represent
very similar explanations of individuality and simply are
manifestations of one and the same construct (see Messick,
1994; Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2006; Furnham
et al., 2008). It is argued here, however, that the structure and
function of the style construct is closely implicated with
rather than an aspect of personality. It contributes to
a holistic structure (or model) shaping as well as sustaining
and reflecting an individual’s psychology, including structural
forms of their personality, cognition, and behavior (Riding
and Rayner, 1998).
Cognitive Styles – Types of Process
in Human Cognition
The following section provides a summary of the work related to
styles defined as internal control processes and strategies in
human cognition. A useful account of the historical development of this work can be found in Kozhevnikov (2007). This
is further complemented by analytic reviews offered by
Grigerenko and Sternberg (1995), Rayner and Riding (1997),
and Zhang and Sternberg (2005). The best introduction to the
original styles experiments and source for the construct can be
found in Messick (1976).
111
Perceptual Differentiation
Witkin and coworkers produced seminal work over a period
of more than 50 years – originating in an interest with the
‘regularities’ of information processing, derived from the
German gestalt school of perceptual psychology, and which
led to an early development of the ‘style construct’ of ‘Field
Dependence-Independence’ (FDI). The practical issues related
to flying aircraft through dense cloud formation were the
original spur to investigating what and how individual
intradifferences were found to influence crucial variations in
pilots maintaining course and control in their aircraft.
Individuals, when reorienting an object relative to the vertical,
were found to rely upon the surrounding ‘field’ or ‘context’ to
a greater or lesser extent. This was subsequently found to
correlate with competence in disembedding shapes from
a perceptual field, and experimental participants were found to
either rely heavily on the field for orientation or shape
discrimination (field-dependent) or rely little or not at all
(field-independent).
The assessment tools developed as part of this research
included an original rod and frame tilting chair experiment
and then the ‘pencil and paper’ embedded figures test. While
a great deal of critique was subsequently leveled at the FDI
theory for confounding abilities and style, Witkin and Ash
(1948) extrapolated a comprehensive theory of psychological differentiation to explain how it affected a wide range of
human performance across a breadth of social and personal
contexts.
Cognitive Controls and Cognitive Processes
Psychologists interested in cognitive control processes and
structure produced a second alternative approach to theorizing
intradifferences in personality and style. Early experimental work
at the Messinger Clinic in the USA developed notions of ego
adaptation to the environment in the individual (Gardner, 1953;
Gardner et al., 1959). This led to further experimental research
hypothesizing style as a key factor in facilitating stable responses
(styles) in the individual to the situation, producing patterns of
response and function in thinking and behavior (Messick,
1976).
The program completed by these coworkers over more than
20 years produced a series of ‘styles’ (to function rather like a set
of cogs and balances in the cognitive machinery of the mind),
usually comprising a bipolar structure and implicated in a wide
range of adaptive responses to differing demands in the experimental context. These included, for example, stimuli differentiation (‘levelers’ and ‘sharpeners’) identified by Klein (1958),
which subsequently developed to include differences in other
forms of cognitive scanning, categorization, conceptual articulation, and degree of cognitive control (Gardner et al., 1959;
Messick and Fritzky, 1963). A third focus provided by Kagan and
coworkers investigating types and levels of response to cognitive
uncertainty typically recorded during problem-solving task
completion. This latter work identified two types of typical
response along a continuum of conceptual tempo, from the
impulsive to reflective (Kagan, 1966). It led in turn to the claim
for a unique style dimension identified using the Matching
Familiar Figures Test (Kagan, 1965).
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
112
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
Mental Imagery, Memory, and Thinking
Similar research around the same time involved exploring
individual differences in mental representation and visual
information processing: this included looking at visual and/or
verbal ways of representing information in thought, as well as
visual or imaginal processes used in dealing with new information. Research led by Pask (1972, 1976) on style and information processing introduced the idea of serial or holistic
processing. This research identified how the individual would
split and separate (serialist type) or group and synthesize (holist
type) new information when dealing with a problem-solving
task (Pask and Scott, 1972).
At the same time, other work investigating mental imagery
revealed how some people have a predominantly verbal way of
representing information in thought, while others are more
‘visual’ or ‘imaginal.’ Paivio (1971) further developed this
theory with a dual coding measurement of mental imagery.
Further research completed by Richardson (1977) using the
Verbalizer–Visualizer Questionnaire revealed habitual methods
of visual thinking. Most recent work investigating the way in
which these style dimensions may function has been
completed by Kozhevnikov et al. (2005), and secondly, Miller
et al. (2012), providing new neurological evidence of stylerelated mental activity, elicited from the use of functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and data analysis
employing t-statistic mapping of brain function.
