Interchangeable Concept of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles: a Conceptual Analysis

Inquiries into the nature and effects of cognitive and learning style constructs are mounting daily, regardless of criticism and confusion about the boundaries, natures and to some extent overlapping issues of these two constructs. These issues raise several questions about the credibility of these two constructs with regard to further research, application and development. Therefore, there is a need to crystallize their natures to pave the way for further research and for a better understanding of individual's learning. The current scientific review strengthens the concept of these two constructs as separate and independent, each contributing in its own way to different fields of human learning. Both constructs have different histories and schools of thought directed toward different ends. The relationship of these constructs undeniably establishes their usefulness and value as research subjects. However, specific concerns is required in defining cognitive and learning styles which may hinder the credibility and usefulness of further research, including valid and reliable measurements, cohesive theory, application oriented studies, use of multiple methods in research, and the origin and development of these constructs. This article explores the discourse in these fields and highlights potential issues with the constructs to assist researchers in constructing a more comprehensive understanding of the research framework.


INTRODUCTION
Research on cognitive and learning styles has triggered a variety of discourses due to its extensive use in applied situations in management, education, psychology and medicine. The term, which originated in psychology, has been widely used in education, management, and medicine. The complexity later resulted in an incoherent and disjointed body of knowledge, frameworks, and theoretical styles. Kozhevnikove described WKH SUHYDLOLQJ DWWLWXGH DQG EHKDYLRU RI UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SUDFWLWLRQHUV DV IROORZV ³7KH SDUDGR[ RI WKH FXUUHQW situation is that, interest in building a coherent theory of cognitive styles remains at a low level among researchers in the cognitive sciences > @´. This dispersed work by researchers from different disciplines and regions has created many overlapping concepts and terms with regard to cognition and learning, and there is a need to develop a coherent and unified body of knowledge [2].
As cited in Cools and Bellens, Sadler-6PLWK UHPDUNHG WKDW ³GLIIHUHQW DXWKRUV XVHG WKH FRQFHSW VXFK as cognitive styles, learning styles and learning preferences randomly and interchangeably and there seems to be no consensus how these concepts are interrelated [3], [ @´. Cassidy and Smith also argued that research conducted in an applied and practical sense, without considering the meaning of psychological terms, will create confusion and misunderstanding, which may lead us away from basic psychological theories and concepts [5], [6].
This article is trying to highlight several concerns regarding the cognitive style and learning style discourse. A scientific review is used to explore studies on the styles which cover the application of the concept especially in learning and teaching processes. Specific elements and constructs are highlighted in order to underline the differences and similarities of the concept which has long been discussed as an interchangeable concept. The discussion is done by highlighting the cognitive style in perspective followed by the learning style. The teaching and learning process is used to highlight how the concept is very much so closely related. At the end of the discussion the important point of both concepts are highlighted to show how these can interchangeably be used in the context of research in education. The article is concluded by providing concluding remark for further researchers.

COGNITIVE STYLE IN PERSPECTIVE
Ausburn and Ausburn described cognitive styles as LQGLYLGXDOV ¶ FRQVLVWHQW SV\FKRORJLFDO representations/characteristics/elements, governed and linked cognitively to information acquisition and its processing in perception, thinking, problem solving, and imagery, with quantitative and qualitative variation. In this sense, it has dual functions, including organization and control of cognitive process and related resources [7]. Shade additionally included the personality element, which represents the superordinate construct that accounts for individual preferences in various cognitive, perceptual and personality dimensions that influence differences in information processing [8]. Messick argued that cognitive styles organize the resources related to cognition of situations and also to regulation and control of the cognitive process in a learning situation which incorporated by learners [9], 10]. However, given the unique nature of cognitive styles, these processes cannot depend on personality and can be considered as independent of ability and personality [11].
Kozhevnikove suggested differences in cognitive style as heuristics that can be classified with regard to their regulatory functions in information processing, from perception to metacognitive processing of environmental information [1]. There are many levels of information processing. There are different types of control regulation at each level of information processing, ranging from reception of information to utilization at the end of processing. During the thinking process, there is a consistent approach to organization and to information processing that is independent of intelligence and is responsible for differences in ways of thinking quantitatively and qualitatively [12]. These are cognition-based consistent differences that force an individual to exhibit a particular way of thinking. The particular way of thinking depends on how that person perceives, processes, and remembers information in relation to others.
