Running Head: LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

Learning Styles and Their Effects on Education

Joshua R. Petty
Northern Illinois University

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

Abstract
This literature review focuses on three different learning styles, as described by Chafee, Grasha
and Reichmann, and Felder and Silverman. Each of these models will be broken down and
individually explained. Research from contradicting viewpoints will then be presented in order
for readers to formulate their own opinions on the topic of learning styles. The last section
focuses on tactics that teachers can use, assuming that they believe in learning styles and the
alignment of them with instruction.

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

Learning Styles and Their Effects on Education

Over the years, there have been many studies conducted on the different learning styles of
students. This literature review will be broken up into three sections, and includes multiple
purposes. The first purpose is to define the various types of learning styles and models. It may be
difficult to understand the research without knowledge of the model and styles themselves. From
there, we need to understand whether or not there are benefits to using various teaching
techniques in order to address multiple styles of learning. Lastly, its important to understand the
techniques that can be used by instructors in order to benefit students of various learning styles.
According to Keefe (1979), learning styles can be defined as characteristic cognitive,
affective, and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners
perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment (as cited in Ismail, Hussain, &
Jamaluddin, 2010, p. 4088). With learning styles, like many topics, there are various models
which attempt to explain what is happening. The learning style models that that are going to be
focused on within this review are the Chafee (1999), Grasha and Reichmann (2006), and Felder
and Silverman (2004) models (Ismail, et al., 2010).
There has been much controversy over whether or not learning styles exist, and have an
impact on education. The next section will focus on what the research is saying regarding the
existence of learning styles and whether or not teachers can make adjustments to their own
teaching styles in order to have a greater impact on their students.
Upon gaining a better grasp on the different learning styles themselves, as well as what
the current research is saying, its also important to know about the different techniques that

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

teachers could use to address the variety of learning styles within their individual learning
environment.
What are the Various Learning Styles and Models?
Included within this topic is information on three different learning style models. The
models that will be focused on are the Chafee, Grasha and Reichmann, and Felder and Silverman
models. Each model within this section will be introduced, and the individual components will
be defined. Even though they are different models, readers should recognize that there are many
similarities between them as well and multiple styles could fit within more than one model.
Chafee Model
When discussing the various learning styles of students, even if the name of it is
unknown, you are probably familiar with the Chafee (1999) model. This model puts learners into
three distinct categories: audio, visual, and kinesthetic learners (Ismail, et al., 2010, p. 4088).
Audio learners prefer to hear instruction, rather than seeing or physically doing it (Ismail, et al.,
2010, p. 4088). They tend to do well in lecture style lessons. Visual learners prefer to see things
such as a variety of colors, pictures, or diagrams to acquire their information (Ismail, et al., 2010,
p. 4088). According to Begel, Garcia, and Wolfman (2004), kinesthetic learning can be described
as any activity which physically engages students in the learning process (p. 183). These
learners prefer hands on activities. This model is probably the simplest classification of learning
styles.
Grasha and Reichmann Model
The Grasha and Reichmann learning style model is more complex than the Chafee model,
mentioned above, but simpler than the Felder and Silverman model, which is mentioned below.

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

The Grasha and Reichmann model separates learners into six different categories: competitive,
collaborative, avoidant, participant, dependent, and independent.
Competitive learners are the learners that learn because they want to be the best in their
respective group, class, grade, etc. (Logan & Thomas, 2002). Collaborative learners like to work
and share ideas with others within a group. That could include the teacher or other classmates
(Logan & Thomas, 2002). Avoidant learners typically keep to themselves in class. They are
mostly disinterested with the subject matter, or even school in general, and may feel like they are
in over their heads in class (Logan & Thomas, 2002). Participant learners are the opposite of the
avoidant learners. They enjoy coming to class and like to participate. The next group within the
Grasha and Reichmann model is the dependent learners. The dependent learners only do the
minimum and learn what they are required to learn. They do not do much, if anything beyond
that (Logan & Thomas, 2002). The last group is the independent students. They typically like to
work alone and choose to learn the information that they feel is important (Logan & Thomas,
2002).
Felder and Silverman Model
The Felder and Silverman breaks learners down into four distinct categories: sensing and
intuitive learners, visual or verbal learners, active or reflective learners, and sequential or global
learners (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Learners tend to favor one style, or the other, within each
of the four categories. This is a more complex model of learning.
Sensing deals with gathering information through the use of senses, while intuition is the
subconscious use of perception (Felder & Silverman, 1988, p. 676). Visual learners rely heavily
on what they are able to see, while verbal learners learn better from the things that they are able

