Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Cognitive styles and instructional design in university learning
Patrick R. Thomas a,⁎, Jacinta B. McKay b
a
b
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
School of Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 8 August 2008
Received in revised form 18 December 2009
Accepted 7 January 2010
Keywords:
Cognitive style
Verbalizer
Visualizer
Presentation format
Matching
a b s t r a c t
Changes in conceptualization and measurement of the verbalizer–visualizer dimension led us to re-examine
the hypothesis that students learn best when instructional material matches their cognitive style. First-year
psychology university students (n = 41) studied information on three personality theories presented in text
only, text+picture, or text+schematic diagram format, demonstrated recall and comprehension of each
theory, and completed an adapted cognitive styles questionnaire. Spatial and object visual scale scores were
not correlated, but the latter showed a significant though relatively weak negative correlation with verbal
scale scores. Recall could be predicted from students' verbal and object visual scores when presentation
format matched these cognitive styles. All three styles significantly predicted students' comprehension, but
only when they matched the presentation format. The results support the distinction between spatial and
object visual styles, and provide evidence that learning outcomes improve when instructional material is
matched to students' cognitive styles.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Paivio's (1971) dual-code theory underpins substantial research
on verbalizer–visualizer cognitive styles. Verbalizers tend to use
verbal-logical strategies whereas visualizers show a preference for
using imagery to process information (Kozhevnikov, Hegarty, &
Mayer, 2002; Mayer & Massa, 2003; Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner,
1998; Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999). These styles are often measured
using self-report instruments such as Richardson's (1977) Verbalizer–
Visualizer Questionnaire (VVQ), whereas computer-presented tests
such as Riding's (1991) Cognitive Styles Analysis (CSA) provide
behavioral measures. There is mixed evidence regarding the validity
and reliability of the VVQ (Antonietti & Giorgetti, 1998; Boswell &
Pickett, 1991; Mayer & Massa, 2003) and the CSA (Massa & Mayer,
2005; Parkinson, Mullally, & Redmond, 2004; Peterson, Deary, &
Austin, 2003), but both approaches are used to measure individual
differences and their effects on learning outcomes.
1. Matching
Researchers have long been interested in whether matching
instructional mode to the individual's cognitive style improves
learning outcomes. Einstein initially failed the entrance examination
to the Swiss Polytechnic Institute, but subsequently achieved the
⁎ Corresponding author. School of Education and Professional Studies, Mt Gravatt
Campus, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Queensland 4122, Australia. Tel.: + 61 7 3735
5634; fax: + 61 7 3735 5991.
E-mail address: p.thomas@griffith.edu.au (P.R. Thomas).
1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.002
highest grade average in his class after switching to a preparatory
school that emphasized visual thinking (Miller, 1996). In some studies
using the CSA, imagers preferred and learned best from pictorial
information, whereas verbalizers preferred and learned best from
verbal information (Riding & Ashmore, 1980; Riding, Buckle,
Thompson, & Hagger, 1990; Riding & Douglas, 1993; Riding &
Watts, 1997). Plass et al. (1998) recorded students' preferences for
verbal or visual annotations in a second-language multimedia learning task and reported better comprehension test performances after
students used their preferred mode.
Other studies found no differences in learning between verbalizers and visualizers, and failed to replicate significant interactions
between verbalizer–visualizer styles and presentation mode (Massa
& Mayer, 2006; Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999). Some researchers have
argued that mismatching could be more beneficial to the learning
process than matching (Ford & Chen, 2001). Learning situations that
are unsuited to students' cognitive style strengths may have long
term benefits in developing areas of weakness and promoting
versatility (Hayes & Allinson, 1996). Others, however, are sceptical
that such versatility can be developed in stylistically specialized
individuals, and caution that it may be psychologically damaging
if the specialization serves to protect the individual from anxiety
(Miller, 1991).
Research has prompted a reconceptualization of verbalizer–visualizer styles and their measurement. Rather than regarding these styles
as unidimensional or mutually exclusive categories, they may be
considered independent factors, with individuals having different
predispositions for both verbalizing and visualizing. All individuals
possess some degree of each cognitive style (Sternberg & Grigorenko,
198
P.R. Thomas, J.B. McKay / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
1997). Rather than using dichotomous true/false questions to categorize participants, researchers use rating scales to obtain both verbalizer and visualizer measures for each individual.