Riding and Taylor (1976) initially identified, as fundamental
to the style construct, a verbal-imagery dimension of cognitive
style. This led to the construction of the ‘cognitive styles
assessment’ (CSA), used to support further research in
developing an integrated theory of cognitive style (Riding,
1991). The model of style presented subsequently by Riding
and Rayner (1998) described an orthogonal arrangement of
two fundamental but independent dimensions of cognitive
style: the verbal-visualizer style continuum and the wholist–
analytic style continuum. These dimensions are assessed by the
CSA, a computerized test locating a respondent on each of the
wholist–analytic and verbal-imagery dimensions of a cognitive
style (Riding, 1991).
Research into Executive Functioning and Differences
in Thinking
A widening field of research that was interested in how executive
functioning and individual differences in thinking and action
influence key aspects of human performance emerged in the
latter part of the twentieth century. The work involved many
researchers independently constructing new models and
measures, thereby adding to a broad and disparate theoretical
base, and fueling in turn an increasing number of loosely linked
conceptions of style in thinking, learning, and performance.
These various style labels reflecting aspects of cognitive
functioning included a model of phenomenological style
(Gregorc, 1982); the Adaptor–Innovator cognitive style of
decision-making (Kirton, 1994); an intuitive–analytic cognitive
style of problem solving (Hayes and Allinson, 1998); cognitive
styles analysis focusing upon information processing/mental
representation (see Riding, 1991; Riding and Rayner, 1998);
and a cognitive style of creativity (Kaufmann, 1989). Another
more elaborate model of mental self-government presented by
Sternberg (1996, 1997), represented a theory of style derived
from notions of a holistic regulation in the mind, integrating
constructs of intelligence, abilities, and self-government.
According to this theory, individual differences in styles or
mental processes can be understood in terms of function,
form, level, scope, and leaning, which impact upon thinking
and learning.
The final word on the importance of this phase of research
development belongs to Kozhevnikov (2007). She explains
that its significance principally lies with an attempt to both
expand and clarify the mechanisms of cognitive styles in the
context of an information processing approach. She argues
that there is sufficient evidence to suggest a theoretical basis
for the hierarchical classification of cognitive styles according
to the level of information processing in which the individual
is engaged (from simple perceptual decisions to complex
problem solving).
Learning Styles: Personal Differences in Approach
and Performance
The development of learning styles research was preceded by
work on the assessment of the learner, learning, and teaching.
This work, epitomized by the activity of the American National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) task force
looking at learning styles (Keefe, 1985), triggered a wave of new
models of style, with a great many populist versions, and more
recently accessible from the Internet. The result was a proliferation in the range of user-sourced tools of assessment, hybrid
forms of style theory, and many commercial packages
advocating all in one approaches to personalizing educational
intervention. This development was further reinforced by
popular interpretations of advances in neuroscience, producing
different versions of learning styles applied to teaching and
learning in the classroom (Geake, 2008).
In spite of this popularizing trend, several developing theories explaining approaches to individual differences in learning
reflected cautious and well-established applied research. This
section includes a summary of some key theories of learning
styles organized into the following four groups: models focusing
on experiential learning; models based on orientation to study;
models based upon instructional preferences; and models based
upon learning skills associated with neuroscience. The latter
research in particular reflected attempts to explore respectively
and in combination interaction between inter- and intradifferences in learning and the learner when engaged in learning.
Models Focusing on Experiential Learning
Models derived from a theory of experiential learning, of which
most influential is the work of Kolb (1976), described learning
styles as the individual’s preferred method for assimilating
information, in an active learning cycle. Kolb constructed a twodimensional model comprising perception (concrete/abstract
thinking) and processing (active/reflective information
processing), treating these as fundamental aspects of an
experiential learning cycle. The assessment tool used for this
learning styles model is the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI)
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
(Kolb, 1999). Recent research further developing this model in
studies of undergraduate MBA courses in the USA is reported
by Sharma and Kolb (2011), a new form of related assessment
reported by Boyatzis and Mainemelis (2011) and related
pedagogic development (Portugal and the UK) reported by
Almeida et al. (2011).
Models Based on Orientation to Study
These derived from earlier theories of information processing
and learning processes; the most influential has been that of
Entwistle (1981), in developing the early work of Pask (1972) to
produce a measure called the Approaches to Study Inventory.
This paved the way for a good deal of subsequent research
exploring how learners construct an approach to learning and
how this interacts with motivation (Marton and Saljo, 1976;
Vermunt, 1996; Entwistle and Peterson, 2004). The ‘approaches
to learning’ model is widely referred to in University education
(Biggs, 2001; Vermunt, 2011), and typically describes ways in
which students engage with deep or surface learning, thus
reflecting the adoption of one or more orientations to study
(meaning, reproducing, achieving, and holistic learning). These
choices of approach reflect a series of orientations that are
thought to be relatively stable differences in study behavior but
remain susceptible to change as patterns of learning.
Models Focusing upon Instructional Preference
These set out to present a comprehensive profile of learning
differences in the typical response of an individual to instructional contexts. Learning style (Keefe, 1989) was typically
perceived as a multimodal construct and understood to describe
a range of emotional and intellectual functioning relating to
the learning activity. Examples of this approach included the
‘Cognitive Profile,’ (Letteri, 1980) and the Learning Styles Profile
(Keefe, 1985, 1989). It is, however, more widely associated with
the program of teacher education promoted by Rita Dunn – the
LSI – developed by Dunn et al. (1989).
