Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: a Conceptual Analysis

Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn)
Vol.12, No.2, May 2018, pp. 179~187
ISSN: 2089-9823, DOI: 10.11591/edulearn.v12i2.6573  179
Journal homepage: http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/EduLearn
Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning
Styles: a Conceptual Analysis
Zainudin Abu Bakar1
*, Rafaquat Ali2
1
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Department of Education, Bahawalnagar Campus, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received June 4, 2017
Revised Sep 29, 2017
Accepted Apr 22, 2018
Inquiries into the nature and effects of cognitive and learning style constructs
are mounting daily, regardless of criticism and confusion about the
boundaries, natures and to some extent overlapping issues of these two
constructs. These issues raise several questions about the credibility of these
two constructs with regard to further research, application and development.
Therefore, there is a need to crystallize their natures to pave the way for
further research and for a better understanding of individual’s learning. The
current scientific review strengthens the concept of these two constructs as
separate and independent, each contributing in its own way to different fields
of human learning. Both constructs have different histories and schools of
thought directed toward different ends. The relationship of these constructs
undeniably establishes their usefulness and value as research subjects.
However, specific concerns is required in defining cognitive and learning
styles which may hinder the credibility and usefulness of further research,
including valid and reliable measurements, cohesive theory, application
oriented studies, use of multiple methods in research, and the origin and
development of these constructs. This article explores the discourse in these
fields and highlights potential issues with the constructs to assist researchers
in constructing a more comprehensive understanding of the research
framework.
Keywords:
Cognitive Style
Learning Style
Student’s Learning
Copyright © 2018 Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science.
All rights reserved.
Corresponding Author:
Zainudin Abu Bakar,
Faculty of Education,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
Email: p-zain@utm.my
1. INTRODUCTION
Research on cognitive and learning styles has triggered a variety of discourses due to its extensive
use in applied situations in management, education, psychology and medicine. The term, which originated in
psychology, has been widely used in education, management, and medicine. The complexity later resulted in
an incoherent and disjointed body of knowledge, frameworks, and theoretical styles. Kozhevnikove described
the prevailing attitude and behavior of researchers and practitioners as follows: “The paradox of the current
situation is that, interest in building a coherent theory of cognitive styles remains at a low level among
researchers in the cognitive sciences [1]”. This dispersed work by researchers from different disciplines and
regions has created many overlapping concepts and terms with regard to cognition and learning, and there is
a need to develop a coherent and unified body of knowledge [2].
As cited in Cools and Bellens, Sadler-Smith remarked that “different authors used the concept such
as cognitive styles, learning styles and learning preferences randomly and interchangeably and there seems to
be no consensus how these concepts are interrelated [3], [4]”. Cassidy and Smith also argued that research
conducted in an applied and practical sense, without considering the meaning of psychological terms, will

 ISSN: 2089-9823
EduLearn Vol. 12, No. 2, May 2018 : 179 – 187
180
create confusion and misunderstanding, which may lead us away from basic psychological theories and
concepts [5], [6].
This article is trying to highlight several concerns regarding the cognitive style and learning style
discourse. A scientific review is used to explore studies on the styles which cover the application of the
concept especially in learning and teaching processes. Specific elements and constructs are highlighted in
order to underline the differences and similarities of the concept which has long been discussed as an
interchangeable concept. The discussion is done by highlighting the cognitive style in perspective followed
by the learning style. The teaching and learning process is used to highlight how the concept is very much so
closely related. At the end of the discussion the important point of both concepts are highlighted to show how
these can interchangeably be used in the context of research in education. The article is concluded by
providing concluding remark for further researchers.
2. COGNITIVE STYLE IN PERSPECTIVE
Ausburn and Ausburn described cognitive styles as individuals’ consistent psychological
representations/characteristics/elements, governed and linked cognitively to information acquisition and its
processing in perception, thinking, problem solving, and imagery, with quantitative and qualitative variation.
In this sense, it has dual functions, including organization and control of cognitive process and related
resources [7]. Shade additionally included the personality element, which represents the superordinate
construct that accounts for individual preferences in various cognitive, perceptual and personality dimensions
that influence differences in information processing [8]. Messick argued that cognitive styles organize the
resources related to cognition of situations and also to regulation and control of the cognitive process in a
learning situation which incorporated by learners [9], 10]. However, given the unique nature of cognitive
styles, these processes cannot depend on personality and can be considered as independent of ability and
personality [11].
Kozhevnikove suggested differences in cognitive style as heuristics that can be classified with
regard to their regulatory functions in information processing, from perception to metacognitive processing
of environmental information [1]. There are many levels of information processing. There are different types
of control regulation at each level of information processing, ranging from reception of information to
utilization at the end of processing. During the thinking process, there is a consistent approach to
organization and to information processing that is independent of intelligence and is responsible for
differences in ways of thinking quantitatively and qualitatively [12]. These are cognition-based consistent
differences that force an individual to exhibit a particular way of thinking. The particular way of thinking
depends on how that person perceives, processes, and remembers information in relation to others.
