Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional Design

‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional Design 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Innovations in Education and Training International Taylor & Francis

‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional Design

‘Learning Styles’ and Instructional Design

Innovations in Education and Training International , Volume 33 (4): 9 – Nov 1, 1996

Abstract

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.

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/learning-styles-and-instructional-design-Dbfj1Xnkgq

References (24)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1355-8005
eISSN
1469-8420
DOI
10.1080/1355800960330405
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Innovations in Education and Training InternationalTaylor & Francis

Published: Nov 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.