.2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Mill/2 {gill/W1 l l J Hill 7L

2114

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State

University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THEIR
LEARNING STYLES

presented by
KATY LUX

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in . 2mm

 

mm

Major professor

Date November 5, 1987

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

___.— .7 7 _— .__ _ _ ___. _. . __ ..V__ *

 

 

 

IVIESI.J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARJES remove this checkout from

your record. FINES will

 

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

OCT 1 3 2+2
05 2 3 l 2

   

 

 

 

SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS:
A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THEIR
LEARNING STYLES

BY
Katy Lux

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1987

X”

3"- l L:

"H
t?

(I

gt'f'i

ABSTRACT
SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS:

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF THEIR
LEARNING STYLES

BY
Katy Lux

This inquiry describes a qualitative study of children
who tend to be labeled as "learning disabled", "gifted" or
"learning disabled/ gifted." In particular, the focus of
this study is on the preferred learning styles of these

students. The study seeks to answer three primary research

questions:

How do these students interact with their age mates and

their school environment?

How are their preferred learning styles made manifest

in their behavior?

How well do they understand the ways they learn?

To answer these questions, the author employed the
methods of descriptive research based on the application of

anthropological practices to educational research. This

approach is known in the literature as "fieldwork
research," "qualitative research,” "ethnography" and
"microethnography." The method is based on the use of
participant observation extended over a long period of
time. In addition to participant observation and
mechanical recordings, the research included formal and
informal interviews, gathering artifacts, talking to
parents and teachers, and administering a learning style
inventory to the student participants.

The findings suggest that the handicap(s) of the
learning disabled/gifted students may have obscured the
expression of any special gifts and talents. In addition,
the academic weaknesses of the learning disabled students
seemed to be the primary focus of attention in the
mainstreamed classrooms and often excluded acknowledgment
of any strengths. The gifted students, however, were
viewed as a part of the total classroom unit and did not
appear to be treated differently apart from that structure.

Considerable differences were apparent among the
learning style preferences of the students involved.
Similarities, however, did exist within each of the
particular student classifications.

Information gained in this study might help define the
concept of learning styles and guide educators as they
introduce this knowledge into the curriculum, particularly
as it concerns those individuals who are unsuccessful in
school but appear at the same time to possess more ability

than most of their age peers.

The joy of learning is often a nightmare
for more than 10 million normal, bright,
intelligent children--just because no one
has recognized their learning difference.
Understand their frustration--and begin
to understand the problem.

Let no child be demeaned, nor have his
wonder diminished, because of our ignorance
or inactivity. Let no child be deprived of
discovery, because we lack the resources to
discover his problem. Let no child--ever--
doubt himself or his mind because we

are unsure of our commitment.

Author unknown

Dedicated to those who understand

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of this dissertation would not have been
possible without the support, cooperation and encouragement
of many professionals. I wish to extend my sincere
gratitute and appreciation to:

Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, my major professor, who listened
attentively and provided calm, concerned guidance
throughout the course of my study. His expertise and
caring attitude provided me with an exemplary role model.

Committee members, Drs. Charles Blackman, Doug Campbell,
and William Joyce, who provided skills, knowledge, and
valuable advice and direction.

The teachers who opened their classrooms so that this study
might take form.

Friends and colleagues who understood the importance of
this project, and encouraged me to persist, helping make it
possible.

Most importantly my husband and children who have been
exceedingly tolerant and even encouraging when I needed
support the most.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transcription Rotational Devices . . . .
CHAPTER I
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . .
Major Inquiries and Subsidiary Questions

Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . .

Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature . . . . . .

Learning Style: An Instructional Theory

The Gifted and The Learning Disabled . .

CHAPTER III

Procedures, Materials, and Data Analysis

Procedures of the Inquiry . . . . . . .

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Methods of Data Analysis . . . . . . . .

Anticipated Value of the Inquiry . . . .
vi

PAGE
ix

10
11

12

14
18

27

36
36
47
49

53

CHAPTER IV

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Interaction with Age Mates and the School Environment .
Learning Disabled/Gifted and Their Environment

Learning Disabled Students and Their Environment

Gifted Students and Their Environment .

Classroom Integration of Special Needs Student

Evident Patterns of Socializing . .
Behavioral Styles of Students . . .
Pressures of Outsiders . . . . . .
Negotiation of the Knowledge Role .
Inventory Selection . . . . . . . .
Learning Styles of Rob and Brian .
Learning Styles of Bob and Jason .
Learning Styles of Russ and Dori .

Preference Summaries Interpreted .

Awareness of Learning Style Characteristics

CHAPTER V

Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . .

55

55

58

66

73

82

89

100

109

114

117

119

124

127

130

141

151
151
155
158

162

APPENDICES
A. Learning Style Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

B. Sample Preference Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

REFERENCES 0 O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 17 0

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. Seating Arrangements in Miss Knight's Room
2. Seating Arrangements in Mrs. VanLaan's Room.
3. Seating Arrangements in Mrs. Laramy's Room
4. Seating Arrangements in Miss Murray's Room
5. Rob's and Brian's Learning Style Inventory
6. Bob's and Jason's Learning Style Inventory
7. Russ' and Dori's Learning Style Inventory.

ix

PAGE

76

85

86

87

122

126

128

TRANSCRIPTION NOTATIONAL DEVICES

(N p. 100, #472 T55 [85])

p. 100, #472

T85

[85]

Material in brackets or at the
end of an excerpt identify the
location of the notes or
quotes in the research
material.

Refers to the field notes
recorded during the process of
gathering information.

Indicates the page number and
exact frame of the material
within the research notes.

Refers to the transcribed
script and number of a tape
recording.

Material in brackets
identifies research from
another study.

A sequence of dots indicates
that material within the turn
being quoted has been excised.

Empty parentheses indicate the
transcriber hears speech, but
could not decode it.

A dash marks a pause that is
noticeable.

Chapter I
Introduction

Prior to the current national interest in learning
styles, many educators attempted to respond to the obvious
personal differences that were evidenced among individual
learners. The open classroom, or non-graded school, was
implemented to ”maximize individual instruction” by
permitting the use of various resources and pacing (Johnson
& Lewis, 1971, p. 139). Salz (1974) described the open
classroom as having a "relaxed, spontaneous, natural
atmosphere" (p. 338), while Barth (1972), one of its major
proponents, recognized that "children learn and develop
intellectually not only at their own rate but in their own
style" (p. 69). Unfortunately, the open classroom and
other attempts to provide an atmosphere conducive to
individualized learning were not always considered
successful when viewed through conventional, whole class
achievement findings. While the intentions of those
innovative programs were educationally sound and noble in
intent, even Goodlad (1977) reported that "the much touted
reforms appear to have been non-events" (p. 69). Those
views were based on data indicating that class gains were
not significantly improved when innovations were initiated
as a large group endeavor (Keefe, 1979).

The open classroom, however, incorporated many factors
that recognized the need to provide an individualized
environment for students. The traditional classroom,
according to Propst (1975), was analogous to the formal

1

2

office where workplaces were neither comfortable nor
effective. The former provided static environments that
promoted inhibition rather than excitement, movement, or
interaction among individuals. The manner in which an
organization, a room, or a building is arranged affects
behavior and either encourages or inhibits interaction
(King & Marans, 1979); whereas active responsiveness
produced learning among many (Dunn & Dunn, 1978).

The Need for the Study

In our present era of "labeling" students, we have a
tendency to place students into categories from which they
often cannot emerge. The so-called "learning disabled" and
the so-called "gifted" both fall into such categories. For
17 years this researcher has worked with students who
evidenced severe reading and learning disabilities. There
was always a group of children who were unsuccessful in
school and usually in other certain aspects of their lives,
and yet had more "native intelligence" (another label) than
most people. Often their giftedness was uncovered by the
astute perceptions of well-trained clinicians.

After working with such students and other "average"
and "above-average" children, it became evident that
although these gifted young people had academic problems
sometimes similar to the others, they also were different.

They often preferred to learn in different ways and at

3
times they absolutely needed to use different approaches
and techniques to retain or understand key concepts.

Today it may even be that gifted children with learning
difficulties are fading from sight and may have all but
disappeared as objects of educational attention. In some
school systems, one might suppose they do not exist. Yet,
if they do exist, they often go unrecognized.

It is evident that very little is really known or
understood about these children. Are there, for example,
any particular learning style elements that could assist in
providing a more ”suitable" learning environment for these
students? What is it that can be observed of their special
needs? Why have they been given the label of "learning
disabled/gifted?” What does this label mean? What are the
social consequences of such a label? How can the school
curriculum be molded to fit their needs?

0 s a d S 3 di est ons

There are many unknowns involved here. Research is
needed to establish a broader knowledge base concerning
special needs students, particularly about those students
who carry more than one label. Such information could then
be used by educators, parents, and the students
themselves. This particular investigation has been
designed to contribute to that effort by intensively
studying two "learning disabled/gifted" students, two
"learning disabled" students, and two "gifted" students in

order to answer three important questions:

4
How do these students interact with their age mates and
their school environment?
How are their preferred learning styles made evident?

How well do they understand the way they learn?

Each of these major inquiries consists of a number of
subsidiary questions that need to be identified and
explained.

a. E0 00 1:3: : 2‘1 9 sh: ._ 1 ,1; a-e no es .nd

Many students struggle with "failures" for years before
they are officially identified as "learning disabled." The
process itself is long and unpleasant for the students,
parents, and teachers involved. Once labeled, however, and
the services of a resource room made available, the student
must learn to interact with a different environment and new
structure. Such an endeavor can be expected to have a
significant impact on the social context developed under
these circumstances. This social context includes new
roles, statuses, and interactions of the students who are
now placed in specific classrooms for the learning
disabled. To describe this social fabric, it is necessary

to answer a number of related, but secondary questions:

1. What s the o e o each "learnin d sabled "
"lea n n disab ed ted " and " ifted" student in the

s ? s erent these
1915;:
The number of students in a classroom for the learning
disabled is mandated by state guidelines and is
deliberately kept to a low number so that the severity
of each case can be addressed by the teacher and the
assisting aide. Each student selected for this study
must be observed in terms of his/her roles and statuses
in this small population, as well as observing his/her
relationships to the general population of school

students.

2. - a d d -st e
W
These interactions need to be described and classified
and then compared to the interactions that occur during
other parts of the school day when they are

”mainstreamed" into the regular classrooms.

3. at e e cta o s a lied to the stud nts
ss s s ec'a eeds students?

These standards of behavior include those enforced by

adults and also those that students impose on each

other.

4. What pressures do outsiders exert upon the students
with these labels?

6
These pressures come from students in the regular
classrooms, from the media, from parents, and also from

staff members within the schools.

5. s u n t t e s tuat one
s w ou a 0 or

s ct t du 3 who e su ose to be teachin

them:

In some instances, a student might know a great deal
about a specific area or topic he or she is interested
in and might even have gained more information or
knowledge about it than the teacher. This is a
potentially threatening situation that needs to be
resolved. One aim of the study was to seek out these
situations and analyze how they were negotiated by the
students and the adults involved with them.

