DeBello, T.C. (1990).COMPARISON OF ELEVEN MAJOR LEARNING STYLES MODELS: VARIABLES, APPROPRIATE POPULATIONS, VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTATION AND THE RESEARCH BEHIND THEM. Journal or Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6: 203-222.
COMPARISON OF ELEVEN MAJOR LEARNING STYLES MODELS: VARIABLES, APPROPRIATE POPULATIONS, VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTATION,
AND THE RESEARCH BEHIND THEM
Several pioneers observed individual student differences from varying vantage points. Most perceived of single or dual variables
on a bipolar continuum; others conceived of a multidimensional approach to the concept. This paper presents an overview of
each of the major models and compares the elements they encompass, the populations for which they are appropriate, the
reliability and validity of their instrumentation and where they overlap and differ.
Perhaps the most vital development in American education today is the concept of individual learners' preferences. Teachers, school boards, and parents across the nation have become cognizant of various aspects of learning styles, and it is encumbent upon those who would be educational leaders to become knowledgeable about current research in learning styles.
This article examines the efforts of recognized leaders in the field, theorists who have developed and established reputations over the years. Learning style models are reviewed in part on the basis of: psychometric analyses of Dr. Lynn Curry (1987) from the Canadian College of Health Services in Ontario, Canada; Dr. Patricia Kirby's (1979) article published by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio; publications disseminated by the Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles at St. John's University, Jamaica, New York; and my own experiences and analyses.
There are nearly as many definitions of learning styles as there are theorists. Through the leadership of Dr. James Keefe, Director of Research of the National Association of Secondary School Principals' (NASSP) Learning Styles Task Force, the following definition has emerged: Learning styles are the characteristic cognitive, affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment (Keefe & Monk, 1986). Perhaps an even more generic definition would be: Learning style is the way people absorb, process, and retain information. Recognize, then, that not all theorists view learning styles in precisely the same terms and, therefore, their methods for assessment and observations may differ.
Some modeis are multidimensional, encompassing cognitive, affec-tive, and psychological characteristics, and others are limited to a single variable, most frequently from the cognitive or psychological domain.
I have selected certain models for several reasons: because they (a) represent a historical
perspective; (b) have influenced others; (c) reflect individual practitioners' attempts to identify style; (d)
relate to concurrent issues in education; (e) are research oriented; or (f) are widely known in the field
(see Table 1).
DUNN AND DUNN: LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY
(GRADES 3-12) AND PRODUCTIVITY ENVIRONMENTAL
PREFERENCE SURVEY (ADULT)
Perhaps one of the earliest teams of research practitioners in the field of learning styles are Drs. Kenneth Dunn and Rita Dunn. Their model of learning styles can be classified as multidimensional. The five stim-
TABLE 1
| Theorist | Elements of model |
| Dunn & Dunn | Environmental, emotional, sociological, physical, psy- chological |
| NASSP | Environmental, emotional, sociological, physical, psychological/cognitive, study skills |
| Hill | Qualitative/theoretical symbols, modalities of inference, Cultural |
| Letteri | Cognitive style |
| Ramirez | Bicognitive style, bicultural |
| Reinert | Perceptual modalities |
| Schmeck | Cognitive processing, study methods, retention |
| Hunt | Need for structure, need for authority dependent/ independent |
| Kolb | Concrete experience vs. reflective observation/abstract conceptualization vs. active experimentation |
| Gregorc | Perception/ordering |
| McCarthy | Innovative/analytic/common sense/dynamic hemlspher- icity |
Note. NASSP - National Association of Secondary School Principals.
uli groups encompass environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological, and psychological areas, and contain 21 subcategories, which the Dunns refer to as elements. These elements do not impact equally on all learners. Those that affect individuals strongly are referred to by the Dunns as strong preferences; others that are important, but influence less, are called preferences (Dunn and Dunn, 1978).
The environmental stimulus includes the elements of sound, light, temperature, and design (Dunn, 1987). Emotionality includes motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure. The sociological stimulus includes the elements of learning alone, in a pair, with peers, or as a part of a team, with an authoritative or collegial teacher, or in varied treatments--in other words, a combination of social patterns. Physical elements include perceptual modalities, the need for intake while learning, time-of-day energy periods, and the need for mobility versus passivity.
The psychological dimension includes global/analytic, hemisphericity, and impulsive/reflective characteristics..Although this stimulus is not assessed separately through the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989), research confirmed correlations between being strongly global and needing low light, sound, and periodic breaks when learning, an informal design, and intake, and between being strongly analytic and needing bright light, quiet while learning, a formal design, and no intake and being persistent (Dunn, Bruno, Sklar, & Beaudry, in press; Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, and Zenhausern, 1982).