Using an adapted VVQ, Mendelson and Thorson (2004) investigated how these cognitive styles influenced responses to photos
and text in a newspaper story. They reported a significant positive
correlation between the verbalizer and visualizer scales, but their
sample size was small. Individuals high in verbalizing recalled more
about newspaper stories than those with low verbalizer scores.
However, individuals high in verbalizing performed relatively poorly
when presented with a text+photo condition, providing evidence of a
distraction process. Visually oriented individuals were expected to
show increases in comprehension and interest in a newspaper story
presented with a congruent photo, but no significant effects were
found for the visualizing style.
2. Spatial and object imagery
Kozhevnikov et al. (2002) examined why some research failed to
find evidence linking the visualizer style to performance on imagery
tasks or spatial ability tests. They argued that the tendency to equate
the visualizer style to vivid imagery and imagery abilities without
acknowledging spatial skills or preferences may explain nonsignificant effects. Kozhevnikov et al. (2002) provided convincing evidence
for two types of visualizers who “process visual–spatial information,
generate mental images, and solve visually presented problems in
different ways” (p. 48).
This revised conceptualization of visualizer style recognizes that
imagery consists of two independent components, spatial and object/
pictorial. Some individuals use spatial imagery to “create images that
represent spatial relations between objects that facilitate the imagination of spatial transformations such as mental rotation” (Kozhevnikov
et al., 2002, p. 48). Others use object imagery to “construct vivid, concrete, and detailed images of individual objects in a situation”
(Kozhevnikov et al., 2002, p. 48).
The spatial–object distinction is supported by cognitive psychology and neuroscience research (Kozhevnikov et al., 2002). Neurophysiological research has identified functionally and anatomically
separate systems for the two modes of processing (Haxby et al., 1991;
Kosslyn, Ganis, & Thompson, 2001; Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn, & Shephard, 2005; Kozhevnikov et al., 2002). Object imagery is linked to the
temporal lobe and the ventral system, which is activated when
participants imagine faces and colours (Uhl, Goldenberg, Lang, &
Lindinger, 1990). Spatial imagery is linked to the parietal lobe and
dorsal system, which is activated when participants engage in a
spatial task such as visualizing a route map (Kozhevnikov et al., 2005).
Furthermore, lesions in the temporal lobe are associated with
disrupted performance on object imagery tasks but not spatial tasks,
whereas the opposite effects are found with lesions in the parietal
lobe (Kozhevnikov et al., 2005).
The purpose of this study was to further investigate the matching
hypothesis given recent conceptual changes to verbalizer–visualizer
styles. Specifically it was anticipated that individual differences in
cognitive style would moderate relationships between the method of
presentation and students' recall and comprehension of information.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The 41 first-year psychology university students recruited from
the university subject pool received one credit point for 1 hr of
voluntary research participation. There were 33 females aged 17 to
42 years (M = 20.88, SD = 4.05), and 8 males aged 18 to 28 years
(M = 21.13, SD = 4.67). University ethics committee approval was
obtained and participants signed informed consent before they were
tested.
3.2. Materials
3.2.1. Instructional materials
The instructional materials were topics from the second-year psychology subject, Personality and Individual Differences, selected from
the set text Personality (Burger, 2000). As participants would take this
course the following year, the subject matter was assumed to be
relevant but unfamiliar to them. Participants were expected to have
similar levels of prior knowledge and motivation for the topics chosen
(Sadler-Smith & Riding, 1999).
Instructional materials consisted of lecture-style PowerPoint
presentations, each consisting of six slides on a personality theory
(Freudian, Humanistic, or Cognitive). The materials were designed to
match the three cognitive styles and form three experimental
conditions: text only (verbal); text+picture (object visual); and
text+schematic diagram (spatial visual). Thus, nine matched PowerPoint presentations were developed — one on each personality theory
for each condition (see Appendix A).
