Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)

Learning Style: State of the Science Author(s): Rita Dunn Source: Theory into Practice, Vol. 23, No. 1, Matching Teaching & Learning Styles (Winter, 1984), pp. 10-19 Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476733 Accessed: 10/09/2009 14:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory into Practice.

http://www.jstor.org

Rita Dunn*

Learning

Style:

State

of

the

Science

Five years ago, Scott D. Thomson, executive director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals(NASSP), stated that "the ability to map learning styles is the most scientific way we know to individualize instruction" ("Students Learn," 1979). That same year, NASSP's director of research, Jim Keefe, wrote: Learning style diagnosis. . .gives the most powerful leverage yet available to educators to analyze, motivate, and assist students in school. . .it is the foundation of a trulymodern approach to education. (1979, p. 132) Since that time, many professionaljournalshave published articles by various practitioners who reported dramaticsuccesses with learningstyle based instruction(Ballinger& Ballinger,1982; Cavanaugh, 1981; K. Dunn, 1981; Fiske, 1981; Hodges, 1982, 1983; Jenkins, 1982; Lemmon,1982; & Pizzo, 1982). The popular magazine, Redbook, recently urged its readers to become intelligent consumers of education: You can determine a lot about your own child's learningstyle, share the informationwith teachers, challenge any facile diagnosis. . .or any remedial work that isn't working. . .you can be instrumentalin makingeducators realize that
*Assisting Rita Dunn with this article were Patricia Brennan, Thomas DeBello, and Helena Hodges, all doctoral students at St. John's University;Rita Dunn is professor, Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles, St. John's University.

children of different needs need to be taught differently.(Ball, 1982, p. 76) Given the influence of NASSP's leadership, the corroborationof administrators and teachers who are findinglearningstyle based instructioneffective, and the gradually awakening support of popular writers, why hasn't every board of education mandated such instructionas policy? Why hasn't every instructionalleader introduced selected aspects of the concept into their schools on, minimally,a pilot basis? Why hasn't every teacher education institution redesigned its training program to reflect what is happening in lighthouse districts throughout the country? Perhaps some of the lethargy revolves around unanswered questions concerning learning styles. Educators often are reluctant to experiment with innovations until "harddata" provide evidence that the new concept or process produces academic achievement at statistically significant levels. Although waitingfor such corroborationis reasonable, it often takes years to design, conduct, evaluate, and report on experimental studies; getting that information published and then read is an even greater barrierto change. That kind of informationconcerning the effectiveness of teaching students through their unique characteristics now is available through well-designed, carefullyconducted, and often prize-winning research at all levels. It is the purpose of this manuscript to answer some important questions about learning styles so that more schools will become involved with that valuable system.

Questions Concerning Learning Styles 1. What is learning style? Priorto the mid-'70s, researchers experimented with cognitive style; their definitions were different but all were concerned with how the mind actually processed informationor was affected by each individual's perceptions (Coop & Brown, 1970; Garder, Holzman, Klein, et. al., 1959; Kagan, Moss, & Sigel, 1963; Messick, 1969; Hill,1971; Witkin,1975). In 1971 and 1972, Prentice-Hallpublished two books about the emerging concept of learningstyle (Kolb, 1971; Dunn & Dunn, 1972). Kolb's wellthought-through conceptualization remained entirely in the realm of how the adult mind functioned. The Dunns posed a model that included 18 environmental,emotional, sociological, and physical student characteristicsthat they had learnedto respond to in New York classrooms with 30-37 students, little money, and no aides. In 1979 the Dunns added elements of cognitive style to their model (Dunn,

Dunn, & Price, 1979), and in 1980 that paradigm was revised to includehemisphericpreference(Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982); in 1983 left and right cognitive styles were incorporated undersimultaneousand successive processing. (See Figure 1) The Dunns were not the only researchers developing learningstyle constructs. Duringthe 1970s Canfield and Lafferty(1970), Gregorc (1979), Hunt (1979), Kolb(1971), Ramirez and Castaneda (1974) and Schmeck (Schmeck, Ribich,& Ramanaiah,1977) all developed varied definitions, models, instruments, and techniques for assessing students' characteristics. In some ways those models differed, but their many strands revealed essential similarities and were mutuallysupportive (Dunn,DeBello, Brennan, & Murrain,1981). The essence of those models described similar phenomena observed from different vantage points-much like the blind men who were explaining an elephant by reporting only certain parts of

