Innovations in Education and Training International

ISSN: 1355-8005 (Print) 1469-8420 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie19

‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional Design

Eugene Sadler‐Smith

To cite this article: Eugene Sadler‐Smith (1996) ‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional
Design, Innovations in Education and Training International, 33:4, 185-193, DOI:
10.1080/1355800960330405

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800960330405

Published online: 09 Jul 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 566

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20
 IETI33,4 185

'Learning Styles' and Instructional Design

Eugene Sadler-Smith, University of Plymouth, UK

SUMMARY
The purpose of this article is to suggest ways in which the experiential learning model (Kolb, 1984;
Honey and Mumford, 1986, 1992) and individual differences between learners in terms of their
cognitive styles (Riding, 1991) may be accommodated when designing self-instructional learning
materials. The learning cycle, and the associated learning styles (Kolb, 1984; Honey and Mumford,
1986, 1992) and the verbalizer—imager/wholist-analytical model of cognitive style (Riding, 1991)
are reviewed and suggestions made regarding how balanced instructional materials may be developed
which acknowledge: (a) each stage of the learning cycle; (b) individual differences between learners
in terms of the verbalizer-imager and wholist—analytical dimensions of cognitive style. It is argued
that Kolb's and Honey and Mumford's notions of the learning cycle and Riding's model of cognitive
style may provide useful guidelines for accommodating individual differences between learners
when designing self-instructional materials which may enable: (a) learning difficulties to be
anticipated and addressed; (b) the effectiveness and efficiency of self-instruction to be improved;
(c) learners to become more aware of the learning process and hence more self-reliant and
autonomous; (d) learners and designers to adopt a 'whole-brain' approach.

INTRODUCTION consider how to accommodate these two aspects of

A fundamental issue for teaching, and for self-
instruction in particular, is the effect of individual
differences on the efficiency and effectiveness of
learning. Two aspects of individual difference that
have been widely discussed and investigated are
'learning style' and cognitive style (Sadler-Smith,
1996a). In general, designers of self-instructional
materials appear to assume (for the most practical of
reasons) that learners are by and large uniform (see
Rowntree, 1992) and hence may be 'offering some-
thing which is not congruent with the way in which
at least some of their... students will learn effectively'
(Honey and Mumford, 1986: 3). In addition, the
design of teaching materials may, unconsciously,
reflect the styles and preferences of the designer or
teacher, which may not be congruent with the styles
and preferences of at least some of the intended
audience. Therefore, to further improve their mater-
ials, designers of self-instructional materials may need
to be aware of the potential impact of learning styles
and cognitive styles on learning performance and
individual difference in a comprehensive and inte-
grated manner. The purpose of this article is to suggest
ways in which the experiential learning model and
individual differences between learners in terms of
their cognitive styles may be accommodated when
designing self-instructional learning materials.
BACKGROUND
The term 'learning style' is widely used in both
education and training to refer to a variety of
constructs ranging from learning preferences to
cognitive styles (Sadler-Smith, 1996a). However,
learning styles and cognitive styles are fundamentally
quite distinct and have differing but complementary
implications for the design of teaching (see Sadler-
Smith, 1996b; Hayes and Allinson, 1996). Problems
may arise if the terms are used interchangeably.
