NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 27, NUMBER 2, 2010-2011 EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND MISMATCHING PERCEPTUAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL LEARNING-STYLEPREFERENCES ON ACHIEVEMENT ANDATTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS IN A GROUP EXERCISE LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTOR TRAINING PROGRAM Susan M. Tendy United States Military Academy West Point ABSTRACTMean scores on achievement measures and attitude scales among individuals in anExercise Leadership Instructor Training Program were examined in order to determinethe effect(s) on these variables when instructional strategies were either congruent with,or dissonant from, perceptual and sociological learning-style preferences. Independentvariables were: (1) perceptual learning-style preferences, (2) sociological learning-stylepreferences, (3) instructional strategies employing perceptual/sociological techniques.Dependent variables were: (1) achievement scores for each training unit, (2) scores thatmeasured subjects attitudes toward perceptual and sociological teaching strategies.Although no significant difference in achievement scores were found, studentsevidencing a preference for instructional techniques employing visual strategies scoredsignificantly higher (p < .01) than the visually non- or opposite-preferenced studentsacross all instructional units employing the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials.Examination of attitude data revealed that all groups responded in a positive mannertoward strategies congruent with their preferences as compared to those that weremismatched. IntroductionL earning Style Preference is defined as "the unique way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process and retain new and difficult information" (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). Theimportance of the use of learning-style instructional strategies 4
5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALbecomes apparent when one realizes that although instructors tend touse the same teaching techniques for all students, each person isdifferent. At higher levels of physical skill, the significance of fitness,and the use of selected skills as the accepted indicator of fitness,underscores the importance of allowing for athletes individuallearning-style preferences in order to maintain motivation andmaximize their potential (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Motor learningspecialists (Lawther, 1968; Sage, 1984) have indicated that athleticability can be developed and improved by instructors and coaches whoknow the proper verbal and visual cues to give to athletes, incombination with the athlete’s ability to correctly practice thesedirectives. This outcome requires that learners absorb auditory andvisual cues given to the group by their coaches, and then use their ownkinesthetic abilities to practice the information. This theory iscomplicated by research indicating that many students actually achievemore and prefer to learn by themselves, whereas others learn best andaccomplish more when working with peers. Still others function bestin a traditional group directly under the supervision of an authorityfigure (Griggs, 1989). Redesigning the learning environment to betteradjust for these differences in athletes perceptual and sociologicallearning-style preferences may hold an important key to success in therealm of physical education and athletics (Brunner & Hill, 1992). In discussing a "knowledge structures" approach whenplanning physical learning activities, Vickers (1990) stressed theimportance of accommodating for student-athletes individualdifferences: The design of learning activities is a creative endeavor that isfun, challenging, risky (they may not work), and personal. As ateacher or coach, you should always be looking for different ways toget the same material across, always trying to find innovative ways tohelp individual students. (p. 146)
Susan M. Tendy 6 Perceptual and Sociological Learning-Style Preferences Experimental research investigating the effects of perceptualpreferences on the learning of new and difficult information hasdemonstrated a significant increase in achievement and improvedattitude when those preferences were matched as opposed to whenthey were mismatched. A study conducted by Carbo (1980) examinedan element later recognized as a tactual preference that had not beenpreviously identified. A subsequent study investigating perceptualpreferences that included a tactual element in the learning-stylepreference survey was able to show higher achievement scores wheninformation was presented through ones primary perceptualpreference, and reinforced through the secondary modality of thelearner (Kroon, 1985). Research investigating students sociological preferences whenworking alone, with peers and with authority figures has alsodemonstrated positive effects on achievement and attitude when thosepreferences were matched versus when they were mismatched. Thesestudies have addressed the preferences of gifted versus non-giftedstudents (Perrin, 1984), academic subjects such as social studies (DeBello, 1985; Giannitti, 1988), vocabulary strategies (Cholakis, 1986),study habits of college freshmen (Clark-Thayer, 1987), and careerawareness of middle-school students (Miles, 1987). In all cases,researchers were able to identify sociological preference as asignificant factor affecting the ability of students to learn new anddifficult information. Learning-Style Preferences and Physical Activity Correlational studies investigating the existence of learning-style preferences in the discipline of physical education, dance, andathletics have found significant evidence that such preferences doexist, setting the foundation for further investigatory work (Coker,1996; Kraft, 1976). Many of these investigations were conducted at