(
STI MULI

DIAGNOSING LEARNING STYLES V

ELEMENTS
( SOUND } ( LIGHT
h

^~~~~~~

( TEMPERATURE

DESIGN

ENVIRONMENT

AL

MOTIVATION

ERSISTENCE

)-l

(RESPONSIBILITY

STRUCTURE

EMOTIONAL

COLLEAGUES ELF PAI TEAM

W Fj T Th

____SOCIOLOGICAL

*X
INTAKE

n
TIME

(AUTHORITY

VARIED

(PERCEPTUAL

MOBILITY

PHYSICAL

Z_ )(

ANALYTIC ( ]GLOBAL

CEREBRAL PREFERENCE

) REFLECTIVE IMPULSIVE

PSYCHOLOGICAL

1.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-9processing

Simultaneous and successive

DUNN DUNN & KENNETH by: Designed RITA Figure 1. Diagnosing learning styles.
VolumeXXIII, Number 1 11

its body. Thus, learning style is the way in which each person absorbs and retains informationand/ or skills; regardless of how that process is described, it is dramaticallydifferent for each person. 2. How good is the instrumentation to identify styles? It is important to use a reliable and valid test or the data it yields may be inaccurate and potentially harmful.The Ohio State University's National Center for Research in Vocational Education published the results of its two-year study of instruments that purportedly identified learning and cognitive styles (Kirby, 1979) and selected instruments were appraised as having "impressive reliability and face and construct validity" (p. 72). Certainlythose would appear to be the ones most appropriate for school use. Selected tests have been well-researched and reported extensively in the literature;others are the products of interviews by their developers, clinical applications, or only correlational studies. Instruments that have been validated through experimental investigations represent a better, more solid foundation. St. John's University's Center for the Study of Learningand Teaching Styles released a and report summarizingthe known reliability validity data of many of the better known tests in the field; that report is availableto interested persons (Learning Styles Network InstrumentAssessment Analysis, 1983). 3. Can students identify their learning style? Although Hunt uses an excellent observational format based on student reactions to systematic teacher-induced changes in structure, and Ramirez and Castaneda employ a direct observation checklist, Canfieldand Lafferty,Dunnand Dunn, Gregorc, Hill, Kolb, and Schmeck all diagnose learning style through self-report inventories which reveal students' preferences for selected elements (Dunn, DeBello, Brennan, & Murrain, 1981). One of the most frequently asked questions is, "Do students really know their own styles?" Having tested more than 350,000 youngsters, we can verify that most do, some don't, and others do for only part of their style. Let us explain. Researchers at our center have been experimenting with many elements of learning style includingsound, light, temperature,design, perceptual strengths and weaknesses, intake, time of day, mobility,motivation, persistence, responsibility,so12 IntoPractice Theory

ciological preferences, global/analytic,reflective/imand pulsive, field independent/dependent, hemispheric inclinations. No one is affected by all those variables; most people respond strongly to between 6 and 14. When an element is important to a person, he/she can verbalize preferences and dislikes. When an element is unimportant,people are unaware of any reaction to it and, therefore, cannot respond knowledgeably to questions about it. In such cases, individualsare likely to respond, "It depends. . .," "It doesn't matter!" or "I don't know!" Elements that are extremely important to a person are called strong preferences; those can be either positive or negative-and both are equally potent. For example, someone with a strong preference for sound would learn, study, concentrate, or remember more easily with music in the background;someone who needs quiet (a negative strong preference for sound) would find it difficultto learn with any kind of sound present. In effect, sound would prevent that individual from concentrating (Dunn, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Many studies that used self-report instruments-questionnaires that ask students either about what they actually do when studying or what they prefer to do-placed tested populations into matched and mismatched situations where they then were taught and tested. Table 1 includes eight such research investigations that evidenced statistically significant achievement based on students' perceptions of how they learned best. Apparently whenever an element is either a strong positive or negative preference, students can identify it. The Copenhaver (1979) (high school), Domino (1970) (college), and Pizzo (1981) (elementaryschool) studies also showed that improved attitudes toward school resulted from teaching through learning styles. 4. Is a preference a strength? One of the instruments frequentlyused in doctoral research at our center is the Learning Style Inventory(LSI)(Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1979). In various studies, students tested with the LSI who reported either strong negative or positive preferences for selected elements were placed into academic situations where they were taught and/or tested in ways that matched and mismatched their self-reported preferences. In every case, students who were matched with methods, resources, or environments that complemented their reported

Table 1 Can Students Identify Their Own Learning Styles?