In order, therefore, to avoid a potentially cross-
purposeful discussion and to clarify usage, the follow-
ing classification (derived from those of Curry, 1991,
186 IETI 33,4
1986,1983;Gorham, 1986; Riding &Cheema, 1991)
is suggested:
• learning preference: the favouring of one particular
mode of teaching over another;
• learning strategy: a plan of action adopted in the
acquisition of knowledge, skills or attitudes through
study or experience;
• learning style: a distinctive and habitual manner of
acquiring knowledge, skills or attitudes through
study or experience;
• cognitive strategy: a plan of action adopted in the
process of organizing and processing information;
• cognitive style: a distinctive and habitual manner
of organizing and processing information.
One way in which each of these five constructs differ
is in terms of the degree to which each may be
observed and articulated. Learning preferences, for
example, are readily expressed and observed: 'I just
don't like lectures — I much prefer practical classes
and project work'. Some of the other constructs listed
above may be identified by more formalized methods
(eg questionnaires), while others may only be
discernible by indirect methods (eg psychometric
tests). This classification scheme is represented below
as an elaboration of the 'onion model' (Curry, 1983),
in which each of the constructs are represented by a
concentric layer or 'skin' (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Individual differences model (after Curry,
1983)
The learning cycle and cognitive styles
The learning cycle (and the associated learning styles)
and cognitive styles have been widely discussed and
researched and there is a body of anecdotal, theo-
retical and empirical knowledge which suggests that
each may have their own significant effects on
learning performance (Ellis et al., 1993; England,
1987; Entwistle, 1988; Honey and Mumford, 1986,
1992; Riding and Ashmore, 1980; Riding and Buckle,
1990; Riding and Calvey, 1981; Riding and Sadler-
Smith, 1992; Riding and Douglas, 1993; Allinson and
Hayes, 1996; Hayes and Allinson, 1996; Sadler-
Smith, 1996a and b).
The learning cycle
Two widely used models of the learning process are
Kolb's model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984),
and one of its derivatives, Honey and Mumford's
'learning cycle' (1986,1992). Both take as their basis
the Lewinian model of learning (see Kolb, 1984: 21)
which may be summarized thus:
• Stage 1: concrete experience;
• Stage 2: observations and reflections on the exper-
ience;
• Stage 3: formation of abstract concepts and gener-
alizations based upon the experience and the
subsequent reflections;
• Stage 4: testing the implications of the concepts
and generalizations in new situations.
Kolb suggested that the Learning Styles Inventory
(LSI) (Kolb, 1985) be used to identify individuals'
learning styles. Honey and Mumford (1986, 1992)
modified Kolb's approach and classified learners in
terms of their strengths and weaknesses for each stage
of the cycle. They suggest there are four contrasting
learning styles:
• activists: people who involve themselves in new
experiences, tackling problems by brainstorming,
and moving from one task to the next as the
excitement fades;
• reflectors: cautious and thoughtful people who like
to consider all the possible angles before making
any decisions and whose actions are based on
observation and reflection;
• theorists: people who integrate their observations
into logical models based on analysis and object-
ivity;
• pragmatists: practical people who like to apply new
ideas immediately, and get impatient with an over-
emphasis on reflection (see Figure 2).
A wholly effective learner has the abilities character-
istic of all four stages. Such ideal learners are rare:
one style, eg reflective observation, may predominate
with the others being used to varying but lesser
degrees. The usage of the term 'style' is intended to
be non-pejorative, ie no one particular style is 'better'
 'Learning Styles' and Instructional Design 187