The Dunns' model is the basis of a diagnostic/prescriptive approach that is initiated through the identification of learners' styles through a self-report instrument and the application of complementary teaching techniques designed to respond to the youngsters' styles. Of key importance to the theoretical structure of the model is the tenet that individual styles must be assessed and that, if a learner is going to have the best opportunity to learn, instructional techniques must be used that are congruent with each student's style. You will see, as we progress, that not every theorist agrees with that stance.
Critical to the Dunns' approach is the instrument that assesses style--the LSI--which is comprised of 100 items and requires approximately 30 minutes to administer. That instrument, in different forms, is intended for youngsters in Grades 3 through 12 (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1975, 1979, 1985, 1987, 1989). The LSI Primary Version (Perrin, 1983), developed by Dr. Janet Perrin, is an adaptation essentially for young nonreaders. The Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1982) is a version intended for adults and may have applications outside of the school setting.
The Reading Style Inventory (RSI), developed by Dr. Marie Carbo (1984), relies on the theoretical framework of the Dunn model in much the same way as Gregorc, McCarthy, and Kolb have certain conceptual similarities heavily steeped in Jungian theory. Carbo's RSI is an instrument that applies the Dunn and Dunn concept of learning style to reading and is an adaptation of theft LSI (Carbo and Hodges, 1989).
Extensive research using the LSI has made it the most widely documented assessment instrument (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, 1989). Dr. Curry's (1987) review of 21 different learning/cognitive style models through psychometric analyses reported that the Dunn and Dunn model had one of the highest reliability and validity ratings.
The Ohio State University's National Center for Research in Vocational Education published the results of a two-year study of instruments. It reported that the LSI had "impressive reliability, and face and construct validity" (Kirby, 1979, p. 72).
Since 1979, the LSI has evidenced extremely high predictive validity. The award-winning,
experimental, and correlational research with the LSI conducted at more than 50 universities
distinguishes this model's research base. Keefe (1982) identified the Dunns' model as being practitioner
oriented and the most widely used assessment in elementary and secondary schools.
NASSP: LEARNING STYLE PROFILE
In 1979, NASSP and St. John's University undertook the cosponsor-ship of the National Learning Styles Network, a component of the University's Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. Four years later, the National Learning Styles Task Force, under the leadership of Dr. Keefe, assembled to examine the underlying attributes of each of the better known learning style constructs. From that group emerged the definition I provided earlier and a commitment to create a single learning style instrument that assessed a broad spectrum of research-based learning style characteristics. Letteri's (1980) perspective, relating learning styles to information processing, was adopted as the basis for conceptualization of NASSP's learning style model (Keefe and Monke, 1986).
That model encompassed physiological/environmental, cognitive, and affective domains as well as an information-processing perspective. The net result is the Learning Styles Profile (LSP), a 42-page, 126-item assessment intended for use with secondary students. As in the case of the Dunn and Dunn model, responses are computer scored and tabulated, and respondents receive a computer-generated printout of their individual Learning Style Profile.
Note that, in terms of the elements of the NASSP model, there is a great deal of similarity to the Dunn and Dunn model. Study skills are addressed through the prescriptive process of the Dunn and Dunn model, which emphasizes that students learn through their strongest modality or preference, are reinforced through their secondary or tertiary strength, and are taught finally to apply the new information creatively. (The LSP diverges from that philosophy.)
Continuing this amalgamated approach, cognitive skill items were derived from Witkin's Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFr) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971; Kepner and Neimark, 1984), perceptual responses from Reinert's (1976) Edmonds Learning Style Identification Exercise (ELSIE), and environmental, affective, and physiological items from the Dunn and Dunn model. Keefe reported that, while significant correlations were established among the LSP, LSI, and ELSIE, no significant correlation emerged between the LSP and the GEFT. Furthermore, Curry (1987) reported similar findings.
The NASSP's LSP is an advancement because it represents the first model to be created out of the
diverse and occasionally opposite philosophies of current theorists. Because of its relatively recent
arrival, I suspect that further refinements of the instrument will be forthcoming, for its strongest reliabilities
are those of variables adopted from the Dunn and Dunn model; its weakest are those based on cognitive
dimensions. Furthermore, Keefe reported significant correlations between the LSP and Reinert's ELSIE,
which purportedly has no reliability or validity (Curry, 1987).
HILL: COGNITIVE STYLE PROFILE
One of the earliest theorists in the field of learning style was Joseph Hill (1976). Hill was president of Oakland Community College in Michigan during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He defined learning style as the unique way in which an individual searches for meaning. To Hill, that process was reflected in: (a) the processing of theoretical and qualitative symbols; (b) modalities of inference; and (c) cultural determinants. Each of those components are now briefly discussed.
