ArticlePDF Available

LEARNING STYLES

Authors:

Abstract

Learning styles can be classified according to different concepts of scholars. There have been numerous attempts to group learning styles for better understanding learners. Curry (1983) designed the three-layered onion model for grouping existing learning styles. An outer layer wax “instructional preference” layer that influenced by interacting with environment and easily observed. The middle layer wax “information processing style” layer. And the inner layer wax “cognitive personality” layer. The learning style inventory could assess and identify learning preference of each learner. From the survey of Thai empirical research studies related to learning style, it wax found that Thai students tend to have participant and collaborative style.
- 103

LEARNING STYLES
Received: Jun 11, 2020 Revised: Sep 13, 2020 Accepted: Oct 16, 2020
1
23
4
Paison Chobphon1
Chiraphorn Phrakhunanan2 Koraphin Ritthibut3
Nitibodee Sukjaroen4*
1
-

1Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University
2-3Faculty of Nursing, Kasem Bundit University
4Research Center, Kasem Bundit University
*Corresponding Author, E-mail: nitibodee.suk@kbu.ac.th









: 
104 -
Abstract
Learning styles can be classified according to different concepts of scholars.
There have been numerous attempts to group learning styles for better understanding
learners. Curry (1983) designed the three-layered onion model for grouping existing
learning styles. An outer layer wax “instructional preference” layer that influenced by
interacting with environment and easily observed. The middle layer wax “information
processing style” layer. And the inner layer wax “cognitive personality” layer. The
learning style inventory could assess and identify learning preference of each learner.
From the survey of Thai empirical research studies related to learning style, it wax found
that Thai students tend to have participant and collaborative style.
Key words: Learning Styles, Learning Styles Classification

style) 







Naimie, and et.al., 
Xie, and et.al., Busato, V.V., 
Joy, S., and Kolb, D.A., 




Learning styles) 

Dunn &Dunn, ; Hill, and others,
; Keefee, ; Kolb, ; Smith and Renzzulli, 
- 105




Curry’ s Orion Model (Curry, 1983)

Outer Layer : Instructional Preference


(Instructional Preference)

:
: 
: 
: 
: 
Dunna Dun (1978)
Middle Layer : Information Processing Style

Curry, 
Experiential
Learning kolb (1984) Honey & Mumford's Model (1982), Gardner’s Multiple
Intelligence (1993)McCarthy’s 4 MAT Model, (1997) Gregorc’s Learning Style (1979)
Inner Layer : Cognitive Personality Style

Felder & Silverman (1988), Witkin et al. (1997),
Myers-Briggs Riding & Rayner (1998) 
106 -
Curry’s Onion Model






Curry’s Onion Model


- 107
Curry’s Onion Model


Grasha &
Reichman
(1975)
Mann (1975)
Canfield (1988)
Clark & Trow
-




(Collaborative)

(Attentive)

(Social style)
(Social
applied style)

(Academic Subculture)

(Social
conceptual style)
-


(Competitive)
-




(Participant)
(Compliant)
-



(Dependent)
(Anxious
Dependent)
-




(Independent)
Independent)

(Independen
t style)

(Independent applied style)
(Non-
conformist Subculture)

Independent
conceptual style)
-


(Avoidant)
(Silent)

(Discouraged)
-

(Neutral preference)
-
(Conceptual style)
-


(Heroic)
-

(Sniper)
-
-

(Collegiate Subculture)
-


(Vocational
Subculture)
Grasha & Reichman (1975), Mann (1975), Canfield
(1988), Razier & France
108-

