Learning Style Construct in Student’s Learning

Abstract

This study is to analyze the literature about nature and importance of learning style construct to overall human learning and especially school learning. A certain research interest group raises questions about the credibility, validity, and usefulness of this construct in school learning. Applicability, usefulness, financial aspects, and lack of cohesive theory were the basic criticisms for supporting school learning environment to adopted individual student learning style, especially when there are some other options, such as effective teaching and school environment that can also enhance and affect students’ learning. The criticisms on learning style construct need to be assessed on the basis of these premises. This explorative study focuses on the literature that supports the issues of validity, effectiveness, and applicability of learning style construct in school learning and general learning. The relationship of learning styles to academic achievements, attitudes toward learning, and multimedia technology was identified as the important element. There are clear and marked differences between cognitive and learning style. But, we have seen massive research to support the validity and usefulness of learning style construct in general and in school learning situations. KEY WORD: Learning Style; Cognitive Style; Student’s Learning; Academic Achievements, Classroom Learning. ABSTRAKSI: “Konstruk Gaya Pembelajaran dalam Pembelajaran Pelajar”. Kajian ini menganalisis literatur mengenai sifat dan kepentingan konstruk gaya pembelajaran bagi pembelajaran manusia secara am dan khasnya pembelajaran di sekolah. Satu kumpulan minat penyelidikan tertentu membangkitkan pemerihalan tentang kredibiliti, kesahan, dan kegunaan konstruk ini dalam pembelajaran sekolah. Kebolehgunaan, kegunaan, aspek kewangan, dan kekurangan teori yang padu merupakan kritikan asas untuk menyokong persekitaran pembelajaran sekolah dengan gaya pembelajaran pelajar individu, terutamanya apabila terdapat beberapa pilihan lain, seperti pengajaran yang berkesan, persekitaran sekolah yang juga boleh meningkatkan dan memberi kesan kepada pembelajaran pelajar. Kritikan terhadap konstruk gaya pembelajaran harus dinilai berasaskan premis ini. Kajian penerokaan ini memberi tumpuan kepada literatur, yang menyokong isu-isu sah, keberkesanan dan kesesuaian konstruk gaya pembelajaran dalam pembelajaran sekolah dan pembelajaran secara am. Hubungan gaya pembelajaran dengan pencapaian akademik, sikap terhadap pembelajaran dan teknologi multimedia telah dikenal pasti sebagai satu elemen penting. Terdapat perbezaan yang jelas dan ketara antara gaya kognitif dan pembelajaran. Tetapi, kita telah melihat banyaknya maklumat penyelidikan yang menyokong kesahihan dan kegunaan konstruk gaya pembelajaran dalam situasi pembelajaran secara am dan di sekolah.KATA KUNCI: Gaya Pembelajaran; Gaya Kognitif; Pembelajaran Pelajar; Pencapaian Akademik; Pembelajaran Bilik Darjah. About the Authors: Zainudin Abu Bakar is a Lecturer at the UTM (Technology University of Malaysia) in Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. Rafaquat Ali is a Lecturer at the IUB (Islamia University of Bahawalpur) in Pakistan. For academic interests, corresponding author is: p-zain@utm.myHow to cite this article? Bakar, Zainudin Abu & Rafaquat Ali. (2016). “Learning Style Construct in Student’s Learning” in MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN: Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, Vol.1(2) September, pp.213-222. Bandung, Indonesia: UPI [Indonesia University of Education] Press, ISSN 2527-3868 (print) and 2503-457X (online).Chronicle of the article: Accepted (May 15, 2016); Revised (July 17, 2016); and Published (September 30, 2016).

Full text

MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(2) September 2016
213
© 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN
Jurna l Indon esia u n tuk Ka j ian Pend idika n
Published every March and September ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online)
ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI
Learning Style Construct in Student’s Learning
ABSTRACT: This study is to analyze the literature about nature and importance of learning style construct to
overall human learning and especially school learning. A certain research interest group raises questions about
the credibility, validity, and usefulness of this construct in school learning. Applicability, usefulness, nancial
aspects, and lack of cohesive theory were the basic criticisms for supporting school learning environment to adopted
individual student learning style, especially when there are some other options, such as effective teaching and
school environment that can also enhance and affect students’ learning. The criticisms on learning style construct
need to be assessed on the basis of these premises. This explorative study focuses on the literature that supports the
issues of validity, effectiveness, and applicability of learning style construct in school learning and general learning.
The relationship of learning styles to academic achievements, attitudes toward learning, and multimedia technology
was identied as the important element. There are clear and marked differences between cognitive and learning
style. But, we have seen massive research to support the validity and usefulness of learning style construct in general
and in school learning situations.
