Gifted/Non-Gifted Students

Cody (1983) compared the learning style characteristics and hemisphericity of 240 students in grades 5 through 12, divided into three ability groups based on their I.Q.:

• average (100-119);
• gifted (130-139); and
• highly gifted (145 and above).

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1980) and Your Style of Thinking and Learning (Reynolds, Kaltsounis, and Torrance) indicated significant differences (p < .01 and < .001 respectively) among the groups. Average students preferred: studying in a warm, quiet environment; late in the day; and knowing exactly what was required (strong need for Structure). They were less Motivated than the other two groups and evidenced significantly more integrated and Left Hemisphere processing. Gifted students also preferred quiet, but studied better: in a moderate Temperature; in the Early Morning; and with less Structure. The gifted were more integrated and demonstrated a right processing style. Highly gifted students preferred: Sound (music) while studying; a Cool environment; Evening; and the least amount of Structure. They were the most Motivated, the most integrated, and the strongest Right processors. The gifted and highly gifted demonstrated significant preferences (p < .001) for right hemisphere and integrated processing. Left dominant students preferred a Formal Design, more Structure, less Intake, and were Visual and less Tactile/Kinesthetic than their right dominant counterparts. Right dominant students disliked Structure and were not Adult Motivated.

Yong et al. (1992) investigated whether group, gender, and grade differences existed in the learning styles of learning disabled (LD) and gifted (GF) students using the Learning Style Inventory by R. Dunn et al (1987). The study involved 53 (28 male and 25 female) LD and 64 (29 male and 35 female) GF 10th-12th grade students. A 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed group differences in preferences for light, design, and kinesthetic modalities, and in motivation, persistence, responsibility, and parent and teacher motivation. Gender and grade differences were found in preferences for mobility and afternoon learning, respectively. A stepwise discriminant analysis revealed 6 variables separating the 2 groups. Findings imply that incorporating the learning styles of both groups is important for individualizing educational programming.

The learning styles of 232 7th-12th graders with high GPA’s in school in literature and 192 who had high scores on out of school accomplishments in literature were compared (Hong, et al. 1993). Six of the 22 elements measured by the Learning Style Inventory distinguished between the 2 groups. The out-of-school gifted group preferred to work with peers and felt comfortable learning in a variety of different ways. They tended to be less visual and more auditory learners and expressed a greater preference to learn by experiential or hands-on activities than the in-school gifted group.

Three instructional strategies and 16 learning style elements significantly discriminated between 425 fourth, fifth, and sixth grade gifted and non-gifted students from one suburban and one New York school district (Ricca, 1983). The Learning Style Inventory of both Renzulli & Smith and Dunn, Dunn, & Price revealed identical patterns to those previously reported in at least seven other investigations (Dunn, 1982).

The gifted students requested independent study and were significantly more Self-motivated, Persistent, Responsible, Teacher and Adult motivated, and wanted Tactile rather than Auditory instruction; they also strongly preferred Learning Alone rather than in a whole-class or peer situation. The general population preferred Learning With Peers by listening and reading, needed Variety and Mobility to maintain attention, and learned best with an Authority nearby. The gifted students required independence, self-direction, flexibility, and options as well as a minimum of Structure and lecture.

The purpose of the study Nations-Miller (1993) was to investigate and indentify the learning styles of “at-risk” students, vocational students, and gifted students to determine whether the composite profiles that are identified for each group are parallel. The investigation focused upon tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade students in a suburban Georgia school system. Learning style profiles were identified for “at-risk” students, gifted students, and vocational students. The three groups were compared within groups and contrasted between groups to determine if the profiles were parallel. The data was gathered during the month of February 1992. The sample frame included students from the “at-risk” (Coordinated Academic Vocational Education Program), gifted, and vocational programs at an urban high school south of Atlanta.

The groups were stratified by types of programs and then a random sample of one hundred from each group was selected. The subjects completed the Learning Styles Inventory by Dunn, Dunn, and Price to determine their learning style preferences. Twenty-two elements were assessed by the subjects regarding their learning style preferences. The results of the study were analyzed using profile analysis and a discriminant analysis. All follow-up procedures that were appropriate to profile analysis were administered. Mean scores and group correlation were also obtained. A total of twelve variables significantly entered the discriminant equation. This was used to determine how the groups differed from each other by elements.

The “at-risk” group showed a preference for responsible, learning through the auditory, visual and tactile modes and had the least preference for noise and being parent motivated. The vocational group showed a preference for noise, light, learning in the late morning and mobility. The least preference of this group was for responsible and learning through auditory, tactile and kinesthetic modes. The gifted group had a preference for being motivated by parents and learning through the kinesthetic mode. The gifted group had the least preference for mobility, light and learning through the visual and tactile modes. Using these findings, curriculum and instructional strategies were suggested that could help teachers better meet the needs of each group. Selected techniques were suggested that promoted the curriculum development and instructional strategies that could encourage the “at-risk” student to stay in school. With this information educators could be one step closer to preparing all students for their roles in our ever-changing society.