The learning style elements identified when using the Dunn
and Dunn LSI are self-reported responses eliciting information
for modal and learning preferences located in the individual
student. These are: environmental stimulus (light, temperature);
emotional stimulus (persistence, motivation); sociological stimulus
(peers, adults); physical stimulus (perceptual strengths, time of
day – morning vs. after-noon); and psychological stimulus
(global-analytic, or impulsive reflective). A comprehensive
range of learning and teaching materials has been developed
by Dunn over a 30-year period to support a learning stylesbased differentiation of curricula and pedagogy across the full
range of educational phases. It is summarized in Dunn and
Griggs (2003), and further theorized in Dunn and Honigsfeld
(2011).
Models Based upon Learning Skills and Neuroscience
A fourth group of learning style labels is focused upon an individual’s developing cognitive ability and repertoire of cognitive
skills or capacity to learn, together with related behavioral characteristics. These were understood to comprise an individual’s
learning profile. More recent versions in what has amounted to
113
a populist approach to learning styles include the application of
a widely established ‘visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK)’
sensory-based approach to learning and teaching, combining
multiple intelligences theory (Gardner, 1983), and neurolinguistic theory (O’Connor and McDermott, 1996). Other
similar ‘practical applications’ of neuroscientific research and
teacher development also popular during the last decade include
‘accelerated learning’ (Rose and Nicholl, 1997), ‘cognitive
enhancement’ (Adey et al., 1999), and ‘personalized learning’
utilizing ‘learning power’ (Ritchie and Deakin Crick, 2005).
Revisionist Theories and Problematizing
the Style Construct
An original interest in researching styles from a practitioner’s
perspective reflects a concern for enhancing learning and
teaching that in essence seeks to help ‘teach the hard to reach
and reach the hard to teach.’ For this to happen, styles theory
must offer and secure clearly stated relevance, utility, and
worthwhile effects for any intervention in the workplace or
classroom. The nature of such take up, however, may arguably
need to be much more than only the ‘Aptitude-by-Treatment
Interactions’ (ATI) based experimental research advocated by
Pashler et al. (2008), and identified as the evidentiary gold
standard required to confirm the status of style research.
Rayner (2001), moreover, has argued that the main purpose
and value for importing style theory into the design of pedagogy
and curricula is the proper use of profiling and assessment as
a tool for formative learning. Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld (2011),
reflecting a similar ‘practitioner’ perspective, also argue a need for
paradigm shift from second to third person in research design,
and call for research directly involving students as individuals
working with their own learning styles. They very deliberately
challenge the ‘ATI template’ and traditional experimental design.
Such an approach reflects a concern for more applied, humanistic understanding of style differences, as well as providing
evidence of impact on ‘value for instruction’ and ‘pedagogic
development.’
There are a few but prominent and far reaching critiques of
style published in the past 50 years reflecting a more general
dissatisfaction with what is described as an unexpectedly
gargantuan, complex, and disparate field of research. These
criticisms include, for example, the following: no consensual or
coherent field theory and consistent psychometric failings across
the field in respect to measures of validity, reliability, and effect
sizes produced in empirical research (Coffield et al., 2004;
Pashler et al., 2008); an incestuous research tradition practiced in
a field almost entirely engaged with self-affirming replication
(Coffield et al., 2004); a flawed theory of the psychology of
learning (Nixon et al., 2007; Geake, 2008); misplaced
approaches to pedagogy, curriculum, and scholarship (Sharp
et al., 2008); a shortfall in clearly stated or reliable and
coherent accounts of value, relevance, and utility of learning
styles in the applied context (Reynolds, 1997; Coffield et al.,
2004; Peterson et al., 2009); resultant misplaced and restrictive
typing, labeling, and harmful individualized practices when
applying styles theory to education, instruction, pedagogy, or
the curriculum (Coffield et al., 2004; Ritter, 2007; Sharp et al.,
2008); reference to alternative more compelling theories and
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
114
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
explanations of the learning process in social psychology and
sociology, which in itself is claimed to offer a better prospect
of return for resource in the educational setting (Coffield et al.,
2004; Nixon et al., 2007; Ritter, 2007).
The issues of these critiques of style research persist to date
and invalidate by association a good deal of rigorous and robust
work. Nonetheless, continuing criticism of styles research
reflecting a mix of ideological conflicts and perspectival differences has led at times to a rejection of any need for styles
research. These disputes, however, are often reflected in writers
from opposing research epistemologies articulating differing
conceptualizations of efficacy and equity for the educational
setting. It is salutary and interesting to note Messick’s comment
that such intensity of conflict was indeed part of the academic
debate over 50 years ago. He commented that critique was often
“. excessively polarized in either supporting or undercutting styles as
meaningful constructs. This polarization seems to reflect different
stances not just with reference to scientific evidence but also with respect
to ideology” (Messick, 1994: 121). There has not been much
change over time with the substance of style critique.
