Temperament-based learning styles as moderators of academic achievement.

Horton, Connie Burrows ; Oakland, Thomas

Considerable research in education and psychology has been directed toward identifying the effects of individual differences in learning styles. Learning theorists generally agree that curriculum and instructional strategies should be adapted to these aptitudes.

Learning styles have been defined as physiological, cognitive, and affective behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to learning environments (Keefe, 1987). Thus, learning styles are thought to be stable and enduring personal qualities and not easily acquired (Derry & Murphy, 1986). As noted in Keefe's definition, literature of learning styles has centered on three main qualities thought to be critical: physiology (e.g., Das & Malloy, 1984; Eppele, 1989; Kane, 1984; Keefe, 1987; Levy, 1984; Millard & Nagle, 1986; Polce, 1987; Shannon & Rice, 1983; Sinatra, 1982; Webb, 1983), cognition (e.g., Bertini, 1986; Brennan, 1982; Das & Malloy, 1981; Goodenough, 1986; Kane, 1984; Keefe, 1987; Korchin, 1986; Messick, 1976; Polce, 1987; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977), and affect (e.g., Carrol, 1963; Haring, 1985; Keefe, 1987).

Several ways have been proposed that examine learning styles in terms of their conceptualized physiological, cognitive, and affective components. Research designed to study the efficacy of learning style applications generally consider relatively narrow components (e.g., field dependence) within the context of aptitude-treatment interactions (ATI). General support for ATI is lacking (Cronbach & Snow, 1977; Reynolds, 1981; Snider, 1990), and there are few empirically supported guidelines to assist in grouping students for instructional purposes. Moreover, a meta-analysis of studies on learning style applications reports little or no achievement gains when instruction methods match learning modalities (Kavale & Forness, 1987).

Despite this somewhat pessimistic view, considerable interest remains in uncovering possible applications of learning styles defined in broader ways. Previous research can be criticized for conceptualizing these styles too narrowly, thus minimizing opportunities to test fully the effects of broader and more encompassing learning styles. Some believe temperament provides this broader perspective. Although the early contributions of Hippocrates and Galen often are cited, modern interest dates to Jung's writings (e.g., Psychological Types (1923). The popularization of temperament type by Myers and Briggs (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) has generated considerable interest among educators and psychologists. Myers and Briggs operationally define temperament through four dichotomous traits: extraversion (E) and introversion (I), sensing (S) and intuition (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F), and judging (J) and perceiving (P).

Keirsey and Bates (1984) describe four basic temperaments that can be derived from the interaction of these types of traits, each temperament having its own primary or core value. SJ students primarily value belonging through providing service to others (e.g., they value following traditions and acting responsibly and conservatively). SPs primarily value personal freedom and spontaneity (e.g., to act on their impulses, to play, and to be free of constraints). NTs primarily value competence (e.g., a desire to learn, to know, to predict, and to control). NFs primarily value personal growth (e.g., to develop fully as individuals, to display authentic integrity, and to promote harmony).

Golay (1982) and others (e.g., Lawrence, 1982) extended type and Keirseian temperament theory by describing prominent learning styles exhibited by students displaying these four temperament types. SJs were described as learning best when curricular materials were concrete and instruction well planned and routine (e.g., using repetition and drill through step-by-step instructions). SPs were thought to learn best through strategies that highlight variety, action, and entertainment. NT students were described as interested in developing theories and concepts and preferring strategies that promoted discovery and experimentation. NF students were thought to be interested in determining the relevance of learning to their personal lives and the lives of those important to them, and preferred strategies that emphasized cooperation and personalized applications of learning.

Despite considerable interest in learning styles derived from temperament, few studies appear in quality refereed journals that examine the efficacy of these applications. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that students learn best when taught using strategies that are consistent with their temperament-based learning style.

METHOD

Subjects

Four hundred seventeen seventh graders enrolled in social studies classes in a large metropolitan district of approximately 65,000 students comprised the sample. Approximately 35% were Mexican-American, 23% were African-American, and 42% were Caucasian; approximately 50% were from low-income families and qualified for the free lunch program.

