Dunn Lscy Rimanual v1
Dunn Lscy Rimanual v1
Dunn Lscy Rimanual v1
THE CLUE
TO YOU
Table of Contents
Chapter One
What are Learning Styles? ........................................................................................... 1
How Do Learning Styles Develop?................................................................................. 2
The Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model ................................................................... 3
Identifying Characteristic Elements of Learning Style...................................................... 4
Global versus Analytic Processing ................................................................................. 4
Impact of Environmental Factors on Learning ................................................................ 5
Sociological Factors That Influence Learning.................................................................. 5
Physiological Learning-Style Preferences ....................................................................... 6
Chapter Two
Administering the LS:CY! ............................................................................................ 7
What Does the LS:CY! Assessment Test Do? ................................................................. 7
The LS:CY! Assessment ............................................................................................... 8
Preparing Students for Taking the LS:CY! Assessment .................................................... 9
Assessing Your Students .............................................................................................10
Administering the Test........................................................................................... 11-12
Strengthening Students Understanding of Learning Styles.............................................13
Interpreting the Results Individual Learning Style Profile ...........................................14
Individual Full Report .................................................................................................15
Learning Style Report for Parents ................................................................................15
Interpreting the Results Group Profile ................................................................. 16-17
Communicating the Results with Students and Parents..................................................18
Chapter Three
Implementation Methods ............................................................................................19
Redesigning Conventional Classrooms..........................................................................19
Seating .....................................................................................................................20
Lighting................................................................................................................ 20-21
Sound ..................................................................................................................21-22
Temperature .............................................................................................................22
Task Persistence ................................................................................................... 22-23
Sociological Preferences..............................................................................................23
Rules for Maintaining Learning-Style Privileges......................................................... 23-24
Redesigning Teaching Strategies .................................................................................24
Tactual and Kinesthetic Resources ...............................................................................24
Task Cards ................................................................................................................25
Flip Chutes ................................................................................................................25
Pic-A-Holes................................................................................................................25
Electroboards.............................................................................................................26
Floor Games ..............................................................................................................26
Small-Group Instruction..............................................................................................26
Team Learning...........................................................................................................27
Circle of Knowledge....................................................................................................27
Contract Activity Packages (CAPS) .......................................................................... 27-28
Programmed Learning Sequences (PLSs)......................................................................28
Multisensory Instructional Packages (MIPs) ............................................................. 28-29
Chapter Four
Test Validity and Reliability Data..................................................................................30
Description of the Study ......................................................................................30
Methodology ......................................................................................................30
Results of the Study............................................................................................31
LS:CY! Test-retest Reliability Coefficients ......................................................... 31-32
Internal Coefficients Consistency Reliability ...................................................... 33-34
Relationship Between Consistency Scores and Global/Analytic Preferences.......... 34-35
CEFT and the LS:CY! Global/Analytic Elements ................................................. 35-36
Predictive ValidityCEFT and the LS:CY! ..............................................................37
Global/Analytic Elements for Perceptual Preferenced Students ................................37
Attitudinal Analysis..............................................................................................37
Relationship Between Attitude Scores and Global/Analytic Preference................. 37-38
Conclusions........................................................................................................38
Research with LS:CY!
Homework Prescriptions for Middle-School Students................................................. 38-39
Comparisons of Two Learning-Style Identification Instruments
For Middle-School Students.................................................................................... 39-40
Taiwanese Adolescents Reading and Mathematics
Achievement by Age, Gender, Learning Styles ......................................................... 40-41
Learning Styles of Biological Siblings and Their Parents .................................................41
Available Translations of the LS:CY! Into Multiple Languages .........................................42
References and Authors Notes
References and Supplementary Sources of Information ............................................ 43-47
Authors Notes ...........................................................................................................47
www.cluetoyou.com
This manual was adapted by permission from the Teacher Manual for the Global Learning Styles Education
Program: Our Wonderful Learning Styles (Dunn, 1998) by Professor Rita Dunn.
Chapter
One
What are Learning Styles?
Learning style, as such, is the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on,
process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information (Dunn & Dunn, 1992;
1993; 1999). The interaction of these elements occurs differently in everyone.
Therefore, it is necessary to determine what is most likely to trigger each stu-
dent's concentration, how to maintain it, and how to respond to his or her natural
processing style to produce long-term memory and retention. To reveal these
natural tendencies and styles, it is important to use a comprehensive model of
learning style that identifies each individual's strengths and preferences across
the full spectrum of physiological, sociological, psychological, emotional, and en-
vironmental elements. The Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model has spawned
several diagnostic instruments to evaluate learning style; the first was introduced
in 1976 and Learning Style: The Clue to You! (LS:CY!) was tested nationally in
1998. Whereas most diagnostic instruments are text-based, the LS:CY! assess-
ment was designed specifically for both global and analytical students and
incorporates visual stimuli into a didactic instrument (Burke, Guastello, et al.,
1998/1999).