KEY WORD: Learning Style; Cognitive Style; Student’s Learning; Academic Achievements, Classroom Learning.
ABSTRAKSI: “Konstruk Gaya Pembelajaran dalam Pembelajaran Pelajar”. Kajian ini menganalisis literatur
mengenai sifat dan kepentingan konstruk gaya pembelajaran bagi pembelajaran manusia secara am dan khasnya
pembelajaran di sekolah. Satu kumpulan minat penyelidikan tertentu membangkitkan pemerihalan tentang kredibiliti,
kesahan, dan kegunaan konstruk ini dalam pembelajaran sekolah. Kebolehgunaan, kegunaan, aspek kewangan, dan
kekurangan teori yang padu merupakan kritikan asas untuk menyokong persekitaran pembelajaran sekolah dengan
gaya pembelajaran pelajar individu, terutamanya apabila terdapat beberapa pilihan lain, seperti pengajaran
yang berkesan, persekitaran sekolah yang juga boleh meningkatkan dan memberi kesan kepada pembelajaran
pelajar. Kritikan terhadap konstruk gaya pembelajaran harus dinilai berasaskan premis ini. Kajian penerokaan
ini memberi tumpuan kepada literatur, yang menyokong isu-isu sah, keberkesanan dan kesesuaian konstruk gaya
pembelajaran dalam pembelajaran sekolah dan pembelajaran secara am. Hubungan gaya pembelajaran dengan
pencapaian akademik, sikap terhadap pembelajaran dan teknologi multimedia telah dikenal pasti sebagai satu
elemen penting. Terdapat perbezaan yang jelas dan ketara antara gaya kognitif dan pembelajaran. Tetapi, kita telah
melihat banyaknya maklumat penyelidikan yang menyokong kesahihan dan kegunaan konstruk gaya pembelajaran
dalam situasi pembelajaran secara am dan di sekolah.
KATA KUNCI: Gaya Pembelajaran; Gaya Kognitif; Pembelajaran Pelajar; Pencapaian Akademik; Pembelajaran
Bilik Darjah.
About the Authors: Zainudin Abu Bakar is a Lecturer at the UTM (Technology University of Malaysia) in Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia. Rafaquat Ali is a Lecturer at the IUB (Islamia University of Bahawalpur) in Pakistan. For academic interests,
corresponding author is: p-zain@utm.my
How to cite this article? Bakar, Zainudin Abu & Rafaquat Ali. (2016). “Learning Style Construct in Student’s Learning” in
MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN: Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, Vol.1(2) September, pp.213-222. Bandung, Indonesia:
UPI [Indonesia University of Education] Press, ISSN 2527-3868 (print) and 2503-457X (online).
Chronicle of the article: Accepted (May 15, 2016); Revised (July 17, 2016); and Published (September 30, 2016).

ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI,
Learning Style Construct
214 © 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
INTRODUCTION
The best and fruitful practices in education
are utmost priority of researchers, politicians,
school administrators, and of course parents.
There are many constructs that play the
role in child education. One considered and
contending construct is learning style. There
are certain researchers and groups of interest
who do not consider the learning style
worth to be researched and they have certain
reservations.
The current study was focused to
answer following question: (1) What do
differentiate learning style from cognitive
style construct?; (2) What is the credibility
and validity of reservation and objection
from opposers of learning style notion?; and
(3) What is the potential and contribution of
learning style to school learning?
RELATED LITERATURES
The related literature was traced and
approached on line JSTOR (Journal Storage)
data base. The research terms used to nd
were learning style, importance of learning
style. The studies having theoretical mature
and process oriented were selected to answer
the comments by the certain group of
researchers.
The Boundaries of Learning Style.
Individuals show differences in ways they
interact with their learning environment.
These individual differences comprise and
range from, initial or supercial stage of
mere interact with the learning material
behaviorally to a nal storage and deep
processing of information cognitively, for
future reference or use. Generally, these
learning differences are regarded as learning
styles. E. Bird, F. Romanelli & M. Ryan
(2009) dened the learning styles as, “the
distinctive psychosocial, affective and
cognitive behaviors that give rise to relatively
stable measures about the perception,
interaction and response to the surrounding
learning environment” (Bird, Romanelli &
Ryan, 2009). The learning style with unique,
individualized nature remain relatively
stable, even when encountered different
tasks/situations (Vorhaus, 2010).
