EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND MISMATCHING...by Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy - West Point

8/14/2019 EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND MISMATCHING...by Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy - West Point

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/effects-of-matching-and-mismatchingby-susan-m-tendy-united-states-military 1/25

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 27, NUMBER 2, 2010-2011

EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND

MISMATCHING PERCEPTUAL AND

SOCIOLOGICAL LEARNING-STYLE

PREFERENCES ON ACHIEVEMENT AND

ATTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS IN A GROUP

EXERCISE LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTOR

TRAINING PROGRAM

Susan M. Tendy

United States Military Academy

West Point

ABSTRACT

Mean scores on achievement measures and attitude scales among individuals in an

Exercise Leadership Instructor Training Program were examined in order to determine

the effect(s) on these variables when instructional strategies were either congruent with,

or dissonant from, perceptual and sociological learning-style preferences. Independent

variables were: (1) perceptual learning-style preferences, (2) sociological learning-style

preferences, (3) instructional strategies employing perceptual/sociological techniques.

Dependent variables were: (1) achievement scores for each training unit, (2) scores that

measured subjects' attitudes toward perceptual and sociological teaching strategies.

Although no significant difference in achievement scores were found, students

evidencing a preference for instructional techniques employing visual strategies scored

significantly higher (p < .01) than the visually non- or opposite-preferenced students

across all instructional units employing the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials.Examination of attitude data revealed that all groups responded in a positive manner

toward strategies congruent with their preferences as compared to those that were

mismatched.

Introduction

earning Style Preference is defined as "the unique way inwhich each learner begins to concentrate on, process and retain

new and difficult information" (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). The

importance of the use of learning-style instructional strategiesL

4



5 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

becomes apparent when one realizes that although instructors tend to

use the same teaching techniques for all students, each person is

different. At higher levels of physical skill, the significance of fitness,and the use of selected skills as the accepted indicator of fitness,

underscores the importance of allowing for athletes' individuallearning-style preferences in order to maintain motivation and

maximize their potential (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Motor learningspecialists (Lawther, 1968; Sage, 1984) have indicated that athletic

ability can be developed and improved by instructors and coaches who

know the proper verbal and visual cues to give to athletes, incombination with the athlete’s ability to correctly practice these

directives. This outcome requires that learners absorb auditory and

visual cues given to the group by their coaches, and then use their ownkinesthetic abilities to practice the information. This theory is

complicated by research indicating that many students actually achieve

more and prefer to learn by themselves, whereas others learn best andaccomplish more when working with peers. Still others function bestin a traditional group directly under the supervision of an authority

figure (Griggs, 1989). Redesigning the learning environment to better

adjust for these differences in athletes' perceptual and sociologicallearning-style preferences may hold an important key to success in the

realm of physical education and athletics (Brunner & Hill, 1992).\

In discussing a "knowledge structures" approach when

planning physical learning activities, Vickers (1990) stressed the

importance of accommodating for student-athletes' individual

differences:

The design of learning activities is a creative endeavor that is

fun, challenging, risky (they may not work), and personal. As ateacher or coach, you should always be looking for different ways to

get the same material across, always trying to find innovative ways to

help individual students. (p. 146)



Susan M. Tendy 6

Perceptual and Sociological Learning-Style Preferences

Experimental research investigating the effects of perceptual preferences on the learning of new and difficult information has

demonstrated a significant increase in achievement and improvedattitude when those preferences were matched as opposed to when

they were mismatched. A study conducted by Carbo (1980) examinedan element later recognized as a tactual preference that had not been

previously identified. A subsequent study investigating perceptual

preferences that included a tactual element in the learning-style preference survey was able to show higher achievement scores when

information was presented through one's primary perceptual

preference, and reinforced through the secondary modality of thelearner (Kroon, 1985).

Research investigating students' sociological preferences whenworking alone, with peers and with authority figures has alsodemonstrated positive effects on achievement and attitude when those

preferences were matched versus when they were mismatched. These

studies have addressed the preferences of gifted versus non-giftedstudents (Perrin, 1984), academic subjects such as social studies (De

Bello, 1985; Giannitti, 1988), vocabulary strategies (Cholakis, 1986),

study habits of college freshmen (Clark-Thayer, 1987), and career awareness of middle-school students (Miles, 1987). In all cases,

researchers were able to identify sociological preference as a

significant factor affecting the ability of students to learn new and

difficult information.