In the context of learning, cognitive style is regarded as an individual difference that is important to VWXGHQW ¶V VXFFHVV $V PHQWLRQHG DERYH, cognitive style is independent of personality, ability, intelligence, learning style and learning strategies, but indirectly affects a range of motor skills [6], [11, [13], [14]. &RJQLWLYH VW\OHV ¶ Lndependence from important variables demands special treatment in teaching and learning situations. Therefore, learning materials and teaching approaches should match the cognitive styles of students to ensure maximum learning and better learning outcomes [1]. The match between instructional PDWHULDOV DQG VWXGHQWV ¶ FRJQLWLYH VW\OHV KDV LPSURYHG VWXGHQWV ¶ OHDUQLQJ RXWFRPHV > @ With regard to academic performance, Tinajero, Lemos, Araujo, Ferraces, & Paramo found that cognitive styles and learning strategies were significant contributors to academic achievements [16]. Fieldindependent students performed consistently better than their counterpart field-dependent students in academic achievements and problem solving (when problems ranged widely in their complexity) [17][18][19].
Similarly, analyzed the records of pupils in special schools and found out that cognitive styles affect EHKDYLRU > @ ,W ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ¶ VRFLDO EHKDYLRU YDULHV GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKHLU GLIIHUHQW FRJQLWLYH styles. Although there was variation in social/behavioral problems associated with different cognitive styles, training designs should be adjusted based on different cognitive styles to make the learning process more effective and efficient because different interactions between a sWXGHQW ¶V FRJQLWLYH VW\OH DQG WHDFKLQJ methods pave the way for student conduct and learning behavior [12], [ @ 7KH VWXGHQW ¶V SHUIRUPDQFH LQ different subjects is also affected by his or her cognitive style. For instance, holistic imagers and analytic verbalizers showed superior performance to holistic verbalizers and analytic imagers in the subject of science.
There is evidence that considerations of cognitive style are crucial to teaching and learning effectiveness and are also responsible for learning outcomes, independent of other factors such as cognitive skills and intelligence [13], [21]. Most literature supports the importance of matching cognitive styles in teaching and learning in schools. However, some literature supports the mismatching of cognitive styles in teaching and learning, arguing that this will challenge students, help them to overcome their style  [15]. Certain assessment procedures favor certain cognitive styles [22]. Martinsen & Diseth highlighted the correlation of scores on the Assimilator-Explorer Inventory with preferences for novelty seeking behavior, rules and planning behavior [23]. With regard to brain activities, it has been proven that cognitive style differences are supported by neurophysiological and basic brain differences. Huang & Byrne identified the relation of analytic and holistic cognitive styles to hemispheric activity through the lateral eye movement paradigm [24]. Oliveri noted the general role of the parietal lobe and subcortical structures in the verbalizer and visualizer thinking/cognitive styles [25]. Hence, the role of cognitive styles in multi-linguistic knowledge/ability was found to relate to cognitive style preferences. The ability to apply the grammatical rules of a second language is influenced by field-dependent preference [26].
The use of multimedia and the internet in learning and training situations-specifically for educational purposes-is increasing every day. Advancements in information technology can help to meet the individual needs of students. Recently, researchers have linked the notion of cognitive styles to computer programming and software development, which has made the idea of the cognitive style a more practical construct [27]. Angeli observed significant differences in the performance of field-dependent, field-independent and mixed learners who solved a complex problem through computer modeling and found out that the use of hypermedia learning systems that matched cognitive style preferences improved the learning and perception of students [20], [28]. Studies concerning the applicability of cognitive styles show WKDW PRYHPHQW ZLOO HQKDQFH VWXGHQWV ¶ OHDUQLQJ, which means that it cannot be neglected or overlooked.

LEARNING STYLE IN PERSPECTIVE
Individuals show differences in the ways in which they interact with their learning environments. These differences affect everything from interaction with the learning material (behaviorally) to final storage of information (cognitively) for future reference or use. In general, these learning differences are regarded as learning styles. Bird, Romanelli, & Ryan define learning styles as a distinctive psychosocial, affective and cognitive behaviors that give rise to relatively stable measures of the perception of, interaction with and response to the surrounding learning environment [29]. Unique learning styles remain relatively stable even when they encounter different tasks/situations [30]. In other words, when people face a learning situation (stimulus) in a learning environment, they respond in their own way. So, D OHDUQLQJ VW\OH LV DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¶V way of receiving and responding to a learning stimulus with a unique set of psychological, affective and cognitive behaviors. A learning styOH FDQ EH UHIHUUHG WR DV DQ ³LQGLYLGXDO ¶V SUHIHUUHG PRGH RI UHFHLYLQJ DQG processing information, ´ ZKLFK FDQQRW GLVWLQJXLVK LW IURP D FRJQLWLYH VW\OH 7KH FRQFHSWV RI FRJQLWLYH DQG OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV GHWDFK DW WKH IROORZLQJ SRLQW ³FRJQLWLYH VW\OH LQYROYHV Fognition based process, whereas OHDUQLQJ VW\OH LV URRWHG LQ H[WHULRU EHKDYLRU DQG UHVSRQVH WR OHDUQLQJ VLWXDWLRQ´ > @ +RQH\ 0XPIRUG DQG .ROE DUJXHG WKDW D OHDUQLQJ VW\OH LV DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¶V SUHIHUHQFH IRU understanding and transforming his/her experiences [32]. Vermunt & Vermetten XVHG WKH WHUP ³OHDUQLQJ VW\OH´ LQ D PRUH HODERUDWH ZD\, regarding it as a superordinate concept in which the cognitive and affective processing of subject matter, the metacognitive regulation of learning, and conceptions of learning and learning orientations are united. In other words, it is related to preferences in interacting, receiving, processing and responding cognitively and affectively in a learning situation, independently of the task encountered [33].
