International Journal of Technology and Design Education (2006) 16:163–176

DOI 10.1007/s10798-005-4327-y Ó Springer 2006

Matching Learning Style Preferences with suitable

Delivery Methods on Textile Design Programmes

KATE SAYER and RACHEL STUDD

School of Materials, The University of Manchester, Sackville Street, Manchester, M60
1QD, UK; (E-mail: kate.sayer@manchester.ac.uk)

ABSTRACT: Textile design is a subject that encompasses both design and technology;
aesthetically pleasing patterns and forms must be set within technical parameters to create
successful fabrics. When considering education methods in design programmes, identi-
fying the most relevant learning approach is key to creating future successes. Yet are the
most suitable teaching methods being utilised? This paper discusses the learning styles of
textile and fashion design students at The University of Manchester and Manchester
Metropolitan University and identifies their overall learning style biases. It then goes on
to compare these two institutional approaches and examines whether the teaching
methods used suitably match student learning biases.

Keywords: creativity, design, knitting, learning styles, technology, textiles

Abbreviations: HEI: Higher Education Institute; LSI: Learning Style Inventory; LSQ:
Learning Styles Questionnaire; MMU: Manchester Metropolitan University

INTRODUCTION

Industry believes that strong effective skills are the most desirable char-
acteristics for the success of future design professionals (Wright, Cush-
man & Nicholson 2002). The recent White Paper on 14–19 Educational
skills stated that changes in the economic and social environment mean
that education and higher-level skills are more important than ever and
that making available opportunities to learn in different ways is a key to
success (Kelly 2005). This is also true at higher education level. In 2003–
2004 there were 140,195 students registered on creative art and design
courses within higher education establishments within the United
Kingdom alone. (http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/sub-
ject0304.htm). According to figures by Eurostat for students studying
level isced97 level 5–6 within the Arts in 2003, there were 601,744 students
in the United Kingdom, 3,235,622 students in the European Union and
2,352,271 in the United States. (http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int).
Traditional teaching in higher education assumed that student groups
were homogenous in terms of age, academic achievement and orientation
(Bennett, Foreman-Peck & Higgins 1996). However, the range of abilities
within some classes is now considerable, and with a much more diversified
student population, the traditional higher education teaching method of
lecture followed by tutorial is no longer suitable for all learners (Biggs
164 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

2003). The education of future designers must cater for a diverse range of
learning styles and therefore an investigation into different learning
methodologies is required. Some may prefer a more theoretical, reading
and writing based approach to learning, whereas others need to approach
their studies in an active, more practice-based way.
This research asks whether learning style preferences are matched
with suitable delivery methods on textile design programmes. It draws
on research which evaluates and compares the different learning styles
of students from two very different education institutions: Textiles and
Paper at The University of Manchester (formerly UMIST) with their
BSc (Hons) Textile Design and Design Management programme and
the Textiles and Fashion Department at Manchester Metropolitan
University with their BA (Hons) Textiles and BA (Hons) Fashion
programmes. Learning preferences were gathered through the ‘Learn-
ing Style Questionnaires’ (Honey & Mumford 1992), along with an
inventory methodology developed by Fleming (1996) ‘How do I learn
best?’.

LEARNING STYLE THEORY

There is no single ‘right’ way to study or ‘best’ way to teach (Entwistle

1988, p. 4). Each individual person will have preferred styles in which
they find it easier to learn information. As classified by Marton and
Säljö, university educators should encourage a ‘deep’ approach to
learning (Marton & Säljö 1976). Biggs suggests that the model of con-
structive alignment, in which clear curriculum objectives are married
with suitable teaching and assessment methods, should foster this deep
approach (Biggs 2003). Over the years, a number of leading academics
have come up with strategies for defining and categorising the learning
and teaching styles of individuals. These include Kolb who defined
experiential learning as a process by which ‘knowledge is created
through the transformation of experience’ (Kolb 1984, p. 38). He
developed the Learning Style Inventory (LSI), to assess individual ori-
entations toward learning. This questionnaire demonstrated an indi-
vidual’s learning biases towards the four modes of the learning process
(concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation
and active experimentation), and determined the extent to which a person
emphasises abstractness over concreteness and action over reflection
(Kolb 1984). For a discussion on experiential learning see Atherton, 2002
(http://www.dmu.ac.uk/jamesa/learning/experien.htm).
Hudson used the ‘Uses of Objects’ test to measure imaginative thinking;
students had to think of as many uses as possible for an article, and from
this data he was able to categorise the student into a thinking type. He
discovered that science students tended to be convergers, describing only
the most obvious uses for objects, whereas arts students could be classified
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 165