Teachers cannot correctly identify all the elements of learning style; some aspects
are not observable to the experienced eye (Beaty, 1986. However, a properly ad-
ministered learning-style identification instrument influences the learning
experience positively and significantly increases aptitude and achievement.
Even among family members, learning styles vary. Mothers and fathers tend to
have diametrically opposite learning styles; children often reflect the partial style
of one parent but not the other; siblings learn differently from each other, and
offspring do not necessarily reflect either parents style. Because of the difference
between their styles, one sibling may perform well while another may perform
inadequately or unevenly in traditional schools that primarily respond to the
styles of motivated, conforming, analytic learners. Siblings also relate differently
to their parents.
Motivation;
A need for more or less structure;
Conformity versus nonconformity; and
Sociological preferences for learning.
Preferences for learning styles change over time (Dunn & Griggs, 1995). However,
during a period in which an individual has strong style preferences, that person
achieves most easily when taught with strategies and resources that complement
those preferences. Although many people can learn basic information through an
incompatible style, even accomplished professionals learn most easily through
their learning-style strengths (Boyle, 2000; Boyle & Dunn, 1998; Lefkowitz,
1998; Miller & Dunn, 1997). The important thing to remember is that no single
style is better or worse than any other. Everyone can learn; we all just learn dif-
ferently.
The current Dunn and Dunn Model includes 20 elements that, when classified,
reveal that students are affected by their:
ten possess a strong emotional need to complete tasks they begin. They rarely feel
the need to eat or drink while learning. Global students, on the other hand, prefer
subtle distractions while they learn. They often concentrate best with background
sound (music or conversation) soft lighting, informal and comfortable seating ar-
rangements, food intake, and breaks while studying. They also prefer to work on
several tasks simultaneously.
For instance, when a person is seated in a hard chair, like the traditional wood or
steel school desk, fully 75 percent of total body weight is concentrated on and
supported by four square inches of bone (Branton, 1966). The resulting stress
causes fatigue, discomfort, and frequent postural change for which students
are scolded daily. More informal or comfortable seating can improve attitudes
and increase attention span
Many teachers present new material and instruct their students in a direct, didac-
tic fashion. Students who have difficulty absorbing and retaining the new
information are considered inattentive. Few teachers realize that despite the
quality of the teaching, some children are incapable of learning from an adult in a
conventional classroom situation. These young people are uncomfortable and
usually too tense when under pressure to concentrate in teacher-dominated and
authoritative situations. For such adolescents, learning either alone or with peers
is a better alternative than working directly with their teachers in either an indi-
vidual or group session. Four studies have examined the effects of sociological
preferences on attitude toward learning and have found statistically higher apti-
tude-test scores when students were taught in ways that complemented their
learning preferences (Research on the Dunn & Dunn Model , 2005).
Task efficiency is related to when a student is likely to learn best. Several studies
have shown that matching elementary students' time preferences with instruc-
tional study and testing schedules resulted in significant gains academically.
Most students are not alert early in the morning. Most middle-school students
experience their strongest energy between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM only 28
percent were found to be morning people.
Many students who are restless, apparently disinterested and sometimes disrup-
tive often are mislabeled as hyperactive. Most students exhibiting these
characteristics are not clinically hyperactive they are often normal children in
need of mobility (Restak, 1979). The less interested the learners are in the mate-
rial being taught, the more mobility they require. Studies show that
approximately 95 percent of these so called hyperactive students are male.
When the same characteristics are observed in girls, they are correlated with a
high degree of academic achievement. Implementation strategies designed to
promote disciplined mobility are discussed in Chapter 3.
Chapter
Two
Administering the LS:CY! Online Assessment
In the LS:CY assessment, students are asked 69 questions that are used to iden-
tify their particular learning-style preferences. The assessment measures the
Introduce learning styles to students by explaining the different styles that exist
in school classrooms, in families, and in varied cultures. Tell students that their
mother's style is likely to be different from their father's style and that their styles
are probably different from friends' and classmates' styles.
The Flesh Reading Ease rated text on a 100-point scale under the assumption
that the higher the score, the easier it was to understand the document. For most
standard documents, it was recommended to aim for a score of approximately 60
to 70. For the purpose of assessment, it was recommended to increase the ease of
readability. The Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level score rated text on a United States
grade-school level. The fifth-grade reading level was deemed low enough to avoid
frustrating middle-school students and still contain vocabulary that would be in-
teresting and challenging.