1992; Kolb, 1984; Rowntree, 1992). Rowntree (1992)

suggests that developers of learning programmes
should:
• consider in more detail the suggestions made by
Honey and Mumford;
Reflective • include a balance of learning activities (op cit.: 49).
observation
Cognitive styles
Riding and Cheema (1992), in a survey of a number
of cognitive style-type constructs, suggest that they
Abstract ., may each be assigned to one of two principal
conceptualization cognitive styles' 'families'. Their approach suggests
that learners differ in terms of two fundamental
Figure 2. Kolb 's learning cycle (adapted from Kolb, dimensions (see below).
1984: 42)
Wholist—analytical dimension of cognitive style
This describes the habitual way in which an individual
than the others. Both the Kolb and Honey and
processes information and is derived from the work
Mumford approaches have been widely used in
ofWitkin and his co-workers (see Witkinefa/., 1977).
management training and development (see Honey
Analytics tend to process information into its com-
and Mumford, 1986, 1992). ponent parts; wholists tend to retain a global view of
Allinson and Hayes (1988) investigated the properties a topic. This may be equivalent to the analytic-
of Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Question- intuitive dimension of cognitive style identified
naire (LSQ) and concluded that the LSQ may be by Allinson and Hayes (1996) but further work is
preferable to Kolb'sZ-57as a measure of learning style required in this area.
since:
Verbalizer—imager dimension of cognitive style
• unlike the LSI, the LSQ was able to distinguish
Verbalizers tend to represent information in memory
similar cognitive style dimensions (labelled analy-
in 'words'; imagers tend to represent information in
sis and action) in two independent samples;
memory in 'pictorial' form (Riding et al., 1989).
• it has superior temporal stability;
• it has better face validity (op cit.: 278). These two dimensions may be combined to give four
cognitive style types (see Figure 3). An individual's
Allinson and Hayes' study ( 1988) did not completely
position on each dimension, and hence their cognitive
verify the utility of the LSQ and they suggest that
style, may be assessed using the computer-presented
confirmation of its structure through large sample
Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) (Riding, 1991 ). Very
factor analysis of the questionnaire items rather than
the sub-scales is necessary, as is evidence of its
predictive validity before it can be used with confid-
ence by management educators (Allinson and Hayes,
1988: 280). More recently, Sadler-Smith and Riding
(1996a) in a factor analytical study of the LSQ
reviewed its validity as a diagnostic instrument and
failed to confirm its hypothesized four-factor
structure. In spite of the fact that the validity of both
the LSI and the LSQ remains unclear, the experiential
learning model itself has high face validity. As a
framework for designing, developing and delivering
learning experiences for adults it is of considerable
value since it provides 'an excellent framework for
planning [balanced] teaching and learning activities'
(Tennant, 1988: 105; see also Honey and Mumford,
188 1ETI 33,4
low correlations have been reported between the
verbal-imagery and the wholist-analytical dimen-
sions of cognitive style and intelligence as measured
by the British Abilities Scale (see Riding and Pearson,
1994: 419). Sadler-Smith and Riding (1996b) found
that cognitive style affected individuals' preferences
for autonomous (eg self-instruction), collaborative
(eg role play) and dependent learning methods (eg
lectures).
The two dimensions of cognitive style appear to affect
learning in two separate ways. The verbal-imagery
dimension has been shown to interact with the mode
of presentation of information to affect learning
performance. Verbalizers may be expected to benefit
more than imagers from the presentation of infor-
mation in a textual form; imagers on the other hand
may be expected to benefit more than verbalizers
from the presentation of information in a pictorial or
diagrammatic form (Riding and Ashmore, 1980;
Thompson, 1988; Riding et al., 1989; Riding and
Douglas, 1993). Hence, the verbal-imagery dimen-
sion of cognitive style may indicate the most
appropriate mode of presentation of information for
a given individual, ie the mode of presentation may
be matched to the verbal-imagery dimension of
cognitive style.
The wholist—analytical dimension has been shown
to interact with the structure of presentation of
information (see Riding et al.; Riding and Sadler
Smith, 1992). In order to compensate for the defic-
iencies of each aspect of this dimension (analytics
have difficulty 'seeing the wood for the trees';
wholists have difficulty 'seeing the trees for the
wood') it has been suggested that:
• wholists may benefit from a hierarchical advance
organizer which shows the structure of a topic in
terms of its component parts (referred to as a 'tree'
organizer; see Example 1);
• analytics may benefit from a non-hierarchical
advance organizer that gives an overview of
the whole (referred to as a 'web' organizer; see
Example 1) (Sadler-Smith, 1992).
A number of authors have suggested that content
maps may be used to provide information which is
more abstract and inclusive than the new material to
be learned; they aim to give learners a means of
organising the new material and relating it to what
they already know. In this sense they fulfil some of
the functions of an advance organizer (see Kloster
and Winne, 1989) by helping to build on existing
cognitive structures.
Hence, the two fundamental dimensions of cognitive
style may be accommodated when designing learning
by:
• matching the mode of presentation of information
to the verbal-imagery dimension;
• providing a compensatory strategy for the wholist-
analytical dimension by using some form of
advance organizer or content map.
Designing balanced materials
The effects of learning style and cognitive style
described above could be accommodated using a
variety of instructional strategies in adaptive or non-
adaptive contexts.
Adaptive approaches
An adaptive learning system is one which attempts
to customize the presentation of information and the
instructional strategy to the individual learner (see
Milne, 1996). For example, an adaptive approach
(delivered by means of a computer-based medium)
would identify the cognitive style of an individual and
present information in a manner congruent with her/
his style (see Powell, 1988 and Milne).
Non-adaptive approaches
A non-adaptive learning system may be defined in the
present context as one which attempts to cater for
cognitive style differences by:
• multiple teaching modes within the same 'package'
(this 'balanced design' would effectively be a
'cognitive belt and braces approach' (Sadler-Smith,
1993: 72));
• contrasting teaching modes, each in separate pack-
ages.
The approaches outlined below for the accommo-
dation of the learning cycle and cognitive styles are
described in the context of a three stage learning
design methodology:
• needs identification and analysis;
• learning design;
• validation and implementation.
Needs identification and analysis
Before learning takes place, Riding suggests that the
Cognitive Styles Analysis may be used, with groups