3.2.2. Learning measures
Participants' recall and comprehension were assessed after each
presentation. Five closed questions requiring participants to insert the
missing word into a sentence measured recall. Each correct answer
was awarded one mark. A short-answer question was used to
measure comprehension, with five marks allocated on predefined
criteria.
3.2.3. Cognitive styles questionnaire
Participants' cognitive styles were measured using a cognitive styles
questionnaire adapted from existing validated measures. The two visual
styles (object and spatial) were measured using items drawn from the
Object–Spatial Imagery Questionnaire (OSIQ, Blajenkova, Kozhevnikov,
& Motes, 2006). Five items with factor loadings < .40 on the spatial
imagery scale, and the five items with lowest loadings on the object
imagery scale (.368 to .487) were omitted, leaving 10 items per scale.
Five items measuring verbal style were drawn from Kirby, Moore,
and Schofield's (1988) adaptation of the VVQ used by Mendelson and
Thorson (2004). Ten further items were developed for the verbal scale
paralleling OSIQ items for the other styles. Preliminary scale reliability
analysis identified the 10 items with highest corrected item-total
correlations (.40 to .77). The cognitive styles questionnaire thus
consisted of 30 items, 10 items measuring verbal, object visual, and
spatial visual styles respectively. Participants responded to all items
using a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.1
3.3. Procedure
All participants received standardized instructions and completed
three learning and testing tasks, each presenting a different
personality theory in a different instructional condition. The combination of topic and presentation condition was randomized and the
order counterbalanced across participants to control for practice and
fatigue effects. Each task consisted of a 5-min instructional presentation and 10 min of paper and pen testing. The PowerPoint
presentations were viewed individually on personal computers.
Participants completed the cognitive styles questionnaire without
time constraints after finishing their third learning and testing task.
1
Instructions and verbal scale items developed for the questionnaire are available
from the authors.
P.R. Thomas, J.B. McKay / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
4. Results
Table 2
Beta weights and standard errors of cognitive styles across presentation for recall
scores.
4.1. Cognitive style data
Condition
Preliminary analyses of the cognitive styles questionnaire revealed
no problems with missing data, skewness, or kurtosis. Each 10-item
scale had good internal consistency: verbal scale α = .88; object visual
scale α = .88; and spatial visual scale α = .81. There was a relatively
weak negative relationship between the verbal scale (M = 33.46,
SD = 7.57) and object visual scale (M = 32.0, SD = 7.07), r = −.33,
p = .033. Neither correlated significantly with the spatial visual scale
(M = 25.1, SD = 6.38). There were no gender differences on the scales,
multivariate F(3, 37) = 0.38, p > .05.
4.2. Learning tests
B
Text only presentation recall
Verbal style
.06
Object visual style
−.02
Spatial visual style
.02
Text+picture presentation recall
Verbal style
.05
Object visual style
.08
Spatial visual style
.06
Text+diagram presentation recall
Verbal style
.02
Object visual style
.01
Spatial visual style
.04
4.3. Cognitive style × presentation effects
Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with repeated measures assessed the moderation effects of cognitive styles on relationships
between presentation condition and learning. In each analysis, three
presentation conditions defined a within subjects factor, and the three
cognitive styles were covariates. Presentation condition had three
manipulated levels: text only; text+picture; and text+schematic
diagram. Separate ANCOVAs were conducted in which recall and
comprehension scores were dependent variables. Mauchly's test of
sphericity was not significant in all analyses.
4.3.1. Recall analyses
The main effect of presentation on recall was not significant after
adjusting for covariates (see Table 1). There was a main effect of
verbal style on recall after the effect of presentation was controlled
for, F(1, 37) = 5.66, p = .023. The other styles showed no effects on
recall after controlling for presentation, although the effect for spatial
style approached significance (p = .062). Cognitive styles did not
significantly moderate relationships between presentation and recall.
