International Journal of Arts and Sciences by International Journal of Arts and Sciences

Learning Preferences of 5th and 6th Grade Students in Northwest Arkansas Carleton R. Holt1, Jack B. De Vore1, George S. Denny1, Roland M. Smith2 and Matthew Capps1 1 2

University of Arkansas at Fayetteville University of Arkansas at Fort Smith

•

The purpose of the study was to describe the learning preferences of 5th and 6th grade students, based on students at four elementary schools and measured by the 22 scales of the Learning Style Inventory

Introduction Over twenty years ago, Benjamin Bloom wrote: “‘Individual differences’ in learners is a fact that can be demonstrated in many ways. …That these variations must be reflected in learning standards and achievement criteria is more a reflection of our policies and practices rather than the necessities of the case. Our basic task in education is to find strategies which will take individual differences into consideration but which will do so in such a way as to promote the fullest development of the individual” (Bloom, 1981, p. 156). Two decades later, Public Law 107-110 stated, in part, that the purpose was “closing the achievement gap between high- and lowperforming children…” and “holding schools, local educational agencies, and states accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students …” In this era of increased student performance and teacher accountability as mandated by the “No Child Left Behind” legislation, educators are faced with the challenge of providing an environment that facilitates increased student learning or facing consequences that include allowing other enterprises to educate their children (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002). The challenge has never been greater to be cognizant of learning variations and to utilize that information to promote this “fullest development of the individual” as stated several decades ago by Bloom. Eighteen studies concerning learning preferences identified differences in the type of learning styles studied but supported for the importance of learning preferences to student learning (Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas, 1989). Dunn (1996) concluded that while persons can learn basic information despite incompatible learning styles, children and adults learn most easily through their learning style strengths.

Auciello (2003) reported from his research that learning is “not necessarily a reflection of good or poor teaching, but rather it’s the fit between various characteristics of the child and the teacher that counts. …Different children, depending on their own personality and learning style, will be more responsive to certain traits or a pattern of traits than others” (p. 1). Good teaching, therefore, requires an understanding of the learning preferences of children and then providing instruction that capitalizes on those learning strengths. A Georgia Tech University seven-year research study of engineering teaching and learning found that “software tools and engineering teaching should be based upon student learning styles, faculty teaching styles, and includes elements of active reflection, scaffolding, and visualization” (Nelson, 2003, p. 1). A study by Sternberg (1995), based on 200 students participating in a Yale Summer Psychology study, developed a series of conclusions. Two of these findings were that: 1. “Students whose instruction matched their pattern of abilities performed significantly better than the others…” 2. “By measuring creative and practical abilities, we significantly improved our ability to predict performance” (p. 23). While recognition of learning preferences is recognized as important to learning, and while increased student learning has become a national mandate, Anderson (2001) suggested four reasons why conceptual models of learning styles have not evolved into successful practice: