Research

Find the research behind our products below.

Personality Type

An independent statistical analysis on the Personality Types assessment was conducted.

View a PDF of the report’s findings

Learning Styles

Empirical research illustrates the positive effects that occur when students are taught in way that match how they each learn. Educators and counsellors have widely confirmed this published research based on first-hand classroom and school-wide experiences. The links below are a sampling of studies related to the identification of students’ learning style characteristics with Learning Styles.

A doctoral investigation conducted by Spires (1983) revealed that implementation of a learning styles program resulted in significant gains in reading and mathematics achievement on standardized achievement tests.

Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978) was administered to students in grades 3 through 6, and the Learning Style Inventory Primary Version (Perrin, 1982) to grades K through 2. Analyses of the data indicated that teaching students through their individual learning styles resulted in significantly higher reading and mathematics achievement, particularly on those subtests requiring higher level cognitive abilities, such as reading concepts.

A study was conducted to (a) identify how the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Style Model had been implemented in seven diverse regions of the United States and (b) develop guidelines for providing instruction for students with learning styles not currently accommodated in conventional classrooms (Klavas, Dunn, Griggs, Geisert, Gemake, & Zenhausern, 1994). Many practitioners had reported that such students often were classified as poor achievers, learning disabled, discipline problems, or dropouts; but that academic reversals had occurred when instruction was redesigned to respond to their particular learning-style preferences as revealed by Dunn, Dunn, & Price’s (1989) LSI (Andrews, 1990; Brunner & Majewski, 1990; Elliot, 1991, Klavas, 1993 , Perrin, 1990; Stone, 1992).

Braio (1995) analysed the effects of gradually implementing learning-style strategies on reading achievement and attitude toward instruction with 81 special education and 35 low-achieving general education-urban students in grades four, five, and six.

Pre-and post-tests concerned with structural analysis instructional units were administered in each of five phases, of two weeks each, to determine reading achievement gains. Significant gains in reading achievement for both groups were revealed when students were taught using gradually-increasing, learning style approaches that included responsiveness to students’ varied Sound, Light, Temperature, Seating, Mobility, and Perceptual preferences. Removal of learning-style approaches evidenced decreased achievement. Statistical significance for attitude was achieved by the general education students, but not those in special education, perhaps because these students’ classroom environment often reflects a relaxed traditional ambiance.

Marino, 1993 argues that students will accept and even learn from homework provided that its design takes into consideration students’ learning styles and study skills. He describes an effort at an all-boys high school in Brooklyn, New York, to tailor class instruction and homework to results obtained from a Learning Styles Inventory.

Klavas, 1994 describes how a North Carolina elementary school altered teaching methods to suit varied learning styles of the students based on the results of a Learning Styles Inventory. She discusses changes made based on students’ perceptual preferences, time of day preferences, environmental preferences, and sociological preferences. Discipline problems dropped dramatically and test scores rose precipitously.

This investigation (Braio, 1995) analysed the effects of incremental implementation of learning-style strategies on reading achievement and attitude toward instruction via structural analysis with special education and low-achieving general educati on students in grades four, five and six. To identify individual preferences, the Learning-Styles Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1990) was administered to students who attended an urban intermediate school. Two categories were targeted: 81 special ed ucation students and 35 low-achieving general education students. Both categories were divided into two sub-groups: group one was incrementally matched according to learning-style preferences for sound, light, temperature, design, mobility, tactual, kines thetic, auditory and visual elements; group two consisted of unmatched and/or no preferences. Instructional units were divided into five phases of two weeks each. Structural analysis units and varied learning-style preferences gradually were introduced during these instructional phases:

  • (Phase 1) compound words using traditional teaching methods;
  • (Phase 2) plurals accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements;
  • (Phase 3) prefixes accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements and/or tactual and kinesthetic modalities;
  • (Phase 4) suffixes accommodating for sound, light, temperature, design and/or mobility elements and/or tactual, kinesthetic, auditory and/or visual modalities; and
  • (Phase 5) contractions using traditional teaching methods.

Pre and post-tests were administered in each of the five phases to determine reading achievement gains. Significant gains in reading achievement for both special education and general education students were foun d when students were taught using incremental learning styles strategies. To determine attitudinal changes toward reading, the Semantic Differential Scale (Pizzo, 1981) was administered four times throughout this study: before phase 1 (a baseline measure); after phase 1 (traditional teaching); before phase 5 (learning-styles intervention); and after phase 5 (with the return to traditional teaching and the removal of learning styles). Statistical significance for attitude was not achieved for the special e ducation students. However, the general education students’ attitudes toward reading became increasingly favourable after learning-style instruction and a decrement occurred after learning-style methods were removed. These data confirmed the importance of matching learning-styles preferences with complementary instructional strategies and environments.

Experimental studies (Dunn, Griggs, Olson, & Beasly, (1995) based on the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Style Model and conducted between 1980-1990 were identified to determine the value of teaching students through their learning-style preferen ces. Thirty six studies provided a database of 3,181 participants. Results were synthesized through meta-analysis and the standard normal curve suggests that students whose learning styles are accommodated would be expected to achieve 75% of a standard deviation higher than students who have not had their learning styles accommodated. This finding indicates that matching students’ learning-style preferences with educational interventions compatible with those preferences is beneficial to their academic achievement.

Through the use of greater tactual, kinesthetic, and global methodology during reading instruction, the fifteen students enrolled in the program experienced an average increase of 73.33 per cent in self-concept, according to the Primary Self-Concept Inventory. These same students experienced an average gain of 7.25 months in reading achievement, as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, during five months of instruction (Settle, 1989).

After a brief review of the literature on sound, a study by J. Pizzo (1981) is described involving learning style preferences of 64 6th graders. Results of exposure to either noise or sound revealed that students who preferred quiet performed best in a quiet acoustic environment (AE). Students who preferred sound performed best in a noisy AE. Students in an environment that complemented their learning style preference also had statistically higher attitudinal scores than their mismatched peers, and a mismatched environment affected students’ reading achievement and attitudes toward intellectual ability and other strengths.

An examination of the ways in which learning style characteristics appeared to change as students advanced from grade to grade was conducted by Price (1980). It was revealed that selected environmental, emotional, sociological, and physical traits appe ared to be stable over time, whereas others tended to parallel the growth curve. A total of 3,972 subjects in grades 3 through 12 completed the LSI during the 1979-1980 school year. Some of the statistically significant findings revealed were:

  • The higher the grade level, the more Sound and Light were preferred.
  • The higher the grade level, the less preference was indicated for Formal Design (wooden, plastic, or steel chairs when studying).
  • Self Motivation decreased during grades 7 and 8, but then a gradual increase was evidenced in each of the grades thereafter.
  • The higher the grade level, the less Teacher-Motivated students became.
  • The higher the grade level, the less Motivated in general, students were. The biggest shift was between grades 7 and 8, with grade 11 having the highest peak for being Unmotivated.
  • An overall decrease in the need for Structure was evidenced the higher the grade.
  • Although the junior high school years are considered strong periods for Peer influence, there was a greater need to learn/study alone in grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 than during any other interval.
  • The highest need to learn with Peers occurred in grades 6 through 8; the lowest need was in grade 12, followed by grade 9, with a slight increase in grades 10 and 11.
  • The younger the student, the more tactual and kinesthetic he/she was. Those modalities were followed by the development of visual strengths and, beginning with grades 5 and 6, the development of auditory strengths.

Price (1980) revealed how learning style changed as students moved from elementary school into adolescence and young adulthood. Others found that learning styles are also different by achievement level, gender, and age (Dunn & Griggs, 1995). Thus general changes in style can be anticipated as students develop.

A survey (Campbell, 1990) of teachers in an elementary school building and a literature review indicated that the causes of the lack of individualizing student learning were related to class size, poor leadership, teacher training, and poorly developed learning style instruments. A practicum was designed for classroom teachers to recognize differential learning styles and incorporate them into their repertoire of teaching. This practicum involved 31 grade six students and included five behavioural objectives:

  1. improved study habits, attitudes, and behaviour;
  2. employment of four distinct teaching methods;
  3. administration of the Dunn, Dunn, and Price Learning Style Inventory self-reporting instrument to 27 elementary teachers;
  4. in-service on learning styles for all elementary teachers; and
  5. parental review of child’s learning style inventory results.

Outcomes of the practicum showed improved work habits in 27 students, improved classroom attitudes in 26 students, and improved classroom behaviour in 10 students. The students and their classroom teacher found the four group teaching methods that were introduced and demonstrated to them to be an excellent experience.

Go into any classroom, at any level, in any school, and select a textbook in any subject. Chances are excellent that the textbook is not presented compatibly with how more than half the students in that classroom learn best. How is that possible?

A large majority of educators are analytic processors whereas many students at any level are global processors. Neither method is better than the other and both types can learn the same information; they just do it differently. Analytics respond best w hen ideas are presented sequentially with new information building upon past knowledge leading up to eventual understanding of entire concepts. Globals, on the other hand, need to “see the whole picture” first. They respond best when a teacher begins with a short story that explains why learning this information is important. Globals must be able to relate new information to what they already know. For a greater understanding of the differences between global and analytic processors, we turn to the research.

Kaley (1977) investigated field dependence versus field independence and how it affected sixth-grade readers. She found that of the good readers, half were analytic and half were global. Of the poor readers, 85% were global. She concluded that good rea ders were field independent (analytic) because they could see each letter, sound it out individually, and piece it together with others to form words.

Two years later, Trautman (1979) explored the relationship between selected instructional techniques and cognitive style. He used Contract Activity Packets (CAP’ s) with junior high school social studies classes. Half the objectives were written analyt ically and half were written globally. Each student completed all the objectives. Trautman’s findings indicated that the groups matched with their processing styles achieved statistically higher gains on those objectives than on the objectives written in the unmatched style.

Further support for matching instructional techniques to cognitive style was provided by Tanenbaum (1982) who studied high school students enrolled in nutrition classes. Trautman’s, Douglas’, and Tanenbaum’s students all produced significant gains when instructional techniques matched their cognitive styles.

At about the same time, Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, and Zenhausern (1982) found that right/left brain dominance was linked with certain learning-style elements. Using a scale for brain dominance developed by Zenhausern, the researchers identified high sch ool students as being either right-brain dominant or left-brain dominant. Their findings revealed that students who were strongly left-brain dominant needed quiet, bright light, formal design, were persistent, and required no intake while studying. Conver sely, right-dominant students needed sound, preferred low lighting and informal seating, were not persistent, and often required intake while learning. The findings of Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, and Zenhausern constituted a significant breakthrough in our understanding of the importance of cognitive processing. For the first time, specific conditions under which analytics and globals learn were identified.

One of the first correlational studies that revealed a relationship between IQ and cognitive processing was conducted by Cody (1983). She examined the learning styles of highly gifted, average, and underachieving students. Among her findings were that: (a) of the students with an IQ of 145 or higher, 9 of 10 were global: (b) of the students with an IQ of 135 or higher, 8 of 10 were global: (c) of the students with an IQ of 125 or higher, 8 of 10 were analytic: and (d) analytics performed better than gl obals in school. Furthermore, Cody noted that the learning styles of gifted, average, and underachievers were very different from each other.

The most crucial point that teachers need to know is how to teach both analytically and globally. Analytics learn best when information is presented in a step-by-step sequence, whereas globals need to understand the whole concept first; they then f ocus on the details. To engage a global learner, a teacher should introduce a new lesson with a humorous story and use diagrams, illustrations, and pictures to represent key ideas. It is important to note that many globals prefer to work with peers rather than alone or with a teacher, and they often like to structure their own tasks. Globals appear to concentrate best with Sound, Soft or Low Lighting, an Informal seating arrangement, and some form of Intake. Also, they take frequent breaks while studying and often work on several tasks simultaneously. Analytics, on the other hand, prefer to work on one assignment at a time before proceeding to the next. They prefer a quiet, well illuminated environment and formal seating. Most analytics do not require intake to concentrate (Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982).

Many highly gifted students and most underachievers are global. The difference between the two groups is that underachievers tend to become unmotivated and are essentially Tactile/Kinesthetic learners. Globals appear to concentrate best with Sound, Sof t or Low Light. It would be wise to vary tasks to increase students’ motivation and persistence and to encourage active, hands-on participation while learning.

It is interesting to note that the majority of elementary school-age children are global. However, as children develop and progress through the grades, many become increasingly analytic (Dunn, Dunn, 1992, 1993; Dunn, Dunn, & Perrin, 1994).

Griggs, Price, Kopal, and Swaine (1984) tested 165 sixth-grade, suburban students for their styles with the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1978). The 19 who revealed either Low Motivation and a High Need for Structure or High Motivation and a Low Need for Structure were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

  1. High Structure & Counselling: Compatible: Low Motivation, High Structure (three students); Incompatible: High Motivation, Low Structure (two students);
  2. Low Structured Counselling: Compatible: High Motivation, Low Structure (four students); Incompatible: Low Motivation, High Structure (three students);
  3. Control Group: (seven students).