as divergers, thinking of an abundance of possible uses (Hudson 1966,

p. 43).
Honey and Mumford devised a test called the Learning Styles Ques-
tionnaire (LSQ) in the 1990s. Responses to a set of statements could be
analysed and segmented to determine whether a respondent had tendencies
towards being an activist, a reflector, a theorist or a pragmatist. It was
expected that all respondents would have leanings towards all four learning
styles to greater or lesser degrees and would not be polarised towards one
style (Honey & Mumford 1992). Honey and Mumford suggest methods that
would assist learning for each classification of learning style.
A further learning styles test was devised by Neil Fleming of Lincoln
University in New Zealand in 1996 (Fleming 1996). The questionnaire
entitled ‘How do I learn best?’ measures whether respondents have
biases towards Visual, Aural, Read/Write and/or Kinesthetic learning
styles. Like Honey and Mumford’s taxonomy, it is not expected that
participants will have polarised preferences but strong or weak biases
towards a particular learning style. Fleming also sets out which teaching
and learning methods are most suitable for learners in each category to
intake information, process it and perform well in examinations.
As discussed by Hayes and Allinson, conflicting opinions exist
regarding matching or mismatching student learning styles. In their
analysis of 19 studies, which investigated the interaction effect of learning
style and learning activity, they found that 12 of the 19 studies supported
the theory that matching contributes to improved learning performance
(Hayes & Allinson 1996). Shuell remarks that if students are to learn
desired outcomes in a reasonably effective manner, then the teacher’s task
is to get students to engage in learning activities that are likely to result in
them achieving these outcomes (Shuell 1986). It was therefore decided
that for this study, matching learning activities should be identified.
Student learning approaches (deep or surface) are very dependent on
context (Jackson 1995). Initial research by Davies, looked at the impact
of assessment on art and design students with regard to encouraging
deep learning approaches (Davies 1996). He remarked that students
tended to take a more surface approach to learning as assessments draw
near. However the learning styles used should remain as ‘personal
unchanging characteristics’ (Jackson 1995, p. 159).
Academic theories regarding learning styles are of particular inter-
est when identifying those of Textile Design students due to the arts/
science split within the subject area. Moreover, the students at The
University of Manchester study a BSc (Hons) programme, and take
modules in Textile Materials, Applied Production Processes, Costing
and Economics of Textile Production, as well as undertake practical
creative knit, weave and print projects. Would they therefore have
biases towards both activism and theorism, preferring concrete expe-
rience as well as abstract conceptualisation?
166 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

THE LEARNING STYLES TESTS

Two learning styles inventories were used to see if it was possible to

determine preferred learning styles of BA and BSc Textile Design
students. The Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Questionnaire took
the form of a set of eighty statements, to which the respondent either
agreed or disagreed (Honey & Mumford 1992). There were no right or
wrong answers to these questions, and the success of the test relied
upon the students giving honest answers to these questions. These re-
sponses could then be analysed and segmented into statements that
showed the respondent had tendencies towards being an activist, a
reflector, a theorist or a pragmatist. It was expected that all respon-
dents would have leanings towards all four learning styles to greater or
lesser degrees therefore for comparison purposes, the results were
graded from 0 for a very low preference to a 4 for a very strong
preference.
The validity of this test in reference to its use at higher education level
is discussed by Duff (Duff 2000). He advocates caution when using the
LSQ to select appropriate instructional methods at university level,
preferring the use of Kolb’s LSI test:
‘The LSQ is based on a model ... that is not sufficiently sophisticated to describe the
learning that takes place within higher education. The LSQ is defined in terms of a man-
agement trainee’s learning rather than that of an undergraduate’. (Duff 2000, p. 13)

