http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Learning_style
Learning style
From EduTech Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section is incomplete and its contents need further attention. Some
sections may be missing, some information may be wrong, spelling and grammar may
have to be improved etc. Use your judgment!
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)
Contents
[hide]









1 Definition
2 Foundations
3 Kinds of learning style research and practise
4 A list of rather cognitive style models
o 4.1 Pask’s Information Processing Styles and Strategies
o 4.2 Kolb's learning styles
o 4.3 Honey and Mumford's Typology of Learners
o 4.4 Myers-Briggs (MBTI)
o 4.5 Jonassen and Grabowski
o 4.6 Entwistle
o 4.7 Cognitive Styles Analysis
o 4.8 Perceptual Learning Style Preferece
o 4.9 More models
5 A list of rather instructional style models
o 5.1 Gregorc Learning Styles
o 5.2 Sadler-Smith instructional preferences
6 General implications for instructional design
7 Comments
8 Links
o 8.1 Tests & practical stuff
9 References
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]
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.
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
o 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
o These models see learning styles as structural properties of the cognitive system
itself and deeply embedded in personality structure.
3. Stable personality type
o “ 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)
o Example: Myers-Briggs
4. Flexibly stable learning preferences
o “ 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)
o Other example: Honey and Mumford.
5. Learning approaches and strategies.
o “ 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
Term
Explanation
Learning
preference
favouring one method of teaching over another
Learning strategy
adopting a plan action in the acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes
Learning style
adopting a habitual and distinct mode of acquiring knowledge
Cognitive strategy
adopting a plan of action in the process of organising and processing
information
Cognitive style
a 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
o 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)
o Impulsive vs. reflective learners, i.e. quick response vs. thinking before acting
(Schmeck, 1988)
2. Information Processing
o Cognitive styles, i.e. typical modes of perceiving, thinking, remembering, and
problem-solving (see Kolb)
o 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
o 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
o Information Organizing (Serial/holist)
o Information Gathering (Visual-Auditory-Kinaesthetic)
Cognitive Controls
o Field dependence/independence
o Cognitive Flexibility v/s Cognitive Constriction
Learning Style preferences
o 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 skillsbased (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
A list of rather cognitive style models
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
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.
2.
3.
4.
Events we are involved with (concreteness)
.. lead to reflection and information collection (reflexion)
.. that let us develop ideas (abstractness)
.. 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.
2.
3.
4.
Concrete Experience (CE) - learning by feeling (involvement in an experience)
Reflective Observation (RO) - learning by reflection, watching, and listening
Abstract Conceptualization (AC) - learning by thinking
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:
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:
o learn best when: they can immediately do something, when they are exposed to
new experiences and problems, work with others in task teams
o 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, ...
o Pedagogical activities: brainstorms, problem solving, group discussions, role
plays, competitions, etc.

Reflectors:
o learn best when: they can observe, review and think about what is happening
o learn least when: they are rushed, have to act as leaders,
o Pedagogical activities: observing activities, paired discussions, coached activities,
questionnaires, interviews, ...

Theorists:
o learn best when: they can study theories, models, concepts, stories etc. behind,
they can ask questions and engage in analysis and synthesis.
o learn least when: the activity is ill structured, no principles are taught, ...
o Pedagogical activities: Provide models, background information, ...

Pragmatists
o learn best when: they can apply new information to a real world problem, etc.
o learn least when: "everything is theory", the isn't an immediate benefit, etc.
o Pedagogical activities: Case studies, discussion, problem solving
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 HoneyMumford approach.
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.
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
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
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.
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
A list of rather instructional style models
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
abstract
concrete
AS - prefer analytical
CS - highly structured, linear,
approaches, structured written hands-on activities
sequential
and verbal instruction that is
organized and authoritative
random

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
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.
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, contentby-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 nonexamples. 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.”
Comments
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
Links









http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/lstyles.html
http://www.geocities.com/jeniskanen/4mat.htm
http://www.algonquincollege.com/edtech/gened/styles.html
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/learnstyles.htm
http://www.westernu.edu/bin/elearning/pdf/Stylecramk.pdf
http://cwis.livjm.ac.uk/lid/ltweb/ldu_17/annex4_02.htm
http://www.support4learning.org.uk/education/learning_styles.cfm
How Do People Learn?, Sloan-C View
The Personality Project - suggested readings, links, taxonomies, etc. related to
personality/temperament


Psychometric Tools for Diagnosing Adult Temperament
C.I.T.E. LEARNING STYLES INSTRUMENT (PDF) - worksheet and questionnaire to help
teachers determine their students learning preferences
Tests & practical stuff
The Index of Learning Styles (ILS)

The Index of Learning Styles instrument and questionnnaire was developed by Richard
M. Felder and Barbara A. Solomon of North Carolina State University.
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.
Others










Entwistle Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) (PDF)
RASI (HTML)
Similar minds - a collection of personality tests
http://www.aboutlearning.com/what_is_4mat.htm
http://www.learning-styles-online.com/
http://www.chaminade.org/inspire/learnstl.htm
http://www.homeschoolviews.com/quiz/quiz-adult.html
http://www.oklahomahomeschool.com/learnS.html
Honey & Mumford test - commercial
Gregorc Style Delineator test
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 intuitionanalysis 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 PDF

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)

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. 103112.

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.

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.

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

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 learnercontrolled 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.

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 ELearning 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.

Vermunt, J.D.H.M. (1992). Learning styles and guidance of learning processes in higher
education. Amsterdam: Lisse Swets and Zeitlinger.
Retrieved from "http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Learning_style"
Category: Incomplete
Views




Page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools

Log in / create account
Google search
edutechwiki.unige.c
edutechwiki.unige.c
(better, but behind)
Slow Search
Special:Search
Go
Search
navigation and help





Main Page
Random page
Help
Editing rules
Blog (D.K.S.)
Categories
[+] Design and research methods
[+] Education and instruction
[+] Educational technologies
[+] Educational technology - the field
[+] Psychology and learning
[+] Special contents
[+] Technologies
edutechwiki.unige.c
Toolbox








What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Visualize this article with SVG
PDF version
Print as PDF
big brother





New Pages
Recent changes
Guestbook
Popular Pages
Who is online ?
TECFA links


TECFA
TECFA Portal
Create a book


Add page to book
Books help






Page last modified 16:49, 6 November 2007.
Accessed 20,786 times.
By default, content is protected by a CC BY-NC-SA Licence.
Privacy policy
About EduTech Wiki
Disclaimers