This paper examines the application of learning styles to the teaching of reading. The learning styles approach is based on the premise that learning styles can be assessed and the results can be used to determine instructional methods. Viewed in a historical context, learning style is not a new educational trend, but an extension of the well-worn process approaches that have been largely discredited. The application of learning styles to the teaching of reading is critiqued in light of four factors: (a) inability to adequately assess learning styles, (I$ failure to acknowledge the necessity of phonics instruction for beginning readers, (c) failure to consider the nature of reading disabilities, and (d) lack of convincing research. This critique suggests that the use of learning styles to prescribe methods of reading instruction must be viewed with skebticism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
4.
Arter, J.A., & Jenkins, J.R. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality -considerations in special education.The Journal of Special Education, 11, 281–298.
5.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson(Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
6.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness.Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208–225.
7.
Berk, R.A. (1984). Screening & diagnosis of children with learning disabilities.Springfield, IL: Thomas.
8.
Berliner, D.C., & Cahen, L.S. (1973). Trait-treatment interaction and learning. In F. Kerlinger(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 1, pp. 55–94). Istasca, IL: Peacock.
9.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read.Nature,301, 419–421.
10.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
11.
Carbo, M. (1980). An analysis of the relationships between the modality preferences of kindergartners and selected reading treatments as they affect the learning of a basic sight word vocabulary.Dissertations Abstracts International, 41, 1389A. (University Microfilms NO. 80-2 1790)
12.
Carbo, M. (1982). The reading style inventory.Roslyn Heights, NY: Learning Research Associates.
13.
Carbo, M. (1983a). Reading style inventory research supple-men t.Roslyn Heights, NY: Learning Research Associates.
14.
Carbo, M. (1983b). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional children.Exceptional Children,49, 486–494.
15.
Carbo, M. (1984a). Reading style inventory manual.Roslyn Heights, NY: Learning Research Associates.
16.
Carbo, M. (1984b). Research in learning style and reading: Implications for instruction.Theory into Practice, 23(1), 72–76.
17.
Carbo, M. (1987a). Deprogramming reading failure: Giving unequal learners an equal chance.Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 197–202.
Carbo, M. (1987c). Reading styles research: What works isn't always phonics.Phi Delta Kappan,68, 431–445.
20.
Carbo, M. (1988a). Debunking the great phonics myth.Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 226–239.
21.
Carbo, M. (1988b). The evidence supporting reading styles: A response to Stahl.Phi Delta Kappan,70, 323–327.
22.
Carbo, M. (1989). An evaluation of Jeanne Chall's response to "Debunking the great phonics myth."Phi Delta Kappan,71, 152–156.
23.
Carbo, M. (1990). Igniting the literacy revolution through reading styles.Educational Leadership,48(2), 2629.
24.
Carbo, M., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1986). Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles.Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
25.
Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies can help students at risk.Teaching Exceptional Children,20, 55–58.
26.
Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate.New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
Chall, J.S. (1983a). Learning to read: The great debate(rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Chall, J.S. (1983b). Stages of reading development.New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Chall, J.S. (1989). Learning to read: The great debate 20 years later.Phi Delta Kappan,70, 521–538.
30.
Chall, J.S., & Mirsky, A.F. (1978). The implications for education. In J. Chall & A.F. Mirsky(Eds.), Education and the brain (pp. 371–378). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Chase, C.I. (1978). Measurement for educational evaluation.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
32.
Coles, G. (1978). The learning disabilities test battery-Empirical and social issues.Harvard Educational Review, 48, 313–340.
Cronbach, L.J., & Snow, R.E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interaction.New York: Irvington.
35.
Curry, L. (1990). A critique of the research on learning styles.Educational Leadership,48(2), 50–56.
36.
Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relation to exceptionality at both ends of the spectrum.Exceptional Children, 49,496–506.
37.
Dunn, R. (1984). Learning style: State of the science.Theory into Practice,23(1), 10–18.
38.
Dunn, R. (1988). Teaching students through their perceptual strengths or preferences.Journal of Reading,31, 304–309.
39.
Dunn, R & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
40.
Dunn,Beaudry, J.S., & Klavas, (1989). Survey of research on learning styles.Educational Leadership,46(6), 50–58.
41.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price G.E. (1979). Learning style inventory.Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
42.
Ehri, L.C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability.Journal of Learning Disabilities,22, 356–364.
43.
Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can't read-And what you can do about it.New York: Harper
44.
Row. Flesch, R. (1981). Why Johnny still can't read-A new look at the scandal of our schools.New York: Harper & Row.
45.
Fox, B., & Routh, D.K. (1980). Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,9, 115–119.
46.
Frostig, M., & Horn, D. (1964). The Frostigprogram for the development of visual perception.Chicago: Follett.
47.
Gatewood, T.E. (1989). Caution! Applying brain research to education.The Clearing House,63, 37–39.
48.
Gazzaniga, M., & LeDoux, J.E. (1979). The integrated mind.New York: Plenum Press.
Gurren, L., & Hughes, A. (1965). Intensive phonics vs. gradual phonics in beginning reading: A review.Journal of Educational Research, 58, 339–346.
51.
Hammill, D.D., Goodman, L., & Wiederholt, J.L. (1974). Visual-motor processes: Can we train them?The Reading Teacher,27, 469–478.
52.
Hammill, D.D., & Larsen, S.C. (1974). The relationship of selected auditory perceptual skills and reading ability.Journal of Learning Disabilities,7, 429–435.
53.
Juel, C,Griffith, P.L., & Gough, P.B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade.Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 243–255
54.