Learning-Style Preferences and Physical Activity

Correlational studies investigating the existence of learning-

style preferences in the discipline of physical education, dance, andathletics have found significant evidence that such preferences do

exist, setting the foundation for further investigatory work (Coker,

1996; Kraft, 1976). Many of these investigations were conducted at




the college level comparing the learning-style preferences of Physical

Education majors to those of Dance or Education majors (Pettigrew &

Zakrajsek, 1984; Zakrajsek, Johnson & Walker, 1984). Experimentalresearchers investigating learning-style preferences in physical activity

have been supportive of these earlier correlational findings, and theyhave indeed demonstrated the potential for increased achievement in

this area when students are taught through their preferred modality. Astudy investigating field dependent versus field independent teaching

strategies demonstrated that field dependent students had difficulty

learning when taught physical education in a manner incongruent withtheir preferred style (Ennis & Chepyator-Thompson, 1990).

Conversely, coach/practitioners at the high school level improved their

wrestling team's competitive record once congruent learning-stylestrategies were introduced into the practice sessions based on students'

learning style preferences (Brunner & Hill, 1992). Related research at

the adult level revealed higher achievement and attitude scores whendriver-trainees’ perceptual preferences were addressed (Ingham,1991). Although these studies varied in approach and instrumentation

techniques, they all clarified the fact that the psychomotor realm is an

area capable of being further explored in terms of learning-style preferences.

Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of

matching and mismatching perceptual (auditory, visual, tactual and

kinesthetic) and sociological (learning alone, with peers or with anauthority figure) learning-style preferences on achievement and

attitude of individuals in a group exercise leadership instructor training

program. Specifically, are there significant differences in psychomotor achievement and attitude scores of Group Exercise

Leader Trainees under the following conditions:

1. When the learner’s combined sociological and perceptual

learning-style preferences are matched versus when they are

mismatched while learning;



Susan M. Tendy 8

2. When a skill is taught through the learner's matched versus

mismatched perceptual preference;

3. When a skill is taught through the learner's matched versusmismatched sociological preference.

Methodology

Subjects

The population from which the subjects of this study were

drawn consisted of students in attendance at an institution of higher

education located in New York State. The range of students' ages wasfrom 17 to 24 years. Ninety percent of the student body of

approximately 4000 was male; ten percent female. Students are

graduated with a bachelor of science degree and, upon graduation, areassigned to the Armed Forces of the United States.

The subjects in this study consisted of 59 students from both

the junior and senior class, enrolled in three separate Group ExerciseLeadership Instructor Training Courses. Assignment to their required

physical education elective is determined by a combination of factors

such as personal choice, priority based on physical education rank inclass, academic scheduling, and random assignment. Participation in

the study was voluntary. All students had completed a required

background course in both Personal Fitness and Unit Fitness. Of the

59 students initially enrolled in the course, 58 were able to remain inthe study; one student was dropped due to attendance factors.

Institutional permission to conduct the study was grantedthrough the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. The study was

explained to the students enrolled, and all students agreed to

participate. Negative replies would have been allowed to take another course. All students received the same instruction and the same

treatment. Achievement based on differences in learning-style




preference was the dependent variable examined, based on the

learning-style categorization of each student.

Instrumentation

Three types of instruments were used for data collection and

analysis during the study.

Learning-Style Preference: In order to determine individual

learning-style preferences, each subject was administered theProductivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) at the

beginning of the course (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1996). The PEPS is an

instrument for "the identification of how adults prefer to function,learn, concentrate and perform in their occupational or educational

activities" in the areas of immediate environmental, emotional,

sociological, physical and psychological needs (Price, 1996, p. 5).Additionally, this model provides information directly applicable toteaching strategies in the classroom. The survey, which can be

completed in approximately 20 to 30 minutes, consists of 100 items

relating to 20 different learning style elements on a five-point Likertscale. These elements, which comprise the Dunn and Dunn Learning-

Styles Model, include an individual's preferences in the following five

areas:

(a) environmental preferences -- sound, light, temperature and

design;

(b) emotionality -- motivation, persistence, responsibility, andthe need for structure;

(c) sociological preferences -- alone, peer, authority oriented,

or learns in several ways;(d) physiological needs -- perceptual preferences (auditory,

visual, tactile, kinesthetic), time of day energy levels,

intake, and the need for mobility;(e) processing style -- global versus analytic preference.