Regression analyses showed that verbal style significantly predicted recall in the text only presentation condition, t(40) = 2.13,
p = .04 (see Table 2). Object visual style predicted recall in the text+
picture presentation condition, t(40) = 2.27, p = .029. Spatial visual
style did not significantly predict recall in any presentation condition.
t
Partial η2
Power
.03
.03
.03
2.13⁎
−.80
.67
.11
.02
.01
.55
.12
.10
.03
.04
.04
1.5
2.27⁎
1.46
.06
.12
.06
.31
.60
.30
.03
.03
.03
.69
.16
1.26
.01
.00
.04
.10
.05
.23
4.3.2. Comprehension analyses
A further ANCOVA investigated the effects of presentation and
cognitive style on comprehension (see Table 3). After adjustment for
covariates, the main effect of presentation was not significant. The
effect of verbal style on comprehension was significant after
controlling for presentation, F(1, 37) = 10.78, p = .002. The other
cognitive styles showed no effects on comprehension after controlling
for presentation, although the effect of spatial visual style approached
significance (p = .069). Two interactions were significant, verbal
style × presentation, F(2, 74) = 3.67, p = .03, and object visual style ×
presentation, F(2, 74) = 4.07, p = .02.
Parameter estimates from the regression analyses for comprehension were examined to investigate patterns in the predicted scores. All
three cognitive styles significantly predicted comprehension when
matched to the respective presentation conditions (see Table 4).
Verbal style significantly predicted comprehension in the text only
presentation condition, t(40) = 4.49, p < .001. Object visual style significantly predicted comprehension in the text+picture condition,
t(40) = 2.07, p = .046, and spatial visual style significantly predicted comprehension in the text+schematic diagram condition, t(40) =
2.94, p = .006. None of the cognitive styles significantly predicted
comprehension in the mismatched presentation conditions.
Estimated marginal means were computed to obtain predicted
comprehension scores in each presentation condition for groups
scoring High (+1 SD) and Low (−1 SD) on each of the three cognitive
styles. The predicted scores plotted in Fig. 1 show good comprehension
across all presentation conditions for students with high scores on all
scales (Hi Hi Hi), and poor comprehension for students with low scores
on all scales (Lo Lo Lo). Those with high scores on some scale(s) and
low scores on other(s) were predicted to have better comprehension
in those presentation conditions that matched their cognitive styles.
Table 3
Analysis of covariance for comprehension scores.
Table 1
Analysis of covariance for recall scores.
df
⁎ p < .05.
SE
⁎ p < .05.
No floor or ceiling effects were detected in the recall and
comprehension scores, which did not differ significantly across the
three presentation conditions, all ts < 1.62, p > .10. A similar result
was found after analysing recall and comprehension across the topic
of presentation. The data were therefore collapsed across theories and
the effects of presentation condition were analysed rather than topic
of presentation.
Covariates
Verbal style
Object visual style
Spatial visual style
Error
Main Effects
Presentation
Interactions
Verbal style × presentation
Object style × presentation
Spatial style × presentation
Error
199
Type III SS
MS
F
Partial η2
Power
1
1
1
37
10.43
2.29
6.85
68.11
10.43
2.29
6.85
1.84
5.66⁎
1.24
3.72
.13
.03
.09
.64
.19
.47
2
3.68
1.84
1.12
.03
.24
2
2
2
74
1.56
9.93
.96
122.16
.78
4.97
.48
1.65
.47
3.01
.29
.01
.08
.01
.13
.57
.09
Covariates
Verbal style
Object visual style
Spatial visual style
Error
Main Effects
Presentation
Interactions
Verbal style × presentation
Object style × presentation
Spatial style × presentation
Error
⁎ p < .05.
⁎⁎ p < .01.
df
Type
III SS
MS
F
Partial
η2
Power
1
1
1
37
25.94
2.24
8.47
89.08
25.94
2.24
8.47
2.41
10.78⁎⁎
.93
3.52
.23
.02
.09
.89
.16
.45
2
.41
.21
.18
.01
.08
2
2
2
74
8.63
9.57
5.1
87.01
4.32
4.79
2.55
1.18
3.67⁎
4.07⁎
2.17
.09
.10
.06
.66
.71
.43
200
P.R. Thomas, J.B. McKay / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
Table 4
Beta weights and standard errors of cognitive styles across presentation for comprehension scores.