All groups met for eight sessions conducted weekly during a two-month period. The treatment objectives, to explore the world of work, were identical, but their strategies differed.

A one-way analysis of covariance was used to analyse the data. The independent variable had three levels: Compatible, Incompatible, and Control; the covariate was pre-test scores, and the dependant variable was post-test score on the Occupational List Recall Test (OLRT). The comparison of groups for the adjusted OLRT post-test score was significant (p < .01; f=6.51). Students in the Compatible group had an adjusted mean of 50.68; the Incompatible’s was 45.56; and the Control’s 38.26.

Students whose learning style preferences for Motivation and Structure were accommodated in the counselling groups achieved significantly higher Career Awareness scores than those whose styles were not matched.

Dunn, et al. 1993 compared the learning style characteristics of 687 Mexican-American and 70,000 Anglo-American elementary school children (grades 4-6). Data suggest that it is crucial that counsellors and educators identify their students’ learning styles and experiment with counselling and learning strategies that respond to individuals’ strengths.

A comparison (Dunn, et al. 1990) of 300 African-American, Chinese-American, Greek-American, and Mexican-American 4th-6th graders’ mean scores on the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) indicated that all 4 groups were field dependant. They also completed the Learning Style Inventory. Analysis revealed significant correlations between the elements of Responsibility/Conformity, Learning Alone vs Learning with Peers, Learning in the Evening vs Learning in the Morning, Parent-Figure Motivated, Self-Motivated, and Learning in Several Ways rather than through routines and patterns. Data suggest that children from different areas of the American subculture have different patterns of preferred learning strategies; alternative classroom environments, methods, and resources could contribute to an effective education for such students.

The purpose of the study by Jackson-Allen, 1994 was to identify and compare the learning style preferences of low-achieving and high-achieving young African-American males. Measures of perceptual preferences for 22 learning modalities were obtained from a sample of 50 ninth- and tenth-grade students. Half of the students were randomly selected from a pool identified as low-achievers, and the other half from a pool identified as high-achievers. The pools were identified based on grade averages in core academic courses. The Dunn, Dunn, and Price Learning Style Inventory was administered to each of the two groups. Independent t-test comparisons of mean raw scores on each of the learning modalities yielded only three significant differences between low and high achievers. High-achievers had stronger preferences for motivation and were more parent motivated than low-achievers. Low-achievers, however, had stronger preferences for learning experiences that involve opportunities for mobility. From the results of this study, one might conclude that young African-American males who are identified as either low or high-achievers are more alike than they are different in their preferences for various learning modalities.

Dunn, et al. 1993 examined learning style characteristics of Mexican-American students (n=687) in grades 4 through 6 and compared results to those from 70,000 Anglo-American children. Compared to Anglo Americans, Mexican-American students preferred formal seating designs and were significantly more peer oriented. Sex differences also were found.

Ewing, 1993 compared learning style preferences among gifted African-American (n=54), Mexican-American (n=61), and American-born Chinese (n=40) middle grade students attending Chicago, Illinois, public schools. Significant ethnic, gender, and grade differences were found. All three groups preferred studying in the afternoon and bright light and did not prefer noise, structure, and authority figures.

Tseng, 1993 investigated the differences in learning styles among Chinese American, Anglo American and Hispanic American students in elementary third and fourth grades. Ninety students were randomly selected to complete the Learning Style Inventory by Dunn, Dunn and Price. There are some differences among the three ethnic groups. Discussion emphasized how the cultures influence the learning styles and how teachers and parents can apply the results of this research.

The primary focus of this study (Sanders, 1993) was to determine if student learning styles, as measured by the Learning Style Inventory, would influence achievement in mathematics and reading of students using an Integrated Learning System (ILS). The secondary purpose was to investigate the effects of an ILS upon achievement and the interaction of learning styles and demographic attributes which include gender, economic status, and ethnicity. Subjects for this study were grade five students from a Central Texas school district. Descriptive statistics and statistical analyses expressing means, standard deviations, adjusted means, and statistical significance (P <.05) were used to compare achievement. Statistical data are resultants of the 1991-92 norm-referenced assessment test for Texas. The following results were gleaned from this study:

  1. In examining the sixty-two comparisons of adjusted means from the mathematics and reading parts of this study, the control and experimental groups had near equal results:
  2. The sixty-two comparisons for statistical significance in this study indicated that only two groups from the reading part of the study, the control groups for auditory learners, who did not qualify for the federal government’s free or reduced lunch program and European American, auditory learners, achieved statistical significance:
  3. In six of the seven comparison groups which performed the best with an ILS as a supplement to traditional instruction, haptic learners were involved. All four of the comparison groups which performed the best with an ILS as a supplement to traditional mathematics instruction were haptic groups. Two of the three comparison groups which performed the best with an ILS as a supplement to traditional reading instruction were Hispanic groups:
  4. In three of the five comparison groups which performed the best with traditional mathematical instruction, visual learners were involved. In the other two comparisons which performed the best with traditional mathematical instruction, Hispanic learners were involved. In four of the comparison groups which performed the best with traditional reading instruction, auditory learners were involved.

Lo (1994) investigated the learning style differences among gifted, regular classroom, and resource room/remedial program students in grades 3 to 6 in Taiwan, and their relations to gender and grade. A total of 660 students from six elementary schools in Taipei were administered the Chinese Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989). Four hundred students (120 gifted, 160 regular classroom, and 120 remedial program Students), with equal number of female and male students in each grade, were selected from a total of 592 students who had valid LSI data and met the IQ criteria. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis were used in this study. The number and frequency of students’ learning style preference on the 22 elements of the LSI were used to determine if Chinese students have learning style preference(s). Then a three-way analysis of variance (Group x Gender x Grade), Tukey’s post hoc comparisons, and a stepwise discriminant analysis were used to examine group, gender, and grade differences on learning styles.

The findings indicated significant main effects of group difference on 11 LSI elements, significant main effects of gender difference on 5 LSI elements, and significant main effects of grade difference on 14 LSI elements. In addition, interactions were also found on 8 LSI elements. The discriminant analysis revealed that 9 LSI elements significantly discriminated among the three groups, and overall, 61.25% of the subjects were classified in their groups with accuracy. In general, there are more learning style differences between remedial program students and gifted or regular classroom students than between gifted and regular classroom students; female students are more self-motivated, more persistent, and more responsible than male students; and the student’s learning experiences may be more influential than genetics in determining the development of learning styles.

Hong et al. (1995) examined whether changes in children’s learning styles can occur from cultural, social, and environmental changes within an ethnic group using Learning Style Inventory scores from a sample of 49 Korean-American 10-14 yr olds (20 boys and 29 girls) and 146 Korean 11-13 yr olds (78 boys and 68 girls). Similarities as well as differences in learning styles were found between the 2 nationalities and between boys and girls in both groups. Those learning styles on which differences were significant might have been influenced by the social and environmental differences found between Korea and the United States. The pattern of preferred learning styles for Korean-American subjects tended to be similar to that reported for students in the U.S., indicating that the Korean-American subjects had become acculturated and their learning styles became close to the learning style pattern of students in the U.S.

Hickson (1994) explored learning style differences in ethnic populations and ways to accommodate these differences to enhance student success. Thirty-six Asian, 47 Hispanic, 78 African-American, and 58 European American 4th-6th graders completed the Learning Styles Inventory. Results showed that 12 variables on that instrument reliably discriminated among the 4 ethnic groups. These variables were Design, Requires Intake, Late Morning, Noise Level, Kinesthetic, Responsible, Parent Figure Motivated, Authority Figures Present, Temperature, Afternoon, Auditory, and Visual. Recommendations were made for adapting the environment to accommodate students according to their preferred learning styles.

Ewing et al. (1992) examined whether significant group, gender, and grade differences existed in the preferred learning styles of gifted minority 6th-8th graders. Fifty four African-American (20 males, 34 females), 61 Mexican-American (26 males, 35 females), and 40 Chinese-American (25 males, 15 females) students completed the Learning Style Inventory. Significant gender differences were found in preferences for tactile, and intake modality. All 3 ethnic groups were responsible and motivated. African-American subjects preferred a visual modality and studying in the afternoon. Mexican-Americans preferred a kinesthetic modality. Chinese-Americans reported the strongest preference for the visual modality of the 3 groups.

The purpose of the study, Jacobs (1987) was to determine whether a difference existed in the learning style of Afro-American high, average, and low achievers and to compare the learning styles of Afro-American and Euro-American high, average, and low achievers.

The sample included 300 students from three middle schools in the south. The local school district uses the Achievement Series of the Comprehensive Assessment Program Test to sort students according to achievement levels. The Learning Style Inventory was administered to ascertain individual learning style characteristics. Chi-square was utilized to analyse the data. Analysis of the data revealed that there are differences in learning styles according to achievement level, sex, and race:

  1. African-American high achievers had strong preferences for teacher motivation; African-American average achievers had strong preferences for auditory learning; African-American low achievers had a strong preference for persistence:
  2. More African-American male high achievers preferred less structure than did female average and low achievers; more African-American male low achievers preferred authority figures present while learning than did female achievers:
  3. More European-American high achievers preferred auditory learning, while European-American average achievers were teacher motivated and European-American low achievers were less persistent:
  4. More European-American male high and average achievers preferred sound; European-American male low achievers were less persistent than European-American female achievers. European-American female high achievers were more teacher motivated than their male counterparts:
  5. More European-Americans displayed a strong preference for bright lights while learning comp ared to African-Americans. African-Americans were more teacher motivated and European-Americans were less teacher motivated:
  6. More European-American high achievers had a strong preference for auditory learning, while African-American high achievers expressed a strong preference for teacher motivation. African-American average achievers exhibited a strong preference for structure, while European-American average achievers expressed less preference for structure. African-American low achievers were more persistent than European-American low achievers.
  7. This study verifies that students prefer to learn in ways that are personally unique to each individual student.

Williams (1989) investigated learning style preferences of urban African-American middle school students. The preferred learning style of urban African-American middle school learning disabled (LD) and non-learning disabled (LD) students was studie d. Also, the learning styles of urban African-American middle school LD and non-LD male and female students were described. Methods and procedures. The sample used in the study was composed of 86 urban African-American middle school students. The subjects consisted of 43 learning disabled (LD) and 43 non-learning disabled (LD) students, from grades six, seven, and eight. The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was the instrument used to measure learning style. The LSI was administered to subjects using the auditory tape method and LSI answer sheets. The answer sheets were collected from subjects and mailed to Price Systems, Inc., in Lawrence, Kansas, for computerized scoring and printed profile sheets for individual subjects’ learning styles. Also, a profile sheet containing a group summary of the subjects’ learning styles was given.

Findings. The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), was used to analyse the learning style of subjects in the study. Large percentages of subjects, as a group, did not show learning style preferences. In the LSI, however, statistically significant differences were found between the LD and non-LD subjects on the ‘light’ and ‘intake’ preferences. Statistically significant differences were evident between LD and non-LD male and female subjects on the ‘noise’, ‘light’, ‘responsible’ and ‘tactile’ LSI preferences. Conclusions. The findings contribute to the body of research regarding the learning style of black children. The learning styles of the African-American children are heterogeneous. Therefore, educational programs should be designed to meet each child’s individual learning style needs. Educators should consider research concerning the learning style of African-American children, in order to effectively and successfully teach these children.

A three-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences among gifted African-American, Mexican-American and American-born Chinese students in preferences for noise, light, visual modality, studying in the afternoon, and persistence. Signi ficant gender differences were found in preferences for tactile modality and intake. Significant grade differences were found in preferences for temperature and mobility. Discriminant function analysis revealed that the six preferences that significantly discriminated among the three ethnic groups were studying in the afternoon, visual modality, noise, light, intake, and persistence. Multiple regression analysis revealed that preference for temperature was significantly predicted by gender and grade. A jack-knife-classification showed that the cases correctly classified into groups was 62.58%. Findings of the Yong (1991) study support and extend past research regarding the learning styles of gifted students. They render support for the provision of differentiated curricula for gifted minority students.

Motivation varies with students’ interests and successes, and the degree to which their teachers’ styles match their own. Motivation changes class to class, teacher to teacher, and day to day. Persistence is an analytic quality. Analytic processors, more than global processors, “stay on task” while learning. Global processors often require “breaks” for intake, interaction, and focus changes. The older students become, the less Structure they need, although, under pressure (of exams or multiple study assignments), many college students require structure (Napolitano, 1986; Sawyer, 1995).

Responsibility tends to correlate with Conformity whereas students with low Responsibility scores are usually non-conforming (Dunn, White & Zenhausern, 1982). Some people experience three different stages of nonconformity—the “terrible twos”, “adolescence”, and “mid-life crisis”. Although some students are either consistently conforming or consistently nonconforming, others respond uniquely to particular situations. We know how to work with nonconforming students (Dunn & Griggs, 1995; Dunn, White, & Zenhausern, 1982).

A learning style inventory and keyboarding pre-and post-test administered (Sormunen, 1993) to 48 fourth graders showed persistence to be the only learning style factor related to achievement. Pretest score was related to final achievement, indicating that natural kinesthetic ability may affect keyboarding speed.