Researchers have debated the theoretical validity of different learning styles. Slack & Norwich FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO MXVWLILFDWLRQ RI WKH > @ 3XSLOV ¶ VHOI-reported inventories were used for the exploration of their learning styles. They claimed that this model lacks theoretical background and justification for labeling the auditory, kinesthetic and visual styles. Schmeck and Raynolds cautioned against overgeneralizing learning styles into mutually exclusive styles, which can lead to incorrect expectations of pupils [34]. Arrangements made on the basis of these mutually exclusive styles can lead to ineffective learning opportunities. Miller considered LSI (Learning Style Inventory) a poor instrument in terms of measurement [35]. Reio examined the psychometric properties of the Gregoric Style Delineator (GSD) and IRXQG VWDWLVWLFDOO\ OLWWOH VXSSRUW IRU LWV WKHRUHWLFDO EDVLV GHVLJQ DQG FRQFRPLWDQW SRUWUD\DO RI RQH ¶V FRJQLWLYH learning style [36].
With regard to studies of the identification of learning styles, Platsidou & Metallidou investigated WKH SV\FKRPHWULF VWUHQJWKV RI WKH .ROE OHDUQLQJ VW\OH LQYHQWRU\ DQG )HOGHU DQG 6RORPRQ ¶V ,QGH[ Rf Learning Style [39]. A Greek sample using the LSI revealed satisfactory reliability and weak construct validity. There were strong preferences for only accommodative and divergent learning styles. The ILS only achieved an acceptable level of reliability on ability of discrimination and construct validity. The study suggested that these two instruments cannot be used for grouping students with reference to their learning styles; they can only be used to encourage the self-assessment of an individual. Brew reported on the gender sensitivity of the Kolb LSI (1985) for a sample of Australian university students [40].
Similarly, Reio examined the psychometric properties of the Gregoric Style Delineator (GSD) and IRXQG OLWWOH VWDWLVWLFDO VXSSRUW IRU WKH *6' ¶V WKHRUHWLFDO EDVLV GHVLJQ DQG SRUWUD\DO RI DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¶V cognitive learning style [36]. Slack & Norwich, in a classroom based study, reported internal and retest XQUHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH NLQHVWKHWLF OHDUQLQJ VFDOH ¶V DXGLWRU\, kinesthetic and visual learning style inventory [34]. Zwanenberg, Wilkinson, & Anderson also found that the reliability of two famous learning style descriptors: )HOGHU 6LOYHUPDQ ¶V LQGH[ RI OHDUQLQJ DQG +RQH\ 0XPIRUG ¶V OHDUQLQJ VW\OH TXHVWLRQQDLUH > @ 7KH ,/6 was found to mix both cognitive and learning style characteristics and measured absolutely none of either. They advised not using it for anyone other than engineering students, for whom it was intended. The LSQ was found to be more reliable internally than the ILS. It was also unable to possess predictability and was not up to the standard of psychometric instruments. Busato, Prins, Elshout, +DPDNHU DUJXHG WKDW 9HUPXQW ¶V learning styles do not have sufficient evidence to justify tailoring higher education to them, and suggested further research to validate these styles [42].
The learning style construct has been criticized by some researchers and practitioners. Riener & Willingham considered learning styles practically inapplicable and useless and called them a myth [43]. Leite, Svinicki, & Shi evaluated the VARK learning style inventory (Visual, Aural, Read/Write and Kinesthetic) and reported some flaws, such as poor item selection and construction [44]. Rohrer & Pashler RSSRVHG WDLORULQJ LQVWUXFWLRQ WR VWXGHQWV ¶ GLIIHUHQW OHDUQing styles [45]. Rohrer & Pashler also argued that there is no empirical support for this expensive tailoring of instruction to learning styles [45]. Norman claimed that the concept of learning styles is obsolete and has very little to do with learning [46].
