This study examined the question of whether instruction matched to a student's preferred modality would result in more efficient learning than instruction matched to a student's nonpreferred modality. Modality preference was identified on the basis of a student's Aural and Visual Input scores of the Visual Aural Digit Span (VADS) test. Consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) trigrams were utilized as the content to be learned. These trigrams were presented to students in two modality-pure formats: aural and visual. The students in the study were classified as learning disabled and were enrolled in resource rooms or self-contained special education classes. Sixty nine students participated in the study (age range = 75 to 155 months). The results revealed that there was no significant difference in students' learning of CVC trigrams when instructed according to their preferred modality as opposed to their nonpreferred modality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archer, E.J. (1960). A re-evaluation of the meaningfulness of all possible CVC trigrams. Psychological Monographs, 74(10, Whole No. 497).
2.
Arter, J.A., & Jenkins, J.R. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality considerations in special education. Journal of Special Education , 11(3), 281-298.
3.
Arter, J.A., & Jenkins, J.R. (1979). Differential diagnosis—prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49(4), 517-555.
4.
Bateman, B. (1968). The efficacy of an auditory and a visual method of first grade reading instruction with auditory and visual learners. In H. K. Smith (Ed.), Perception and reading (Vol. 12). Newark, NJ. International Reading Association.
5.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
6.
Cooper, J.C., & Gaeth, J.H. (1967). Interactions of modality with age and with meaningfulness in verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 41-44.
7.
Cullinan, B., Ringler, E., & Smith, I. (1969). Preferred learning modality and differential presentation of reading tasks. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Research and Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 042 589).
8.
Daniel, P., & Tacker, R.S. (1974). Preferred modality of stimulus input and memory for CVC trigrams. Journal of Educational Research, 67(6), 255-258.
9.
Day, W.P., & Beach, B.R. (1950). A survey of the research comparing the visual and auditory presentation of information (Tech. Rep. No. 5921). Dayton, OH: U.S. Air Force, Air Material Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
10.
Derevensky, J.L. (1978). Modal preferences and strengths: Implications for reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10(1), 7-23.
11.
Foster, C.G., Reese, J.H., Schmidt, C.R., & Ohrtman, W.G. (1976). Modality preference and the learning of sight words. Journal of Special Education, 10(3), 253-258.
12.
Gallistel, E.,Boyle, M., Curran, L., & Hawthorne, M. (1972). The relation of visual and auditiory aptitudes to first grade low reader's achievement under sight word and systematic phonic instruction (Report No. 36). Minneapolis: Minneapolis Research Development and Demonstration Center in Education of Handicapped Children, University of Minnesota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 079 714).
13.
Haring, N.G., & Bateman, B. (1977). Teaching the learning disabled child. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14.
Jones, J.P. (1972). Intersensory transfer, perceptual shifting, modal preference and reading. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
15.
Kampwirth, T.J., & Bates, M. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of the research. Academic Therapy, 15, 597-605.
16.
Kirk, S.A., McCarthy, J.J., & Kirk, W.A. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (rev. ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Larrivee, B. (1981). Modality preference as a model for differentiating beginning reading instruction: A review of the issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4(2), 180-188.
19.
Lilly, M.S., & Kelleher, J. (1973). Modality strengths and aptitude-treatment interaction . The Journal of Special Education, 7(1), 5-13.
20.
Meyers, M.J. (1980). The significance of learning modalities, modes of instruction, and verbal feedback for learning to recognize written words . Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 13, 62-69.
21.
Mills, R.E. (1964). The manual of directions for the Learning Methods Test. Fort Lauderdale, FL: The Mills Center.
22.
Newcomer, P.L., & Goodman, L. (1975). Effect of modality of instruction on the learning of meaningful and non-meaningful material by auditory and visual learners . Journal of Special Education, 9(3), 260-268.
23.
Neville, D. (1970). The development of an instrument to predict modality preference for learning to read. In C. Ketcham (Ed.), Proceedings of College Reading Association . Phillipsburg, NJ: College Reading Association.
24.
Ringler, L.H., & Smith, I.L. (1973). Learning modality and word recognition of first grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6(5), 307-312.
25.
Smith, C.M. (1971). The relationship of reading method and reading achievement to ITPA sensory modalities. Journal of Special Education, 5, 143-149.
26.
Tarver, S.G., & Dawson, M.M. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(1), 5-29.
27.
Tyler, J.L. (1974). Modality preference and reading task performance among the mildly retarded. Training School Bulletin, 70, 208-214.
28.
Waugh, R.P. (1973). Relationship between modality preference and performance . Exceptional Children, 39, 465-469.