Condition
B
SE
t
Text only presentation comprehension
Verbal style
.12
.03
4.49⁎⁎⁎
Object visual style
−.04
.03
− 1.22
Spatial visual style
.01
.03
.31
Text+picture presentation comprehension
Verbal style
.05
.03
1.41
Object visual style
.07
.03
2.07⁎
Spatial visual style
.03
.04
.87
Text+diagram presentation comprehension
Verbal style
.04
.03
1.29
Object visual style
.03
.03
.96
Spatial visual style
.09
.03
2.94⁎⁎
Partial η2
Power
.35
.04
.00
.99
.22
.06
.05
.10
.02
.28
.52
.14
.04
.02
.19
.24
.16
.82
⁎ p < .05.
⁎⁎ p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.
5. Discussion
5.1. Cognitive styles
Relationships among the three cognitive styles were of interest in
the present study given the reconceptualization of the verbalizer–
visualizer dimension. All three scales demonstrated good internal
consistency. Spatial visual scores were not correlated with either
verbal or object visual scores. The independence of spatial and object
visual scores provides support for reconceptualizing the visualizer
style (Blajenkova et al., 2006; Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009;
Kozhevnikov et al., 2002; Kozhevnikov et al., 2005). The significant
but relatively weak negative correlation between verbal and object
visual scores contrasts with the positive correlation between
verbalizer and visualizer scores, r = .33, p = .0002, reported by
Mendelson and Thorson (2004). Distinguishing between two independent components of the visual style may explain differences from
previous results.
The sample size in the present study was quite small, so the results
should be viewed with caution. However, the within subjects design
and absence of missing data provided sufficient observations per cell
for the analyses conducted. They identified clear differences in how
cognitive styles moderated the relationships between method of
presentation and learning. This provides further evidence that these
cognitive styles should be conceptualized and measured independently rather than as mutually exclusive categories or as opposite
ends of the same dimension. The CSA (Riding, 1991) classifies
individuals on a verbal–imagery dimension according to the ratio of
their response times to statements about conceptual categories
(verbal) and item appearance (imagery). Conceptualizing these styles
on a single dimension and calculating the ratio of scores may have
contributed to their questionable reliability (Parkinson et al., 2004;
Peterson et al., 2003). The revised conceptualization may lead to
improvement in measurement reliability, addressing style researchers' major concern (Peterson, Rayner, & Armstrong, 2009).
5.2. Cognitive style effects on learning
The prediction that individual differences in cognitive style would
moderate relationships between method of presentation and students' recall and comprehension was partially supported. No
moderating effects were found for recall, perhaps due to the method
of measurement. A different format for measuring recall such as
multiple-choice questions might improve the ecological validity of the
learning test and provide evidence of moderating effects. A delayed
test of recall may also provide more information about individual
differences in cognitive style.
Individual differences in cognitive style had significant moderating
effects on comprehension. Verbal and object visual scale scores
moderated the relationships between presentation and comprehension. Observed power was lower in the spatial visual style analysis,
increasing the likelihood of Type II error. This effect may also have
been significant with a larger sample size.
Verbal scale scores had a significant effect on recall and comprehension. Individuals with high verbal scores may have benefited
because all learning presentations were verbally based, using text
only or text+picture/diagram conditions. To maintain consistency
across conditions, the learning tests assessed information presented
in the text of the instructional material, and verbal tests were used to
measure recall and comprehension. This design was used by other
researchers (Mendelson & Thorson, 2004; Plass et al., 1998; Riding &
Douglas, 1993), but the limitation should be addressed in future
research.
Fig. 1. Predicted comprehension scores for combinations of verbal, object visual, and spatial visual styles. Hi = 1 standard deviation above the mean of the respective style score, and
Lo = 1 standard deviation below the mean score. Error bars omitted for clarity.
P.R. Thomas, J.B. McKay / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
5.3. Matching and mismatching
The regression analyses revealed significant trends in students'
predicted recall and comprehension. Cognitive styles clearly predicted
learning scores only when they matched presentation conditions. This
effect was evident for verbal and object visual styles in recall and for
all three styles in comprehension. These results provide further
evidence that the three styles operate independently and have
systematic effects on learning when students are presented with
different modes of instructional design.