of manageable size, to determine the range of
cognitive styles present in the target population.
Honey and Mumford make similar suggestions
regarding the prior use of their instrument and
describe means for accommodating the learning cycle
(see Honey and Mumford, 1986, 1992). Both these
approaches would enable:
• the requirements of the group to be identified more
accurately;
• learners to be screened prior to learning so that:
(a) they could be allocated to appropriate learning
methods; or
(b) learning difficulties could be anticipated.
An awareness of the learning cycle, learning styles
and cognitive styles on the part of teachers and
learners prior to learning may also help to identify the
most appropriate way for an individual to use the
learning materials. In this way:
• learners could be encouraged to be more self-
reliant, autonomous, flexible and 'open' (Rown-
tree, 1992:49);
• teachers and designers could be made more aware
of the potential impact of the cycle and their own
styles on the teaching method which they adopt.
Learning design
The suggestions below describe the accommodation
of individual differences by means of a non-adaptive
approach and specifically by balancing the design of
the materials so that they include a range of activities,
structures and modes of presentation covering the
stages of the learning cycle and the span of cognitive
styles anticipated within the target group.
Accommodating the learning cycle
Honey and Mumford suggest that a balanced
approach which attempts to accommodate each stage
of the learning cycle should include either:
• a range of activities with help available to enable
leamers to cope with those elements of the cycle
which do not match their preferences (see Honey
and Mumford, op cit.: 24);
• alternative learning activities pertinent to individual
learners; users of the self-instructional materials
designed in such a way would then need to be:
(a) aware of the learning cycle;
(b) aware of their own strengths and preferences;
(c) able to select those activities congruent with
their own preferences.
'Learning Styles' and Instructional Design 189
The former is seen as the most practical approach.
Hence, 'balanced' learning materials would be those
which included a range of activities only some of
which would be congruent with the style or prefer-
ences of the individual. Applying the guidelines given
by Honey and Mumford, it is suggested that the
learning cycle may be accommodated when designing
self-instructional materials by using the general types
of activities described in Table 1.
Accommodating cognitive styles
Since the wholist—analytical and verbalizer—imager
dimensions of cognitive style appear to affect
the processing and representation of information
respectively, one may anticipate beneficial effects on
learning performance if the mode and structure of the
presentation of information respectively compensate
for, and are matched to, the learners' cognitive styles
as follows:
Verbalizer—imager dimension
• imagers may be expected to benefit from the
presentation of information in a diagrammatic or
pictorial form;
• verbalizers may be expected to benefit from the
presentation of information in a predominantly
textual mode with some pictorial/diagrammatic
information (Riding and Ashmore, 1980; Riding
and Calvey, 1981; Riding et ah, 1989; Riding and
Buckle, 1990; Riding and Sadler-Smith, 1992;
Riding and Douglas, 1993).
Wholist—analytical dimension
• wholists may be expected to benefit from the
inclusion of an analytic advance organizer which
shows the structure of the content in terms of its
divisions into topics and sub-topics;
• analytics may be expected to benefit from the
inclusion of an holistic advance organizer which
gives an overview of the whole and shows the
relationships between the component parts (Riding
and Buckle, 1990; Riding and Sadler-Smith, 1992).
These findings suggest the following prescription for
a balanced design which would attempt to accom-
modate all four cognitive style types:
Dual mode of presentation
The mapping of text, pictures and diagrams on a given
screen or page in a logical and consistent manner
in order to facilitate: (a) matching the mode of
190 IETI 33,4
Table 1. Accommodating the learning cycle
Stage of learning cycle Learning methods
Experience Practical experiences, social
interaction and
brainstorming (see Honey
andMumford, 1986, 1992)
Reflection Observation and passivity
(see Honey and Mumford)
Conceptualization Analysis and synthesis of
concepts and data (see
Honey and Mumford).
Practical application Application of concepts and
and testing principles to practical
problems which are relevant
to learners' needs (see
Honey and Mumford).
Typical activities
'Speak to managers and colleagues to
find out how this operates in your
organization.'
'Write down as many ways as you can
think of in which this might affect you.'
'What do you feel about this idea?'
'What arc your objectives for this
session?'
'Watch this video clip and record your
observations under the following
headings...'
'Visit your local library and gather some
information on the following...'
'...what conclusions can you draw from
these data?'
'...do you think these arguments are
sound? Why?'
'Have you achieved your objectives?'
'How may these observations be
explained?'
'Try this question to check your
understanding of the theory.'
'Now apply this model to the following
data.'
'Are these arguments sound? Why?'
'How do you think this would work in
your situation?'
'Next time you are confronted with this
problem you might like to try this
approach.'
'Here's a rule of thumb which you might ' (b) opportunities to awaken and allow
like to use.'
'Others in your situation found this
approach very useful: you might like to
try it next time.'
'Do you think this would work? Why?'
'Draw up an action plan to implement
this idea.'
Examples
'Compare your learning preferences with
those of a group of fellow learners. Are
there any conflicts which could present
barriers to learning. How could they be
overcome?
Make a list of the main points from your
discussions under the following
headings:
(i) preferences;
(ii) conflicts;
(iii) barriers;
(iv) effects;
(v) solutions.'
'Think back to two contrasting learning
or teaching experiences of your own.
(a) Describe the two experiences.
(b) Which one was successful and which
one wasn't and why?
(c) How could they each have been
made more successful?"
'Now test your understanding of the
model by answering these questions.
(a) A distinctive and habitual manner of
acquiring knowledge through experience
or study is called a:
A cognitive style
B cognitive strategy
C learning preference
D learning style
E learning strategy
(b) John regularly skips lectures and
scores low marks on theory papers.
However, he works on until late during
lab classes and scores highly on project
work. How would you explain his
behaviour in terms of the onion model?'
'When designing learning materials it's
often a good idea to include a balance of:
(a) direct experiences and interactions
with other learners, materials, the outside
world;
reflection on learners' experiences;
(c) theoretical explanations of
observations and data;
(d) advice on how the learning may be
applietHmmediately by the learners.
You might like to try achieving such a
balance next time you're producing
materials (preferably as soon as possible
after you've finished reading this).'