In other words, when people face a
learning situation (a stimulus) in a learning
environment, they respond into their own
way (Bakar & Ali, 2014). So, we can inferred
that a learning style is the way of receiving
and responding to a learning stimulus
with unique psychological, affective, and
cognitive composition. So, if we have to
differentiate between cognitive and learning
style, then to describe learning style, we
have to extend learning style boundary from
a learning style referred as “individual’s
preferred mode of receiving and processing
information” to further characteristics, if
individual learning such as affective and
psychological dimensions of individual
learning. Then, we can apart cognitive style
from learning style. The Cognitive style
and learning style concepts detach from
each other in aspects; that “cognitive style
involves cognition based process, whereas
learning style is rooted in exterior behavior
and response to learning situation” (Doorn,
McManus & Yiend, 2012).
D.A. Kolb (1984) and P. Honey & A.
Mumford (1986), and as cited also in P.F.
Cuthbert (2005), portrayed learning style as,
“individual’s preference for understanding
his/her experiences and transforming” (Kolb,
1984; Honey & Mumford, 1986; Baker,
Jensen & Kolb, 2002; and Cuthbert, 2005).
J. Vermunt & Y. Vermetten (2004) used the
term “learning style” in more elaborative way;
and regarded it as “a superordinate concept in
which the cognitive and affective processing
of subject matter, the metacognitive regulation
of learning, conceptions of learning, and
learning orientations are united” (Vermunt
& Vermetten, 2004). We can frame learning
style as a relative consistency of preference
in interacting, receiving, processing, and
responding cognitively and affectively to a
learning situation, independent of the task
encountered.

MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(2) September 2016
215
© 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
The Importance of Learning Style. A few
researchers and practitioners criticized and
underestimated the value and applicability
of learning style construct in school and
general learning. C. Riener & D. Willingham
(2010) considered learning styles practically
inapplicable and useless and called these
a myth. W.L. Leite, M. Svinicki & Y. Shi
(2010) evaluated the VARK learning style
inventory (Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and
Kinesthetic); and reported some aws like
poor item selection and construction (Leite,
Svinicki & Shi, 2010). D. Rohrer & H.
Pashler (2012) opposed tailoring instruction
to students’ different learning styles. They
argued that there is no empirical support
for an expensive tailoring of instruction to
learning styles (Rohrer & Pashler, 2012). G.
Norman (2009) claimed that learning style
is an obsolete concept; and it does very little
with learning (Norman, 2009).
These recent studies have raised many
doubts and reservations. The opposition gave
an impression that learning style research
has no validity and is unable to help the
researchers in improving the learning in an
overall scenario, but when we validate the
validity of their claims, it was surprising that
they pointed aws mostly in one aspect, a
concept or a dimension of learning styles.
G. Norman (2009) studied visual, verbal,
taxonomy; C. Riener & D. Willingham
(2010) discussed visual, kinesthetic, and
auditory; and W.L. Leite, M. Svinicki &
Y. Shi (2010) checked visual, aural, read/
write, and kinesthetic. They neglected a
massive literature support for learning style
notion and movement (Norman, 2009;
Leite, Svinicki & Shi, 2010; and Riener &
Willingham, 2010).
Here, we will present some literature
that supports the movement. D.A. Kolb &
R.E. Boyatzis (2000) indicated the potential
of research in learning style; and indicated
that that only experiential learning theory
and learning style inventory contributed
990 publications from 1971-1999 (Kolb
& Boyatzis, 2000). There were many
studies supporting the claim, that learning
outcomes increased as a result of a match
between learning style and teaching
methods (Dunn, 1984).
A learning style is a characteristic just
like other developmental and biological
characteristic (Dunn, 1989); therefore, it
cannot be neglected. There are signicant
differences in learning styles in students
of different disciplines (Jones, Reichard
& Mokhtari, 2003). In certain situations,
learning patterns alone can explain the
variance in academic performance. M.D.
Threeton & R.A. Walter (2009) identied
that learning styles are related to personality;
therefore, cannot be neglected in the school
success (Threeton & Walter, 2009).
Learning style matching to teaching
methods increased retention ability in
students (Slack & Norwich, 2007). J.
Vermunt & Y. Vermetten (2004) described
that learning outcomes are affected by
learning orientations. Y. Akbulut & C.S.
Cardak (2012) claimed that adaptive
educational hypermedia models based on
learning styles, helped students in their
success and satisfaction, same is in normal
classes, an educational process appropriate
to students’ learning styles increases their
satisfaction (cf Lurea et al., 2011; and
Akbulut & Cardak, 2012). L.M. Miller
(2005) identied 40 publications that
reported signicant effect on learning with
relation to scales in GSD or Gregorc Style
Delineator (Miller, 2005).
A computer based instruction in reference
to a learning style (GSD), improved students’
learning. On the other hand, a mismatch
situation posed problems to students in their
interaction with courses in learning situations
(Kinshuk, Liu & Graf, 2009). S.D. Ozgur,
S. Temel & A. Yilmaz (2012) conrmed
the relationship of problem solving abilities
to assimilators and converges’ styles on
Kolb LSI (Learning Style Inventory).