Instruments

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a 126-item forced choice questionnaire, was used to assess four dichotomous dimensions: Extra-version (E)-Introversion (I); Sensing (S)-Intuition (N); Thinking (T)-Feeling (F); Judging (J)-Perceiving (P). The reliability coefficients of the MBTI for middle school students generally is in the high .70s while test-retest studies over 12 months found consistency on each scale also to be in the .70s (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Temperament classification percentages of students in this study are: 7% NF, 17% NT, 49% SP, 27% SJ) - approximate national estimates as reported by Golay (1982) and Keirsey (1984).

Criterion-referenced measures of Texas history also were employed to assess content acquisition from two instructional units. All pre- and post-tests were developed to assess the instructional goals as set forth in the teacher's edition of Texas, Our Texas and were derived from items contained in this volume.

Procedure

Four teachers received inservice training on temperament and temperament-based learning styles through readings and attending four dydactic training sessions. They also completed the MBTI and received information regarding the implications of their own temperament on their teaching and learning styles.

Following training, each teacher was assigned to write lesson plans, along with the senior author, for one of four instructional strategies associated with temperament. The plans were designed to be consistent with-instructional strategies and lesson plans that Golay (1982) and Keirsey and Bates (1984) describe for each of four temperaments: Sensing and Judging (SJ), Sensing and Perceiving (SP), Intuitive and Thinking (NT), and Intuitive and Feeling (NF). Instructional strategies important to each of the four types are described below. When possible, teachers were to develop lessons using the instructional strategy which matched their own temperament. The first set of lessons, a six-day unit on Texas explorers was based on Chapter 5 of the Texas, Our Texas social studies text. The second set of lessons, a seven-day unit on Texas colonization, was based on Chapter 9 of the text.

SJ lessons were designed to encourage attention to detail, conformity, and obedience. Loss of structure or expectations of spontaneous participation were avoided. Teachers reinforced conventional thinking that was consistent with information presented in the text.

SP lessons encouraged performance, playfulness, and fun, avoiding quiet seatwork or boring routines. Teachers using this strategy reinforced participation, involvement, and spontaneity.

NT lessons were designed to encourage independent thinking, problem solving, and strategizing. Lessons avoided redundancies, inefficiencies, and an overemphasis on detail. Teachers using this instructional strategy reinforced competence as well as good ingenious ideas.

NF lessons were designed to encourage cooperation, personal application, and identification with the historical characters. The lessons avoided competition and overemphasis on detail. Teachers reinforced unique or creative ideas, personal growth, and expression of personal experiences and feelings.

The students' social studies grades for the preceding six-week grading period, prior to introducing Chapter 5, were collected. The first phase of the study began at the start of the second six-week grading period. Students were given a pretest on knowledge important to the Chapter 5 social studies lesson regarding Texas explorers. Following the six days of instruction, students were given a posttest on the material.

Students remained in their assigned social studies classes and were taught using a single instructional strategy for the six-day unit. Different instructional strategies were used by the teachers for other classes during the school day. One teacher utilized each of the four instructional strategies in each of her four class periods. Two of the teachers utilized each of the four instructional strategies in four classes and repeated one instructional strategy in a fifth class. The fourth teacher had only two seventh grade social studies classes and used two different methods.

This process was repeated during the second phase of the study which began at the start of the third six-week session and was based on Chapter 9 of the text. To ensure treatment integrity, the first author completed periodic observations of all four teachers, verifying that their instruction was consistent with the curricula developed for the study.

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether students demonstrate higher levels of achievement when they received social studies instruction through a teaching style designed to match their temperament-based learning styles. Analyses of covariances, using pretests as covariates were used to examine the hypothesis.

The type of instructional strategy used by the teachers significantly affected achievement among SJ students during both the first [F (3,106) = 15.53, p [less than] .001] and second [F (3,112) = 4.44, p [less than] .01] units of instruction, among SP students during both the first [F (3,196) = 21.28, p [less than] .001] and second [F (3,102) = 5.95, p [less than] .001] instructional units, among the NT students during the first [F (3,68) = 4.37, p [less than] .01] but not the second [F (3,62) = .51, p = 68, n. s.] instructional units, and among NF students during both the first [F (3,29) = 3.60, p [less than] .05] and second [F (3,25) = 5.18, p [less than] .01] units of instruction. Students exhibited significantly higher achievement when NF instructional strategies were used (see Table 1).