The opposing arguments give the impression that learning style research has no validity and is unable to help researchers in improving learning overall. However, when we assessed the validity of these claims, we were surprised that they noted flaws mostly in one aspect, concept or dimension of learning styles. Riener and Willingham: Visual, Kinesthetic and auditory; Leite et al.: Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinesthetic; and Norman: Visual, Verbal Taxonomy [43], [44], [46]. They neglected a massive literature supporting the learning style concept and movement. Here we will present some literature that supports the movement. Kolb and Boyatzis indicated the potential of research on learning styles by noting that for experiential learning theory and learning style inventory alone, there were 990 publications from 1971-1999 [38].
7KHUH DUH PDQ\ VWXGLHV VXSSRUWLQJ WKH FODLP WKDW VWXGHQWV ¶ DFKLHYHPHQWV LQFUHDVH DV D UHVXOW RI matching between learning styles and teaching methods [47]. Learning is a characteristic just like other developmental and biological characteristics [48]. which means that it cannot be neglected. There are VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ OHDUQLQJ VW\OHV LQ VWXGHQWV RI GLIIHUHQW GLVFLSOLQHV > @ 6WXGHQWV ¶ OHDUQLQJ SDWWHUQV can explain the variance in their academic performance [50] and is also related to personality types [51].
Alaoutinen, Heikkinen, & Porras utilized an intensive collaborative teaching concept, CODE CAMP, to demonstrate the effect of learning styles [61]. The study indicated an increased motivation to learn among reflective-intuitive students [62]. Later, Graf, Liu, Kinshuk, Chen, & Yang demonstrated that working memory capacity is connected to learning styles [63]. Cook the ILS (Index of learning styles) to be a valid instrument for measuring learning styles and concluded that cognitive style and learning style scores may not be interchangeable, even for constructs with similar definitions, due to their being different constructs [65]. Vermunt & Vermetten recommended incorporating the interplay between affective and social/collaborative learning and between self-regulation and external regulation, as well as promotion of more favorable learning patterns in different types of learning environments [39]. It is imperative that 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 their educational and working lives [66]. As such, it is concluded that the role of learning styles cannot be neglected in either classroom settings or lifelong learning.

THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF CONCEPTS AND PERSPECTIVES
The terms cognitive and learning styles have been used interchangeably without any discrimination in the literature [67]. Smith conducted a study that supported the independent nature of cognitive styles with regard to learning styles and learning strategies; these concepts measure different constructs regardless of the fact that they include many similar styles [6], [65]. On many occasions, the term learning style is imprecisely used as an umbrella term for both cognitive and learning styles [67]. Hartley distinguishes between the two terms: a cognitive style is characteristically an approach to different cognitive tasks, whereas a learning style is characteristically an approach to different learning tasks [5].
There are also differences in terms of the nature and the number of style elements. The majority of cognitive style models present bipolar styles discussed in theoretical or academic research. As such, most learning styles deviate from this bipolar model and are discussed in the context of their practical applications [68]. Cognitive styles are more structured and are not dependent on learning situations in the same way as learning styles [5]. As both are developed based on different theoretical perspectives, scores for these measurements cannot be exchanged for constructs with similar labels and definitions [65]. Cognitive styles include multiple cognitive processes such as problem solving, thinking, and remembering, which are distinct and rare components of learning styles [34]. Thus, ZH FDQ VD\ WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¶V GLVWLQFWLYH DQG W\SLFDO overall way of cognitive processing is a cognitive style, whereas his or her characteristic mode or way of learning in a learning situation is called a learning style.
Evans et al. differentiated between the two terms: cognitive styles are considered to be individual differences in processing thDW DUH LQWHJUDOO\ OLQNHG WR D SHUVRQ ¶V FRJQLWLYH V\VWHP WKH SHUVRQ ¶V SUHIHUUHG ZD\ of processing) [67]. According to Peterson, Armstrong & Rayner, these are partially fixed, relatively stable and possibly innate preferences [69]. From this perspective, leDUQLQJ VW\OHV ZHUH GHVFULEHG DV DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¶V preferred way of responding (cognitively and behaviorally) to learning tasks that change depending on the environment and context and thus are seen as malleable. Armstrong, Peterson and Rayner conclude that cognitive styles are individual differences in preferred ways of processing information through cognitive brain-based mechanisms and structures [70]. Perceiving, organizing and analyzing information are examples of such processing. These influence the behavior of the individual. These seem to be relatively stable and SRVVLEO\ LQQDWH /HDUQLQJ VW\OHV DUH WKH LQGLYLGXDO ¶V SUHIHUUHG ZD\V RI UHVSRQGLQJ DQG KDYH FRJQLWLYH DQG behavioral dimensions. They may change with the environment and context. They affect motivation and attitude toward learning and determine performance. Nevertheless, Smith verified that learning style and cognitive style are independent of each other and different as constructs [4]. As such, different approaches and treatments are required to reveal the mysteries of human learning.