Nganwa (1986) identified the learning styles of 111 South African children in grades 2-5, using the Learning Style Inventory. Fifty five subjects indicating a strong preferences for the design element were subsequently given a reading comprehension test in both formal and informal design. On both subtests, subjects achieved significantly higher scores when tested in their preferred environments than when tested in a mismatched environment. Findings suggest that children may underachieve if their performance is limited by being in a classroom dissonant with their preferred learning style.

Cody (1983) compared the learning style characteristics and hemisphericity of 240 students in grades 5 through 12, divided into three ability groups based on their I.Q.:

  • average (100-119);
  • gifted (130-139); and
  • highly gifted (145 and above).

The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1980) and Your Style of Thinking and Learning (Reynolds, Kaltsounis, and Torrance) indicated significant differences (p < .01 and < .001 respectively) among the groups. Average students preferred: studying in a warm, quiet environment; late in the day; and knowing exactly what was required (strong need for Structure). They were less Motivated than the other two groups and evidenced significantly more integrated and Left Hemisphere processing. Gifted students also preferred quiet, but studied better: in a moderate Temperature; in the Early Morning; and with less Structure. The gifted were more integrated and demonstrated a right processing style. Highly gifted students preferred: Sound (music) while studying; a Cool environment; Evening; and the least amount of Structure. They were the most Motivated, the most integrated, and the strongest Right processors. The gifted and highly gifted demonstrated significant preferences (p < .001) for right hemisphere and integrated processing. Left dominant students preferred a Formal Design, more Structure, less Intake, and were Visual and less Tactile/Kinesthetic than their right dominant counterparts. Right dominant students disliked Structure and were not Adult Motivated.

Yong et al. (1992) investigated whether group, gender, and grade differences existed in the learning styles of learning disabled (LD) and gifted (GF) students using the Learning Style Inventory by R. Dunn et al (1987). The study involved 53 (28 male and 25 female) LD and 64 (29 male and 35 female) GF 10th-12th grade students. A 3-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed group differences in preferences for light, design, and kinesthetic modalities, and in motivation, persistence, responsibility, and parent and teacher motivation. Gender and grade differences were found in preferences for mobility and afternoon learning, respectively. A stepwise discriminant analysis revealed 6 variables separating the 2 groups. Findings imply that incorporating the learning styles of both groups is important for individualizing educational programming.

The learning styles of 232 7th-12th graders with high GPA’s in school in literature and 192 who had high scores on out of school accomplishments in literature were compared (Hong, et al. 1993). Six of the 22 elements measured by the Learning Style Inventory distinguished between the 2 groups. The out-of-school gifted group preferred to work with peers and felt comfortable learning in a variety of different ways. They tended to be less visual and more auditory learners and expressed a greater preference to learn by experiential or hands-on activities than the in-school gifted group.

Three instructional strategies and 16 learning style elements significantly discriminated between 425 grade four, five, and six gifted and non-gifted students from one suburban and one New York school district (Ricca, 1983). The Learning Style Inventory of both Renzulli & Smith and Dunn, Dunn, & Price revealed identical patterns to those previously reported in at least seven other investigations (Dunn, 1982).

The gifted students requested independent study and were significantly more Self-motivated, Persistent, Responsible, Teacher and Adult motivated, and wanted Tactile rather than Auditory instruction; they also strongly preferred Learning Alone rather than in a whole-class or peer situation. The general population preferred Learning With Peers by listening and reading, needed Variety and Mobility to maintain attention, and learned best with an Authority nearby. The gifted students required independence, self-direction, flexibility, and options as well as a minimum of Structure and lecture.

The purpose of the study Nations-Miller (1993) was to investigate and indentify the learning styles of “at-risk” students, vocational students, and gifted students to determine whether the composite profiles that are identified for each group are parallel. The investigation focused upon grade ten, eleven, and twelve students in a suburban Georgia school system. Learning style profiles were identified for “at-risk” students, gifted students, and vocational students. The three groups were compared within groups and contrasted between groups to determine if the profiles were parallel. The data was gathered during the month of February 1992. The sample frame included students from the “at-risk” (Coordinated Academic Vocational Education Program), gifted, and vocational programs at an urban high school south of Atlanta.

The groups were stratified by types of programs and then a random sample of one hundred from each group was selected. The subjects completed the Learning Styles Inventory by Dunn, Dunn, and Price to determine their learning style preferences. Twenty-two elements were assessed by the subjects regarding their learning style preferences. The results of the study were analysed using profile analysis and a discriminant analysis. All follow-up procedures that were appropriate to profile analysis were administered. Mean scores and group correlation were also obtained. A total of twelve variables significantly entered the discriminant equation. This was used to determine how the groups differed from each other by elements.

The “at-risk” group showed a preference for responsible, learning through the auditory, visual and tactile modes and had the least preference for noise and being parent motivated. The vocational group showed a preference for noise, light, learning in the late morning and mobility. The least preference of this group was for responsible and learning through auditory, tactile and kinesthetic modes. The gifted group had a preference for being motivated by parents and learning through the kinesthetic mode. The gifted group had the least preference for mobility, light and learning through the visual and tactile modes. Using these findings, curriculum and instructional strategies were suggested that could help teachers better meet the needs of each group. Selected techniques were suggested that promoted the curriculum development and instructional strategies that could encourage the “at-risk” student to stay in school. With this information educators could be one step closer to preparing all students for their roles in our ever-changing society.

MacMurren (1985) identified the learning style preferences of 173 sixth-grade students from two suburban school districts in northern New Jersey. Forty students who scored either between 20-40 or 60-80 on the Learning Style Inventory were assigned randomly to treatment groups with either Intake or No Intake available. Thus, treatments were either complementary or dissonant from the subjects’ preferences. A standardized reading achievement test and a semantic differential attitude scale were administered to both groups.

The results, using a two-way ANOVA, evidenced that those students in an environment complementary to their preferences for Intake scored significantly higher in achievement (p < .001) than those in one dissonant from their preference. Further, youngsters’ attitudes were significantly higher (p<.003) when they were tested in matched, rather than mismatched, situations.

This study clearly demonstrated the importance of Intake in a testing situation. Providing Intake for those who needed it lead to significantly higher academic achievement and improved attitudes toward the testing situation.

The need for Sound and Intake while learning can be observed by grade two or three, and remains fairly consistent until about grade six for many. At that time, the two preferences increase and adolescents tend to speak and play music louder and eat more. For many grade nine or ten students, these two elements return to their previously “normal” level. Among other students, the need for Sound and Intake while learning remains strong well into adulthood. The need for Quiet while learning increases, and the need for Intake decreases among older adults. Needing Quiet and little or no Intake while learning tends to be an analytic-processing trait, whereas needing Sound and Intake while learning tends to be a global-processing trait (Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zehausern, 1982).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study’s significance is that it sought to:

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

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

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

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

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

Guinta (1984) investigated whether:

  1. the 12 English, 10 Mathematics, 11 Science, and 10 other randomly selected teachers in an urban, co-educational, New York City, parochial secondary school taught in essentially similar ways or whether their instructional strategies tended to differ;
  2. those instructors’ teaching styles were congruent with their own learning styles;
  3. any relationship existed between matched student and teacher pairs and academic achievement; and
  4. mismatches between students’ and teachers’ styles contributed to teacher stress.

Instructors’ learning styles were identified with the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1981); the 11th and 12th-grade students’ styles were revealed through the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978). Instructors’ teaching styles were obtained on a self-report questionnaire. Learner/instructor congruence was based on measured degree of match with respect to 21 learning style variables. Instructors’ perceptions of students as stressors were measured through a semantic differential. A one-way analysis of variance, the pearson correlation, and a stepwise multiple regression procedure were used.

The data revealed that those secondary teachers’ instructional styles were essentially similar across different subjects. In addition, teachers did not teach the way they learned with two exceptions:

  1. when teachers needed quiet while learning, they imposed a quiet environment on their students; and
  2. when they were authority-oriented they tended to be authorative.

Unlike the Cafferty (1980) study, this research evidenced no relationship between matched teacher/student styles and academic achievement. When teachers’ and students’ styles were mismatched however, significant teacher stress was evidenced on both motor behavioural indicators and negatively toned affect.

Wallace (1995) assessed how closely students’ learning style preferences matched those of their teachers. A total of 450 sixth-and seventh-graders completed the Learning Style Inventory, and 128 teachers completed the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, the adult version of the Learning Style Inventory. While the auditory modality was the teachers’ most preferred learning style, students preferred the visual modality.

Hodges (1985) identified the Design preferences of seventh and eigth grade remedial mathematics students in an urban ghetto. Using a repeated measures experimental design, she assigned adolescents who liked to study in their conventional wooden, steel, or plastic seats, and those who indicated they could concentrate more easily on the floor, on a rug, or in an easy chair, to both environments - learning and being tested in the Formal and the Informal Design.

Students who were taught and tested in their preferred environment achieved significantly higher mean test scores (p < .001) and demonstrated statistically more positive attitudes (p < .001) than those in the mismatched conditions. In fact, the youngsters who preferred the Informal Design evidenced higher achievement when permitted to learn and take their test informally than the youngsters who preferred the traditional classroom and were taught and tested in it. Those findings suggest that:

  1. junior high school math underachievers may not be matched with complementary instructional environments;
  2. a testing situation can impact significantly upon adolescents’ academic performance and attitudes;
  3. low math achievers learn differently from each other and, consequently, should be matched with their learning style preferences; and
  4. educators need to re-evaluate how remediation programs are implemented in both their instructional and testing approaches for selected secondary students.

The purpose of Virostko’s (1983) investigation was to examine the relationships among class instructional schedules, learning style Time preferences, and grade level, and their effect on the mathematics and reading achievement test scores of grade three, four, five, and and six students. Dunn, Dunn, and Price’s concept of learning style was employed as the theoretical framework. Their instrument, the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (1975, 1978, 1981) was utilized to establish the profile of individual preferences.

This research:

  • substantiated which of the 286 subjects were either matched or mismatched for Time preference and instructional schedule during each of two consecutive years of study; and
  • assessed whether individually or interactively, the three independent variables (Time preference, class instructional schedules for each of two years, and grade level) significantly affected the two dependant variables (NCE achievement test scores in mathematics and reading).

Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance procedures with one repeated measure. For all data analyses procedures, hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of confidence.

The findings revealed that:

  • students whose Time preferences and class schedules were congruent, achieved significantly higher test scores; and
  • when Time preferences and class schedules were dissonant, lower scores were evidenced.

Thus, this investigation demonstrated that class instructional schedules coordinated with individual Time preferences were the most significant factors responsible for increasing achievement test scores in both mathematics and reading at the .001 level of confidence.

Kreitner (1981) used learning style theory to explore the patterns of 8 boys and 21 girls in grades 7 through 12 from a rural Pennsylvania town; the students had been rated as “especially talented” by the one choral Director and two band Directors (p. 28). The Swassing-Barbe Modality Index (SBMI) and the Dunn, Dunn, & Price Learning Style Inventory (LSI) were administered to determine:

  1. their usefulness in identifying gifted musicians;
  2. similarities between the two models;
  3. whether charact eristics existed among the gifted that might provide insights for the teaching of subjects other than music; and
  4. how, if at all, the learning styles of talented musicians differed from those of the general population.

It had been anticipated that subjects would be highly auditory. The SBMI revealed the auditory channel as being the weakest; more students were kinesthetic and visual (as indicated by a mean percentage of 32.81 and 30.90 respectively). Similarly, the LSI identified the greatest number of students as kinesthetic (62%; and 55% were tactile; and 52% were auditory). The data corroborated the findings of other studies that similarly revealed that gifted students prefer kinesthetic, rather than auditory, activities (Wasson, 1980). In addition, the findings suggested that conventional tests of musical talent, which emphasize the auditory mode, may be focusing on a supplementary, rather than a major, sensory channel.

Several characteristics identified the musically gifted better than their modality strengths; those included:

  • extremely high motivational levels:
  • the desire for options rather than a great deal of Structure, and
  • the desire for Learning Alone rather than with others.

High Motivation, the need for little Structure, and Learning Alone preferences were representative of many gifted students. Other findings, such as the need for food Intake (69%); the acceptability of Sound (62%), and the need for bright Light probably were more related to the learning styles of adolescents than to the uniqueness of the musically talented.

A strong parallel, or overlap, was revealed between the two learning style models. Both agree that it is better to build on a student’s strengths than to endeavour to remediate weaknesses. Both examine auditory, visual, and kinesthetic inclinations. The LSI regards Perceptual strengths as channels of input and as only one of 22 different learning style elements; the SBMI emphasizes modalities as means for processing information and focuses on that characteristic exclusively.

This investigation substantially contributed toward increasing the understanding of varied learning style instruments and clarified further how different models can supplement and reinforce each other.