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

to hear (Felder & Silverman, 1988, p. 676). Active learners prefer to be doing something hands
on with the information that theyve acquired (Felder & Silverman, 1988, p. 677). Reflective
learners prefer to analyze all of the information that they were given, prior to experimentation
(Felder & Silverman, 1988, p. 677). The last group is the sequential and global learners. The
sequential learners learn best when subjects are taught in a set order, or sequence (Felder &
Silverman, 1988, p. 679). This is how many curriculums are set up, which benefits the sequential
learners. On the other hand, there are the global learners. The global learners do not always grasp
concepts immediately, and may struggle for some time with a particular topic. At some point in
time though, the topic all of a sudden makes sense to them and they can do it (Felder &
Silverman, 1988, p. 679).
Should Teaching Styles be Altered?
Should teachers alter their style(s) of teaching in order to address multiple styles of
learning? Over the years, this has been a fairly controversial subject, and depending on who you
ask, you may receive multiple answers. The goal of this section is to present what some of the
current research is saying and let you formulate your own opinion.
Richard Felder, of the Felder and Silverman model, found that learners may not fit within
one category or another. They may possibly fit within multiple styles of learning (Felder, 2010,
p. 2). When looking at sensing vs. intuition style learners, he points out that just because a person
is more of a sensing style learner, doesnt mean that that person necessarily has poor intuition,
when it comes to learning (Felder, 2010, p. 2). Felder (2010) uses the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) model to point out multiple studies that have been conducted using
engineering students (p. 2). In courses requiring students to solve problems quickly, the intuition
style learners fared much better than the sensing style learners (Felder, 2010, p.2). In contrast,

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

courses that required a meticulous attention to detail and observation, the sensing style learners
performed much better here (Felder, 2010, p. 2).
According to Felder (2010), there is only one reason why teachers should not try to teach
all students using their ideal learning style. Its impossible (p. 3). When a teacher is connecting
with a group of students, using their preferred learning style, they could potentially be missing
the mark completely with another group of students. According to Dunn, Beaudry and Klavas
(1989), low and average students have seen increases on assessments when paired with a
teaching style that fits their learning styles (Cited in Abidin, Rezaee, Abdullah, & Singh, 2011, p.
144). The solution to this problem is to reasonably address each learning style during times of
instruction (Felder, 2010, p. 3). If instruction heavily favors one style of learning, it will be
unproductive as a whole (Felder, 2010, p. 3).
Chuah Chong-Cheng (1988) found that students remember 10% of what is read, 26% of
what is heard, 30% of what is seen, 50% of what is seen and heard, 70% of what is said, and
90% of what is said while completing a task (Cited in Abidin, et al., 2011, p. 144). If those
numbers are correct, that would mean that there are positives and negatives to each style of
learning (Abidin, et al., 2011, p. 144). The statistics also indicate that students who prefer
multiple learning styles are better off than students who only prefer a single style of learning
(Adidin, et al., 2011, p.144). It is the belief of Dunn and Dunn (1986) that lower learners have a
poor auditory memory (Cited in Abidin, et al., 2011, p. 145). If this is the case, that could explain
why they struggle in a traditional classroom setting, where the instructor typically dictates the
instruction (Abidin, et al., 2011, p. 145).
According to Smith and Renzulli (1984), the alignment of learning styles with teaching
styles can improve academic success in both primary and secondary school (Cited in Abidin, et

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

al., 2011, p. 145). Backing up the statistics above, Felder (1995) states that students will learn
more when subject matter is delivered via more than one method of instruction (cited in Abidin,
et al., 2011, p. 145). Adidin, et al. (2011) point out that research does show that learning styles
can either increase or decrease performance in the classroom, however they do point out that the
research is still experimental (p. 145). This adds to the learning styles controversy.
According to Rohrer and Pashler (2012), the modifying of curriculum and instruction to
fit a students learning style has turned into a very profitable industry (p. 634). Within their
submission, Rohrer and Pashler (2012) described a hypothetical study which could prove or
disprove the existence of learning styles and their improvement with aligned instruction (p. 634).
To start, participants would be divided into two groups, visual learners and audio
learners. From there, each group would be split in half and put with one of the groups from the
other learning style. In doing so, this will create two groups that are half visual learners and half
audio learners. One of the groups would receive highly visual based instruction, while the other
would receive highly audio based instruction. Within each group, half of the participants would
be receiving the wrong kind of instruction. Once instruction has been delivered, all participants
would take the same test. The only way to support that altering teaching styles, to match learning
styles, would be if the audio learners that received audio based instruction and the visual learners
that received visual based instruction scored better than those that received the wrong type of
instruction. Any other result would be a negative conclusion for the theory (Rohrer & Pashler,
2012, p. 634). Within their search, Rohrer and Pashler (2012) found only 20 studies that used the
correct structure and their findings were compellingly negative (p. 634). It is the conclusion of
Rohrer and Pashler (2012) that there is no evidence that supports altering teaching styles and
methods specifically to meet a variety of learning styles (p. 635). Instructors should in turn focus