However the Honey and Mumford test is a well-known taxonomy,

marked against norms calculated from a sample population of over
3,500. The reliability of this test is high with correlation between tests
(taken by 50 people with a two week gap between) of 0.89. Face
validity is also high in this test (technical validity is very hard to
measure in a test of this kind) (Honey & Mumford 1992). The test by
Fleming is a relatively new testing method, and therefore data
regarding reliability and validity have not been published to date.
However the face validity of Fleming’s test is very good and, as
demonstrated below, the results tie in very closely with those of the
Honey and Mumford test; for this reason, Fleming’s test was selected
for this study.
The ‘How do I learn best?’ test determined which teaching methods
were most suitable, therefore how the students learn best (Fleming 1996).
This questionnaire took the form of a set of 13 questions each with four
multiple-choice answers. If suitable the respondent could choose more
than one answer to a question or leave blank any that did not apply. The
results of the test categorised respondents into Visual, Aural, Read/Write
and Kinesthetic learners (Fleming 1996). For comparative purposes, the
results were marked as 0 for no preference, 1 for mild preference and 2 for
a strong preference towards a particular learning style.
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 167

BACKGROUND

Due to the scientific bias of the programme at The University of Man-

chester, it was decided to select students from BA Textiles and BA
Fashion programmes at Manchester Metropolitan University, and sub-
sequently compare the results of the two. Combining these results with a
brief analysis of teaching styles used in these two HEIs (Higher Edu-
cation Institutes), would indicate whether broad student learning pref-
erences were being catered for. It would also indicate whether the
Universities were each attracting the right students to their respective
programmes.
The textile design programmes at The University of Manchester and
Manchester Metropolitan University are very focused, and therefore
have small student numbers. The students who completed the two
questionnaires had all concentrated on knitting as a fabric production
area, therefore the sample was specialised, which was reflected by the
sample size.

The University of Manchester

With a focus on the teaching of knit design, the teaching methods
utilised on the BSc (Hons) Textile Design and Design Management
programme are fairly broad. Formal lectures are the backbone of this
teaching, with ‘chalk and talk’ (Reece & Walker 1997, p. 40), over-
head slides and handouts traditionally being used. Laboratory classes
accompany these lectures, allowing students to see demonstrations of
machinery, as well as carry out focussed experiments to demonstrate
machine- and structure-related concepts. The students also have knit
design projects to complete in the 1st and 2nd year, with the option
to specialise in their final year of study. They are able to create
knitted swatches on the Hand Flat V-bed machines, and have access
to a Stoll Electronic V-bed machine as well as a Morat Jacquard
knitting machine. It must be noted that as a result of a detailed study
of the knit design element of this BSc (Hons) programme, more
interactive PowerPoint based lectures have replaced many of the
formal lectures.

Manchester Metropolitan University

At Manchester Metropolitan University a more informal approach is
used to teach knit design, with tutorials and demonstrations taking place
in or near the knitting workshop. Emphasis is put on working with the
technician, and producing background research relating to trends and
styles, so that all swatching and experimentation is placed in context.
The textile and fashion students work with Dubied V-bed hand-flat
machines and domestic knitting machines, and final year students create
168 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

their knitted collections on these machines (V. Coughlin, personal

communication). The students therefore have a lot more time experi-
menting with fabric creation than their counterparts at the University of
Manchester, and their learning takes place through concrete experience
and active experimentation (Kolb 1984).

LEARNING STYLES TESTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

30 BSc (Hons) Textile Design and Design Management students took

the two tests anonymously. These students were in the second and final
year in academic year 2001–2002.

Learning styles questionnaire

The responses were graded from 0 to 4 so that an overall bias towards
each style could be identified clearly. The overall figures in Table I show
that the greatest tendency of the students questioned was towards being
an activist, followed closely by being a reflector. In comparison to this,
around half the amount of grades were given to being a theorist or
pragmatist.

How do I learn best?

As with Honey and Mumford’s test, the responses were graded from 0 to
2 so that a clear bias could be identified. It can be seen from the results in
Table II that these students give almost equal bias to Visual, Read/Write
and Kinesthetic learning. Aural learning only scored half the number of
marks, showing it was not the preferred choice by these respondents.

LEARNING STYLES TESTS AT MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

The same two testing methods were used with Manchester Metropolitan
University students in order to identify their preferred learning styles.