Susan M. Tendy 10

The PEPS was originally normed with a population of 975 females

and 419 males ranging from 18 to 65 years of age (Dunn, Dunn &

Price, 1991). A revision of this instrument was then administered to a"non-random sample of 589 adults from several states and from

various academic and industrial settings" (Price, 1996, p. 14). In thisrevised version, 90 percent of the reliabilities were found to be equal

to or greater than .60 (Price, 1996).

Achievement: Following the conclusion of each instructional

unit, achievement was measured through administration of psychomotor and/or cognitive criterion-referenced tests. These tests

were based on standards set forth by the International Dance and

Exercise Association (IDEA) Performance Review System (1992) aswell as the American Council on Exercise (ACE) Aerobics Instructor

Certification Exam Content Outline (1993) which designate written

and practical skills tests, and teaching and learning standards to bemastered. Questions were evaluated and subsequently revised by a jury consisting of certified Group Exercise Leader Instructor Trainers

holding advanced degrees in Physical Education. Each written test

consisted of a combination of multiple choice and short answer questions worth 10 points. Psychomotor teaching skills were recorded

by a team of three trained observers whose judging system was

standardized through the use of an observational checklist.

Attitude: At the conclusion of the study, the Semantic

Differential Scale (SDS) (Pizzo, 1981) was administered to determine

individuals' attitudes toward the teaching strategies employed. Eachsubject completed two scales: one to assess their reaction to selected

instructional strategies that either matched or mismatched the

individual's perceptual learning-style preference and a second scalethat assessed the same reaction levels to instructional strategies that

either matched or mismatched the subjects' sociological learning-style

preference.




This scale was initially developed to determine the attitudes of

students tested in an environment congruent or incongruent with their

preference for sound. Based on criteria developed according torecommendations by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957, p. 96),

the SDS included 12 bi-polar adjective pairs on a five-pointcontinuum, allowing for a level of reference for one's feelings

concerning a particular topic or strategy. A neutral reference point isgiven a value of three, enabling quantitative evaluation of the

attitudinal direction.

Procedures

Administration of the Productivity Environmental PreferenceSurvey (PEPS). Once consent by subjects was established, the

concept of learning-style preference was discussed with all

participants. The PEPS was then administered to all subjects. Answer forms for the PEPS were scored by Price Systems in Lawrence,Kansas. Individual learning-style profiles, and homework

prescriptions based on these preferences, were then generated to

further educate the students concerning individual study strategies.

Instructional Strategies. In accordance with departmental

policy, each student was given a course outline and a lesson planmanual describing the lecture and activity topics for each class

meeting. During the subsequent eight-week period, the same

information was introduced to all students with researcher-designed

materials that addressed a matrix that combined sociological and perceptual learning-style teaching strategies (Figure 1). The

perceptual variables addressed were auditory/visual (A/V), and

tactual/kinesthetic (T/K). The different sociological variablesaddressed included working alone, with peers, and with an authority

figure. Six units within the Group Exercise Leadership Course were

chosen for this procedure and were taught in the following sequence tominimize, as much as possible, potential sensitization to subsequent

lessons:



Susan M. Tendy 12

1. Low Impact Movements (Authority - T/K)

2. Monitoring Exercise Intensity (Peers - A/V)

3. Karvonen Formula for determining Training Heart Rate(Authority - A/V)

4. Muscle Groups of the Leg (Alone - T/K)5. High Cardiovascular Movements (Alone - A/V)

6. Class Format (Peers - T/K)

The use of the tactual/kinesthetic materials fabricated for the

study had been presented at the State Physical Education Convention(NYSAHPERD) in October 1999, at the National Physical Education

Convention (AAHPERD) in April 2000, and at the International

Learning-Styles Institute in July of 1997 and 1999, and were receivedfavorably.