When each of the three cognitive styles was matched to the
respective presentation condition, the predicted comprehension was
better than when the cognitive style was not matched. This finding
provides strong support for the matching hypothesis. When students'
cognitive styles were not matched to the presentation condition, they
did not significantly predict learning. The results do not support the
argument for mismatching learning material, although long-term
benefits should not be ruled out as they were not addressed in this
study (Ford & Chen, 2001; Hayes & Allinson, 1996).
Although the study's design may have advantaged individuals
with high verbal scale scores, it should be noted that the Hi Lo Lo
profile in Fig. 1 predicted their comprehension scores to be lower in
the text+picture/diagram conditions than in the text only condition.
No significant predictive relationship was found between verbal style
and the two visual presentation conditions. Nevertheless, this result
suggests that when those with high verbal scale scores are presented
with exactly the same text in all conditions, the addition of visual
material may decrease their comprehension. The volume of material
presented may have impacted on the results, but Mendelson and
Thorson (2004) noted a similar trend and proposed that pictures had
a distraction effect on verbalizers.
5.4. Implications and applications
Like previous research, this study highlights the need for a range of
learning materials to accommodate various cognitive styles (Hayes &
Allinson, 1996; Moreno & Mayer, 2000; Plass et al., 1998). The
distinction between object and spatial visual styles emphasizes the
need for pictorial and schematic diagrams accompanying instructional text. PowerPoint presentations can provide both types of visual
material, not just text. The findings indicate the complexity of
cognitive styles and have implications for metacognitive functioning
(Kozhevnikov, 2007). Versatility should be strongly encouraged as
students with high scores on all three scales showed good
comprehension across all presentation conditions. Students also
need help to develop strategies for coping with information presented
in a format that does not match their cognitive styles. Further research
with larger samples across different domains is needed to determine
whether relative strength on two scales compensates for weakness on
the other.
Kozhevnikov (2007) provided an integrated framework for
cognitive style research, but argued that the development of a general
theory of cognitive styles required further study of their nature,
mechanisms, and interconnections. Despite its limitations, the present
study provides encouraging results for cognitive style research, not
only in a university setting but also in other contexts such as
schooling, training, and professional development (Evans & SadlerSmith, 2006; Hayes & Allinson, 1996; Price, 2004). There is strong
support for measuring cognitive styles as separate factors using
continuous scales. This is consistent with evidence presented in other
investigations of verbalizer–visualizer styles (Fogarty & Burton, 1996;
McGrath, O'Malley, Dura, & Beaulieu, 1989) and other cognitive styles
(Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996; Hodgkinson & SadlerSmith, 2003). Results also support the distinction between object and
spatial visual styles, consistent with recent neurophysiological
evidence. Most importantly, however, there is evidence that cognitive
201
styles moderate the effects of presentation format on learning. This
finding contributes to the argument for developing and adapting
learning materials for university and other students that accommodate differences in cognitive styles in order to provide optimal
learning settings and achieve improved outcomes.
Appendix A . Instructional Materials
The same structure was used for lectures on the three theories,
providing an initial overview and explanation of central concepts,
before focusing on applications to therapy and approaches to
assessment. Text presented for each theory was identical across the
three conditions. Some examples of the two types of images follow. In
the text+picture condition, the initial overview of Freud's structural
theory was accompanied by his photograph, with the overview
completed in the next slide accompanied by a photograph of The
Thinker by Rodin. In the corresponding slides for the text+schematic
diagram condition, a diagram based on Freud's (1933, p.111) model of
conscious, preconscious, and unconscious levels of awareness accompanied the text (see Weiten, 1989, p.435), and in the next slide this
diagram also showed the id, ego, and superego operating at different
levels of awareness. Similarly, photographs of prominent theorists
(Maslow, Kelly), as well as images of individuals alone or interacting
with others, were presented in the text+picture condition for the
other personality theories. The pyramid structure for Maslow's need
hierarchy and concept maps for self-schemas are examples of images
presented in the text+schematic diagram condition for humanistic
and cognitive theories.
References
Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (1998). The Verbalizer–Visualizer Questionnaire: A review.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 227−239.