Each question is repeated three times throughout the test for the purpose of as-
suring response consistency. Students respond to each question using a multiple-
choice answer format. Each possible response includes a picture image that is
representative of the answer. The inclusion of both verbal and nonverbal message
forms is a major feature of the instrument that allows response options to be
processed in the style of the individuals global/analytic preference or through
preferred modalities. The inclusion of picture images allows global students to
holistically acknowledge the subject matter.
Students may have difficulty using their styles for completing assignments and
homework until they learn how to teach themselves using tactual and kinesthetic
methods. It may be practical to begin by teaching the students to develop their
own Electroboards, Flip Chutes, Pic-A-Holes, Multipart Task Cards, and kines-
thetic floor games. Chapter 3 includes descriptions of these instructional
strategies that effectively teach tactual learners to absorb difficult information
through their perceptual strength. A file containing directions for creating these
materials is included on the LSCY! Administration Site (See Extras).
Meanwhile, you should share the results of the learning styles assessment with
students' parents. Discuss their child's learning style and the learning style
shared by the majority or large clusters of the class. Explain to parents and to
students what the learning style guidelines mean and how to use them. Ask par-
ents to encourage their children to use their learning styles. A sample of the
Parent Letter also is included on the Administration Site (See Extras).
Group Profile
A Group Profile can be created by the administrator for any particular group
by class, gender, academic achievement, etc. The site administrator has the op-
tion of creating group profiles after logging on to www.cluetoyou.com/admin.
Group Profile
The one-page graphic with bar charts indicates the percentage of the group that
displays a preference for each of the learning-style elements.
Parents often feel that they are somehow left out of their children's school experi-
ences. Parents are interested in, and often concerned about, the concepts and
strategies to which their children are being exposed, especially if the concepts are
new. Explain to parents the advantages of capitalizing on each youngster's learn-
ing style and describe how the student will be involved in the implementation
process (e.g., classroom redesign). Once parents understand why the instruc-
tional environment is being altered, they usually are willing to support the effort,
at least until sufficient time has elapsed to yield an objective judgment as to the
effectiveness of the change.
Chapter
Three
Implementation Methods
The more your students are involved in how their learning experience is con-
structed, the more they are going to be interested in learning. Teach your
students to use their learning-style strengths to help them teach themselves.
Students usually enjoy rearranging furniture, whether they focus on one area or
the whole classroom. When at least one space appeals to each learner, implement
the redesign and encourage students to test that floor plan for a week. New de-
signs can be considered after testing the first ideas, compare behavior problems
and incomplete assignments with previous occurrences and ask the students
about their new environment and their grades both before and after the change.
Middle-school students usually love the new environment and rarely permit
teachers to return to a conventional classroom design without challenge.
When you decide to experiment with the physical classroom, remember to con-
sider several physiological and sociological aspects of learning. Factors include
seating, lighting, sound, temperature, attention spans, and particular group or
individual arrangements. If you have several students who require informal seat-
ing, begin the transition into style with seating arrangements; if you have a
cluster of students who need soft illumination, perhaps consider in lighting.
Seating
Most schools provide a combination of chairs, desks,
and tables made of wood, steel, and plastic for each
student. Resting on that inflexible surface is about
four square inches of bone that supports 75 percent of
a student's total body weight. The result physical
discomfort becomes a distraction squirming, fidgeting, rocking, and eventu-
ally, a need to get out of the chair.
Many students learn better when they are allowed to use cushions on either their
chairs or the floor, can sit on beanbags or other casual furniture, or can relax in a
carpeted, informal section of the room. It is crucial for global students to relax
while concentrating. To acquire more comfortable and more suitable seating ar-
rangements, ask parents to donate cushions, beanbag chairs, carpet squares,
rugs, outdoor furniture, couches, rocking chairs, or easy chairs.
Lighting
Although fluorescent lights are used in most class-
rooms, they have negative effects on some students.
The fade time of florescent lighting is longer than 50
percent of the cycle time, is worse with old bulbs than
with new bulbs, and cycles 60 times a second. That re-
verse phasing stimulates analytics (who find it difficult to concentrate on de-
manding academics in low light) and over-stimulates global processors (who tend
to react with restlessness and hyperactivity). Reduced illumination results in
higher test scores for children who prefer soft lighting.