Taken together, these five questions provide a framework
for identifying and analyzing how these students interact

with their age mates and their school environment.

b. ow a e eferred learnin st les made evident?
Today, some educators have intentionally departed from
the traditional discussion of classroom materials and
pupil-teacher ratios and are raising critical questions
about the ways in which students learn. These efforts and

related research focus on the student learning skills and

7
"learning styles". Until recently, however, information
and research on the ways that pupils learn have seldom been
a part of proposals to individualize education.

Publications such as the National Association of

Secondary School Principals' (NASSP's) Srpdppr_Lgprpipg_
° es o a 8 point to new

directions that school systems may profitably examine as
they review their effectiveness. The key to effective
schooling is to understand the range of student learning
styles and to design instruction and materials that respond
directly to individual learning needs (p. 43).

To understand how the students exhibit their learning
style preferences, this study will center on three

questions:

1. t d e n s es?

The study will attempt to identify the elements that
might be significant to their styles of learning, and
analyze their overall responses to a learning style
inventory.

2. To wpgr extept are the students aware of their
preferences?

The student's reactions to the analysis of their
learning styles will be described and on site
observations will be used as a basis for answering this

question.

3. s se a o s between

w s e ect of the to
193291
Each student as well as each teacher appears to have
his or her own agenda as to what should be learned or
taught. It is important to identify how the students
perceive their own learning and how this relates to the

overall pattern of formal schooling.

Answers to these three questions are expected to provide

key insights into the role of learning styles among the

special needs students.

c. ow w u sta d w e ?

Adults have generally assumed that they know what is
best for all children, implying that students, themselves,
may not be aware of their own needs. But responses from
more than 150,000 learners reveal that most students can
describe how they will learn best (Dunn, 1982). It does
appear, however, that some cannot offer this description,
and others can only describe preferences for those learning
style elements that are very important to them (Dunn,
1982). This study will examine the process of student
awareness of learning styles and what effect this

self-knowledge has on their school situations. This

examination entails answering three questions:

9

1-WWE

e ow e s de ts
I§§£§_&9_§h§ml
When an element is important to students, most can
verbalize their preferences and dislikes (Dunn, 1982).
An element that is extremely important to an individual
can be identified easily by most people. Different
school situations, however, may or may not allow for
preferences to be used. The students' reactions to
these situations will be detailed in terms of their
verbal and nonverbal responses, their attitudes, and
the strategies they invoke for dealing with them.

2. o t tu e o

 

By studying the learning styles assessment instrument
and the students' interaction with their environment,
what students need to know in order to achieve
.competence in their own styles and preferences will be
delineated.
3. w t n w a wa s h v t e e s ecial
peege erpgepre peeepe competent in their pse of

e s s?
Based on answers to the preceding questions,
descriptions will be developed of the level of
competence that these students have achieved in their

use of preferred learning styles.

10

The answers to these three questions will help answer a
key question about awareness of one's own learning style
preferences: what do people need to know to be able to
understand the way they learn? By identifying the degree
to which these students have dealt with their own learning
disabilities and made use of individual learning
preferences, this study will speak to the questions of
where, in the curriculum, schools should place methods of
identifying individual learning preferences and why it may
need to be a necessary part of understanding student needs.

heepppriope or the Stugy

This research project assumes that a network of social
relationships builds up around the special needs student
(or around any student, for that matter) and that an
understanding of that network will help explain how these
students are perceived and how they relate to their school
environment. It also assumes that students make frequent
use of their preferred learning styles and that their
having explicit knowledge of these styles might assist them
in their growth to understanding themselves. These
attitudes and acquisitions of information will be studied
in order to help define the need for an analysis of
learning styles and to help decide where in the educational
system and in what ways it might be usefully infused into

the curriculum.

11
mm
a St . In the broader context, learning styles
are "characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological
behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how
learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the
learning environment" (Keefe, 1979). Cognitive styles are
information-processing habits: affective styles,
motivationally-based processes; physiological styles,
biologically-based responses. For the purpose of this
investigation learning style was defined according to Dunn
and Dunn (1975) as "The manner in which at least 18
different elements of four basic stimuli affect a person's

ability to absorb and retain information, values, facts, or

concepts" (p. 74).

Meiherreepipg. Meaning that to the maximum extent
appropriate the handicapped student is educated with
children that are not handicapped. A student identified as
handicapped is educated in the least restrictive

environment. (Public Law 94-142)

Learning Disabied. Imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations;
development at a less than expected rate in cognitive,
affective, or psychomotor areas; unsatisfactory performance
that is per based on social, economic, or cultural

background.

12
girred. Individuals possessing special gifts that are
potentially unparalleled, whether in academic talent,visual
and performing art talent, vocational talent, leadership

talent, creative thinking abilities, or athletic talent.

Leerpipg_pieehie§4§irre§. Those individuals with
extraordinary gifts, or talents, but exhibiting development
at a less than expected rate in cognitive, affective, or
psychomotor areas, or an imperfect ability to listen,

think, speak, write, spell, or do mathematical calculation.

Lipiratiops or rhe Study
This study focuses on the preferred learning styles of
a select group of students identified as "learning
disabled," "learning disabled/gifted,” and "gifted." The
research is limited in the following ways:

1. o stu t : The criteria and
identification of "learning disabled" students is
specifically delineated at the federal level in Public
Law 92-142. However, no such document has been
mandated for the uniform identification of "gifted"
students. In that regard, this researcher will rely
upon the verification of clinicians, teachers, parents,
and/or student products to assist in the recognition of

this select population.

13
2. : This study was conducted in a suburban
school distr that borders the limits of a midwestern
city. OqiarEIementary students at an approximate third
grade age level are at the core of this research.
Moreover, the selection of two "learning
disabled/gifted" students, two "learning disabled"
students and two "gifted" students might allow a
generalization to other such students and may be

considered representative of the target population.

3. Leerpipg_§ryie_1perrppehr: No current learning
style instrument appears adequately to provide a truly
comprehensive assessment of the cognitive, affective,
and physiological domains of learning style. However,
the WW (LSI) by Dunn. Dunn. and
Price (1975, 1985) has established impressive
reliability and face and construct validity. Since
examination by the National Center for Research, the
LSI has also evidenced predictive validity. Having
used a variety of instruments over the last several
years, this researcher has also found the LSI to be an
effective, manageable instrument in the process of

identifying individual learning style preferences.

Chapter II
v w o e te t e

For thousands of years, educators have sought to define
education's role in meeting the needs of the individual.
Socrates, in utilizing what is known today as the Socratic
Method, sought to foster individual development. Rousseau,
in Emile, addressed the needs of the individual. Dewey, in
his monumental array of works at the beginning of the
twentieth century, focused on the learner as an
individual. In recent decades, considerable research and
experimentation have been devoted to developing what is
known variously as "individualized" or "personalized"
instruction.

Ultimately, education must come to grips with the
different learning needs of the individual learner. These
differences flow from variations in individual
intelligence, drive, skills, and accomplishment as well as
personal and family predispositions and the cultural
influences of the wider society. In spite of considerable
dialog, there is still substantial discontinuity between
theory and practice in identifying and meeting these needs.

The educational profession has helped perpetuate a kind
of "fictitious individualization" by equating lower
pupil-teacher ratios with meeting student needs (Keefe,
1982). The theory of individualization has been with us
for many years, but there has been little application of

14

15
the concepts in the majority of school systems. According
to Keefe, individualization is a "creed without substance"
(p. 43).

Today, some educators have intentionally departed from
traditional discussions of classroom materials and
pupil-teacher ratios and are raising critical questions
about ways in which students learn. Many of these efforts
and related research focus on student learning skills and
"learning styles." Much has been written about basic
learning skills, but not until recently, however.
Information and research on the geye that pupils learn have
seldom been a part of proposals to individualize
education.

In the not too distant past, schools and their teachers
were protected by the fairly widespread belief that
students who had not learned had not paid attention. In
the first half of this century, many social ills were
isolated as explanations for lack of academic progress.
Those, however, were the days before educators had learned
to use IQ, socioeconomic status, or insufficient
environmental stimulation as reasons for the failures of
many pupils. As the social and economic trends changed in
the 19503 and 1960s, rapid growth, extensive mobility, and
belligerent student attitudes were widely accepted reasons
for inadequate academic achievement.

During the past decade, however, the public has

gradually undergone what appears to be a significant shift,

16
and today, with rekindled vigor, low achievement is blamed
directly on the schools, their teachers, and the
instructional programs or methods being used (Dunn & Dunn,
1978).

Increasing attention is being focused on the many
functional illiterates who are awarded high school diplomas
and then are pushed out into the job market, only to be
condemned to unemployment, marginal employment, or welfare.
Public concern has moved from voter unhappiness at school
board meetings to taxpayer suits charging educational
malpractice. An antieducation attitude has been voiced by
legislators who have submitted bills that would reduce funds
for education while strengthening accountability laws that
would link better school performance to fiscal support. In
a series of court actions, each burrowing successively
deeper into school systems' vulnerabilities, primary focus
has been on an individual's right to expect results from
education and on a demand for accountability from
educational personnel (Dunn, Dunn & Price, 1977).

In the classroom of today, we are attempting to educate
more children with more varying levels of intelligence and
more diversified cultural backgrounds than ever before. It
appears imperative that we not lose sight of our educational
goals and examine each of these complex individuals to
identify more exactly how he or she is likely to learn most
effectively. This has always been a formidable challenge in

the teaching process.

17

The task is not impossible, and it appears to be what
the courts and the legislatures are demanding. Examine, at
the federal level, Public Law 94-142, which requires
diagnosis, the development of related prescriptions,
individualized instruction, and a tightly monitored process
that includes parental involvement for all handicapped
children. Consider, too, that individualization techniques
are now essential to improved instruction for the gifted and
talented youngsters, for the handicapped, and - for the
additional focus of this study - the "learning disabled" and
the "learning disabled/gifted."

The key question explored by many is "what do we do
about individual differences among learners?" If we wish
individual students to have optimum learning experiences in
our schools, we almost surely must realize that effective
instructional planning must accommodate the learning
characteristics of individual students to be effective with
these students. But do we place more emphasis on changing
the learning environment, or do we instead try more to
change the learner? Some scholars believe that we need more
responsive instructional environments based on stylistic and
skill differences among learners. Most of the
individualized instruction and learning styles efforts to
date have concentrated on this approach.

Other scholars feel that we should help the student
become more responsive to the existing learning

environment. If a student is not very adaptable or cannot

18
cope well in a conventional classroom setting, or if he or
she is more right hemisphere oriented, some say that we
should and can enhance his or her learning styles to allow
for more successful school achievement.
a ' o o

Elements of learning style appeared in the literature as
early as 1892, but the subsequent researches were plagued
with methodological problems and a preoccupation with
determining the one perceptual mode that would best improve
student learning. Specific research on cognitive styles was
greatly expanded in the United States after World War II at
Brooklyn College, the Menninger Foundation, and the Fels
Institute (Keefe, 1982). Current efforts to explain the
underlying processes of learning and teaching reflect two
lines of research. One group retains dominant interest in
the cognitive dimensions of style. The other is concerned
with applied models of learning and teaching and
multidimensional analysis of styles.

Allport, in 1937, described the active role individuals
played in the learning process. Unique behaviors which were
evidenced consistently and in patterns were observable
through the performance of specific tasks which generated
predictable individual responses.