Implications of Styles for Lifelong Learning
The extent to which an awareness of cognitive style or learning
styles and the self as a learner is currently considered and
managed within the learning context raises key questions for the
design of training, instruction, and pedagogy. These suggest in
turn a need to consider the following key aspects of education
construed as contributing to the idea of lifelong learning.
Intellectual styles and metacognition – involving research looking at how intellectual styles (cognition and learning)
interact with an awareness of self as a learner and thinker. An
obvious implication of this approach to valuing style as
a concept lies with its effect upon influencing motivation,
behavior, and attribution governing responses to personal
achievement. The recent work of Sadler-Smith (2009, 2012)
provides an interesting start to a conceptualization linking
intuition styles, motivation, and experience with duplex
theory and intellectual styles with metacognition.
l Style and self-regulation in learning – involving work linking
theories of self-regulation with awareness and perceptions of
self as a learner. A great deal of integrating work completed
by researchers in the area of self-attribution and/or regulation
(Zimmerman, 2008) offer a useful model as well as related
work for further developing pedagogic approaches to
working with student motivation and approaches to learning
(see Rayner, 2011; Vermunt, 2011).
l Assessment-led learning and curriculum differentiation – meeting
the need to further demonstrate relevance and positive
effects of style awareness for instructional design in work
around the original interest in the matching hypothesis
(aligning or contrasting style with task or social context to
enhance flexibility in the learner and learning outcome).
Indeed many writers seem to regard this aspect of ‘style’ as the
only serious implication of style in education (for example,
Pashler et al., 2008, devote most of their criticism for the
meshing hypothesis). Recent work in several areas of style
research has reflected confirmation of flexible approaches to
l
learning styles in application (Dunn and Honigsfeld, 2011;
Sharma and Kolb, 2011). Similarly, work looking at curriculum differentiation has produced new integrative
approaches drawing upon both a cognition and learning
centered theory of styles (Rayner, 2000; Evans and Waring,
2011; Zhang et al., 2012).
l Personalizing education and learning technologies – a great deal
of research is concerned with developing an understanding
and thereby facilitating the design of personalized learning.
Mourlas et al. (2009) provide an overview of this area
exploring ‘pedagogic’ aspects of the interaction between the
individual and web-based or digital infrastructure and/or
architecture, with a view to enhancing ways in which an
alignment between cognitive style and demands may
enhance learning. This not only embraces remote or mobiledigital learning, but learning and teaching applications of
social media, intelligent design of technologies, user interface
with digital technology and more widely personalizing
computer-mediated learning and teaching.
l Organizational learning, training & business management – the
intuitive appeal of style differences in both cognition and
learning continues to generate research and development in
the workplace. The key themes emerging in this area are
a consideration of the role of style differences in organizational behavior and human resource development including:
selection and person-environment fit, vocational choice and
career success; diversity, group processes, and conflict
management; intuition and emotion in the workplace;
training and development; personal styles’ profiling; and
career management in global organizations (Armstrong and
Cools, 2009; Armstrong et al., 2012; Cools, 2012).
l Pedagogic differences and professional development – personal
and social differences identified in style research impact
directly upon the training and the development of professional expertise in professional practitioners (e.g., teachers,
trainers, and educators). Much of the research into this area
reflects adherence to one or more models of learning styles
(for example, Dunn and Griggs, 2003; Sharma and Kolb,
2011). An interesting development in further developing
a holistic theory of style, however, is reflected in the earlier
work of Sadler-Smith (1996), Peterson et al. (2010) as well as
Evans and Waring (2008, 2011), focusing upon teacher
training and the effects of raising self-awareness of cognitive
style in the teacher’s developing pedagogic practice.
The significance of ‘style’ as reflected in this range of research
for the life cycle is clearly about much more than ‘style’ simply
used as a term that has linguistic or conceptual versatility in
describing personal performance. While this common usage of
the term clearly denotes a popular as well as intuitive appeal and
so clearly reflects a universal value, the import of this discussion
is that style as an individual difference marks something much
more specific in a range of learning associated with the idea of
the person engaged in lifelong learning.
Conclusion: A Matter of Style
Why do style differences matter? Knowing more about how
another or I as an individual(s) tend to think, feel and act in
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
a learning context provides rich possibilities for new ways of
setting up, facilitating and leading to any learning activity.
Profiling differences and potentials in human performance
affords greater awareness for self-directed learning and
participation or efficacy in a project group. It is equally
relevant to informing differentiated design in programs of
study, pedagogic practices, and formative curricula. A stylebased contribution to education is also one way in which
consideration may be given to further customizing digital
technology in better serving personal and social learning across
contexts and community.