A.G. Mehrdad & M. Ahghar (2012) found

ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI,
Learning Style Construct
216 © 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
a relationship between an individual’s
visual orientation/style and use of learning
strategies. A.F.M. Huang et al. (2012)
developed portfolio-based programming
learning style diagnosis system for Felder’s
learning style.
Also A. D’Amore, S. James & E.K.
Mitchell (2012) found a relationship between
learning styles on D.A. Kolb (1984) learning
styles and demographic data. D.C.S. Law
& J.H.F. Meyer (2010) credited ILS (Bakar
& Ali, 2014) for differentiation in students’
learning styles. K. Hurst-Wajszczuk (2010)
argued in favor of learning style research,
that teachers can shape their teaching in order
to minimize the negative effect of their own
learning styles (Hurst-Wajszczuk, 2010).
S. Alaoutinen, K. Heikkinen & J. Porras
(2010) utilized an intensive collaborative
teaching concept, CODE CAMP, to
demonstrate the effect of learning styles. The
study indicated an increase in motivation
to learn in reective- intuitive students
(Alaoutinen, Heikkinen & Porras, 2010). S.
Graf, T. Lin & C. Kinshuk (2008) and S. Graf
et al. (2009) demonstrated that the working
memory capacity is connected to learning
styles. D.A. Cook et al. (2009) found
empirical support for the theoretical model
of Vermunt learning style inventory. D.A.
Cook & A.J. Smith (2006) found ILS (Index
of Learning Styles), a valid instrument of
learning styles and concluded that cognitive
style and learning style scores may not be
interchangeable, even for constructs with
similar denitions, due to being different
constructs (Cook & Smith, 2006).
Y.B. Azizi et al. (2011) discovered a
signicant relationship between teaching
methods used and students learning style.
L. Caulley, V. Wadey & R. Freeman (2012)
noted that with an increase in age and
post graduate education, the learning style
changes from action oriented learning to
more reective learning (Caulley, Wadey &
Freeman, 2012). J. Vermunt & Y. Vermetten
(2004) recommended to incorporate
affective and social/collaborative learning
the interplay between self-regulation and
external regulation, promotion of more
favourable learning patterns in different
types of learning environments (Vermunt &
Vermetten, 2004). C. Evans & E.E. Smith
(2006) emphasized in a way:
The application of learning style theory and
research continues to hold great promise for
practitioners in both in education and training as
a potentially powerful mechanism for enabling
pupils, students and trainers to manage their
own learning better throughout educational and
working lives (Evans & Smith, 2006).
The above research ndings lead us to the
conclusion that role of learning style in the
learning of an individual cannot be neglected
in classroom settings as well as lifelong
learning (Evans, Cools & Charlesworth,
2010). The ndings in this exploratory
study suggest and support the signicance
of learning style for a classroom based
teaching and lifelong learning. Therefore,
learning style construct may not be regarded
as myth, its reality that massively affects an
individual’s course and way of learning in
formal and informal learning settings.
FUTURE TREND ON COGNITIVE AND
LEARNING STYLE CONSTRUCTS
Excess of different learning styles,
denitions, and measurement instruments
bafed the researchers and practitioners,
policy makers, and a novice to the eld and
provide soft belly for attack to anti-style
researchers. Better knowledge of learning
styles accompanied with advancements in
information technology can be benecial for
learning of different types of students in large
size classes. The limited research conrming
relationship between learning styles and
learning outcomes has resulted in opposition
and hesitation to apply learning style
research beyond experiments to an actual
classroom setting (Threeton & Walter, 2009).
The learning style researchers should focus

MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(2) September 2016
217
© 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
on following aspects to make learning style
research more practical and a valid eld.
Theoretical Backgrounds of Learning
Style Construct. The researchers had
questioned about the theoretical validity
of different learning styles. N. Slack & B.
Norwich (2007) conducted a study about
theoretical justication of L.M. Smith
(1978)’s model. Pupil self-report inventory
was used for the exploration of the pupil’s
learning styles. They claimed that this model
lack theoretical background and justication
for labeling into auditory, kinesthetic, and
visual styles (Smith, 1978; and Slack &
Norwich, 2007).
R.R. Schmeck ed. (1988) and M.
Reynolds (1997), and as cited also in N.
Slack & B. Norwich (2007), cautioned
about overgeneralization of learning styles
into mutually exclusive styles, that can
lead to false and wrong expectations from
pupils. Further arrangements on the base of
these mutually exclusive styles can provide
improper learning opportunities (Schmeck,
1988; Reynolds, 1997; and Slack & Norwich,
2007). L.M. Miller (2005) considered, LSI
(Learning Style Inventory) a poor instrument
in terms of measurement (Miller, 2005).