Materials used for the authority - T/K unit includedmanipulatives and teacher-led movements. The peers - A/V unitconsisted of a team learning experience. Lecture and discussion

methods were utilized during the authority - A/V segment.

Manipulatives and kinesthetic learning opportunities were introducedduring the alone - T/K topic. For the alone - A/V subject, methods

included handouts, in-class slides, videotapes, and PowerPoint

presentations electronically mailed to each individual student's personal computer. Finally, team manipulatives and kinesthetic floor

games were experienced during the peers -T/K topic.

Statistical Procedures. Data were analyzed using bothmultivariate and univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) techniques

(Green, Salkind & Akey, 1997, p. 189) allowing for assessment of the

relationship of one or more factors (learning-style preferences) witheither single (univariate) or multiple (multivariate) dependent

measures (see Figure 2):

1. Six separate analyses were conducted to allow for

examination of differentiation in mean achievement scores

as a result of standardized teaching methodology




addressing the selected combined perceptual and

sociological preferences within each individual

instructional unit. Where only one dependent variable wasused as an assessment measure (in this study, a written

test), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasutilized. Where two dependent variables were used as an

assessment measure (in this study, both a written and askills test) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)

was employed.

2. A follow-up of five multivariate analyses of variance were

used to examine scores across each of the following

elements: Auditory/Visual, Tactual/Kinesthetic, Alone,Peers, and Authority.

Finally, Semantic Differential Scale scores were analyzed interms of group means with respect to satisfaction with instructionalstrategy as categorized by learning-style preference.

Results

Achievement

Examination of data revealed no significant difference in

psychomotor achievement scores between students whose combined

perceptual and sociological learning-style preferences were matchedas compared to those who were mismatched:

a) Auditory/Visual-Alone: (F = .33, p > .05)

b) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Alone: (F = 1.27, p > .05)

c) Auditory/Visual-Peers: (F = 1.69, p > .

05)

d) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Peers: (F = .48, p > .05)

e) Auditory/Visual-Authority: (F = .73, p > .05)

f) Tactual/Kinesthetic-Authority: (F = 1.29, p > .05)



Susan M. Tendy 14

These findings supported a conclusion that adjustment of

instructional strategies to match both perceptual and sociological preferences neither assisted nor hindered those students' abilities to

learn new psychomotor skills.

Trends toward higher achievement when T/K-Alone, T/K-Authority, Combined A/V, Combined T/K and Combined Alone

instructional strategies and preferences were matched, as compared to

when they were mismatched, supported the conclusion that a larger experimental population might have revealed significant findings.

An additional multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)was conducted to compare the achievement scores of students

exhibiting a visual preference across all T/K instructional units. The

dependent variables were achievement scores from the MuscleGroups, Class Format and Low Impact units. Table 1 contains themeans and standard deviations on the dependent variables by group

preference.

The results of the MANOVA, presented in Table 2, revealed a

significant difference in the dependent measures [Wilks' = .666, F

(10, 102) = 2.30, p < .05] between matched and mismatched subjectswith a preference for visual resources. Follow-up univariate

ANOVAs on each dependent measure revealed that the visually-

preferenced subjects performed significantly better than the visually

non- or opposite-preferenced subjects on the written tests in the unitsthat employed the most colorful tactual/kinesthetic materials. Those

written tests were in the Muscle Groups [F (2, 55) = 6.74, p < .01] and

the Class Format units[ F (2, 55) = 5.25, p < .01] (See Table 3). It is possible that the colorful T/K materials had a confounding effect on

the visual students, more so than the theorized effect through the

intended T/K strategy.




Attitude

Examination of both the perceptual and sociological attitude

surveys allowed further investigation of the process of teaching to thelearner's preferred strengths. The survey assessing attitudes toward

perceptual instructional strategies focused on teaching through use of tactual/kinesthetic resources. A score above the neutral point of 36

(see Figure 3) indicated responses in a positive direction.