Kampwirth, T.J., & Bates, M. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of research.Academic Therapy,15, 597–605
55.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (1987). Substance over style: Assessing the efficacy of modality testing and teaching.Exceptional Children, 54, 228–239.
56.
Kephart, N.C. (1960). The slow learner in the classroom.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
57.
Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. (1968). Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities.Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
58.
Krimsky, J.S. (1982). A comparative study of the effects of matching and mismatching fourth grade students with their learning style preferences for the environmental element of light and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores.Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 66A.
59.
Larrivee, B. (1981). Modality preference as a model for differentiating beginning reading instruction. A review of the issues.Learning Disability Quarterly,4, 180–188.
60.
Larsen, S.C, & Hammill, D.D. (1975). Relationship of selected visual perceptual abilities to school learning.The Journal of Special Education, 9, 181–191.
61.
LaShell, L. (1986). An analysis of the effect of reading methods on reading achievement and locus of control when individual reading style is matched for learning disabled students (Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Institute, 1986).Dissertation Abstracts International, 48, 362A.
62.
Levy, J. (1985, May). Right brain, left brain: Fact and fiction.Psychology Today, pp. 1–5.
63.
Levy, J. (1990). Children think with whole brains: Myth and reality. In Student learning styles and brain behavior (pp. 173–183). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals Staff.
64.
Liberman, I.Y. (1984). Should modality preferences determine the nature of instruction? In F. Duffy & N Gesch-wind(Eds.), Neuroscientific approach to clinical evaluation (pp. 93–103). Boston: Little, Brown.
65.
Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1979). Speech, the alphabet, and teaching to read. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver(Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 2, pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
66.
Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write.Remedial and Special Education,6(6), 8–17.
67.
Liberman, I.Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.
68.
Liberman, I.Y., Shankweiler, D., Orlando, C, Harris, K., & Bell-Berti, F. (1971). Letter confusions and reversals of sequence in the beginning reader: Implications for Orton's theory of developmental dyslexia.Cortex,7, 127–142.
69.
MacMurren, H. (1985). A comparative study of the effects of matching and mismatching sixth-grade students with their learning style preferences for the physical element of intake and their subsequent reading speed and accuracy scores and attitudes.Dissertation Abstracts International,46, 3247A.
Miller, A. (1981). Conceptual matching models and interactional research in education.Review of Educational Research,51, 33–84.
72.
Newcomer, P., Hare, B., Hammill, D., & McGettigan, J. (1975). Construct validity of the ITPA.Journal of Learning Disabilities,8, 220–231.
73.
Oosterhof, A. (1990). Classroom applications of educational measurement.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
74.
Paris, S.G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacogni-tion and motivation of exceptional children.Remedial and Special Education,11(6), 7–15
75.
Pizzo, J. (1981). An investigation of the relationships between selected acoustic environments and sound, an element of learning style, as they affect sixth grade students' reading achievement and attitudes.Dissertation Abstracts International,42, 2475A.
76.
Price, G.E., Dunn, R., & Sanders, W. (1981). Reading achievement and learning styles characteristics.The Clearing House,54, 223–226.
77.
Restak, R.M. (1985). The human brain: Insights and puzzles.Theory into Practice, 24, 91–94.
78.
Robinson, H.M. (1972). Perceptual training-Does it result in reading improvement? In R.C. Aukerman(Ed.), Some persistent questions on beginning reading (pp. 135–250). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
79.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1988). Assessment in special and remedial education.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
80.
Shea, T.C. (1983). An investigation of the relationship(s) among preferences for the learning styles element of design, selected instructional environments, and reading achievement of ninth graders to improve administrative determinations concerning effective educational facilities.Dissertation Abstracts International,44, 2004A.
81.
Stahl, S. (1988). Is there evidence to support matching reading styles and initial reading methods?Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 317–322.
82.
Stanovich, K.E. (1982). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of reading: 1. Word decoding.Journal of Learning Disabilities,15, 449–512.
83.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Cramer, B.B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,38, 175–190.
Tarver, S.G., & Dawson, M.M. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 17–29.
86.
Urbschat, K.S. (1977). A study of preferred learning modes and their relationship to the amount of recall of CVC tri-grams.Dissertation Abstracts International,38, 2536A. (University Microfilms No. 77-24029)
87.
Vellutino, F.R. (1981). Dyslexia: Theory and researchCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
88.
Walberg, H.J. (1986). What works in a nation still at risk.Educational Leadership,44, 7–10.
89.
Wepman, J. (1960). Auditory discrimination, speech and reading.Elementary School Journal,60, 325–333.
90.
Wheeler, R. (1980, December). Teaching reading according to students' perceptual strengths.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 20, 59–63.
91.
Wheeler, R. (1983). An investigation of the degree of academic achievement evidenced when second grade learning disabled students perceptual preferences are matched and mis-matched with complementary sensory approaches to beginning reading instruction.Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 2039A. (University Microfilms No. 83-22722)
92.
Wiederholt, J.L., & Hammill, D.D. (1971). Use of the Frostig-Horne visual perception program in the urban school.Psychology in the Schools,8, 168–174.
93.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1987). How do the results of metacognitive research impact on the learning disabled individual?Learning Disability Quarterly, 70,189–195.
94.
Ysseldyke, J.E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In L. Mann & D.A. Sabatino(Eds.), First review of special education (Vol. 1, pp. 5–31). Philadelphia: JSE Press.
95.
Ysseldyke, J.E., & Salvia, J. (1974). A critical analysis of the assumptions underlying diagnostic-prescriptive teaching.Exceptional Children,41, 181–195.
96.
Zigmond, N., Vallercorsa, A., & Silverman, R. (1983). Assess-ment for instructional planning in special education.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
