P e r f o r m a n c e I m p r o v e m e n t Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 ( 3 ) pp .

7 3 - 88

Relationships between Learning Styles

and Online Learning
Myth or Reality?

Susan A. Santo

Background

“W
hen I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in This paper examines research on
rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I learning styles as related to online
choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” learning for adult learners. There is
much disagreement regarding the
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make definition of learning style. This paper
words mean so many different things” (Carroll, 1999 defines it as an individual’s preferred
edition, p. 57). way of learning. The focus is on the
extent to which learning styles are
able to predict student success (e.g.,
What is a learning style? There is no standard grades, attitudes). The paper dis-
definition. Grasha (1996) defined a learning style cusses nine different instruments that
as simply an individual’s preferred way of learning. were used in various studies. Curry’s
Doherty and Maddux (2002) stated that a “universally model, which uses the metaphor
of the layers of an onion, is used to
accepted definition of learning styles has not been categorize the instruments by theme
established” (p. 24). They suggested using DeBello’s for the sake of comparison. Criticisms
definition as “characteristic cognitive, affective, and of learning style research include: the
psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable vagueness of the construct “learning
style”; the fact that the instruments
indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and are self-assessments; mixed results
respond to the learning environment” (p. 24). Another from research that searched for a
definition was offered by Price (2004): “Learning relationship with online learning; and
style is often used as a metaphor for considering the the difficulty of comparing different
studies when online learning can
range of individual differences in learning. The term include many different methods and
‘learning style’ when used in this way is considered technologies. Finally, I reach a conclu-
to include a range of constructs describing variations sion regarding the suitability of study-
in the manner in which individuals learn” (p. 681). ing the relationship of learning styles
and success in online courses.
DeTure (2004) used the term “cognitive styles” to
describe relatively stable indicators of how learners
perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning
environment. Some researchers, however, have used the term “learning
styles” to describe what others called cognitive styles or even personality.
Grasha’s definition will be used in this paper.
Moran (1991) pointed out that there are at least 21 different models
of learning style, making it hard to provide an agreed-upon definition.
Geisler-Brenstein et al. (1996) compared the controversy to the parable of
the three blind men and the elephant, in which each man felt a different part
of the elephant and came to the conclusion that it was a different animal.
Geisler-Brenstein et al. lamented that “there is little cross-fertilization
between disciplines that would allow us to provide a better description
of the elephant” (p. 75). Hichcox (1995) pointed out that “using only one

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 73

 measure assumes that one inventory is more correct than others. At this
time that assumption cannot be made” (p. 44). There is also disagreement
as to whether learning styles are fixed or can be modified in response
to experiences encountered within a course (Price, 2004). However, all
learning style models assume that learning styles are measurable and that
matching or mismatching student styles with instructional techniques has
a major effect on learning.
One way to reduce some of the confusion and categorize learning
styles is Curry’s 1983 model, which uses the metaphor of the layers of
an onion. Curry reorganized learning styles by theme into three layers
(Hickcox, 1995; Price, 2004; Riding, 1997). The inner layer (the core of
the onion) represents personality style, an underlying relatively stable
dimension that controls learning behavior. The middle
layer is cognitive styles and deals with the learner’s
Proponents of learning
style in processing information. The outermost layer
styles claim that they is influenced by the environment in which the student
influence a student’s prefers to learn (e.g., this may refer to interaction with
ability to participate the instructor, interaction with other students, or other
successfully in an external features). The styles included in this layer are
online course. more malleable.
In this paper, I highlight research on learning
styles as related to online learning. Online learning
occurs through the Internet and typically involves asynchronous (i.e.,
not real-time) discussion groups of learners and the instructor. In online
courses for adult students where drop-out rates tend to be higher than
in traditional instruction, assessing student learning styles has become
increasingly popular. Proponents of learning styles claim that they influ-
ence a student’s ability to participate successfully in an online course.
Wooldridge (1995), under the assumption that certain learning styles are
better for online courses, suggests that before students in higher educa-
tion sign up for online courses, they should be made aware of their learning
styles. This can help them make the decision as to whether to take such
as course. However, not everyone would agree. Moan and Dereshiwsky
(2002) caution that “not all distance education experts are convinced of
their validity in predicting student success in online learning.”
Following is a critical examination of recent literature on various
learning styles and online learning. Studies have been limited to those
with students age 18 or over. The question to be examined is: Are learn-
ing styles related to measures of student success (e.g., grades, course
completion, satisfaction and engagement) in an online environment?
To aid with conceptual understanding, I have grouped each learning
style instrument within the layers of Curry’s onion. Such classification
was difficult, as certain instruments seemed to fit within more than one
layer. In such cases, I put them within the layer where I felt they most fit.
Specific information about the design of each instrument (e.g., number
and type of items) is not included. My purpose is to examine whether
learning styles in general can be used for purposes of predicting student

74 Performance Improvement Quarterly

success in online courses, rather than to show details about particular
instruments.