In the context of learning, cognitive style is regarded as an individual difference that is important to
student’s success. As mentioned above, cognitive style is independent of personality, ability, intelligence,
learning style and learning strategies, but indirectly affects a range of motor skills [6], [11, [13], [14].
Cognitive styles’ independence from important variables demands special treatment in teaching and learning
situations. Therefore, learning materials and teaching approaches should match the cognitive styles of
students to ensure maximum learning and better learning outcomes [1]. The match between instructional
materials and students’ cognitive styles has improved students’ learning outcomes [15].
With regard to academic performance, Tinajero, Lemos, Araujo, Ferraces, & Paramo found that
cognitive styles and learning strategies were significant contributors to academic achievements [16]. Field-
independent students performed consistently better than their counterpart field-dependent students in
academic achievements and problem solving (when problems ranged widely in their complexity) [17-19].
Similarly, analyzed the records of pupils in special schools and found out that cognitive styles affect
behavior [6]. It was determined that students’ social behavior varies depending on their different cognitive
styles. Although there was variation in social/behavioral problems associated with different cognitive styles,
training designs should be adjusted based on different cognitive styles to make the learning process more
effective and efficient because different interactions between a student’s cognitive style and teaching
methods pave the way for student conduct and learning behavior [12], [20]. The student’s performance in
different subjects is also affected by his or her cognitive style. For instance, holistic imagers and analytic
verbalizers showed superior performance to holistic verbalizers and analytic imagers in the subject of
science.
There is evidence that considerations of cognitive style are crucial to teaching and learning
effectiveness and are also responsible for learning outcomes, independent of other factors such as cognitive
skills and intelligence [13], [21]. Most literature supports the importance of matching cognitive styles in
teaching and learning in schools. However, some literature supports the mismatching of cognitive styles in
teaching and learning, arguing that this will challenge students, help them to overcome their style

EduLearn ISSN: 2089-9823 
Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles… (Zainudin Abu Bakar)
181
weaknesses, and prepare them for real life mismatching situations [15]. Certain assessment procedures favor
certain cognitive styles [22]. Martinsen & Diseth highlighted the correlation of scores on the Assimilator-
Explorer Inventory with preferences for novelty seeking behavior, rules and planning behavior [23].
With regard to brain activities, it has been proven that cognitive style differences are supported by
neurophysiological and basic brain differences. Huang & Byrne identified the relation of analytic and holistic
cognitive styles to hemispheric activity through the lateral eye movement paradigm [24]. Oliveri noted the
general role of the parietal lobe and subcortical structures in the verbalizer and visualizer thinking/cognitive
styles [25]. Hence, the role of cognitive styles in multi-linguistic knowledge/ability was found to relate to
cognitive style preferences. The ability to apply the grammatical rules of a second language is influenced by
field-dependent preference [26].
The use of multimedia and the internet in learning and training situations-specifically for
educational purposes-is increasing every day. Advancements in information technology can help to meet the
individual needs of students. Recently, researchers have linked the notion of cognitive styles to computer
programming and software development, which has made the idea of the cognitive style a more practical
construct [27]. Angeli observed significant differences in the performance of field-dependent,
field-independent and mixed learners who solved a complex problem through computer modeling and found
out that the use of hypermedia learning systems that matched cognitive style preferences improved the
learning and perception of students [20], [28]. Studies concerning the applicability of cognitive styles show
that movement will enhance students’ learning, which means that it cannot be neglected or overlooked.
3. LEARNING STYLE IN PERSPECTIVE
Individuals show differences in the ways in which they interact with their learning environments.
These differences affect everything from interaction with the learning material (behaviorally) to final storage
of information (cognitively) for future reference or use. In general, these learning differences are regarded as
learning styles. Bird, Romanelli, & Ryan define learning styles as a distinctive psychosocial, affective and
cognitive behaviors that give rise to relatively stable measures of the perception of, interaction with and
response to the surrounding learning environment [29]. Unique learning styles remain relatively stable even
when they encounter different tasks/situations [30]. In other words, when people face a learning situation
(stimulus) in a learning environment, they respond in their own way. So, a learning style is an individual’s
way of receiving and responding to a learning stimulus with a unique set of psychological, affective and
cognitive behaviors. A learning style can be referred to as an “individual’s preferred mode of receiving and
processing information, ” which cannot distinguish it from a cognitive style. The concepts of cognitive and
learning styles detach at the following point: “cognitive style involves cognition based process, whereas
learning style is rooted in exterior behavior and response to learning situation” [31].