The category of theoretical symbols is subdivided into auditory and visual categories; each is further subdivided into linguistic and quantitative symbols: in effect, the perceptual modalities. There are, in addition, 15 qualitative elements. Among the 15 are empathy, proxemics, which is social distance, and proprioceptivity, a sixth sense. Modalities of inference are the second major category. They are the forms of inference an individual uses in the process of actually obtaining meaning. Specific elements in this category include: critical thinking, contrasting and comparisons, relationships between measures, and hypothesis development, some of which are reminiscent of Bloom's taxonomy. Hill's background was in engineering, and although he was in command of the concepts of cognitive psychology, he tended to develop his own specific jargon.
The third major element of Hill's model is referred to as cultural determinants. Much of how Hill saw cognitive style was in terms of how individuals interpret symbols, and he believed that the meaning that is assigned to symbols is shaped by one's culture, and that family and peers form each student's main cultural influences. This element is interesting in that it is only one aspect of Hill's Cognitive Style Profile. However, it is most likely viewed today as a precursor to work that seeks to identify cultural patterns to learning styles. I have placed it into the category with Ramirez' model for that reason. However, there is another view, which sees the emphasis on family and peers as perhaps more akin to the Dunns' sociological stimulus in that both peer orientation and authority orientation may be viewed as aspects of the individual's immediate culture.
In either case, Hill provided the student of learning styles with much to consider. Cognitive style mapping is the rather elaborate process of obtaining a cognitive style profile. It involves a self-report test, which takes about 50 minutes to administer, as well as an interview component.
The Cognitive Style Interest Inventory has been revised during the years since Hill's death; however,
it remains rather complex (Hill, 1981). Although Curry (1987) reported that this instrument showed no
reliability or validity, I believe that Hill's early attempt at a comprehensive diagnostic prescriptive
approach to learning style is worthy of study for the principles of learning it presented.
LETTERI: COGNITIVE STYLE DELINEATORS
Charles Letteri's (1980) model views learning as information processing: the storage and retrieval of information. In Letteri's view, there are six phases of information processing that range from perception reception to long-term memory. To Letteri, failure to process information at any of the phases represents a deficit in cognitive skill acquisition. In his perspective, once a child has acquired those skills and has been taught to generalize them across content areas, learning and mastery of data can be accomplished.
Initially, Letteri defined the cognitive style of the learner with other research instruments, which
diagnosed seven different cognitive dimensions including: field dependence/independence; scanning/
focusing; breadth of categorization; cognitive complexity; reflective/ impulsive; leveling/sharpening; and
tolerant/intolerant.
Letteri then rewrote the items of those established instruments into an all-inclusive combined assessment. It would take us much beyond the scope of this article to discuss each of these cognitive dimensions and the underlying construct of cognitive style. Suffice it to say that they represent skills on a bipolar continuum, and that one extreme of each tends to correlate with being highly analytic, whereas the other extreme appears to be characteristic of being highly global.
Letteri's correlational research revealed that those learners who had above-average success in academic tasks were reflective, analytical, focused, complex, categorized narrowly, able to see details sharply, and tolerant. Such learners were referred to as Type 1 learners.-
In contrast, individuals who had below-grade-level performance in academic areas were impulsive, global, nonfocused, able to view items only simply, able to categorize broadly, levelers, and intolerant. These were the Type 3 learners. The profile of the Type 2 learner was somewhere in the middle of two extremes. It represented a learner who was only moderately successful in school.
Thus, according to Letteri, the composite cognitive profile could significantly separate and predict high academic performers from low academic performers. The elements of the profile do not work independently, but are seen, by Letteri, as being interrelated in the composite process as prerequisites to learning.
With that as the rationale, Letteri presented the process of augmentation or clinical training, the purpose of which is to teach the proper information-processing operations and controls and then provide training in cognitive structure construction principles; the learner then applies those principles and operations. Thus, the goal of establishing a cognitive profile, and the process of augmentation, is to change a Type 3 or even a Type 2 learner into a Type I learner.
In the field of learning styles today, there is debate over whether or not attempts should be made to change a student's style. The Dunns, perhaps, represent one view that children should be taught initially through their strengths, and that learning style assessments should serve only as diagnostic tools toward that end. Gregorc represents the middle ground, recognizing each learner's individuality, yet also recognizing times when learners must be flexible. Letteri is at the opposite extreme, not simply calling for adaptation or flexibility, but advocating training to actually change the students' cognitive profiles.
