Effects of learning-style teaching on elementary students' behaviors, achievement, and attitudes.

Abstract

An investigation of underachieving, chronically misbehaving, fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade students in a suburban elementary school measured the impact of learning-style instructional strategies on classroom behaviors, attitudes toward learning, and achievement -test scores. Two mathematics instructional treatments were provided: traditional and learning-style congruent. Analyses of the data indicated that, despite the fact that these students consistently had been identified on the basis of their poor in-school behaviors during traditional lessons, their decorum was significantly better when they were involved in learning-style responsive lessons. In addition, the attitudes and long-term retention of mathematics information of these underachieving students, improved significantly when the instruction was congruent with their learning-style preferences.

**********

This investigation examined the effects of learning-style responsive instruction on the behaviors, mathematics achievement-test scores, and attitudes of students who often fell through the cracks of our educational system--those of average or above-average ability who neither achieved nor behaved well in school. These were neither students who had been identified as learning disabled nor those with sufficiently extreme behaviors to require that the students be classified as conduct disordered and sent to special schools. Rather, these were students who had not learned at normally anticipated rates and whose conduct distracted teachers from teaching. To permit lessons to proceed, their teachers often removed these students from their classrooms, which caused the youngsters to fall even further behind and become less successful and increasingly disenfranchised. Zenhausern (1990) has emphasized that increasing the flexibility with which we teach could solve most of the problems of disenfranchised students. He had stipulated that, if underachieving, chronically misbehaving students were not already disenfranchised, continuing their exposure to traditional instruction probably just made their total academic failure merely a matter of time.

Corroborating Zenhausern, Dunn and Dunn (1992, 1993) admonished that, if children did not learn the way we teach them, we must teach them the way they learn. With that focus, the Dunns (1992) developed a learning-style model that identified individual preferences for alternative instructional environments, methods, and resources. During the past 35 years, researchers at more than 120 institutions of higher education internationally conducted studies with the Dunn and Dunn Model (www.learningstyles.net). Results consistently documented the statistically higher standardized-achievement test scores revealed by minority, poverty, urban, and suburban students when taught with instructional resources responsive to their individual style preferences (Dunn et. al., 1995; Dunn & DeBello, 1999; Dunn, Thies, & Honigsfeld, 2001).

The Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model considers learning-style in five strands-environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological, and psychological (see Figure One). See issue's website<http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2003.htm> Additionally, Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1989) created an instrument to assess individuals' learning-style preferences--the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). This Inventory identifies individuals' learning-style preferences in 21 areas (see Figure 1). Thies (1999) and Dunn, Thies, and Honigsfeld (2001) reported that significant advances in the study of brain-behavior relationships suggested that it was time to re-examine the Dunn's learning-style construct in terms of recent neuropsychological findings implying relationships among students' performance in school, their behaviors, and their learning-style preferences.

Focus of This Research

This investigation identified the learning style of all students in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades. Mathematics subject matter content was taught to the students through two different types of lessons: traditional versus learning-style responsive. Achievement, behaviors, and attitudes were compared through pre- and posttests in both settings. Although all students participated in the math lessons, only the pre- and posttests of those students who were identified by the researcher as both underachieving and chronically misbehaving were statistically analyzed. It is those results that are reported here. Students' identities were kept confidential, known only to the researcher by number codes under the supervision of the district superintendent. The following questions were developed from the hypotheses of this research:

* Will there be a significant improvement in the behavior-scale scores of underachieving, chronically misbehaving students when instructional resources respond to their identified individual learning style?

* Will underachieving, chronically misbehaving students demonstrate a significantly higher attitudinal preference for learning in style-congruent treatments than for learning in traditional treatments?

* Will there be a significant improvement in the achievement-test scores of underachieving, chronically misbehaving students when instruction is congruent with their learning-style preferences compared to when instruction is presented traditionally?

The Investigation

Participants

The subjects of this investigation were drawn from the fourth-, fifth- and sixth- grade populations of a rural elementary school. To meet the first qualification, underachiever, the grade-point-averages (GPAs) of the students were computed based on report-card evaluations in reading, language, mathematics, science, and social studies. Once the class mean had been calculated, the students whose GPAs were in the lower half of the class, partially qualified for inclusion in this research, which did not include students with below-average cognitive levels nor those officially classified as Special Education.

