Cognitive/Learning Styles
Although many times considered the same thing, cognitive and learning styles are actually quite different. Briefly, cognitive styles refer to the way a person thinks, the way he or she processes information. Learning styles, on the other hand, deal with the preferred method of learning. Cognitive styles are considered to be bipolar, where learning styles are unipolar (Kearsley, 2002).
The idea of cognitive styles was originally proposed by Allport in 1937, and this notion referred to a person’s way of thinking, perceiving, remembering and problem solving (Liu & Ginther, 1999). Since that time, between 17 and 19 separate individual cognitive styles have been identified. However, for the purposes of this paper, only the most common field dependence vs. field independence, and holistic-analytic, will be dealt with.
Field dependence vs. field independence is probably the most well known style. In effect, the difference is that those with field dependent cognitive styles tend to be motivated extrinsically and enjoy cooperative learning. Those with field independent styles have an intrinsically motivated system and profit from individualized learning. Those with independence are often thought to process more analytically, something more typically found in males (Liu & Ginther, 1999).
An alternative theory of cognitive styles, that of the holistic-analytic approach, regards the dichotomy in terms of those who view situations as a whole verses those who view situations as made up of many parts and analyze one or two parts. Many think of the holistic-analytic as analogous to right-brained, left-brained, where global aspects of cognition are processed in the right side of the brain, and detailed aspects in the left. Regardless of the terminology, most cognitive theory is divided into a dichotomy, and for all practical purposes, is theoretical. Learning styles, on the other hand, deal with the practical, classroom applications of cognition.
Although termed various things, from Kolb’s concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, to simply visual, verbal, oral, and kinesthetic, the results are the same—different people learn differently. Some people are better at absorbing information visually by looking at charts and graphs, some others are better at obtaining information through text, either written or spoken.
Kolb, perhaps the most famous of the learning style theorists, proposed that learning styles were on a continuum from concrete experience to active experimentation, with reflective observation and abstract conceptualization in between. For those with a concrete experience learning style, methods such as labs, fieldwork and observations were the most beneficial. For reflective observers, journals and brainstorming is a preferred method. For abstract conceptualizes, lectures, papers and analogies, and for the active experimenters, simulations, case studies, role plays are effective teaching methods.
Honey and Mumford (1992) classified preferred learning styles by theoretical learners, who prefer to learn by reading and listening to the experts; pragmatic learners, who like to be able to see the practical application of theory; reflective learners, who tend to be imaginative and emotional and work well in group discussions; and activist learners, who are action oriented and learn by doing. Additionally, Perry’s (1970) “Developmental Process,” where males learn through nine developmental stages, and the Belenky, et. al. (1986) reaction to Perry in “Women’s Ways of Knowing,” where women do learn quite differently than men both point to the huge variations in learning styles.
Regardless of whether one debates the terminology for cognitive and for learning styles, the data point to the obvious—individuals learn differently and thereby should be taught differently. One teaching style, whether it be the popular lecture in a higher education setting, or group work in a k-12 environment, does not account for nor accommodate the variation of learning styles in the classroom, and if teachers use only one or two teaching styles, learners are ultimately harmed.
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: a psychological interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.
Belenky, M. F.; McVicker Clinchy, B.; Rule Golberger, N.; Mattuck Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Greg Kearsley (2002) Cognitive/Learning Styles [WWW document]. Retrieved 9/20/02 from http://tip.psychology.org/styles.html
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. [missing first initial here]. 1992. The Manual of Learning Styles, 3rd Edition Maidenhead, Berkshire: Peter Honey.
Liu, Yuliang, and Ginther, Dean (Fall, 1999). Cognitive Styles and Distance Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol. II, No. III.
Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.