These implications for further study in differential or
personal psychology (individual differences), pedagogy,
training and the better management of an individual’s personal
approach to learning (style) should finally require a closer focus
upon types of epistemology and methodology in research
design. Rayner (2011) and Rayner et al. (2012), for instance,
have argued the need to deliberately attempt paradigm shift to
supplement the traditional styles research agenda, which has
been largely located in a positivistic paradigm, and more usually
employed as an experimental or survey based design associated
with the science of cognitive psychology. Whilst this experimental work remains central to style research (Kozhevnikov,
2007), there is a conjoint need for more pluralistic approaches
in the design and use of psychological assessment or theorizing
of style in cognition, learning, and management.
Sternberg et al. (2012: 416) on the other hand, in a retrospective comment on the recent past in style research makes
an argument for much greater emphasis in renewing a factor
analytic mode in style research. He acknowledges an urgent
need for ‘sorting out the theories of style,’ and developing
‘better forms of style assessment,’ but finally stresses the need
to reinforce the psychological status of style research utilizing
‘random-assignment studies with control groups.’ He
comments that The research that has been conducted has been of
variable quality and styles would get more research if they were more
rigorously researched. What is very apparent in this view is
a need, as suggested earlier, for new ways of constructing the
methodology of assessment or testing to better treat complex
models of style differences, as have, for example, more
recently been occurring in the field of personality (see
Hopwood and Donnellan, 2010).
Finally, and as described by Rayner (2013), concern for
validity, efficacy, and utility as key markers in a theoretical
revisionism within future research and development for the field
of ‘style differences’ rests upon attempting a paradigmatic step
change and establishing new ways of modeling and measuring
the style construct. Such an approach requires a reexamining of
epistemic issues underpinning both the style construct and, as
crucially, careful thought about research methodology and
project design. It also more fundamentally means responding
with greater clarity and certainty to a question about the
epistemological status of a ‘style’ construct asked by
Schmidt (2012).
Schmidt points out that the style construct to date is on the
one hand conceptualized as a typology in the sense of Hempel’s ‘aspects of scientific explanation’ and more recently
tested by procedures such as Latent Class or Latent Profile
Analysis (Hempel, 1962, 1965), and, on the other hand, the
more traditional approach to style is one in which a classical
115
psychometric method, using exploratory or confirmatory
factor analysis for testing reliability and validity, is applied
and then classical multivariate models used to test the specific
contribution of style. Schmidt questions, therefore, if style
research might usefully benefit from adopting an approach
combining both perspectives and thereby following
a three-step methodology in mixture modeling (see, Jung and
Wickrama, 2007; Vermunt, 2010), and which is implemented
in programs like Latent Gold or MPLUS (Asparouhov and
Bengt, 2013).
This pertinent suggestion offered by Schmidt merits
serious consideration as part of what Rayner (2013) argues is
a need for problematizing the style construct as a basis for
moving forward in the field, thereby leaving a fourth period of
research and development (see, Kozhevnikov, 2007), to enter
a fifth wave of style research (Rayner, 2013). In many ways
this arguably reflects a need to move ‘back to the future’ and
robustly reconsider the question of construct validity at the
heart of Messick’s work on psychological testing (Schiffman
and Messick, 1963; Messick, 1988), and more widely any
factorial interaction between personality, style, and abilities
(Messick, 1994, 1996).
In conclusion, using style as a psychological construct can
aid organizing and developing teams of practitioners in
a wide range of organizational activity. But we do need to
know much more and as such clearly reestablish or confirm
the validity of key style differences, as well as related models
or measures, and further affirm a ‘grand theory’ (general
understanding) of the meaning or implications of style. The
key theme for utilizing the style construct is captured perfectly
in the popular song, It is not what you do, it is the way that you do
it. The point is not that content is unimportant, but that being
aware and knowing more about ‘how I tend to do it’ can
immeasurably help in ‘my doing it better.’ A greater understanding and improvement of human performance, as
psychological process, social behavior, and educational
achievement, is the touchstone for future work in applied
research aimed at developing style theory, research, and
practice.
See also: Academic Self-Concept and Achievement;
Computer-Assisted Instruction; Education for the Gifted and
Talented; Instructional Design; Instructional Psychology;
Learning Theories and Educational Paradigms; Learning
To learn; Personality Development and Temperament; SelfConcepts: Educational Aspects; Self-Efficacy: Education
Aspects; Self-Regulated Learning: Theories, Measures, and
Outcomes; Tangible User Interfaces in Learning and
Education.
Bibliography
Adey, P., Fairbrother, R., Wiliam, D., 1999. A Review of Research on Learning
Strategies and Learning Styles. King’s College, London.
Almeida, P., Pedrosa de Jesus, H., Watts, C., 2011. Kolb’s learning styles and
approaches to learning through the use of students’ critical questions. In:
Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in Cognition, Learning and
Management. Routledge, New York, pp. 115–128.
Armstrong, S.J., Cools, E., 2009. Cognitive styles and their relevance for business
and management: a review of development over the past two decades. In:
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
116
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual
Styles. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 253–290.