Grasha & Reichman 



Curry’s Onion Model 
Model 
- 109





Antoniou, A., and Lepouras, G. (Adaptation to visitors’ visiting and cognitive
style. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage. 3: 
Atkins, H., Moore, D., Shape, S.& Hobbs, D. (2001). Learning style theory and computer
mediated communication. In ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Communication Proceedings. Tampere, Finland, June
25-30, 2001: 71-75.
Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J., and Hamaker, C. (The relation between
learning styles, the big five personality traits and achievement motivation in
higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26: -
Canfield, A. (Learning Styles Inventory Manual. CA: Western Psychological Services,
Cassidy, S. (Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures.
Educational Psychology. 24: -
Curry, L. (Patterns of learning style across selected medical specialists.
Educational Psychology. 11: -
Dunn, R. (Learning a matter of style. Educational Leadership. 6: 
Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (Teaching students through their individual learning style:
Practical approaches for grade 3-6Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. p
Felder, R.M. (A longitudinal study of engineering student performance and
retention. Journal of Engineering Education. 2: -
Gardner, H. (Frame of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. nd Ed.
London: Fontana.
Grasha, A., and Reichman, S. (Student learning styles university of Cincinnati:
questionnaire. Faculty Resource Center.
Gregorc, A. F. (Learning and teaching styles: Potent forces behind them.
Educational Leadership. 36: -
Hill, J., and others. (Personalized education programs utilize cognitive style
mapping. Bloomfield Hills, Mich: Oakland Community College.
Honey, P. and Mumford. A. (The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Joy, S., and Kolb, D.A. (Are there culture differences in learning style?
International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 33: -
110-
Keefee, W. (Learning style: Theory and practice. Virginia: National Association
of Secondary School Principals.
Kolb, D. A. (Experiential Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
MacKeracher, D. (Styles in learning. Making sense of adult learning. nd ed.
University of Toronto Press.
Mann, R.D., and et al. (The college classroom: Conflict, change and learning.
New York: John Wiley
McCarthy, B. (1997). A Tale of four learners: 4 MATs learning styles. Educational
Leadership. 1: 45-52.
Naimei, Z., Siraj, S. Paiw, C.Y., Shagholi, R., and Abuzaid, R.A. (Do you think your
match is made in heaven? Teaching styles/learning styles match and
mismatch revisited. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2: -
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. and Bjork, R. (Learning styles concepts and
evidence. Association for Psychological Science. 9: -
Smith, L.H. and Renzulli, J.S. (Learning style preference: A practical approach
for classroom teachers. Theory into Practice. 23: -
Tsianos, N., Germanakos, P., Lekkas, Z., & Mourlas, C. (Individual learning characteristics in
web-based communities of practice. In Proceedings of the nd International Workshop
on Building Technology Enhanced Learning solutions for Communities of Practice (TEL-
CoPs', held in conjunction with the nd European Conference on Technology
Enhanced Learning (ECTEL', Crete, Hellas, September -, 
Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, D.R. Goodenough and P.W.Cox. (Field Dependent and
Field Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Education Implications. Review
of Educational Research. 1: -
Xie, Q., Gao, X., and King, R.B. (Thinking styles in implicit and explicit learning.
Learning and Individual Differences. 23: -
………………………………………………………………………..
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter
Full-text available
Drawing on the foundational theories of John Dewey and Kurt Lewin, we examine recent developments in theory and research on experiential learning and explore how this work can enhance experiential learning in higher education. We introduce the concept of learning space as a framework for understanding the interface between student learning styles and the institutional learning environment. We illustrate the use of the learning space framework in three case studies of longitudinal institutional development. Finally, we present principles for the enhancement of experiential learning in higher education and suggest how experiential learning can be applied throughout the educational environment by institutional development programs, including longitudinal outcome assessment, curriculum development, student development, and faculty development.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of teaching and learning style preferences and their match or mismatch on learners’ achievement. The sample consisted of 310 English Major Students and four lecturers from the Foreign Languages Faculty of Azad University, Iran. The Index of Learning Styles was used together with observations and interviews to collect data. The results of the study revealed that matching teaching and learning styles in EFL classes can help improve students’ achievement.
Article
Full-text available
This article focuses on an educational versus psychological definition of learning styles and offers a rationale for matching student and teacher style based upon this definition. A survey of various matching approaches is provided along with a classification chart that visually differentiates among alternative matching strategies. The Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) by Renzulli and Smith is then described. The LSI is a research-based instrument designed to guide teachers in planning learning experiences that take into account the learning style preferences of students within their classrooms. The instrument provides information about student attitude toward lecture, discussion, drill and recitation, peer teaching, simulation, projects, teaching games, independent study and programmed instruction. Finally, research studies related to the LSI are reviewed. (Author)
Article
A bstract A cohort of chemical engineering students has been taught in an experimental sequence of five chemical engineering courses, beginning with the introductory course in the Fall 1990 semester. Differences in academic performance have been observed between students from rural and small town backgrounds (“rural students,” N=55) and students from urban and suburban backgrounds (“urban students,” N=65), with the urban students doing better on almost every measure investigated. In the introductory course, 80% of the urban students and 55% of the rural students passed with a grade of C or better, with average grades of 2.63 for the urban students and 1.80 for the rural students (A=4.0). The urban group continued to earn higher grades in subsequent chemical engineering courses. After four years, 79% of the urban students and 64% of the rural students had graduated or were still enrolled in chemical engineering; the others had either transferred out of engineering or were no longer attending the university. This paper presents data on the students' home and school backgrounds and speculates on possible causes of observed performance differences between the two populations.
Article
The 4MAT System honors the distinctive style that each student brings to the classroom, while helping all students grow by mastering the entire cycle of learning styles. The learner makes meaning by moving through a natural cycle--from feeling to reflecting to thinking and, finally, to acting. Teachers need not label learners by style; instead, they must help them work for balance and wholeness. (MLH)