T.G. Reio (2006) examined the
psychometric properties of the GSD
(Gregoric Style Delineator) and found
statistically little support for its theoretical
basis/design and a concomitant accurate
portrayal of one’s cognitive learning style
(Reio, 2006). H. Bergsteiner, G.C. Avery
& R. Neumann (2010) applied standard
modeling categorization criteria to Kolb’s
basic model, which alone was used in 990
studies from 1971-1999 (cf Kolb & Boyatzis,
2000; and Bergsteiner, Avery & Neumann,
2010). The researchers claimed to identify
errors in fundamental graphic syntax,
incapability to pass the modeler’s graphic
sufciency and simplication tests, problems
related to categorization and denitions, as
seen detail in H. Bergsteiner, G.C. Avery &
R. Neumann (2010).
There should be research to identify the
ways to overcome these modeling aws in
fundamental, basic and leading learning style
models. Suggestions and ways should be
researched to improve the situation.
What is the Psychometric Validity and
Reliability of Learning Style Instruments?
Kolb’s learning model, Felder and Solomon’s
Model are largely used in management and
education for a wide range of applications.
M. Platsidou & P. Metallidou (2009)
investigated the psychometric strengths of
Kolb learning style inventory and Felder
and Solomon’s Index of Learning Style.
A Greek sample of LSI (Learning Style
Inventory) revealed a satisfactory reliability
and weak construct validity. There was
strong preference for only accommodative
and divergent learning styles (Platsidou &
Metallidou, 2009).
ILS only achieved an acceptable level of
reliability with an ability of discrimination
and construct validity. The study suggested
that these two cannot be used for grouping
students in reference to their learning styles,
but can only be allowed to encourage self-
development of an individual. C.R. Brew
(2002) reported about gender sensitivity of
D.A. Kolb (1984)’s LSI for the sample of
Australian university students (cf Kolb, 1984;
and Baker, Jensen & Kolb, 2002).
T.G. Reio (2006) examined the
psychometric properties of the GSD (Gregoric
Style Delineator) and found little statistical
support for GSD’s theoretical basis/design and
a portrayal of one’s cognitive learning style
(Reio, 2006). N. Slack & B. Norwich (2007)
conducted a classroom study; and reported
internal and retest unreliability of kinesthetic
learning scale in auditory, kinesthetic, and
visual learning style inventory (Slack &
Norwich, 2007).
N.V. Zwanenberg, L.J. Wilkinson & A.
Anderson (2000) researched the reliability of
two famous learning style descriptors; Felder
& Silverman’s index of learning and Honey
& Mumford’s learning style questionnaire;

ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI,
Learning Style Construct
218 © 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
ILS had low internal reliability and also
failed to predict, ILS found mixed with
cognitive and learning style characteristics
and measures absolutely none of both.
They advised not to execute its application
beyond engineering students for whom it
was intended (Zwanenberg, Wilkinson &
Anderson, 2000).
LSQ (Learning Style Questionnaire)
found more reliable internally than ILS, but
it was also unable to possess predictability
and was also not up to the standard of
psychometric instrument. V.V. Busato et
al. (1998) claimed that Vermunt’s learning
styles do not have considerable evidence to
tailor higher education to Vermunt’s learning
styles, and suggested further research to
validate these styles (cf Busato et al., 1998;
and Vermunt, 2005).
What is the Inuence of Culture and
Environment on a Learning Style? A.F.
Garsha (1990) and G. De Vita (2001), and
also as cited in E. Bird, F. Romanelli & M.
Ryan (2009) found a correlation between
culture and learning style; and it is found
that learning styles are not culturally
structured but contextual (cf Garsha, 1990;
De Vita, 2001; Wong, 2004; and Bird,
Romanelli & Ryan, 2009). It may be inferred
that learning styles tend to be modied
by experience, context, and exposure.
Personality, education, profession, a job role,
and individual adaptive competencies are
responsible for shaping a learning style along
Kolb’s learning style classication (Kolb &
Boyatzis, 2000).
J.D. Vermunt (2005) found that a
student’s learning patterns on inventory
of the learning style were associated with
personal and contextual factors, such as
academic discipline, prior education, age,
and gender (Vermunt, 2005). Students
learning styles have a signicant relationship
with teaching methods (Azizi et al., 2011).
Internationalization at higher education level
requires research on culture specic styles of
learning through reliable and valid measures
to develop an emerging eld of international
pedagogy (Eaves, 2011). E. Hall & D.