Armstrong, S.J., van der Heijden, B.I.J.M., Sadler-Smith, E., 2012. Intellectual
styles, management of careers, and improved work performance. In:
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Styles.
Springer Pubs, NY, pp. 273–294.
Asparouhov, T., Bengt, M., 2013. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: 3-step
approaches. Using Mplus. Mplus Web Notes 15 (7), 1–48.
Biggs, J., 2001. Enhancing learning: a matter of style or approach? In:
Sternberg, R.J., Zhang, L.F. (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning and
Cognitive Styles. Springer Pubs, NY, pp. 73–102.
Boyatzis, R.E., Mainemelis, C., 2011. Assessing the distribution of learning and
adaptive styles in an MBA program. In: Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style
Differences in Cognition, Learning and Management. Routledge, New York,
pp. 99–114.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., 2006. Intellectual competence and the
intelligent personality: a third way in differential psychology. Review of General
Psychology 10 (3), 251–267.
Coffield, F.C., Moseley, D.V.M., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K., 2004. Learning Styles and
Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: Findings of a Systematic and Critical Review of
Learning Styles Models. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London.
Cools, E., Rayner, S., 2011. Researching style: more of the same or moving forward.
In: Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in Cognition, Learning and
Management. Routledge, New York, pp. 295–306.
Cools, E., 2012. Understanding styles in organizational behaviors: a summary of
insights and implications. In: Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.),
Handbook of Intellectual Styles. Springer Pubs, NY, pp. 329–352.
Curry, L., 1987. Integrating Concepts of Cognitive or Learning Style: A Review with
Attention to Psychometric Standards. Canadian College of Health Service
Executives, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S., 2003. Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model
research: Who, What, When, Where and So What – The Dunn and Dunn
Learning Styles Model and Its Theoretical Cornerstone. St John’s University,
New York.
Dunn, R., Honigsfeld, A., 2011. Learning-styles-based differentiating instruction for
at-risk students: rationale, research documentation, assessment tools, and
alternative approaches. In: Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in
Cognition, Learning and Management. Routledge, New York, pp. 263–277.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., Price, G.E., 1989. Learning Styles Inventory. Price Systems,
Lawrence, KS, USA.
Entwistle, N., Peterson, E.R., 2004. Learning styles and approaches to studying. In:
Spielberger, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Academic Press, New
York, pp. 537–542.
Entwistle, N.J., 1981. Styles of Teaching and Learning: An Integrated Outline of
Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers and Lecturers. Wiley,
Chichester, NY.
Evans, C., Waring, M., 2008. Trainee teachers’ cognitive styles and notions of
differentiation. Education and Training 50, 140–154.
Evans, C., Waring, M., 2011. Enhancing feedback practice: a personal learning
styles pedagogy approach. In: Rayner & E Cools, S. (Ed.), Style Differences in
Cognition, Learning, and Management: Theory, Research and Practice. Routledge, New York, pp. 188–203.
Furnham, A., Christopher, A., Garwood, J., Martin, N.G., 2008. Ability, demography,
learning style, and personality trait correlates of student preference for
assessment method. Educational Psychology 28 (1), 15–27.
Gardner, R.W., Holzman, P.S., Klein, G.S., Linton, H.B., Spence, D.P., 1959.
Cognitive control: a study of individual consistencies in cognitive behaviour.
Psychological Issues 1 (4).
Gardner, R.W., 1953. Cognitive styles in categorizing behaviour. Journal of
Personality 22, 214–333.
Gardner, H., 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic
Books, New York.
Geake, J., 2008. Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research 50 (2),
123–133.
Gottfredson, G.D., Holland, J.L., 1996. Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes,
third ed. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Gregorc, A.R., 1982. Style Delineator. Gabriel Systems, Maynard, MA.
Grigerenko, E.L., Sternberg, R.J., 1995. Thinking styles. In: Saklofske, D.H.,
Zeidner, M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence.
Plenum Press, NY, USA, pp. 205–229.
Hayes, J., Allinson, C.W., 1998. Cognitive style and the theory and practice of
individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations 51,
847–871.
Hempel, C., 1962. Explanation in science and history. In: Colodny, R.C. (Ed.),
Frontiers of Science and Philosophy. The University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, pp. 9–19.
Hempel, C., 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. The Free Press, New York.
Holland, J.L., 1973. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Holland, J.L., 1985. Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc, Odessa FL.
Hopwood, C.J., Donnellan, M.B., 2010. How should the internal structure of
personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review
14 (3), 332–346.
Hough, J.R., Ogilvie, D.T., 2005. An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic
decision outcomes. Journal of Management Studies 42 (2), 417–448.
Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., Wilson, G.V., 2003. An examination of the relationship
between personality type and cognitive style. Creativity Research Journal 15 (4),
343–354.
Jonassen, D.H., Grabowski, B.L., 1993. Handbook of Individual Difference, Learning
and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Jung, T., Wickrama, K.A.S., 2007. An introduction to latent class growth analysis
and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (1),
302–317.