The following year, Thurston (1938) correlated cognitive
processing with seven types of mental abilities. He
however, did not advance the concept to specific and unique

individual differences. The expansion of that theory was

l9
conceived 21 years later by Guilford (1959) who refined
Thurston's model and implied that individual differences,
strengths and weaknesses, directly affected the learning
process.

During the same period, other researchers were beginning
to examine individual psychological differences. For
example, Lacey (1950) investigated those characteristics
that were affected by stressful situations. Six years
later, Estes (1956) examined and critiqued research based on
group testing that was intended to predict individual
differences. Similarly, Sontag (1958) also studied
relationships between intelligence testing and individual
abilities: his work mirrored Allport's earlier
investigations. That same year, when scrutinizing
intelligence testing, Vernon (1958) identified specific
traits and characteristics which not only were unique, but
also were stable. While Vernon's early suppositions were
limited outgrowths of analyses of intelligence, he
subsequently examined selected personality characteristics
and preferences, and substantiated a need
for instrumentation which accurately could assess
identifiable related traits and behaviors; he also described
the effects of the specific instructional techniques on
manifested characteristics.

The 19608 evidenced an increase in the emphasis on
individualization. The uniqueness of the learner became a

primary focus of many educators. Both Bandura (1962) and

20
Travers (1962) recognized the need to reorient educational
theorists, but unfortunately, clear-cut directions for
facilitating that outcome were lacking. During the same
year, James (1962) coined the term "modes of preference" to
identify specific elements that affected achievement when
students either were matched or mismatched with
instruction. His work became the precursor to current
learning style research.

By 1969, Tyler observed a significant trend in
investigative studies toward "psychological
differentiations" (p. 642). Her review of research on
achievement pinpointed the emergence of individual learning
styles and she observed, as Vernon had observed several
years earlier, that certain characteristics related to
intelligence and that self-concept appeared to remain stable
over the years.

The phenomenon of learning style had exploded into
several discrete philosophies by the 1970s: all implied that
individual uniqueness was the primary variable in the
information receiving process.

Hill (1971), one of the earliest proponents of learning
style, described the phenomenon as the way in which an
individual searches for meaning. Purportedly, individual
cognitive style is reflected in the way: a) qualitative and
theoretical symbols are handled, b) cultural influences
affect the meaning given to symbols, and c) meaning is

derived from symbols that are perceived. Hill's was the

21
first comprehensive approach to how individuals process
information and, although he termed the concept
Cognitive--rather than Learning Style-~his was the model
that essentially pioneered the learning style construct.

Three years later, Ramirez and Castaneda (1974), in
agreement with Hill, emphasized that cognitive style
differences (for either field-dependent or field-independent
behavior) and cultural differences create individual
learning styles. The contention was made that learning
style is not permanently fixed, and it is, therefore,
possible to intervene and affect it.

Similarly, Kolb (1981) also viewed heredity as an
influential component in determining learning style. He,
however, also considered past experience and the demands of
the present environment as important factors that determined
selected unique characteristics. Specifically, his
experimental learning theory identified four learning
behaviors: (a) concrete experience (feeling): (b) reflective
observations (watching): (c) abstract conception (thinking);
and (d) active experimentation (doing).

Adapting Kolb's earliest studies on a four-model
conceptualization, Gregorc (1979) posited that learning
style was basically a set of behaviors which acted as
indicators of how each mind operates or views the world. He
suggests that style appears to be both nature/nurture in its
roots, and that styles reflect genetic coding, personality

development, and environmental adaptation. An individual's

22
actions could be viewed along a bipolar continuum ranging
from concrete to abstract processing interwoven with random
or sequential behaviors. Thus, each category of learning
style was perceived as an interaction duality: (a) concrete
sequential: (b) concrete random: (c) abstract sequential:
and/or (d) abstract random.

Utilizing a different model, Schmeck et al. (1977)
perceived learning style as the product of the organization
of a group of information processing activities that
individuals prefer to engage in when confronted with a
learning task. Those activities, like Gregorc's, appeared
on a continuum but ranged from deep and elaborate to
shallow, repetitive and reiterative thought practices.

Designing research concerning another completely
different element, Hunt (1979) developed a concept of
learning style that describes students in terms of those
educational conditions under which they are most likely to
learn and essentially describes the amount of structure
individuals require.

At the same time that Gregorc, Hunt, Kolb, Ramirez, and
Castaneda, and Schmeck were postulating theories that
reflected comparatively narrowly defined concepts, other
researchers were joining Hill in examining a more holistic
approach to learning style. Canfield and Lafferty (1970)
perceived that phenomenon as an outgrowth of six variables
which consisted of 1) academic conditions (relations with

instructor and peers), 2) structural conditions

23
(organization and detail), 3) Achievement conditions (goal
setting, competition), 4) content (numbers, words, etc.) 5)
mode of preferred learning (listening, reading, iconic and
direct experience, and 6) expectation of performance level
(superior through satisfactory). Keefe (1979) defined
learning styles as characteristic cognitive, affective, and
physiological behaviors that served as relatively stable
indicators of how students perceived, interacted with, and
responded to their learning environments. His broad
perception of the concept was in concert with the
comprehensive model previously presented by Dunn and Dunn
(1972, 1975, 1978, 1979).

In the late sixties, Dunn (1971) noted an increase in
academic achievement when a multisensory instructional
approach was utilized for underachieving primary students.
The following year, Dunn and Dunn (1972) presented a
theoretical model of learning style that contained 12
observed elements. Further examinations, interviews, and
experimental studies verified the existence of 18 elements
(Dunn, 1976) which eventually then were expanded to include
21 selected characteristics (Dunn, 1981). Those traits
eventually were dispersed among five stimulus categories
(Dunn, 1981, 1983).

The first identified classification included the
environmental elements of light, sound, temperature, and
design which are "thought to be biological and related to

one's physical being" (Dunn, 1981, p. 32). They classified

24

the second stimulus as emotional and included the elements
of motivation, persistence, responsibility, and structure in
that grouping which "appears to be an outgrowth of both the
environment and each person's emotional makeup" (Dunn, 1981
p. 32). Learning alone, with peers, in pairs, in teams,
with adults, with media, or in several ways comprised the
third stimulus, "the sociological elements of learning style
which appear to be environmentally based " (Dunn, 1981
p. 33).

The fourth identified classification was the physical
which "appears to be biological in origin" (Dunn, 1981,
p. 33). Perceptual strengths and weaknesses (auditory,
visual, and/or tactual/kinesthetic), time of day, desire for
intake, and the need for mobility encompassed that subgroup.

Biological and environmental factors were recognized as
the determinants of the most recently identified stimulus,
the psychological elements. That domain encompassed global
or analytic learners, left or right hemisphericity, and
impulsive versus reflective students (Dunn, 1981). In 1983
left and right cognitive styles were supposedly incorporated
under simultaneous and successive processing. This section,
however, remains ambiguous and not at all clearly connected
to the inventory.

Though no current learning style instrument may appear
to provide a truly comprehensive assessment of the
cognitive, affective, and physiological domains of learning

style, nevertheless, learning style diagnosis appears to be

25
a primary component of the teaching-learning cycle, one that
opens the door to a personalized approach to education.
Every human appears to have a learning style regardless of
IQ, achievement level, or socioeconomic status.
Psychobiologists have also attempted to identify which
elements of style are biologically imposed and which develop
as an outgrowth of individual life experiences (Restak,
1979: Thies, 1979). Although style can change over time as
a result of maturation, Dunn (1986) claimed that: (a)
strong preferences change only over years: (b) preferences
tend to be overcome only by personal motivation; (c)
teachers cannot always identify students' styles easily
without appropriate instruments; and (d) when students are
taught in ways that complement their styles, significantly
increased achievement and improved attitudes and behaviors
result.

It is important, however, to recognize that the idea of
increasing achievement by teaching students according to
their preferred learning styles is not supported by all
researchers. Kampwirth and Bates (1980), for example,
severely criticized this widely accepted premise. They
discovered 22 studies that investigated the modality methods
problem. Of these, only two showed positive results. The
remaining 20 either resulted in no clear evidence either way
or demonstrated that teaching to the nonpreferred modality
produced better results than did teaching to the preferred

modality.

26

Foster, et. al. (1976) also recognized that studies of
this type generally failed to establish significant
interactions. However, they point out that this research is
characterized by serious methodological errors including
failure to establish discrete groups and failure to
delineate specific controlled treatments. In designing a
study which avoided some of these methodological problems,
Foster, et. al. (1976) demonstrated that a relationship does
exist between modality strength and the ability to remember
sight words taught through procedures designed to emphasize
either the visual or auditory modality.

In addition, reference should be made to the
ethnographic/socialinguistic research on school failure
among which McDermott and Aron (1978) take a look at the
possibility of equal educational opportunity in American
culture. It became evident to them that learning could be
accomplished in isolation or in conjunction with others.
However, these methods were failing to educate large numbers
of students who were capable of making meaningful use of the
contents of their education. As a result, schools were
encouraged to create classroom situations in which learning
is a positive social achievement and individual identity is
enhanced through contributions to group performance.

Today most of the major learning styles models use a
self-report instrument to diagnose student's preferences for
selected variables (Canfield & Lafferty, 1970: Dunn, Dunn, &

Price, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984; Gregorc, 1979;

27

Hill, 1971; Kolb, 1971: and Schmeck, 1977). Some of the
most current research conducted by these widely used
instruments indicates that teaching students through
approaches that complement their styles increases their
achievement significantly (Carbo, 1980: Debello, 1985:
Hodges, 1985: Lynch, 1981: Martini, 1985; Murrain, 1983;
Pizzo, 1981: Shea, 1983: Spires, 1983: Tanenbaum, 1982:
Virustko, 1983). Furthermore, Lynch (1981) reported
significantly decreased truancy when students' assigned
classes matched their time-of-day preferences.
The_Qifted_and_the_Learnins_Di§abled

Prior to the establishment of concrete efforts in
learning styles, the attention of United States educators
had turned dramatically to the identification and special
education of mentally gifted and academically talented
students, particularly those in science and mathematics.
The sociopolitical nature of this interest in gifted
children and their special educational needs has been well
documented by Newland in 1979, Whitmore in 1980, and‘
Tannenbaum in 1983. The post-Sputnik era illustrated this
phenomenon as Americans became obsessed with a desire to
develop more scientific leaders in order to maintain world
power and leadership in competition with Russia. However,
by the middle 19603 attention to the needs of gifted
students waned as new concerns about the culturally
different, the educationally disadvantaged, and racial

minority students emerged as a significant part of the Civil

28
Rights Movement. During the 19603 many innovative programs
were funded by the federal government in an attempt to
ensure equality of educational opportunity. Concurrently,
steadily increasing amounts of federal subsidy were
allocated in support of research and the development of
special education, in particular for the handicapped and/or
learning disabled. The field of special education received
substantial support to do research, to train teachers, and
to implement experimental programs.

In 1969, Congress requested the Commissioner of
Education to conduct a study on the status of gifted
education or, more specifically, what was happening to
gifted students educationally in America's schools less than
ten years after the intense post-Sputnik developmental
period. The Marland Report, published in 1971, indicated
that fewer than 4 percent of the children in the gifted
population were receiving any special educational services.