presentation to cognitive style (on the assumption that
individuals will focus on the mode which is congruent
with their style); (b) access to information in
accordance with typographical and information
mapping principles (see Hartley, 1978; Horn, 1986).
Complementary content maps
(Serving the function of an organizer) which indicate:
(a) the topic, sub-topic, chapter and section currently
being studied; (b) the super- and sub-ordinate relat-
ionships between topics, sub-topics, chapters and
sections; (c) the non-hierarchical relationships
between the information being presented; (d) how
new information is, or may be, related to existing
knowledge.
A sample balanced design is shown in Example 1. The
suggested approach uses a dual mode of presentation.
The intention is that the illustrations are not merely
an adjunct to the text, they contain the same infor-
mation as the text and hence may substitute for it. It
is acknowledged that such an approach may be
subject-matter dependent.
CONCLUSION
This article has described how the learning cycle and
cognitive styles may be accommodated in the design
of learning. Its particular focus has been the design
and development of self-instructional materials. The
ways suggested here in which such materials may be
designed to accommodate the learning cycle and
individual differences in cognitive style in an
integrated fashion are derived from available anec-
dotal, theoretical and empirical knowledge and based
on the models of Kolb, Honey and Mumford, Pask
(1976), Riding and, more recently, the work of
Allinson and Hayes and Sadler-Smith.
The most practical and cost-effective approach to the
design of materials which develop and accommodate
the learning cycle and cognitive styles is, it is
suggested, the balanced approach. This assumes that
individual learners will: (a) focus on those elements
of the learning materials which most suit their
particular style; (b) be encouraged or required to
undertake activities which are not congruent with
their preferences but which, nevertheless, will lead
to a more complete learning experience.
The instructional design principles described above
lend themselves equally to the design, development
and production of learning materials which attempt
'Learning Styles' and Instructional Design 191
to accommodate the individual differences described
here in an adaptive way through the use of computer-
based approaches (see Milne, 1996). The challenge
for designers and researchers is to: (a) validate the
empirical and theoretical models described here; (b)
investigate how compact disk (CD)-based media may
be used in order to produce learning materials which
accommodate individual differences. (CD offers the
potential to store vast amounts of information in a
variety of modes and structures.) In the meantime, an
awareness of the learning cycle and the identification
of individuals' cognitive style is of immediate
relevance to all of those involved in instructional
design and development since it may enable: (a)
learning difficulties to be anticipated; (b) instructional
designers to interpret: (i) learners' evaluations of their
teaching and learning materials; (ii) variations in
learning performance; (c) the effectiveness and effic-
iency of self-instruction to be improved; (d) learners
to become more self-reliant and autonomous; (e)
learners and designers to develop a 'whole brain'
approach (see Hayes and Allinson, 1994; Sadler-
Smith, 1996b) which does not emphasize one aspect
of thinking at the expense of others. The challenges
to teachers and designers and potential rewards to
learners are both considerable.
REFERENCES
Allinson, C W and Hayes, J (1988) The Learning Styles
Questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb's inventory? Journal
of Management Studies, 25, 269-81.
Allinson, C W and Hayes, J (1996) The Cognitive Styles
Index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organisational
research, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 1, 119-35.
Ausubel, D P (1963) The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal
Learning, Grune and Stratton, New York.
Curry, L (1991) Patterns of Learning Styles Across Selected
Medical Specialities, Educational Psychology, 11, 3 & 4,
247-77.
Curry, L(1983)An Organisation of Learning Styles Theory
and Constructs, ERIC Document, 235 185.
Curry, L (1986) Learning Styles in Continuing Medical
Education, Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa.
Ellis, D, Ford, N, Wood, F, Clarke, D and Smith, G (1993;
Hypertext and learning styles, Employment Department,
Sheffield.
England, E (1987) The design of versatile text materials,
Open Learning, 1,2.
Entwistle, N (1988) Styles of Learning and Teaching, David
Fulton, London.
Gagné, R M, Briggs, L J and Wager, W W (1988) Principles
of Instructional Design, (third edition) Holt, Reinhart and
Winston, New York.
 Example 1. The Learning Cycle