Honey & Mumford and Kolb argued that a learning style is an individual’s preference for
understanding and transforming his/her experiences [32]. Vermunt & Vermetten used the term “learning
style” in a more elaborate way, regarding it as a superordinate concept in which the cognitive and affective
processing of subject matter, the metacognitive regulation of learning, and conceptions of learning and
learning orientations are united. In other words, it is related to preferences in interacting, receiving,
processing and responding cognitively and affectively in a learning situation, independently of the task
encountered [33].
Researchers have debated the theoretical validity of different learning styles. Slack & Norwich
conducted a study of the theoretical justification of the [34]. Pupils’ self-reported inventories were used for
the exploration of their learning styles. They claimed that this model lacks theoretical background and
justification for labeling the auditory, kinesthetic and visual styles. Schmeck and Raynolds cautioned against
overgeneralizing learning styles into mutually exclusive styles, which can lead to incorrect expectations of
pupils [34]. Arrangements made on the basis of these mutually exclusive styles can lead to ineffective
learning opportunities. Miller considered LSI (Learning Style Inventory) a poor instrument in terms of
measurement [35]. Reio examined the psychometric properties of the Gregoric Style Delineator (GSD) and
found statistically little support for its theoretical basis/design and concomitant portrayal of one’s cognitive
learning style [36].
Bergsteiner, Avery, & Neumann applied standard modeling categorization criteria to Kolb’s basic
model, which alone was used in 990 studies from 1971-1999 [37], [38]. The researchers claimed to identify
errors in fundamental graphic syntax, inability to pass the modeler’s graphic sufficiency and simplification
tests, and problems related to categorization and definitions [37].
With regard to studies of the identification of learning styles, Platsidou & Metallidou investigated
the psychometric strengths of the Kolb learning style inventory and Felder and Solomon’s Index of Learning
Style [39]. A Greek sample using the LSI revealed satisfactory reliability and weak construct validity. There

 ISSN: 2089-9823
182
were strong preferences for only accommodative and divergent learning styles. The ILS only achieved an
acceptable level of reliability on ability of discrimination and construct validity. The study suggested that
these two instruments cannot be used for grouping students with reference to their learning styles; they can
only be used to encourage the self-assessment of an individual. Brew reported on the gender sensitivity of the
Kolb LSI (1985) for a sample of Australian university students [40].
Similarly, Reio examined the psychometric properties of the Gregoric Style Delineator (GSD) and
found little statistical support for the GSD’s theoretical basis/design and portrayal of an individual’s
cognitive learning style [36]. Slack & Norwich, in a classroom based study, reported internal and retest
unreliability of the kinesthetic learning scale’s auditory, kinesthetic and visual learning style inventory [34].
Zwanenberg, Wilkinson, & Anderson also found that the reliability of two famous learning style descriptors:
Felder & Silverman’s index of learning and Honey & Mumford’s learning style questionnaire [41]. The ILS
was found to mix both cognitive and learning style characteristics and measured absolutely none of either.
They advised not using it for anyone other than engineering students, for whom it was intended. The LSQ
was found to be more reliable internally than the ILS. It was also unable to possess predictability and was not
up to the standard of psychometric instruments. Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker argued that Vermunt’s
learning styles do not have sufficient evidence to justify tailoring higher education to them, and suggested
further research to validate these styles [42].
The learning style construct has been criticized by some researchers and practitioners. Riener &
Willingham considered learning styles practically inapplicable and useless and called them a myth [43].
Leite, Svinicki, & Shi evaluated the VARK learning style inventory (Visual, Aural, Read/Write and
Kinesthetic) and reported some flaws, such as poor item selection and construction [44]. Rohrer & Pashler
opposed tailoring instruction to students’ different learning styles [45]. Rohrer & Pashler also argued that
there is no empirical support for this expensive tailoring of instruction to learning styles [45]. Norman
claimed that the concept of learning styles is obsolete and has very little to do with learning [46].
The opposing arguments give the impression that learning style research has no validity and is
unable to help researchers in improving learning overall. However, when we assessed the validity of these
claims, we were surprised that they noted flaws mostly in one aspect, concept or dimension of learning styles.
Riener and Willingham: Visual, Kinesthetic and auditory; Leite et al.: Visual, Aural, Read/write and
Kinesthetic; and Norman: Visual, Verbal Taxonomy [43], [44], [46]. They neglected a massive literature
supporting the learning style concept and movement. Here we will present some literature that supports the
movement. Kolb and Boyatzis indicated the potential of research on learning styles by noting that for
experiential learning theory and learning style inventory alone, there were 990 publications from
1971-1999 [38].