Teacher Effects

The study also explored possible teacher effects, which were examined through ANCOVA. Students' grades for the first six-week grading period and the pretest scores from each unit were used as covariates. Teacher was the independent variable and posttest score was the dependent variable. Results were significant in both the first [F (3,335) = 14.56, p [less than] .001] and second [F (3,350) = 26.16, p [less than] .001] units of instruction. The proportion of variance accounted for by teacher (9% for unit one and 13% for unit two) reveals that, while significant, the teacher effects did not account for a large proportion of the variance even as compared to covariates. Additionally, the implications of teacher effects on the primary hypothesis were minimal in that the teachers whose students demonstrated the highest level of achievement utilized all four instructional strategies. Moreover, all four teachers used the NF method.

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

This study tested assertions made by Keirsey and Golay about relationships between achievement and learning styles based on student temperament. The findings provide little empirical support for their theory that achievement is improved among students who receive instruction that utilizes teaching strategies which match their temperament-based learning styles. The results of the current study, combined with the lack of empirical support by Keirsey and Golay in their own work, together with the paucity of empirical investigation by others, weakens this assertion.

The present results may be explained if one supports the position that temperament is only one personal attribute that influences achievement. Temperament theorists may have become too simplistic in viewing temperament as the basis of learning/teaching styles and have neglected to integrate other important schools of thought including learning and developmental theories, cultural concerns, and cognitive abilities. Learning style should not be the only factor considered in the design of instruction (Doyle & Rutherford, 1984). Other variables, including students' age and stage of development, must be considered (Gregorc, 1979).

In the present study, the NF teaching strategy, designed to personalize learning, was superior in facilitating achievement among students of all four temperament types. Current temperament theory cannot fully explain these results. A simple univariable explanation may not be possible due to the multiple factors involved; however, the statistical and practical significance of this finding should not be ignored. Reasons why students learn more when taught with a personal approach may be attributable to many factors. Theories of learning and development as well as acknowledgment of cultural sensitivities may provide useful conceptual frameworks for understanding these findings.

The personal teaching strategy employed a variety of techniques designed to enable students to relate to the lessons in personal ways. For example, students completed a visualization exercise in which they imagined having the experiences of an early Texas explorer, including the feelings, motivations, and sensory input the person may have experienced. Students also made diary entries in the first person as if they were a famous person during that historic period. In addition, class discussions focused on relating to the characters, imagining what it would have been like to have had their experiences and the ways students today are similar to those historical figures.

Learning theorists also have argued that such personalized approaches can enhance achievement. Schema theory offers some important explanations of these results. "A schema is defined as an abstract data structure which consists of the concepts, relations (conceptual, temporal, and spatial), and related information that apply to a particular concept, event, or other data set" (Siebold, 1989, p. 53). Schema theory suggests that students' understanding of new material is dependent on previous experiences, the extent of their world knowledge, and the way in which these experiences interact with the explicit new information (Smith & Smith, 1986). Prior knowledge and experience with the instructional materials decidedly influence learning and achievement (Cooper, 1989).

Personalized lessons used prior knowledge to help students develop schemata at two levels. Lectures and new materials were related to students' previous experiences. For example, students typically were asked to write about personal events in their lives. Thus, when asked to write diaries in the first person as an explorer, the concept was not completely new. In another class exercise, the personalities of historic characters were compared to those of movie stars with whom the students were familiar. Thus, new material was introduced in a way that enabled students to use their prior knowledge to further develop their schema.

Further, the class exercises provided additional world experiences through visualization. These experiential activities had a memorable component. Thus, when questions were asked on the test, students may have been better able to draw on their prior knowledge and class experiences; students were likely to be better able to use the schemata they had developed prior to class, to add to that schemata through additional class experiences, and to draw on the more developed schemata when asked to recall information on the posttests.

Developmental theory also may provide useful insights into the understanding of these results. Because of their personalizing qualities, the NF lessons may appeal strongly to adolescent narcissism. Since many adolescents are prone to egocentric thinking (Kimmel & Weiner, 1985) lessons which are personally focused may capture and hold their attention during this developmental stage and thus facilitate acquiring and retaining information. Thus, both age and stage of development are critical factors in considering learning styles (Gregorc, 1979).