Falkner (1994) examined the relationships among the perceptual elements of learning style, music aptitude, and attitude toward music of third-grade students. The Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989) was used to assess individual students’ learning styles. This study examined the perceptual elements of learning style: auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic. Participants in the study were 195 third-grade students at Oxford, Mississippi, Elementary School for the 1993-94 academic year. The research design was causal-comparative. One-way ANOVA’s were used to determine the significance of the frequency distribution of perceptual modality strengths, musical aptitude, and attitude toward music class. No significant differences were found in the distribution of modality strengths; however, significant differences were found in musical aptitude and attitude toward music class.

Results of a two-way ANOVA comparing the mean scores of musical aptitude with perceptual modality strengths showed an interaction effect between the level of musical aptitude and perceptual modality strengths to be significant. Students scoring in musical aptitude were primarily visual and kinesthetic learners. Significant difference among the mean scores of musical aptitude as related to attitude toward music class were found. No significant differences were found among the levels of attitude toward music class and perceptual modality strengths. It was concluded that students scoring highest in musical aptitude are primarily kinesthetic and visual learners. Conceptual skills in music are better served in an active approach that engages all perceptual modalities in the music-making process. Positive attitudes toward school music are better served through an elementary music education program that connects with childrens’ real world musical experiences while reflecting the multi-musical culture of the society in which the students live.

Alberg, J., Cook, L., Fiore, T., Friend, M., Sano, S., et. al., (l992). Educational approaches and options for integrating students with disabilities: A decision tool. Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, Post Office Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

Andrews, R.H. (l990, July-September). The development of a learning styles program in a low socioeconomic, underachieving North Carolina elementary school. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 307-314.

Andrews, R.H. (l991). Insights into education: An elementary principal’s perspective. Hands on approaches to learning styles: Practical approaches to successful schooling. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 50-52.

Atkinson, S.L. (l988). A longitudinal study: The effect of similar and non-similar student/teacher learning styles on academic achievement in fourth- and fifth-grade mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(09) A, 2569.

Avise, M.J. (l982). The relationship between learning styles and grades of Dexfield junior and senior high school students in Redfield, Iowa. (Doctoral dissertation, Drake University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(09A), 2953.

Ball, A.L. (1982). The secrets of learning styles - your child’s and your own. Redbook, 160, 1 (November) 73-76.

Ballinger, R.J., & Ballinger, V. (1982). Steps in managing the diagnostic prescriptive process. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 33-37.

Bauer, E. (1987). Learning style and the learning disabled: Experimentation with ninth graders. The Clearing House, 605, 208.

Bauer, E. (l991). The relationships between and among learning styles perceptual preferences, instructional strategies, mathematics achievement, and attitude toward mathematics of learning disabled and emotionally handicapped students in a suburban junior high school. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International,53(06) 1378.

Baugh, I.W. (l994). Hypermedia as a performance based assessment tool. The Computing Teacher, 21(6), 14-17. International Society for Technology Education, Eugene, Oregon.

Beatty, S.A. (1986). The effect of inservice training on the ability of teachers to observe learning styles of students. (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University). Dissertation Abstracts International 47, 1998A.

Billings, D., & Cobb, K. (l992). Effects of learning style preference, attitude, and GPA on learner achievement using computer-assisted-interactive videodisc instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 19(1), 12-16.

Botroff, S.M. (l993). The impact of group versus individualized classroom activities on the levels of achievement of students in a tenth-grade religious course (group activities, individualized activities, and learning style). (Doctoral dissertation, La Sierra University). Dissertation Abstracts International.

Braio, A. (l995). Effects of incrementally introducing learning style strategies on special education and low-achieving general education intermediate students’ structural analysis and attitude test scores. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Braio, A., Dunn, R., Beasley, M.T., Quinn, P., & Buchanan, K. (in-press). Effects of Incremental Implementation of Learning-Styles Strategies on Urban Low-Achievers’ Structural Analysis and Attitude Test Scores. Journal of Educational Research.

Brennan, P.K. (1984). An analysis of the relationships among hemispheric preference and analytic/global cognitive style, two elements of learning style, method of instruction, gender, and mathematics achievement of tenth-grade geometry students. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3271A.

Brodhead, M.R., & Price, G.E. (1993). The learning styles of artistically-talented adolescents in Canada. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. New York: Praeger, Chapter Twelve, pp. 186-195.

Brown, M.D. (l991). The relationship between traditional instructional methods, Contract Activity Packages, and mathematics achievement of fourth-grade gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, l991). Dissertation Abstracts International, A, The Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(6), 1999A-2000A.

Brunner, C.E., & Majewski, W.S. (l990, October). Mildly handicapped students can succeed with learning styles. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(02), 21-23.

Brunner, R., & Hill, D. (April/l992). Using learning styles research in coaching. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(4), 26-61.

Bruno, J. (1988). An experimental investigation of the relationships between and among hemispheric processing, learning style preferences, instructional strategies, academic achievement, and attitudes of developmental mathematics students in an urban technical college. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, New York).

Buell, B.G., & Buell, N.A. (1987). Perceptual modality preference as a variable in the effectiveness of continuing education for professionals. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48,(02), 283A.

Buhler, J. (l990). A study of the relationship between selected learning styles and achievement of kindergarten language arts’ objectives in a local school district. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(09) A, 2978.

Burkman, T.A. (l994). An analysis of the relationships among achievement, attitude, and the sociological element of individual learning style of students in an interactive television course. A dissertation submitted to the faculty at Western Michigan University, Kalamazo, Michigan.

Cafferty, E. (1980). An analysis of student performance based upon the degree of match between the educational cognitive style of the teacher and the educational cognitive style of the students, Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Nebraska. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2908-07A.

Callan, R.J. (l995). Early-morning challenge: The potential effects of chronobiology on taking the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The Clearing House, 68(3), 174-176.

Callan, R.J. (l996, February). Learning styles in the high school: A novel approach. NASSP Bulletin, 80(577), 66-72.

Calvano, E. J. (1985). The influence of student learning styles on the mathematics achievement of middle school students. (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 10A.

Campbell, D.Y., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quais-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Campbell, L.J. (1990) Using Individual Learning Style Inventories and Group Teaching Methods in a Sixth Grade Classroom. Practicum Report, Nova University.

Carns, A.W., & Carns, M.R. (l991, May). Teaching study skills, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive skills through self-diagnosed learning styles. The School Counselor, 38, 341-346.

Carbo, M. (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). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1389A.

Carbo, M., Dunn, R., & Dunn, D. (1986). Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Carruthers, S.A., & Young, L.A. (1979). Preference of condition concerning time in learning environments of rural versus inner-city eighth-grade students. Unpublished manuscript.

Cavanaugh, D. (1981). Student learning styles: A diagnostic/prescriptive approach to instruction. Kappan, November, 63, 3, 202-203.

Children’s embedded figures test (1971). Developed by H.A. Witkin, P.F. Oltman, E. Raskin and S.A. Karp. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc.

Cholakis, M.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). 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 freshman in a small urban university. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 872A.

Clay, J.E. (1984). A correlational analysis of the learning characteristics of highly achieving and poorly achieving freshmen at A & M University as revealed through performance on standardized tests. Normal, AL: Alabama A & M University.

Cody, C. (1983). Learning Styles, including hemispheric dominance: A comparative study of average, gifted, and highly gifted students in grades 5 through 12. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1631A.

Cohen, L. (1986). Birth order and learning styles: An examination of the relationships between birth order and middle school students’ preferred learning style profiles. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota’s Graduate Department of Educational Psychology). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2084A.

Coleman, S.J. (l988). An investigation of the relationships among physical and emotional learning style preferences and perceptual modality strengths of gifted first-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(04), 873A.

Cooper, T.J.D. (l991). An investigation of the learning styles of students at two contemporary alternative high schools in the District of Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(06), 2002.

Cramp, D.C. (l990). A study of the effects on student achievement of fourth- and fifth-grade students’ instructional times being matched and mismatched with their particular time preference. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(02A), 407.

Crampton, N.A.S. (l990). Learning style (modality) preferences for students attending private residential alternative schools (at risk). (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(02A), 407.

Crino, E.M. (1984). An analysis of the preferred learning styles of kindergarten children and the relationship of these preferred learning styles to curriculum planning for kindergarten children. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of NY at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1282A.

Cupke, L.F. (1980). The effects of similarity of instructor preferred teaching style and student preferred learning style on student achievement in selected courses in a metropolitan community college. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri-Kansas City). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 988A.

Currence, J.A. (l991). High school dropouts as learners: A comparative analysis of schooling experiences and school behaviors, school climate perceptions, learning style preferences, and locus-of-control orientation of persisters and high school dropouts in a rural eastern shore county school system. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park). Dissertation Abstracts International, A, The Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(7), 2388A.

Curry, E.R. (l994). Matching chemistry instructional methods with perceptual learning-style preferences of eleventh-grade women: Effects on attitude and achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York).

Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive learning style: A Review with attention to psychometric standards. Ontario, Canada: Canadian College of Health Service Executives.

Davis, M.A. (l985). An investigation of the relationship of personality types and learning style preferences of high school students (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1606A.

Dean, W.L. (1982). A comparison of the learning styles of educable mentally retarded students and learning disabled students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1923A.

DeBello, T. (1985). A critical analysis of the achievement and attitude effects of administrative assignments to social studies writing instruction based on identified, eighth-grade students’ learning style preferences for learning alone, with peers, or with teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 68A.

DeBello, T. (l990, July-September). Comparison of eleven major learning styles models: Variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and the research behind them. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, NY:Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 203-222.

DeGregoris, C.N. (1986). Reading comprehension and the interaction of individual sound preferences and varied auditory distractions. (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3380A.

Della Valle, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the word recognition scores of seventh-grade students to provide supervisory and administrative guidelines for the organization of effective instructional environments. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 359A.

Della Valle, J. (l990, July-September). The development of a learning styles program in an affluent, suburban New York elementary school. NY: Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Styles International: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 315-322.

DiSebastian, James. (l994). Learning in style in Teguciagalpa, Honduras. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 21(71), 11, 16.

Drew, M.W. (l991). An investigation of the effects of matching and mismatching minority underachievers with culturally similar and dissimilar story content and learning style and traditional instructional strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Drew, M., Dunn, R., Quinn, P., Sinatra, R., & Spiridakis, J. (1994). Effects of matching and mismatching minority underachievers with culturally similar and dissimilar story content and learning style and traditional instructional practices. Applied Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 3-10.

Dunn, K. (1981). Madison Prep: Alternative to teen-age disaster, Educational Leadership, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 38, 5 (February) 386-387.

Dunn, R. (1981). A learning styles primer, Principal, Arlington, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 60, 5 (May) 31-34.

Dunn, R. (1982). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A research report. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 142-151.

Dunn, R. (1982). You’ve got style: Now’s the time to find out what it is. Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc., 13, 2 (October) 27-28, 70.

Dunn, R. (1983). Now that you know your learning style - how can you make the most of it? Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc., 13, 5 (January) 25-31, 58-59.

Dunn, R. (1983). Now that you know your learning style - how can you make the most of it? Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc., 13, 6 (February) 49-54.

Dunn, R. (1983). What are you willing to do to teach your students through their learning styles? Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc., 13 (March) 6.

Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relationship to exceptionality at both ends of the continuum. Exceptional Children. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children, 49, 6 (April) 496-506.

Dunn, R. (1984). How should students do their homework? Research vs. opinion. Early Years, 14(4), 43-45.

Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science. Theory Into Practice, XXIII, 1, Winter, 10-19.

Dunn, R. (1984). Teacher-made materials. Instructional Leadership Handbook. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 28-29.

Dunn, R. (1985). A research-based plan for doing homework. The Education Digest, 9, 40-42.

Dunn, R. (1985, September). It’s time to handle instructional time correctly. Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc., 16(1), 47-49

Dunn, R. (1986, Winter). Learning styles: Link between individual differences and effective instruction. In Education for the Future: Toward Effectiveness and Beyond. NC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 2(2), 3-33.

Dunn, R. (Spring, l987). Research on instructional environments: Implications for student achievement and attitudes. Professional School Psychology, 2(1), 43-52.

Dunn, R. (1988). Commentary: Teaching students through their perceptual strengths or preferences. Journal of Reading, 31(4), 304-309.

Dunn, R. (1989). Capitalizing on students’ perceptual strengths to ensure literacy while engaging in conventional lecture/discussion. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 9(4), 431-453.

Dunn, R. (1989). Recent research on learning and seven applications to teaching young children to read. The Oregon Elementary Principal, 50(2), 39-32.

Dunn, R. (1989). Individualizing instruction for mainstreamed gifted children. In R.R. Milgram (Ed.), Teaching Gifted And Talented Learners In Regular Classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Chapter 3, pp. 63-111.

Dunn, R. (l989, February). A small private school in Minnesota. Teaching K-8, Norwalk, CT: Early Years, Inc., 18(5), 54-57.

Dunn, R. (l989, May/June). Can schools overcome the impact to societal ills on student achievement? The research indicates—yes! The Principal. NY: Board of Jewish Eduction of Greater New York, XXXIV(5), 1-15.

Dunn, R. (l989, Summer). Do students from different cultures have different learning styles? International Education. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 16(50), 40-42.