Letteri's approach is essentially a clinical one; however, he believes that the schools' efforts should
be directed toward the development of curricular procedures based on the analysis of learning tasks to
establish the prerequisite cognitive profile needed for school achievement and success.
RAMIREZ: CHILD RATING FORM
Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) defined learning style in terms of the cognitive style dimension of field dependence/independence and cultural differences. He referred to the behaviors resulting from style predispositions as being bicognitive and bicultural. The dimension of field dependence or sensitive, as Ramirez refers to it, and field independence is his single cognitive assessment of style. In the Ramirez model, field independence is recognized as positive; however, unlike Letteri, Ramirez believes that field independence and the traits that correspond to it are positive because they are prized by schools that generally require field independence of students, not because they are necessarily inherently superior.
Students who are field sensitive are group oriented, sensitive to the social environment, and positively responsive to adult modeling, but less sensitive to the spatial incursions of others, less comfortable with trial and error, and less interested in the fine details of tasks that are nonsocial. Such traits were also described as "global" by both Brennan (1984) and Trautman (1979), and are the opposite of detail oriented, independent, and sequential, characteristics often described as analytic.
Ramirez focused much of his work on minority populations in California and throughout the Southwest. The development of a set of learning preferences is a complicated matter. However, Ramirez believes that it is not unreasonable to expect that the child-socialization process contributes to this development. According to Ramirez, because of socialization practices, the average young Mexican American, black, and selected other minority students are more field sensitive than they are field independent, or more global than they are analytic. Understanding that can make classrooms more responsive to developing field-sensitive learning approaches and, in that regard, more responsive to the needs of many minority students. He believes also that minority students, for their part, can learn to become bi-cognitive, having the ability to function in the two extreme settings, just as they can become bicultural, but that takes maturation and an encouraging support system.
Ramirez is concerned that a naive understanding of the role of cultural values causes the formation of stereotypes. Similarly, in 1981, David Kolb warned of the danger in what he called the misuseof learning style, specifically, turning the ideas into stereotypes, misconceptions that might deny students the opportunity to develop.
Ramirez echoed that concern when he stated that, by using averages to describe the differences between groups, the dangers of stereotyping are increased. Furthermore, the great diversity within any culture has been ignored, and a construct that should have been used as a tool of individualization could become yet another label for categorizing and evaluating. Ramirez saw a potential contribution of cognitive styles research to multiethnic education as a framework for viewing and responding to the diversity within as well as between cultures (Castaneda, 1978).
The instrument originally developed by Ramirez and the late Alfredo Castanada was called the Child Rating Form, which was a direct observation format yielding frequency of behavior scales that could be completed by the teacher or older children in a self-report survey. Ramirez has worked in bilingual education and has developed a primary bilingual program, "Nuevas Fronteras," based on his learning style model.
I have described Ramirez' work as primarily in the psychological/ cognitive area. However, it is important to repeat that traits associated with field sensitivity also are associated with global dimensions and specific sociological elements of authority and peer orientation, as described by the Dunns.
At a time when groups are beginning to focus on black or Hispanic learning styles, I believe that
Ramirez' model, while directed toward multiethnic concerns, also stresses what learning styles are all
about, that is, individual rather than stereotypical group styles.
REINERT: EDMONDS LEARNING STYLE IDENTIFICATION EXERCISE
The ELSIE was developed by Harry Reinerr (1976) as a way of easily identifying the learning style reactions of his high school students to an auditory stimulus. From the label of the categories, you can see that the ELSIE is geared primarily to an identification of perceptual modality. Visualization, written words, sound, and activity reflect the perceptual categories in the Dunn, Hill, and other instruments. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the categories of the ELSIE are incorporated directly into the NASSP LSP.
Reinert stated that the purpose of the ELSIE is to give practical help to the classroom teacher interested in providing more effective counseling for students. The basic pedagogical principle proposed
here was that students should have their initial contact with new material by means of their most efficient perception.
The ELSIE is composed of 50 one-word items read aloud to students, who are then asked to characterize their reaction to the word according to a forced choice among four alternatives: (a) visualization or creation of a mental picture; (b) alphabetical letters in writing (the word spelled out); (c) sound; or (d) activity, an emotional or physical feeling about the word. Some examples used are ocean, good, God, and foot.
Keefe reported a significant .002 correlation between the ELSIE and the corresponding subscale
elements of the NASSP LSP. However, summative psychometric ratings reported by Curry (1987)
showed the ELSIE as having poor reliability and no validity. Clearly, the ELSIE does not have a strong
research base. Despite that, it represents that genre of learning style instruments that have emerged out
of individual practit. ioners' need to identify and teach to students' strengths.
