Learning Styles: What is a Learning Style? What Does it Matter?

Raymond S. Nickerson, Tufts University

It is obvious that some people learn better -- faster, more efficiently, more thoroughly, more retentively -- than do others. Identifying what determines how well people learn and accounting for individual differences in learning are old quests in educational research. Some of the factors that presumably have a non-trivial effect are properties or characteristics of whatever is to be learned: concrete or abstract concepts, manual or motor skills, . . . Some are properties or characteristics of the agent or agents doing the teaching: the knowledgability of the teacher with respect to the material being taught, his/her ability to communicate, . . . Some are properties or characteristics of the learning context: class size, classroom organization, resource availability, . . . Some are properties or characteristics of the learner: intelligence, motivation, interest in the subject matter, beliefs, . . .

Much has been written in recent years about the importance of learning styles, which, according to many accounts, belong in the last-mentioned category. The purpose of this discussion session is to consider what this construct means to those who use it, whether it provides insights into how teaching and learning could be enhanced, and, if so, how it can be applied effectively to that end.

What proponents of the importance of learning styles say

The literature on learning styles contains many claims about the importance of this construct to education. One focus of our discussion should be consideration of the credibility -- based on evidence, direct or indirect -- of these claims. A small sampling of the claims follows:

"Our system is ineffective because it does not respond to the many different ways in which healthy, normal, motivated students absorb, process, and retain difficult information and skills" (Dunn & Griggs, 1988, p. 2).

"Effective learning occurs when instructors affirm the presence and validity of diverse learning styles and maximize the climate or conditions for learning in and out of the classroom through the deliberate use of instructional design principles that take account of learning differences and increase the possibilities of success for all learners" (Sims & Sims, 1995, p. xi)

"Significant contributions to the enhancement of learning can be made by the integration of the findings of learning style research into course design and delivery. The higher education community would be negligent if it fails to take advantage of this opportunity to improve university and college education" (Wooldridge, 1995 p. 65).

"The exchange between faculty and student will be more effective if there is a 'fit' between teaching styles of instructors and cognitive or learning styles of students" (Geary & Sims, 1995, p. 119).

"Students perform better in environments and with approaches that complement their learning styles than in environments or approaches that are inconsistent with their learning styles" (Rainey & Kolb, 1995, p. 134).

"The teacher's knowledge of the subject matter and his or her ability to communicate it are very important factors in the teaching and learning process. The problem is that these two factors alone will not ensure effective teaching. The learning style of the learner and the nature of adult learning are central factors that must be included in the equation" (Hewitt, 1995, 174).

"Styles are of interest to educators because they predict academic performance in ways that go beyond abilities . . . . They are also of interest because when teachers take styles into account, they help improve both instruction and assessment" (Sternberg & Zhang, 2001, p. viii).

Some questions about learning styles

Here I want to toss out a few specific questions that could serve as points of departure for discussion. With each question, I will make a comment drawing on one or a few sources that seem relevant. The comments are not offered as answers, but simply as prods to thinking and discussion.

What is a learning style?

The idea that people differ in the ways in which they think or learn is an old one (Vernon, 1973). Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) attribute the formal introduction of the idea of style in psychology to Allport (1937) whose understanding of the concept, they suggest, was rooted in Jung's (1923) theory of psychological types. The term learning style appears to have been used in a variety of ways since its initial introduction into the literature, and this has made for some confusion.

Hickcox (1995) points to "the confusion of definitions surrounding learning style concepts and the resulting wide variation in scale or scope of behavior claimed to be predicted by various models" (p. 28) as sources of difficulty in assessing the adequacy of conceptualizations of learning style. Some conceptualizations, Hickcox notes, claim only to predict an individual's choice between two specific types of learning situations, whereas others attempt to predict choices over a wide range of possibilities. Wooldridge (1995) echoes this sentiment: "A major obstacle to improving instructional effectiveness through an understanding of learning styles is the lack of consensus as to definitions of important concepts in the field" (p. 50). Similar observations regarding the many, and not altogether consistent, ways in which learning styles have been conceptualized have been made by others.

How does learning style relate to learning ability, strategy, disposition, attitude, etc.?

Noting that learning styles has "a confusing array of definitions" in the literature, Sims and Sims (1995) point out that this term is often used interchangeably with cognitive style or learning ability. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) note that style and strategy are used as synomyms by some writers. Biggs (2001) contends that "Cognitive, learning, and thinking styles fit Cronbach and Snow's (1977) definition of an aptitude: a characteristic that promotes a student's performance in one kind of environment as opposed to another" (p. 80).

On the other hand some writers make sharp distinctions among these concepts. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001), for example, distinguish styles from abilities and strategies. Renzulli and Dai (2001) distinguish learning styles from abilities and interests and argue that all three should be seen "as central developmental and individual differences constructs" (p. 27).