The positive and negative effects of natural versus artificial light on plants have
been reported. The identical exposure is beneficial for some plants and detrimen-
tal to others. People also respond differently to lighting. To find the optimum
lighting for students, teachers may try one or more of the following experiments
for six weeks.
Use only half of the lights in the classroom. Permit students to sit wher-
ever they feel most comfortable. Perhaps turn the lights off in one
corner and encourage poor readers to sit there. Ask colleagues to note
differences in behavior and attention spans and to watch for changes in
achievement.
Sound
The ability to concentrate on difficult cognitive tasks
in either quiet or noise-filled environments varies
among individuals. Strongly analytic processors re-
quire quiet, whereas strongly global processors often
think better in the presence of sound, including music,
modified background conversations, ocean waves crashing, or birds singing. For
students who strongly prefer background noise (as indicated by the LS:CY!
Learning Styles Profile), use only music without lyrics, because the mind auto-
matically repeats lyrics with which it is familiar instead of concentrating on tasks.
Experiment with different sound environments and get feedback from students.
In addition:
Encourage students who need quiet to sit away from traffic and activity
patterns.
Allow soft cotton or rubber ear plugs, earmuffs, or nonfunctioning
headphones during tests or in study environments.
Carpet the traffic areas for the 10 to 12 percent of students distracted by
sound.
Provide private classroom spaces for students distracted by noise.
Offer seats near the hub of activities or near the door for students who
require sound.
Permit music on headphones for students who prefer background
sound.
Temperature
In every group of people, some members feel warm
and others feel cool while everyone else is comfort-
able. Temperature preferences are unrelated to
either global or analytic processing, but need to be
accommodated for learning efficiency. Responding to
strong temperature preferences improves achievement. Students who seem de-
void of energy or are consistently withdrawn may be experiencing environmental
discomfort. The following measures may help some students:
Task Persistence
Some students have a strong emotional need to work
on a task until it is done. These youngsters often con-
centrate for uninterrupted periods and are most often
analytic processors. In contrast, global processors tend
to begin a task with a burst of energy, work for a short
period of time, and then take a break. They dislike working on only one thing at a
time and prefer to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously.
Classrooms need to accommodate both global and analytic processors. Help ar-
range classrooms to permit analytics a section without noise, people, or other
distractions, and offer global processors diversified activities, projects, and inter-
actions. Instructional environments need to include both settings to help all
students succeed academically. Some possibilities include:
Arranging desks and chairs in dens, alcoves, and private spaces so other
students do not disturb analytic processors.
Designing seating arrangements that accommodate the differences
among students' height, weight, and girth to alleviate distractions
caused by discomfort.
Allowing students to stand or sit casually while concentrating and com-
pleting assignments.
Designating an aisle or section of the room for kinesthetic students to
walk in quietly while they read, complete tasks, and think.
Structuring assignments to permit variety, mobility, breaks, and peer
interaction for students who need them. Allow these students to move
around the room as they study, to change activities, and to migrate pur-
posefully from one area to another.
Designating small-group work areas.
Designating areas where global students can engage in a variety of
short, instructional activities and other areas where analytics can work
without interruption. Adjust lights, seats, and acoustics in these areas to
allow for mobility and social interactions. It is possible to develop these
nontraditional spaces without much effort, time, or money.
Sociological Preferences
The social setting in which children learn best is unrelated to global or analytic
tendencies. Many children learn best with a mixture of patterns sometimes
alone, and sometimes with a partner, in a small group of peers, in a team, or with
either an authoritative or collegial teacher. An individual's sociological patterns
may vary with age and achievement. Some people learn consistently in one way,
others in varied patterns, and still others have no preference for a particular pat-
tern. However, more global students than analytic students are peer-oriented.
These students often learn best with either a single friend or in a small group, in
contrast to 13 percent of all students who learn best alone and 28 percent who
need a teacher. Let students choose the social setting that best suits them to com-
plete all or most assignments, with the exception of tests, or until they or you
determine that the setting is inappropriate.
global students. Start with basic rules and add others as they become important.
Emphasize that practicing their learning styles includes the use of certain privi-
leges, but that disregarding rules will result in losing those privileges (Dunn,
1996).
The ground rules should change with the privileges being introduced. For exam-
ple, introducing intake (water and raw vegetables) may require a rule that intake
is allowed in your classroom but not necessarily in other teachers' classrooms.
Every time new and difficult material is introduced, students should create new
cards for these manipulatives so that they value the resources, learn at least one
or two methods for teaching themselves, and have at least one strategy for be-
coming successful academically.
Task Cards
Multipart Task Cards are easy-to-make, self-corrective, tactual, and visual re-
sources that help many students who do not remember easily by listening or by
reading. Task Cards are effective in introducing new material and in reinforcing
previously learned material.