Learning styles questionnaire

17 fashion and textiles students completed Honey and Mumford’s ques-
tionnaire in 2001–2002. The results in Table III clearly show that the
greatest bias of these students was towards being an activist, followed by
being a reflector. The weakest leaning of the Manchester Metropolitan
students was towards being a pragmatist.
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 169

TABLE I
Results of the ‘Learning Styles Questionnaire’ on The University of Manchester’s
Textile Design students

Student Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist

1 4 3 2 1
2 2 3 1 0
3 2 1 1 2
4 3 3 1 2
5 4 4 0 0
6 2 2 0 1
7 1 3 4 2
8 2 3 1 1
9 3 3 3 1
10 4 1 0 1
11 4 1 2 0
12 1 1 3 3
13 1 3 1 0
14 4 0 1 3
15 4 3 1 1
16 3 3 2 0
17 4 3 4 2
18 3 4 2 1
19 3 2 0 2
20 2 2 1 0
21 2 2 1 2
22 1 3 3 2
23 3 2 0 0
24 2 3 1 0
25 2 3 0 1
26 3 2 2 2
27 3 3 1 1
28 0 3 2 1
29 4 0 1 2
30 4 0 0 1
Total 80 69 41 35

0=very low preference.

1=Low preference.
2=Moderate preference.
3=Strong preference.
4=Very strong preference.

How do I learn best?

17 fashion and textiles students from Manchester Metropolitan Uni-
versity completed the questionnaire in 2001–2002. These results, shown
in Table IV, demonstrate that the majority of students responded best to
Visual and Kinesthetic teaching styles.
170 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

TABLE II
Results of ‘How do I learn best?’ on The University of Manchester’s Textile Design
students

Students V A R K

1 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 1 2 0 1
5 0 0 2 2
6 2 1 0 0
7 0 0 1 0
8 2 2 0 0
9 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 1 1
12 2 0 0 0
13 0 0 2 0
14 0 0 1 1
15 2 0 0 2
16 0 0 0 0
17 2 0 1 2
18 0 0 0 2
19 0 0 2 0
20 0 0 1 0
21 0 1 2 0
22 0 0 0 2
23 2 0 0 1
24 0 1 0 0
25 0 0 2 0
26 0 0 2 0
27 2 2 0 0
28 2 0 2 2
29 2 1 0 2
30 0 0 2 2
Total 20 10 21 20

0=No preference.
1=Mild preference.
2=Strong preference.
V=Visual.
A=Aural.
R=Read/write.
K=Kinesthetic.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF RESULTS

On analysis of the test data, one can see that the results are similar (see
Figure 1). Firstly the bias towards learning styles shown in Honey and
Mumford’s test was the same at both institutes. Both sets of students
demonstrated biases towards being Activists, followed by Reflectors,
with the weakest leaning towards being a Pragmatist.
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 171

TABLE III
Results of the ‘Learning Styles Questionnaire’ on Manchester Metropolitan Textiles
and Fashion Design students

Student Activist Reflector Theorist Pragmatist

1 2 2 1 0
2 1 2 0 0
3 1 2 3 1
4 4 1 1 1
5 4 3 2 0
6 2 2 1 1
7 3 1 0 0
8 3 3 1 2
9 2 1 0 0
10 2 0 0 0
11 3 3 2 0
12 4 2 1 1
13 2 1 1 2
14 2 1 3 1
15 4 2 3 1
16 3 3 0 0
17 3 3 2 1
Total 45 32 21 11

0=Very low preference.

1=Low preference.
2=Moderate preference.
3=Strong preference.
4=Very strong preference.

Activists are described as people who ‘involve themselves fully and

without bias in new experiences. They enjoy the here and now and are
happy to be dominated by immediate experiences.... Their days are filled
with activity...they tackle problems by brainstorming...[and]...tend to
thrive on the challenge of new experiences’ (Honey & Mumford 1992).
This would be an expected bias for a textile designer, as the subject
involves much practical and experimental work, with plenty of emphasis
placed on trying out new techniques in a hands-on way. Moreover,
textile design is a very dynamic subject and involves the use of all the
senses (seeing, hearing, smelling and touching).
The second most common bias that can be seen in Figure 1 was
towards being a Reflector. These are described as people who ‘like to
stand back to ponder experiences and observe them from many different
perspectives...they collect data, both first hand and from others, and prefer
to think about it thoroughly before coming to any conclusions...their phi-
losophy is to be cautious...they tend to postpone reaching definite conclu-
sions for as long as possible’ (Honey & Mumford 1992). It could be
perceived that these traits are unsuitable for designers, who make crea-
tive decisions through experimenting then analysing the results. Yet
some amount of procrastination is indeed useful to a designer in
172 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