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

on combining forms of instruction in equally supporting ways (Rohrer & Pashler, 2012, p. 635).
This will be just as effective and more cost efficient (Rohrer & Pashler, 2012, p.635).
There is some evidence that both supports and contradicts the necessity to alter
instruction in order to meet a variety of learning styles. From here, it is your job to decide which
side, if any, you support. Whichever side you choose, there is plenty of available information out
there that will support your decision. That is why this continues to be a controversial issue within
the field of education.
What Changes Should Teachers Make?
If you choose to support the notion that instruction tailored to individual learning styles is
the way to go, you might find this section to be interesting. This is what changes the literature
says should be made to address the various learning styles. If you choose to believe that there is
no evidence to support the conclusion, you might not be interested in reading this section. The
evidence is out there.
If you remember from above, visual learners prefer to see things such as a variety of
colors, pictures, or diagrams to acquire their information (Ismail, et al., 2010, p. 4088). For this
group, graphic organizers and the use of colors to highlight terms, concepts, etc. is the way to go.
This group would also do well with flash cards and word walls, which is something that is
becoming increasingly popular with the new Common Core curriculums (Ismail, et al., 2010, p.
4091).
For audio learners, they prefer to hear instruction, which is why they do well in lecture
style classes (Ismail, et al., 2010, p. 4088). In order to get the most from these students, the
instructor must consider the format of his/her lectures (Ismail, et al., 2010, p. 4091). Where

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

10

possible, instructors should attempt to include group discussion into the lecture (Ismail, et al.,
2010, p. 4091). Instructors could also allow these students to record the lecture for future
playback (Ismail, et al., 2010, p. 4091). This will help them much more than textbooks and other
visual means.
In the case of kinesthetic learners, they enjoy doing things, rather than seeing or hearing
them (Begel, Garcia, & Wolfman, 2004, p. 183). In order to reach these learners, instructors
should attempt to include hands on activities, where students can learn by doing (Ismail, et al.,
2010, p. 4091). Ismail, et al. (2010) also suggest that the kinesthetic learners sit near the front of
the class to avoid distractions around them (p. 4091).
As mentioned above, there is not always a single theory which dominates learning for
individuals. The numbers presented by Chuah Chong-Cheng (1988) tend to support that
conclusion (Cited in Abidin, et al., 2011, p. 144). If you believe that learning styles do exist and
that aligned instruction helps these students, it is important to use a variety of methods to reach
these students. The statistics indicate that students who prefer multiple learning styles are better
off than students who only prefer a single style (Adidin, et al., 2011, p.144).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Looking at the available research on the topic, its clear that this continues to be a
controversial issue within the field of education. Until the controversy diminishes and it can be
answered one way, or the other, whether or not the learning styles exist and whether or not
learning improves when instruction is tailored to meet that learning style, further research must
be done on the subject. Once this debate is settled once and for all, the true winners will be the
students and the field of education, as a whole.

LEARNING STYLES IN EDUCATION

11
References

Abidin, M., Rezaee, A., Abdullah, H., & Singh, K. (2011). Learning Styles and Overall
Academic Achievement in a Specific Educational System. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 143-152.
Begel, A., Garcia, D., & Wolfman, S. (2004). Kinesthetic Learning in the Classroom. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 183-184.
Felder, R. (2010). Are Learning Styles Invalid? (Hint: No!). On-Course Newsletter, 1-7.
Felder, R., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles In Engineering Education.
Engr. Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Ismail, A., Hussain, R., & Jamaluddin, S. (2010). Assessment of Students Learning Styles
Preferences in the Faculty of Science. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2),
4087-4091.
Logan, K., & Thomas, P. (2002). Learning Styles in Distance Education Students Learning to
Program. 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 29-44.
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2012). Learning Styles: Wheres the Evidence?. Medical Education,
46(7), 634-635.