Examination of group means revealed that subjects identified

as belonging to the tactual/kinesthetic preferenced group, as measured

by the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey, scored thehighest in attitude ( x = 51.3) toward instructional strategies which

matched their learning-style preferences. Subjects in the

auditory/visual preferenced category scored lowest of the groups -- below the neutral point of 36 ( x = 31.67) -- indicating dissatisfactionwith the perceptual instructional strategy that did not match their

preferred style. In addition to validation of the learning-style

categorization results of the PEPS, this trend toward (a) positiveattitudes toward instructional strategies congruent with learning-style

preferences and (b) dissatisfaction with strategies dissonant from those

preferences corroborated previous research in which subjects whose perceptual preferences were matched exhibited significantly higher

attitude test scores than when they were mismatched (Bauer, 1991;

Ingham, 1991; Martini, 1986).

The survey assessing attitudes toward sociological instructional

strategies was focused on learning through strategies that were

congruent with, as opposed to dissonant from, students' preferredstyles as measured by the Productivity Environmental Preference

Survey. Subjects were asked to rate their feelings toward the

congruent sociological instructional strategies they had experienced ascompared to strategies that were dissonant from that preference.

Based on previous research in which students demonstrating no

sociological preference actually exhibited more positive attitudes



Susan M. Tendy 16

when learning alone (Giannitti, 1988), the subjects in the present study

who exhibited no sociological preference for instructional resources

were administered a survey asking them to compare how they feltabout learning alone as opposed to learning with peers or with an

authority figure. A score above the neutral point of 36 indicatedresponses in a positive direction for all groups. Examination of group

means revealed that all groups responded in a positive manner towardstrategies congruent with their sociological preferences as compared to

strategies dissonant from those preferences (see Figure 4).

This demonstration of positive attitudes toward instructional

strategies congruent with sociological preferences was supported by

previous research, in which subjects experiencing instructionalstrategies that matched their sociological preferences exhibited

positive attitudes toward those strategies (De Bello, 1985; Miles,

1987; Perrin, 1984). These results also lent support to findings byGiannitti (1988) in which subjects with no sociological preferenceexhibited significantly higher attitude test scores when learning alone.

Discussion

Previous research has evidenced significantly higher achievement and attitude test scores in the cognitive area when either

the perceptual or sociological learning-style preferences of the learner

were matched, as compared to when they were mismatched. This

study extended that investigation to the psychomotor area of learning.Due to the nature of physical education and athletic learning and

performance-based activities, it is often difficult to isolate a single

teaching strategy that matches a particular learning-style element interms of its possible effects on the learner. Therefore, this study

sought to combine perceptual and sociological teaching strategies as

factors that addressed these preferences.

Since the subjects involved in this study must maintain a grade

point average competitive with their peers to receive appointments and




promotions both during their academic career and beyond, it is likely

that they were highly motivated to succeed, regardless of the

instructional strategy employed. This may have been demonstrated bythe fact that many of the 58 students involved in the study were

classified as non-preferenced, or "neutral" in terms of their learning-style preferences in many of the categories. Observers noted that if

one method of presentation did not meet the needs of the students, thatdid not deter them from learning the material through other resources

in order to satisfactorily meet the achievement criteria. It was noted

during the investigation that subjects reported to class early in order towork alone with tactual materials previously introduced as a peer-

oriented strategy. During the auditory/visual unit, students were

observed writing and taking notes, which is a tactual method of learning. The philosophy of completing the mission no matter what

the situation seemed to be the overriding factor for the population of

this particular study. One might conclude that when highly motivated,anyone can learn any topic. It is the unmotivated learner thatcontinues to challenge the educator. Ethical considerations precluded

posing any restrictions during the investigation to prevent motivated

students from adapting themselves to a learning environment that didnot match their preference.

Recommendations for Future Research

As a result of the findings of this investigation, it is

recommended that future researchers consider the followingexpansions in design:

1. conduct this same research with a larger population;2. investigate psychomotor achievement by individual, rather

than combined, perceptual and sociological preferences;

3. confounding variables such as motivation should be further investigated.