The second requirement to be a subject of this investigation was chronic misbehavior, as established by teachers' completion of a behavior scale, Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised (CTRS-R) (1997) for all students. The mean score was computed and students who ranked in the lower half of the class qualified, in part, for this investigation. The CTRS-R evaluated the students in 28 areas on a four-point Likert-type scale. The CTRS-R's components included inattention, hyperactivity, distractibility, defiance, restlessness, and impulsivity. Students who were considered both underachieving and chronically misbehaving became the subjects for this study (N-59). These students differed from the three to five percent of the school Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) students in that most of them seemed capable of learning but their hyperactivity, impulsivity, and/or inattention did not seem to be the cause of their inability to learn (Fowler, 1994). Furthermore, they tended to reflect some of the same behaviors of the underachievers for whom Brand, Dunn, and Greb (2002) suggested multi-sensory instructional resources.

Materials

Learning Style Inventory The LSI (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989) analyzes the conditions under which students in Grades 3-12 prefer to learn new and difficult material. Developed through content and factor analyses, it provides a comprehensive analysis of students' learning styles through an assessment of 21 discrete elements. The 100 questions elicit self-diagnostic responses on a Likert-type scale (e.g., "When I really have a lot of studying to do, I like to work alone."). The LSI can be completed in approximately 30-40 minutes either orally or by reading. It is easy to administer and interpret and has been used in research at more that 106 institutions of higher education (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). The results are presented on a LSI Profile (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989).

Homework prescriptions Dunn and Klavas (1992) developed a computer-generated series of guidelines responsive to each possible variation of an individual's learning-style preference for each of the 21 elements of the Dunn and Dunn Leaning-Style Model (1992, 1993). Experimental research confirmed that students provided such guidelines for studying based on their learning-style preferences achieved statistically higher mathematics test scores than students who were not provided these guidelines (Geiser et. al., 2001).

Attitudinal measures The Semantic Differential Scale (SDS) (Pizzo, 1981), consists of 12 pairs of words rated on a 5-point Likert scale measuring a favorable or unfavorable attitude.

Achievement measures The evaluative instruments used to assess achievement were those pretests and posttests created by the publisher of the Mathematics Plus elementary series approved for the district, Harcourt Brace (Burton et. al., 1994). Furthermore, these assessments were submitted to a team of experts appropriate for evaluating the lesson plans and objectives to be sure that the goals, objectives, and assessments of the traditional lessons paralleled those of the learning-style responsive lessons.

Learning-style responsive instructional resources Materials used in this study included tactual and kinesthetic resources as recommended by Dunn & Dunn (1992,1993), to accommodate the learning-style preferences of the students. These included hands-on Electroboards and Flip Chutes, and kinesthetic Floor Games that required active student engagement through movement to attain mastery. Audiotapes, lecture material, and visually attractive graphics also were provided to accommodate various perceptual preferences.

Mathematics Lessons Traditional lessons were those included in suggestions from the district-approved Harcourt Brace Mathematics Plus Teachers' Manuals (Burton et al., 1994). Learning-style responsive lessons were developed by the researcher and deemed comparable to those in the Harcourt Brace textbook by a jury of experts in mathematics and research, but included the learning-style preferenced accommodations. The objectives and assessments of both sets of lesson plans were identical for both sessions. Each of the sessions consisted of five lessons at each of the three grade levels presented in a counterbalanced order.

Procedures

The identity of the chronically misbehaving, underachieving students was kept confidential, therefore, all students in all fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade classrooms participated in all aspects of the investigation. However, only the data of the identified chronically misbehaving, underachieving subjects was included in the statistical analysis. All aspects of this investigation were considered prudent educational practice and teachers were trained to understand the concepts. Each student in the fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade (173) was administered the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1989). The researcher identified each student's strongest perceptual preference and other learning-style preferences as indicated on the LSI Profiles (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989) and presented the results on charts for each teacher. See <http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2003.htm> All students were provided with an individual Homework Prescriptions (Dunn & Klavas, 1992) to enable them to capitalize on their learning-style preferences and maximize their learning style-knowledge.

All students were taught two series of five mathematics lessons in a repeated measure, counterbalanced design. One set of lessons utilized traditional strategies and the other incorporated resources responsive to students' learning-style preferences. Elements of the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model (1992, 1993) accommodated in this investigation included the Sound, Light, Temperature, and seating Design, Mobility, Intake, and Perception (see Figure 1). During the learning-style responsive lessons, students were introduced to mathematics units through materials responsive to their perceptual strengths. With the researcher's guidance, teachers transformed their classrooms to accommodate the environmental elements by doing the following:

* Turning off one bank of lights created an area of soft illumination for those who could not tolerate brightness.