There are many studies supporting the claim that students’ achievements increase as a result of
matching between learning styles and teaching methods [47]. Learning is a characteristic just like other
developmental and biological characteristics [48]. which means that it cannot be neglected. There are
significant differences in learning styles in students of different disciplines [49]. Students’ learning patterns
can explain the variance in their academic performance [50] and is also related to personality types [51].
Matching learning styles to teaching methods increased students’ retention ability [34]. Vermunt &
Vermetten described how learning outcomes are affected by learning orientations [33]. Akbulut & Cardak
and Lurea, Neascsu, Safta, & Suditu claimed that adaptive educational hypermedia models that were based
on learning styles enhanced students’ success and satisfaction [52,53]. Miller identified 40 publications that
found significant effects with the Gregoric Style Delineator (GSD) and showing that computer based
instruction in reference to GSD learning style improved students’ learning [35].
In cases of mismatch, students faced problems in their interactions with courses/ learning
situations [54]. Ozgur, Temel, & Yilmaz verified the relationship between problem solving abilities and the
assimilator and converger styles on the Kolb LSI, whereas Mehrdad & Ahghar found a relationship between
individuals’ visual orientations/styles and their uses of learning strategies [55], [56]. In a different mode,
Huang, Wu, Yang, & Hwang developed a portfolio-based programming learning style diagnosis system for
Felder’s learning style [57]. There is evidence of a relationship between learning styles on the Kolb LSI and
demographic data, which can explain the underlying factors [58].
Law & Meyer credited the ILS Vermont with differentiating students’ learning styles along an
inventory of learning styles’ dimensions [59]. In favor of learning styles, Hurst-Wajszczuk argued that
teachers can shape their teaching to minimize their own learning styles’ negative effects on students [60].
Alaoutinen, Heikkinen, & Porras utilized an intensive collaborative teaching concept, CODE
CAMP, to demonstrate the effect of learning styles [61]. The study indicated an increased motivation to learn
among reflective- intuitive students [62]. Later, Graf, Liu, Kinshuk, Chen, & Yang demonstrated that
working memory capacity is connected to learning styles [63]. Cook, Thompson, Thomas, & Thomas found
empirical support for the theoretical model of Vermunt’s learning style inventory [64]. Cook & Smith found

183
the ILS (Index of learning styles) to be a valid instrument for measuring learning styles and concluded that
cognitive style and learning style scores may not be interchangeable, even for constructs with similar
definitions, due to their being different constructs [65].
Vermunt & Vermetten recommended incorporating the interplay between affective and
social/collaborative learning and between self-regulation and external regulation, as well as promotion of
more favorable learning patterns in different types of learning environments [39]. It is imperative that the
application of learning style theory and research continues to hold great promise for practitioners in both in
education and training as a potentially powerful mechanism for enabling pupils, students and trainers to
manage their own learning better throughout their educational and working lives [66]. As such, it is
concluded that the role of learning styles cannot be neglected in either classroom settings or lifelong learning.
4. THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF CONCEPTS AND PERSPECTIVES
The terms cognitive and learning styles have been used interchangeably without any discrimination
in the literature [67]. Smith conducted a study that supported the independent nature of cognitive styles with
regard to learning styles and learning strategies; these concepts measure different constructs regardless of the
fact that they include many similar styles [6], [65]. On many occasions, the term learning style is imprecisely
used as an umbrella term for both cognitive and learning styles [67]. Hartley distinguishes between the two
terms: a cognitive style is characteristically an approach to different cognitive tasks, whereas a learning style
is characteristically an approach to different learning tasks [5].
There are also differences in terms of the nature and the number of style elements. The majority of
cognitive style models present bipolar styles discussed in theoretical or academic research. As such, most
learning styles deviate from this bipolar model and are discussed in the context of their practical applications
[68]. Cognitive styles are more structured and are not dependent on learning situations in the same way as
learning styles [5]. As both are developed based on different theoretical perspectives, scores for these
measurements cannot be exchanged for constructs with similar labels and definitions [65]. Cognitive styles
include multiple cognitive processes such as problem solving, thinking, and remembering, which are distinct
and rare components of learning styles [34]. Thus, we can say that an individual’s distinctive and typical
overall way of cognitive processing is a cognitive style, whereas his or her characteristic mode or way of
learning in a learning situation is called a learning style.
Evans et al. differentiated between the two terms: cognitive styles are considered to be individual
differences in processing that are integrally linked to a person’s cognitive system (the person’s preferred way
of processing) [67]. According to Peterson, Armstrong & Rayner, these are partially fixed, relatively stable
and possibly innate preferences [69]. From this perspective, learning styles were described as an individual’s
preferred way of responding (cognitively and behaviorally) to learning tasks that change depending on the
environment and context and thus are seen as malleable. Armstrong, Peterson and Rayner conclude that
cognitive styles are individual differences in preferred ways of processing information through cognitive
brain-based mechanisms and structures [70]. Perceiving, organizing and analyzing information are examples
of such processing. These influence the behavior of the individual. These seem to be relatively stable and
possibly innate. Learning styles are the individual’s preferred ways of responding and have cognitive and
behavioral dimensions. They may change with the environment and context. They affect motivation and
attitude toward learning and determine performance. Nevertheless, Smith verified that learning style and
cognitive style are independent of each other and different as constructs [4]. As such, different approaches
and treatments are required to reveal the mysteries of human learning.
