According to numerous researchers (e.g. Riding & Rayner, 1998; Schmeck, 1988a, 1988b), the early period of research on learning styles largely follows the traditions of psychology that contributed to the then-emerging field of cognitive styles. Research on cognitive styles in the 1920s and 1930s dealt with experiences involving perceptual speed and flexibility. According to some scholars of styles (e.g. Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1995; Riding & Cheema, 1991), Allport (1937) developed the idea of ‘lifestyles’ and was most likely the first researcher to deliberately use the ‘style’ construct in association with the concept of cognition or cognitive styles to refer to ways of living and adapting through being modulated by personality.

Some other researchers (e.g. Messick, 1996; Vernon, 1973) claim that the origin of the term ‘style’ can be traced back to the discussion around personality in classical Greek literature. According to Messick (1996), the use of the idea of style in educational research could date back to ancient classifications of temperament and physique. Such classification was referred to as an early model of human personality created by Hippocrates (Messick, 1996). This model of human personality identified four personality types: the melancholic (pessimistic); the sanguine (optimistic); the phlegmatic (calm-tempered) and the choleric (hot-tempered). Messick (1996) also suggests that the original source of reference of the term ‘style’ comes from an idea that ‘different individuals have contrasting personalities that differentially influence their modes of cognition and behavioural expression’ (p. 638).

Later researchers have focused on processing styles from the perspective of ego psychology, which is the origin of cognitive-style scales such as levelling–sharpening and impulsivity–reflectivity (Schmeck, 1988a). Riding and Rayner (1998) conduct an in-depth exploration into ‘cognitive style’ and categorise cognitive styles into the cognitive-centred, personality-centred and learning-centred dimensions (Riding & Rayner, 1998). Ehrman and Leaver (2003) are leading researchers in language learning strategies and learning styles, and have reorganised some of the existing scales for cognitive styles (e.g. random–sequential, levelling–sharpening and abstract–concrete) and have reconstructed the Ehrman-defined field-(in)dependence/field-sensitive styles into a new comprehensive construct referred to as the ‘E&L construct’ (i.e. the Ehrman and Leaver construct) (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003). To avoid confusion with other terminologies referring to learning styles, Ehrman and Leaver (2003) propose different models such as the analytic–global, atomistic–gestalt, analytic–holistic and serialist–holist.

Most recent research commonly reserves the terms ‘learning style’ and ‘cognitive style’ for reference to different types of individual differences and considers personality variables to represent a separate type of individual difference outside education settings (e.g. Riding & Rayner, 1998). In the second half of the twentieth century, the influence of personality variables on learning increased greatly. For example, research began to use temperament theory (Thomas & Chess, 1977), the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & Myers, 1980) and the Five-factor Model of Personality (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamakera, 2000). Since then, personality has become an established research entity and is often teamed with an examination of attitude and motivation in the sphere of affective domain to investigate learners’ individual differences. However, in education settings, such as in language learning, some researchers refer to personality as a learning style, for example, in employing the term ‘personality learning style’ (e.g. Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003), ensuring the term ‘learning style’ exhibits an affective dimension, or in employing the term ‘affective style’ in contrast to ‘cognitive style’. Cognitive styles in learning contexts are categorised¹ as the learning-centred dimension of cognitive styles (Riding & Rayner, 1998).

Although the origin of learning styles involves the cognitive and affective dimensions, the conceptualisation of the term ‘learning style’ is far more extensive and prolific than what cognitive and affective scopes can capture. The conceptualisation of ‘learning style’ articulates a range of research themes ranging from the behavioural to the cognitive, affective, physiological, biological and social dimensions of the learning processes of learners (Curry, 2000; Dunn & Griggs, 2007; Keefe, 1979, 1987; Reinert, 1976; Willing, 1988). Evidence for such conceptualisation and reconceptualisation is abundant, particularly during the past 50 years, stretching from the period of research in this area in the 1970s up until the present day. During the 1970s and 1980s, research on learning styles intensified and then abated, leaving behind a trail of vaguely recognisable patterns of definitions for later researchers to ponder, follow and expand.

The definition of the concept of learning styles in the 1970s may be best represented by Reinert (1976) and Keefe (1979). Reinert (1976) begins from a neurological perspective and defines learning styles as ‘the way in which that person is programmed to learn most effectively, i.e., to receive, understand, remember, and be able to use new information’ (p. 161). Reinert (1976) stresses that the nature of learning styles is ‘being programmed’ to ways of learning, which means once a learner’s learning style has taken root in the brain, it is unlikely to change. Keefe (1979) includes further dimensions of learning styles and defines the concept as referring to ‘cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment’ (p. 4). Keefe (1979) assumes that a learning style, which involves cognitive, affective and physiological dimensions, remains unchanged for a considerable period in the process of interacting with the learning environment.

Similarly, Dunn and Griggs (1988) tend to see learning styles from biological and cognitive perspectives. Dunn and Griggs (1988) define learning styles as the ‘biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others’ (p. 3). By highlighting the ‘biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics’, Dunn and Griggs (1988, p. 3) affirm the stable nature of learning styles. Curry (2000) states that learning styles refer to ‘individual consistencies in perception, memory, thinking, and judgment across any stimulus condition’ (p. 239), again indicating the stable aspect of learning styles.

When Willing (1988, 1998) defined the concept of learning styles as referring to an inherent, pervasive set of characteristics, he stressed the social aspect of learners’ preference to learn or to deal with new information. According to Willing (1988), a learning style involves many different cognitive, social and affective elements, for example, analytical–global processing (cognitive); risk-taking (affective) and competition–cooperation (social).

The researchers presented in this section tend to consider learning styles as the ‘traits’, ‘ways’ and ‘characteristics’ related to learning that are stable or relatively s...