Blajenkova, O., Kozhevnikov, M., & Motes, M. (2006). Object–spatial imagery: A new
self-report imagery questionnaire. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 239−263.
Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object–spatial–verbal cognitive
style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 638−663.
Boswell, D. L., & Pickett, J. A. (1991). A study of the internal consistency and factor
structure of the Verbalizer–Visualizer Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 15,
33−36.
Burger, J. M. (2000). Personality (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in
intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 390−405.
Evans, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning styles in education and training:
Problems, politicisation and potential. Education and Training, 48, 77−83.
Fogarty, G. J., & Burton, L. J. (1996). A comparison of measures of preferred processing
style: Method or trait variance? Journal of Mental Imagery, 20, 87−111.
Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of
learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 5−22.
Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New York: Carlton
House.
Haxby, J. V., Grady, C. L., Horwitz, B., Ungerleider, L. G., Mishkin, M., Carson, R. E., et al.
(1991). Dissociation of object and spatial visual processing pathways in human
extrastriate cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 88, 1621−1625.
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1996). The implications of learning styles for training and
development: A discussion of the matching hypothesis. British Journal of
Management, 7, 63−73.
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and
empirical re-assessment of the Allinson–Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 243−268.
Kirby, J., Moore, P., & Schofield, N. (1988). Verbal and visual learning styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 169−184.
Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 635−642.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward
an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464−481.
Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer–verbalizer
dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20,
47−77.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S. M., & Shephard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object visualizers:
A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition, 33, 710−726.
Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Three obstacles to validating the Verbal-Imager
Subtest of the Cognitive Styles Analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 39,
845−848.
202
P.R. Thomas, J.B. McKay / Learning and Individual Differences 20 (2010) 197–202
Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia
instruction accommodate verbalizer–visualizer cognitive style? Learning and
Individual Differences, 16, 321−335.
Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive
ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 833−846.
McGrath, R. E., O'Malley, W. B., Dura, J. R., & Beaulieu, C. (1989). Factor analysis of the
Verbalizer–Visualizer Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 13, 75−78.
Mendelson, A., & Thorson, E. (2004). How verbalizers and visualizers process the
newspaper environment. Journal of Communication, 54, 474−491.
Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals. Educational
Psychology, 11, 217−238.
Miller, A. I. (1996). Insights of genius. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for
personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
724−733.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Parkinson, A., Mullally, A. A. P., & Redmond, J. A. (2004). Test–retest reliability of
Riding's cognitive styles analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
1273−1278.
Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2003). The reliability of Riding's Cognitive Style
Analysis test. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 881−891.
Peterson, E. R., Rayner, S. G., & Armstrong, S. J. (2009). Researching the psychology of
cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future? Learning and Individual
Differences, 19, 518−523.
Plass, J., Chun, D., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal
learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25−36.
Price, L. (2004). Individual differences in learning: Cognitive control, cognitive style,
and learning style. Educational Psychology, 24, 681−697.
Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer–visualizer, a cognitive style dimension. Journal of
Mental Imagery, 1, 109−126.
Riding, R. J. (1991). Cognitive Styles Analysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training
Technology.
Riding, R. J., & Ashmore, J. (1980). Verbaliser–imager learning style and children's recall
of information presented in pictorial versus written form. Educational Studies, 6,
141−145.
Riding, R. J., Buckle, C. F., Thompson, S., & Hagger, E. (1990). The computer determination of learning styles as an aid to individualised computer-based training.
Educational and Training Technology International, 26, 293−298.
Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation
on learning performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297−307.
Riding, R. J., & Watts, M. (1997). The effect of cognitive style on the preferred format of
instructional material. Educational Psychology, 17, 179−183.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Riding, R. (1999). Cognitive style and instructional preferences.
Instructional Science, 27, 355−371.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American
Psychologist, 52, 700−712.
Uhl, F., Goldenberg, G., Lang, W., & Lindinger, G. (1990). Cerebral correlates of imagining
colours, faces and a map - II. Negative cortical DC potentials. Neuropsychologia, 28,
81−93.
Weiten, W. (1989). Psychology: Themes and variations. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.