As the Marland Report was stirring renewed concern
about the neglect of gifted students, the Civil Rights
Movement and the court cases won in behalf of excluded or
inappropriately educated handicapped students resulted in
what has been commonly called the "mainstreaming movement."
What could be described as growth in moral consciousness
produced investigation into the damaging effects of labeling
and segregating handicapped children (Hobbs, 1975: Reynolds
& Birch, 1977). The outcome was Public Law 94-142, The

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1977).

29
This was legislation requiring the protection of every
handicapped child's right to a free, appropriate education
in the least restrictive environment.

The official definition of learning disabilities (P.L.
94-142) states:

"Specific learning disability" means a disorder in

one or more of the basic psychological processes

involved in understanding or in using language,

spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an

imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,

write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

The term includes such conditions as perceptual

handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain

dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

The term does not include children who have

learning problems which are primarily the result

of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental

retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of

environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
Refinement of the assessment procedures and efforts to
identify handicapped children at an early age resulted in
the identification of a surprising number of young children
who were classifiable as both "disabled" and "gifted."

The new field of education for "learning
disabled/gifted“ students is emerging as a result of the
intersection of special education for handicapped and for
gifted students. This intersection of these two fields
occurred largely as a by-product of the process by which
Public Law 94-142 was implemented. Mary Meeker, Merle
Karnes, and Anne Sanford were among the first educators of
the gifted to investigate the nature of this subpopulation,

and concentrated mainly on the development of special

programs (Maker, 1977).

30

In the early 19703 The Association for the Gifted
(TAG), a division of the Council for Exceptional Children
(CEC), established a national committee comprised of
professionals interested in the development of the field of
gifted handicapped education. National conferences on the
topic were held in 1976 and 1977, but the difficulty of
gaining a sufficient number of participants occurred as
available travel monies decreased. As a result, a plan for
annual national conferences on gifted handicapped was
dropped. In 1977, the category of "gifted handicapped" was
added to the indices of the Educational Resources
Information Center (ERIC), but the number of existing
publications referenced remains very small.

It is evident from limited research and corresponding
case studies that too often professionals have failed to
recognize and address the individual's giftedness and
related specific needs. It is not unusual for disabled
persons to view individual professionals, institutions of
learning or rehabilitation, and government agencies as
definitely having been obstructive in relation to personal
goals. The obstruction appears to emanate from stereotypic
expectations held for the disabling condition and a narrow
view of the person--that is, a failure to assess the total
attributes and needs to the individual and to design a
holistic approach to treatment.

According to Whitmore 8 Maker (1985), appropriate

educational opportunities often have been withheld from

31
disabled children. Typically, such children are placed in
programs of intervention for the handicapped and either are
not considered for or are excluded from programs for gifted
students. Eisenberg 8 Epstein (1981) described their
Gifted/Talented Program for the handicapped in which forms
for nominating handicapped gifted and talented students
were sent to designated New York City Schools serving a
full 60,000 handicapped students. Not one student was
nominated. When the disability is not noticeable owing to
the child's superior adaptive skills or the invisible
nature of the handicap (such as learning disabilities), no
special educational service may be provided. The handicap
itself may obscure the expreeeiep of the special gifts and
talents. For example, blindness, deafness, and some
learning disabilities have the effect of slowing
development and thus may result in deceptively lower IQ
scores. Blind and deaf children, because of their sensory
deficits, tend to be more concrete in their thinking, which
will hardly help the abstract reasoning necessary for a
high IQ score. Dyslexic children will certainly suffer on
verbal components of an intelligence test, although Marx
(1982) suggested that dyslexic children may have much
higher than normal spatial-oriented giftedness. Other
handicaps (for example, emotional disturbance or social
maladjustments, orthopedic or health impairments, speech or
language impairments) also can interfere with obtaining an

accurate high score on an intelligence test.

32

It seems quite common for special educators as well as
regular classroom teachers to teach all handicapped
children as though they were intellectually slow or even
mentally handicapped. Consequently, these children
frequently are systematically excluded from learning
environments in which their superior abilities and gifts
can be stimulated and developed.

Similarly, school psychologists have tended to conduct
assessments with an exclusive focus on the "problem area"
or disability, not even exploring the possibility of
giftedness. Medical and rehabilitation professionals have
also tended to focus on the areas of weakness associated
with any given disability and, when they are unaware of the
possible presence of exceptional intelligence or talent and
the potential implications for treatment, have often
communicated inappropriately low expectations, with no
encouragement that higher aspirations may be attainable.
To help in the identification of gifted handicapped
children, Maker (1977) recommended that (1) handicapped
students should be compared with others who have the same
handicap, and (2) characteristics that enable the
handicapped child to effectively compensate for his or her
handicap should be weighted more heavily. For example, if
an orthopedically impaired student cannot write, his/her
compensating verbal and cognitive abilities should receive
more weight; if a student cannot speak, his/her written,

artistic, and creative talents should be examined.

33

In spite of the present sophistication of special
educational services, teaching methods, and assessment
procedures available, Whitmore and Maker (1985) have
claimed that, in too many instances, very little change has
occurred with respect to the development and assessment of
giftedness in individuals with disabilities.

Our present practices in identifying students as
learning disabled are further compounded by the liberal
expansion of what is recognized as fitting this category.
The term ”Learning Disability” has become a catchall
phrase. It generally includes those with minor
physiological dysfunction, the clinical treatment for which
we can do much to overcome much of the disability. It also
includes much harder to diagnose maladies associated with
the mind, the personality and the emotions. The term
”Learning Disability" is attributed to S.A. Kirk who first
used it in an article in the journal Erceptionai Children
in 1962. Previously, Alfred A. Strauss, director of a
school for brain-injured children, developed the theory of
what he called "Minimal Brain Dysfunction" (MBD) which was
based on observations of children who though not
emotionally disturbed, autistic, aphasic or mentally
retarded were not able to learn as might be expected from
their intelligence. The idea of MBD was that no actual
brain damage could be detected by clinical means yet the
child exhibited the kind of behavior which suggested some

dysfunction.

34

Curiously, studies conducted in the last two decades
indicate that six to eight times more boys than girls in
the age range from five to twelve years exhibit a learning
disability. According to Speed and Appleyard (1966), no
generally accepted reason has been given for this
statistic, but some studies strongly suggest a genetic
link.

Another interesting aspect of learning disabilities is

that a substantial number of handicapped gifted children

A are creative (Maker, 1982a). It may be that creativity
comes from the need for such children to practice their
divergent thinking skills in order to accomplish the kind
of everyday tasks which other individuals perform with

In her book WW
Hehgieeppeg, Maker (1977) comments on data obtained from
ELSQ and pipe; profiles which appear to indicate that while
handicapped children may show a deficity in memory, the
subtests which measure problem solving and relationships
involving comprehension and similarities reveal relatively
higher scores. She points out that this finding is only
suggestive, but it does seem to indicate that the more
abstract skills are less likely to be impaired than are
abilities related to information or math span, all of which
call on short and long term memory.

It is this seemingly limited amount of research and

this researcher's desire to know more about these

35
particular students which has led to the inquiries of this
paper. Research into the elements of learning styles among
"gifted learning disabled" individuals is very scarce
research. Yet these students pass through the educational
systems every day. By extending this inquiry over a period
of 6 months and focusing on 6 specific individuals in
depth, it may become possible to identify finer details of
the social phenomena that surround these individuals, as

well as extrapolate information on how they learn.

Chapter III
Procedures, Materials and Data Analysis
Win

The methods used in this study are based on the
application of anthropological practices to educational
research. This approach is known in the literature as
"fieldwork research,” "qualitative research,” "ethnography"
and ”microethnography.” This method is based on the use of
participant observation extended over a long period of
time. It is a form of descriptive research. One of the
primary strengths of ethnographic research is that the
phenomena under study can be seen in a naturalistic
condition, though modified somewhat by the presence of the
researcher.

The anonymity of participants in this study is strictly
protected. In addition, permissions to observe were
obtained in advance a) from students selected for special
study, b) from parents of the students, c) from teachers in
whose classrooms observations were made, and d) from school
officials respOnsible for administering the sites of the
study.

Initial steps taken for this study were divided into
two parts: What preparations were made and what procedures
were used.

1. a e ar t ons ade

The student population identified as having special

36

37

needs was chosen because we know so very little about
them. The resource room that served as the setting for the
study was selected because it has a well developed
procedure for using learning styles with the students
placed therein. Harrison Elementary School, as it will be
called, has housed a resource room for the learning
disabled for the last 18 to 20 years and appears to have
been very successful in integrating most of its students
into the rest of the student body. The majority of
teachers have been together in this school for many years.
They practice routines that allow for the infusion of new
staff, but at the same time protect the procedures and
beliefs that have permeated the school for many years.

Harrison Elementary School is part of a growing suburb
outside of a large mid-western city. Kingsville, as a
community, is generally supportive of its schools and
exhibits a good share of parental involvement. Although it
is the site of several low income government housing
projects and two large trailer parks, its student
population is primarily reflective of middle or upper
middle family background and revenue is generated from
several small businesses as well as one major company that
has significantly expanded.

Harrison Elementary in the Kingsville Public School
System is one of the system's fastest growing elementary
schools with a projected student population of over 400.

It is one of several elementary buildings within this

38
district. It is surrounded by several low-income housing
projects, newly built duplexes, small businesses and
boundaries that place it within the territory of the life
of the city. The school reports an almost 45% student
turnover within each school year. Having worked in this
same building from 1973 to 1982, the researcher is quite
familiar with most of the Harrison school staff and its
pattern of the constantly changing school population.

The class in the resource room is taught by a teacher
who will be called Mrs. Greenman. Mrs. Greenman and this
researcher had worked together in previous years and one
summer took a week long training session with Barbara
Meister Vitale, a well known proponent of learning styles
and brain function. Mrs. Greenman had long been interested
in learning styles and has made considerable effort to
avail herself of opportunities to gain further knowledge
and insight. Years ago, she and the researcher attended an
abbreviated workshop with Anthony Gregorc, another notable
proponent of the use of learning styles data and knowledge
of brain function. It was at the summer training session,
however, that the idea for this study was first conceived.
This researcher's subsequent training on learning styles
with Rita and Ken Dunn in New York further assisted in
framing the ideas.

The researcher has, on occasion, spent some time this

year in Mrs. Greenman's classroom when she was attending a

39
meeting. As a result, the researcher has had time to
observe class procedures and allow the students time to
become acclimated to the researcher's presence.

Harrison School was visited several times in order to
make arrangements with the principal to be able to use this
setting as the "base" for this study. The researcher
visited with Mrs. Greenman to discuss the same possibility
and also to determine if she had any students classified as
"learning disabled/gifted." After discussing the criteria
for selection, she readily identified two students whom she
felt would comfortably fit the description. Russ and Dori,
as they will be called, would never be identified as gifted
if the criteria were high cognitive test scores. Mrs.
Greenman, however, could attest to their remarkable
thinking abilities and their creative talents in the fine
arts. With further investigation, input of other teachers,
parental acknowledgment of special abilities, and artifact
collecting, this researcher was able to draw upon many
years of working with gifted students and feel assured that
Russ and Dori were appropriately selected.

