key concepts in elt

Learning styles
Sarvenaz Hatami

A learning style is not in itself an ability but rather a preferred way

of using one’s abilities (Sternberg 1994). Individuals have different
learning styles, that is, they differ in their ‘natural, habitual, and
preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new
information and skills’ (Reid 1995: viii). Learning styles are typically

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 10, 2016

bipolar entities (for example reflective versus impulsive, random versus
sequential), representing two extremes of a wide continuum; however,
where a learner falls on the continuum is value neutral because each
extreme has its own potential advantages and disadvantages (Dörnyei
2005). Moreover, although individuals may have some strong style
preferences and tendencies, learning styles are not fixed modes of
behaviour, and, based on different situations and tasks, styles can be
extended and modified (Reid 1987; Oxford 2011). However, the extent
to which individuals can extend or shift their styles to suit a particular
situation varies (Ehrman 1996).

In general psychology, interest in learning styles goes back to at least

the 1920s when Carl Jung proposed the theory of psychological types
(Sternberg and Grigorenko 1997). In the field of education, the learning
style concept has been recognized since at least the mid-1970s (Griffiths
2012). Subsequently, many different dimensions of learning styles have
been investigated both conceptually and empirically, and numerous theories
and multiple taxonomies attempting to describe how people think and
learn have been proposed, often classifying individuals into distinct groups
(for example visual versus auditory, global versus analytic, inductive versus
deductive). Furthermore, various learning style instruments (for example
written surveys) have been developed for both research and pedagogical
purposes (for a critical review of some of the most influential models and
instruments, see Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004)).
According to Sternberg and Grigorenko (op.cit.: 702), there are three
main motivations for the interest in the study of styles: ‘providing a
link between cognition and personality; understanding, predicting,
and improving educational achievement; and improving vocational
selection, guidance, and possibly, placement’.
While there is ample evidence that individuals differ in how they prefer
to take in, process, and acquire new information, the educational
implications of such preferences have been a source of great

488 ELT Journal Volume 67/4 October 2013; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs083

© The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication December 28, 2012
 controversy among researchers and educators over the years (Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, and Bjork 2009). Proponents of learning styles
assessment in instruction believe that learning styles can be measured
and used as a valuable teaching tool inside the classroom (for example
Sternberg, Grigorenko, and Zhang 2008). According to these scholars,
by diagnosing students’ learning styles and matching them to teaching
methods (for example for a ‘visual learner’, presenting information
through pictorial illustrations), learning can be greatly enhanced.
Other scholars have rejected the value of learning styles in educational
practice and claim that tailoring instruction to students’ individual
learning styles does not lead to better learning outcomes (for example
Stahl 1999; Willingham 2005).
This same controversial situation exists in the area of second language
acquisition (SLA). A number of research studies in SLA have addressed
the relationship between learning styles and second language (L2)
achievement; however, these studies have generally found only a weak

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 10, 2016

relationship (Ellis 2008). Thus, based on what research in SLA has
revealed so far, the question of whether or not learning styles are strongly
associated with L2 acquisition and should therefore be considered in L2
teaching cannot be answered with certainty. As Ellis (ibid.: 671) states,
‘at the moment there are few general conclusions that can be drawn
from the research on learning style’. According to Riding (2000: 365),
this vague situation is due to a number of serious problems, in particular
‘there being too many labels purporting to being different styles, the use
of ineffective assessment methods, and the lack of a clear distinction
between style and other constructs such as intelligence and personality’.
Further research with more appropriate methodologies is needed to
validate the use of learning styles assessment in instruction (Pashler
et al. op.cit.). Until this occurs, however, as Chapelle (1992: 381) states,
we simply cannot disregard the concept of learning style, ‘which
express[es] some of our intuitions about students and which facilitate[s]
appreciation for the divergent approaches to thinking and learning’.

References Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language

Chapelle, C. 1992. ‘Disembedding “Disembedded
figures in the landscape”: an appraisal of Griffiths
and Sheen’s “Reappraisal of L2 research on field
dependence/independence”’. Applied Linguistics
13/4: 375–84.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone.
2004. ‘Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16
learning: a systematic and critical review’. London:
Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language
Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language
Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding Second
Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, C. 2012. ‘Learning styles: traversing the
quagmire’ in S. Mercer, S. Ryan, and M. Williams
(eds.). Psychology for Language Learning: Insights
from Research, Theory and Practice. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Oxford, R. L. 2011. Teaching and Researching
Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
Pashler, H., M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer, and R. Bjork.
2009. ‘Learning styles: concepts and evidence’.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9/3:
105–19.
Reid, J. M. 1987. ‘The learning style preferences of
ESL students’. TESOL Quarterly 21/1: 87–110.

Learning styles in ELT 489

Reid, J. M. (ed.). 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/
EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Riding, R. J. 2000. ‘Cognitive style: a strategic
approach for advancement’ in R. J. Riding and
S. G. Rayner (eds.). International Perspectives on
Individual Differences (Volume 1: Cognitive Styles).
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Stahl, S. A. 1999. ‘Different strokes for different
folks? A critique of learning styles’. American
Educator 23/3: 27–31.
Sternberg, R. J. 1994. ‘Allowing for thinking
styles’. Educational Leadership 52/3: 36–40.
Sternberg, R. J. and E. L. Grigorenko. 1997. ‘Are
cognitive styles still in style?’ American Psychologist
52/7: 700–12.
Sternberg, R. J., E. L. Grigorenko, and L. F. Zhang.
2008. ‘Styles of learning and thinking matter
490 Sarvenaz Hatami
in instruction and assessment’. Perspectives on
Psychological Science 3/6: 486–506.
Willingham, D. T. 2005. ‘Do visual, auditory,
and kinesthetic learners need visual, auditory,
and kinesthetic instruction?’ American Educator
29/2: 31–5.
The author
Sarvenaz Hatami is a PhD candidate in the TESL
programme in the Department of Educational
Psychology at the University of Alberta, Canada.
Her main research interests are second language
vocabulary learning, pragmatic development, and
individual differences in second language acquisition.
Email: sarvenaz.hatami@ualberta.ca
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on October 10, 2016