Dr. Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy-West Point


Published on

Dr. Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy-West Point, national refereed article published in the National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(2) 2010.

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief
National FORUM Journals
17603 Bending Post Drive
Houston, Texas 77095

Dr. Kritsonis is founder of NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (since 1983). These publications represent a group of highly respected scholarly academic periodicals. Over 4,000 writers have been published in these refereed, peer-reviewed periodicals. In 1983, he founded the National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision – now acclaimed by many as the United States’ leading recognized scholarly academic refereed journal in educational administration, leadership, and supervision.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dr. Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy-West Point

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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)
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 7 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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;
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 9 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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.
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. 11 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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)
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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 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)
  11. 11. 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.
  12. 12. 15 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 17 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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.
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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 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 Preference 8.59 .83 5 "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 Preference 9.07 .89 5 "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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 21 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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
  19. 19. 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.
  20. 20. 23 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL Figure 2. Summary of data analysis categorization by instructional strategies and outcomes assessment techniques.
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 25 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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.
  23. 23. 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) 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.
  24. 24. 27 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 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). 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. 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) 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. 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.
  25. 25. 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.