Task Cards present information about a specific topic, concept, or skill that has
been translated into questions and answers or sample answers (some true, some
false). A student can make Task Cards by, for example, (1) printing the name of
each state in the United States on the left side of an index card; (2) printing the
name of the state's capitol in the middle; and (3) gluing a picture of the state's
outline (or famous product) on the right side of the card. Then the card can be cut
into irregularly shaped thirds so that only the correct answers fit together.
Flip Chutes
Make Flip Chutes from half-gallon orange juice or milk con-
tainers. Design small question-and-answer cards to insert into
the upper face of the container. As each question card descends
on an inner slide, it flips over and emerges from a lower
opening, displaying the answer. Decorate the container with
paint, contact paper, and lettering that relate to the
topic.
Pic-A-Holes
Pic-A-Hole is a holder that includes a series
of cards, each with one question and
possible answers printed near the bottom.
The student inserts a golf tee into the hole
directly below the answer chosen. If the
question card lifts from the holder with the
tee in place, the answer is correct.
Electroboards
Electroboards consistently hold the attention of most students. Immediate visual
feedback is provided by a continuity tester bulb that lights up when an answer is
correct. Questions are on one side of
the Electroboard and the answers are
out of sequence on the other. Students
use a two-prong continuity tester to
choose a question on one side of the
front and the answer on the other. The
right answer illuminates the bulb.
Electroboards and all other tactual
resources are particularly inviting if the
shapes reflect the subject. For example,
make an Electroboard in the shape of a
whale.
Floor Games
Buy a large sheet of plastic or use old tablecloths,
shower curtains, carpet remnants, or sails which
may be glued, drawn, or decorated with a game
designed to let students jump, or move around
as they are exposed to the major or finer points
of the topic through questions or tasks. A popu-
lar commercial floor game, Twister, although rudimentary in this context, causes
players to stretch across a floor mat (and each other) to reach spots of colors as
dictated by the spins of a color wheel.
Small-Group Instruction
Another strategy you can implement is small-group instruction. About 28 percent
of students are peer-oriented, although many can learn with one or more class-
mates at least some of the time. Thus, as a transition from teacher-directed
instruction, experiment with Team Learning to introduce difficult new informa-
tion, Circle of Knowledge to reinforce it, and Brainstorming to develop
problem-solving skills. Unlike cooperative learning, which requires
teacher-directed learning followed by students learning together, these ap-
proaches allow peer-oriented students to teach themselves or each other without
your direct involvement (Dunn & Dunn, 1992;1993).
Team Learning
Use the Team Learning approach to permit students to learn the most difficult in-
formation in any unit or topic independently, in pairs, or in a small group. Give
each topic a name that describes the subject, for example: Team Learning: Who
Do You Think You Are? Digging for Family Roots. Then, list the names of each
student, if they work in a group, and identify the recorder. Provide printed mate-
rial to teach the students what they need to know to master the objective of the
lesson and then follow with three types of questions: factual, higher-level cogni-
tive, and creative.
A factual question might be to explain the meaning of genealogy and to use and
spell the word correctly in a sentence. A higher-level cognitive question doesn't
have a right or wrong answer, but it requires students to hypothesize and analyze.
You may ask students to list five advantages and disadvantages of tracing a fam-
ily's genealogy. Follow those questions with one that requires the creative
application of the information that is being learned. For example, ask students to
write a humorous poem that describes what might happen when people trace
their family tree. After answering these questions, you should have the students
share their answers with the rest of the class (Dunn & Dunn, 1992, 1993).
Circle of Knowledge
Many teachers use Circle of Knowledge to reinforce
new and difficult material directly related to the
objectives in the Team Learning, introduced a day or
two before. As in Team Learning, name the topic
and the students participating and identify the
recorder. Students may choose to work alone, in
pairs, or in groups of three or four. Students who
work together should work in a small circle. Pose a single question or objective
and have the members of each group work together, developing possible answers.
The method for answering is a clockwise rotation of answers, until time is called
or until the members have exhausted their ideas. When time is up, the groups
share their answers and you write them on the chalkboard. The class analyzes the
answers; scores result from a mixture of unique and correct answers and chal-
lenges of incorrect answers class (Dunn & Dunn, 1992, 1993).
students who are motivated, have auditory or visual preferences, or who are non-
conforming. Contract Activity Packages include:
A typical Programmed Learning Sequence frame presents only one idea or fact at
a time, requires students to be active learners, and provides immediate feedback.