Moseley (2005) gave directions for future
research as follows:
The learning style research should help the
individual to overcome a particular style
so focus should be on strategies rather than
labeling an individual with a style because it
limits the learner’s ambition, descriptions of
learning style should be tools to break chains of
habit and limitation (Hall & Moseley, 2005).
CONCLUSION
The future research should provide solid
and valid theoretical grounds and workable
suggestions to help students, teachers,
and adults to progress in their learning
environments. Based on these premises,
the future researchers should consider
learning style as processes in human life.
The learning interaction should be regarded
as a medium for students to navigate their
learning direction. This is so because the
learning itself are very much related to the
individual differences, such the personality,
the attitudes, motivation, intellectual ability,
and emotional development.
Considering the individual differences
as a major element in determining the
learning activities, it is evidence that the
future researchers should devise their
studies by looking into the learning styles
as development process. Without such
understanding, the study on the learning
activities among student will be problematic
which sometimes lead to a wrong conclusion.
It is best then to start with dening what are
the learning styles and how it difference from
one person to the other, so that the foundation
of the study will be conducted on a clear
denition.1
1Statement: We would like to declare that this article
is our original work; so, it is not product of plagiarism and
not yet also be reviewed and published by other scholarly
journals.

MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(2) September 2016
219
© 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
References
Akbulut, Y. & C.S. Cardak. (2012). “Adaptive
Educational Hypermedia Accommodating
Learning Styles: A Content Analysis of
Publications from 2000 to 2011” in Computers
& Education, 58(2), pp.835-842. DOI: 10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.10.008.
Alaoutinen, S., K. Heikkinen & J. Porras. (2010).
“Experiences of Learning Styles in an Intensive
Collaborative Course” in International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 22(1), pp.25-
49. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-010-9135-3.
Azizi, Y.B. et al. (2011). “The Relationship between
Learning Styles and Teaching Methodology with
the Achievement of Civil Engineering Studies at
Secondary Technical School in Negeri Sembilan”
in Elixir Psychology, 41(2011), pp.5900-5906.
Bakar, Zainudin Abu & Rafaquat Ali. (2014). “The
Place of Learning Style Construct in Theory
and Practices of Educational Psychology: The
Value, Potential, and Creditability of Learning
Style Research”. Conference Paper for the
Konvensyen Antarabangsa Jiwa Pendidik,
on 11-13 August, at Dewan Sultan Iskandar,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor,
Malaysia. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1165.9843. Available
online also at: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/268819368 [accessed in Skudai,
Malaysia: March 2, 2016].
Baker, A.C., P.J. Jensen & D.A. Kolb. (2002).
“Conversation as Experiential Learning” in
A.C. Baker, P.J. Jensen & D.A. Kolb [eds].
Conversational Learning an Experiential
Approach to Knowledge Creation. Westport,
Connecticut: Quorum Books.
Bergsteiner, H., G.C. Avery & R. Neumann. (2010).
“Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model: Critique
from a Modelling Perspective” in Studies in
Continuing Education, 32(1), pp.29-46. DOI:
10.1080/01580370903534355.
Bird, E., F. Romanelli & M. Ryan. (2009). “Learning
Styles: A Review of Theory, Application, and Best
Practices” in American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 73(1).
Brew, C.R. (2002). “Kolb’s Learning Style Instrument:
Sensitive to Gender” in Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 62(2), pp.373-390.
DOI: 10.1177/0013164402062002011.
Busato, V.V. et al. (1998). “Learning Styles: A
Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study in Higher
Education” in British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68, pp.427-427.
Caulley, L., V. Wadey & R. Freeman. (2012).
“Learning Styles of First-Year Orthopedic Surgical
Residents at 1 Accredited Institution [Comparative
Study Evaluation Studies]” in J Surg Educ, 69(2),
pp.196-200. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.09.002.
Cook, D.A. et al. (2009). “Lack of Interaction
between Sensing-Intuitive Learning Styles and
Problem-First versus Information-First Instruction:
A Randomized Crossover Trial [Randomized
Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S.
Gov’t]” in Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract,
14(1), pp.79-90. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-007-9089-8.
Cook, D.A. & A.J. Smith. (2006). “Validity of Index
of Learning Styles Scores: Multitrait-Multimethod
Comparison with Three Cognitive/Learning
Style Instruments” in Medical Education, 40,
pp.900-907. Available online also at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02542.x [accessed
in Skudai, Malaysia: March 2, 2016].
Cuthbert, P.F. (2005). “The Student Learning Process:
Learning Styles or Learning Approaches?” in
Teaching in Higher Education, 10(2), pp.235-249.
DOI: 10.1080/1356251042000337972.
D’Amore, A., S. James & E.K. Mitchell. (2012).
