BarbeW. B., & SwassingR. (1979). Teaching students through modality strengths: Concepts and Practices.Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser, Inc.
2.
BuellB. G., & BuellN. A. (1987). Perceptual modality preference as a variable in the effectiveness of continuing education for professionals. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1987).Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 283A.
3.
CarboM. (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, 1980).Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1389A. Recipient: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development National Award for Best Doctoral Research, 1980.
4.
DunnR. (1988). Commentary: Teaching students through their perceptual strengths or preferences.Journal of Reading, 31(4), 304–309.
5.
DunnR. (1989). Capitalizing on students' strengths to ensure literacy while engaging in conventional lecture/discussion.Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 9, 431–453.
6.
DunnR., BeaudryJ. S., & KlavasA. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles.Educational Leadership, 46(6), 50–58.
7.
DunnR., & DunnK. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles.Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
8.
InghamJ. (1989). An experimental investigation of the relationships between and among learning style perceptual strength, instructional strategies, training achievement, and attitudes of corporate employees.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John's University. Recipient: American Society for Training and Development Award. One of two National Finalists, 1989.
9.
JarsonbeckS. (1984). The effects of a right-brain and mathematics curriculum on low achieving, fourth grade students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1984).Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2791A.
10.
KavaleK. A., & FornessS. R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching.Exceptional Children, 54(3), 228–239.
11.
KroonD. (1985). 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, 1985).Dissertation Abstracts International, 463247A.
12.
MartiniM. (1986). An analysis of the relationships 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, 877A. Recipient: American Association of School Administrators (AASA) First Prize National Research, 1986.
13.
UrbschatK. S. (1977). A study of preferred learning modes and their relationship to the amount of recall of CVC trigrams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.
14.
WeinbergF. (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, 1983).Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1740A.
15.
WheelerR. (1980). An alternative to failure: Teaching reading according to students' perceptual strengths.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 17(2), 59–63.
16.
WheelerR. (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, 1983).Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2039A.