An excess of different learning styles, definitions, and measurement instruments has baffled
researchers and practitioners, policy makers, and novices in the field. Better knowledge of learning styles,
accompanied by advancements in information technology, could benefit the learning experiences of different
types of students in large classes. Limited research confirming the relationship between learning styles and
learning outcomes has resulted in opposition and hesitation to apply learning style research beyond
experiments in actual classroom settings [51]. Learning style researchers should focus on the following
aspects to make learning style research more practical and valid.
According to Wong, learning styles are not culturally structured but rather are contextual [71].
We may infer that learning styles tend to be modified by experience, context and exposure. This argument is
supported by many studies. Vermunt found that students’ learning patterns on inventories of learning styles
were associated with personal and contextual factors such as academic discipline, prior education, age and
gender, which may have significant relationships to teaching methods [50]. In other study it was found that
personality, education, profession, job role and individual adaptive competencies are responsible for shaping
learning style [38].

 ISSN: 2089-9823
184
Hall & Moseley gave direction to the much-debated field of cognitive and learning styles [72]. They
proposed that learning style research should help the individual to overcome a particular style, and thus the
focus should be on strategies rather than labeling an individual with a particular style, which can limit the
learner’s ambition. Instead, descriptions of learning styles should be tools used to break the chains of habit
and limitation. Moreover, potential future learning style research should move in the direction of exploring
transitions in learning styles at various life stages. It should devise ways of integrating with pedagogical
frameworks and interacting with individual learning differences and personalities in studies meant for
evidence based publications [67]. There is also a need to devise feasible frameworks and pedagogies
embedded in concepts of learning styles [35], [73].
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Grey areas have been identified as challenges for future cognitive style research. These include
research methodology, valid and reliable measurement tools based on specific theoretical grounds in
psychological cognitive theories, and applying proposed frameworks and models to actual
classroom/organizational situations. Previous studies of cognitive styles have relied on quantitative,
cross-sectional and single source designs and obtained information through self-reports, sample surveys and
student samples. It is then necessary to focus on overarching conceptual clarifications of other individual
differences using multi-method and multisource approaches. Collaboration among different regions should
also be encouraged [74].
Cognitive style research should be supported by advancements in other fields and areas of
psychology. Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov incorporated developments in research on the human visual
system and developed a new model, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal model, in line with the
dimensions of the old visual verbalizer style [75]. Similarly, Thomas & McKay investigated
verbalizer-visualizer styles and their measurement and proposed a new dimension: visual-verbalizer
bipolar [15]. In future research, the bipolarity of different cognitive styles should be questioned and evaluated
because everyone is gifted with some degree of each style dimension [66]. Kozhevnikov, Hegarty and Mayer
and Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn & Shephard discovered that the visual system has distinct systems used to process
objects’ properties and spatial properties [76], [77]. They have recommended that future research should
probe why people who are good at object imagery have a propensity not to develop and use their spatial
imagery ability and vice-versa. Similarly, how can people who perform poorly in one of the imagery
dimensions be helped so that they can use their less-developed imagery skills more effectively?
There is also evidence that the social environment plays an important role in the development of
different cognitive styles. Researchers have found empirical evidence that field-independent and field-
dependent cognitive styles originate and develop in social environments and social settings. Field-dependent
children become field-independent with exposure to technology, culture and experience [78]. Individual
differences that are responsible for school success, along with cognitive and learning styles, can minimize or
maximize the effect of cognitive styles in school-based learning [17]. However, for this to happen,
researchers should explore the relationship between cognitive styles and motivation, attention, self-
regulation, self-efficacy and emotions [19].
The predictive ability of working memory in the prediction of learning outcomes in different
subjects was identified by Alloway, Banner, and Smith [79]. Future research should explore interventions to
help students with low working memory using interactions between cognitive style designs and strategies. In
line to what being highlighted by Kozhevnikove, the integration of different cognitive styles into a unified
theory embedded in cognitive and neuropsychological research, the solution of bipolarity constraints, the
relationship between personality and environment, and the development of models for strategy choice and
adaptability should all be addressed by cognitive style researchers [1]
REFERENCES
[1] Kozhevnikove, M., Cognitive Styles in the Context of Modern Psychology: Toward an Integrated Framework of
Cognitive Style. Psychological Bulletin, 2007.