SCHMECK: INVENTORY OF LEARNING PROCESSES
Like Charles Letteri, Ronald Schmeck comes to learning styles through a background in psychology. Schmeck believes that cognitive and personality studies, while useful, are not definitive, and that learning styles as a construct would be more useful.
From Schmeck's perspective, learning style is a predisposition on the part of some learners to adopt a particular learning strategy regardless of the specific demands of the learning task. Learning strategies, as defined by Schmeck, are a pattern of information-processing activities that the individual uses to prepare for a test of memory.
Schmeck views this information processing as a continuum; on one extreme, shallow/repetitive and reiterative processors; on the other extreme, deep and elaborative processing. Shallow processors tend to remember the symbols used in communication; as depth of processing increases, the number of conceptual associations increases, giving the material more meaning. Thus, elaborative processors do more than just remember; they classify, compare, contrast, analyze, and synthesize information. (This might well be compared with the higher levels of the Bloom taxonomy.) Thus, shallow processing is not a separate style, but it is one point on a continuum.
Schmeck's original Inventory of Learning Processes (Schmeck, Ribich, and Ramanaiah, 1977) was a self-report instrument comprised of 62 items to assess students' behavioral and conceptual processes. Geared to the college student, as most of Schmeck's research and work are, this true/false format arranged items into four scales: synthesis analysis, study methods, fact retention, and elaborative processing. One example of the relationship among these elements has been posed by Schmeck: It is possible to retain facts whether one processes in depth or shallowly. However, Schmeck's research has determined that those who retain facts by processing deeply and attending to facts were more successful academically than those who processed shallowly and also attended to facts. The latter could be said to be the memorizer, the one who retains information verbatim with little understanding.
Just one further comment on the study methods scale: Those students who studied often by using drill type, classic, how-to-study methods were found by Schmeck in one study to have high achievement motivation but to lack the skill or ability necessary to engage in deep or elaborative processing. In fact, additional research has suggested that students who score high on that scale are "eager to please." Such data increase the dimension of the Schmeck model, and provide insight into the authority orientation of the learner.
In 1984, a later refinement of the instrument developed in conjunction with Entwistle and Ramsden
expanded on the initial construct. Schmeck's instrument was designed solely for college students. In her
analysis of it, Curry characterized it as having strong reliability and strong validity.
HUNT: PARAGRAPH COMPLETION METHOD
Dr. David Hunt is a Canadian theorist and researcher who approached learning style as those educational conditions under which students are most likely to learn. The basis of Hunt's model of conceptual level is a description of students in terms of their need for structure (Hunt, Butler, Noy, & Rosser, 1978). Learners who have a low conceptual level are concrete and impulsive and have poor tolerance for frustration. They, according to Hunt, require a great deal of structure in the academic setting. Those learners at a midstage of conceptual level are referred to, by Hunt, as conforming or dependent. They are dependent on rules and authority and are categorical thinkers. Such learners require structure but should be given some choices. Those at the higher conceptual level are referred to as independent and are described as inquiring, self-assertive, questioning, requiring less structure, and in need of alternatives.
We have viewed some learning style models that insist that students' styles should be changed, and
others that urge teaching to the individual's strength. Hunt, in a sense, promotes both in what he refers
to as a contemporaneous or developmental perspective. The
contemporaneous view indicates that the lower cognitive-level youngster in the classroom must be given structure if the teacher is to facilitate learning; however, for long-term purposes, provide high structure initially and gradually decrease the amount of structure so that self-initiative can develop.
That perspective is similar to Schmeck's, who agrees that learning styles can, and sometimes should, be modified slowly over time (specifically encouraging shallow processors to become elaborative processors).
Hunt's assessment instrument is called the Paragraph Completion Method. It consists of six lead sentences, which the learner is directed to complete and write more about. Examples include: "What I think of school... "and "When I am criticized... ". The specific response is important in terms of the complexity of the response, not the opinion stated. Hunt's is a semiprojective assessment that requires specific training to score and interpret. Dr. Curry (1987) reported fair reliability and fair validity for this instrument.
Thus, Hunt's approach to learning style takes two dimensions--conceptual complexity and need for
structure--and relates each in a developmental framework.
KOLB: LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY
Dr. David Kolb bases his conceptual framework of learning styles on what he refers to as an experiential learning model. The core of the model is a simple description of the learning cycle of how adult experience is translated into concepts, which in turn are used as guides in the choice of new experiences.
This is a four-stage cycle: Immediate concrete experience is the basis for observation and reflection. Those observations are assimilated into theory from which new implications for action can be deduced. Those implications serve as guides in acting to create new experiences. Thus, the cycle has evolved.