Literature Review
Curry’s Outer Layer: Interaction with the Learning Environment
Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Styles
The Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales (GRSLSS), an
inventory developed for college students, is based on how they interact with
course content, the instructor, and other students as part of a social learning
community (Fuhrmann & Grasha, 1983). There are six styles:

• Participant—This learner is eager to take part in course content and

asks questions.
• Avoidant—This learner does as little work as possible or waits until
the last minute.
• Independent—This learner prefers to work independently and makes
few requests for help.
• Dependent—This learner needs detailed instructions and lots of
help.
• Collaborative—This learner works well with others and enjoys group
work.
• Competitive—­This learner tries to do better than others in the
course.

One problem with this instrument lies with its construct validity.
Although the descriptions appear to be three sets of opposites, only the
participant and avoidant styles have been negatively correlated (Jonassen
& Grabowski, 1993). In a study that I conducted at a university in Virginia,
there were no significant relationships between grades or attitudes and any
of the six learning styles for two sections (business and humanities students)
of an online advanced composition course (Santo, 2001). The GRSLSS relies
on self-reports. One issue is how accurate self-perception is. It was noted
in the study that data gathered in interviews did not always match student
scores or their behavior. For example, one student scored as preferring
the participant style, but her behavior was that of the avoidant style. This
student failed the course. Students may also have used the instrument to
describe themselves as an ideal, that is, how they think the instructor would
like them to behave. A flaw of this study was that the numbers of subjects
may not have been large enough for correlations to reach significance.
In a second study, the GRSLSS was completed by students taking an
online undergraduate course in health (Frye, 1999). Findings were used
to adjust web-based instructional activities to meet the learning style of
students although the specific method used to do so was not described in
the article. Frye reported that gearing instruction toward individual learn-
ing preferences seemed to make learning more efficient for students. The
interpretation of this is difficult because “efficiency” was not defined.

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 75

 Despite a comprehensive search of the literature, no other studies
could be located that used this instrument for students in online courses.
The first study did not show learning styles as making a difference, while
the second was ambiguous. There are not enough studies at this point to
draw conclusions.

Schellens and Valcke Learning Styles

Schellens and Valcke (2000) claim that “the demands of the learning
environment can be inconsistent with the actual learning styles of the stu-
dents” (p. 363). They looked at Ghent University, a traditional university
offering a new online course in instructional sciences. The researchers
developed their own instrument to measure learning style along each of
five bipolar dimensions:

• Auditory vs. visual—Students with an auditory style prefer learning by

listening; students with a visual style prefer learning through reading
text or looking at diagrams.
• Applied vs. conceptual—Students with an applied style prefer learning
through examples and cases; students with a conceptual style prefer
concepts and theories.
• Spatial vs. non-spatial—Students with a spatial style prefer learning
in context; students with a non-spatial style are more abstract in their
preferences.
• Social vs. individual—Students with a social style prefer teamwork;
students with an individual style prefer working alone.
• Creative vs. pragmatic—Students with a creative style prefer using
their creativity to solve elaborate problems; students with a pragmatic
style prefer to work on simpler problems.

This instrument seems to measure both learning environment prefer-

ences and cognitive processing preferences. Schellens and Valcke explored
the course and noticed that the developers favored the visual, applied,
spatial, social, and creative styles, yet many of the students had scored as
preferring the non-spatial and conceptual styles. Students with a spatial
learning style scored higher on a computer literacy instrument. However,
there was no significant relationship between final test scores and preferred
learning styles. The authors caution that their instrument is still under
development and some statements need to be rephrased.
No additional studies using this instrument could be located, which
may be due to its relative newness. However, in being unable to uncover
a significant difference between learning style and grades, this study has
similar results to the first study on the GRLSS.

Western Governors University’s “Is Distance Learning for Me?”

