Learning Styles Impact on Achievement and Attitude in Exercise Leadership Training

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 27, NUMBER 2, 2010-2011

EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND
MISMATCHING PERCEPTUAL AND
SOCIOLOGICAL LEARNING-STYLE
PREFERENCES ON ACHIEVEMENT AND
ATTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS IN A GROUP
EXERCISE LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTOR
TRAINING PROGRAM

Susan M. Tendy
United States Military Academy
West Point
ABSTRACT

Mean scores on achievement measures and attitude scales among individuals in an
Exercise Leadership Instructor Training Program were examined in order to determine
the effect(s) on these variables when instructional strategies were either congruent with,
or dissonant from, perceptual and sociological learning-style preferences. Independent
variables were: (1) perceptual learning-style preferences, (2) sociological learning-style
preferences, (3) instructional strategies employing perceptual/sociological techniques.
Dependent variables were: (1) achievement scores for each training unit, (2) scores that
measured subjects' attitudes toward perceptual and sociological teaching strategies.
Although no significant difference in achievement scores were found, students
evidencing a preference for instructional techniques employing visual strategies scored
significantly higher (p < .01) than the visually non- or opposite-preferenced students
across all instructional units employing the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials.
Examination of attitude data revealed that all groups responded in a positive manner
toward strategies congruent with their preferences as compared to those that were
mismatched.

Introduction

L 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). The
importance of the use of learning-style instructional strategies
4

5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

becomes apparent when one realizes that although instructors tend to
use the same teaching techniques for all students, each person is
different. 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' individual
learning-style preferences in order to maintain motivation and
maximize their potential (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Motor learning
specialists (Lawther, 1968; Sage, 1984) have indicated that athletic
ability can be developed and improved by instructors and coaches who
know the proper verbal and visual cues to give to athletes, in
combination with the athlete’s ability to correctly practice these
directives. This outcome requires that learners absorb auditory and
visual cues given to the group by their coaches, and then use their own
kinesthetic abilities to practice the information. This theory is
complicated by research indicating that many students actually achieve
more and prefer to learn by themselves, whereas others learn best and
accomplish more when working with peers. Still others function best
in a traditional group directly under the supervision of an authority
figure (Griggs, 1989). Redesigning the learning environment to better
adjust for these differences in athletes' perceptual and sociological
learning-style preferences may hold an important key to success in the
realm of physical education and athletics (Brunner & Hill, 1992).

In discussing a "knowledge structures" approach when
planning physical learning activities, Vickers (1990) stressed the
importance of accommodating for student-athletes' individual
differences:

The design of learning activities is a creative endeavor that is
fun, challenging, risky (they may not work), and personal. As a
teacher or coach, you should always be looking for different ways to
get the same material across, always trying to find innovative ways to
help individual students. (p. 146)

Susan M. Tendy 6

Perceptual and Sociological Learning-Style Preferences

Experimental research investigating the effects of perceptual
preferences on the learning of new and difficult information has
demonstrated a significant increase in achievement and improved
attitude when those preferences were matched as opposed to when
they were mismatched. A study conducted by Carbo (1980) examined
an element later recognized as a tactual preference that had not been
previously identified. A subsequent study investigating perceptual
preferences that included a tactual element in the learning-style
preference survey was able to show higher achievement scores when
information was presented through one's primary perceptual
preference, and reinforced through the secondary modality of the
learner (Kroon, 1985).

Research investigating students' sociological preferences when
working alone, with peers and with authority figures has also
demonstrated positive effects on achievement and attitude when those
preferences were matched versus when they were mismatched. These
studies have addressed the preferences of gifted versus non-gifted
students (Perrin, 1984), academic subjects such as social studies (De
Bello, 1985; Giannitti, 1988), vocabulary strategies (Cholakis, 1986),
study habits of college freshmen (Clark-Thayer, 1987), and career
awareness of middle-school students (Miles, 1987). In all cases,
researchers were able to identify sociological preference as a
significant factor affecting the ability of students to learn new and
difficult information.