Although their individual spirit, personality and
dimension will come to light in Chapter IV, it is important
for the reader to briefly meet Russ and Dori. Unlike some
other third graders at Harrison Elementary, Russ and Dori
were both part of a two parent family pattern. Russ'

parents both worked to provide middle class standards

40
for their two children and they lived in a housing section
consisting of 10 year old duplexes. Both parents valued
the education of their children and were supportive of the
schools. Dori, on the other hand, came from a family
pattern where only her father worked outside of the home.
The business success he experienced provided the family
with sufficient wealth to be able to afford designer
clothes, luxury possessions, and extravagant hobbies, such
as antique car collecting. On occasion, Dori's father
would take Dori out of school to provide a "fun" day for
her.

Russ and Dori both enjoyed art activities and seemed to
excel in the use of fine motor skills required by such
endeavors. In addition, both were well mannered and
participated willingly in most school activities. Except
for a brief period of time, Dori remained as the only
female student in the resource room, attesting to the ratio
statistic found by Speed and Appleyard (1966) that six to
eight times more boys than girls in the age range from five
to twelve years exhibit a learning disability. In
addition, Russ was one of seven caucasian students in the
resource room and Dori was one of three black students in
the room. As will become apparent in the discussions of
the findings and as may not be surprising to the reader,
the blackness of the person seems to have a bearing on how
the environment reacts to these individuals--and it may not

only be the blackness--as will be seen in Chapter IV.

41

Two other students that became a part of this study
were also in the educational resource room and had been
selected by Mrs. Greenman for very specific reasons. Jason
had repeated first grade three times in another district
and had recently experienced a divorce in his family. He
was living with his father while his sister lived with the
mother. Jason was new to this school and appeared to need
a great deal of attention. He was small of stature, but
very quick in his maneuvers around the room. He was also a
member of the black population at Harrison School.

Bob, the fourth learning disabled student, had been
selected because of Mrs. Greenman's own frustration and
apparent inability in finding a way to unlock the reading
process for him. In spite of his difficulties with the
written word, Bob showed an unusual sense of responsibility
and exemplified a maturity not ordinarily evident in a
grade school student. His frustrations with school work
were apparent throughout the observations, but his ability
to smile permeated any and all activities. As with Jason,
Bob's parents remained attentive and were willing to work
with the school.

Simultaneous to the selection of the learning disabled
students, another teacher was approached regarding the
availability of two gifted students to become a part of
this study. Selected because of her own interest in the
area of gifted as well as her awareness of qualitative

research, Miss Knight was enlisted as a resource.

42

Miss Knight was an individual who had often called upon
this researcher for assistance and suggestions in providing
a learning atmosphere for her brighter students. She
seemed to enjoy this type of student and had been among the
first few individuals in this school district to avail
herself of information and training to support her desire
to work with this population. As a result of this
interest, she had participated in an earlier field study
conducted by this researcher, resulting with a familiarity
of the methods employed by this study and a more
comfortable view of having someone observe in her
classroom. Through this earlier study the researcher had
gained a familiarity with Miss Knight's classroom
procedures, her teaching style, and her manner of relating
to her students and her peers.

Although Miss Knight taught third grade in a different
building, she was still part of the Kingsville School
System. Her school, however, does differ from Harrison.
Harrington Elementary School used to be one of the system's
largest elementary schools with a student population of
over 400. It is located well in the center of the
community, surrounded by well kept homes, and is situated
directly across from the most affluent housing community in
this suburb. The school population is largely made up of
students from these homes, although a few members represent
the less prestigious duplexes and the smaller, older

housing section. The attendance boundaries of this

43
particular school exclude any low income government housing
or trailer park residents.

Although no formal testing was practiced as a means of
identifying gifted students, this school district relied
upon teacher recommendations to fit students into such a
category. Miss Knight, however, was aware of two students
who had been formally identified under the auspices of
private testing. Their cognitive abilities had also been
recognized by other teachers and Miss Knight had attempted
to direct her learning opportunities to encompass these
special abilities. Rob and Brian, as they will be called,
came from highly educated families. Both sets of parents
were professionally employed and remained actively involved
in the lives of their children. Each student also had a
brother. Brian's brother was his twin. As will become
evident in Chapter IV, Rob and Brian both enjoyed learning,
but each had their own style of approaching the task.

Z-W

Entry into the site at Harrison and Barrington
Elementary schools had been negotiated with allowances for
mobility in the classroom. However, as visits became more
continuous, and perhaps, even before they did, the
possibility of being treated as an aide, or as another
teacher were evident if movement around the room were
practiced. Both classrooms were accustomed to having
teacher aides or student teachers and it appeared

imperative not to identify with these roles. To listen,

44

observe, record, and analyze would be quite limited if
working with students in a teacher role were encouraged.
Even from initial visits the students smiled and offered
receptive comments. Occasionally, hugs were received
during these periods of observation. For some, the
researcher's role as a teacher was more real than for
others. It was tempting to respond to students as a
teacher and, at times, that did happen, but direct
involvement with the students was purposefully limited.
The quality of the interaction was not to be altered
through such participation. It was also imperative that
the researcher be free to focus attention as chosen, and
not to have observational capacities limited by the need to
participate.

Data analysis occurred throughout the course of study
in an attempt to discover "key linkages" between the
phenomena occurring in the classroom (Schatzman 8 Strauss,
1973). It is within these key links that the overriding
patterns, or metaphors developed. Although their
interpretation and analysis were anticipated, it was not
always clearly evident how the patterns connected.
Continual checking and communication with knowledgeable
colleagues was necessary to assist in keeping the process
valid and assisting in shaping the analysis.

Although the research on which this study is based was
primarily gathered through participant observation, there
was considerable variation in the way in which the

observation was carried out. In the school classrooms

45
the researcher sat off to the side and observed and took
notes during several months of data collection. The
students were followed wherever they went during a portion
of their school day, from their assigned classroom to
mainstreamed academic classes, music classes, homeroom
classes, assemblies and recess periods. The bulk of the
classroom data came from this process, but in addition,
informal interviews of the teachers in these particular
classes were repeatedly conducted.

During some of the visits audio tape recordings were
attempted and one video-tape was made to facilitate
"revisiting" and analysis. Field notes were recorded on
site and transcribed immediately on completion of each
day's visit. Thoughts and reactions were added and
classified separately. All methods were employed in order
to assure the procedure known as "triangulation" (Gordon,
1980), whereby one data source is cross-checked for
validity with what has been learned from other sources.

Contact with parent ranged from telephone conversations
to substantial sessions held either in the school setting
or in their homes. These activities consisted of mixing
varying degrees of participation with observation, and
informally questioning individuals about whatever was
necessary to make sense of their views and knowledge of
their children.

As an added component a learning style inventory was

administered to each student specifically observed and

46
attempts were made to find other "learning disabled/gifted"
students who might also take this inventory for comparative
purposes. Gradually students with these labels began to
emerge, but dealing with them was beyond the objectives and
scope of this paper and will be addressed in further study
by the researcher.

At the core of the data collection were periods of
alternation between observation in the educational resource
room, the "mainstreamed" classrooms (both for the so-called
"learning disabled/gifted" and the "learning disabled") and
the regular classroom of the two "gifted" students.

Harrison Elementary School housed the students in the
educational resource room and mainstreamed them into other
classrooms within the building. Barrington Elementary
School became the site for the two gifted students who were
situated in a traditional classroom setting. In both
schools observations were carried out, for the most part,
at the third grade level.

In addition, it should be noted that both schools share
a familiarity with special needs students. Both house an
educational resource room. Barrington provides for the
early (grades K-2) elementary level or students and
Harrison serves the upper elementary (grades 3-5)
students. Additionally, Barrington maintains a classroom
for emotionally impaired students.

The selection of Dori and Russ (the two learning

disabled/gifted students), Bob and Jason (the two learning

47
disabled students), and Brian and Rob (the two gifted
students) had been accomplished with the recommendation of
knowledgeable teachers, discussion with parents, interviews
with the students, work sample analysis, and guarded
amounts of testing results. The two primary teachers, Mrs.
Greenman and Miss Knight were also carefully chosen on the
basis of their resourcefulness and expertise in the field

of education.

Materials
W).

The LSI consists of 104 statements that surveys
individuals' preferences in each of 22 different elements.
Subjects are required to give their immediate response to
each question, and may have the exam administered orally or
in written form. Dunn, Dunn, and Price (1985) report:

It should be noted that many of the questions in
the instrument are highly subjective and

relative. That, of course, is precisely why they
contribute to an understanding of how each student
learns in ways that differ from his or her peers.

(Po 1)

The LSI reports scores for 22 different areas. Each
subscale score represents the degree to which a specific
characteristic is preferred by the individual and can range
from 20 to 80.

Individuals having a standard score of 60 or
higher have a high preference for that area when
they study. Individuals having a standard score
of 40 or lower-with the exception of Learning
Alone/Peer Learning and Evening/Morning which are
on a continuum-have a low preference in that area
when they study. Individuals having scores that
fall between 40 and 60 indicate that their

48

preference is neither high nor low in that area:

those elements are not critical to their learning

styles. (Dunn, Dunn, 8 Price, 1985, p.7).

Recent national focus on the gifted/talented has led to
numerous investigations concerning how such students learn
(Cross, 1982: Dunn and Price, 1980: Griggs and Price, 1979:
Kreitner, 1981: Perrin, 1984: Ricca, 1983; Stewart, 1981;
Wesson, 1980). These investigations evidenced consistent
patterns of independence, self (internal) motivation,
persistence, strong perceptual senses, and the need for
options among: (a) high IQ (b) musically and (c)
artistically gifted students. They also verified that the
gifted strongly preferred independent studies and projects
to lectures or discussions. When interviewed, gifted
students explained that their teachers spoke "too slowly";
they also complained of the repetition and boredom of
lectures.

Price, Dunn and Griggs (1978) conducted two studies
that attempted to verify the ability of the LSI to
significantly discriminate between gifted and non-gifted
subjects. The following year, Wild (1979) determined that
students with learning disabilities exhibited significantly
negative preferences in four categories. The four areas
were persistent and non-persistent, adult motivated,
prefers learning with adults, and prefers learning in
several ways. The non-learning disabled students were more

persistent and more adult motivated than the learning

49
disabled students. They did not prefer to learn with
adults, while learning disabled students did, and they
preferred learning in several ways sociologically while the
learning disabled students did not.

Another investigation by Mitchell (1980), attempted to
identify which of the LSI variables significantly
discriminated between students identified as having
learning disabilities and those identified as not having
learning disabilities. A total of six LSI variables
significantly discriminated between the two groups. The
learning disabled student preferred to learn with peers in
a warm environment. The non-learning disabled students
preferred to learn kinesthetically, and were more teacher
motivated, responsible, and persistent than their
counterparts.

hethods of Data Anaiysis

In descriptive research, data analysis is ongoing
during the research and continues for months afterwards.
The methods of data analysis in this study are essentially
those described in James P. Spradley's Berticipant
steryetioh and Leonard Schatzman and Anselm L. Strauss's
Eieid geseerch. These methods involve 5 basic steps:

1. ppiig e beeeiipe description or the cuirure.

