Academic Achievement Gains Through Learning Styles Matching

A doctoral investigation conducted by Spires (1983) revealed that implementation of a learning styles program resulted in significant gains in reading and mathematics achievement on standardized achievement tests.

Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978) was administered to students in grades 3 through 6, and the Learning Style Inventory Primary Version (Perrin, 1982) to grades K through 2. Analyses of the data indicated that teaching students through their individual learning styles resulted in significantly higher reading and mathematics achievement, particularly on those subtests requiring higher level cognitive abilities, such as reading concepts.

A study was conducted to (a) identify how the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Style Model had been implemented in seven diverse regions of the United States and (b) develop guidelines for providing instruction for students with learning styles not currently accommodated in conventional classrooms (Klavas, Dunn, Griggs, Geisert, Gemake, & Zenhausern, 1994). Many practitioners had reported that such students often were classified as poor achievers, learning disabled, discipline problems, or dropouts; but that academic reversals had occurred when instruction was redesigned to respond to their particular learning-style preferences as revealed by Dunn, Dunn, & Price’s (1989) LSI (Andrews, 1990; Brunner & Majewski, 1990; Elliot, 1991, Klavas, 1993 , Perrin, 1990; Stone, 1992).

Braio (1995) analyzed the effects of gradually implementing learning-style strategies on reading achievement and attitude toward instruction with 81 special education and 35 low-achieving general education-urban students in grades four, five, and six.

Pre-and post-tests concerned with structural analysis instructional units were administered in each of five phases, of two weeks each, to determine reading achievement gains. Significant gains in reading achievement for both groups were revealed when students were taught using gradually-increasing, learning style approaches that included responsiveness to students’ varied Sound, Light, Temperature, Seating, Mobility, and Perceptual preferences. Removal of learning-style approaches evidenced decreased achievement. Statistical significance for attitude was achieved by the general education students, but not those in special education, perhaps because these students’ classroom environment often reflects a relaxed traditional ambiance.

Marino, 1993 argues that students will accept and even learn from homework provided that its design takes into consideration students’ learning styles and study skills. He describes an effort at an all-boys high school in Brooklyn, New York, to tailor class instruction and homework to results obtained from a Learning Styles Inventory.

Klavas, 1994 describes how a North Carolina elementary school altered teaching methods to suit varied learning styles of the students based on the results of a Learning Styles Inventory. She discusses changes made based on students’ perceptual preferences, time of day preferences, environmental preferences, and sociological preferences. Discipline problems dropped dramatically and test scores rose precipitously.

This investigation (Braio, 1995) analyzed the effects of incremental implementation of learning-style strategies on reading achievement and attitude toward instruction via structural analysis with special education and low-achieving general educati on students in grades four, five and six. To identify individual preferences, the Learning-Styles Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1990) was administered to students who attended an urban intermediate school. Two categories were targeted: 81 special ed ucation students and 35 low-achieving general education students. Both categories were divided into two sub-groups: group one was incrementally matched according to learning-style preferences for sound, light, temperature, design, mobility, tactual, kines thetic, auditory and visual elements; group two consisted of unmatched and/or no preferences. Instructional units were divided into five phases of two weeks each. Structural analysis units and varied learning-style preferences gradually were introduced during these instructional phases:

• (Phase 1) compound words using traditional teaching methods;
• (Phase 2) plurals accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements;
• (Phase 3) prefixes accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements and/or tactual and kinesthetic modalities;
• (Phase 4) suffixes accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements and/or tactual, kinesthetic, auditory and/or visual modalities; and
• (Phase 5) contractions using traditional teaching methods.

Pre and post-tests were administered in each of the five phases to determine reading achievement gains. Significant gains in reading achievement for both special education and general education students were foun d when students were taught using incremental learning styles strategies. To determine attitudinal changes toward reading, the Semantic Differential Scale (Pizzo, 1981) was administered four times throughout this study: before phase 1 (a baseline measure); after phase 1 (traditional teaching); before phase 5 (learning-styles intervention); and after phase 5 (with the return to traditional teaching and the removal of learning styles). Statistical significance for attitude was not achieved for the special e ducation students. However, the general education students’ attitudes toward reading became increasingly favorable after learning-style instruction and a decrement occurred after learning-style methods were removed. These data confirmed the importance of matching learning-styles preferences with complementary instructional strategies and environments.

Experimental studies (Dunn, Griggs, Olson, & Beasly, (1995) based on the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Style Model and conducted between 1980-1990 were identified to determine the value of teaching students through their learning-style preferen ces. Thirty six studies provided a database of 3,181 participants. Results were synthesized through meta-analysis and the standard normal curve suggests that students whose learning styles are accommodated would be expected to achieve 75% of a standard deviation higher than students who have not had their learning styles accommodated. This finding indicates that matching students’ learning-style preferences with educational interventions compatible with those preferences is beneficial to their academic achievement.

Through the use of greater tactual, kinesthetic, and global methodology during reading instruction, the fifteen students enrolled in the program experienced an average increase of 73.33 percent in self-concept, according to the Primary Self-Concept Inventory. These same students experienced an average gain of 7.25 months in reading achievement, as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, during five months of instruction (Settle, 1989).

After a brief review of the literature on sound, a study by J. Pizzo (1981) is described involving learning style preferences of 64 6th graders. Results of exposure to either noise or sound revealed that students who preferred quiet performed best in a quiet acoustic environment (AE). Students who preferred sound performed best in a noisy AE. Students in an environment that complemented their learning style preference also had statistically higher attitudinal scores than their mismatched peers, and a mismatched environment affected students’ reading achievement and attitudes toward intellectual ability and other strengths.