Researcher, Date Cafferty, 1980 Population 1,689 teacherstudent pairs Findings 1. The greater the match between the student's and the teacher's style, the higher the student's grade point average. 2. The greater the mismatch between the student's and teacher's style, the lower the student's grade point average. 1. Students' learning styles remained consistent regardless of the subject being studied. 2. Significantlymore positive attitudes resulted when students' styles were similarto their teachers'. 3. A wide range of learning styles existed in each class. 1. Students taught in preferredstyles scored higher on tests, fact knowledge, attitude, and efficiency than those taught in a manner dissonant from their orientations. 1. Individualsaccurately predicted the modality in which they would achieve superior academic performance. 2. It was advantageous to learn and be tested in the preferredmodality. 3. The above advantage was reduced when learning and testing were both in the non-preferredmodality. 1. Students who preferredbright light performed statistically better when tested in brightlylit areas; those who preferredreading in dim light did equally as well in a low-light setting. 2. Both groups performedstatistically less well when tested in mismatched situations. 1. When matched with their time-of-day preference and mismatched for teacher assignment, chronic truants attended school more frequently. 2. A significant interaction(at the .01 level) occurred among degree of truancy, learning style preference, and English teacher assignment, suggesting that time preference was a crucial factor in the reversal of truancy patterns. Had the students not accurately identifiedtheir time preferences, statistically significant interactions could not have occurred. 1. When students were matched with their learning style preferences, statistically higher reading and attitude scores resulted at the .01 level. 2. Students who were mismatched achieved significantlybelow the matched students. 1. When students were matched with their learning style preferences for design, statistically higher reading scores resulted at the .01 level. 2. Students who were mismatched for informaldesign achieved significantlylower than when matched.

Copenhaver, 1979

76 high school students

Domino, 1979 Farr, 1971

100 college students 72 college students

Krimsky, 1982

32 fourth graders

Lynch, 1981

136 high school students

Pizzo, 1981

64 sixth graders

Shea, 1983

32 ninth graders

strong preferences achieved statistically higher; they achieved statistically less well when they were mismatched with their preferences. Because our exin laboratories and in classroom periments-both studies-have significant yielded consistently scores, it is only reasonable to conclude that since

students achieve better when taught through their preferences, their preferences must be their strength. Those studies include Krimsky (1982), Lynch (1981), Pizzo (1981), Shea (1983) and White (1980). Both Pizzo and Krimsky were finalists in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development's naVolumeXXIII, Number 1 13

tional doctoral research competition (1981, 1982) and White was awarded the Delta Kappa Gamma InternationalAward for the best doctoral research (1980). 5. Does teaching through learning styles increase academic achievement? Duringthe '60s and early '70s, evaluations of selected innovations consistently yielded essentially similar results; group achievement scores tended to reflect those of students experiencing conventional instruction. Since then, however, attribute/ treatment/interaction studies, where each youngster's scores are compared with the individual's own baseline data, repeatedly evidenced the statistically increased academic achievement (Cafferty, 1980; Carbo, 1980; Douglass, 1979; Krimsky,1982; Pizzo, 1981; Shea, 1983; Tannenbaum, 1982; Trautman, 1979; Urbschat, 1977; Weinberg, 1983; Wheeler, 1983; White, 1980) and improvedattitudes toward learning (Copenhaver, 1979; Pizzo, 1981) that emerge when students are taught through their unique personal characteristics. Among the above cited research investigations are four that were cited either nationally(Carbo, 1980; Krimsky,1982; Pizzo, 1982) or internationally (White, 1980) for their excellent quality. Despite the above supportive documentation, many educators continue to remain unaware of the extent to which learning style characteristics contribute to individuals' ability to absorb and retain new or difficultinformationor skills. Certainly,there is no widespread movement to expand experimentation with an element such as perceptual strength/ preference. Carbo's (1980) chapter on related literature exposes the poor designs, misinterpretation of data, and faulty conclusions of many of the studies investigating that phenomenon one or two decades ago. Indeed, the Carbo (1980), Farr(1971), Urbschat (1977), Weinberg (1983), and Wheeler (1983) data clearly documented the significantgains and retention that were consistent when students were taught through their strongest-and sometimes it was their only-perceptual strength or preference. Despite that, and despite the widespread supportive documentation of many practitioners based on classroom or school experiences (Dunn, 1981; Hodges, 1982, 1983; Jenkins, 1982; Lemmon, 1982; Wheeler, 1980), few reading experts have seriously begun to reassess teaching through modality strengths; the singular exceptions to that statement have been the pioneering leaders Barbe and Swassing (1979) and Carbo (1980).
14 Theory Into Practice