Comparing, contrasting, aggregating, and ordering

constitute the processes by which a baseline

description of the culture under study begins to

build. The general questions asked are: Which things

50
are like each other? Which things go together and
which do not? The data that have been gleaned from the
different methodological processes are weighed against
each other using a procedure know as "triangulation"
(Gordon, 1980). In this process, what has been learned
from one data source is cross-checked for validity with
what has been learned from other sources. Instances of
disconfirming evidence as well as confirming evidence
are sought in order to help the researcher make a
stronger argument for hypotheses which have been made
(Erickson, 1986).
2. Igepriry_fiey_Liphegee. From the baseline
description of the culture and from the rest of the
data, the researcher must identify "key linkages."
These are recurring themes that run through the data.
It is within these key links that the overriding
pattern, metaphor or model develops and the theoretical
constructs develop (Schatzman and Strauss).
3. Eerppiere egg Test hsserriops geiated to these Key
1.111153918-
Assertions are general statements about the data that a
researcher suspects to be true. These assertions must
be tested against the data. Which instances support
this assertion? Which do not? Does information from
interviews, artifacts, and other sources help warrant

this assertion? Is there any other possible

51
interpretation of the information being explained by
the assertion?
4. v o s o .
Those instances not fitting an assertion are submitted
to a discrepant case analysis. The result will then be
a rejection, modification or acceptance of the
assertion. Modification, when it occurs, should result
in a higher-order assertion that explains more of the
data.
5- B§R§s§_§§§P§_A_£n§_§i
The formulation, testing, and reformulation of
assertions continues indefinitely until the researcher
achieves satisfactory assertions or submits to

redirected efforts.

Once the analysis is completed, then the researcher

must write a report in accordance with the established

standards of ethnography. The external validity and the

reliability of the study depend largely on the methods used

for data collection and analysis and also on the

thoroughness of the research report. It is expected that

an ethnographic report will include detailed descriptions

of the following (LeCompte and Goetz, 1982):

a. The site and how it was chosen.
b. The informants of the study and how they were
chosen, particularly those who acted as key informants

for the researcher.

52
c. The role of the researcher at the site and the
relationships that existed or developed between the
researcher and the informants.
d. The methods of data collection.
3. Representative and exemplary narrative vignettes
related to the assertions of the study.
f. Representative and exemplary quotations related to
the assertions.
g. Information about the data that was not presented
in the report either because it was deemed irrelevant

or because it was not available to the researcher.

This information can help provide external validity by
allowing the reader to assess the degree to which the
researcher's findings can be applied to other situations
(LeCompte and Goetz, 1982). Since the situation studied
will not occur again, total reliability can never be
achieved in a qualitative study. The possibility of
replication is further precluded by the fact that the
researcher inevitably becomes a part of the situation
studied. Reliability is, however, enhanced by the
publication of the information listed above. That way, the
same methods can at least be tried at different sites.
Also, the conclusions of the study can be evaluated in
terms of the internal consistency and plausibility of the
report. Internal reliability should also be enhanced by

53
allowing peer examination of mechanically recorded data
(LeCompte and Goetz, 1982).
c V o t n

By describing how ”learning disabled/gifted" students
relate to the utilization of learning styles information,
what they know about the way they learn, and what kind of
social network develops around them, this study may help
answer some of the key questions that confront teachers and
parents as they encounter this special type of student in
classes and classrooms. One of these questions involves
the meaning of learning styles: what can we learn about
different styles and their relevancy to these students?

Can we discover ways to remove a few ”roadblocks" to their
learning?

A related question that remains unanswered concerns the
placement of learning style instruments or methods in the
curriculum. Many districts have ventured forth to begin
this process at the interest of particular teachers, but
very few have utilized it at all grade levels. In fact, in
a survey of 2,000 teachers and administrators in the New
York metropolitan area, for example, less than 25% were
aware of the relationships between learning style and brain
behavior (Zenhausern 8 Dunn, et al., 1984). The present
study will describe the kinds of events that may occur when
learning style information is used with these special needs
students and what, if anything, can be discovered about

their learning styles. This information should have

54

practical value for educators as well as for parents and
the students themselves. It might even help to discover
some things that the labels, inadvertently, have hidden.

Though the available research about ”learning
disabled/gifted” students is limited at best, the research
on learning styles is becoming evident in impressive
quantities, but the combination of the two categories
appears to be void of substantiated studies. Studying this
particular population should produce insights and
hypotheses that can help guide experimental research in
this very important field.

CHAPTER IV
findings
In the course of this chapter, the reader will be led

through the observations that depict the interaction with
age mates and the school environment of these special needs
students. In addition, the remaining sections will
delineate classroom integration, patterns of socializing,
expectations and pressures, and the preferred learning

styles of this select population.

e s c 0 vi nme t

Students formally identified as learning disabled and
placed into a resource room must learn to interact with a
new environment and different structure. In the Kingsville
school district the procedures followed are not unlike
other districts and school systems. The education resource
rooms are, however, full time placements for the students.
The possibilities for mainstreaming students into regular
education sections are prioritized and carried out whenever
and for whatever the individual student is capable of
handling. Such an endeavor can be expected to have a
significant impact on the social context developed under
these circumstances.

State guidelines mandate the number of students in a
resource room at any one time in an effort to provide the
climate for individual attention. Through this process it
is assumed that the severity of each case can be addressed

55

56
by the teacher and the assisting aide.

In Mrs. Greenman's educational resource room the number
of students present varied with each visit, and towards the
end of the school year dwindled to only a few working in the
room at any given time. During the course of the
observations one student was transferred to the middle
school and a new student dropped out shortly after
arriving. Towards the last two months of school another new
student was integrated into the room and remained to the end
of the year.

Mrs. Greenman's classroom was located in the original
section of the Harrison building. A new section had been
finished last year and extended down a very long corridor to
the west of the resource room. To the immediate east of
Mrs. Greenman was the library and opposite her room was the
Title I math teacher and one of the two third grade
classrooms. The resource room was on the north side of the
hall and through its two windows looked out onto the bus
garage and parking lot for the district's transportation
vehicles.

The room itself appeared calm and unpretentious. Its
brown vinyl covered north wall remained void of any student
exhibits or decorations. Cardboard boxes housed various
files on the counter area and the work areas. A number of
different work areas were readily accessible for the

students and teachers. Two wood constructed dividers might

57
serve as privacy areas for individual students and the old
style desks were arranged in three short rows in the center
of the room. The rows were surrounded by wide aisles
leaving ample room for mobility and work space.

Although the teacher's desk appeared cluttered and~the
reading work table was piled with books, papers, and
supplies, a definite pattern of organization and structure
existed. Students were assigned individual work folders
and all were accountable for different activities while
Mrs. Greenman and her aide worked with students one at a
time. Even from the earliest observation notes this work
atmosphere became evident.

The field note entry of 1/14/87 states:

. . . . They were all working on something. . . .

Dori was in her seat at this time working on some

papers that she had on her desk. The teacher was

working with a student the same as she was

yesterday at this round table . . . . She calls up

Russ, and then she sets up a computer program for

someone else to use while she is doing this. . . .

She goes through each of the pages that had been
assigned to him and comments about them . . . .

(N. p.6, # 40-44)

More noticeable, however, were the interactions that
occurred with age mates and the school environment in
general. Distinct behavioral characteristics were evident,
allowing the students to fall into generally two types,
quiet students and active students. These categories also
correlated highly with non-distractible and distractible

characteristics.

58
.;a4; ,. u ;as :2 :2 .2z. 3 .12 4;: f v onment
From the earliest of field note entries Dori's work
habits, in particular, began to take on a distinct

pattern. For example:

N. p. 6, #42 . . . . Dori was in her seat at this
time working on some papers that she had on her
desk . . . .

N. p. 19, #125 . . . . She (Dori) appeared the
least distracted by the activity and sounds of the
other students . . . .

N. p. 21, #134 . . . . Dori is working quietly at
her desk . . . .

N. p. 61, #321 . . . . She seemed to be working
quite intently on something . . . .

Dori was recognized as having a verbal ability beyond
that of the other students in the room. She was often
called upon to assist in defining words or explaining
meanings. For example, on p. 24 #12 the field note entry
provides a description of this occurrence:

The student working with Mrs. Greenman was reading
out loud to her. She was encouraging him to read
it (He ran from the shed). Mrs. Greenman stopped
him and asked if he knew what a shed was. He
answered with "no”. Mrs. Greenman then asked if
he knew what a shack was. Again he said he
didn't. She asked a student nearby if he could
tell them what a shack was. He said he couldn't.
Mrs. Greenman then called on Dori, who was not
sitting close to her. Dori answered freely to
explain what a shack was. Mrs. Greenman asked
her. "What might you find there?" Dori: "old
rakes, stuff like that . . . ."

In addition, the field notes on p. 24, #162 and #163

give yet a further perspective on Dori's verbal abilities:

59

. . . In the discussion that now begins with the
class, Dori contributes quite a bit. She's
raising her hand most of the time. She remembers
the term "idiom" and teacher says, "Dori, must
have put that in her long term memory. Yes, it's
been a long time since we've done this." There's
a discussion that continues about what "back to
back" means. Teacher gives an example. Dori
says, "right after each other." She says it
really quickly without being called on or having
raised her hand . . . .

(N. p. 24, #162-163)

Mrs. Greenman points out on tape 4 #227 (T.S.) that Dori
was the one ”who ended up having the vocabulary . . .
reflection . . . on the story".

Dichotomous to this ability, however, is Dori's
frustration in recognizing the written word. A field note
entry of 2/11/87 reads:

. . . . Dori was called to read. The chair is
still sideways. Dori sits on it with her left leg
under her bottom on the chair. She is using a red
acetate sheet and the teacher is guiding the words
with her green pen. Mrs. Greenman had cut up some
acetate sheets into strips and there were two
laying in front of Dori. She begins to play with
them with her right hand. Her left hand is
resting on the chair and is supporting her body as
she leans on that side. She twists the strips and
manipulates them as she is reading and following
the green marker that Mrs. Greenman is using. She
gets caught on one of the words and reads "mothers
dog" instead of "mother dog". Mrs. Greenman
stopped her by stopping the pen to allow her eyes
to focus on that one again and then Dori uses her
own finger as well as the teacher using her pen to
stop at that particular word. There seems to be
some difficulty with the b and the d, and Dori
stops and is asked to use a system to help her
identify which is the b and which is the d.
First, Dori just guesses. She does not appear to

( use any tools that she might have had in order to
find out which it is. After a few seconds,
however, she begins to manipulate her fingers and
tries to form the b and the d as if she were

60

writing the word "bed." She is still not sure
which it is. . . . She appears to guess. Mrs.
Greenman does not let up. She convinces her that
she must use some of these tools even though she
may not want to. After a few seconds of
frustration and trying to get her fingers
manipulated to distinguish the b and the d, she is
told which it is. She finally seems to grasp the
relationship. Mrs. Greenman helps her to shape
the fingers, one in the form of b. The other in
the form of the d. She explains to her where the
word begins, that b begins the left side. Dori
puts her fingers down and just says "dang." She
appears very sullen with a frustrated frown on her
face. A few tears begin to fall. She hides her
face in her hands. Teacher hugs her as she's
explaining that she is not angry with her but very
frustrated. She repeats that. Dori pulls away
from her but is able to regain her composure.

Mrs. Greenman begins to read the next page. Dori
is watching and appears attentive to it.