Jung, C., 1923. Psychological Types. Harcourt Brace, NY.
Kagan, J., 1965. Individual difference in the resolution of response uncertainty.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 154–160.
Kagan, J., 1966. Reflection-impulsivity: the generality and dynamics of conceptual
tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 71, 17–24.
Kaufmann, G., 1989. The Assimilator-explorer Inventory. University of Bergen,
Bergen, Norway.
Kavale, K.A., Forness, S.R., 1987. Substance over style: assessing the efficacy of
modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children 54 (3), 228–239.
Keefe, J.W., 1985. Assessment of learning style variables: the NASSP task force
model. Theory into Practice 24, 138–144.
Keefe, J.W., 1989. Profiling and Utilising Learning Style. National Association of
Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA.
Kelley, K.N., 2005. Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator. PsycCRITIQUES 50 (33).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/05159912.
Kirton, J.W. (Ed.), 1994. Adaptors and Innovators, second ed. Routledge, London.
Klein, G.S., 1958. Cognitive control and motivation. In: Lindzey, G. (Ed.), Assessment of Human Motives. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 87–118.
Kolb, D.A., 1976. Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA.
Kolb, D.A., 1999. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory Version 3. Hay Group, Boston, MA.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S.M., Shephard, J., 2005. Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition 33,
710–726.
Kozhevnikov, M., 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology:
toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin 133,
464–481.
Letteri, C.A., 1980. Cognitive profile – basic determinants of academic achievement.
Journal of Educational Research 73, 195–199.
Marton, F., Saljo, R., 1976. On qualitative differences in learning outcome and
process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11.
Messick, S., Fritzky, F.J., 1963. Dimension of analytic attitude in cognition and
personality. Journal of Personality 31, 346–370.
Messick, S., 1976. Individuality in Learning: Implications of Cognitive Styles and
Creativity for Human Development. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Messick, S., 1988. The once and future issues of validity: assessing the meaning
and consequences of measurement. In: Wainer, H., Braun, I.H. (Eds.), Test
Validity. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 33–45.
Messick, S., 1994. The matter of style: manifestations of personality in cognition,
learning and teaching. Educational Psychologist 29, 121–136.
Messick, S., 1996. Bridging cognition and personality in education: the role of style
in performance and development. European Journal of Personality 10, 353–376.
Miller, M.B., Donovan, C.L., Bennett, C.M., Aminoff, E.M., Mayer, R.A., 2012.
Individual differences in cognitive style and strategy predict similarities in the
patterns of brain activity between individuals. NeuroImage 59, 83–93.
Miller, A., 1987. Cognitive styles: an integrated model. Educational Psychology 7 (4),
251–268.
Mourlas, C., Tsianos, N., Germanakos, P. (Eds.), 2009. Cognitive and Emotional
Processes in Web-Based Education: Integrating Human Factors and
Personalization. IGI Global Pub, Hershey, PA.
Myers, I., 1978. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo
Alto, CA.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
Author's personal copy
Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles
Myers-Briggs, I., 1980. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. DaviesBlack Publishing, NY.
Nixon, L., Gregson, M., Spedding, T., 2007. Pedagogy and the intuitive appeal of
learning styles in post compulsory education in England. Journal of Vocational
Education and Training 59 (1), 39–50.
O’Connor, J., McDermott, I., 1996. Principles of NLP. Thorsons, London.
Paivio, A., 1971. Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 46, 128–148.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rowher, D., Bjork, R., 2008. Learning styles: concepts
and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9, 105–119.
Pask, G., Scott, B.C.E., 1972. Learning strategies and individual competence.
International Journal of Man-machine Studies 4, 217–253.
Pask, G., 1972. A fresh look at cognition and the individual. International Journal of
Man-machine Studies 4, 211–216.
Pask, G., 1976. Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 46, 128–148.
Peterson, E.R., Rayner, S.G., Armstrong, S.J., 2009. Researching the psychology of
cognitive style and learning style: is there really a future? Learning and Individual
Differences 19, 518–523.
Peterson, E.R., Brown, G.T.L., Irving, S.E., 2010. Secondary school students
conceptions of learning and their relationship to achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences 20 (3), 167–176.
Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), 2011. Style Differences in Cognition, Learning and
Management. Routledge, New York.
Rayner, S., Peterson, E., 2009. Re-affirming style as an individual difference –
global paradigm or knowledge diaspora? In: Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J.
(Eds.), Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual Styles. Springer Pubs, New
York, pp. 107–134.
Rayner, S., Riding, R., 1997. Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and
learning styles. Educational Psychology 17, 5–28.
Rayner, S., Roodenburg, J., Roodenburg, E., 2012. Understanding an integrated
theory of intellectual styles: models, measures, and meaning. In: Zhang, L.F.,
Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Styles. Springer
Pubs, NY, pp. 47–66.