TABLE IV
Results of ‘How do I learn best?’ on Manchester Metropolitan University Textiles and
Fashion Design students

Students V A R K

1 0 0 0 2
2 1 0 0 1
3 1 0 2 1
4 1 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 1 0 0
7 0 0 0 0
8 1 0 0 0
9 2 0 2 2
10 0 0 2 2
11 0 1 0 0
12 2 2 0 1
13 2 1 0 2
14 0 0 1 0
15 0 2 0 0
16 2 0 0 1
17 0 0 1 0
Total 12 7 8 12

0=No preference.
1=Mild preference.
2 = Strong Prefence
V=Visual.
A=Aural.
R=Read/write.
K=Kinesthetic.

rationalising the design process and helping to create a more intelligent

and successful realisation.
It is unsurprising that both sets of students showed little bias towards
theorism, as design is not a subject that can be properly learnt without a
large portion of time spent practically trying out ideas and creating
products. However the students showed their weakest leaning towards
pragmatism.
Pragmatists are people who are ‘keen on trying out ideas, theories and
techniques to see if they work in practice...[they]...take the first opportunity
to experiment with applications...They like to get on with things and act
quickly and confidently on ideas that attract them...They are essentially
practical, down to earth people who like making practical decisions and
solving problems’ (Honey & Mumford 1992). It had been imagined that a
higher percentage of the designers would have leanings towards these
traits, as design is such a practical hands-on subject. Yet designers as a
group would not be described often as ‘down to earth people’ (Honey &
Mumford 1992), and it is in fact the slight eccentricity of designers as a
whole that gives rise to the creation of inspirational, innovative products.
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 173

Figure 1. Chart showing results of the ‘Learning Styles Questionnaire’ at The Univer-
sity of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University.

Designers may try out ideas in a practical hands-on way, but they strive to
push technology in unconventional and novel ways.
The results of Fleming’s test showed a close correlation between
student biases at The University of Manchester and MMU, with regard
to their visual, aural and read/write preferences (Figure 2). Both sets of
students showed a strong leaning towards visual and kinaesthetic
teaching styles. Visual learners respond best to using ‘charts, graphs,
symbols, underlining, white space, highlighters, different colours, pic-
tures, videos, posters slides...’ They should learn ‘page pictures’ ‘redraw
[them] from memory’. They are ‘holistic’ in approach and like to use
diagrams to explain themselves (Fleming 1996). This is highly relevant to
textile designers, who need to use diagrams and pictures to explain their
concepts, which may otherwise be misinterpreted. Furthermore, kines-
thetic learners are practical and prefer ‘applications, laboratories, trial
and error... hands on approaches, lecturers who give real-life examples’.
They ‘need to do things to understand’ (Fleming 1996). This is an
obvious trait for textile design students, who work hands-on with hand
flat V-bed machinery (knitting), dobby looms (weaving) and screens and
squeegees (wet printing), to create fabric swatches.
However Figure 2 also shows a 9% difference in the preference towards
Read/Write teaching at the two institutions. Although this is not statisti-
cally significant, it can be seen that only 3–4% separated the biases towards
the other three styles (Figure 2). The University of Manchester students
showed their greatest bias towards this method, which was not the case for
the students from Manchester Metropolitan University. This may indicate
174 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

Figure 2. Chart showing results of ‘How do I learn best?’ at The University of Man-
chester and Manchester Metropolitan University.

that there is a difference in the type of student that is attracted to each

university programme. Read/Write learners use ‘lists...handouts, text-
books, definitions... lecture notes’ to intake information (Fleming 1996).
Rewriting notes in lists and paragraphs helps them perform well, and they
would rather have a handout than listen to information being spoken.
The University of Manchester students attend a wide variety of classes
on diverse subjects. Many of the non-design specific programmes are
formal lecture based, with technical laboratory classes in some areas.
These students leave university with a comprehensive knowledge about
textile manufacturing processes as well as hands on experience in
creating their own fabrics. The MMU students spend a much larger
proportion of their time on practical work rather than in lecture situa-
tions, so a preference towards Read/Write teaching is not necessary.