Dunn, R. (1989, Fall). Teaching gifted students through their learning style strengths. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 16(51), 6-8.

Dunn, R. (1990, January). Bias over substance: A Critical analysis of Kavale and Forness’ report on modality-based instruction. Exceptional Children. VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 56(4), 354-356.

Dunn, R. (l990, Winter). Teaching underachievers through their learning style strengths. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 16(52), 5-7.

Dunn, R. (l990, Spring). When you really have to lecture, teach students through their perceptual strengths. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 17(53), 1, 6-7.

Dunn, R. (l990, Summer). Teaching young children to read: Matching methods to learning style perceptual processing strengths, Part One. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 17(54), 2-3.

Dunn, R. (l990, July-September). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3) 223-247.

Dunn, R. (1990, October). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Educational Leadership, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum development, 48(15), 15-19.

Dunn, R. (1990, Fall). Teaching young children to read: Matching methods to learning styles perceptual processing strengths, Part Two. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 17(55), 5-7.

Dunn, R. (l990, Winter). Teaching underachievers through their learning style strengths. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 16(52), 5-7.

Dunn, R. (l991, Winter). Are you willing to experiment with a tactual/visual/auditory global approach to reading?, Part 3. International Education. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, 18(56), 6-8.

Dunn R. (l991). Hands on approaches to learning styles: A practical guide for successful schooling. New Wilmington, PA: The Association for the Advancement of International Education, p. 63.

Dunn, R. (l991). Instructional leadership in education: Limited, diffused, sporadic, and lacking in research. CSA Leadership. NY: American Federation of School Administrators, 30-41.

Dunn, R. (l992, April-June). Strategies for teaching word recognition to the disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly. NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 8(2), 157-177.

Dunn, R. (l992, Spring). Teaching the “I-was-paying-attention-but-I-didn’t-hear-you-say-it” learner. International Education. Association for the Advancement of International Education, 19(61), 1, 6.

Dunn, R. (l993, Winter-Spring). The learning styles of gifted adolescents in nine culturally-diverse nations. International Education. Wilmington, PA.: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 20(64), 4-6.

Dunn, R. (l993, March/April). Learning styles of multiculturally diverse students. Emergency Librarian. British Vancouver, CAN: Emergency Librarians’ Association, 20(4), 24-35.

Dunn, R. (l993, September). Teaching the… “I don’t like school and you can’t make me like it” learner. International Education. Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 20(65), 4-5.

Dunn R. (l993). Teaching gifted students through their learning style strengths. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. CT: Praeger, Chapter Three, pp. 37-67.

Dunn, R. (l994). Chapter 13: The Dunn and Dunn learning styles model: Theory, research, and application. In Shaughnessy, M.F., (Ed.). Education in the 21st century. NM: Eastern New Mexico University, pp. 131-141.

Dunn, R. (l995). Strategies for educating diverse learners. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, p. 32.

Dunn, R. (l995). Teaching students to teach themselves. International Education. Wilmington, PA: Association for the Advancement of International Education, 23(75), 4-6, 14.

Dunn, R., (Ed.) (1996, Winter). Learning Styles Network Newsletter. New York: St. John’s University and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 16(3), p. 8.

Dunn, R. (l996). How to implement and supervise a learning-style program. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p. 61.

Dunn, R., Bauer, E., Gemake, J., Gregory, J., Primavera, L., & Signer, B. (l994). Matching and mismatching junior high school learning disabled and emotionally handicapped students’ perceptual preferences on mathematics scores. Teacher Education Journal, 5(1), 3-13.

Dunn, R., Beasley, M., & Buchanan, K. (l994). What do you believe about how culturally-diverse students learn? Emergency Librarian. British Vancouver, Canada: Emergency Librarian’s Association, 22(1), 8-14.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.A., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 50-58.

Dunn, R., Bruno, A., & Gardiner, B. (1984). Put a cap on your gifted program. Gifted Child Quarterly, St. Paul, Minnesota: National Association for Gifted Children, 28, 2 (Spring), 70-72.

Dunn, R., & Bruno, A. (1985). What does the research on learning styles have to do with Mario? The Clearing House, 59(1), 9-11.

Dunn, R., & Buchanan, K. (l996). Whose fault is it anyway? Middle School Teachers perceptions of why students fail. Michigan Principal. East Lansing, MI: Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals’ Association, LXX11(1), 21-23.

Dunn,R., Carbo, M., & Burton, E. (1981). Breakthrough: How to improve early reading instruction, Kappan, Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, 62, 9 (May) 675.

Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., Eberle, B., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference: The newest element of learning style, The American Biology Teacher, 44, 5 (May) 291-294.

Dunn, R., DeBello, T., Brennan, P., Krimsky, J., and Murrain, P. (1981). Learning style researchers define differences differently, Educational Leadership, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 38, 5 (February) 372-375.

Dunn, R., De Bello, T., Evans, W.J., Jr., Kroon, D.K., & White, R.T. (1988, January). Ten steps to better middle schools. Teaching K-8. Westport, CT: Early Years, Inc. 31(4), 39-41.

Dunn, R., Della Valle, J., Dunn, K., Geisert, G., Sinatra, R., & Zenhausern, R. (1986). The effects of matching and mismatching students’ mobility preferences on recognition and memory tasks. Journal of Educational Research, 79(5), 267-272.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1972). Practical approaches to individualizing instruction: Contracts and other effective instructional strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1974). Learning style as a criterion for placement in alternative programs. Kappan. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa. December, 275-279.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1975). Educator’s self-teaching guide to individualizing instructional programs. West Nyack, NY: Parker Publishing Company, Inc.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, Inc.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1984). Ten ways to make the classroom a better place tolearn. Instructor. New York, Instructor Publications 4, XCIV (November/December) 84-88, 139.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1986). The look of learning styles. Early Years. Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc. 16(7), 49-53.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1987, March). Dispelling outmoded beliefs about student learning. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 44(6), 55-62.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1988, October). Presenting forwards backwards. Teaching K-8. Norwalk, CT: Early Years, Inc. 19(2), 71-73.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (l992). Teaching elementary students through their individual learning styles. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (l993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Freeley, M.E. (l984). Practical applications of the research: Responding to students’ learning styles-step one. Illinois State Research and Development Journal, 21(1),1-21.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Perrin, J. (1994). Teaching young children through their individual learning styles. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1975, 1978, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1996). Learning Style Inventory, Lawrence, Kansas, Price Systems, Inc., Box 1818.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1976). Learning is a matter of style. The Journal for School Administrators Association of New York State. (Fall) 11-12.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K. & Price, G.E. (1977). Diagnosing learning styles: A prescription for avoiding malpractice suits. Kappan. Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa (January) 418-420.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1979, 1981, 1989). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, Lawrence, Kansas, Price Systems, Inc., Box 1818.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G.E. (1985). Learning Style Inventory Manual, Lawrence, Kansas: Price Systems, Inc.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., Primavera, L., Sinatra, R., & Virostko, J. (1987). A timely solution: A review of research on the effects of chronobiology on children’s achievement and behavior. The Clearing House, 61(1), 5-8.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Treffinger, D. (l992). Bringing out the giftedness in every child: A guide for parents. (l992). NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Dunn, R., Gemake, J., Jalali, F., Zenhausern, R., Quinn, P. & Spiridakis, J. (1990, April). Cross-cultural differences in the learning styles of elementary-age students from four ethnic backgrounds. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18(2), 68-93.

Dunn, R., Gemake, J., & Zenhausern, R. (1990, January). Cross-cultural differences in learning styles. Missouri Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Journal, 1(2), 9-15.

Dunn, R., Giannitti, M.C., Murray, J.B., Geisert, G., Rossi, I., & Quinn, P. (1990,August). Grouping students for instruction: Effects of individual vs. group learning style on achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology. Washington, D.C.: 130(4), 485-494.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1987) Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1988). High school dropouts: Do they learn differently from those students who remain in school? The Principal. NY: Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York XXXIV(1), 1-8.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989, January). Key to improving schools an student achievement. Curriculum Report. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1-4.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989, January). A quiet revolution in Hempstead. Teaching K-8. Norwalk, CT: Early Years, Inc. 19(4), 55-57.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989, February). A small private school in Minnesota. Teaching K-8. Norwalk, CT: Early Years, Inc. 5(5), 54-57.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (l989, April). A matter of style. Momentum. Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Education Association, XX(2), 66-70.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Momentum. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 63(1), 40-42.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989). A quiet revolution: Learning styles and their application to secondary schools. Holistic Education. Greenfield, MA: Holistic Education Review, 2(4), 14-19.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1989, October). The learning styles of multicultural groups and counseling implications. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Multicultural Counseling and Development, 7(4), 146-155.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1990). Research on the learning style characteristics of selected racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press Incorporated, 6(3). 261-280.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (l995). Hispanic-Americans and learning styles. Emergency Librarian, 23(2), 11-16.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (l995). Multiculturalism and learning style: Teaching and counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, p. 260.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Olson, J., Gorman, B, & Beasley, M. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model. Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-361.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (l993, October). Learning styles of Mexican-American and Anglo elementary school students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21(4), 237-247.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (l993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents in the United States. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.) Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Seven, pp. 119-136.

Dunn, R., Krimsky, J., Murray, J., & Quinn, P. (1985). Light up their lives: A review of research on the effects of lighting on children’s achievement. The Reading Teacher, 38(9), 863-869.

Dunn, R., & Milgram, R. (l993). Learning styles and gifted students in diverse cultures. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter One, pp. 3-23.

Dunn, R., & Nelson, B. (l996). Introducing educational administration candidates to learning-style approaches. Kansas State University: Kansas. Educational Considerations, 24(1), 45-47.

Dunn, R., Pizzo, J., Sinatra, R., & Barretto, R.A. (1983, Winter). Can it be too quiet to learn? Focus: Teaching English Language Arts, IX(2), 92.

Dunn, R., & Price, G.E. (1980). The characteristics of gifted students, Gifted Child Quarterly, Arkansas: Association for Gifted Children 4, 1 (Winter) 33-36.

Dunn, R., Price, G.E., Dunn, K., & Griggs, S.A. (1981) Studies in students’ learning styles. Roeper Review, 4(2), 38-40.

Dunn, R., & Price, G.E. (In press). Comparison of the learning styles of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade male and female Mexican-American students in southern Texas and same-grade students in the general population of the United States. Professional School Psychology.

Dunn, R., Price, G.E., Bacilious, Z., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Learning style - A predictor of school achievement? Momentum XIII, 1 (February) 47-48.

Dunn, R., Price, G.E., & Sanders, W. (1981). Reading Achievement and learning styles, The Clearing House, 54, 5 (January), 223-226.

Dunn, R., Shea, T.C., Evans, W., & MacMurren, H. (l991). Learning style and equal protection: The next frontier. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications 65(2), 93-96.

Dunn, R., & Smith, J.B. (l990). Chapter Four: Learning styles and library media programs, pp. 32-49. In School Library Media Annual, J.B. Smith (ed.). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Dunn, R., & Waggoner, B. (1995). Comparing three innovative instructional Systems. Emergency Librarian, 23(1), 9-15.

Dunn, R., White, R.M., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). An investigation of responsible versus less responsible students. Illinois School Research and Development. IL: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 19(1), 19-24.

Elliot, I. (l991, November/December). The reading place. Teaching K-8. Norwalk, CT: Early Years, Inc., 21(3), 30-34.

Ewing, N., & Yong, L.F. (l992). A comparative study of the learning style preferences among gifted African-American, Mexican-American, and American-born, Chinese middle-grade students. Roeper Review, 14(3), 120-123.

Ewing, N.J. & Yong, F.L. (1993) Learning style preferences of gifted minority students. Gifted Education International. 9(1), 40-44.

Faulkner, D.L. (1994). An investigation of modality preferences, musical aptitude, and attitude toward music at the third-grade level. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi).

Fiske, E.B. (1981, December 29). Teachers adjust schooling to fit students’ individuality. The New York Times. pp. C1, C4.

Fleming, V.J. (August, 1989). Vocational classrooms with style. Vocational Education Journal. Alexandria, VA: American Vocational Association, 10(1), 36-39.

Fourqurean, J.M., Meisgeier, C., & Swank, P. (l990). The link between learning style and Jungian psychological type: A finding of two bipolar preference dimensions. Journal of Experimental Education, 58(3), 225-237.

Frazier, E.R. (l992). An analysis of and comparison between self-assessed, individualized learning-style based teaching and behaviors within selected dimensions of the instructional process and individuals’ beliefs about student learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(10), 3433-A.

Freeley, M.E. (l984). An experimental investigation of the relationships among teachers’ individual time preferences, inservice workshop schedules, and instructional techniques and the subsequent implementation of learning style strategies in participants’ classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 403A.

French, S.B. (l991). The relationship between congruent and incongruent instructional methods and first-grade reading vocabulary achievement and learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 04A, p. 1192.

Gadwa, K., & Griggs, S.A. (1985). The school dropout: Implications for counselors. The School Counselor, 33, 9-17.