To be effective, the learner requires abilities that are polar opposites: concrete experience versus abstract conceptualization and active experimentation versus reflective observation. However, as a result of hereditary equipment, past experiences, and the demands of present environments, most people develop learning styles that emphasize certain learning abilities over others.
Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1976) is a 9-item assessment with 4 sub-items to be rank ordered by adults. Four dominant types of learning styles have emerged most frequently. The first type is converger. Such persons' dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Their greatest strength lies in the practical application of ideas. The second type is diverger. Such persons have the direct opposite learning strengths of the converger. They are best at concrete experiences and reflective observation. The greatest strength of these individuals lies in their imaginative ability. They enjoy excelling at viewing concrete situations from many perspectives. The third is assimilator. Such persons' dominant learning abilities are abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. Their strength lies in their ability to create theoretical models. The last type is accommodator. Such persons' learning abilities are concrete experience and active experimentation. Their strength lies in actually doing things, in carrying out plans and experiments, and involving themselves in new experiences.
Kolb is based at Case Western Reserve in the Department of Organizational Research. His model and
instrument were designed for and have been applied to adult organizational systems and management
training. At least four different variations of Kolb's model are in use today. In terms of the strength of the
instrument, Curry (1987) reported strong reliability but only fair validity.
GREGORC: GREGORC STYLE DELINEATOR
The basis of Gregorc's model is that style consists of distinctive, observable behaviors that provide clues to the functioning of individuals' minds and how they relate to the world. Those mind qualities suggest that individuals learn in combinations of dualities, specifically, perception and ordering. Abstract, concrete, random, and sequential proclivities have been found by Gregorc to combine into several styles.
Four distinct learning patterns are discerned in this model. While everyone may exhibit all four patterns to some degree, most exhibit inclinations toward one or two. For instance, concrete sequential learners acquire knowledge through direct hands-on experience. They appreciate order and the direct step-by-step instruction. Concrete random learners are best characterized by experimental attitudes and behaviors. Using the trial and error .approach, they tend to make intuitive leaps. Abstract sequential learners are characterized by Gregorc as having excellent decoding abilities with written, verbal, and image symbols. They prefer to learn in a rational and sequential manner, and will learn better from authorities than through active experimentation. Abstract random learners are distinguished by their attention to human behavior and their capacity to interpret vibrations. They prefer to receive information in an unstructured manner and, therefore, prefer discussions and activities that involve multisensory experiences (Gregorc and Ward, 1977).
Gregorc believes that styles emerge from in-born predispositions, and that they can be encouraged and disciplined. Furthermore, learners with a natural concrete random style and a low concrete sequential tipping may find themselves in a situation where the need for concrete sequential ability is demanded by the task. In such cases, those individuals must be flexible, but may not be as smooth or efficient as in their natural style. Nevertheless, they still should be able to function.
Gregorc assesses style with the Gregorc Style Delineator, a self-report inventory based on the rank ordering of four words in each of ten sets. This instrument is similar in format and design to the Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Observation and interviews are suggested to aid in categorizing learning preferences.
Like the Dunns and Hunt, Gregorc emphasizes the matching of instructional materials and methods
to meet the range of individual preferences. However, he also emphasizes that nonpreferences should
be used at times to encourage students to strengthen those areas (Gregorc, 1985).
McCARTHY: 4 MAT SYSTEM
Bernice McCarthy's model of learning styles is drawn from the work of Kolb's construct that all people sense and feel, observe and think, and experiment and act. She proposes that all learners move continually between abstract conceptualization and concrete experience while learning.
McCarthy observed a pattern of sequencing and four learning style clusters. The pattern became synthesized into a four-step model with the following labels and attributes: innovatives are curious, aware, and perceptive; analytics are critical, fact seeking, and philosophizing; common-sense people are hands-on, practical, and oriented toward the present; dynamics are risk taking, adaptive, inventive, and enthusiastic.
To that initial construct, McCarthy developed an overlay of hemi-sphericity, identifying the left-brain function as being associated with verbal, field-independent activity and the right-brain function as being responsible for visuo/spatial, field-dependent activity.
Critical to the 4 Mat-System approach is the concept that while matching the educational cognitive
styles of learners to instructors and preferred media may make the learning experience more comfortable
it is not seen by McCarthy as the best way to induce long-term memory. Thus, she proposes a spiral
process of learning.