Online degree providers are increasingly offering self-developed instru-
ments at their Web sites which students can complete to determine if their
learning styles make it likely that they will be comfortable online, although

76 Performance Improvement Quarterly

Papp (2001) argues that these short surveys may not accurately measure a
student’s style. An example is an instrument developed by Western Gov-
ernors University (n.d.) that focuses on areas such as preference for face-
to-face interaction, preference for discussion, being good at prioritizing,
being able to work independently, and having an auditory, visual, or tactile
learning style.
Moan and Dereshiwsky (2002, online) looked at a research course
for masters’ students in education in which students filled out the WGU
instrument during the first week of the course. The researchers looked for
a relationship between the instrument scores and the number of postings
made and viewed by students during asynchronous discussions. The only
area of the instrument that was significantly related to postings was the
amount of time that students had available for coursework. Learning style
was not related to student engagement. They comment that “this appears to
fly in the face of the plethora of literature and popular belief that students
can be classified into a predominant learning style, which in turn, is closely
linked to a particular format of teaching and learning” (online). No other
studies on this instrument could be located, but this finding is the same
as on the previous two learning style instruments. At this point I begin to
question whether learning styles are making a difference.

Curry’s Middle Layer: Cognitive Preferences

Kolb Learning Styles
David Kolb’s (1981) Learning Style Inventory (LSI) is a widely used and
cited instrument. Learners rate statements with four choices regarding how
they learn best. The LSI is based on how a person perceives and processes
information (Terrell, 2002; Liu & Ginther, 1999). It has been criticized by
several researchers for low reliability, a common criticism of learning style
instruments. The LSI is one of the more complex instruments to under-
stand. It describes both a learning process (called a “cycle of learning”) and
a set of styles. First, it is necessary to understand these terms (Jonassen &
Grabowski, 1993).

• Abstract—The learner prefers to learn through the symbolic under-

standing of information.
• Concrete—The learner prefers to learn through immediate experience
that he can see, hear, or touch.
• Active—The learner prefers to learn by external manipulation of tools
or materials, and by participation in hands-on activities.
• Reflective—The learner prefers to learn by thinking about and ma-
nipulating ideas internally.

The LSI scores indicate a preference for being in one of four stages of
a learning cycle:

• Concrete Experience (CE)—Learning from Feeling: learning from

experience, relying on feelings and involvement with others

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 77

 • Reflective Observation (RO)—Learning by Watching and Listening:
careful observation, viewing issues from different viewpoints
• Abstract Conceptualization (AC)—Learning by Thinking: analyzing,
developing theories and ideas, systematic planning
• Active Experimentation (AE)—Learning by Doing: influencing others
through action, taking risks, getting things done

Definitions of “experience,” “observation,” “conceptualization,” and “ex-

perimentation” are not given. Because no single stage is sufficient to describe
style, two scores are combined to determine the student’s preferred style out
of four possible learning styles (Kolb, 1981, 1985 rev.; Terrell, 2002; Liu &
Ginther, 1999). The highest combination score is the preferred style:

• Convergers—AC and AE: These learners prefer making decisions

regarding real world problem solving and practical applications.
• Divergers—CE and RO: These learners prefer viewing situations from
different points of view. They are imaginative and sensitive to feelings.
• Assimilators—AC and RO: These learners prefer abstract concepts
and creating theoretical models. They are good at putting information
into logical form.
• Accommodators—CE and AE: These learners prefer hands-on experi-
ence, risk taking, working with others, and implementing.

Some studies involving the Kolb instrument look at the four stages,
others at the four styles, still others at both. This in itself makes comparison
difficult. Usually, the reason for the choice is not given.
Terrell (2002) looked at an educational technology degree program with
a high drop-out rate at Nova Southeastern University. One week took place
on campus and the rest was online. The study investigated whether learning
style influenced student persistence in obtaining the degree. Students took
Kolb’s LSI at the beginning of the program. Of 159 students, those with a
preference for the AC stage dropped out of the program at significantly
lower rates than students with other preferred stages. In terms of the four
learning styles, the researcher noted that the completion rate for the learn-
ing styles Acccomodators and Divergers was larger, but the difference was
not statistically significant.
Another study by Terrell (2003) looked at 216 students, for whom the
average age was 43. Most students were either Convergers or Assimilators.
Again, a comparison of graduation rate by learning style was not statistically
significant. The researcher suggested that learners who succeeded did so
regardless of their styles because they had the necessary skills for online
learning plus the motivation to succeed. Jonassen and Grabowki (1993)
commented that the LSI was more suited for having students’ explore their
learning styles than for predicting their ability to succeed. However, I ques-
tion how useful the LSI is without such predictive ability.
Some studies using the Kolb model have focused on student satisfac-
tion and engagement. For example, Du and Simpson (2002) looked at the