[2] Riding, R., Cognitive style and types of problem behaviour in boys in special schools. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(3), 307, 1999.
[3] Cools, E., & Bellens, K., The onion model: Myth or reality in the field of individual differences psychology?
Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 455-462. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.002, 2012.
[4] Smith, E. S., The Relationship Between Learning Style and Cognitive Style. Personality and Individual Differences,
30 (2001), 609-616, 2001.

185
[5] Cassidy, S., Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational Psychology, 24(4),
419-444. doi: 10.1080/0144341042000228834, 2004.
[6] Smith, E. S., Learning Style':Framework and Instruments. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of
Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 51-63. doi: 10.1080/0144341970170103, 1997.
[7] Ausburn, L., J., & Ausburn, F., B., Cognitive Styles: Some Information and Implications for Instructional Design.
Educational Communication & Technology, 26(4), 337-354, 1978.
[8] Shade, B., J., Afro-American Cognitive Style: A Variable in School Success. Review of Educational Research,
1982.
[9] Messick, S., Bridging cognition and personality in education: the role of style in performance and development.
European Journal of Personality, 10 (5), 353-376. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199612)10:5<353::
aid-per268>3.0.co;2-g, 1996.
[10] Thornell, J., G., Research on Cognitive Styles: Implications for Teaching and Learning, 1976.
[11] Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J., Are intelligence and personality related to verbal-imagery and
wholistic-analytic cognitive styles? Personality and Individual Differences, 39(1), 201-213.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.009, 2005.
[12] Riding, R., J. and Sadler-Smith, Eugene (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: some implications for
training design, 1997.
[13] Riding, R., & Agrell, T., The Effect of Cognitive Style and Cognitive Skills on School Subject Performance.
Educational Studies, 23(2), 311-323. doi: 10.1080/0305569970230213, 1997
[14] Riding, R. J., & Al-Salih, N., Cognitive Style and Motor Skill and Sports Performance. Educational Studies, 26(1),
19-32, 2000.
[15] Thomas, P. R., & McKay, J. B., Cognitive styles and instructional design in university learning. Learning and
Individual Differences, 20(3), 197-202. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.002, 2010.
[16] Tinajero, C., Lemos, S., Maria, Araujo, M., Ferraces, M., Jose, & Paramo, F., Cognitive Style and Learning
Strategies as Factors Which Affect Academic Achievement of Brazilian University Students. Psicologia: Reflexao e
Critica, 25(1), 105-113, 2012.
[17] Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F., Educational implications of field dependence-independence: In answer to Bagley and
Mallick. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 589-589, 1998.
[18] Onyejiaku, F. O., Cognitive Styles, Instructional Strategies, and Academic Performance. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 51(1), 31-37, 1982.
[19] Nicolaou, A. A., & Xistouri, X., Field Dependence/Independene Cognitive Style and Problem Posing:An
Investigation with Sixth Grade Students. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology, 31(5), 611-627. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2011.586126, 2011.
[20] Riding, R., J., & Al-Hajji, J., Cognitive Style and Behaviour in Secondary School Pupils in Kuwait. Educational
Research(42-1), 29-42. doi: 10.1080/001318800363890, 2000.
[21] Angeli, C., Examining the effects of field dependence-independence on learners' problem-solving performance and
interaction with a computer modeling tool: Implications for the design of joint cognitive systems. Computers and
Education, 62, 221-230, 2012.
[22] Chiu, L.-H., The Relation of Cognitive Style and Manifest Anxiety to Academic Performance Among Chinese
Children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125(5), 667-669, 2001.
[23] Martinsen, Ø. L., & Diseth, Å., The Assimilator–Explorer Cognitive Styles: Factor Structure, Personality Correlates,
and Relationship to Inventiveness. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 273-283. doi:
10.1080/10400419.2011.595998, 2011.
[24] Huang, M.-S., & Byrne, B., Cognitive Style and Lateral Eye Movements. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 85-90,
1978.
[25] Oliveri, S., Incorpora, C., Genevini, M., Santagostino, L., Tettamanti, L., Antonietti, A., & Risoli,
A., Clinical investigation of cognitive styles in patients with acquired brain damage. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 22(3),
362-373. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2011.647416, 2012.
[26] Ziętek, A. A., & Roehr, K., Metalinguistic knowledge and cognitive style in Polish classroom learners of English.
System, 39(4), 417-426. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.05.005, 2011.
[27] Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N., Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic
representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716-1726. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012, 2011.
[28] Mampadi, F., Chen, S. Y., Ghinea, G., & Chen, M.-P., Design of adaptive hypermedia learning systems: A cognitive
style approach. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1003-1011. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.018, 2011.