* Adding couches, chairs, carpets, beanbag chairs, cushions, and/or pillows to classrooms created an informal setting.

* Background sound was provided with tape recordings of instrumental music. Students who preferred sound while concentrating used tape players and headsets, whereas students who preferred quiet were provided headsets to block out sound.

* Temperature was accommodated by opening windows to provide a cool area in one section of the room and by allowing individuals who required warmth to wear appropriate attire.

* Intake was permitted when classroom teachers approved of quiet snacks, such as grapes, raisins, gum, and crackers.

Mobility was addressed for those subjects whose LSI Profiles indicated that they could not sit still while learning by providing seats in the rear of the classroom during the learning-style responsive lessons and allowing others to stand and/or pace quietly as long as they distracted no one. After the completion of each set of lessons, traditional and learning-style responsive, the classroom teachers administered the standard assessments to all students, but independent professionals marked them. After all lessons were complete, students' attitudes were measured utilizing the SDS (Pizzo, 1981). They were asked to respond either favorably, unfavorably, or via any of the other three options in between, to explain how they felt when learning through their learning styles as compared to the way they learned normally when they were unaware of their learning styles. The researcher administered the SDS in all cases, thereby providing consistency and standardizing the explanation of terms.

Research Design

A repeated-measure, counterbalanced design was employed in which all students experienced both treatments. Students were instructed with mathematics lesson plans (a) developed by the researcher and the teachers, (b) judged by a jury of experts in the field to be of equal difficulty, and appropriate for the specific grade levels involved, and (c) subsequently implemented by the participating teachers. Each of the sessions consisted of five lessons at each of the three grade levels.

Results

Behavior

The research question was: Will there be a significant improvement in the behavior-scale scores of underachieving, chronically misbehaving students when instructional resources respond to their identified individual learning styles. A Pearson-product-moment correlation was performed in which the difference between the traditional methodology and the learning-style responsive methodology was correlated with the pre-behavioral rating mean. This procedure revealed an effect size of .34, which was significant at the p<.05 level. Specifically, this correlation indicated that the most poorly behaved students behaved worse when instructed traditionally.

The researcher infers from these findings that a statistically significant number of chronically misbehaving and underachieving students' behaviors improved significantly during instruction with learning-style responsive strategies. These findings support the statements of Caine and Caine (1997), Dunn and Dunn (1992, 1993), Sousa (1998), and Zenhausern (1990) who advocated the need for change in how teachers deliver instruction. This sample was comprised of the most difficult to reach and teach students in the school based on the results of the CTRS-R and the consistent written complaints of the teachers and principal, but they responded positively to the learning-style instruction provided. Fullan (1991) described the need for change in schools and suggests that without it, teachers will become powerless. The use of the learning-style responsive instruction might be the impetuous that teachers can use to help students improve their behavior and simultaneously, assist teachers in regaining the classroom control they desire.

Attitude

Another research question concerned attitude: Will underachieving, chronically misbehaving students demonstrate a significant attitudinal preference toward learning-style congruent treatments as compared to traditional treatments

The Semantic Differential Scale was administered once after the completion of the investigation. Every pair of terms, when compared in a t-test of single-sample statistics, was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. Those data indicated the students' positive attitudes toward the learning-style responsive instructional strategies. See issue's website<http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/spr2003.htm> Educators devote a great deal of time and energy trying to reverse students' attitudes toward schooling. Years of traditional instruction have made certain students, such as those in this investigation, unsuccessful, nonconforming, and academic failures. Utilizing learning-style responsive strategies significantly improved the attitudes and behaviors of these underachieving, chronically misbehaving youngsters. This research indicated how positive attitudinal change might be achieved so as to provide sought-after improvement.

Achievement

The final question of this investigation concerned achievement. Will there be a significant improvement in the achievement test scores of underachieving, chronically misbehaving students when the instruction is congruent with their environmental, physiological, and emotional learning-style preferences compared to when the instruction is presented traditionally? The results of the analyses of the pretest and posttest means of the achievement-test scores indicated that the subjects showed higher improvement during the learning-style based instructional periods and larger gains although not statistically significant.

Data indicated a difference between the pretest and posttest achievement means of 15.41 points for the traditional instructional sessions, and a difference of 21.46 points for the learning-style responsive sessions, although the difference was not statistically significant immediately after the five consecutive lessons. However, crucial non-hypothesized findings were revealed concerning long-term retention.