Learning-Style Preferences and Physical Activity

Correlational studies investigating the existence of learning-
style preferences in the discipline of physical education, dance, and
athletics have found significant evidence that such preferences do
exist, setting the foundation for further investigatory work (Coker,
1996; Kraft, 1976). Many of these investigations were conducted at


the college level comparing the learning-style preferences of Physical
Education majors to those of Dance or Education majors (Pettigrew &
Zakrajsek, 1984; Zakrajsek, Johnson & Walker, 1984). Experimental
researchers investigating learning-style preferences in physical activity
have been supportive of these earlier correlational findings, and they
have indeed demonstrated the potential for increased achievement in
this area when students are taught through their preferred modality. A
study investigating field dependent versus field independent teaching
strategies demonstrated that field dependent students had difficulty
learning when taught physical education in a manner incongruent with
their preferred style (Ennis & Chepyator-Thompson, 1990).
Conversely, coach/practitioners at the high school level improved their
wrestling team's competitive record once congruent learning-style
strategies were introduced into the practice sessions based on students'
learning style preferences (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Related research at
the adult level revealed higher achievement and attitude scores when
driver-trainees’ perceptual preferences were addressed (Ingham,
1991). Although these studies varied in approach and instrumentation
techniques, they all clarified the fact that the psychomotor realm is an
area capable of being further explored in terms of learning-style
preferences.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
matching and mismatching perceptual (auditory, visual, tactual and
kinesthetic) and sociological (learning alone, with peers or with an
authority figure) learning-style preferences on achievement and
attitude of individuals in a group exercise leadership instructor training
program. Specifically, are there significant differences in
psychomotor achievement and attitude scores of Group Exercise
Leader 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 learner's matched versus
mismatched perceptual preference;
3. When a skill is taught through the learner's matched versus
mismatched sociological preference.

Methodology

Subjects

The population from which the subjects of this study were
drawn consisted of students in attendance at an institution of higher
education located in New York State. The range of students' ages was
from 17 to 24 years. Ninety percent of the student body of
approximately 4000 was male; ten percent female. Students are
graduated with a bachelor of science degree and, upon graduation, are
assigned to the Armed Forces of the United States.

The subjects in this study consisted of 59 students from both
the junior and senior class, enrolled in three separate Group Exercise
Leadership Instructor Training Courses. Assignment to their required
physical education elective is determined by a combination of factors
such as personal choice, priority based on physical education rank in
class, academic scheduling, and random assignment. Participation in
the study was voluntary. All students had completed a required
background course in both Personal Fitness and Unit Fitness. Of the
59 students initially enrolled in the course, 58 were able to remain in
the study; one student was dropped due to attendance factors.

Institutional permission to conduct the study was granted
through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. The study was
explained to the students enrolled, and all students agreed to
participate. Negative replies would have been allowed to take another
course. All students received the same instruction and the same
treatment. Achievement based on differences in learning-style


preference was the dependent variable examined, based on the
learning-style categorization of each student.

Instrumentation

Three types of instruments were used for data collection and
analysis during the study.

Learning-Style Preference: In order to determine individual
learning-style preferences, each subject was administered the
Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) at the
beginning of the course (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1996). The PEPS is an
instrument for "the identification of how adults prefer to function,
learn, concentrate and perform in their occupational or educational
activities" in the areas of immediate environmental, emotional,
sociological, physical and psychological needs (Price, 1996, p. 5).
Additionally, this model provides information directly applicable to
teaching strategies in the classroom. The survey, which can be
completed in approximately 20 to 30 minutes, consists of 100 items
relating to 20 different learning style elements on a five-point Likert
scale. These elements, which comprise the Dunn and Dunn Learning-
Styles Model, include an individual's preferences in the following five
areas:

(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 10

The PEPS was originally normed with a population of 975 females
and 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 from
various academic and industrial settings" (Price, 1996, p. 14). In this
revised version, 90 percent of the reliabilities were found to be equal
to or greater than .60 (Price, 1996).