78 Performance Improvement Quarterly

relationship between learning styles, class participation, and 169 students’
self-reported enjoyment level in an online masters program in library and
information sciences at the University of North Texas. They also had stu-
dents complete Kolb’s LSI. Students were asked to rate their enjoyment of
the course on a Likert scale. In this case, learning styles were found to have
a significant relationship with students’ enjoyment. Another finding was
that students who posted the most enjoyed the course least.
Fahy and Ally (2005) used Kolb’s LSI for master’s students in two online
courses which included information-focused asynchronous discussions.
Convergers made significantly more and longer postings than did Divergers
and more postings than did Assimilators. Convergers also participated in
discussions that were more social in nature. When looking at the defini-
tion of Convergers, it is not clear to me why this would be the case. The
researchers point out that although asynchronous discussions are said in
the research literature to increase reflection, this effect was not seen on the
Divergers in this study. The article does not make clear why the researchers
expected the Divergers to become more reflective or whether this effect took
place on any of the other learning styles. In addition, perhaps the discussion
questions posted by the instructor did not truly require reflection.
Garland and Martin (2003) looked at student engagement, which they
defined as the number of accesses that person had per topic as displayed
on the Blackboard course statistics page. Sixty-one students in graduate
level online courses took Kolb’s LSI. There was no significant relationship
between the four learning stages and students’ level of engagement.
A study by Garland and Martin (2004) looked at 75 students in online
leadership programs earning education specialist or doctoral degrees at
Southwest Missouri State University. There was both a cohort program
and a traditional program. They used Kolb’s LSI, as well as interviewing 10
percent of the students to analyze student satisfaction with learning online.
The cohort students were mostly Assimilators and the non-cohort students
mostly Divergers, but there was no significant relationship between learn-
ing style and student satisfaction. However, students in the cohort were
more satisfied than those not in a cohort.
The record for the Kolb instrument and online learning is not promising.
Du and Simpson (2002) did find a significant relationship between student
enjoyment and the Kolb learning styles. However, in Terrell’s 2002 study
on program completion rate, the stages appear to be important, but the
learning styles do not. In Terrell’s 2003 study, the learning styles are again
shown to make no difference. In Garland and Martin’s 2003 study on student
engagement, the four learning stages had no significant relationship. In
Garland and Martin’s 2004 study that looked at student satisfaction, there
was no significant relationship with learning style.

4MAT Learning Styles

Gray and Palmer (2001) chose Bernice McCarthy’s 4MAT learning
styles model, which is based on Kolb’s model but adds the idea of differences
in dominant use of brain hemispheres. Interactions between perception

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 79

 (sensing, feeling, or thinking) and processing (watching or doing) lead to
four types of learners (McCarthy, 1997):

• Type 1—Watching/Sensing-Feeling: Students with this style prefer

both feeling and reflecting. They like to learn by talking with others
about their experiences and asking questions, although they also enjoy
reading. These students need to be able to connect their coursework
to real life and know how it can be used to solve problems.
• Type 2—Watching/Thinking: Students with this style prefer reflecting
and thinking. They are analytical thinkers who are detail-oriented and
good at completing systematic, step-by-step tasks. They like to learn
through lectures and reading.
• Type 3—Doing/Thinking: These are common sense learners who pre-
fer thinking and doing. They are good at problem solving and figuring
out how things work. They like to touch and manipulate objects or to
watch demonstrations.
• Type 4—Doing/Sensing-Feeling: These learners prefer subjective
thinking and value risk-taking and self-discovery. They are creative
learners who dislike being made to conform to set routines.

However, because this instrument also considers the popular concep-

tion of brain hemispheric preference, there are actually eight styles (with
the right hemisphere representing visual/spatial intuitive thought and the
left hemisphere representing verbal rational linear thought). McCarthy also
recommends that learners explore all learning styles by going through a pro-
cess of experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing, and creating (similar to
Kolb’s process). Gray and Palmer (2001) observed a course, Internet Search
Techniques, which was being offered by an online teaching institution. The
purpose of the research was to see if the course made use of 4MAT learning
styles. The course was primarily text-based with online lecture material and
discussion boards. According to the observation of the researchers, this
favored left-brain Type 2 learners. The researchers criticized the course,
commenting that “much of the spectrum of potential for learning is lost
when only one-eighth is accessed in course design” (p. 50). However, they
did not look at learning outcomes and support their statement regarding
which type of learner should have preferred or done better in this course.
Other courses that were surveyed also did not make use of 4MAT learning
styles in course design. Gray and Palmer suggest conducting further re-
search and looking at learning outcomes in cases in which all eight learning
styles are addressed. Despite an extensive literature search, no other study
could be located that used this conceptualization of styles for an online
course. Following Gray and Palmer’s suggestion is a possibility.

Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test

Herman Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) looks at the
degree to which a learner’s comprehension of information is affected by his
or her perception of its surrounding field (Price, 2004). (Note: Although this

80 Performance Improvement Quarterly

instrument is classified by some as a personality instrument, I have chosen
to classify it as a cognitive preference as it measures perception.)
The GEFT measures field independence, the ability to distinguish key
elements from the background (Liu & Ginther, 1999). The instrument re-
quires locating a series of simple figures contained within highly complex
ones. Field independence/dependence is measured along a continuum.
Field independence can affect both cognitive behavior and interpersonal
behavior. The GEFT instrument has high reliability (Jonassen & Grabowski,
1993). Traits of field independent vs. field dependent learners have been
identified as follows:

• Field independent learners find it easy to separate information from

surrounding field and to interpret visual-spatial information. They
enjoy individual learning, prefer to develop their own structure rather
than to use an instructor’s pre-defined structure of learning materials,
are comfortable with ambiguity, are good at analytical thinking, and
are unconventional.
• Field dependent learners perceive the surrounding field as distract-
ing and find it difficult to separate information. They are global
thinkers who find it hard to interpret visual-spatial information.
They enjoy social learning, need to have structure and external cues
in course materials, are more conventional, and are uncomfortable
with ambiguity.

Price (2004) looked at different combinations of materials (visual and

verbal) for an online course and had learners complete the GEFT. He sought
to determine if field independence/dependence would indicate both learn-
ing preference and performance. However, the GEFT could not predict a
preference for visual-spatial materials for field independent learners, nor
was there any evidence to support the idea of field dependent learners
preferring more structured materials.
DeTure (2004) cited Kerka’s 1998 claim that field dependents were more
likely to feel lost and disoriented in hypermedia environments, while field
independents were better at navigation. Field dependents were also thought
to require more interaction for success and satisfaction in a course. Thus,
he suggested that they might be at a disadvantage in online courses that
involved primarily independent work. In DeTure’s (2004) study, students
in six online general education courses at a southeastern community col-
lege completed the GEFT and an Online Technologies Self-Efficacy Scale
to determine entry-level confidence with necessary computer skills for
online learning. Courses were taught through WebCT or Blackboard to
73 students from ages 18 to 58. Although students who were more field
independent did have higher online technologies self-efficacy, they did not
receive higher grades than those students who were field dependent and had
lower online technologies self-efficacy. The author concluded that although
field independents were more confident with technology, they were not
more likely to be successful in online courses.

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 81

 Oh and Lim (2005) gave the GEFT to 104 students taking online courses
at the University of Tennessee. They also administered a survey that measured
attitude toward online learning. The study failed to find a significant relation-
ship of field independence with preference toward online learning. Rather,
students’ amount of experience with online instruction and their computer
competency were related to attitude. One interesting finding of this study
was that both field independent and dependent students indicated that they
preferred to print out course materials rather than having to read text on a
computer monitor. In their article, Oh and Lim also discussed a study per-
formed by Brenner in 1997 that found no significant differences in achieve-
ment for online students with field independent or dependent styles.
Again, the record for a learning style instrument and online learning is
not promising. None of these studies that used the GEFT
None of these studies were able to show significant relationships between field
independence/dependence and preference for visual-
that used the GEFT were
spatial materials, preference for structure in materials,
able to show significant grades, or attitude.
relationships between field
independence/dependence Curry’s Inner Layer: Personality Preferences
and preference for Keirsey Temperament Type
visual-spatial materials, Neuhauser (2002) used the Keirsey Temperament
Type instrument based on Carl Jung’s theory regarding
preference for structure
psychological types. The theory is based on four pairs
in materials, grades, or of opposing preferences:
attitude.
• I—Introversion (values the inner world, is energized
by ideas) vs. E—extraversion (values the outer world, is energized by
being with people)
• N—Intuition (big picture, theory) vs. S—sensing (details, facts)
• T—Thinking (logical) vs. F—feeling (subjective)—these refer to how
the person prefers to make decisions
• J—Judging (prefer to have closure) vs. P—perceiving (prefer to gather
additional information)

The Keirsey instrument then puts together preferences to measure four

learning styles:

• SP (sensation/perceiving)—Artisan: This learner prefers hands-on

learning and likes to be entertained.
• SJ (sensation/judging)—Guardian: This learner likes learning to be
structured with clear instructions.
• NT (intuition/thinking)—Idealist: This learner prefers independent
learning that involves a logical sequence, but also likes to discuss
ideas.
• NF (intuition/feeling)—Rationalist: This learner prefers to learn
through group work and discussions and likes to receive personal
feedback.