Two grade levels of subjects were retested four months after completion of this study with the identical tests administered earlier. The posttests, which had been completed by the subjects in the previous spring, were administered a second time to the fourth-and fifth-grade subjects during the following school year after the students' summer vacation. In the period between the original investigation and the re-administration of the posttests, all typical, traditional instructional activities including year-end summarization and introductory reviews were performed.

Results indicated that the mathematics information taught to students with the learning-styles instructional methodology was retained statistically better than the information presented traditionally. The results of simple, paired t-tests indicated that, when underachieving, chronically misbehaving students were provided with responsive instructional environments, their long-term retention was significantly greater at the p<. 001 level.

It may be that underachieving, chronically misbehaving students require time in which to absorb academic information. Although they had demonstrated higher initial achievement, the levels had not reached significance. However, four months later, they revealed that they had retained statistically more mathematics knowledge through learning-style instruction than they had through traditional instruction. This possibility should be further developed in future investigations.

Summary

This investigation clearly demonstrated the co-dependent relationship between classroom environments and students' behaviors. That relationship had been conjectured 30 years prior by the Dunns (1972), but had not been examined in controlled research with chronically misbehaving students. However, these data indicate that these misbehaving students adapted better to classroom environments that accommodated their learning styles than to conventional teaching in conventional rooms.

Educators, cognizant of these findings and their implications, should examine the learning-style profiles of their students and meet their instructional needs. It is unreasonable to require students, who biologically cannot do so (Restak, 1979; Thies, 1979), to change when all that is required is slight environmental changes and the additional of responsive instructional resources. It is imperative that educators heed the recommendations of practitioners to change the delivery of instruction (Caine & Caine, 1997; Dunn & Dunn, 1992, 1993; Sousa, 1998; Zenhausern, 1990). Providing these subjects with engaging activities responsive to their individual learning-style strengths improved their ability to internalize learning rather than resist it, as many presently do.

References

Brand, S., Dunn, R. and Greb, F. (2002). Learning styles of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: who are they and how can we teach them? Washington, DC: The Clearing House, 75(5), 268-273.

Burton, G., Hopkins, M., Johnson, H., Kaplan, J., Kennedy, L., & Schultz, K. (1994). Mathematics Plus. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge of possibility. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners' Rating Scales-revised: Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems Inc. New York: N. Tonawanda.

Dunn, R., & DeBello, T. C. (Eds.) (1999). Improved test scores, attitudes, and behaviors in America's schools: Supervisors' success stories. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching young children through their individual learning style: Practical approaches for grades 3-8. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching young children through their individual learning style: Practical approaches for secondary students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975, 1989). Learning-Style Inventory. Price Systems, Lawrence, Kansas.

Dunn, R., & Klavas, A. (1992). Homework Disk Software Package. Jamaica, NY 11439: St. John's University's Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S., Olsen, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn Learning styles model. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362.

Dunn, R., Thies, A. P., & Honigsfeld, A. (2001). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model research: Analysis from a neuropsychological perspective. Jamaica, NY: St. John's University, Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.

Fowler, 1994. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Washington, DC: National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Geiser, W., Dunn, R., Deckinger, E. L., Denig, S., Sklar, R. I., Beasley, M. S. & Nelson, B. (2001). Effects of learning-style awareness and responsive study strategies on achievement, incidence of study, and attitudes of suburban eighth-grade students. National Forum of Applied Research Journal, 13(2), 37-49.

Pizzo, J. R. (1981). An investigation of the relationship between selected acoustic environments and sound, an element of learning style, as they affect sixth-grade students' reading achievement and attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2475A. Recipient: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development First Alternate National Recognition for Best Doctoral Research (Curriculum), 1981.

Restak, R., M., (1979). The brain: The last frontier. New York: Doubleday & Company.

Sousa, D. (1995). How the brain learns. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Thies, A. P., (1979). A brain behavior analysis of learning style. Students' learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 55-61.

Thies, A. P., (1999) The neuropsychology of learning styles. Applied Educational Research, 13(1)50-62.

Zenhausern, R. (1990). Neuropsychological Bases of Educational Disabilities: Implications for Diagnosis and Remediation. Expert paper submitted to the United Nations Disability Unit, Vienna, 1990.

Joan J. Oberer, Westbrook Elementary School, NJ

Joan J. Oberer is principal, Westbrook Elementary School, West Milford, New Jersey.