Achievement: Following the conclusion of each instructional
unit, achievement was measured through administration of
psychomotor and/or cognitive criterion-referenced tests. These tests
were based on standards set forth by the International Dance and
Exercise Association (IDEA) Performance Review System (1992) as
well as the American Council on Exercise (ACE) Aerobics Instructor
Certification Exam Content Outline (1993) which designate written
and practical skills tests, and teaching and learning standards to be
mastered. Questions were evaluated and subsequently revised by a
jury consisting of certified Group Exercise Leader Instructor Trainers
holding advanced degrees in Physical Education. Each written test
consisted of a combination of multiple choice and short answer
questions worth 10 points. Psychomotor teaching skills were recorded
by a team of three trained observers whose judging system was
standardized through the use of an observational checklist.

Attitude: At the conclusion of the study, the Semantic
Differential Scale (SDS) (Pizzo, 1981) was administered to determine
individuals' attitudes toward the teaching strategies employed. Each
subject completed two scales: one to assess their reaction to selected
instructional strategies that either matched or mismatched the
individual's perceptual learning-style preference and a second scale
that assessed the same reaction levels to instructional strategies that
either matched or mismatched the subjects' sociological learning-style
preference.


This scale was initially developed to determine the attitudes of
students tested in an environment congruent or incongruent with their
preference for sound. Based on criteria developed according to
recommendations by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 96),
the SDS included 12 bi-polar adjective pairs on a five-point
continuum, allowing for a level of reference for one's feelings
concerning a particular topic or strategy. A neutral reference point is
given a value of three, enabling quantitative evaluation of the
attitudinal direction.

Procedures

Administration of the Productivity Environmental Preference
Survey (PEPS). Once consent by subjects was established, the
concept of learning-style preference was discussed with all
participants. The PEPS was then administered to all subjects. Answer
forms for the PEPS were scored by Price Systems in Lawrence,
Kansas. Individual learning-style profiles, and homework
prescriptions based on these preferences, were then generated to
further educate the students concerning individual study strategies.

Instructional Strategies. In accordance with departmental
policy, each student was given a course outline and a lesson plan
manual describing the lecture and activity topics for each class
meeting. During the subsequent eight-week period, the same
information was introduced to all students with researcher-designed
materials that addressed a matrix that combined sociological and
perceptual learning-style teaching strategies (Figure 1). The
perceptual variables addressed were auditory/visual (A/V), and tactual/
kinesthetic (T/K). The different sociological variables addressed
included working alone, with peers, and with an authority figure. Six
units within the Group Exercise Leadership Course were chosen for
this 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 the
study had been presented at the State Physical Education Convention
(NYSAHPERD) in October 1999, at the National Physical Education
Convention (AAHPERD) in April 2000, and at the International
Learning-Styles Institute in July of 1997 and 1999, and were received
favorably.

Materials used for the authority - T/K unit included
manipulatives and teacher-led movements. The peers - A/V unit
consisted of a team learning experience. Lecture and discussion
methods were utilized during the authority - A/V segment.
Manipulatives and kinesthetic learning opportunities were introduced
during the alone - T/K topic. For the alone - A/V subject, methods
included handouts, in-class slides, videotapes, and PowerPoint
presentations electronically mailed to each individual student's
personal computer. Finally, team manipulatives and kinesthetic floor
games were experienced during the peers -T/K topic.

Statistical Procedures. Data were analyzed using both
multivariate and univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) techniques
(Green, Salkind & Akey, 1997, p. 189) allowing for assessment of the
relationship of one or more factors (learning-style preferences) with
either single (univariate) or multiple (multivariate) dependent
measures (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


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 in
terms of group means with respect to satisfaction with instructional
strategy as categorized by learning-style preference.

