Counseling

Griggs, Price, Kopal, and Swaine (1984) tested 165 sixth-grade, suburban students for their styles with the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1978). The 19 who revealed either Low Motivation and a High Need for Structure or High Motivation and a Low Need for Structure were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

1. High Structure & Counseling: Compatible: Low Motivation, High Structure (three students); Incompatible: High Motivation, Low Structure (two students);
2. Low Structured Counseling: Compatible: High Motivation, Low Structure (four students); Incompatible: Low Motivation, High Structure (three students);
3. Control Group: (seven students).

All groups met for eight sessions conducted weekly during a two-month period. The treatment objectives, to explore the world of work, were identical, but their strategies differed.

A one-way analysis of covariance was used to analyze the data. The independent variable had three levels: Compatible, Incompatible, and Control; the covariate was pre-test scores, and the dependent variable was post-test score on the Occupational List Recall Test (OLRT). The comparison of groups for the adjusted OLRT post-test score was significant (p < .01; f=6.51). Students in the Compatible group had an adjusted mean of 50.68; the Incompatible’s was 45.56; and the Control’s 38.26.

Students whose learning style preferences for Motivation and Structure were accommodated in the counseling groups achieved significantly higher Career Awareness scores than those whose styles were not matched.

Dunn, et al. 1993 compared the learning style characteristics of 687 Mexican-American and 70,000 Anglo-American elementary school children (Grades 4-6). Data suggest that it is crucial that counselors and educators identify their students’ learning styles and experiment with counseling and learning strategies that respond to individuals’ strengths.

A comparison (Dunn, et al. 1990) of 300 African-American, Chinese-American, Greek-American, and Mexican-American 4th-6th graders’ mean scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) indicated that all 4 groups were field dependent. They also completed the Learning Style Inventory. Analysis revealed significant correlations between the elements of Responsibility/Conformity, Learning Alone vs Learning with Peers, Learning in the Evening vs Learning in the Morning, Parent-Figure Motivated, Self-Motivated, and Learning in Several Ways rather than through routines and patterns. Data suggest that children from different areas of the American subculture have different patterns of preferred learning strategies; alternative classroom environments, methods, and resources could contribute to an effective education for such students.