Susan M. Tendy 18

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Scores for Subjects

Categorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual Preference AcrossCombined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies




9.20 1.30 5

9.14 1.13 49

8.38 .95 4

9.09 1.13 58

8.36 .83 5

8.47 .47 49

7.88 .62 4

8.42 .52 58

7.70 1.68 5

7.35 1.71 49

4.19 1.43 4

7.16 1.85 58

8.59 .83 5

8.52 .84 49

8.01 1.00 4

8.49 .85 58

9.07 .89 5

7.70 .98 49

7.11 1.29 4

7.77 1.07 58

Visual Preference

Preference

No Preference

OppositePreference

Total

Preference

No Preference

OppositePreference

Total

Preference

No Preference

OppositePreference

Total

Preference

No Preference

OppositePreference

Total

Preference

No Preference

OppositePreference

Total

Dependent Variable

"Low Impact Combo"Writ Quiz:T/K-Authority Strategy

"Low Impact Combo"Physical Skills Test:T/K -Authority Strategy

"Muscles" Writ Quiz:T/K-Alone S trategy

"Musc les" SkillsPresentation:T/K-Alone S trategy

"Class Format"Writ Quiz:T/K-Peers S trategy

Mean

Std.

D ev iation N

Des criptive Statistics



Susan M. Tendy 20

Table 2

Results of Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Achievement Scores

for Subjects Categorized by Levels of Visual Perceptual Preference

Across Combined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies

• p < .05

.0 08 1 33 3.2 4c

5 51 .000 1.000

.666 2.30c

10 102 .018* .909

Wilks'Lambda

Wilks'Lambda

Effect

Intercept

VI

Value F

Hypothesis

df

Error

df S ig.

Observed

Power b

M ultivariate Tes tsa

Design: Intercept+VIa.

Com puted using alpha = .05b.

Exact statisticc .

Multivariate Testsa

*p<.05




Table 3

Results of Follow-up Univariate ANOVA: Visual Preferenced Groups

Across Combined Tactual / Kinesthetic Instructional Strategies

38.51 2 19.26 6.74 .002 .902

10.45 2 5.23 5.27 .008 .814

786.47 1 786.47 275.17 .000 1.000

1211.23 1 1211.23 1220.1 .000 1.000

38.51 2 19.26 6.74 .002* .902

10.45 2 5.23 5.27 .008* .814

157.20 55 2.86

54.60 55 .99

3 16 8.6 9 5 8

3 57 0.5 7 5 8

1 95.71 5 7

65.05 57

"Muscles" W rit:T/K-Alone

"Class Format"Writ : T/K-Peers







"Muscles" W rit:

T/K-Alone"Class Format"Writ : T/K-Peers



Source

Corrected

Model

Intercept

VI

Error

Total

Corrected

Total

Sum o f

S quares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Observed

Power a

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Com puted using alpha = .05a.

*p<.01



Susan M. Tendy 22

Figure 1. Matrix of course topics and the teaching strategies and

materials used to address selected perceptual and sociologicallearning-style preferences.




Figure 2. Summary of data analysis categorization by instructional

strategies and outcomes assessment techniques.



Susan M. Tendy 24

Figure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies byperceptual preference.

Figure 3. Attitude toward tactual/kinesthetic instructional strategies by

perceptual preference.

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

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

Positive Attitude = Above 36

Perceptual Preference

A/V & T/KNon-PreferenceT/KA/V

M e a n S c o r e s : S e m a n t i c D i f f e

r e n t i a l S c a l

60

50

40

30

20

50

42

51

32

PositiveAttitude= Above36

Sociological Preference

Non-Preference

Peer/Alone

Peer/Authority

Authority

Peer

Alone

M e a n S c o r e s : S e m a n t i c D i f f e r e

60

50

40

30

43

56

464647

49




REFERENCES

American Council on Exercise. (1993). Aerobics instructor certification exam content outline. In R. T. Cotton & R. L.

Goldstein (Eds.), Aerobics instructor manual, (pp. 448-463).San Diego, CA: American Council on Exercise.