Students may not continue to the next frame until they have mastered each pre-
vious phase (each phase is sequentially more difficult). After six or seven frames,
material is reinforced through tactual resources, and each PLS also has a tape for
auditory learners.
Each PLS covers one topic, concept, or skill, and is named appropriately with a
humorous subtitle (Math: Divide and Conquer!). Important components include
specific directions, a global beginning, a story woven through the PLS,
step-by-step sequencing and answers, and periodic tactual reinforcements (Dunn
& Dunn, 1992;1993).
Chapter
Four
TEST RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY DATA
To support the types of inferences that may be drawn from this test, it also was
necessary to establish the instruments validity. It was hypothesized that global
students would respond to a global-format learning-style assessment more accu-
rately than they did to an analytic-format learning-style assessment. In addition,
substantial interest had been manifested concerning the relationships among
field dependence/ independence, global/analytic characteristics and other ele-
ments of learning style (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, 1992).
Methodology
Subjects for this study included 534 sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-graders from 21
schools. The schools included private, parochial, and public institutions located
in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the major geographic regions of the United
States. The sample was comprised of 270 females and 264 males from various
ethnic populations, including, but not limited to, Hispanic, African American,
Caucasian, Asian, and Caribbean middle-school students.
Three instruments were utilized: (a) the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn,
Dunn, & Price, 1996); (b) the Childrens Embedded Figures Test (CEFT) (Karp &
Konstadt, 1963); and (c) the global-format learning style assessment Learning
Style: The Clue to YOU! (LS:CY!) (Burke & Dunn, 1998).
In accord with the established criteria (The Standards for Educational and Psy-
chological Tests and Measures, 1985), a new instrument, Learning Style: The
Clue to You, was designed. Its contents were based on the 20 variables described
in the Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model (1993). Thus, LS:CY! reflects the
Dunn and Dunn Learning-Style Model and, in addition, includes its psychological
elements that the LSI Manual references, but does not directly assess other than
through a combination of scores among five correlated LS characteristics (Burke,
1998; Dunn, Bruno, Sklar, & Beaudry, 1990; Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zen-
hausern, 1982, Sagan, 2002).
A Consistency Score on the LSI indicates the accuracy with which each re-
spondent answers the 104 questions by calculating the number of response
agreements among similar items (Price & Dunn, 1997).
p=.001
Further conclusions were drawn concerning students with a strong visual prefer-
ence and their field dependence/ independence. A subsequent correlational
analysis was conducted. A significant relationship (p<.000) was revealed be-
tween the two. The attribute of field dependence/independence appears to be
directly related to an individuals learning-style visual preference.
Attitudinal Analysis
Students were asked to respond to a questionnaire regarding their comparative
attitudes toward the LSI and the LS:CY! at the completion of the administration
of both inventories. More than 88% of the total population of sixth-, seventh-,
and eighth-grade students indicated that they more strongly preferred the
LS:CY! instrument as compared with the LSI; less than 12% of the students pre-
ferred the LSI assessment as opposed to the LS:CY!. Students who preferred the
LSI revealed a negative correlation with global processing. This indicated that the
students who preferred the LSI were analytically preferenced.
p<.001
This attitude survey lends further credence to the research concerning the prefer-
ences of global/analytic learners. Global learners prefer processing in pictures,
symbols, icons, and themes. If educators are to justify their professional decisions
concerning instructional strategies for both teaching and assessing learners, it is
necessary that they engage in an extreme paradigm shift.
Conclusions
Based on the data that emerged from this research, it was concluded that global
students responded more accurately and consistently to a global-format learning-
style identification instrument than they did to an analytic-format instrument.
Specifically, the LS:CY! evidenced strong reliability and validity across gender,
geographic description, grade, regional location, and school affiliation. In addi-
tion, strong correlations were evidenced among field dependence/ independence,
global/analytic, and visual preferences. Furthermore, students attitudes toward
the LS:CY! the global-format instrument were significantly more positive
than they were toward the LSI the analytic-format instrument. Understanda-
bly, students in the sample population who preferred the LSI significantly more
than the LS:CY!, were strongly analytic.
On the second day of this investigation, the Experimental Group was introduced
to learning styles via an animated computerized slide show followed by a group
discussion. A copy of the slide show was sent home to permit parents to become
acquainted with the presentation. The Control Group also viewed an animated
computerized slide showone on traditional study strategies. The Control
Groups parents also received that presentation. Shortly thereafter, the LS:CY!
(Burke & Dunn, 1998) was administered to the Experimental Group to identify
those students individual learning-style preferences.