7 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALthe college level comparing the learning-style preferences of PhysicalEducation majors to those of Dance or Education majors (Pettigrew &Zakrajsek, 1984; Zakrajsek, Johnson & Walker, 1984). Experimentalresearchers investigating learning-style preferences in physical activityhave been supportive of these earlier correlational findings, and theyhave indeed demonstrated the potential for increased achievement inthis area when students are taught through their preferred modality. Astudy investigating field dependent versus field independent teachingstrategies demonstrated that field dependent students had difficultylearning when taught physical education in a manner incongruent withtheir preferred style (Ennis & Chepyator-Thompson, 1990).Conversely, coach/practitioners at the high school level improved theirwrestling teams competitive record once congruent learning-stylestrategies were introduced into the practice sessions based on studentslearning style preferences (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Related research atthe adult level revealed higher achievement and attitude scores whendriver-trainees’ perceptual preferences were addressed (Ingham,1991). Although these studies varied in approach and instrumentationtechniques, they all clarified the fact that the psychomotor realm is anarea capable of being further explored in terms of learning-stylepreferences. Research Questions The purpose of this study was to examine the effects ofmatching and mismatching perceptual (auditory, visual, tactual andkinesthetic) and sociological (learning alone, with peers or with anauthority figure) learning-style preferences on achievement andattitude of individuals in a group exercise leadership instructor trainingprogram. Specifically, are there significant differences inpsychomotor achievement and attitude scores of Group ExerciseLeader Trainees under the following conditions: 1. When the learner’s combined sociological and perceptual learning-style preferences are matched versus when they are mismatched while learning;
Susan M. Tendy 8 2. When a skill is taught through the learners matched versus mismatched perceptual preference; 3. When a skill is taught through the learners matched versus mismatched sociological preference. MethodologySubjects The population from which the subjects of this study weredrawn consisted of students in attendance at an institution of highereducation located in New York State. The range of students ages wasfrom 17 to 24 years. Ninety percent of the student body ofapproximately 4000 was male; ten percent female. Students aregraduated with a bachelor of science degree and, upon graduation, areassigned to the Armed Forces of the United States. The subjects in this study consisted of 59 students from boththe junior and senior class, enrolled in three separate Group ExerciseLeadership Instructor Training Courses. Assignment to their requiredphysical education elective is determined by a combination of factorssuch as personal choice, priority based on physical education rank inclass, academic scheduling, and random assignment. Participation inthe study was voluntary. All students had completed a requiredbackground course in both Personal Fitness and Unit Fitness. Of the59 students initially enrolled in the course, 58 were able to remain inthe study; one student was dropped due to attendance factors. Institutional permission to conduct the study was grantedthrough the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. The study wasexplained to the students enrolled, and all students agreed toparticipate. Negative replies would have been allowed to take anothercourse. All students received the same instruction and the sametreatment. Achievement based on differences in learning-style
9 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALpreference was the dependent variable examined, based on thelearning-style categorization of each student.Instrumentation Three types of instruments were used for data collection andanalysis during the study. Learning-Style Preference: In order to determine individuallearning-style preferences, each subject was administered theProductivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) at thebeginning of the course (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1996). The PEPS is aninstrument for "the identification of how adults prefer to function,learn, concentrate and perform in their occupational or educationalactivities" in the areas of immediate environmental, emotional,sociological, physical and psychological needs (Price, 1996, p. 5).Additionally, this model provides information directly applicable toteaching strategies in the classroom. The survey, which can becompleted in approximately 20 to 30 minutes, consists of 100 itemsrelating to 20 different learning style elements on a five-point Likertscale. These elements, which comprise the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Styles Model, include an individuals preferences in the following fiveareas: (a) environmental preferences -- sound, light, temperature and design; (b) emotionality -- motivation, persistence, responsibility, and the need for structure; (c) sociological preferences -- alone, peer, authority oriented, or learns in several ways; (d) physiological needs -- perceptual preferences (auditory, visual, tactile, kinesthetic), time of day energy levels, intake, and the need for mobility; (e) processing style -- global versus analytic preference.
