• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
    • Volume 30
      • Volume 30, Number 1 – May 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour

March 2002 — Volume 5, Number 4

Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour


Richard Riding & Stephen Rayner, (1998)
London: David Fulton Publishers.
Pp. 217
ISBN 1-85346-480-5 (paper)
US $ 29.95

Riding and Rayner’s purpose in Cognitive styles and learning strategies is to describe individual differences based on two models. One model comprises four basic cognitive modes derived from the intersection of a wholist-analytic dimension and a verbaliser-imager dimension. Riding and Rayner claim that this model synthesizes the research and literature produced in the field of cognitive styles since the forties. They also argue that this model solves the problem researchers have faced when labeling cognitive styles phenomena. The second model also synthesizes a large body of literature on learning styles. As in the categorization of cognitive styles, Riding and Rayner propose a four-level model that groups students’ learning preferences into learning processes based on experiential learning, learning processes based on orientation to study, instructional preferences, and development of cognitive skills and learning strategies. These two models are supported by extensive research from diverse traditions in the fields of cognitive and learning styles.

Overall, Riding and Rayner describe the tenets of the theory of cognitive and learning styles in the first three chapters. They utilize the following five chapters to describe and assess diverse theories of individual differences, on the one hand; and to demonstrate the validity of their cognitive and style model, on the other hand.

Cognitive style and learning strategies is structured as an argument in which Riding and Rayner demonstrate the validity of their cognitive model. The book begins with a general description of the cognitive model (Introduction). The following chapter is devoted to providing a state of the art review of cognitive style theory. The authors describe and evaluate previous research work on cognitive style–field dependency/independency, impulsivity/reflectiveness, adaptors/innovators, abstract/concrete thinker, etc–and show how their tenets fit into their two-dimensional model. Chapter three revolves around the concept of learning styles. Overall, this section gives the reader a review of styles models based on learning process. The authors grouped them into three general domains: learning and meaning-oriented processes, instructional preferences, and finally cognitive skill development. Chapter four focuses on the nature and types of learning strategies as well as on the characteristics of a strategic learner.

Chapters five to eight examine the relationship between Riding and Rayner’s cognitive styles model and diverse factors of individual differentiation such as intelligence, ability, personality, and achievement. The authors also discuss the relationship between their model of cognitive style and gender, classroom behavior, occupational suitability, and individual roles. These sections serve to validate the authors’ model. Riding and his associate conclude their book by highlighting the importance of the theory of cognitive and learning styles for creating adequate instructional settings and by calling for further research that will enrich their two dimensional model. [-1-]

Riding and Rayner present the content of Cognitive styles and learning strategies following a systematic pattern. They begin each chapter with a review of the main points to be discussed. Then, they discuss the points thoroughly and finish by providing an evaluation of the material or by presenting empirical evidence that supports the points in question.

Cognitive styles and learning strategies is addressed for both teachers and educators interested in the field of individual differences. The book is appropriate for readers with or without knowledge on the fields of cognitive and learning styles and learning strategies. Those with some or abundant background in these areas will have access to a state of the art review in the theory of individual differences. Novice readers in the field of styles and learning strategies will benefit from a comprehensive view of most models in the field since 1948.

Finally, Cognitive styles and learning strategies is still a compulsory reading for both educational researchers and practitioners in the field of individual differences today although its publication dates back to 1998. One of the strengths of the book is that its content derives exclusively from research studies. Another important quality is that it provides a comprehensive view of the field as stated above. Thirdly, the book goes beyond the descriptive stance; that is, it is both analytical and interpretative. Fourth, Riding and Rayner’s book reads easily because of its organization and use of language. Lastly but not the least, Cognitive styles and learning strategies effectively supports and illustrates the cognitive and learning style models that the authors propose. In this sense, the book is an excellent and practical example of a written persuasive discourse. Because of all these reasons, Riding and Rayner’s Cognitive styles and learning strategies is a necessary reading for those interested in the theory of individual differences. In this sense, the book has become a classic in the field of cognitive and learning styles. One should not forget that classic works are timeless and Cognitive styles and learning strategies is one of them without doubt.

Grandfield Henry-Vega
University of Cincinnati
<ghenry2260@yahoo.com>

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor’s Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.

[-2-]

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.