Sternberg (2001) points out that styles were not clearly distinguished from abilities and personality traits in some of the early theoretical work on the subject, and consequently the study of styles tended to be absorbed in the study of other things. Noting that research on styles appears to be less intense that it was a few decades ago, Sternberg surmises that the main reason for the decline "has been that the styles literature has failed to provide any common conceptual framework and language for researchers to communicate either with each other or with psychologists at large" (p. 250).

How do learning styles correspond to related style concepts (e.g., cognitive, thinking styles)?

Sternberg and Zhang (2001) distinguish among learning styles, thinking styles and cognitive styles as follows:

Learning styles might be used to characterize how one prefers to learn about the Civil War. Would one rather learn about it visually (by reading) or auditorally (by lectures)? Or perhaps one would prefer an active form of learning (simulating it) versus a passive form (reading or listening to material about it).

Thinking styles might be used to characterize how one prefers to think about material as one is learning it or after one already knows it. For example, would one rather think about global issues or local issues? Would one prefer to evaluate what one has learned or to go beyond what one has learned?

Cognitive styles might be used to characterize ways of cognizing the information. For example, does one tend to be a splitter, seeing each battle as a distinct entity, or as a lumper, viewing many or all of the battles as similar acts of war? Does one tend to be impulsive in jumping to conclusions about the war or to be reflective? The cognitive styles tend to be closer to personality than are the other types of styles. (p. vii).

Renzulli and Dai (2001) note that cognitive style theorists tend to think of cognitive styles as "general modes and structural properties of cognitive systems," which are to be distinguished from personal preferences that are under volitional control. Learning styles, in contrast are seen as personal preferences. This distinction is not so sharply drawn by all writers, however. Riding (2001) sees a cognitive style as "an individual's preferred and habitual approach to both organizing and representing information" (p. 48).

My general impression is that while some writers make fairly sharp distinctions among different types of styles, many do not. It is not difficult to find instances in which cognitive, thinking and learning styles, appear to be treated as synonymous concepts.

Are there identifiable different learning styles? If so what are they?

Kolb (1971, 1978; Smith & Kolb, 1985) suggests that people differ with respect to two continua or dimensions: a perceiving, or doing-watching continuum, the ends of which are identified as active experimentation and reflective observation, and a processing or feeling-thinking continuum, the ends of which are concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. These continua, or dimensions, are typically referred to in the literature simply as the active-reflective dimension and the concrete-abstract dimension. The four possible combinations of these characteristics -- active concrete, active abstract, reflective concrete, reflective abstract -- define a space of learning styles:

• Converging (defined by the combination of abstract conceptualization and active experimentation).
• Diverging (concrete experience and reflective observation).
• Assimilating (abstract conceptualization and reflective observation).
• Accommodating (concrete experience and active experimentation).

Rainey and Kolb (1995) contrast the four styles this way: "The diverger is imaginative, understands people, perceives relationships between situations, and is good at brainstorming. The converger, who is the opposite of the diverger, likes deductive reasoning and is good at decision making and problem solving. The assimilator develops models and theories, plans well, and is systematic. The accommodator, opposite of the assimilator, takes risks, gets things done, and is comfortable with assuming leadership" (p. 133).

Several other style taxonomies have been proposed. Many of them, like Kolb's, classify learners in terms of where they fit with respect to each of one or more characteristics (which, in some cases, can be treated as dimensions). Characteristics that have been used by different theorists for this purpose include the following (there are others):

• Field independence and field dependence
• Sensory-perceptual modality preferences
• Verbalizing and visualizing
• Abstract and concrete thinking (cognitive complexity)
• Impulsiveness and reflectiveness
• Degree of structure in the learning process
• Leveling versus sharpening
• Locus of control
• Achievement motivation
• Masculine-feminine behavior
• Physical and social characteristics of the learning environment
• Types of instructional activities and degree of student involvement
• Holist and serialist task strategies
• Surface and deep approaches to learning
• Left-brain (analytical, structured) and right-brain (holistic, artistic) thinking

Can learning styles be assessed empirically?

Assessing learning styles is seen to be important for a variety of reasons. Two mentioned by Hickcox (1995) are the need for teachers to be aware of learner preferences in order to be more effective as teachers and the desirability of making learners more aware of their own preferences so they can better manage their own learning.

Several instruments have been developed that are intended to identify individuals' learning (or cognitive or thinking) styles. As of 1991, at least 32 such instruments had been published (Campbell, 1991). Some examples:

• The Learning Style Inventory
• The Learning Styles Questionnaire
• The Learning Process Questionnaire
• The Study Process Questionnaire
• The How I Study Inventory
• The Cognitive Styles Analysis
• The Inventory of Learning Styles
• The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
• The Total Talent Portfolio

Citing a report by Curry (1987), Dunn and Griggs (1988) claim that "very few learning style identification instruments are reliable and valid" (p. 2). Nevertheless they also claim that "[t]oday we can test any secondary student and, within minutes, describe exactly how that person is likely to learn more easily and remember longer. We can also explain the methods, resources, and environment likely to best respond to that person's learning style" (p. 3).

Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) claim that the most often-mentioned empirical problem associated with the measurement of learning styles is that of the generalizability of findings. "Most findings in the field appear to be 'instrument bound.' In other words, whatever is measured by a particular test or questionnaire is called a 'style of . . .,' and there are only a few examples in the literature of replications in which the same latent constructs have been studied with measures created by different authors" (p. 3).

Hickcox (1995) points out that the authors of learning styles assessment instruments often urge that more than one instrument be used for any given assessment, because no instrument is ideally suited to every individual. Curry (1987) makes the same recommendation on the basis of a review of several such instruments.

Are learning styles innate, or are they acquired through experience? Can/should they be taught?

Watkins (2001) points out that the "state-trait" debate is one of the "longest running wars of words in the psychological literature." As it pertains to learning, the question is "whether learners are relatively consistent in their way of learning or whether they vary their approach according to the learning task and content" (p. 168). The question has implications for how one approaches teaching: if learning styles are innate and relatively impervious to environmental influences, the single challenge is to make teaching practices consistent with them, but if they are acquired through experience, it may make sense to try to modify individuals' styles, especially if some styles are more effective than others, perhaps depending on the nature of the matter to be learned.

Given what is known, or believed, about learning styles, should the development and refinement of specific learning styles be an educational objective? Some writers recommend that learners be grouped with others with a similar style and taught in a way that is consistent with that style; others recommend that students be paired with others whose learning styles complement their own and/or that they be challenged with material that will encourage them to develop new styles.

To what extent do learning styles differ as a function of gender, ethnicity, culture, age, etc.?

Some, but not all, writers take the position that gender, ethnicity, culture, age and other demographic variables play important roles in shaping learning styles. It seems important to understand better whether such variables do influence styles and, if so, to what extent, and to determine how best to take this into account in teaching.

What is the empirical evidence that teaching to learning styles works?

Although they believe that the evidence indicates tailoring teaching to be appropriate to students' learning styles can enhance learning, Claxton and Murrell (1987) contend that, as a matter of fact, work on learning styles has not had much effect on educational practices in higher education. They note, in particular, that despite the enormous amount of research that has been done on field independence - field dependence, the most extensively researched of learning-style dimensions, the effect on college teaching has been insignificant.

Zhang and Sternberg (2001) report a series of correlational studies conducted in China, Hong Kong, and the United States that showed that style data could be predictive of academic achievement beyond what could be predicted from participants' self-rated abilities. They also reported gender and cultural differences in the relationship between styles and achievement.

Some other questions

• How important are learning styles relative to other factors -- intelligence, abilities, interest in subject, motivation, self-discipline, time on task, beliefs, teacher competence, resources -- that help determine how well people learn? If the goal is to increase the effectiveness of education (teaching and learning), where should the effort be put? Where is the leverage?
• In what ways, if any, has the concept of learning styles been helpful? In what ways, if any has it been harmful? Has it been a net plus or a net minus for education?
• What questions should we be asking?
• What are the most pressing questions that should be addressed by research?

References

Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Campbell, B. J. (July/August, 1991). Planning for a student learning style. Journal of Education for Business (pp. 356-358).

Claxton, C. S., & Murrell, P. H. (1987). Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Wiley.

Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian College of Health Service Executives.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Geary, W. T., & Sims, R. R. (1995). Adapting faculty and student learning styles: Implicatons for accounting education. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 117-127). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hewitt, R. L. (1995). The nature of adult learning and effective training guidlines. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 161-178). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hickcox, L. K. (1995). Learning styles: A survey of adult learning style inventory models. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 25-47). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1978). Learning style inventory technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Rainey, M. A., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Using experiential learning theory and learning styles in diversity education. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 129-146). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Renzulli, J. S., & Dai, D. Y. (2001). Abilities, interests, and styles as aptitudes for learning: A person-situaation interaction perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 23-46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Riding, R. (2001). The nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (1995). Preface. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. xi-xxv). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Smith, D., & Kolb, D. A. (1985). User guide for the learning-style inventory: A manual for teachers and trainers. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.

Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Epilogue: Another mysterious affair at styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 249-252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles . In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L-F. (2001). Preface. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. vii-x). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

atkins, D. (2001). Correlates of approaches to learning: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 165-195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/college instruction: Integrating the results of learning style research into course design and delivery. In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education (49-67). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Zhang, L-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg & L-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 197-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Suggested Reading

Messick, S. (1994). Cognitive styles and learning. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia fo Education (2nd Edition) (pp. 868-872). New York: Pergamon.

Sims, R. R., & Sims, S. J. (Eds.) (1995). The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course design, and education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Esp. Chapters 1, 2, 12).

Shipman, S., & Shipman, V. C. (1985). Cognitive styles: Some conceptual, methodological and applied issues. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Volume 12). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L-F. (Eds.) ((2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (Esp. Chapter 1).