(N. p. 47-48, #261-267)

Mrs. Greenman later explains that Dori is a very strong
willed individual and that she has a lot going for her, but
does not, at this time at least, want to rely on the very
basic tools that she needs when she is unable to
distinguish one letter from another letter. Her vocabulary
is far advanced, decidedly beyond what she is reading, and
it is a source of frustration to her to be detained with
smaller words and not be able to decide whether it is a b,
d, or a th, or whatever else the case might be.

(N. p. 51, #282).

Dori had been recommended as one of the students in the
"learning disabled/gifted" category. She was recognized as
being particularly "artsy and very creative," according to

Mrs. Greenman (N. p. l, # 5), although these abilities

61
would not appear on any cognitive abilities measure.
During an art activity in her mainstreamed classroom for
example, it became evident that other students recognized
this ability and came to her for direction.
(N. p. 188, #834) reads:

. . . .A black female student comes over to Dori
with a paper and a pattern. Dori holds it up and
demonstrates how to draw and then the girl leaves.
It appears that Dori is giving instructions on how
to do the page exactly the way that she had done
hers. Evidently, she seems to have some ability
that the others admire . . . .Two other students
come and they stop to watch her briefly . . . .

Moreover, when Dori completed her art project in N. p. 190,
#838:

. . .She takes it over to the two girls that had
stopped her before (to inquire how she did her
first picture) and shows them her finished
project . . . .

An additional entry noted that she appeared proud of what

she had done (N. p. 190, #838). Mrs. Greenman also

emphasized:

. . . .That she (Dori) does like to show the
others that she does have this kind of a talent,
and "yes, she's very proud of what she can do."

(N. p. 190, #841)

It was a curiosity to discover that the second
"learning disabled/gifted" student exhibited similar

characteristics. According to Mrs. Greenman:

. . .The other student, Russ, had exceptional
thinking abilities and could invent things such as
a clever mouse trap that featured a ramp and
methodically provided for a mouse to slide down
the ramp and drown.

(N. p. 1, #5)

62
In a taped informal dialogue with Mrs. Greenman of
2/4/87 a discussion concerns Russ' involvement with a
particular art activity. He had been observed intensely
sewing on a burlap square and had demonstrated a keen sense
of focus on the project. Not only had he stitched the
pattern on the burlap, but Russ had designed the outline of

a rabbit as well.

Researcher: . . . . You know, nothing was
distracting him. He was busy
sewing or whatever he was doing.

Teacher: Yes, that's his forte. This is his
drawing as well.

Researcher: Oh, wow.

Teacher: I saw him put his hand down and
draw around his fingers for the
ears.

Researcher: And look at the pink in the middle
there. And here he's got the nose
and the eyes. Even the feet--the
detail on those.

Teacher: And look at all the time he took on
the tail.

Researcher: Yes, to make it look like ( ).

Teacher: Yeah.

Researcher: It's really stitched.

Teacher: Yeah.

Researcher: It's really wonderful. Now I
watched him just working. He spent
a long time just threading the
needle.

Teacher: Um-hum, He didn't give up.

Researcher: No, No. He didn't . I mean, he
was just so intent on it, and he
wasn't frustrated. You, know, he
was just doing it.

Teacher: Um-hum, I know.

Researcher: Terrific.

Teacher: It's rare that you would get a
third grade kid with this kind
of . . .

Researcher: Artistic achievement.

Teacher: Sure.

Researcher: And even the control of a needle.

Teacher: Yup.

Researcher: You know those aren't easy.

Teacher: And there's nothing . . .

63

Researcher: No, I know it. Burlap is difficult
to work with , too, as far as not
having the material move on you.

Is his --does he have a lot of
skill like that with . . .

Teacher: Art? Oh yes, oh yes definitely.
That's one of his fortes. Whenever
they do anything artistic in here,
his stands in a class by itself.

(N. p. 44-45 #251-254 TS 4)

On another occasion, Mrs. VanLaan, Russ' mainstreamed
teacher, had referred to Russ as having particular talent in
the area of art or crafts (N. p. 88, #420). She shared a
particularly impressive project one day and commented on how
articulate his work had been and how his fine motor skills
seemed to be so perfected that he was able to manipulate
very fine details in his work (N. p. 169, #760). She
proceeded to display the work of what she considered to be a
typical third grade student. Next to it she placed Russ'
design. Although his work had not been fully completed, a
distinct and immediate difference was evident between the
two pieces. Russ' work appeared to be deliberately planned
and executed with the exact placement of minute pieces of
selected torn construction paper colors. Within the ten
inch paper shaped like an egg were several smaller eggs
containing even smaller designs. They were surrounded by
deliberate sections of small torn construction paper pieces,
each exhibiting distinct colors and direction. In
comparison, the paper egg of the other third grade student

was entirely covered with large pieces of torn construction

64
paper, having several rows of alternating colors and
exhibiting many open spaces where the construction paper did
not cover the background egg shaped paper. In addition,
Mrs. VanLaan also brought Dori's finished project.
. . . Her (Dori's) egg had torn pieces of paper on
it that were again bigger than Russ' were, but the
design that was evident on that particular egg was
very well defined. It was quite artistic in the
sense that she had blended three different colors
of construction paper together and intricately had
woven a design with them. At first it appeared to
consist of randomly placed pieces, but closer
examination produced a visibly organized pattern.

(N. p. 169, #763)

Mrs. VanLaan thought that it was very well done, but she
didn't feel that it was particularly exceptional. (N. p.
169, #763). She showed all the samples to Mrs. Zimner, an
administrative aspirant who had been at Harrison School for
the past several weeks, and who had a background of working
with gifted students. Mrs. Zimner commented on the
exceptional detail of Russ' design and on the high quality of
Dori's project. She felt the design on Dori's egg was a
"deliberate plan, not an accident. By just the way the
colors were put on the particular paper." (N. p. 170, #764).
It appeared that the interpretation and/or appreciation of
art was strictly based on individual preference and opinion.

Aside from Russ' special abilities in these areas the
opportunity also presented itself, one day, to view him in an

entirely different role within the educational resource

65
room. During an episode that was particularly stress
producing, Russ had emerged as an unexpected leader.

At the end of January, a new student had been placed in
Mrs. Greenman's resource room. During the process of
integrating her into the setting it became apparent that
Deidre wanted no part of it, refused all direction and
encouragement, and, instead, exhibited a strong tendency
toward violent behavior. Towards the end of the second
week at Harrison Elementary, Deidre lost all control,
becoming physically abusive and lashing out with an
uncontrollable force at Mrs. Greenman and her aide. Within
minutes she was forcibly constrained and removed from the
classroom by the principal.

It was during these long chaotic minutes that Russ took
on a big role. According to Mrs. Greenman, "He chose to be
the leader in the sense that he tried to maintain stability
in the classroom not only for himself, but also for the
others and that he took it upon himself to be put in that
role. It appears that he was very comfortable in bringing
forth those characteristics in him--the leadership
qualities he exemplified in the morning's event.”

(N. p.51, #283)

Although Russ appeared very comfortable in the resource
room, the exhibition of leadership skills did not surface
again during the remaining months of observations. Neither

did any other incident compare to the volatile events of

66
that particular day. Deidre never returned to this

classroom and the researcher never found out why, deeming

it unwise to pry.

 

Throughout the duration of on-site visits and
observations it was noticed that Jason and Bob, the two
"learning disabled" students designated for this study,
were quite active and easily distracted. Take for example,
the field note entry of 5/5/87 when only three students
were in the room with Mrs. Greenman and her aide:

. . . . Jason has his workbook open at the desk
where he is today, but instead of concentrating on
looking at it, he plays with the fake mustache and
beard that he is holding on his lap. He puts it
on himself, holds it up against his face, turns
around to show Robby, and then calls "Hi, Robby."
He then looks at me and says "Hi, Mrs. Lux". He
turns back and puts the mustache and beard back on
his lap and plays with it a little bit more,
handling it with his fingers . . . . Mrs. Greenman
leaves to make a copy of something . . . . As soon
as she leaves Jason turns to Robby . . . . and
they just talk . . . . The aide looks up and says
"Jason, Jason." Jason simply says, "Yes, Miss
Tames?" in kind of a teasing tone. He mumbles
something to himself and then he gets up to go
over to the counter. He comes back to his seat,
turns to Robby, then back to his desk. He hunches
kind of low and mumbles something else while
looking at his workbook on his desk. . . At 1:25
Josh enters the room and Jason watches him walk
across the room to his desk. Then Jason turns to
face toward the open door. Mrs. Greenman's room
is open right now, and the room across the hall is
visible. That room has its door open, too, and is
Jason's homeroom. In a few seconds, however, the
door across the hall is closed, allowing only a
small crack of an opening. Jason moves his head
now as if he's talking to himself and his jaw is
moving slightly. Some sounds are audible, but
exact words cannot be deciphered. Robby goes over
to the aide and then back to his seat, but on the

67

way back he passes by Jason although it is out of
his way. He punches him quickly and Jason reaches
toward him, but does not get up. Jason then turns
sideways and talks to Robby. He starts to crawl
by the computer close to the middle desk that is
between him and Robby but then he gets back on his
own seat. He moves his left hand along the bottom
of his desk and seems to be poking an eraser
through a small hole in the bottom of the desk

. . . . Mrs. Greenman goes over to him and asks
him about one of the sentences he's working on
Jason then writes something with his right hand.
Mrs. Greenman talks to Jason and in part of the
discussion she says, ”You can't do a good job by
switching back and forth. Come on, now, do one
side first." Jason mumbles something and Mrs.
Greenman continues, "Which one are you working on
now?" He writes something but his left hand is
still underneath the desk, and his paper
apparently moves as he writes. Mrs. Greenman is
heard saying "Jason, why don't you hang on to your
paper?" She leaves, walking away from his desk.
Jason gets up and goes to the kidney shaped table
where the aide has gone and he talks to her. He
then leaves the room. Although not clearly
overheard, the word ”bathroom" seemed to have been
mumbled. Mrs. Greenman is sitting at the front
work table and watches him walk out . . . .

(N. p. 363-365, #1418-1425)

This was Jason. His slight, almost fragile appearing
frame was usually in motion and seemed to fit his almost
mischievous nature. His eyes sparkled with activity and
his black hair curled tightly around his delicate facial
features. In tape 6, Mrs. Greenman talks about Jason.

Mrs. Greenman: . . . . There's this bit, even though
he has this teacher pleasing behavior
outwardly there is also that point where
he could get away with nothing short of
murder by just being very subtle and
just by not being overt. And if you say
sit down and he would for 15 seconds and
then he would consider it well within
his range to do whatever he wanted to
do. He would always be within the realm
of not being naughty. Right on the

68

border. So it's hard to see where he
just let's himself be self directed and
that, so I'm not sure.

Researcher: It's been interesting to watch him
because he is so quick in moving or
whatever. There is nothing he does
slow.

Mrs. Greenman: Right, and it will be interesting to see
how good he performs on field day
stuff. I have a feeling that he will be
greased lightning on field day.

Researcher: He well could be because within the
classroom it takes him only an instant
to get from one end to the other.

Mrs. Greenman: Not fast. There's a big difference
between fast and quick. He is quick.

Researcher: Very quick.