82 Performance Improvement Quarterly

 Neuhauser hypothesized that learners who scored high on the NT and
NF (intuition) styles would do well in online learning, while learners who
scored high on the SP or SJ (sensing) styles would have difficulty. Two sec-
tions of a course were offered, one online and one face-to-face. Both groups
of students knew little in advance about learning online. Online discussions
covered the same topics as in the face-to-face class. All students completed
the Keirsey instrument. Once the course ended, 95 percent of the online
students indicated a preference for online courses, but there was no signifi-
cant difference in their perception of learning effectiveness. There was no
significant difference between Keirsey learning styles and success (i.e., final
grades) in either group. Students also took a learning Modality Preference
Survey that measured visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile preferences.
Again, there was no relation between preferred styles and final grades in
either group. The author concluded that neither learning style inventory
was a good predictor of success for online or face-to-face courses.
No other studies could be located that used Keirsey styles to look at
online learning. However, a study by Kanuka and Nocente (2003) used the
Millon Index of Personality Styles which measures what it calls “cognitive
modes”—the extraversion, introversion, sensing, intuitive, thinking, and
feeling preferences also measured by the Keirsey instrument. These re-
searchers found no relationship between personality styles and satisfaction
with online learning in a professional development course for real estate
practitioners.
These personality styles lack predictive validity regarding online
courses.

Soloman and Felder’s Index of Learning Styles

Barbara Soloman and Richard Felder’s 1997 online Index of Learning
Styles (ILS) measures learning preferences across four bipolar preferences:
active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and sequential/global
(Felder & Soloman, online). This is another instrument that could be placed
in different layers of the onion model, although because of its focus on the
sensing/intuitive dimension, I have grouped it under personality styles. The
instrument identifies four pairs of opposing styles:

• Active/Reflective—Active learners like to try out things and work with

others while reflective learners like to think things through and work
alone.
• Sensing/Intuitive—Sensing learners prefer facts, details, and well-es-
tablished procedures while intuitive learners prefer concepts, theo-
ries, and innovation.
• Visual/Verbal—Visual learners like pictures, diagrams, films, and
demonstrations while verbal learners like written or spoken informa-
tion.
• Sequential/Global—Sequential learners learn in small incremental
linear steps while global learners are holistic thinkers who learn in
large leaps of thought and like to see the big picture.

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 83

 Papp (2001) noted that the ILS seems to have more consistent and
applicable predictive value than some other commonly used instruments.
Doherty and Maddux (2002) studied 150 students in online courses at four
community colleges in Nevada. The study showed that reflective learners
were more likely to enroll in online courses than active learners. Most stu-
dents preferred the sequential learning style to the global style. This study
had mixed results. Although there was no significant relationship between
learning styles and perceived effectiveness of instructional methods, they
did find that global learners were less likely to complete the courses than
the sequential learners. The authors suggested making course revisions by
providing random exploration through hyperlinks, something that global
learners might enjoy.
Sabry and Baldwin (2003) also used the ILS, but looked only at the
global and sequential learning styles, as this was the construct they were
interested in studying. They asked 230 students majoring in information
systems at a UK university to indicate which of three types of online inter-
action they preferred: Learner-Information (L-I; e.g., navigating through
Web sites); Learner-Tutor (L-T; e.g., asking their instructor questions); or
Learner-Learner (L-L; e.g., participating in asynchronous discussions).
The students also completed the ILS, which showed whether their prefer-
ences for the global or sequential styles were mild, moderate, or strong.
Global learners had a stronger preference for L-I and L-L interactions than
did the sequential learners, but a lower preference for L-T interactions.
A flaw of this study is that actual interaction online was not monitored
to determine if the students’ self-perception of their interaction was ac-
curate. Another question to consider is why global learners liked the L-L
interactions, but not the L-T interactions. Is the study saying that the
instructors did not allow their students to think holistically but other
students did?
No other study using the ILS could be located. However, the Doherty
and Maddux (2002) study does seem promising in regard to online course
completion. Papp’s (2001) statement regarding predictive value may indi-
cate that this is one of the better instruments.

Honey and Mumford Learning Styles

A study at Open University by Price (2004) used Honey and Mumford’s
Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ). The purpose was to see if it could
predict performance in correspondence and online versions of a course in
computer science. Students could choose which version of the course they
wanted. There are four LSQ styles:

• Activists—These learners prefer being immersed in new experiences,

working on tasks, and facing challenges.
• Reflectors—These learners prefer analysis and thinking about experi-
ences before reaching conclusions.
• Theorists—These learners prefer systems, models, and concepts. They
like to develop theories.

84 Performance Improvement Quarterly

 • Pragmatists—These learners prefer problem solving by trying out
ideas and through practical application of theories.

There was no significant relationship between test scores or course

grade and learning style scores. The comments of the students who were
learning online indicated that they valued the experience, regardless of
learning style. No other study on online learning could be located that used
this instrument. But the lack of predictive ability shown in Price’s 2004 study
seems common among findings with learning style instruments.

Conclusion
Several major conclusions may be drawn from this
literature review. …the models on which the
First, the construct “learning style” is vague. Price
instruments are based may
(2004) pointed out that because different terms are
used interchangeably and no one agrees as to what in themselves be flawed.
learning styles exist, it is difficult to compare study For example, 4MAT’s idea
results. In my opinion, using Curry’s onion model of the left and right brain
helps to make comparisons, but it can be unclear as hemispheres defining
to which instruments to put into which parts of the learning preferences has
model. For example, both field independence and
been discredited by recent
the 4MAT styles seem to include both cognitive and
personality influences. In addition, different instru- research in neurology.
ments use terms that are similar, but they may not be
defined in exactly the same way. For example, is Reflective Observation on
Kolb’s LSI the same as the Reflector style on Honey and Mumford’s LSQ? Is
Concrete Experience vs. Abstract Conceptualization (Kolb LSI) the same as
the Applied vs. Conceptual styles in Schellens’ and Valcke’s instrument? Is
sensing/intuitive on Soloman and Felder’s ILS the same as sensing/intuitive
on the Keirsey instrument?
Second, learning style instruments tend to be self-assessments that
rely on students to answer honestly and to have enough self-awareness
to answer accurately. Students may answer as they think an ideal learner
would answer or believe they do one thing when in reality they do an-
other. In addition, the models on which the instruments are based may in
themselves be flawed. For example, 4MAT’s idea of the left and right brain
hemispheres defining learning preferences has been discredited by recent
research in neurology. According to Solms and Turnbull (2002), “All of the
attempts to dichotomize the basic mental functions have proved futile….
Almost all mental functions…incorporate functional contributions from
both cerebral hemispheres” (p. 244). Instruments also tend to have low
reliability and validity, especially the ones that are placed online by distance
learning providers.
Third, results have been mixed on research regarding the relationship
between learning styles and online learning (Doherty & Maddux, 2002).
Conflicting results are common regarding whether styles affect academic

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 85

 performance (Fahy & Ally, 2005). A few studies say that learning styles
make a difference in terms of predicting student success (e.g., Doherty &
Maddux, 2002; or Papp, 2001), but most seem to say that it makes no dif-
ference at all. This paper has shown numerous examples in which there was
no evidence of a significant difference regarding success for students with
different styles (DeTure, 2004; Fahy & Ally, 2005; Garland & Martin, 2003;
Garland & Martin, 2004; Kanuka & Nocente, 2003; Moan & Dereshiwky,
2002; Price, 2004; Santo, 2001; Schellens & Valcke, 2000; Terrell, 2002; Ter-
rell, 2003). Although other instruments exist that were not looked at in this
investigation, the pattern being revealed appears to indicate that regardless
of the instrument, the results may be discouraging.
Fourth, when looking at learning styles in conjunction with learning on-
line, the subject becomes more complicated. A caution offered by Doherty
and Maddox (2002) was that “very little quantitative research specific to
learning styles and Internet-based methods of instruction has been pub-
lished, and the results have been mixed” (p. 24). Online learning itself may
contain different teaching methods and technologies; thus, there can be a
different interaction between teaching method, technology, and learning
style in one study as compared to another. For example, there are two basic
ways in which such a course may be conducted: as primarily an independent
study in which the student typically uses a Web site and interacts with the
instructor through the computer, or as a way of emphasizing communica-
tion between learners and learners, as well as the instructor and learners.
Often a study description does not make it clear which of the two methods
was emphasized.
Finally, it seems likely that learning preferences do exist. But how much
influence they actually have when it comes to learning versus other issues
is unanswered. The learners’ computer skills and level of motivation may
be more influential. Rather than developing numerous additional learning
style instruments, or attempting to design multiple different versions of
course materials to suit different types of learners, it may be more useful
for researchers to help each other improve existing models and instruments
as well as develop common definitions of concepts. Then additional studies
regarding predictive ability could be conducted. Using learning style instru-
ments to advise students on whether they should take an online course is
not recommended at this time.

References
Carroll, L. (1999 edition of 1872 text). Through the looking glass and what Alice found there.
Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
DeTure, M. (2004). Cognitive style and self-efficacy: Predicting student success in online
distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 21-38.
Doherty, W. A., & Maddux, C. D. (2002). An investigation of methods of instruction and
student learning styles in Internet-based community college courses. Distance Educa-
tion: Issues and Concerns, 19(3/4), 23-32.
Du, Y., & Simpson, C. (2002). Effects of learning styles and class participation on students’
enjoyment level in distributed learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual

86 Performance Improvement Quarterly

 Conference of the Association for Library and Information Science Education, Jan.
15-18. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 755).
Fahy, P. J., & Ally, M. (2005). Student learning style and asynchronous-computer-mediated
conferencing (CMC) interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 5-22.
Felder, R. M., & Soloman, B. A. (n.d.). Learning styles and strategies. Retrieved 02/07/06
from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSdir/styles.htm
Frye, C. (1999, September). Style matters. Inside Technology Training, 41-42, 47.
Fuhrmann, B. S., & Grasha, A. F. (1983). A practical handbook for college teachers. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Garland, D., & Martin, B. N. (2004). Cohorts, learning styles, online courses: Are they important
when designing leadership programs? Roundtable presentation at the 2004 UCEA An-
nual Conference: The Changing Face of Educational Leadership. Retrieved September
16, 2005, from http://coe.ksu.edu/ucea/04ucea14.pdf
Garland, D., & Martin, B. N. (2003). Supporting learning style online: Research findings show
the way. Paper presented at University of Wisconsin 19th Annual Conference on Dis-
tance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved September 16, 2005 from http://www.uwex
.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/shared_space.cfm
Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R. R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual difference
perspective on student diversity. Higher Education, 31, 73-96.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by under-
standing teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh: Alliance Publishers.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles
with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48(1), 2-10.
Gray, D., & Palmer, J. (2001, April-June). Learning styles and web-based training: The 4MAT
methodology. WebNet Journal, 43-51.
Hichcox, L. K. (1995). Learning styles: A survey of adult learning style inventory models.
In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the
implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 26-46). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Index of Learning Styles. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.ncsu.edu/
felder-public/ILSpage.html
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and
instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Kanuka, H., & Nocente, N. (2003). Exploring the effects of personality type on perceived
satisfaction with web-based learning in continuing professional development. Dis-
tance Education, 24(2), 227-245.
Kolb, D. A. (1981; rev. 2003). Learning style inventory. Boston: Hayes Group.
Liu, Y., & Ginther, D. (1999). Cognitive styles and distance education. Online Journal of Dis-
tance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved September 16, 2005 from http://www
.westga.edu/~distance/liu23.html
McCarthy, V. (1997, March). A tale of four learners: 4MAT’s learning styles. Educational
Leadership, 46-51.
Moan, E. R., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (2002). Identifying factors that predict student engage-
ment in web-based coursework. USDLA Journal, 16(1). Retrieved September 16, 2005
from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN02_Issues/article05.html
Moran, A. (1991). What can learning styles research learn from cognitive psychology?
Educational Psychology, 11(3 & 4), 239-245.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruc-
tion. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113.
Oh, E., & Lim, D. (2005). Cross relationships between cognitive styles and learner variables
in online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 53-66.
Price, L. (2004). Individual differences in learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style, and
learning style. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 682-698.
Papp, R. (2001, December). Student learning styles and distance learning. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Informatics Education & Research, New Orleans, LA.
Retrieved September 16, 2005 from http://www.iaim.org/ICIER2001/icier2001.htm
Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 29.
Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning styles. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 443-454.

Volume 19, Number 3 / 2006 87

 Santo, S. A. (2001). Virtual learning, personality, and learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Virginia). ProQuest Digital Dissertation Abstracts at http://wwwlib.umi
.com/dissertations/gateway
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2000). Re-engineering conventional university education: Im-
plications for students’ learning styles. Distance Education, 21(2), 361-384.
Solms, M., & Turnbull, O. (2002). The brain and the inner world: An introduction to the neu-
roscience of subjective experience. New York: Other Press.
Terrell, S. R. (2003). Supporting different learning styles in an online learning environment:
Does it really matter in the long run? Distance Education, 24(2), 141-158. Retrieved
September 16, 2005 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer82/
terrell82.htm
Terrell, S. R. (2002). The effect of learning style on doctoral course completion in a web-
based learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 345-352.
Western Governors University. (n.d.). Is distance learning for me? [Click on “Admission,”
then “The Student Experience,” then scroll down to “Take the Quiz.”] Retrieved March
1, 2006 from http://www.wgu.edu
Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/college instruction:
Integrating the results of learning style research into course design and delivery.
In R. R. Sims & S. J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the
implications for learning, course design, and education (pp. 49-66). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

SUSAN A. SANTO
Susan A. Santo, PhD is Assistant Professor at the Technology for
Education & Training division of the University of South Dakota, where
she teaches graduate students. She is a consulting editor for Educational
Technology Research & Development journal.

88 Performance Improvement Quarterly