Title: Section:
The Learning Cycle, Cognitive Styles and the The 'Onion Model'
Design of Teaching Materials
Contents map Section contents:
Learning preferences; learning strategies; learning styles; cognitive strategies; cognitive styles.

Learning styles and cognitive styles are fundamentally quite distinct and have differing but
complementary implications for the design of teaching. Here are some suggested definitions:
• learning preference: the favouring of one particular mode of teaching over another;
• learning strategy: a plan of action adopted in the acquisition or imparting of knowledge or skill
through study, experience or teaching;
• learning style: a distinctive and habitual manner of acquiring and imparting knowledge through
study, experience or teaching;
• cognitive strategy: a plan of action adopted in the process of knowing, conceiving or perceiving;
• cognitive style: a distinctive and habitual manner of knowing, conceiving or perceiving.
One way in which each of these five constructs differ is in terms of the degree to which each may
be observed and articulated. Learning preferences, for example, are readily expressed and
observed: 'I just don't like lectures —I much
prefer working in small groups'. Some of the
other constructs listed above may be identified
by more structured but less accessible methods
(eg, questionnaires), while others may only be
discernible by indirect methods (eg,
psychometric tests).
This classification may be presented as an
'onion model' (Curry, 1983), in which each
construct is represented by the layers of an
onion. The core of the onion is the central
personality dimension overlain by cognitive
styles. The skin of the onion is learning preferences.
The 'onion model' is a simple way of thinking about what we actually mean when we talk about
'learning styles'; here it is:

Activity: Compare your learning preferences with those of a group of fellow learners. Are there
any conflicts which could present barriers to learning? How could they be overcome?

