The importance of understanding student learning preferences is well established in the literature. Using qualitative methodology, this study examined learning through the eyes of 20 high-achieving female students enrolled in single-sex and coeducational secondary schools. Learning and success in school was described by the participants as the result of taking an active stance toward the material and understanding their style preferences, which included an inclination for learning within contexts and a tendency to study alone. Implications for classroom practice are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinleyM. D. (1993). Styles of engagement with learning: Multidimensional assessment of their relationship with strategy use and school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 395–405.
2.
AmesC.ArcherJ. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
3.
ArnoldK. (1994). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In HulbertK. D.SchusterD. T. (Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated women in the twentieth century (pp. 393–414). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BellL. A. (1989). Something's wrong here and it's not me: Challenging the dilemmas that block girls' success. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 118–139.
5.
BiosP. (1962). On adolescence. New York: The Free Press.
6.
BrownL. M.GilliganC. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
CallahanC. M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 284–311.
8.
HébertT. P.SorensenM. F.RenzulliJ. S. (1997). The Secondary Interest-A-Lyzer. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
9.
JonassenD. H.GrabowskiB. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
KaufmannF. (1981). The 1964–1968 presidential scholars: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 48, 164–169.
11.
KerrB. A. (1994). Smart girls two: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
12.
KettleK. E.RenzulliJ. S.RizzaM. G. (1998). My Way … An Expression Style Inventory. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
13.
LazarA. M. (1995). Who is studying in groups and why? Peer collaboration outside the classroom. College Teaching, 43, 61–65.
14.
LiA. K.AdamsonG. (1995). Motivational patterns related to gifted students' learning of mathematics, science, and English. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 284–297.
15.
LloydJ. W.EberhardtM. J.DrakeG. P. (1996). Group versus individual reinforcement contingencies within the context of group study conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 189–200.
16.
McKeachieW. J. (1988). The need for study strategy training. In WeinsteinC. E.GoetzE. T.AlexanderP. A. (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 3–9). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
NavarreJ. (1980). Is what is good for the gander, good for the goose: Should gifted girls receive different treatment? Roeper Review, 2, 21–25.
18.
NolenS. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.
19.
ObachM. S.MoelyB. E. (1993 April). Does metacognition about study activities predict motivational orientation in school-aged children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
20.
ReisS. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83–88.
21.
ReisS. M.CallahanC. M. (1989). Gifted females: They've come a long way—or have they? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 99–117.
22.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
23.
RenzulliJ. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
24.
ResnickL. B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16, 13–21.
25.
RobinsonA. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9–27.
26.
RobinsonA. (1991). Cooperative learning and the academically talented student. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
27.
SadkerM.SadkerD. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls. New York: Touchstone.
28.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
TavrisC. (1992). The mismeasure of woman. New York: Touchstone.
30.
TermanL. M.OdenM. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five year follow-up of a superior group (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
ZimmermanB. J.GreenbergD.WeinsteinC. E. (1994). Self-regulating academic study time: A strategy approach. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 181–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
