Learning Disabilities

The purpose of the Wild (1979) study was to determine whether learning style differences existed between learning disabled (LD) and non-learning disabled (non-LD) male students at the junior high school level. The Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978) indicated the sample’s environmental, emotional, sociological, and physical needs.

The sample consisted of 80 male students, ages 12, 13, and 14, enrolled in grades seven and eight of a junior high school. The sample was divided into two groups, the LD and the non-LD, with forty males in each. The non-LD sample was selected by simple random sampling. The LD sample included all those students actively participating in the learning disabilities program at the junior high level, grades seven and eight. The complete sample of 80 students was primarily Caucasian (96.25%) and was comprised of members of the lower-middle to lower socioeconomic class.

To eliminate a possible reading ability factor, the LSI questions were tape recorded by the researcher. Ten seconds were permitted between each question to allow for response time. The students circled either True (T) or False (F) on the Answer Sheet.

An SPSS version 712A-0 step-wise discriminant analysis was used to detect which of the LSI variables discriminated significantly between students classified as learning disabled and those classified as non-learning disabled, minimizing Wilk’s Lambda Coefficient. Significant differences were evidenced on 4 of the 22 scales, with the significant levels ranging from p < .0001 to .05. The four areas were Persistent and non-Persistent, adult Motivated, prefers Learning with Adults, and prefers learning in Several Ways. The non-LD students were more Persistent and more adult Motivated than the LD students. However, the LD students preferred to learn with Adults and the non-LD students preferred learning in Several Ways (needing variety) while the LD students did not.

Another investigation of LD students included a total of 1,266 students enrolled in a rural elementary school district in northern California (Price, 1982). Thirteen percent of those were of East India origin, and 44% of that group scored below the 50th percentile on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills - a measure of achievement. In addition, 48% of all the students in that district were from middle to lower-middle socioeconomic families.

Forty-one LD students participating in an LD program comprised the sample for this investigation. The sample consisted of all the male and female LD students in grades four, five, and six in that district and ranged in age from 9 to 12. An additional 41 non-LD students were selected randomly from grades four, five, and six from the same schools the LD students attended. The non-LD students revealed average performance on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.

The students were administered the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1978). The two groups of students were compared using a discriminant analysis from SPSS, release 8.0C-3, statistical procedures. The purpose was to identify which of the LSI variables significantly discriminated between students identified as having learning disabilities and those identified as not having learning disabilities. A total of six LSI variables significantly discriminated between the two groups. The LD students preferred to learn with Peers in a warm environment. The non-LD students preferred to learn Kinesthetically, and were more teacher Motivated, Responsible, and Persistent than their counterparts (F = 6.89, d.f. 6, 75, p < .0001 at step six) with 78% of the subjects classified correctly.

Research on the learning styles of students with purported disabilities provides educators with empirical knowledge concerning the mismatches that occur between how those students learn and our well-entrenched, but inadequate system of educating everybody identically. Yong and McIntyre (1992) suggested a “personalized” approach to aid these youngsters. Andrews (1990, 1991), Brunner and Majewski (1990), Stone (1992), and the teachers and administrators in the Buffalo City Schools’ Special Education Learning-Styles Programs (Quinn, 1993) provide testimony to the effectiveness of teaching students through their individual leaning-style strengths. Increased awareness of students’ individual styles results in their improved academic achievement. Dean (1982) and Yong and McIntrye (1992) predicted it; the practitioners in this issue who consented to share their experiences verified it. When students recognized that they could succeed academically, their self-esteem increased and their behavior improved (Brunn er & Majewski, 1990; and Quinn, 1993).

Students with learning disabilities consistently require special attention and care from their teachers. However, research indicates that many officially-classified LD children have the potential to master the same subject as students who are gifted (Yong and McIntyre, 1992). Research also indicates that the term “LD” should be used only to mean “learning different”, because these students can master difficult information, but differently from the way it is taught in traditional schools (Andrews, 1 990, 1991; Brunner & Majewski, 1990; Klavas, 1993; Stone, 1992).