The learner enters into the spiral through a right-brain, structured activity designed for motivational arousal. This is the sensing/feeling activity for the innovative learners. The next component is dissection of the activity in great detail, providing the investigative, intellectual exercises that appeal to analytic learners. Once the concept has been formulated, learners practice working with the concept; the left-brain goal is to achieve mastery of the concept. This relates to common sense hands-on practice and personalization. Finally, the learner is asked to make right-brain choices of alternatives and apply as many as possible to real-world situations. This relates to the dynamic learner, the action-oriented doer who thrives on implementing programs.
Thus, all four styles are presented with accompanying left/right hemispheric activities in every lesson. Use of the concept assumedly results in concrete experiences for learners, and the cycle is set for another move through the entire spiral.
Using this spiral concept of full-circle training, regardless of the individual's learning style, provides all students with the opportunity of being taught through their style strength 25% of the time and, in McCarthy's view, to be challenged 75% of the time.
By the very nature of this model's approach, instrumentation such as the Kolb Learning Style Inventory
appears secondary to the instructional plan in that, regardless of students' learning styles, all receive the
same instruction in exactly the same pattern for exactly the same amount of time.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, there is general consensus concerning the importance of addressing learning style by all the theorists. As we review the chart, there are many areas of overlap among the models. Interest in specific areas such as psychological/cognitive is apparent; however, multidimensional models seem to offer a more thorough, encompassing, and responsive approach to the complexity of diversified differences in how students actually attend to, absorb, and retain new and difficult material.
Clearly, two major issues remain constant. The first is whether to teach to students' strengths or to attempt to expand their style. It may strike some observers as an irrelevant exercise to identify style and then to set about ignoring it. However, a broader problem remains before a firm decision can be made. If psychobiologist Richard Restak (1979), author of The Brain: The Last Frontier, and Yale psychologist ArminThies (1979) are correct, then much of learning style is biologically imposed on humans. We can no sooner change our styles than permanently change the color of our eyes, hair, or skin. Research by Kagan (1966) and others appears to confirm that view. However, can we modify, or to follow the medical analogy further, offer cosmetic surgery in the classroom? The debate continues.
The second issue revolves around whether or not teachers can observe the differences among students' styles or whether valid and reliable instrumentation should be used. While teacher observation checklists can serve a function, even they may require some training and experience on the part of the teacher. In addition, several studies revealed that, although teachers may identify certain learning style characteristics through observation, they often misinterpret many others (Beaty, 1986; Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1977; Marcus, 1977). As we have seen, many models of style require not only training in administration but also interpretation of the assessment. The decision by a school or district to take that step should include knowledge of the validity and reliability of the instrument.
Certainly, there is enough room in this newly emerging field for differences and even dissension among theorists. Their differences of opinion are what make us pay attention to what they have proposed. Their beliefs are honest and have integrity, but some are based essentially on theory and others on extensive research in schools at every level. One is not necessarily better than the other--they may be mutually complementary--but some have exercised the obligation of providing strong experimentation behind the suggested practices, and others have not as yet been able to do that. However, the decision concerning which model to use in your school should rely on the following: First, is it reliable and valid? For that information, I suggest you read Lynn Curry's (1987) psychometric review of instrumentation, which is available from the Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles, St. John's University, New York. Second, is there widespread practitioner use? For that, you could refer to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Directory of Practitioners, available from the ASCD in Alexandria, Virginia, the ASCD's Clearinghouse Bulletin and St. John's University's Learning Style Network Newsletter, both of which provide such information in every issue; and Dunn and Griggs' (1988) Learning Styles: Quiet Revolution in American Secondary Schools.
Third, is there extensive research behind the model? I suggest that you examine either Dissertation Abstracts International or research journals or examine the Annotated Bibliography (1990) available through the Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles, St. John's University, New York. Fourth, can you visit schools that are actually using the model in which you are interested? The ASCD's Directory of Practitioners (1985-1989) is especially helpful, and I suggest that you make use of it. At the secondary level, Learning Styles: Quiet Revolution in American Schools is the best source. If it works for them, it can work for you. When you visit schools, ask for evidence of how student achievement has increased or whether attitudes or behavior have improved. Ask how they know those things have happened? Finally, can you obtain training for both you and your staff so that you know how to use individual styles to obtain increased achievement? Both Wedlund and Gregorc insist that there is a danger in having only a little knowledge about styles and then trying to implement school-wide programs. Identify either well-known practitioners or well-respected theorists and spend the time it takes to really learn to implement a learning styles program.
The research is very clear on this point: All children have individual learning styles. While some may disagree as to the treatment of style differences in the classroom; educators today cannot ignore the impact of this revelation.
Treating every child in the classroom the same way is not responding to their styles. Teachers and
parents want more for students than the old hit-and-miss strategies of the past. Minimally, both want to
help the underachiever and enhance the potential of successful students. Current research affirms that
learning styles-based programs statistically increase student achievement (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas,
1989).