An excess of different learning styles, definitions, and measurement instruments has baffled researchers and practitioners, policy makers, and novices in the field. Better knowledge of learning styles, accompanied by advancements in information technology, could benefit the learning experiences of different types of students in large classes. Limited research confirming the relationship between learning styles and learning outcomes has resulted in opposition and hesitation to apply learning style research beyond experiments in actual classroom settings [51]. Learning style researchers should focus on the following aspects to make learning style research more practical and valid.
According to Wong, learning styles are not culturally structured but rather are contextual [71]. We may infer that learning styles tend to be modified by experience, context and exposure. This argument is VXSSRUWHG E\ PDQ\ VWXGLHV 9HUPXQW IRXQG WKDW VWXGHQWV ¶ OHDUQLQJ SDWWHUQV RQ LQYHQWRULHV of learning styles were associated with personal and contextual factors such as academic discipline, prior education, age and gender, which may have significant relationships to teaching methods [50]. In other study it was found that personality, education, profession, job role and individual adaptive competencies are responsible for shaping learning style [38]. Hall & Moseley gave direction to the much-debated field of cognitive and learning styles [72]. They proposed that learning style research should help the individual to overcome a particular style, and thus the focus should be on strategies rather than labeling an individual with a particular style, which can limit the OHDUQHU ¶V DPELWLRQ ,QVWHDG, descriptions of learning styles should be tools used to break the chains of habit and limitation. Moreover, potential future learning style research should move in the direction of exploring transitions in learning styles at various life stages. It should devise ways of integrating with pedagogical frameworks and interacting with individual learning differences and personalities in studies meant for evidence based publications [67]. There is also a need to devise feasible frameworks and pedagogies embedded in concepts of learning styles [35], [73].

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Grey areas have been identified as challenges for future cognitive style research. These include research methodology, valid and reliable measurement tools based on specific theoretical grounds in psychological cognitive theories, and applying proposed frameworks and models to actual classroom/organizational situations. Previous studies of cognitive styles have relied on quantitative, cross-sectional and single source designs and obtained information through self-reports, sample surveys and student samples. It is then necessary to focus on overarching conceptual clarifications of other individual differences using multi-method and multisource approaches. Collaboration among different regions should also be encouraged [74].
Cognitive style research should be supported by advancements in other fields and areas of psychology. Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov incorporated developments in research on the human visual system and developed a new model, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal model, in line with the dimensions of the old visual verbalizer style [75]. Similarly, Thomas & McKay investigated verbalizer-visualizer styles and their measurement and proposed a new dimension: visual-verbalizer bipolar [15]. In future research, the bipolarity of different cognitive styles should be questioned and evaluated because everyone is gifted with some degree of each style dimension [66]. Kozhevnikov, Hegarty and Mayer and Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn & Shephard discovered that the visual system has distinct systems used to process REMHFWV ¶ SURSHUWLHV DQG VSDWLDO SURSHUWLHV [76], [77]. They have recommended that future research should probe why people who are good at object imagery have a propensity not to develop and use their spatial imagery ability and vice-versa. Similarly, how can people who perform poorly in one of the imagery dimensions be helped so that they can use their less-developed imagery skills more effectively?
There is also evidence that the social environment plays an important role in the development of different cognitive styles. Researchers have found empirical evidence that field-independent and fielddependent cognitive styles originate and develop in social environments and social settings. Field-dependent children become field-independent with exposure to technology, culture and experience [78]. Individual differences that are responsible for school success, along with cognitive and learning styles, can minimize or maximize the effect of cognitive styles in school-based learning [17]. However, for this to happen, researchers should explore the relationship between cognitive styles and motivation, attention, selfregulation, self-efficacy and emotions [19].
The predictive ability of working memory in the prediction of learning outcomes in different subjects was identified by Alloway, Banner, and Smith [79]. Future research should explore interventions to help students with low working memory using interactions between cognitive style designs and strategies. In line to what being highlighted by Kozhevnikove, the integration of different cognitive styles into a unified theory embedded in cognitive and neuropsychological research, the solution of bipolarity constraints, the relationship between personality and environment, and the development of models for strategy choice and adaptability should all be addressed by cognitive style researchers [1]