Susan M. Tendy 10The PEPS was originally normed with a population of 975 femalesand 419 males ranging from 18 to 65 years of age (Dunn, Dunn &Price, 1991). A revision of this instrument was then administered to a"non-random sample of 589 adults from several states and fromvarious academic and industrial settings" (Price, 1996, p. 14). In thisrevised version, 90 percent of the reliabilities were found to be equalto or greater than .60 (Price, 1996). Achievement: Following the conclusion of each instructionalunit, achievement was measured through administration ofpsychomotor and/or cognitive criterion-referenced tests. These testswere based on standards set forth by the International Dance andExercise Association (IDEA) Performance Review System (1992) aswell as the American Council on Exercise (ACE) Aerobics InstructorCertification Exam Content Outline (1993) which designate writtenand practical skills tests, and teaching and learning standards to bemastered. Questions were evaluated and subsequently revised by ajury consisting of certified Group Exercise Leader Instructor Trainersholding advanced degrees in Physical Education. Each written testconsisted of a combination of multiple choice and short answerquestions worth 10 points. Psychomotor teaching skills were recordedby a team of three trained observers whose judging system wasstandardized through the use of an observational checklist. Attitude: At the conclusion of the study, the SemanticDifferential Scale (SDS) (Pizzo, 1981) was administered to determineindividuals attitudes toward the teaching strategies employed. Eachsubject completed two scales: one to assess their reaction to selectedinstructional strategies that either matched or mismatched theindividuals perceptual learning-style preference and a second scalethat assessed the same reaction levels to instructional strategies thateither matched or mismatched the subjects sociological learning-stylepreference.
11 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL This scale was initially developed to determine the attitudes ofstudents tested in an environment congruent or incongruent with theirpreference for sound. Based on criteria developed according torecommendations by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 96),the SDS included 12 bi-polar adjective pairs on a five-pointcontinuum, allowing for a level of reference for ones feelingsconcerning a particular topic or strategy. A neutral reference point isgiven a value of three, enabling quantitative evaluation of theattitudinal direction.Procedures Administration of the Productivity Environmental PreferenceSurvey (PEPS). Once consent by subjects was established, theconcept of learning-style preference was discussed with allparticipants. The PEPS was then administered to all subjects. Answerforms for the PEPS were scored by Price Systems in Lawrence,Kansas. Individual learning-style profiles, and homeworkprescriptions based on these preferences, were then generated tofurther educate the students concerning individual study strategies. Instructional Strategies. In accordance with departmentalpolicy, each student was given a course outline and a lesson planmanual describing the lecture and activity topics for each classmeeting. During the subsequent eight-week period, the sameinformation was introduced to all students with researcher-designedmaterials that addressed a matrix that combined sociological andperceptual learning-style teaching strategies (Figure 1). Theperceptual variables addressed were auditory/visual (A/V), and tactual/kinesthetic (T/K). The different sociological variables addressedincluded working alone, with peers, and with an authority figure. Sixunits within the Group Exercise Leadership Course were chosen forthis procedure and were taught in the following sequence to minimize,as much as possible, potential sensitization to subsequent lessons: 1. Low Impact Movements (Authority - T/K)