Gorham, J (1986) Assessment Classification and Implic-
ations of Learning Styles as Instructional Interactions,
Communication Education, ERIC Reports, 35,4,411-17.
Hartley, J (1978) Designing Instructional Text, Kogan
Page, London.
Hayes, J and Allinson, C W (1994) Cognitive Style and its
Relevance for Management Practice, British Journal of
Management, 5, 53-71.
Hayes, J and Allinson, C W (1996) The Implications of
Learning Styles for Training and Development, British
Journal of Management, 7.
Honey, P and Mumford, A (1986, 1992) The Manual of
Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead.
Horn, R E (1986) Structured Writing or Mapping: An
Information Processing Approach. In Romiszowski, A J
Developing Auto-Instructional Materials, Kogan Page,
London.
Kloster, A D and Winne P H (1989) The effects of different
types of organizers on students' learning from text, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81, 1, 9-15.
Kolb, D A (1984) Experiential Learning, Englewood
Cliffs; Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D A (1985) Learning Style Inventory (revised, 1981,
1985), McBer, Boston, Mass.
Milne, S (1996) Adapting to Learner Attributes: experi-
ments using an adaptive tutoring system, Glasgow
Caledonian University, Learning Styles Conference, Uni-
versity of Birmingham, April, 1996.
Pask, G (1976) Styles and Strategies of Learning, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-48.
Powell, J A (1988) Information Styles and Interactive
Video, Interactive Update, July/August, 1988.
Riding, R J and Ashmore, J (1980) Verbalizer—Imager
Learning Style and Children's Recall of Information in
Pictorial versus Written Form, Educational Studies, 6, 2,
141-5.
Riding, R J, and Buckle, C F (1990) Learning Styles and
Training Performance, Training Agency, Sheffield.
Riding, R J Buckle, C F, Thompson, S V and Haggar, E
(1989) The Computer Determination of Learning Styles
as an Aid to Individualised Computer Based Training,
Educational and Training Technology International, 26,
393-8.
Riding, R J and Calvey, I(1981) The Assessment of Verbal-
Imagery Learning Style and their Effect on the Recall of
Concrete and Abstract Prose Passages by 11 Year Old
Children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol
72, 59-64.
Riding, R J and Cheema I (1991) Cognitive Styles - An
Overview and Integration, Educational Psvchology, 11, 3
& 4, 193-215.
Riding, R J and Douglas, G (1993) The effect of learning
style and mode of presentation on learning performance,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 273—9.
Riding, R J and Pearson, F (1994) The Relationship
'Learning Styles' and Instructional Design 193
Between Cognitive Style and Intelligence, Educational
Psychology, 14, 4, 413-25.
Riding, R J and Sadler-Smith, E (1992) Type of Instruc-
tional Material, Cognitive Style and Learning Performance,
Educational Studies, 18, 323-40.
Riding, R J (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis, Learning and
Training Technology, Birmingham.
Rowntree, D (1992) Exploring Open and Distance Learn-
ing, Routledge, London.
Sadler-Smith, E (1992) Individual Differences and the
Design of Instructional Materials, unpublished PhD thesis,
Faculty of Education and Continuing Studies, University
of Birmingham.
Sadler-Smith, E (1993) Cognitive Styles and the Design
of Instructional Materials, Dunford Seminar Report, British
Council, 68-76.
Sadler-Smith, E (1996a) 'Learning Styles': an holistic
approach, Journal of European Industrial Training, 20, 8.
Sadler-Smith, E (1996b) 'Learning Styles': frameworks
and instruments, Educational Psychology.
Sadler-Smith, E and Riding R J (1996a) A Review of the
Properties of the Learning Styles Questionnaire (in public-
ation).
Sadler-Smith, E and Riding R J (1996b) Cognitive Style
and Learning preferences in Business Studies Students (in
publication).
Tennant, M (1988) Psychology and Adult Learning,
Routledge, London.
Thompson, S V (1988) The Cognitive Implications of
Computers in Mathematics Education, unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Faculty of Education and Continuing Studies,
University of Birmingham.
Witkin, H A, Moore, C A, Goodenough, D R and Cox, P
W (1977) Field Dependent and Field Independent Cog-
nitive Styles and their Educational Implications, Review of
Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Dr Eugene Sadler-Smith is currently Senior Lecturer
in Human Resource Development at the Plymouth
Business School, University of Plymouth. His
research interests are in all aspects of human resource
development. He is currently actively involved in
researching the fields of learning styles and cognitive
styles, organisational learning and learning tech-
nology. He was formerly Senior Training Designer at
British Gas plc.
Address for correspondence: Dr Eugene Sadler-
Smith, Human Resources Studies Group, Plymouth
Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth,
PL4 8AA, UK.