Bauer, E. (1991). The relationships between and among learning

style perceptual preferences, instructional strategies,

mathematics achievement, and attitudes toward mathematics of learning-disabled and emotionally handicapped students in a

suburban junior high school. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's

University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53,

1378A.Brunner, R., & Hill, D. (1992). Using learning styles research in

coaching. JOPERD, 63 (4), 26-28, 61.

Carbo, M. L. (1980). An analysis of the relationship between themodality preferences of kindergartners and selected reading

treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight-word

vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University,1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 4, 1389-A.

Cholakis, M. (1986). An experimental investigation of the

relationships between and among sociological preferences,

vocabulary instruction, and achievement and the attitudes of New York, urban, seventh and eighth grade underachievers.

(Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 , 4046A.

Clark-Thayer, S. (1987). The relationship of the knowledge of student-perceived learning style preferences, and study habits

and attitudes to achievement of college freshmen in a small,urban university. (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University,

1987). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 872A.

Coker, C. (1996). Accommodating students’ learning styles in physical education. JOPERD, 67 (9), 66-68.



Susan M. Tendy 26

De Bello, T. (1985). A critical analysis of the effects on achievement

and attitudes of administrative assignments to social studies

instruction based in individual, eighth grade students'sociological preferences for learning alone, with peers, or with

teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 , 68-01A.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through

their individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1991). Productivity environmental preference survey (PEPS) manual. Lawrence, KS: PriceSystems.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1996). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS). Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Ennis, C., & Chepyator-Thompson, J. (1990). Learning

characteristics of field-dependent children within an analytical

concept-based curriculum. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, 170-187.

Giannitti, M.C. (1988). An experimental investigation of the

relationships among the learning style sociological preferences

of middle-school students (Grades 6, 7, 8), their attitudes andachievement in social studies, and selected instructional

strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1988) Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 2911A.

Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows:

Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Griggs, S. A. (1989, November). Students’ sociological grouping preferences of learning styles. The Clearing House 63(3), 135-

139. Washington, DC: Heldref Publications.

Ingham, J. (1991). Matching instruction with employee perceptual preference significantly increases training effectiveness.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(1), 53-64.

International Dance Exercise Association (1992). The IDEA

performance review system. San Diego, CA: IDEA.

Kraft, R. (1976). An analysis of student learning styles. Physical Educator , 33(3), 140-143.




Kroon, D. (1985). An experimental investigation of the effects on

academic achievement and the resultant administrative

implications of instruction congruent and incongruent withsecondary, industrial arts students' identified learning style

preferences. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 , 3247A.

Lawther, J. D. (1968). The learning of physical skills. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated.

Martini, M. (1986). An analysis of the relationships between and

among computer-assisted instruction, learning style perceptual preferences, attitudes, and the science achievement of seventh

grade students in a suburban, New York school district.

(Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1986) Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (03), 877A.

Miles, B. (1987). An investigation of the relationships among the

learning style sociological preferences of fifth and sixth gradestudents, selected interactive classroom patterns, andachievement in career awareness and career decision making

concepts. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1987) Dissertation Abstracts International , 48, 2527A.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The

measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois

Press.Perrin, J. (1984). An experimental investigation of the relationships

among the learning style sociological preferences of gifted and

non-gifted primary children, selected instructional strategies,

attitudes, and achievement in problem-solving and wordrecognition. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University,

1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (02), 342A.

Pettigrew, F. & Zakrajsek, D. (1984). A profile of learning-style preferences among physical education majors. Physical

Educator, 41(2), 85-89.



Susan M. Tendy 28

Pizzo, J. (1981). An investigation of the relationship between

selected acoustic environments and sound, an element of

learning style, as they affect sixth-grade students' readingachievement and attitudes. (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's

University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(06), 2475A.

Price, G. (1996). Productivity Environmental Preference Survey

(PEPS) manual. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.

Sage, G. (1984). Motor learning and control: A neuropsychological approach. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Vickers, J. (1990). Instructional design for teaching physical

activities: A knowledge structures approach. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.Zakrajsek, D., Johnson, R., & Walker, D. (1984). Comparison of

learning styles between physical education and dance majors.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58(2), 583-588.

Documents

EFFECTS OF MATCHING AND MISMATCHING...by Susan M. Tendy, United States Military Academy - West Point