Susan M. Tendy 12 2. Monitoring Exercise Intensity (Peers - A/V) 3. Karvonen Formula for determining Training Heart Rate (Authority - A/V) 4. Muscle Groups of the Leg (Alone - T/K) 5. High Cardiovascular Movements (Alone - A/V) 6. Class Format (Peers - T/K) The use of the tactual/kinesthetic materials fabricated for thestudy had been presented at the State Physical Education Convention(NYSAHPERD) in October 1999, at the National Physical EducationConvention (AAHPERD) in April 2000, and at the InternationalLearning-Styles Institute in July of 1997 and 1999, and were receivedfavorably. Materials used for the authority - T/K unit includedmanipulatives and teacher-led movements. The peers - A/V unitconsisted of a team learning experience. Lecture and discussionmethods were utilized during the authority - A/V segment.Manipulatives and kinesthetic learning opportunities were introducedduring the alone - T/K topic. For the alone - A/V subject, methodsincluded handouts, in-class slides, videotapes, and PowerPointpresentations electronically mailed to each individual studentspersonal computer. Finally, team manipulatives and kinesthetic floorgames were experienced during the peers -T/K topic. Statistical Procedures. Data were analyzed using bothmultivariate and univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) techniques(Green, Salkind & Akey, 1997, p. 189) allowing for assessment of therelationship of one or more factors (learning-style preferences) witheither single (univariate) or multiple (multivariate) dependentmeasures (see Figure 2): 1. Six separate analyses were conducted to allow for examination of differentiation in mean achievement scores as a result of standardized teaching methodology addressing the selected combined perceptual and
13 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL sociological preferences within each individual instructional unit. Where only one dependent variable was used as an assessment measure (in this study, a written test), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized. Where two dependent variables were used as an assessment measure (in this study, both a written and a skills test) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed. 2. A follow-up of five multivariate analyses of variance were used to examine scores across each of the following elements: Auditory/Visual, Tactual/Kinesthetic, Alone, Peers, and Authority. Finally, Semantic Differential Scale scores were analyzed interms of group means with respect to satisfaction with instructionalstrategy as categorized by learning-style preference. ResultsAchievement Examination of data revealed no significant difference inpsychomotor achievement scores between students whose combinedperceptual and sociological learning-style preferences were matchedas compared to those who were mismatched: a) Auditory/Visual-Alone: (F = .33, p > .05) b) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Alone: (F = 1.27, p > .05) c) Auditory/Visual-Peers: (F = 1.69, p > .05) d) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Peers: (F = .48, p > .05) e) Auditory/Visual-Authority: (F = .73, p > .05) f) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Authority: (F = 1.29, p > .05)
Susan M. Tendy 14 These findings supported a conclusion that adjustment ofinstructional strategies to match both perceptual and sociologicalpreferences neither assisted nor hindered those students abilities tolearn new psychomotor skills. Trends toward higher achievement when T/K-Alone, T/K-Authority, Combined A/V, Combined T/K and Combined Aloneinstructional strategies and preferences were matched, as compared towhen they were mismatched, supported the conclusion that a largerexperimental population might have revealed significant findings. An additional multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)was conducted to compare the achievement scores of studentsexhibiting a visual preference across all T/K instructional units. Thedependent variables were achievement scores from the MuscleGroups, Class Format and Low Impact units. Table 1 contains themeans and standard deviations on the dependent variables by grouppreference. The results of the MANOVA, presented in Table 2, revealed asignificant difference in the dependent measures [Wilks = .666, F(10, 102) = 2.30, p < .05] between matched and mismatched subjectswith a preference for visual resources. Follow-up univariateANOVAs on each dependent measure revealed that the visually-preferenced subjects performed significantly better than the visuallynon- or opposite-preferenced subjects on the written tests in the unitsthat employed the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials. Thosewritten tests were in the Muscle Groups [F (2, 55) = 6.74, p < .01] andthe Class Format units[ F (2, 55) = 5.25, p < .01] (See Table 3). It ispossible that the colorful T/K materials had a confounding effect onthe visual students, more so than the theorized effect through theintended T/K strategy.