[29] Bird, E., Romanelli, F., & Ryan, M., Learning styles: a review of theory, application, and best practices. [Article].
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(1), 2009.
[30] Vorhaus, J., Learning Styles in Vocational Education and Training, 2010.
[31] Van Doorn, K., McManus, F., & Yiend, J., An analysis of matching cognitive-behavior therapy techniques to
learning styles. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 43(4), 1039-1044. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.05.001, 2012.
[32] Cuthbert, P. F., The student learning process: Learning styles or learning approaches? Teaching in Higher
Education, 10(2), 235-249. doi: 10.1080/1356251042000337972, 2005.
[33] Vermunt, J., & Vermetten, Y., Patterns in Student Learning: Relationships Between Learning Strategies,
Conceptions of Learning, and Learning Orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359-384.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0005-y, 2004.

 ISSN: 2089-9823
186
[34] Slack, N., & Norwich, B., Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of s Learning Styles Inventory:
a Classroom-Based Study. Educational Research, 49(1), 51-63. doi: 10.1080/00131880701200765, 2007.
[35] Miller, L. M., Using learning styles to evaluate computer-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2),
287-306. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.011, 2005.
[36] Reio, T. G., An Examination of the Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Gregorc Style Delineator.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 489-501. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282459, 2006.
[37] Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C., & Neumann, R., Kolb's experiential learning model: critique from a modelling
perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 32(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1080/01580370903534355, 2010.
[38] Kolb, D., A., & Boyatzis, R. E., Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. In R. J.
Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2000.
[39] Platsidou, M., & Metallidou, P., Validity and Reliability Issues of Two Learning Inventories in a Greek Sample:
Kolb's Learning Style Inventory and Felder & Solomon's Index of Learning Styles. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 324-335, 2009.
[40] Brew, C. R., Kolb’s Learning Style Instrument: Sensitive to Gender. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
62(2), 373-390. doi: 10.1177/0013164402062002011, 2002.
[41] Zwanenberg, N. V., Wilkinson, L. J., & Anderson, A., Felder and Silverman's Index of Learning Styles and Honey
and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire: How Do They Compare and Do They Predict Academic
Performance? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20(3),
365-380. doi: 10.1080/713663743, 2000.
[42] Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C., Learning styles: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study in
higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427-427, 1998.
[43] Riener, C., & Willingham, D., The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(5),
32-35. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2010.503139, 2010.
[44] Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y., Attempted Validation of the Scores of the VARK: Learning Styles Inventory
With Multitrait–Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
70(2), 323-339. doi: 10.1177/0013164409344507, 2010.
[45] Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H., Learning styles: where's the evidence? Med Educ, 46(7), 634-635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2012.04273.x, 2012.
[46] Norman, G., When will learning style go out of style? [Editorial]. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 14(1), 1-4.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9155-5, 2009.
[47] Dunn, R., Learning Style: State of Science. Theory into Practice, 23(1 Matching Teaching and Learning Styles),
10-19, 1984.
[48] Dunn, R., Survey Researh on Learning Styles. Educational Leadership, 46(6).
doi:www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198903_dunn.pdf, 1989.
[49] Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K., Are Students' Learning Styles Discipline Specific? Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 27(5), 363-375. doi: 10.1080/713838162, 2003.
[50] Vermunt, J. D., Relations Between Student Learning Patterns and Personal and Contextual Factors and Academic
performance. Higher Education, 49(3), 205-234. doi: 10.1007/sl0734-004-6664-2, 2005.
[51] Threeton, M., D., & Walter, R., A., The Relationship Between Personality Type and Learning Style: A Study of
Automotive Technology Students. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 46(2), 48-74, 2009.
[52] Akbulut, Y., & Cardak, C. S., Adaptive educational hypermedia accommodating learning styles: A content analysis
of publications from 2000 to 2011. Computers & Education, 58(2), 835-842. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.008,
2012.
[53] Lurea, C., Neascsu, I., Safta, C. G., & Suditu, M., The Study of the Relation Between the Teaching Methods and the
Learning Styles-The Impact Upon Students' Academic Conduct. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(2011),
256-260. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.072, 2011.
[54] Kinshuk, Liu, T.-C., & Graf, S., Coping with mismatched courses: students’ behaviour and performance in courses
mismatched to their learning styles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(6), 739-752.
doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9116-y, 2009.
[55] Ozgur, S. D., Temel, S., & Yilmaz, A., The Effect of Learning Styles of Preservice Chemistry Teachers on Their
Perceptions of Problem Solving Skills and Problem Solving Achievements. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 46, 1450-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.319, 2012.
[56] Mehrdad, A. G., & Ahghar, M., Learning styles and learning strategies of left-handed EFL students. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 536-545. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.100, 2012.