Results

Achievement

Examination of data revealed no significant difference in
psychomotor achievement scores between students whose combined
perceptual and sociological learning-style preferences were matched
as 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 of
instructional strategies to match both perceptual and sociological
preferences neither assisted nor hindered those students' abilities to
learn new psychomotor skills.

Trends toward higher achievement when T/K-Alone, T/K-
Authority, Combined A/V, Combined T/K and Combined Alone
instructional strategies and preferences were matched, as compared to
when they were mismatched, supported the conclusion that a larger
experimental population might have revealed significant findings.

An additional multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted to compare the achievement scores of students
exhibiting a visual preference across all T/K instructional units. The
dependent variables were achievement scores from the Muscle
Groups, Class Format and Low Impact units. Table 1 contains the
means and standard deviations on the dependent variables by group
preference.

The results of the MANOVA, presented in Table 2, revealed a
significant difference in the dependent measures [Wilks' = .666, F
(10, 102) = 2.30, p < .05] between matched and mismatched subjects
with a preference for visual resources. Follow-up univariate
ANOVAs on each dependent measure revealed that the visually-
preferenced subjects performed significantly better than the visually
non- or opposite-preferenced subjects on the written tests in the units
that employed the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials. Those
written tests were in the Muscle Groups [F (2, 55) = 6.74, p < .01] and
the Class Format units[ F (2, 55) = 5.25, p < .01] (See Table 3). It is
possible that the colorful T/K materials had a confounding effect on
the visual students, more so than the theorized effect through the
intended T/K strategy.


Attitude

Examination of both the perceptual and sociological attitude
surveys allowed further investigation of the process of teaching to the
learner's preferred strengths. The survey assessing attitudes toward
perceptual instructional strategies focused on teaching through use of
tactual/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 identified
as belonging to the tactual/kinesthetic preferenced group, as measured
by the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, scored the
highest in attitude ( x = 51.3) toward instructional strategies which
matched their learning-style preferences. Subjects in the
auditory/visual preferenced category scored lowest of the groups --
below the neutral point of 36 ( x = 31.67) -- indicating dissatisfaction
with the perceptual instructional strategy that did not match their
preferred style. In addition to validation of the learning-style
categorization results of the PEPS, this trend toward (a) positive
attitudes toward instructional strategies congruent with learning-style
preferences and (b) dissatisfaction with strategies dissonant from those
preferences corroborated previous research in which subjects whose
perceptual preferences were matched exhibited significantly higher
attitude test scores than when they were mismatched (Bauer, 1991;
Ingham, 1991; Martini, 1986).

The survey assessing attitudes toward sociological instructional
strategies was focused on learning through strategies that were
congruent with, as opposed to dissonant from, students' preferred
styles as measured by the Productivity Environmental Preference
Survey. Subjects were asked to rate their feelings toward the
congruent sociological instructional strategies they had experienced as
compared to strategies that were dissonant from that preference.
Based on previous research in which students demonstrating no
sociological preference actually exhibited more positive attitudes
when learning alone (Giannitti, 1988), the subjects in the present study

Susan M. Tendy 16

who exhibited no sociological preference for instructional resources
were administered a survey asking them to compare how they felt
about learning alone as opposed to learning with peers or with an
authority figure. A score above the neutral point of 36 indicated
responses in a positive direction for all groups. Examination of group
means revealed that all groups responded in a positive manner toward
strategies congruent with their sociological preferences as compared to
strategies dissonant from those preferences (see Figure 4).

This demonstration of positive attitudes toward instructional
strategies congruent with sociological preferences was supported by
previous research, in which subjects experiencing instructional
strategies that matched their sociological preferences exhibited
positive attitudes toward those strategies (De Bello, 1985; Miles,
1987; Perrin, 1984). These results also lent support to findings by
Giannitti (1988) in which subjects with no sociological preference
exhibited significantly higher attitude test scores when learning alone.