15 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALAttitude Examination of both the perceptual and sociological attitudesurveys allowed further investigation of the process of teaching to thelearners preferred strengths. The survey assessing attitudes towardperceptual instructional strategies focused on teaching through use oftactual/kinesthetic resources. A score above the neutral point of 36(see Figure 3) indicated responses in a positive direction. Examination of group means revealed that subjects identifiedas belonging to the tactual/kinesthetic preferenced group, as measuredby the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, scored thehighest in attitude ( x = 51.3) toward instructional strategies whichmatched their learning-style preferences. Subjects in theauditory/visual preferenced category scored lowest of the groups --below the neutral point of 36 ( x = 31.67) -- indicating dissatisfactionwith the perceptual instructional strategy that did not match theirpreferred style. In addition to validation of the learning-stylecategorization results of the PEPS, this trend toward (a) positiveattitudes toward instructional strategies congruent with learning-stylepreferences and (b) dissatisfaction with strategies dissonant from thosepreferences corroborated previous research in which subjects whoseperceptual preferences were matched exhibited significantly higherattitude test scores than when they were mismatched (Bauer, 1991;Ingham, 1991; Martini, 1986). The survey assessing attitudes toward sociological instructionalstrategies was focused on learning through strategies that werecongruent with, as opposed to dissonant from, students preferredstyles as measured by the Productivity Environmental PreferenceSurvey. Subjects were asked to rate their feelings toward thecongruent sociological instructional strategies they had experienced ascompared to strategies that were dissonant from that preference.Based on previous research in which students demonstrating nosociological preference actually exhibited more positive attitudeswhen learning alone (Giannitti, 1988), the subjects in the present study
Susan M. Tendy 16who exhibited no sociological preference for instructional resourceswere administered a survey asking them to compare how they feltabout learning alone as opposed to learning with peers or with anauthority figure. A score above the neutral point of 36 indicatedresponses in a positive direction for all groups. Examination of groupmeans revealed that all groups responded in a positive manner towardstrategies congruent with their sociological preferences as compared tostrategies dissonant from those preferences (see Figure 4). This demonstration of positive attitudes toward instructionalstrategies congruent with sociological preferences was supported byprevious research, in which subjects experiencing instructionalstrategies that matched their sociological preferences exhibitedpositive attitudes toward those strategies (De Bello, 1985; Miles,1987; Perrin, 1984). These results also lent support to findings byGiannitti (1988) in which subjects with no sociological preferenceexhibited significantly higher attitude test scores when learning alone. Discussion Previous research has evidenced significantly higherachievement and attitude test scores in the cognitive area when eitherthe perceptual or sociological learning-style preferences of the learnerwere matched, as compared to when they were mismatched. Thisstudy extended that investigation to the psychomotor area of learning.Due to the nature of physical education and athletic learning andperformance-based activities, it is often difficult to isolate a singleteaching strategy that matches a particular learning-style element interms of its possible effects on the learner. Therefore, this studysought to combine perceptual and sociological teaching strategies asfactors that addressed these preferences. Since the subjects involved in this study must maintain a gradepoint average competitive with their peers to receive appointments andpromotions both during their academic career and beyond, it is likely
17 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALthat they were highly motivated to succeed, regardless of theinstructional strategy employed. This may have been demonstrated bythe fact that many of the 58 students involved in the study wereclassified as non-preferenced, or "neutral" in terms of their learning-style preferences in many of the categories. Observers noted that ifone method of presentation did not meet the needs of the students, thatdid not deter them from learning the material through other resourcesin order to satisfactorily meet the achievement criteria. It was notedduring the investigation that subjects reported to class early in order towork alone with tactual materials previously introduced as a peer-oriented strategy. During the auditory/visual unit, students wereobserved writing and taking notes, which is a tactual method oflearning. The philosophy of completing the mission no matter whatthe situation seemed to be the overriding factor for the population ofthis particular study. One might conclude that when highly motivated,anyone can learn any topic. It is the unmotivated learner thatcontinues to challenge the educator. Ethical considerations precludedposing any restrictions during the investigation to prevent motivatedstudents from adapting themselves to a learning environment that didnot match their preference. Recommendations for Future Research As a result of the findings of this investigation, it isrecommended that future researchers consider the followingexpansions in design: 1. conduct this same research with a larger population; 2. investigate psychomotor achievement by individual, rather than combined, perceptual and sociological preferences; 3. confounding variables such as motivation should be further investigated.