A second area of pervasive neglect has been the classroom environment to which we demand that all students adapt successfully. Clearly, our emphasis on processing skills (global/analytic,field dependence/independence, and impulsivity/reflectivity) and brain behavior-which we can affect only minimally-has diverted our attention away from the instructional environment. For no money and little effort and time (Dunn & Dunn, 1978), any interested teacher can redesign the instructional environment into a totally responsive atmosphere for almost every student. Our preoccupation with more complicated elements has prevented us from the understanding dramaticeffects on the test scores of approximately ten percent of our school population of: (a) the need for either certain types of sound or absolute/relative quiet (Pizzo, 1981); (b) bright or dim illumination(Krimsky,1982); and (c) wooden, steel, or plastic seats and desks versus lounge type chairs or carpeting (Shea, 1983). Parents verify the differences in environments repeatedly sought by their offspring, but educators, more often than not, require conformityand tend to disregard individualinclinationswhen teaching. Many cannot understand that instructionaleffectiveness is increased when the small percentage of students that requires adjustment of the environmentis provided a responsive setting. In addition to our inattentiveness to perceptual preference/strength, sound, light, and design, we also have overlooked chronobiologicalenergy levels. We often operate under the mistaken assumption that reading should be taught in the morning when, supposedly, most childrenare alert;the Lynch (1981) and Virostko (1983) investigations demonstrate the fallaciousness of that belief. Normalschool hours restrict the achievement of approximately2530 percent of secondary youngsters; no matter when instruction is being offered, it is the wrong time of day for almost one of every three students. 6. Do good and poor readers reflect different styles? In 1977, Kaley revealed that reading achievement is a statistically stronger and more effective predictor of learning style than IQ. In another investigation, all data were secured from 94 percent of the identified low and high reading achievers in the seventh and eighth grades of a public middle school (Murray,1980). Analysis of the data resulted in 27 significantdifferences between the two groups' styles. High reading achievers were more self-motivated, responsible, and preferredlearningalone-

the latter being a characteristic also verified in Wingo's study of eighth grade, high reading achievers (1980). Low reading achievers were less motivated, needed more structure, and preferredlearningwith an adult. A third comparative study of 85 elementary school children also reported that high reading achievers were self-motivated, persistent, responsible, and requiredlittle food intake and virtuallyno mobility while learning (Price, Dunn, & Sanders, 1981). Thus, the learning styles of high reading achievers in grades 3-8 tend to incorporate the elements of self-motivation, learning alone, persistence, and responsibility-the latter correlating with conformity(White, 1980). Requiringintake and mobilityappear to characterize poor readers, as do adult- rather than self-motivation, reduced persistence, nonconformity,and an increased need to learn tactually and kinesthetically. Furthermore,at least three important studies revealed that students whose perceptual strengths were tactual/kinesthetic-rather than auditory or visual-did not learn well through either phonics or word recognition reading approaches (Carbo, 1980; Urbschat, 1977; Wheeler, 1983). Such youngsters achieved statistically better when taught tactually. Another study of good and poor readers demonstrated that, of the good, approximately half were left and half were right "brained," but of the poor readers, 17 of 19 were rightpreferencedyoungsters (Zenhausern, 1982). 7. Do gifted/talented students (4-12) require unique instruction? Several studies have examined the styles of gifted/talentedstudents at various school levels (see Table 2). Those investigations showed consistent patterns of independence, self (internal)motivation, persistence, strong perceptual modalities, and needing options rather than structure among (a) high IQ, (b) musically, and (c) artistically gifted youngsters. They also verified that, despite their across-the-board strong perceptual modalities, the gifted strongly prefer independent studies and projects to lectures and discussions. As interviewed students explained, their teachers spoke "too slowly" to keep pace with the youngsters' thoughts. Students also complained of verbal repetition and boredom with lectures. Cody (1983) revealed significant differences (p<.01) among average, gifted, and highly gifted fifth through twelfth graders. The higher the IQ of the students, the more motivated they were and