Gallucci, A.K. (l991). The relationship(s) among the academic achievement, learning style preferences, and creativity of gifted and normal intermediate students in a suburban New York school district. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstract International, 53(02), 389.

Gardiner, B. (1983). Stepping into a learning styles program. Roeper Review, 6(2), 90-92.

Gardiner, B. (1986). An experimental analysis of selected teaching strategies implemented at specific times of the school day and their effects on the social studies achievement test scores and attitudes of fourth-grade, low achieving students in an urban school setting. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3307A.

Garger, S. (l990, October). Is there a link between learning style and neurophysiology? Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(2), 63-65.

Garrett, S.L. (l992). The effects of perceptual preference and motivation on vocabulary and attitude test scores among high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, CA.). Dissertation Abstracts International, A53(02), p. 389.

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, Level D, Form 1 (1978). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Geisert, G., & Dunn, R. (l991, January). Computer and Learning Style: Principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 70(4), 47-49.

Geisert, G., & Dunn, R. (l991, March). Effective use of computers: Assignments based on individual learning style. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 64(4), 219-224.

Geisert, G., Dunn, R., & Sinatra, R. (1990). Reading, learning styles, and computers. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press, 6(3), 297-306.

Giannitti, M.C. (1988). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of middle-school students (grades six, seven, and eight) their attitudes and achievement in social studies, and selected instructional strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Glasner, J., & Ingham, J. (l993). Learning styles and literacy. The Bookmark. Albany, NY: The State Education Department, New York State Library, 50(111), 218-223.

Gough, H.G. (1968). California psychological inventory: An interpreter’s syllabus. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Gough, B.J. (1987). An investigation of the relationships between supervisors; and supervisees; sociological productivity styles on teacher evaluations and interpersonal attraction ratings. Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, New York.

Gremli, J. (l996,November). Tuned Into Learning Styles. Music Educators Journal, 83(3), 24-27.

Griggs, S.A. (1980). Chronobiology: Implications for learning and scheduling. Learning Styles Network Newsletter. 1, 5.

Griggs, S.A. (1981). A diagnostic process: Counseling for individual learning styles, NASSP Bulletin, Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 65, 447 (October), 23-27.

Griggs, S.A. (1981). Child counseling approaches and how they relate to learning styles, Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc. 12, 4 (December), 15-16.

Griggs, S.A. (1981). A diagnostic process: Counseling for individual learning styles. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Reston, VA: NASSP, 65, 22-28.

Griggs, S.A. (1982). Counseling outcomes superior when taught through students’ learning styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 3(3), 3.

Griggs, S.A. (1982) Chapter 4: Counseling middle school students for their individual learning styles. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principal, 18-24.

Griggs, S.A. (1984). Counseling gifted and talented students for their learning style preferences. Exceptional Children, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 50, 429-432.

Griggs, S.A. (1985). Counseling students through their individual learning style. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CAPS, University of Michigan.

Griggs, S.A. (l989, November). Students’ sociological grouping preferences of learning styles. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 63(3), 135-139.

Griggs, S.A. (l991). Counseling students through their individual learning styles. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Obtainable from Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching Styles, St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY, 11439.

Griggs, S.A. (l991). Counseling gifted children with different learning-style preferences. In R.M. Milgram (Ed.). Counseling Talented and Gifted Children: A Guide for Teachers, Counselors, and Parents, 53-74. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Group Embedded Figures Test (1971). Developed by H.A. Witkin, P.K. Oltman, E. Raskin and S.A. Karp. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc.

Griggs, S.A., & Dunn, R. (1984) Selected case studies of the learning style preferences of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 28, 3 (Summer) 115-119.

Griggs, S.A., & Dunn, R. (1996). Learning styles of Asian-American adolescents. Emergency Librarian. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Canadian Association of School Librarians, 24(1), 8-13.

Griggs, S.A., & Dunn, R. (In Press). The learning styles of multicultural groups and counseling implications. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. Charlottesville, VA.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1979). Comparison between the learning styles of gifted versus average suburban junior high school students, Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs, Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 63-64.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1980). Learning styles of gifted versus average junior high school students. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 361.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1980). Do gifted students learn differently from others? Learning Styles Network Newsletter. 1, 1.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E., (l980). A comparison between the learning styles of gifted versus average junior high school students. Phi Delta Kappan, 61, 361.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1981). Self-concept relates to learning style in junior high. Kappan, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 62, 604.

Griggs, S.A., & Price, G.E. (1982). A comparison between the learning styles of gifted versus average junior high school students. Creative and Gifted Child Quarterly, 7, 39-42.

Griggs, S.A., Price, G.E., Kopel, S., & Swaine, W. (1984). The effects of group counseling with sixth-grade students using approaches that are compatible versus incompatible with selected learning style elements. California Personnel and Guidance Journal, 5(1), 28-35.

Guinta, S.F. (1984). Administrative considerations concerning learning style and the influence of instructor/student congruence on high schoolers’ achievement and educators’ perceived stress. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 32A.

Guzzo, R.S. (1987). Dificuldades de apprenddizagem: Modalidade de attencao e analise de tarefas em materials didaticos. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saint Paulo, Institute of Psychology, Brazil).

Hanna, S.J. (1989). An investigation of the effects on achievement test scores of individual time preferences and time of training in a corporate setting. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Harp, T.Y., & Orsak, L. (l990, July-September). One administrator’s challenge: Implementing a learning style program at the secondary level. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 335-342.

Harty, P.M. (1982). Learning styles: A matter of difference in the foreign language classroom. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Wright State University.

Hawk, T.D. (l983). A comparison of teachers’ preference for specific inservice activity approaches and their measured learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, (12-A), 3557.

Hickson, J., Land, A.J. & Aikman, G. (1994) Learning Style Differences in Middle School Pupils from Four Ethnic Backgrounds. School Psychology International. Nov 15(4), 349-359.

Hickerson-Roberts, V.L. (l983). Reading achievement, reading attitudes, self-concept, learning styles, and estimated high school grade-point average as predictions of academic success for 55 adult learners at Kansas State University. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, (05A), 1295.

Hill, G.D. (1987). An experimental investigation into the interaction between modality preference and instructional mode in the learning of spelling words by upper-elementary learning disabled students. (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2536A.

Hodges, H. (1982). Learning styles Rx for mathophobia. Arithmetic Teacher, 30(7), 17-20.

Hodges, H. (1982). Madison prep: Alternatives through learning styles. In Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 28-32.

Hodges, H. (1985). An analysis of the relationships among preferences for a formal/informal design, one element of seventh- and eighth-grade students in remedial mathematics classes in a New York City junior high school. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2791A.

Hong, E., Perkins, P.G., & Milgram, R.M. (1993) Learning styles of gifted adolescents with in-school versus out-of-school accomplishments in literature. Perceptual and Motor Skills. June 76(3, Pt 2), 1099-1102.

Hong, E., & Suh, B. (l995). An analysis of change in Korean-American and Korean students’ learning styles. Psychological Reports, 76, 691-699.

Hong, E., Milgram, R.M., & Perkins, P.G. (1995). Homework style and homework behavior of Korean and American children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 28, 197-207.

Hoyt, C.F. (1941). Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 6, 153-160.

Hudes, S., Saladino, A., & Meibach, D.D. (1977). Learning style subscales and self concept among high achieving third graders. The Journal of School Administrators of New York State, 1, 7-10.

Hutto, J.R. (l982). The association of teacher manipulation of scientifically acquired learning styles information to the achievement and attitudes of second- and third-grade remedial students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(01A), 30.

Ignelzi-Ferraro, D.M. (l989). Identification of the preferred conditions for learning among three groups of mildly handicapped high school students using the Learning Style Inventory. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(3), 796A.

Ingham, J. (1989). An experimental investigation of the relationships among learning style perceptual strength, instructional strategies, training achievement, and attitudes of corporate employees (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Ingham, J., & Dunn, R. (l993). The Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning styles: Addressing learning diversity. The 1993 Annual Developing Human Resources. London: Phieffer and Co.

Ingham, J., & Price, G.E. (l993). Chapter 9: The learning styles of gifted adolescents in the Philippines, (pp. 149-160). In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price, (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style. New York, Praeger.

Jackson-Allen, J., & Christenberry, N.J. (1994) Learning Style Preferences of Low-and High-Achieving Young African-American Males. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association (Nashville, TN, November 9-11).

Jacobs, R.L. (1987). An investigation of the learning style differences among Afro-American and Euro-American high, average, and low achievers. (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody University, TN.). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(01), 39-A.

Jalali, F. (1988). A cross cultural comparative analysis of the learning styles and field dependence/independence characteristics of selected fourth-,fifth-, and sixth-grade students of Afro, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican heritage. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(62), 344A.

Jarsonbeck, S. (l984). The effects of a right-brain and mathematics curriculum on low achieving, fourth-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2791A

Jenkins, J.M. (1982). Teaching to individual student learning styles. The Administrator, Florida, (September): 6, (1), 10-12.

Jenkins, J.M. (1986). Administering learning styles at the elementary level. The Oregon Elementary Principal. Salem, OR: Oregon Elementary School Principals’ Association, 47(1), 33-34.

Johnson, C.D. (1984). Identifying potential school dropouts. Doctoral dissertation, United States International University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2397A.

Johnston, R.J. (l986). A comparative analysis between the effectiveness of conventional and modular instruction in teaching students with varied learning styles and individual differences enrolled in high school industrial arts manufacturing. (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(08A), 2923.

Kaiser, H.F. (1958). The verimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 187-200.

Kaley, S.B. (l977). Field dependence/independence and learning styles in sixth graders. (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 1301A.

Karlova, U., Lekarska, F., & Kralove, H. (l994). Dotaznik stylu ucenti pro zaky zakladnich a strednich skol/LSI-the questionnaire of learning styles for pupils of basic and middle education schools. Psychologia-a-Patopsychologia-Dietat, 29(3), 248-264.

Keefe, J.W. (Ed.d.) (1982). Assessing student learning styles: An overview. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 43-53.

Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive style, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition, The National Center for Research and Vocational Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Klavas, A. (l991). Implementation of the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model in United States elementary schools: Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of factors that facilitated or impeded the process. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Klavas, A. (l993). In Greensboro, North Carolina: Learning Style Program Boosts Achievement and Test Scores. The Clearing House, 67(3), 149-151.

Klavas, A., Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Gemake, J. Geisert, G., & Zenhausern, R. (1994). Factors that facilitated or impeded implementation of the Dunn and Dunn learning style model. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 19-23.

Kleinfeld, J., & Nelson, P. (l991). Adapting instruction to Native Americans’ language styles: An iconoclastic view. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 22(2), 273-282.

Koshuta, V. & Koshuta, P. (April, l993). Learning styles in a one-room school. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 87.

Kreitner, K.R. (l981). Modality strengths and learning styles of musically talented high school students. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Krimsky, J. (1982). A comparative analysis of the effects of matching and mismatching fourth-grade students with their learning style preference for the environmental element of light and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 66A.

Kroon, D. (l985). An experimental investigation of the effects on academic achievement and the resultant administrative implications of instruction congruent and incongruent with secondary, industrial arts students’ learning style perceptual preference. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3247A.

Kryriacou, M., & Dunn, R. (l994). Synthesis of research: Learning styles of students with learning disabilities. Special Education Journal, 4(1), 3-9.

Kuder, G.F. Richardson, M.W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.

Kulp, J.J. (1982). A description of the processes used in developing and implementing a teacher training program based on the Dunn’s concept of learning style. Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University.

Kussrow, P.G., & Dunn, K. (l992, Summer). Learning styles and the community educator. Community Education Journal. Alexandria, VA: National Community Education Association, XIX(4), 16-19.

Kussrow, P.G., (l994). Learning styles research and the community educator. Michigan Principal, East Lansing, MI, 70(1), 9-12.

Kuznar, E., Falciglia, G.A., Grace, A., Wood, L., & Frankel, J. (l991). Learning style preferences: A comparison of younger and older adult females. Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly, 10(3), 213-33.

Lam-Phoon, S. (1986). A comparative study of the learning styles of southeast Asian and American caucasian college students of two Seventh-Day Adventist campuses. (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Michigan).

Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (1975, 1978, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1990 & 1996). Developed by Rita and Kenneth Dunn and Gary E. Price: Price Systems, Inc., Box 1818, Lawrence, Kansas 66044.

Lan Yong, F. (l989). Ethnic, gender, and grade differences in the learning style preferences of gifted minority students. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale).

LeClair, T.J. (1986). The preferred perceptual modality of kindergarten-aged children. (California State University, 1986) Master’s Abstracts, 24, 324.

Lemmon, P. (1982). Step by step leadership into learning styles, Early Years, 12, 5 (January), 36, 14.

Lemmon, P. (1985). A school where learning styles makes a difference. Principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 64, (4), 26-29.

Lenehan, M. (l994). Effects of learning style knowledge on nursing majors’ achievement, anxiety, anger, and curiosity. Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, 1994.

Lenehan, M.C., Dunn, R., Ingham, J., Murray, W., & Signer, B. (1994, November). Learning style: Necessary know-how for academic success in college. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 461-466.