Susan M. Tendy 18Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Scores for SubjectsCategorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual Preference AcrossCombined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies
19 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL Descriptive Statistics Std.Dependent Variable Visual Preference Mean Deviation N Preference 9.20 1.30 5"Low Impact Combo" No Preference 9.14 1.13 49Writ Quiz: OppositeT/K-Authority Strategy 8.38 .95 4 Preference Total 9.09 1.13 58 Preference 8.36 .83 5"Low Impact Combo" No Preference 8.47 .47 49Physical Skills Test: OppositeT/K -Authority Strategy 7.88 .62 4 Preference Total 8.42 .52 58 Preference 7.70 1.68 5 No Preference 7.35 1.71 49"Muscles" Writ Quiz:T/K-Alone Strategy Opposite 4.19 1.43 4 Preference Total 7.16 1.85 58 Preference 8.59 .83 5"Muscles" Skills No Preference 8.52 .84 49Presentation: OppositeT/K-Alone Strategy 8.01 1.00 4 Preference Total 8.49 .85 58 Preference 9.07 .89 5"Class Format" No Preference 7.70 .98 49Writ Quiz: OppositeT/K-Peers Strategy 7.11 1.29 4 Preference Total 7.77 1.07 58
Susan M. Tendy 20Table 2Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Achievement Scoresfor Subjects Categorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual PreferenceAcross Combined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies a Multivariate Tests a Multivariate Tests Hypothesis Error Observed Effect Value F df df Sig. Powerb Intercept Wilks c .008 1333.24 5 51 .000 1.000 Lambda • p < .05 VI Wilks c .666 2.30 10 102 .018* .909 Lambda a. Design: Intercept+VI b. Computed using alpha = .05 c. Exact statistic *p<.05
21 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALTable 3Results of Follow-up Univariate ANOVA: Visual Preferenced GroupsAcross Combined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Sum of Mean Observed Source Squares df Square F Sig. Powera Corrected "Muscles" Writ: 38.51 2 19.26 6.74 .002 .902 Model T/K-Alone "Class Format" 10.45 2 5.23 5.27 .008 .814 Writ : T/K-Peers Intercept "Muscles" Writ: 786.47 1 786.47 275.17 .000 1.000 T/K-Alone "Class Format" 1211.23 1 1211.23 1220.1 .000 1.000 Writ : T/K-Peers VI "Muscles" Writ: 38.51 2 19.26 6.74 .002* .902 T/K-Alone "Class Format" 10.45 2 5.23 5.27 .008* .814 Writ : T/K-Peers Error "Muscles" Writ: 157.20 55 2.86 T/K-Alone "Class Format" 54.60 55 .99 Writ : T/K-Peers Total "Muscles" Writ: 3168.69 58 T/K-Alone "Class Format" 3570.57 58 Writ : T/K-Peers Corrected "Muscles" Writ: 195.71 57 Total T/K-Alone "Class Format" 65.05 57 Writ : T/K-Peers a. Computed using alpha = .05 *p<.01
Susan M. Tendy 22Figure 1. Matrix of course topics and the teaching strategies andmaterials used to address selected perceptual and sociologicallearning-style preferences.
23 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALFigure 2. Summary of data analysis categorization by instructionalstrategies and outcomes assessment techniques.
Susan M. Tendy 24 Mean Scores : Se m antic Di fferential S cale Posi tive Attitude = Above 36 60 50 51 50 40 42 32 30Figure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies byperceptual preference. 20 A/V T/K Non-Pref er ence A/V & T/K Perceptual Preference Mean Scores : Se m antic Di fferential S caleFigure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies byperceptual preference. Posi tive Attitude = Above 36 60 56 50 49 47 46 46 43 40Figure 4. Attitude toward matched sociological instructional strategies bysociological preference. 30 A lone Aut hority Peer/A lone Peer Peer/Aut hority Non-Pref er ence Soci ological Prefere nceFigure 4. Attitude toward matched sociological instructional strategiesby sociological preference.