Discussion

Previous research has evidenced significantly higher
achievement and attitude test scores in the cognitive area when either
the perceptual or sociological learning-style preferences of the learner
were matched, as compared to when they were mismatched. This
study extended that investigation to the psychomotor area of learning.
Due to the nature of physical education and athletic learning and
performance-based activities, it is often difficult to isolate a single
teaching strategy that matches a particular learning-style element in
terms of its possible effects on the learner. Therefore, this study
sought to combine perceptual and sociological teaching strategies as
factors that addressed these preferences.

Since the subjects involved in this study must maintain a grade
point average competitive with their peers to receive appointments and
promotions both during their academic career and beyond, it is likely


that they were highly motivated to succeed, regardless of the
instructional strategy employed. This may have been demonstrated by
the fact that many of the 58 students involved in the study were
classified as non-preferenced, or "neutral" in terms of their learning-
style preferences in many of the categories. Observers noted that if
one method of presentation did not meet the needs of the students, that
did not deter them from learning the material through other resources
in order to satisfactorily meet the achievement criteria. It was noted
during the investigation that subjects reported to class early in order to
work alone with tactual materials previously introduced as a peer-
oriented strategy. During the auditory/visual unit, students were
observed writing and taking notes, which is a tactual method of
learning. The philosophy of completing the mission no matter what
the situation seemed to be the overriding factor for the population of
this particular study. One might conclude that when highly motivated,
anyone can learn any topic. It is the unmotivated learner that
continues to challenge the educator. Ethical considerations precluded
posing any restrictions during the investigation to prevent motivated
students from adapting themselves to a learning environment that did
not match their preference.

Recommendations for Future Research

As a result of the findings of this investigation, it is
recommended that future researchers consider the following
expansions 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 18

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Scores for Subjects
Categorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual Preference Across
Combined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies


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 49
Writ Quiz: Opposite
T/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 49
Physical Skills Test: Opposite
T/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
"Muscles" Skills No Preference 8.52 .84 49
Presentation: Opposite
T/K-Alone Strategy 8.01 1.00 4
Preference
Total 8.49 .85 58
"Class Format" No Preference 7.70 .98 49
Writ Quiz: Opposite
T/K-Peers Strategy 7.11 1.29 4
Preference
Total 7.77 1.07 58

Susan M. Tendy 20

Table 2

Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Achievement Scores
for Subjects Categorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual Preference
Across 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


Table 3

Results of Follow-up Univariate ANOVA: Visual Preferenced Groups
Across 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 22

Figure 1. Matrix of course topics and the teaching strategies and
materials used to address selected perceptual and sociological
learning-style preferences.


Figure 2. Summary of data analysis categorization by instructional
strategies 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
30
Figure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies by
perceptual preference.

20
A/V T/K Non-Pref er ence A/V & T/K

Perceptual Preference
Mean Scores : Se m antic Di fferential S cale

Figure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies by
perceptual preference.
Posi tive Attitude = Above 36
60

56

50
49
47 46 46

43
40

Figure 4. Attitude toward matched sociological instructional strategies by
sociological preference.
30
A lone Aut hority Peer/A lone
Peer Peer/Aut hority Non-Pref er ence

Soci ological Prefere nce

Figure 4. Attitude toward matched sociological instructional strategies
by sociological preference.


REFERENCES

American 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. John's
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. John's 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. John's 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 26

De 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. John's 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. John's University, 1988)
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.


Kroon, 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. John's University).
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. John's 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. John's University, 1987)
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. John's 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 28

Pizzo, 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. John's
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.

Learning Styles Impact on Achievement and Attitude in Exercise Leadership Training

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Learning Styles Impact on Achievement and Attitude in Exercise Leadership Training

Similar to Learning Styles Impact on Achievement and Attitude in Exercise Leadership Training (20)

More from guest3c8a16c

More from guest3c8a16c (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Learning Styles Impact on Achievement and Attitude in Exercise Leadership Training