the less structure they required. The highly gifted were evening, rather than morning, preferenced, wanted sound when learning in contrast with the gifted and average youngsters who needed quiet, and were significantly more right dominant than their peers. When combined with the data that has emerged concerning underachievers (Carruthers & Young, 1980; Cavanaugh,1981; Dunn, 1981; Hodges, 1982, 1983; Weinberg, 1983; Wheeler, 1980, 1983), it becomes apparent that although selected learning style elements parallelthe growth curve and affect individualsdifferently,other elements tend to reflect patterns of either giftedness or underachievement. For example, whereas the gifted are highly motivated and persistent, underachievers usually are unmotivated and are not persistent in academic matters. A majority of the gifted dislike imposed structure; a majority of underachievers require structure;a percentage of both groups want/do not want structure. The higher the students' achievement levels, the stronger and more varied their perceptualstrengths. Underachievers appear to learn most easily tactually and kinesthetically;the gifted learn equally as well tactually, kinesthetically, visually, and auditorially.Despite their ability to learn by listening, they almost uniformlydislike lectures. The reasons given often include that teachers take too long to say what has to be said, and the gifted understand the thrust of what is being verbalized before the fullstatements have been delivered.They also complain that teachers talk "too slowly" and that repetition is unnecessary. Such youngsters often are either morning or evening, high energy level people (Cody, 1983; Dunn & Dunn, 1978). at Underachievers,particularly the secondary level, tend to be late morning/afternoon preferents. Whereas underachievers need mobility and intake while learning, the gifted can sit for long periods of time without eating, drinking,smoking, or chewing. It is important to remember, however, that individual differences do exist among those two populations despite group trends (Carruthers & Young, 1980; Cody, 1983; Cross, 1982; Dunn, 1981; Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982; Price, Dunn,&Sanders, 1981; Kreitner, 1981; Lynch, 1981; Murray,1980; Stewart, 1981; Wasson, 1980; Weinberg, 1983; Wingo, 1980). 8. Is learning style biologically or environmentally developed? Both Restak (1979) and Thies (1979, 1983) verify that selected elements of style are imposed
VolumeXXIII, Number 1 15

Table 2
Gifted/Talented Students (Grades 4-12) Require Unique Instruction'
Researchers, Date Stewart, 1981 Grades 4, 5, 6 Instruments Findings

Gifted are: independent, internallycontrolled. LearningStyle Gifted prefer: independent study and discussions, but no Inventory*; Norwicki-Strickland lectures. Locus of Control LearningStyle Inventory** Gifted are: persistent, nonconforming,perceptually strong. Gifted prefer: time to complete tasks, options, few/no lectures. Gifted prefer: teaching games, independent study, peer teaching, programming. Gifted dislike: recitations, lectures. Gifted are: persistent, self-perceptuallystrong. Gifted prefer: learning alone, no lectures. Gifted are: highly motivated, perceptuallystrong.

Dunn & 1980 Price,

4, 5, 6

Wasson, 1980 Griggs & Price, 1979 Kreitner, 1981

4, 5, 6

LearningStyle Inventory* LearningStyle Inventory** LearningStyle Inventory**; Swassing-Barbe ModalityIndex

7, 8, 9

7-12

Cross, 1982 Price, Dunn, Dunn, & Griggs, 1981 Cody, 1983

9-12 4-12

Norwicki-Strickland Gifted are: self-motivated, internallycontrolled, selfLocus of Control directed, task committed. LearningStyle Inventory** Gifted are: self-motivated, persistent, perceptuallystrong, nonconforming. Gifted prefer: options, formal design, no lectures, learning alone. Gifted, highly gifted, and average students differ significantlyin their learning styles and hemispheric arousal systems. Gifted prefer: quiet, moderate temperatures, morning, and options. Highlygifted prefer: sound when learning, cool temperatures, evening, and more options than the gifted. These revealed the highest levels of motivation and right dominant processing/integration.