“Learning Styles of First-Year Undergraduate
Nursing and Midwifery Students: A Cross-
Sectional Survey Utilising the Kolb Learning Style
Inventory [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]”
in Nurse Educ Today, 32(5), pp.506-515. DOI:
10.1016/j.nedt.2011.08.001.
De Vita, G. (2001). “Learning Styles, Culture,
and Inclusive Instruction in the Multicultural
Classroom: A Business and Management
Perspective” in Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 38(2), pp.165-174.
Doorn, V.K., F. McManus & J. Yiend. (2012). “An
Analysis of Matching Cognitive-Behavior Therapy
Techniques to Learning Styles” in J Behav Ther
Exp Psychiatry, 43(4), pp.1039-1044. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.05.001.
Dunn, R. (1984). “Learning Style: State of Science” in
Theory into Practice, 23(1), pp.10-19.
Dunn, R. (1989). “Survey Researh on Learning
Styles” in Educational Leadership, 46(6).
Available online also at: www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/
journals/ed_lead/el_198903_dunn.pdf [accessed in
Skudai, Malaysia: 2 March 2016].
Eaves, M. (2011). “The Relevance of Learning
Styles for International Pedagogy in Higher
Education” in Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice, 17(6), pp.677-691. DOI:
10.1080/13540602.2011.625143.
Evans, C. & E.E. Smith. (2006). “Learning Styles in
Education and Training: Problems, Politicisation,
and Potential” in Education + Training, 48(2),
pp.77-83. DOI: 10.1108/00400910610651728.
Evans, C., E. Cools & Z.M. Charlesworth. (2010).
“Learning in Higher Education: How Cognitive

ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI,
Learning Style Construct
220 © 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
and Learning Styles Matter” in Teaching in
Higher Education, 15(4), pp.467-478. DOI:
10.1080/13562517.2010.493353.
Garsha, A.F. (1990). “Using Traditional versus
Naturalistic Approaches to Assessing Learning
Styles in College Teaching” in J Excellence Coll
Teaching, 1, pp.23-38.
Graf, S., T. Lin & C. Kinshuk. (2008). “The
Relationship between Learning Styles and
Cognitive Traits: Getting Additional Information
for Improving Student Modelling” in Computers
in Human Behavior, 24(2), pp.122-137. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.004.
Graf, S. et al. (2009). “Learning Styles and Cognitive
Traits: Their Relationship and its Benets in
Web-Based Educational Systems” in Computers
in Human Behavior, 25(6), pp.1280-1289. DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.005.
Hall, E. & D. Moseley. (2005). “Is there a Role
for Learning Styles in Personalised Education
and Training?” in International Journal of
Lifelong Education, 24(3), pp.243-255. DOI:
10.1080/02601370500134933.
Honey, P. & A. Mumford. (1986). The Manual of Learning
Styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Peter Honey.
Huang, A.F.M. et al. (2012). “The Success of
e-Portfolio-Based Programming Learning Style
Diagnosis: Exploring the Role of a Heuristic
Fuzzy Knowledge Fusion” in Expert Systems
with Applications, 39(10), pp.8698-8706. DOI:
10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.212.
Hurst-Wajszczuk, K. (2010). “Do They Really Get it?
Using the Kolb LSI to Reach Every Student” in
Journal of Singing, 66(4), pp.421+.
Jones, C., C. Reichard & K. Mokhtari. (2003).
“Are Students’ Learning Styles Discipline
Specic?” in Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 27(5), pp.363-375. DOI:
10.1080/713838162.
Kinshuk, T., C. Liu & S. Graf. (2009). “Coping with
Mismatched Courses: Students’ Behaviour and
Performance in Courses Mismatched to Their
Learning Styles” in Educational Technology
Research and Development, 57(6), pp.739-752.
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-009-9116-y.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience
as the Source of Learning and Development. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D.A. & R.E. Boyatzis. (2000). “Experiential
Learning Theory: Previous Research and New
Directions” in R.J. Sternberg & L.F. Zhang [eds].
Perspectives on Cognitive, Learning, and Thinking
Styles. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Law, D.C.S. & J.H.F. Meyer. (2010). “Relationships
between Hong Kong Students’ Perceptions of the
Learning Environment and Their Learning Patterns
in Post-Secondary Education” in Higher Education,
62(1), pp.27-47. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-010-9363-1.
Leite, W.L., M. Svinicki & Y. Shi. (2010).
“Attempted Validation of the Scores of the VARK:
Learning Styles Inventory with Multitrait–
Multimethod Conrmatory Factor Analysis
Models” in Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 70(2), pp.323-339. DOI:
10.1177/0013164409344507.