Finally, Trueba (1988) and Rameriz (1982) have underscored the need for more humane learning environments for minority students. As previously noted, the majority of students in this study were minority; half were from economically distressed homes. Personal, feeling-oriented lessons may provide more nurturing qualities which facilitate achievement in minority students. Lessons which encouraged them to relate the new material to personal experiences and feelings also may help those from diverse cultural backgrounds to sustain interest since they were able to relate their personal qualities, history, and backgrounds in ways that valued their diversity. Additionally, the exercises in the NF strategy (e.g., imagine being a Texas explorer or assume the role of an 1830s colonist) may provide a welcome respite for students from families experiencing financial and other stressors.

In sum, while some temperament qualities may contribute importantly to how students learn, schema theory, developmental considerations, and cultural sensitivities also should be considered when developing lesson plans designed to optimally reach students.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides one of the few empirical examinations of temperament-based learning styles. While support was not found for using instructional strategies that match students' temperament-based learning styles, results did indicate that a strategy which capitalizes on personalization was superior for students of all types. Thus, it is clear that in addition to temperament, such factors as type of instruction, teachers, learning theory principles, developmental concerns, and cultural issues have an impact on achievement and attitudes. Temperament theorists are therefore encouraged to integrate, or at least acknowledge, these other schools of thought in their conceptualizations.

REFERENCES

Bertini, M. (1986). Some implications of field dependence for education. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 93-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brennan, P. (1982). Teaching children globally and analytically. Early Years, 12, 34-35.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Does reducing student-to-instructor ratio affect achievement? Educational Psychologist, 24, 79-98.

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A hand-book on interactions. New York: Irvington.

Das, J. P., & Malloy, G. (1981). Of brain divisions and functions. Academic Therapy, 16, 349-358.

Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 1, 1-39.

Doyle, W., & Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research on matching learning and teaching styles. Theory into Practice, 23, 20-25.

Eppele, R. (1989). Left brain/right brain: Research and learning. Bloomington, In ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 567).

Golay, K. (1982). Learning patterns and temperament styles. Newport Beach, CA: Manas-Systems.

Goodenough, D. R. (1986). History of the field dependence construct. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 5-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership, 36, 234-237.

Haring, E. (1985). Teaching and learning styles. Elgin Community College, Elgin, Indiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258 658.)

Kane, M. (1983). Cognitive styles of thinking and learning. Academic Therapy, 19, 527-536.

Kane, M. (1984). Cognitive styles of thinking and learning. Academic Therapy, 20, 83-92.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228-239.

Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, VA: NASSP.

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me. (Fourth ed.) Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis.

Kimmel, D. C., & Weiner, I. B. (1985). Adolescence: A developmental transition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Korchin, S. (1986). Field dependence, personality theory, and clinical research. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 45-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lawrence, G. (1982). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles. (Second ed.). Gainsville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Levy, J. (1984). What do brain scientists know about education? Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 3(3), 4-5.

Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Millard, D. E., & Nagle, S. J. (1986, March). Minds, brains and the language arts: A cautionary note. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 221.)

Myers, I. B., & McCauley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Ca: Consulting Psychologists.

Polce, M. E. (1987). Children and learning styles. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds), Children's needs: Psychological perspectives (pp. 325-334). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ramirez, M. (1982, March) Cognitive styles and cultural diversity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 218 380.)

Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment and the habilitation of learning: Considering the search for the aptitude X treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 10(3), 343-349.

Shannon, M., & Rice, D. R. (1983). A comparison of hemispheric preference between high ability and low ability elementary children. Education Research Quarterly, 7(3), 7-15.

Siebold, B. A. (1989). Effects of schemata and a concept organizer on cognitive learning and acquisition. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 26, 53-66.

Sinatra, R. (1982). Brainprocessing: Where learning styles begin. Early Years, 12, 49-50.

Smith, L. J., & Smith, D. L. (1986). Teaching teachers to transfer their knowledge. Journal of Reading, 29, 342-345.

Snider, V. E. (1990). What we know about learning styles from research in special education. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 53.

Trueba, H. T. (1988). Culturally based explanations of minority students' academic achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19, 270-283.

Webb, G. M. (1983). Left/right brains, teammates in learning. Exceptional Children, 49(6), 508-515.

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64.

Thomas Oakland, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Educational Psychology.