5-12

LearningStyle Otis Inventory**; Lennon Mental AbilityTest; Wechsler IntelligenceScale for ChildrenRevised; StanfordBinet; Your Style of Learningand Thinking

J., CT: *Renzulli, & Smith,L. (1978).Learning Press. Mansfield, Creative Style Inventory. Learning R., **Dunn, Dunn,K., & Price,G.E.(1975, 1978, 1979).Learning KS Lawrence, 66044;PriceSystems. Style Inventory. R. Whatare the learning of 1.Dunn, (1982, Autumn). 3 style characteristics giftedstudents?The Learning Newsletter, Style Network (3), 2. by genetic makeup and that others are developed as an outgrowth of experiences throughout life. It is believed that individual responses to sound, light, temperature, design, perceptual strengths, intake, circadian rhythms, and mobility are biological, and that inclinations toward certain sociological preferences and motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure are developed because of the positive and/or negative interactions people endure (Thies, 1979, 1983). 16 Theory Into Practice Both experience and research appear to support those conclusions, but several mystifying sets of data confuse the hypotheses. For example, in studies of husbands and wives, most couples tend to evidence styles that are dramatically different from each other-and their offspring appear to reflect neither's style completely. In fact, children are likely to be more different from than similar to their parents when learning. Furthermore, in the

same family, offspring tend to evidence styles that are essentially different from each other. Given the statements that learning style is biologically imposed, it is difficultto understand the differences that exist between parents and their children and among offspring in the same family. On the other hand, we've learned so much about the phenomena during the past two decades that how style emerges is just one more question that is likely to be solved in the near future. Summary Learning style represents each person's biologically and experientially induced characteristics that either foster or inhibit achievement. Instrumentation exists for identifyingindividual styles, but students can describe their strong preferences; they are, however, unaware of those elements that do not affect them. Elements that youngsters strongly prefer are their strengths-meaning that it is easier for them to absorb and retain when their environment is complementary. In working with more than 21 elements of style, we consistently find that students evidence: (a) increased academic achievement, (b) improved attitudes toward school, and (c) reduced discipline problems (Carruthers & Young, 1980; Dunn, 1981; Hodges, 1982, 1983; Lynch, 1981) when strong preferences are responded to. The styles of good and poor readers are drastically different;in fact, research suggests that poor readers probably would have been good readers had they been taught to read correctly (for them!) (Carbo,1980; Urbschat,1977; Wheeler, 1980,1983). Furthermore,because the styles of the gifted/talented require unique instructional strategies, the styles of underachievers-which vary dramatically from those of high achievers-undoubtedly also require approaches that differ from those used in conventional classes. Indeed, widespread practitioners' reports verify that conclusion (Ball, 1982; Cavanaugh, 1981; Dunn, 1981; Hodges, 1982, 1983; Fiske, 1981; Jenkins, 1982; Lemmon, 1982). References The secrets of learning Ball, A.L. (1982, November). the diagnostic-prescriptive lanprocessin the foreign guageclassroom.In Studentlearning style andbrain
behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals,33-37.

Barbe, W.B., & Swassing, R. (1979). Teaching students Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.

Conceptsandpractices. modality strengths: through

E. Cafferty, (1980).An analysisof studentperformance based upon the degree of matchbetweenthe educationalcognitivestyle of the teachersand the educational cognitive styleof the students.Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Universityof Nebraska. Canfield, A.A., & Lafferty, J.C. (1970). Learning Styles Inventory.Detroit:HumanicsMedia(LibertyDrawer). Carbo, M. (1980). An analysis of the relationshipbetween the modality preferences of kindergartnersand selected reading treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight-word vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University,1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41/04A, 1939. (University MicrofilmsNo. 80-21790) Carruthers,S., &Young, A. (1980). Preferenceof condition concerning time in learning environments of rural versus city eighth grade students. Learning Styles Cavanaugh, D. (1981). Student learning styles: A diagnostic prescriptiveapproach to instruction.Phi Delta

Network Newsletter,1 (2), 1.

63 Kappan, (3), 202-203. Cody, C. (1983). Learning styles, including hemispheric dominance: comparative A study of average,gifted, and highlygifted students in grades five through
twelve. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University. Coop, R.H., & Brown, L.D. (1970). Effects of cognitive style and teaching method on categories of achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 404405. Copenhaver, R. (1979). The consistency of student learn-

of locus of Cross, Jr., J.A. (1982). Prevalance internal contro! artistically in talentedstudents.Unpublished
research study, Universityof Alabama. Domino, G. (1970). Interactiveeffects of achievement orientation and teaching style on academic achieve-

ematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

ing styles as studentsmove fromEnglishto math-

Douglass, C.B. (1979). Making biology easier to under-

ment.ACTResearchReport,39, 1-9.

stand. The American 41 BiologyTeacher, (5), 277299.

Dunn, K. (1981). Madison Prep: Alternative to teenage Dunn,R. (1983a). Whatis your learningstyle? EarlyYears, 13 (5). Dunn, R. (1983b). You have style: How can you make the Dunn, R. (1983c). What are you willing to do to teach your students through their styles? Early Years, 13 (7). Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemisphericpreference:The newest element of learning style. American Biology Teacher, 44 (5), 291-294. P. Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., & Murrain, (1981). Learningstyle researchers define differences differently. EducationalLeadership, 38 (5), 372-375. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Practical approaches to instruction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Parindividualizing ker Division of Prentice-Hall. VolumeXXIII, Number 1 17

disaster.Educational 38 Leadership, (5), 386-387.

most of it? EarlyYears,13 (6).

styles-your child's and your own. Redbook, 160, 1, 73-76. Ballinger, R., & Ballinger, V. (1982). Steps in managing

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individuallearning styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1979). Identifyingindividual learning styles. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals, 39-54. Dunn, R., & Price, G.E. (1980). The characteristics of gifted students. Gifted ChildQuarterly,24 (1), 33-36. Farr, B.J. (1971). Individualdifferences in learning: Predicting one's more effective learning modality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University. Fiske, E.B. (1981, December 29). Teachers adjust schoolThe ing to fit students' individuality. New YorkTimes, 131, 45, 177, Col. 4. Garder, R.W., Holzman, P.S., Klein, G.S., et al. (1959). consistencies Cognitivecontrol-A study of individual in cognitive behavior. Psychological Issues, 1 (4), Chapter 1. Gregorc, A.F. (1979). Learning/teachingstyles: Their nature and effects. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs.Reston, VA:National Association of Secondary School Principals, 19-26. Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1979). Comparison between the learningstyles of gifted versus average suburban juniorhigh school students. In Student learningstyles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals, 63-64. Hill, J., et al. (1971). Personalized education programs utilizingcognitive style mapping. BloomfieldHills,MI: Oakland CommunityCollege. Hodges, H. (1982). Madison prep: Alternatives through learning styles. In Student learning styles and brain behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals,28-32. Hodges, H. (1983). Learningstyles; rx for mathophobia. Arithmetic Teacher, 30 (7), 17-20. Hunt, D.E. (1979). Learningstyle and student needs: An introductionto conceptual level. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribingprograms. Reston VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 27-38. student learnJenkins, J.M. (1982). Teaching to individual ing styles. The Administrator,6 (1), 10-12. Kagan, J., Moss, H., & Sigel, I. (1963). Psychological significance of styles of conceptualization. Monographs of the society for research in child development, 28, 73-112. Kaley, S.B. (1977). Field dependence/independence and learningstyles in sixth graders. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Hofstra University. Keefe, J.W. (1979). School applications of the learning style concept: Student learning styles. Reston, VA: NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals, 123-132. Kirby,P. (1979). Cognitivestyle, learningstyle and transfer skill acquisition. Columbus, OH: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, The Ohio State University. Kolb, D.A. (1971). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 18 Theory Into Practice

K.R.(1981). Modality Kreitner, strengths and learningstyles of musically talented high school students. Unpublished master's thesis, The Ohio State University. J.S. (1982). A comparativeanalysis of the effects Krimsky, of matching and mismatching fourth grade students with their learning style preferences for the environmental element of light and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. (LSI)(Dunn,Dunn,& Price, 1979) LearningStyle Inventory for students in grades 3-12. Obtainablethrough Price Systems, Box 3067, Lawrence, KS 66044. Specimen set, $12.00. Assessment Analysis. LearningStyles NetworkInstrument (1983). Obtainablefor $3.00 from St. John's University, LearningStyles Network, Grand Central Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439. Lemmon, P. (1982). Step by step leadership into learning styles. Early Years, 12 (5), 36, 12. Lynch,P.K. (1981). An analysis of the relationshipsamong academic achievement, attendance and the individual learningstyle timepreferences of eleventh and twelfth grade students identifiedas initialor chronic truants in a suburbanNew Yorkschool district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Messick, S. (1969). The criterionproblemin the evaluation of instruction. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services. Murray,C.A. (1980). The comparison of learning styles between low and high reading achievement subjects in the seventh and eighth grades in a public middle school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States InternationalUniversity. Pizzo, J. (1981). An investigation of the relationships between selected acoustic environmentsand sound, an element of learning style, as they affect sixth grade students' reading achievement and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Pizzo, J. (1982). Learningstyles: Teaching through small group techniques. Early Years, 12 (9), 32-35. Price, G.E., Dunn, K., Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1981). Studies in students' learningstyles. Roeper Review, 4 (2), 38-40. Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Sanders, W. (1981). Reading achievement and learning style characteristics. The ClearingHouse, 54 (5), 223-226. Ramirez,M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education. New York: Academic Press. Restak, R. (1979). The brain: The last frontier. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F., & Ramanaiah, H. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individualdifferences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431. Shea, T.C. (1983). An investigation of the relationship among preferences for the learning style element of design, selected instructionalenvironmentsand reading test achievement of ninth grade students to improve administrative determinations concerning effective educational facilities. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Stewart, E.D. (1981). Learning styles among gifted/talented students: Instructionaltechnique preferences. Exceptional Children,48 (2), 134-138.

Students learn how to study-and like it. (1979, December 31; 1980, January 7). U.S. News and WorldReport, 88 (27), 75-76. Tannenbaum, R. (1982). An investigation of the relationships between selected instructionaltechniques and identified field dependent and field independent cognitive styles as evidenced among high school students enrolled in studies of nutrition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Thies, A.P. (1979). A brain-behavioranalysis of learning styles. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals,55-61. Thies, A.P. (1983). The biology of attention. Early Years, 13 (7), 18. Trautman, P. (1979). An investigation of the relationship between selected instructionaltechniques and identified cognitive style. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Urbschat,K.S. (1977). A study of preferredlearningmodels and their relationshipto the amount of recall of CVC trigrams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. Virostko,J. (1983). An analysis of the relationshipsamong academic achievement in mathematics and reading, assigned instructional schedules, and the learning style time preferences of third,fourth,fifth,and sixth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Wasson, F.R. (1980). A comparative analysis of learning styles and personalitycharacteristicsof achievingand underachievinggifted elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, FloridaState University.

Weinberg, F.H. (1983). An experimental investigation of the interactionbetween modalitypreferenceand mode of presentation in the instruction of arithmeticconcepts to third grade underachievers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Wheeler, R. (1980). An alternative to failure: Teaching reading according to students' perceptual strengths. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 17 (2), 59-63. Wheeler, R. (1983). An investigation of the degree of academic achievement evidenced when second grade learning disabled students' perceptual preferences are matched and mismatched with complementary sensory approaches to beginningreadinginstruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. White, R.T. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between selected instructionalmethods and selected elements of emotional learning style upon student achievement in seventh grade social studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Wingo, L.H. (1980). Relationships among locus of motivation, sensory modality, and grouping preferences of learning style to basic skills test performance in reading and mathematics. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Memphis State University. Witkin, H.A. (1975). Some implications of research on cognitive style for problems of education. In J.M. Whitehead (Ed.), Personality and learning. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Zenhausern, R. (1982). Rights and lefts and how they learn. Early Years, 12 (6), 51, 67.

tip

VolumeXXIII, Number 1

19