Another problem, according to Lux (1987) is that the perceived “handicap” of officially-classified LD students often obscures any special gifts and talents they may have. In effect, their academic weaknesses become the primary focus of learning style strengths, which require modifications of both the conventional classroom environment and its instruction. Thus, when Stone (1992) allowed his elementary LD students to learn: (a) with tactual resources such as Flip Chute, Electroboards, Pic-A-Holes, Floor Games, and multi-art Task Cards; (b) while seated informally in illumination that matched their identified learning styles; and (c) either alone, with a classmate or two or with their teacher, they achieved significantly better than they had before.

Pederson (1984) compared the learning styles of students with learning disabilities, versus those acknowledged as “gifted”, versus those who were neither learning disabled nor gifted on the basis of the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1984). Although some learning style-preferences were common to the three groups of students, 5 of the LSI’s 22 learning-style elements discriminated significantly among the three groups. Those LD students required Intake, an Authority figure present, Mobility while learning, and being permitted to Learn Alone with appropriate resources. They were conforming but could not behave conventionally, perhaps because of their need for Intake, Mobility, and learning independently with an Authority Figure nearby. Lux (1987) also reported significant differences between the learning styles of LD and other students. Similarly, Dunn, Bauer, Gemake, Gregory, Primavera, & Signer (1994) found that both learning disabled and emotionally handicapped students needed more Structure, Tactile resources designed to be used independently, and more Mobility than “non-handicapped” students.

The following year, Yong and McIntyre (1992) compared the learning styles of students with learning disabilities and those considered gifted. In contrast with their gifted counterparts, those LD student(s) preferred Forma1 seating, learning-by listening, and studying in the Late Morning. They were neither Early Morning preferents nor less Motivated.

Students with learning disabilities require instruction that responds to their unique traits. Although LD students’ learning styles vary, when their teachers focus on how they prefer to learn rather than on their assumed inability and pacing limitation, those learners’ achievement begins to reflect significantly improved learning curves (Brunner & Majewski, 1990; Stone, 1992). Thus, teachers should identify their students’ learning style and choose instructional strategies responsive to those styles before they plan instruction. That knowledge would help students to achieve as well as possible and avoid unnecessary failure (Yong and McIntyre, 1992).

Hill (1987) investigated the effects of selected spelling teaching methods on spelling mastery of upper-elementary, learning disabled students. It also examined the value of assessing learning disabled students’ modality preferences for diagnostic/prescriptive purposes.

The study’s significance is that it sought to:

1. determine whether students classified as learning disabled can identify their preferred learning modes;
2. determine whether matching modes of instruction to students’ modality preference(s) results in greater achievement; and
3. identify a systematic way of prescribing instruction for learning disabled students.

The study analyzed data collected from 117 learning disabled upper-elementary students in a suburban school district. Each student took the Learning Styles Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1985) to determine modality preference(s). Additionally, each student was taught spelling words via four methods:

• visual;
• auditory;
• tactual/kinesthetic; and
• multisensory.

The data analyses utilize the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) procedures of SPSS-X. Significant interaction occurred between modality preference(s) of learning disabled students and spelling instructional mode. High-preferenced auditory learners demonstrated significant gains in spelling mastery following the auditory instructional treatment for both the immediate recall (F =.001) and delayed recall (F =.001) tests; and High-preferenced visual learners demonstrated significant gains on the immediate recall test following the tactual/kinesthetic treatment (F =.019). Learning disabled students expressed a variety of modality references, but they were skewed in the following descending order: kinesthetic, tactual, auditory, and visual. Conclusions are:

1. Learning disabled students can express reliable modality preferences;
2. Interaction occurs between modality preference and instructional method;
3. No single teaching method is consistently more effective for learning disabled students when modality preferences are not considered; and
4. Learning disabled students benefit from a diagnostic/prescriptive process that systematically considers both modality preferences and various instructional methods.