Lengal, O. (1983). Analysis of the preferred learning styles of former adolescent psychiatric patients. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2344A.

Lo, H.M. (1994) A Comparative Study of Learning Styles of Gifted, Regular Classroom, Resource Room/Remedial Program Studies in Grades 3 to 6 in Taiwan, Republic of China. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Missouri - Saint Louis.

Lux, K. (1987). Special needs students: A qualitative study of their learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(3),421A.

Lynch, P.K. (1981). An analysis of the relationships among academic achievement, attendance, and the learning style time references of eleventh- and twelfth-grade students identified as initial or chronic truants in a suburban New York school district. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1880A.

MacMurren, H. (l985). A comparative study of the effects of matching and mismatching sixth-grade students with their learning style preferences for the physical element of intake and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores and attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3247A.

MacMurren, H. (Spring, l992). Learning style and state law. The Learning Consultant Journal, XIII, 21-24.

Madison, M.B. (1984). A study of learning style preferences of specific learning disability students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 3320A.

Marcus, L. (1979). Learning style and ability grouping among seventh-grade students. The Clearing House, Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 8, 52(April), 377-380.

Marcus, L. (1977). How teachers view students’ learning styles. NASSP Bulletin, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 61(April), 112-114.

Mariash, L.J. (l983). Identification of characteristics of learning styles existent among students attending school in selected northeastern Manitoba communities. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Marino, J. (l993). Homework: A fresh approach to a perennial problem. Momentum, 24(1), 69-71.

Martini, M. (l986). 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). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 877A. Recipient: American Association of School Administrators (AASA) First Prize National Research, l986.

McCabe, D.L. (l992). The underachieving gifted student: An evaluation of the relationship of learning style and academic self-concept to academic achievement and case study of one gifted high-school student. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(1), 92-A.

McEwen, P. (1985). Learning styles, intelligence, and creativity among elementary school students. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, Center for Studies on Creativity.

McFarland, M. (l989). An analysis of the relationship between learning style perceptual preferences and attitudes toward computer assisted instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, Portland State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(10), 3143A.

Meighan, S. (l991). We put learning styles to work in our school, and you can too. American School Board Journal, 172(7), 30-31.

Mein, J.R. (l986). Cognitive and learning style characteristics of high school gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 04, 880A.

Melone, R.A. (l987). The relationship between the level of cognitive development and learning styles of the emerging adolescent. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 607A.

Metropolitan achievement test: Teachers’ manual for administering and interpreting. (1978). NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

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 achievements in career awareness and career decision-making concepts. (Doctoral dissertation, St.John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2527A.

Milgram, R.M., Dunn, R., & Price, G.E. (Eds.). (l993). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. CT: Praeger.

Milgram, R.M., & Dunn, R. (l993). Identifying learning styles and creativity in gifted learners: Subjects, instrumentation, administration, reliability, and validity. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. NY: Praeger, Chapter Two, pp. 25-36.

Milgram, R.M., Price, G.E., & Dunn, R. (1995). Learning styles of highly creative Israeli adolescents. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 5(1), 3-11.

Miller, J. (Edgar, G. (l994). The Learning Style Inventory and the Learning Style Profile: Concurrent validity and the ability to discriminate among class rankings. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 14-18.

Miller, L.M. (1985). Mobility as an element of learning style: The effect its inclusion or exclusion has on a student performance in the standardized testing environment. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, University of North Florida.

Monheit, S.L. (l987). An analysis of learning based upon the relationship between the learning style preferences of parents and their children. (Doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(2), 395A.

Monsour, S.E.M. (l991). The relationship between a prescribed homework program considering learning style preferences and the mathematics achievement of eighth-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, A, The Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(6), 1630A.

Montgomery L.F. (l993). A comparison of learning styles of traditional high school students and adult students in Missouri area vocational technical schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia). Dissertation Abstract International, 54(10), 3725.

Moore, R.C. (l991). Effects of computer-assisted instruction and perceptual preference(s) of eighth-grade students on the mastery of language arts and mathematics (CAI, Perceptual preferences). (Doctoral dissertation, South Carolina State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(06), p. 1876.

Morgan, H.L. (1981). Learning styles: The relation between need for structure and preferred mode of instruction for gifted elementary students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2223A.

Morris, V.J.P. (1983). The design and implementation of a teaching strategy for language arts at Chipley High School that brings about predictable learning outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3231A.

Moss, V.B. (l981). The stability of first-graders’ learning styles and the relationship between selected variables and learning style. (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(3),665A.

Murrain, P.G. (1983). Administrative determinations concerning facilities utilization and instructional grouping: An analysis of the relationships between selected thermal environments and preferences for temperature, an element of learning style, as they affect word recognition scores of secondary students. Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1749A.

Murray, C.A. (1980). The comparison of learning styles between low and high reading achievement subjects in the seventh- and eighth-grades in a public middle school. (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1005.

Murray-Harvey, Rosalind. (l994). Learning styles and approaches to learning: Distinguishing between concepts and instruments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 373-388.

Naden, R.C. (l992). Prescriptions and/or modality-based instruction on the spelling achievement of fifth-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University). Dissertation Abstracts International, A53(04), l051.

Nahamoni, M. (l995). Learning style and homework style of gifted and nongifted adolescents. M.A. Thesis, Tel Aviv University, School of Education.

Napolitano, R.A. (1986). An experimental investigation of the relationships among achievement, attitude scores, and traditionally, marginally, and underprepared college students enrolled in an introductory psychology course when they are matched and mismatched with their learning style preferences for the element of structure. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 435A.

Natale, S.M., Callan, R.J., Ford, J., & Sora, S. (l992, Winter). Social control, efficiency control, and ethical control in different political institutions: Education. The International Journal of Applied Philosophy, NY: International Association of Applied Philosophy, 25-32.

Nations-Miller, B.R. (l993, February). A profile analysis of the learning styles of tenth-through twelfth-grade at-risk, vocational and gifted students in a suburban Georgia public school. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, A-53/08, 2784.

Neely, R.O., & Alm, D. (l992, November/December). Meeting individual needs: A learning styles success story. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, (2), 109-113.

Neely, R.O., & Alm, D. (l993). Empowering students with styles. Principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 72(4), 32-35.

Nelson, B.N. (l991). An investigation of the impact of learning style factors on college students’ retention and achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University).

Nelson, B., Dunn, R., Griggs, S.A., Primavera, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Bacillious, Z., & Miller, R. (1993). Effects of learning style intervention on students’ retention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 34(5), 364-369.

Nganwa-Bagumah, M. (l986). Learning styles: The effects of matching and mismatching pupils’ design preferences on reading comprehension tests. (Bachelor’s dissertation, University of Transkei, South Africa).

Nganwa-Bagumah, M., & Mwamwenda, T.S. (l991). Effects on reading comprehension tests of matching and mismatching students’ design preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72(3), 947-951.

Nides, A.G. (l984). The effect of learning style preferences on achievement when an advanced organizer is employed. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University College of Education). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(05A), 1288.

Ogato, B.G. (l991). A correlational examination of perceptual modality preferences of middle school students and their academic achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnical Institute, Northern Virginia Graduate Center). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(12), 4210.

Orsak, L. (l990, October). Learning styles versus the Rip Van Winkle syndrome. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(2), 19-20.

Ostoyee, C.H. (1988). The effects of teaching style on student writing about field trips with concrete experiences. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2916A.

Paskewitz, B.U. (l985). A study of the relationship between learning styles and attitudes toward computer programming of middle school gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(03), 697A.

Pederson, J.K. (1984). The classification and comparison of learning disabled students and gifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(09A), 2810.

Perkins, P., & Milgram, R.M. (In press). Parent involvement in homework: A double-edged sword. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth.

Perrin, J. (1982). The identification of learning styles among young children. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 119-125.

Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the relationships among the learning style sociological preferences of gifted and nongifted primary children, selected instructional strategies, attitudes, and achievement in problem solving and rote memorization. (Doctoral dissertation, St.John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 342A.

Perrin, J. (l990, October). The learning styles project for potential dropouts. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(2), 23-24.

Pizzo, J. (1981). An investigation of the relationships 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). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 475A.

Pizzo, J. (December, 1982). Breaking the sound barrier: Classroom noise and learning style. Orbit, 64. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 13(4), 21-22.

Pizzo, J. (1982). Small group techniques - Big gains in reading, Early Years, 12, 9 (May) 30-31, 72-74.

Pizzo, J., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (l990, July-September). A sound approach to reading: Responding to students’ learning styles. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 249-260.

Ponder, D. (l990). An analysis of the changes and gender differences in preferences of learning styles at adolescence and the relationship of the learning styles of adolescents and their parents when matched and mismatched according to gender. (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(4), 1170A.

Price, G.E. (1980). Which learning styles elements are stable and which tend to change? Learning Styles Network Newsletter. NY: National Association of Secondary School Principals and St. John’s University 1, 3 (Autumn), 1.

Price, G.E. (1982). Learning style inventory and continuing development. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 115-118.

Price, G.E., (1982). Relationship between learning style and students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at National Meeting of the American Education Research Association. New York City, March 21.

Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1976 & 1977). Learning Style Inventory Research Report. Lawrence, KS.: Price Systems, Inc. 39 pp.

Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. (1978). The preferred learning style(s) of gifted elementary and junior high school students as compared to the preferred learning style(s) of nongifted elementary and junior high school students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Houston, Texas.

Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (1981). Studies in students’ learning styles, Roeper Review, 4, 2, (November), 38-40.

Price, G.E., Dunn, K., Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. (l981). Studies in students’ learning styles. Roeper Review, 4, 223-226.

Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Sanders, W. (1979). Relationship of learning style to self-concept. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 53(3), 155-158.

Price, G.E., & Griggs, S.A. (1985). Counseling college students through their individual learning styles. ERIC/CAPS, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Price, G.E., & Milgram, R.M. (l993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents around the world: Differences and similarities. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.)., Teaching and counseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning-styles perspective. CT: Praeger, Chapter 16, pp. 229-247.

Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (1981, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993. 1996) Lawrence, KS: Price Systems, Inc.

Quindag, S.R. (l992). The effects of guided aural versus guided aural-visual modelling on the performance achievement of beginning string instrumentalists (guided aural modelling). (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro). Dissertation Abstract International, 54(02), 455.

Quinn, R. (l993). The New York State compact for learning and learning styles. Learning Styles Network Newsletter. NY: St. John’s University and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 15(1), 1-2.

Quinn, T. (l995/May). Goals 2000 and The Learning-Styles Connection. NYC Challenge. NY: New York City Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 10, 21-24.

Ragsdale, C.S. (l991). The experiences and impressions of tenth-grade students in a modern European history class designed as a collaborative, heuristic learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation, The Union Institute, l991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(03A), 796.

Rahal, B.F. (l986). The effects of matching and mismatching the diagnosed learning styles of intermediate level students with their structure preferences in the learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(06A), 2010.

Ramirez, A.I. (1982). Modality and field dependence/independence: Learning components and their relationship to mathematics achievement in the elementary school. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 666.

Raviotta, C.F. (l988). A study of the relationship between knowledge of individual learning style and its effect on academic achievement and study orientation in high school mathematics students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of New Orleans). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(05)A, 1204.

Rea, D.C. (l980). Effects on achievement of placing students in different learning environments based upon identified learning styles. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri).

Reid, J.M. (l987, March). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21:87-105. Available to members only/ TESP:. 1118 22nd Street. N.W., Georgetown University, Suite 205, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Renzulli, J., & Smith, L.H. (1978). Learning Styles Inventory. Mansfield Centers, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Ricca, J. (1983). Curricular implications of learning style differences between gifted and nongifted students. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1324-A.

Ricca, J. (1984). Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly; Sum 28(3), 121-126.

Roberts, O.A. (1984). Investigation of the relationship between learning style and temperament of senior high students in the Bahamas andJamaica. Graduate dissertation, Andrews University.

Rodrigo, R.A. (l989). A comparison of the profiles of the learning styles of first-grade pupils at the Ateneo DeManila Grade School for the school year l988-l989. (Masters degree, Graduate School Atteneo De Manila University).

Rummel, R.J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Sage, C.O. (l984). The Dunn and Dunn learning style model: An analysis of its theoretical, practical, and research foundations. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(12), 3537A.

Sanders, W. L. (1993) Impact of an Integrated Learning Stytem On Auditory, Haptic, and Visual Learners (Auditory Learners Haptic Learners). Doctoral dissertation. Baylor University.

Sawyer, E. (l995). The need for structure among high school students: When is enough, enough? NASSP Principal. Reston, VA: National Association for Secondary School Principals, 79(569),85-92.

Semple, E.F., Jr. (1982).Relationships of learning style modality preferences and sociometric choices. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron.

Settle, J.M. (1989). Learning styles - modality strength reading instruction for low-achieveing first-grade students. Doctoral dissertation, Central Missouri State University.

Shands, R., & Brunner, C. (1989, Fall). Providing success through a powerful combination: Mastery learning and learning styles. Perceptions. NY: New York State Educators of the Emotionally Disturbed, 25(1), 6-10.