25 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL REFERENCESAmerican Council on Exercise. (1993). Aerobics instructor certification exam content outline. In R. T. Cotton & R. L. Goldstein (Eds.), Aerobics instructor manual, (pp. 448-463). San Diego, CA: American Council on Exercise.Bauer, E. (1991). The relationships between and among learning style perceptual preferences, instructional strategies, mathematics achievement, and attitudes toward mathematics of learning-disabled and emotionally handicapped students in a suburban junior high school. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1378A.Brunner, R., & Hill, D. (1992). Using learning styles research in coaching. JOPERD, 63 (4), 26-28, 61.Carbo, M. L. (1980). An analysis of the relationship between the modality preferences of kindergartners and selected reading treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight-word vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4, 1389-A.Cholakis, M. (1986). An experimental investigation of the relationships between and among sociological preferences, vocabulary instruction, and achievement and the attitudes of New York, urban, seventh and eighth grade underachievers. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 4046A.Clark-Thayer, S. (1987). The relationship of the knowledge of student-perceived learning style preferences, and study habits and attitudes to achievement of college freshmen in a small, urban university. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 872A.Coker, C. (1996). Accommodating students’ learning styles in physical education. JOPERD, 67(9), 66-68.
Susan M. Tendy 26De Bello, T. (1985). A critical analysis of the effects on achievement and attitudes of administrative assignments to social studies instruction based in individual, eighth grade students sociological preferences for learning alone, with peers, or with teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 68-01A.Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1991). Productivity environmental preference survey (PEPS) manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1996). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS). Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.Ennis, C., & Chepyator-Thompson, J. (1990). Learning characteristics of field-dependent children within an analytical concept-based curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 170-187.Giannitti, M.C. (1988). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of middle-school students (Grades 6, 7, 8), their attitudes and achievement in social studies, and selected instructional strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1988) Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2911A.Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Griggs, S. A. (1989, November). Students’ sociological grouping preferences of learning styles. The Clearing House 63(3), 135-139. Washington, DC: Heldref Publications.Ingham, J. (1991). Matching instruction with employee perceptual preference significantly increases training effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(1), 53-64.International Dance Exercise Association (1992). The IDEA performance review system. San Diego, CA: IDEA.Kraft, R. (1976). An analysis of student learning styles. Physical Educator, 33(3), 140-143.
27 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNALKroon, D. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effects on academic achievement and the resultant administrative implications of instruction congruent and incongruent with secondary, industrial arts students identified learning style preferences. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3247A.Lawther, J. D. (1968). The learning of physical skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated.Martini, M. (1986). An analysis of the relationships between and among computer-assisted instruction, learning style perceptual preferences, attitudes, and the science achievement of seventh grade students in a suburban, New York school district. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1986) Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (03), 877A.Miles, B. (1987). An investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of fifth and sixth grade students, selected interactive classroom patterns, and achievement in career awareness and career decision making concepts. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1987) Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2527A.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of gifted and non-gifted primary children, selected instructional strategies, attitudes, and achievement in problem-solving and word recognition. (Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (02), 342A.Pettigrew, F. & Zakrajsek, D. (1984). A profile of learning-style preferences among physical education majors. Physical Educator, 41(2), 85-89.
Susan M. Tendy 28Pizzo, J. (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. Johns University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (06), 2475A.Price, G. (1996). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.Sage, G. (1984). Motor learning and control: A neuropsychological approach. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.Vickers, J. (1990). Instructional design for teaching physical activities: A knowledge structures approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Zakrajsek, D., Johnson, R., & Walker, D. (1984). Comparison of learning styles between physical education and dance majors. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58(2), 583-588.