DISCUSSION

These findings indicate that the two different programmes are on the whole
attracting students with learning styles that marry up with the overall
teaching methods on each programme. The results of both tests show
significant trends in these designers towards being active and hands-on, yet
requiring time for contemplation and reflection. These traits should be
fully exploited through practical projects, demonstrations, problem-based
learning and tutorials requiring significant student participation, mirror-
ing Kolb’s theory of experiential learning (Kolb 1984).
 MATCHING LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES 175

Both sets of students show a low preference towards aural learning,

and this calls into question the suitability of lectures as a teaching
medium. The University of Manchester students did however show a
strong preference towards reading and writing. Delivery methods are
needed to cater for these traits, and these could include lectures, along
with more modern teaching media such as Virtual Learning Environ-
ments. Lectures are a useful method of relaying information to a group
of students in a fairly economical way, a mute point within a research-
focussed institution. However if lectures are to be used, their delivery
should be modernised to encompass more visual media and student
interaction, rather than the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ methods (Reece
& Walker 1997).
It could be argued that the learning preferences of the students could
be influenced by the approaches used at that institution; they may become
accustomed to the teaching methods used, therefore their natural biases
may alter. Although this may be an influencing factor to a degree, these
findings indicate that the effect is not universal, with a number of indi-
viduals showing preferences clearly different to those shown by their
peers. Further research is taking place within The University of Man-
chester to track student learning style biases throughout their study and
monitor the effect teaching style may have.
The research question posed in this paper asked whether learning
style preferences were being matched with suitable delivery methods on
textile design programmes. This research indicates that the strongest
bias of the surveyed students was towards activism, and this trait is
matched by the provision of practical design projects, an integral part
of all textile and fashion design programmes, as well as laboratory
classes. What should also be considered carefully however is that each
individual student will have varying biases towards different teaching
and learning styles, as demonstrated in this study. As it is not possible
to tailor-make courses for individual students in a higher education
environment, a broad range of teaching methods should be utilised to
cater for diverse programme groups.

REFERENCES

Bennett, C., Foreman-Peck, L. & Higgins, C.: 1996, Researching into Teaching Methods in
Colleges and Universities, Kogan Page.
Biggs, J.: 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into
Higher Education & Open University Press.
Davies, A.: 1996, Exploration of Evaluation and Research Methods for Improving Student
Learning in Art and Design.: 1996, in G. Gibbs (ed.), Improving Student Learning, Using
Research to Improve Student Learning, pp. 146–154, The Oxford Centre for Staff
Development, Oxford.
Duff, A.: 2000, ÔLearning Styles of UK Higher Education StudentsÕ, Bristol Business School
Teaching and Research Review 3, 1–17.
176 KATE SAYER AND RACHEL STUDD

Entwistle, N.: 1998, An Integrated Outline of Educational Psychology for Students, Teachers and
Lecturers, David Fulton Publishers.
Fleming, N. D.: 1996, VARK, Lincoln University, New Zealand.
Hayes, J. & Allinson, C. W.: 1996, ÔThe Implications of Learning Styles for Training and
Development: A Discussion of the Matching HypothesisÕ, British Journal of Management
7(1), 63–73.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A.: 1992, The Manual of Learning Styles. Peter Honey.
Hudson, L.: 1966, Contrary Imaginations, Methuen.
Jackson, B.: 1995, Assessment Practices in Art and Design: A Contribution to Student
Learning?.: 1995, in G. Gibbs (ed), Improving Student Learning, Through Assessment and
Evaluation, pp. 154–167, The Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford.
Kelly, R.: 2005, 14–19 Education and Skills, Department for Education and Skills, The
Stationary Office Limited.
Kolb, D. A.: 1984, Experiential Learning, P. T. R. Prentice Hall.
Marton, F. & Saljo, R.: 1976, ÔOn Qualitative Differences in Learning: I – Outcome and
ProcessÕ, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11.
Reece, I. & Walker, S.: 1997, Teaching Training and Learning. Business Education Publishers.
Shuell, T. J.: 1986, ÔCognitive Conceptions of LearningÕ, Review of Educational Research 56(4),
411–436.
Wright, J., Cushman, L. & Nicholson, A.: 2002, ÔReconciling Industry and Academia:
Perspectives on the Apparel Design CurriculumÕ, Education and Training 44(3), 122–128.