Shea, T.C. (1983). An investigation of the relationship among preferences for the learning style element of design, selected instructional environments, and reading achievement with ninth-grade students to improve administrative determinations concerning effective educational facilities. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2004A.

Siebenman, J.B. (1984). An investigation of the relationship between learning styles and cognitive style in non- traditional college reading students. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1705A.

Sims, J.E. (1988). Learning styles: A comparative analysis of the learning styles of Black-American, Mexican-American, and White-American third and fourth grade students in traditional public schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Santa Barbara).

Sims, J. (l989, Winter). Learning style: Should it be considered? The Oregon Elementary Principal. Salem, OR: The Oregon Elementary Principals’ Association, 50(2), 28.

Sinatra, C. (l990, July-September). Five diverse secondary schools where learning style instruction works. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 6(3), 323-342.

Sinatra, R. (1982). Brain processing: Where learning styles begin. Early Years, Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc. 12, 6 (February): 49-51.

Sinatra, R., Hirshoren, A., & Primavera, L.H. (l987). Learning style, behavior ratings and achievement interactions for adjudicated adolescents. Educational and Psychological Research, 7(1), 21-32.

Sinatra, R., Primavera L., & Waked, W.J. (l986). Learning style and intelligence of reading disabled students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 243-252.

Sinatra, R., Sazo de Mendez, E., & Price, G.E. (1993). The learning styles and creative performance accomplishments of adolescents in Guatemala. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Ten, pp. 161-173.

Singleton, N. (l993). Learning style assessment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portland, l993).

Smith, S. (1987). An experimental investigation of the relationship between and among achievement, preferred time of instruction, and critical-thinking abilities of 10th- and 11th-grade students in mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1405A.

Snider, K.P. (1985). A study of learning preferences among educable mentally impaired, emotionally impaired, learning disabled, and general education students in seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grades as measured by response to the Learning Styles Inventory. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46,(05), SECA, 1251.

Solberg, S.J. (1987). An analysis of the Learning Style Inventory, the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 2530A.

Soliman, A.S. (1993). The learning styles of adolsecents in Egypt. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Fourteen, pp. 210-218.

Sormunen, C. (1993) Learning style: An analysis of factors affecting keyboarding achievement of elementary school students. Delta-Pi-Epsilon Journal. 35 (1), 26-38.

Spires, R.D. (1983). The effect of teacher inservice about learning styles on students’ mathematics and reading achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1325A.

Spiridakis, J.N. (1981). Diagnosing the learning styles of bilingual students and prescribing appropriate instruction. Ethoperspectives in bilingual education research (III), Raymond Padilla (Ed). Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University (December) 307-320.

Spiridakis, J.N. (1993). The learning styles of adolescents in Greece. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Fourteen, pp. 210-218.

Stahlnecker, R.K. (l988). Relationships between learning style preferences of selected elementary pupils and their achievement in math and reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Loma Linda University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(11A), 3471.

Steinauer, M.H. (1981). Interpersonal relationships as reflected in learning style preferences: A study of eleventh-grade students and their English teachers in a vocational school. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 305A.

Stiles, R. (1985). Learning style preferences for design and their relationship to standardized test results. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Tennessee). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2551A.

Stokes, B.M. (1989). An analysis of the relationship between learning style, achievement, race, and gender. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron, 1989) Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 757A.

Stone, P. (l992, November). How we turned around a problem school. The Principal. Reston, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 71(2), 34-36.

Studd, M. (1995). Learning-Style Differences. The Clearing House. Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 69(1), 38-39.

Students learn how to study - and like it. (1979). U.S. News & World Report, December 31/January 7, 88, 27, 75-76.

Student learning styles (1979). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Suh, B., & Price, G.E. (1993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents in Korea. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. New York: Praeger, Chapter Eleven, pp. 174-185.

Sullivan, M. (1993). A meta-analysis of experimental research studies based on the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and its relationship to academic achievement and performance. Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University.

Sullivan, M. (l996/l997). A meta-analysis of experimental research studies based on the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and its relationship to academic achievement and performance. Northeast Louisiana University, College of Education, Monroe, Louisiana. National Forum of Applied Educational Research, 10,(1), 3-10.

Svreck, L.J. (1990). Perceived parental influence, accommodated learning style preferences, and students’ attitudes toward learning as they relate to reading and mathematics achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02), 395.

Sykes, S., Jones, B., & Phillips, J. (l990, October). Partners in learning styles at a private school. Educational Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 48(2), 24-26.

Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neurons; An Educator’s Guide to the Human Brain. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tanenbaum, R. (1982). An investigation of the relationships between selected instructional techniques and identified field dependant and field independent cognitive styles as evidenced among high school students enrolled in studies of nutrition. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University) Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 68A.

Tappenden, V.J. (1983). Analysis of the learning styles of vocational education and nonvocational education students in eleventh and twelfth grades from rural, urban, and suburban locations in Ohio. (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1326A.

Tseng, H.L. (1993) Differences in learning styles among chinese american, anglo american and hispanic american students. Masters thesis. University of Houston.

Thies, A. (1979). A brain-behavior analysis of learning style. Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 55-61.

Thomson, B.S. (l994). Fruits, bats, cats, and naked mole rats: Lifelong learning at the zoo. Digest. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 94(2), 2 pp.

Tiller, R.W. (l991). An investigation into the extent of congruency between general and music-specific learning style preferences. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5), 1677-A.

Torres, P.L. (l992). The identification of second-grade students’ learning styles. Master’s Thesis, University of Brasillia, l992.

Trautman, P. (1979). An investigation of the relationship between selected instructional techniques and identified cognitive style. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 1428A.

Tseng, H.L. (l993). Differences in learning styles among Chinese-American, Anglo-American, and Hispanic-American students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston. Masters Abstracts International, 31(4), 145.

Turner, N.D. (l992). A comparative study of the effects of learning style prescriptions and/or modality-based instruction on the spelling achievement of fifth-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(04), p. 1051.

Turner, N.D. (l993, summer). Learning styles and metacognition. Reading Improvement, 30(2), 82-85.

Vaughan, J.L., Weaver, S.L., Underwood, V.L., Binversie, N., House, G., Durkin, M., & Schroth, G. (l992). The learning style characteristics of Tohono O’Odham students: An executive summary. Research Report No.1. Commerce, TX: Texas Center for Learning Styles, East Texas State University.

Vaughan, J.L., Weaver, S.L., Underwood, V.L., & House, G.L. (l992). A comparison of students’ learning styles as determined by the Learning Style Inventory and Personal Learning Power. Research Report No.2. Commerce, TX: Texas Center for Learning Styles, East Texas State University.

Vaughan, J.L., Underwood, V.L., House, G.L., Weaver, S.W., & Dotson, S. (l992). Learning styles and TAAS scores: Preliminary results. Research Report No.3. Commerce, TX: Texas Center for Learning Styles, East Texas State University.

Vazquez, A.W. (1985). Description of learning styles of high risk adult students taking courses in urban community colleges in Puerto Rico. (Doctoral dissertation, The Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, Puerto Rico. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1157A.

Vignia, R.A. (1983). An investigation of learning styles of gifted and nongifted high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3653A.

Vignia, R.A., & Martin, M. (1982). Learning Styles at Bishop Carroll High School. Student Learning Styles and Brain Behavior. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 38-42

Virostko, J. (1983). An analysis of the relationships among academic achievement in mathematics and reading, assigned instructional schedules, and the learning style time preferences of third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1683A.

Wair, R.A. (1979). Individualization of a fourth- and fifth-year math program by utilizing student learning styles and criterion referenced tests. Ed.M. dissertation, Ashland College, Ohio.

Wallace, J. (l990). The relationship among preferences for learning alone or with peers, selected instructional strategies, and achievement of third, fourth, and fifth grade social studies students. (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(11), 3626A.

Wallace, J. (1995). When teachers’ learning styles differ from those of their students. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Mar. 22(1) 99-100.

Wasson, F.R. (1980). A comparative analysis of learning styles and personality characteristics of achieving and underachieving gifted elementary students. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University).

Weaver, S. (l992). Learning style profile for Tohono O’Odaham elementary students with implications for literacy programs. (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University) Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(12), 4255-A.

Wechsler, S. (1993). The learning styles of creative adolescents in Brazil. In R.M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Thirteen, pp. 197-209.

Weinberg, F. (1983). An experimental investigation of the interaction between sensory modality preference and mode of presentation in the instruction of arithmetic concepts to third grade underachievers. (Doctoral dissertation, St.John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1740A.

Wepman, J.M. (1958). Auditory Discrimination Test Chicago: Language Research Associates.

Wheeler, R. (1980). An alternative to failure: Teaching reading according to students’ perceptual strengths, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 17(2)(December), 59-63.

Wheeler, R. (1983). An investigation of the degree of academic achievement evidenced when second-grade, learning disabled students’ perceptual preferences are matched and mismatched with complementary sensory approaches to beginning reading instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2039A.

White, R. (1981). An investigation of the relationship between selected instructional methods and selected elements of emotional learning style upon student achievement in seventh-grade social studies. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 995A.

White, R.H. (l993). A study of the relationship between teachers’ learning styles preferences and their use of the microcomputer at home and at school in Medfield, Massachusetts. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(6), 2124-A.

White, R., Dunn, R., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). An investigation of responsible versus less responsible students. Illinois School Research and Development, Fall, 19(1), 18-25.

Wilburn, H.R. (l991). An investigation of interaction among learning styles and computer-assisted instruction with synthetic speech. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). Dissertation Abstracts International, A, The Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(7), 2398A-2399A.

Wild, J.B. (1979). A study of the learning styles of learning disabled students and non-learning students at the junior high school level. (Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Kansas). Lawrence, Kansas.

Williams, G.L. (1984). The effectiveness of computer assisted instruction and its relationship to selected learning style elements. (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1986A.

Williams, G.J. (l989). A study of the learning styles of urban,black, middle-school, learning-disabled and non-learning-disabled students. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(6), A.

Willis, M.G. (l989). Learning styles of African-American children: A review of the literature and interventions. Journal of Black Psychology, 16(1), 47-65.

Wingo, L.H. (1980). Relationships among locus of motivation, sensory modality, and grouping preferences of learning style to basic skills test performance in reading and mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2923.

Wittenberg, S.K. (1984). A comparison of diagnosed and preferred learning styles of young adults in need of remediation. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Toledo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3539A.

Wittig, C. (1985). Learning style preferences among students high or low on divergent thinking and feeling variables. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, State University College of Buffalo at New York, Center for Studies in Creativity.

Wolfe, G. (1983). Learning Styles and the teaching of reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Akron University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 3422A.

Yeap, L. L. (1987). Learning styles of Singapore secondary students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 936A.

Yong, F.L. (1992). A comparative study on the learning styles among gifted African-American, Mexican-American, and American-born Chinese middle-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(6), 1796-A.

Yong, F.L., & McIntyre, J.D. (l992). A comparative study of the learning styles preferences of students with learning disabilities and students who are gifted. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(2), 124-132.

Young, B.M.P. (1985). Effective conditions for learning: An analysis of learning environments and learning styles in ability-grouped classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 708A.

Young, B.M.P. (1985). Effective conditions for learning: An analysis of learning environments and learning styles in ability-group classes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Ma.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 86, 02708.

Young, D.B., Jr. (l986). Administrative implications of instructional strategies and student learning style preferences of science achievement on seventh-grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(01A), 27.

Young, D.B., Jr. (l993). Science achievement and thinking skills: The effects of a sequence of instructional strategies and learning style preferences with seventh-grade students. Pacific-Asian Education, 5(1).

Zak, F. (l989). Learning style discrimination between vocational and non-vocational students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(12A), 3843A

Zenhausern, R., & Dunn, R., et. al. (1984). How brainy are you about the brain? Early Years. Darien, CT: Allen Raymond, Inc. 15, 1 (August/September), 46-48.

Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D., & Eberle, B. (1981). Do left and right “brained” students learn differently? The Roper Review, Roeper City, MI: Roeper City and County Schools (September) 36-39.

Zikmund, A.B. (l988). The effect of grade level, gender, and learning style on responses to conservation type rhythmic and melodic patterns. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(1), 95A.

Zikmund, A.B. (l992, April). The effects of perceptual mode preferences and other selected variables on upper-elementary school students’ response to conservation-type rhythmic and melodic tasks. Psychology of Music, 20(1), 57-69. The effect of teacher inservice about learning styl & G.E. Price (Eds.). Teaching and Counseling Gifted and Talented Adolescents: An International Learning Style Perspective. Westport, CT: Praeger, Chapter Fifteen, pp. 219-227.

Read the supporting research above in one document

A statistical analysis on the Learning Styles assessment for 6th to 12th grade students was conducted.

View a PDF of the report’s findings

Multiple Intelligences

A statistical analysis on the Multiple Intelligences assessment was conducted.

View a PDF of the report’s findings

Productivity Preferences

A statistical analysis on the Productivity Preferences assessment was conducted.

View a PDF of the report’s findings