REFERENCES
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1986-1990). Clearinghouse Bulletin. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1985-1989). D/rectory of practitioners. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Beaty, S. A. (1986). The effect of inservice training on the ability of teachers to observe learning styles of students (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1986A.
Brennan, P. K. (1984). An analysis of the relationships among hemispheric preference and analytic/global cognitive style, two elements of learning style, method of instruction, gender, and mathematics achievement of tenth grade geometry students (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3271A.
Carbo, M. (1984). Reading style inventory. (Available from Learning Styles Network, St. John's University, Grand Central and Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439)
Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1989). Learning style strategies can help students at risk. #aching Exceptional Children, 20(4), 55-58.
Castaneda, A. (1978). Traditionalism, modernism and ethnicity. In Martinez, J. (Ed.), Chicano psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles. (1990). Annotated bibliography. Jamaica, NY: St. John's University.
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian College of Health Science Executives.
Dunn, R. (1987). Research on instructional environments: Implications for student achievement and attitudes. Professional School Psychology, 21(1), 43-52.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 50-58.
Dunn, R., Bruno, J., Sklar, R., & Beaudry, J. (in press). The effects of matching and mismatching minority developmental college students' hemispheric preferences on mathematics test scores. Journal of Educational Research.
Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference: The newest element of learning style. The American Biology Teach#,, 44(5), 291-294.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning style. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1977). Diagnosing learning styles: A prescription for avoiding malpractice suits against school systems. Phi Delta Kappan) 58(5), 418-420.
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1982). Productivity environmental preference survey. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975). Learning style inventory. (Available from Price Systems, Box 1818, Lawrence, KS 66044-1818)
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1979). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1985). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1987). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside Styles: Beyond the Basics. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates Inc.
Gregorc, A. F., & Ward, H. B. (1977). Implications for teaching and learning: A new definition for individual. NASSP Bulletin, 61, 20-26.
Hill, J. E. (1981). The educational sciences: A conceptual framework. West Bloomfield Hills, MI: Hill
Educational Sciences Foundation.
Hill, J. S. (1976). Cognitive style interest inventory. (Available from Oakland
Community College, 2480 Opdyke Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48013)
Hunt, D. E., Butler, L. F., Noy, J. E., and Rosser, M. E. (1978). Assessing conceptual level by the paragraph completion method. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Kagan, J. (1966). Refiection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24.
Keefe, J. W. (1982). Assessing student learning styles. In Keefe, J. W. (Ed.), Student learning styles and brain behavior (pp. 1-18). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W., & Monk, J. S. (1986). Learning style profile examiners' man-
ual. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Kepner, M.D., & Neimark, E. D. (1984). Test-retest reliability and differential
patterns of score change on the Group Embedded Figures Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 291-300.
Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive styles, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition (Iqformation Series No. 195, National Center for Research in Vocational Education). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Kolb, D. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D. A. (1981). Experiential learning theory and the learning style inventory: A reply to Friedman and Stumpf. Academy of Management Review, 6(2), 289-296.
Letteri, C. A. (1980). Cognitive profile: Basic determinant of academic
achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 195-199.
Marcus, L. (1977). How teachers view learning styles. NASSP Bulletin,
6#(408), 112-114.
Perrin, J. (1983). Learning style inventory: Primary version. Jamaica, NY: St.
John's University, Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.
Ramirez, A. I. (1982). Modality and field dependence/independence: Learn-
ing components and their relationship to mathematics achievement in the elementary school (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 666.
Ramirez, M., & Casteneda, A. (1974). Cultural demoncracy: Bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press.
Reineft, H. (1976). One picture is worth a thousand words? Not necessarily!
The Modern Language Journal, 60(4), 160-168.
Restak, R. (1979). The brain: The last frontier. New York: Doubleday.
Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, F. D., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assisting individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 413-431.
Schmeck, R. R., & Ribich, F. D. (1978). Construct validation of the inventory
of learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(4), 551-562.
Thies, A. (1979). A brain-behavior analysis of learning style. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.) Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp.55-61).
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Trautman, P. (1979). An investigation
of the relationship between selected
instructional techniques and identified cognitive style (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1979). #t# Abstracts International, 40, 1428A.
Witkin, H. A., Oltman P., Raskin, E., and Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for
the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
About the author Thomas C. De Bello earned his doctorate in Educational Administration .and Supervision at St. John's University. He has authored
articles and served as consultant to school districts in the area of learning styles theory and implementation. Dr. De Bello is presently principal of
Northwest Elementary School in Amityville, New York.