Lurea, C. et al. (2011). “The Study of the Relation
between the Teaching Methods and the Learning
Styles: The Impact Upon Students’ Academic
Conduct” in PROCEDIA: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 11(2011), pp.256-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.01.072.
Mehrdad, A.G. & M. Ahghar. (2012). “Learning Styles
and Learning Strategies of Left-Handed EFL
Students” in PROCEDIA: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, pp.536-545. DOI: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2011.12.100.
Miller, L.M. (2005). “Using Learning Styles to
Evaluate Computer-Based Instruction” in
Computers in Human Behavior, 21(2), pp.287-306.
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.011.
Norman, G. (2009). “When will Learning Style
Go Out of Style? [Editorial]” in Adv Health Sci
Educ Theory Pract, 14(1), pp.1-4. DOI: 10.1007/
s10459-009-9155-5.
Ozgur, S.D., S. Temel & A. Yilmaz. (2012). “The
Effect of Learning Styles of Preservice Chemistry
Teachers on Their Perceptions of Problem Solving
Skills and Problem Solving Achievements” in
PROCEDIA: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46,
pp.1450-1454. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.319.
Platsidou, M. & P. Metallidou. (2009). “Validity and
Reliability Issues of Two Learning Inventories in
a Greek Sample: Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
and Felder & Solomon’s Index of Learning Styles”
in International Journal of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education, 20(3), pp.324-335.
Reio, T.G. (2006). “An Examination of the
Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the
Gregorc Style Delineator” in Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(3), pp.489-501.
DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282459.
Reynolds, M. (1997). “Learning Styles: A Critique”
in Management Learning, 28, pp.115-133. DOI:
10.1177/1350507697282002.
Riener, C. & D. Willingham. (2010). “The Myth
of Learning Styles” in Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 42(5), pp.32-35. DOI:
10.1080/00091383.2010.503139.
Rohrer, D. & H. Pashler. (2012). “Learning Styles:
Where’s the Evidence?” dalam Med Educ,
46(7), pp.634-635. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2012.04273.x.

MIMBAR PENDIDIKAN:
Jurnal Indonesia untuk Kajian Pendidikan, 1(2) September 2016
221
© 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
Schmeck, R.R. [ed]. (1988). Learning Strategies and
Learning Styles. New York: Plenum Press.
Slack, N. & B. Norwich. (2007). “Evaluating the
Reliability and Validity of Learning Styles
Inventory: A Classroom-Based Study” in
Educational Research, 49(1), pp.51-63. DOI:
10.1080/00131880701200765.
Smith, L.M. (1978). “An Evolving Logic of
Participant Observation, Educational Ethnography,
and Other Case Studies” in L. Shulman [ed].
Review of Research in Education. Itasca, IL:
Peacock.
Threeton, M.D. & R.A. Walter. (2009). “The
Relationship between Personality Type and
Learning Style: A Study of Automotive
Technology Students” in Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education, 46(2), pp.48-74.
Vermunt, J.D. (2005). “Relations between Student
Learning Patterns and Personal and Contextual
Factors and Academic Performance” in Higher
Education, 49(3), pp.205-234. DOI: 10.1007/
sl0734-004-6664-2.
Vermunt, J. & Y. Vermetten. (2004). “Patterns in
Student Learning: Relationships between Learning
Strategies, Conceptions of Learning, and Learning
Orientations” in Educational Psychology Review,
16(4), pp.359-384. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-004-
0005-y.
Vorhaus, J. (2010). Learning Styles in Vocational
Education and Training. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Wong, J.K.K. (2004). “Are the Learnign Styles
of Asian International Students Culturally or
Contexually Based?” in International Education
Journal, 4(4), pp.154-166.
Zwanenberg, N.V., L.J. Wilkinson & A. Anderson.
(2000). “Felder and Silverman’s Index of Learning
Styles and Honey and Mumford’s Learning
Styles Questionnaire: How Do They Compare
and Do They Predict Academic Performance?” in
Educational Psychology: An International Journal
of Experimental Educational Psychology, 20(3),
pp.365-380. DOI: 10.1080/713663743.

ZAINUDIN ABU BAKAR & RAFAQUAT ALI,
Learning Style Construct
222 © 2016 by UPI (Indonesia University of Education) Press in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia
ISSN 2527-3868 (print), 2503-457X (online), and http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/mimbardik
Students Have Different in Learning Styles
(Source: https://www.oxfordlearning.com, 2/3/2016)
Considering the individual differences as a major element in determining the learning activities, it is evidence
that the future researchers should devise their studies by looking into the learning styles as development process.
Without such understanding, the study on the learning activities among student will be problematic which
sometimes lead to a wrong conclusion. It is best then to start with dening what are the learning styles and how it
difference from one person to the other, so that the foundation of the study will be conducted on a clear denition.