The Control Group received a booklet of traditional tips for studying and com-
pleting homework assignments. The Homework Tips booklet was disseminated
among and discussed with the Control Group students in a nearby conference
room while the Experimental Group was being administered the LS:CY! in the
computer lab. The parents of the students in the Control Group also were given a
copy of the Homework Tips booklet.
Related Homework Prescriptions were computer generated for each of the stu-
dents in the Experimental Group based on the results of their LS:CY! individual
data. Students were directed to use the suggestions for studying and doing home-
work during the next two-week period. Their parents were given a copy of their
own childs computer-generated Homework Prescription.
All students were required to report how they actually studied based on the sug-
gestions outlined in either the Homework Tips booklet distributed to the Control
Group or the learning-style based Homework Prescriptions for the Experimental
Group. Each participant was given a study log and pen to record the information
each night and was directed to turn in that log with the required assignment each
day during the two-week period.
The LSI consists of 21 elements whereas the LS:CY! consists of 23 and the two
instruments questions are worded differently. The last two elements of the LSI
and the last three elements of the LS:CY! differ, too. Whereas the LSI questions
students in a single-focused, True or False questioning format, the LS:CY! bases
it questions on five mystery stories to capture students imagination. The LS:CY!
also includes illustrations related to each question to assist global students in un-
derstanding the meanings of both the stories and the questions.
The 20 similar elements of the LSI and LS:CY! were compared using a paired
sample t-test. The elements of light, seating design, persistence, auditory, visual,
tactual, intake, time-of-day, late morning, and needing mobility were essentially
similar at the p <.05 level. The remaining elements may have differed somewhat,
but not to a significant degree.
T-test results supported Hypothesis 1 that there were significant age differences
between the learning-style preferences of 11- and 12-year-old Taiwanese students.
They also revealed that Taiwanese students differed significantly in their learn-
ing-style preferences for 12 Dunn and Dunn Model elements sound, tempera-
ture, design, motivation, persistent, responsible/confirming, peers/alone, author-
ity, auditory, intake, morning/evening, and mobility.
The results of the second t-test supported Hypothesis 2. Diverse and significant
gender variables were revealed through t-tests for five of 23 learning-style vari-
ables: (a) female students preferred a more formal environmental design than
male students; (b) male students evidenced a greater preference for their kines-
thetic modality than female students did; (c) male students preferred intake more
than female students; (d) female students tended to be more analytic or sequen-
tial than male students; and (e) female students were more reflective than male
students.
The results of two multiple regressions and two correlation analyses revealed a
significant relationship between a model composed of all predictor variables
(learning-style environmental stimulus, emotional stimulus, sociological stimu-
lus, physiological stimulus, and psychological stimulus, age, gender, and SES)
and Taiwanese students achievement scores in mathematics and reading. Results
also indicated significant relationships between students achievement-test scores
and their learning-style emotional stimulus, between students achievement-test
scores and their learning-style physiological stimulus, between students achieve-
ment-test scores and gender, and between students achievement-test scores and
SES.
Data currently are being collected and coded to identify the styles of each sibling
and parent within the same family. These data then will be analyzed to determine
the extent to which each of the family members styles are similar to or different
from each other by age, gender, and birth order.
of Applied Education Research Journal, 13(1), 76-96. Monroe, LA: Louisiana Uni-
versity.
Burke, K., & Samide, B. (2004). Required changes in the classroom environment: Its a
matter of design. The Clearing House, 73(3).
Chen, H. (2005) Taiwanese adolescent students achievement in mathematics and read-
ing by age, gender, learning style and socio-economic status. Doctoral dissertation,
St. Johns University). Dissertation Abstract International.
Cronbach, L. (1952). How can instruction be adapted to individual differences? In
Gagne, R. (Ed.), Learning and individual differences. Columbus: Merrill.
Cronbach, L. (1989). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper Collins.
Davis, J. K. & Klausmeier, H. J.(1970). Cognitive style and concept identification as a
function of complexity and training procedures. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 61, 423-430.
Dunn, R. (1983). Can students identify their learning styles. Educational Leadership,
42, 60-62.
Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learning style program. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dunn, R. (1999, April). How do we teach them if we dont know how they learn? Teach-
ing Pre-K-8, 29(7), 50-55.
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educa-
tional Leadership, 46 (6), 50-58.
Dunn, R., Bruno, J., Sklar, R.I., & Beaudry, J. (1990, May/June). Effects of matching and
mismatching minority developmental college students hemispheric preferences
on mathematics scores. Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 283-288.
Dunn, R., Burke, K. & Whitley, J. (2000). What do know about learning style? A guide
for parents of talented children. Parenting for High Potential, June, 8-13.
Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference:
The newest element of learning style. The American Biology Teacher, 44(5),291-
294.
Dunn, R., & DeBello, T. C. (Eds.). (1999). Improved test scores, attitudes, and behaviors in
Americas schools: Supervisors success stories. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Dunn, R., Deckinger, E.L., Withers, P., & Katzenstein, H. (1990, Winter). Should college
students be taught how to do homework? The effects of studying marketing
through individual perceptual strengths. Illinois School Research and Develop-
ment Journal. Normal, IL: Illinois Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 26(3), 96-113.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1979). Using learning styles data to develop student prescriptions.
In J.W. Keefe, (Ed.) Student learning styles diagnosing and prescribing programs
(Chapter 12, pp. 109-122). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching elementary students through their individual
learning styles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual
learning styles: Practical approach for grades 7-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Perrin, J. (1994). Teaching young children through their individ-
ual learning styles (K-2). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1975, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1996).
Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning style: Teaching and
counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. A. (Eds.). (2003, 2004). Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learn-
ing-style model research: Who, what, when, where, and so what? ). New York: St.
Johns Universitys Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles.
Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Gorman, B., & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta analytic vali-
dation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational
Research, 88(6), 353-361.
Dunn, R., & Price, G. E. (1997). Manual: Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, Kansas:
Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Thies, A., Honigsfeld, A. (2001). Synthesis of Dunn and Dunn learning-style
model research: Analysis from a neuropsychological perspective. Jamaica, NY: St.
Johns Universitys Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles 11439.
Guastello, E. F., & Burke, K. (1998/1999). Relationship(s) between the consistency
scores of an analytic vs. a global learning-style assessment for elementary- and
middle-school urban students. The National Forum of Teacher Education Journal.
Monroe, LA: Louisiana University, 9(1), 64-69.
Hoyt, C.F. (1941). Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 6,
153-160.
Hunt, D. E. (1979). Learning style and student needs: An introduction to conceptual
level. In J. Keefe (Ed.), Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Pro-
grams (pp. 27-38). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Jarsonbeck, S. (1984). The effects of a right-brain and mathematics curriculum on low
achieving, fourth grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Flor-
ida, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2791A.
Karp, S. & Konstadt, N. (1963). Childrens Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Con-
sulting Psychologists Press.
Kleinsasser, A. (1995). Assessment culture and national testing. The Clearing House, 68
(4), 205-210.
Lefkowitz, R. F. (1998). Teaching health information management students through
their individual learning styles. In R. Dunn & S. A. Griggs (Eds.), Learning styles
and the nursing profession (pp. 53-63). New York: National League for Nursing.
Levy, J. (1979). Human cognition and lateralization of cerebral function. Trends in Neu-
rosciences, 220-224.
Levy, J. (1983). Research synthesis on right and left hemispheres: We think with both
sides of the brain. Educational Leadership, 40, (4), 66-71.
Lovelace, M. K. (2005). A meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn
and Dunn learning-style model, 1980-2000. Journal of Educational Research,
98(3), 176-183.
Marcus, L. (1977). How teachers view student learning styles. NASSP Bulletin, 61(408),
112 -114.
Miller, J. A., & Dunn, R. (1997). The use of learning styles in sonography education.
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 13, 304-308. Winner: 1998 Kenneth
R. Gottesfeld Award for one of three best papers published in the Journal of Diag-
nostic Medical Sonography during 1997.
Ming, C. & Ansalone, G. (in press for fall, 2005). Programming students for academic
success: The PLS alternative to traditional tracking. Educational Research Quar-
terly.
Ming, C. (2004). Effects of programmed learning sequenced versus traditional instruc-
tion on the achievement and attitudes of Bermudian seventh graders in social
studies and the comparison of two learning-style identification instruments inter-
pretations. Doctoral dissertation, St. Johns University). Dissertation Abstract
International.
Minotti, J. L. (2005, May). Effects of learning-style homework prescriptions on the
achievement and attitudes of middle-school students. NASSP Bulletin, 89(642).
67-89.
Research on the Dunn and Dunn Model. (2005). Jamaica, NY: St. Johns Universitys
Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles 11439.
Restak, R. (1979). The brain: The last frontier. New York: Doubleday.
Sagan, L. (2002). Middle-school students recommendations of environmental and in-
structional change based on their analyses of individual learning-style inventories.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 45(12), 3537A.
Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1985). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and
Authors Notes
Rita Dunn is professor, Division of Administrative and Instructional Leadership, and di-
rector, Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles, St. Johns University,
New York. (RDunn241@msn.com)