‘Learning Style’: frameworks and instruments

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In both education and training an important aspect of the design, development and delivery of learning is the role of individual differences between learners in terms of their ‘learning styles’. One may identify four broad categories of what have been termed ‘learning style’: (i) ‘cognitive personality elements’ (e.g. Witkin et al. 1977; Riding, 1991); (ii) ‘information‐processing style’ (e.g. Kolb, 1984; Honey & Mumford, 1992); (iii) ‘approaches to studying’ (e.g. Entwistle & Tait, 1994); (iv) ‘instructional preferences’ (e.g. Riechmann & Grasha, 1974). A study of 245 university undergraduates in business studies aimed to: (i) describe the range of individual differences present within the sample; (ii) investigate the relationship between learners’ cognitive styles, learning styles, approaches to studying and learning preferences; (iii) consider the implications of ‘learning style’ for teaching and learning in higher education. The present study suggested some overlap between the dimensions measured by the Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1986; 1992) and the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle & Tait, 1994). No statistically significant correlations were found between cognitive style, as measured by the Cognitive Styles Analysis (Riding, 1991) and any of the other ‘style’ constructs used. Further research is required to investigate these relationships, as is a large‐scale factor analytical study of the Honey and Mumford and Kolb instruments. The notions of whole brain functioning, integra‐tive approaches to studying and degree of learning activity are discussed.