Rayner, S., 2000. Reconstructing style differences in thinking and learning: profiling
learning performance. In: Riding, R., Rayner, S. (Eds.), International Perspectives on
Individual Differences, Cognitive Styles, vol. 1. Ablex, Stanford, CT, pp. 115–177.
Rayner, S.G., 2001. Cognitive styles and learning styles. In: Smelser, N.J.,
Baltes, P.B. (Eds.), International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural
Sciences. Elsevier Press, Oxford, pp. 2171–2175.
Rayner, S., 2011. Researching style: epistemology, paradigm shifts and research
interest groups. Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2), 255–262.
Rayner, S.G., 2013. Problematizing style differences theory and professional
learning in educational psychology. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist 30 (1), 13–35.
Reynolds, M., 1997. Learning styles: a critique. Management Learning 28, 115–133.
Richardson, A., 1977. Verbalizer–visualizer: a cognitive style dimension. Journal of
Mental Imagery 1, 109–126.
Riding, R.J., Rayner, S.G., 1998. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. David
Fulton Pub, London.
Riding, R.J., Taylor, E.M., 1976. Imagery performance and prose comprehension in
7-year-old children. Educational Studies 2, 21–27.
Riding, R.J., 1991. Cognitive Styles Analysis. Learning and Training Technology,
Birmingham.
Ritchie, R., Deakin Crick, R., 2005. Distributing Leadership for Personalizing
Learning. Network Educational Press, Stafford.
Ritter, L., 2007. Unfulfilled promises: how inventories, instruments and institutions
subvert discourses of diversity and promote commonality. Teaching in Higher
Education 12 (5&6), 569–579.
Rose, C., Nicholl, M.J., 1997. Accelerated Learning for the 21st Century. Dell
Publishing, NY.
Rosenfeld, M., Rosenfeld, S., 2011. Illustrating a complementary paradigm for styles
research: from a third-person to a second-person perspective. In: Rayner, S.,
Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in Cognition, Learning and Management.
Routledge, New York, pp. 143–159.
Sadler-Smith, E., 1996. Learning styles: a holistic approach. Journal of European
Industrial Training 20 (7), 29–36.
Sadler-Smith, E., 2009. A duplex model of cognitive style. In: Zhang, L.F.,
Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Perspectives on the Nature of Intellectual Styles. Springer,
Heidelberg, pp. 3–28.
Sadler-Smith, E., 2012. Metacognition and styles. In: Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J.,
Rayner, S.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Styles. Springer Pubs, NY,
pp. 153–172.
Schiffman, H., Messick, S., 1963. Scaling and measurement theory. Review of
Educational Research 33 (5), 533–542.
Schmeck, R.J., 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (Perspectives on
Individual Differences). Springer, New York.
Schmidt, P., 2012. The epistemological status of the style construct? Private
Correspondence Received: 12.12.2013.
Sharma, G., Kolb, D., 2011. The learning flexibility index: assessing contextual
flexibility in learning style. In: Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in
Cognition, Learning and Management. Routledge, New York, pp. 60–77.
Sharp, J.G., Bowker, R., Byrne, J., 2008. VAK or VAK-uous? towards the
trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers in
Education 23 (3), 293–314.
Sternberg, R.J., Zhang, L.F., Rayner, S.G., 2012. Epilogue. In: Zhang, L.F.,
Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Intellectual Styles. Springer
Pubs, NY, pp. 415–418.
Sternberg, R.J., 1996. Styles of thinking. In: Baltes, P.B., Staudinger, U.M. (Eds.),
Interactive Minds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 347–365.
Sternberg, R.J., 1997. Thinking Styles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tiedemann, J., 1989. Measures of cognitive styles: a critical review. Educational
Psychology 24, 261–275.
Vermunt, J.D., 1996. Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles
and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education 31, 25–50.
Vermunt, J.K., 2010. Latent class modeling with covariates: two improved threestep approaches. Political Analysis 18, 450–469.
Vermunt, J.D., 2011. Patterns in student learning and teacher learning: similarities
and differences. In: Rayner, S., Cools, E. (Eds.), Style Differences in Cognition,
Learning and Management. Routledge, New York, pp. 173–187.
Witkin, H.A., Ash, S.E., 1948. Studies in space orientation: IV further experiments on
perception of the upright with displaced visual field. Journal of Experimental
Psychology 43, 58–67.
Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D.R., 1981. Cognitive Style: Essence and Origins.
International Universities Press, New York.
Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., Karp, S.A., 1962.
Psychological Differentiation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., 2005. A threefold model of intellectual styles.
Educational Psychology Review 17, 1–53.
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.), 2012. Handbook of Intellectual
Styles. Springer Pubs, NY.
Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G., 2012. Intellectual styles: challenges,
milestones, and agenda. In: Zhang, L.F., Sternberg, R.J., Rayner, S.G. (Eds.),
Handbook of Intellectual Styles. Springer Pubs, NY, pp. 1–20.
Zimmerman, B.J., 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical
background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal 45 (1), 166–183.
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 110–117
View publication stats
117