[57] Huang, A. F., J. T. Wu, S. J. Yang, W. Y. Hwang, The Success of e-Portfolio-Based Programming Learning Style
Diagnosis: Exploring the Role of a Heuristic Fuzzy Knowledge Fusion, in Expert Systems with Applications,
39(10), pp.8698-8706. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.212, 2012.
[58] D'Amore, A., James, S., & Mitchell, E. K., Learning styles of first-year undergraduate nursing and midwifery
students: a cross-sectional survey utilising the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't].
Nurse Educ Today, 32(5), 506-515. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2011.08.001, 2012

187
[59] Law, D. C. S., & Meyer, J. H. F., Relationships between Hong Kong students’ perceptions of the learning
environment and their learning patterns in post-secondary education. Higher Education, 62(1), 27-47.
doi: 10.1007/s10734-010-9363-1, 2010.
[60] Hurst-Wajszczuk, K., Do they really get it? Using the Kolb LSI to reach every student. [Article]. Journal of Singing,
66(4), 421+, 2010.
[61] Alaoutinen, S., Heikkinen, K., & Porras, J., Experiences of learning styles in an intensive collaborative course.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22 (1), 25-49. doi: 10.1007/s10798-010-9135-3, 2010.
[62] Graf, S., Lin, T., & Kinshuk, The relationship between learning styles and cognitive traits – Getting additional
information for improving student modelling. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(2), 122-137.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.004, 2008.
[63] Graf, S., Liu, T.-C., Kinshuk, Chen, N.-S., & Yang, S. J. H, Learning styles and cognitive traits – Their relationship
and its benefits in web-based educational systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1280-1289.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.005, 2009.
[64] Cook, D. A., Thompson, W. G., Thomas, K. G., & Thomas, M. R., Lack of interaction between sensing-intuitive
learning styles and problem-first versus information-first instruction: a randomized crossover trial. [Randomized
Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 14(1), 79-90.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-007-9089-8, 2009.
[65] Cook, D. A., & Smith, A. J., Validity of index of learning styles scores: multitrait-multimethod comparison with
three cognitive / learning style instruments. Medical Education, 40(9), 900-907.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02542.x, 2006.
[66] Evans , C., & Smith, E., Eugene, Learning Styles in Education and Training: Problems, Politicisation and potential.
Education +Training, 48(2), 77-83. doi: 10.1108/00400910610651728; 10.1108/00012531111135646;
10.1108/00012531011074726; 10.1108/14635781111150367, 2006.
[67] Evans, C., Cools, E., & Charlesworth, Z. M, Learning in higher education – how cognitive and learning styles
matter. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4), 467-478. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2010.493353, 2010.
[68] Serife, A., A Conceptual Analaysis on the Approaches to Learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(3),
707-720, 2008.
[69] Peterson, E., Armstrong, S., & Rayner, S., Herding cats:In search of definitions of cognitive style and learning
styles. Paper presented at the ELSIN Newsletter: An international forum, Winter 2008-2009 www.elsinnews.com.
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Tony.Redmond/2008ELSINnewsletter.pdf, 2009.
[70] Armstrong, S. J., Peterson, E. R., & Rayner, S. G., Understanding and defining cognitive style and learning style: a
Delphi study in the context of educational psychology. Educational Studies, 38(4), 449-455.
doi: 10.1080/03055698.2011.643110, 2012.
[71] Wong, J., Kee-Kuok., Are the Learnign Styles of Asian International Students Culturally or Contexually Based? .
International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166, 2004.
[72] Hall, E., & Moseley, D., Is there a role for learning styles in personalised education and training? International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(3), 243-255. doi: 10.1080/02601370500134933, 2005.
[73] Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A., Conversation as Experiential Learning. In A. C. Baker, P. J. Jensen &
D. A. Kolb (Eds.), Conversational Learning An Experiential Approach To Knowledge Creation. Westport,
Connecticut: Quorum Books, 2002.
[74] Cools, E., A reflection on the future of the cognitive style field: a proposed research agenda. [Review]. Reflecting
Education, 5(2), 21-34, 2009.
[75] Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M., The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: Theory and
measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 638-663. doi: 10.1002/acp.1473, 2009.
[76] Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E., Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two
Types of Visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47-77, 2002.
[77] Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J., Spatial Versus Object Visualizers: A New Characterization of Visual
Cognitive Style. Memory and Cognition, 33(4), 710-726, 2005.
[78] Bagley, C., & Mallick, K., Field independence, cultural context and academic achievement: A commentary. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 581-581, 1998.
[79] Alloway, T., Packiam, Banner, G. E., & Smith, P., Working Memory and Cognitive Styles in Adolescents
Attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 567-591, 2010.

Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: a Conceptual Analysis

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: a Conceptual Analysis (20)

More from Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: a Conceptual Analysis