(N. p. 210, #903-904 TS 6)

Bob, on the other hand, appeared much larger physically
than Jason did. His large frame was noticeable and his
stocky appearance would be inclined to hide the tenderness
that occasionally surfaced. Mrs. Greenman had deliberately
selected Bob as part of this study because of her own
frustration with his lack of success. A field note of
2/11/87 reads:

. . We spoke for a few minutes about the
possibility of observing two other students within
her classroom. She suggested perhaps, that one of
them might be Bob. This was the kind of a student
that she was herself struggling with, and she
explained . . . . that no matter what she had
tried with Bob, nothing seemed to be working to
help him. She said, "Whatever I'm doing for him
is not working. His fatigue and energy level is a
definite factor. It takes a tremendous amount of
energy for him to do his work. He works very,
very hard at it, but as of this time he still has
not established any sight vocabulary" . . . . She
expresses her frustration that in all her years of
experiences in working with learning disabled
students, she's never found one quite this much of
a challenge where nothing seemed to really be able
to help him. This Bob, however, was not a hostile

69

child. He was a very hard, hard worker. She also
explained that he works in an electric company by
his house. He drums up all kinds of odd jobs for
himself. During one summer, for instance, he
leveled dirt for them which was definitely a
man-sized job, but he carried it out and stuck to
it . . . . "He was a real go-getter, and he on his
own, decided to pay the costs of all of his
household pets. He has gerbils and fish and I
can't remember what else. But it was not done at
the directive of his parents. It was his very own
idea to supply all of the food and supplies that
he needs to take care of them . . .

(N. p. 54-55, #295-298)

Mrs. Greenman related another example of Bob's tenacity for

taking on responsibility.

. . . . During the recent Christmas season there
was a Santa's Secret Shop held at the school where
the students might be able to do some relatively
inexpensive shopping for just a couple of days.
Bob had earned his own money to do some shopping,
and he did. After he finished his shopping, he
realized that he needed a few more gifts. So the
very next day, which would have been the last day
of the Santa workshop, he shoveled snow before
school in order to earn some more money so that he
could go right in the same day and finish his
shopping. And that's exactly what he did . . .

(N. p. 55, # 299)

Bob's efforts in the classroom, however, were laced
with restlessness and distractibility. He concentrated in
very short attention spans and exhibited a total lack of
effort when he was asked to read material way beyond his
capability in his mainstreamed classroom. An entry of
2/25/87 reflects on Bob's work activities in the resource

room :

. . . 1:04 P. M. Bob entered the room. He sits
in a desk directly on the other side of Russ'

7O

divider . . . . At 1:09 the aide enters. Bob gets
up and asks her something right away. He says
something to her and then goes back to his desk to
get something and sits with her at a table in the
front of the room. . . . At 1:18 the aide tells
Bob to go back and work on it some more. Bob
frowns a little, but watches her get up and go to
another part of the room . . . . Bob gets up and
goes to the back table where the aide had gone.

"I need help, " he says. And she tells him, "You
can figure that out." She continues to help
another student. Bob stays by her, leans way over
across the table, then sits on the floor. Within
seconds he kneels down on one knee, rises, and
again leans way over on the table . . . . The aide
eventually talks to him and encourages him to go
figure it out himself . . . .

(N. p. 61-62, #322-327)

Although Bob's restlessness was evident throughout the
months of observation, his frustrations seemed to escalate
when asked to participate in a reading activity during
social studies in his mainstreamed classroom. The students
were paired together by a game of finding who had been
given a button that matched theirs. They were then
instructed to find a spot in the room and read a certain
number of pages in their books about Michigan. Bob had not
bothered to look for his partner, but a student had found
him. The student proceeded to move his desk next to Bob's,
but Bob begins to walk toward the door and announces, "I'm

going out in the hall." (N. p. 199, #870)

The field note continues:

He walks past the table and trips on someone's
feet as he passes. There are two students sitting
under the table beginning to read. Bob turns

71

around and kicks the feet right under the table
and then he proceeds out into the hall. The other
student does not say anything but simply follows
him.

It appeared that Bob was able to lead the other student
out the door, but it remained to be seen how, or if, he
would actually attempt to read a grade level social studies
text. In the continuing field notes, Bob's avoidance

behaviors appear very characteristic:

. . . He (Bob) is sitting in the hall with his
feet outstretched in front of him and leaning back
against a student locker. The other student is
reading out loud from his book. Bob is watching
his book, but chewing his gum quite hard. This
particular student stops reading after one and a
half pages. There are few illustrations and many
words on each page . . . The student looks at him
and Bob uses that as a signal for him to begin
reading. He takes his book but his reading is
very choppy and halting. During the time he
attempts the reading he is rolling a ball on the
ground with his right hand and keeping it moving
constantly. He says, shortly after beginning,

"I' m stuck right there.” He then lifts up his
left leg slightly to make a better support for his
book. He holds his book with his left hand and
his right hand is still on the floor with the
ball. Bob says, "What?" And the other student
replies, ”traded." The student is following along
with his finger on his own book and assists him
often but then loses interest in following along
as it is taking Bob so long and he seems to be
stumbling on every word. This student is sitting
on his knees and hunched over. His book is on the
floor. Finally he leans over so that his elbows
are on the floor, too, and he rests his head on
his fists. Bob looks at the student for
confirmation of yet another word, but he doesn't
get any response so he just keeps mumbling words.
The student, by this time, is not watching where
he is and Bob says "huh?". The student finally
says ”much," after having found the place where
Bob was. Then Bob repeats, "much" and continues

72

to finish the sentence. He is still, at this
time, rolling the ball with his right hand. At
2:58 P.M. (a few minutes after starting) Bob tells
the student to read. Bob's mouth begins to move
in a chewing motion. He lowers his left leg and
he has his book open flat on his lap at this

time. The other student begins reading
immediately, almost glad that it's his turn and he
can just keep right on going. This student reads
much faster and smoother than Bob and the words
begin to make sense again. Bob bends his right
leg to shift positions and then he raises both
knees briefly to support his back. He stretches
his right leg out again, but leaves the left leg
up and then he spreads both of them out. He has a
ball and a pencil in his right hand now. He
watches as three people come down the hall and go
into the teacher's lounge, directly opposite this
classroom. The other student, however, continues
reading without seeming to notice the activity.
Bob shifts positions again and is not watching at
all where the words are in his book. His hands
are now both on his book and he plays with his
eraser on the end of his pencil. He scoots it
along the carpet a few times and then puts it on
the ball. It is evident now that there are two
balls resting in the fold of his book. One is red
and one is clear. He spreads his legs apart
slightly and puts one ball on the floor between
them. Part of his legs are resting directly on
the book. He bounces the ball several times right
by his book, and then tells the other student he
can keep on reading when they go on to the next

page . . . .
(N. p. 200-201, #872-877)

In the resource room, Bob avoided reading tasks as
well, and evidenced a distinct struggle with words. It had
been decided, however, that his physical stature more
closely matched that of an older student, and so he was
placed in a fourth grade classroom for social studies. His
age, likewise, reflected a need to associate with older

students, but his learning disabilities prevented

73

integration with his real age peers. Whether in the
resource room or mainstreamed classroom, however, the one
characteristic that seemed to be outstanding with Bob was
his constant smile. He used a smile to show pleasure as
well as to hide discomfort or embarrassment. Most of all,
the smile appeared during any kind of interaction with
others. Take, for example, a field note entry of 4/14/87
in a mainstreamed session:

. . . . Bob is asked about some solutions to the

underwater problem. Teacher asks, "Do you think

we could solve all of these problems?" Bob

shakes his head with a shy grin and kind of
slowly replies, "Nope." He look a little
uncertain . . . .

(N. p. 172, #774)

And a note of 4/30/87 in another mainstreamed
session:

. . Sebastian, Josh and Bob talk together
briefly and Bob smiles at them . . .

(N. p. 342, #1348)

9ifted_Studsnts_and_Their_Enxirenmenf

In addition to the resource room students, two "gifted
students" at Barrington Elementary also fell into the

categories of quiet and active, or distractible and
non-distractible students.

Miss Knight's classroom was located on the inside
portion of Barrington Elementary School. The gym and
library sat in the very center, surrounded by one set of

classrooms, a hall, and then another set of classrooms.

74
The outer circle of rooms had windows looking out, but the
inner set of classrooms could not take advantage of any
natural light. They did, however, have the advantage of
having air conditioning during the hot months.

Normally, the preference for a classroom with windows
is expressed by many teachers, but the activities in Miss
Knight's classroom hardly provided any time to be aware of
the lack of daylight. It was always a busy place and at
times it was quite frustrating not to be able to capture
all of it during the period of observation.

Even from the earliest entries the mobility of the
students and the manner in which they conducted themselves
during class time was noticeable. They appeared at ease
going about their various activities while Miss Knight
worked with them, read to them, or directed their
activities.

During a time of reading to the students while sitting
in the center of the room towards the blackboard, Miss
Knight allows for quiet activities or work. A field note
entry of 4/10/87 states:

. . . . She (Miss Knight) begins to read the story
and two students move up to sit right next to
her. Another student also moves up and sits
directly in front of her. The students are
working on various things while they are being
read to. Two girls are washing their desks. Many
are writing, but I notice that Brian is just
sitting. He does not have any work in front of
him although it appeared that he had a toy at one
time.

(N. p. 163, #742-743)

75

This pattern of conducting a classroom seems to have
existed for many years. It was present in a research
project two years ago as well. Consider a field note entry
of 1/9/85:

. . . . Miss Knight is reading to the class from a

library book. She is seated close to the student

desks and her chair is away from her own desk.

The students are working quietly on different

projects. Some are working on art projects,

making tissue paper snowmen. Others appear to be

completing a work page for math. They are

coloring portions of their page and I can faintly

see some numbers on the pages. A design appears

when the coloring is finished. A group of four

students is working at the computer, keeping their

voices low and their faces to the computer. The
desks are arranged and grouped randomly . . . .

(N. P- 1. #1 [85])

The activities changed throughout the period of
participant observation, but there was always movement, or
mobility, evident. This was also noticeable in the seating
arrangements. They were often changed as indicated in the
diagrams of Figure 1.

Samples of student work were displayed on the cupboard
doors and on the tagboard strips in the hall outside the
classroom. Occasionally, there was student work displayed
on the bulletin boards, but most of the time those were
used to depict themes of study, a monthly calendar, a study
emphasis, or a challenge activity. The extra tables in the
room also housed displays and/or special books and
materials. A research memo of an earlier study in this

classroom seems to reflect these thoughts:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:UDDQ U

..l
(0

EDGE

 

DDDQD

(
C

EDGE I
[] (L:FL:P{:]1:] £:;)b
[:1
‘Cl

. [3 GD?
:” {Iq:2£. .ij
1/9 '
___..J — L___..

 

 

.(j ‘1
a U

(E;h
. (Ll
r—_—l

a .
A A
V '

 

be
be

 

 

l/30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eli J_T—ja

E!§ ‘3 l_J>J_T:3> <‘ I b
‘L___P€rfi P c l P “

El “(:3)” F“: 4:113-

‘ l

“a” l:

v. c; . . .5
71—.
"2/13'

 

‘ .

(E

0.5%

 

am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43C? .. 3.- W2
9:] 4:]: D l:] . é-‘—--
a: . V - h—J
. . l : . 4:1:3: ‘ . [: .
“U: ' °__l '
. "V E 3 f"
' 1717 ' ' '
___l . ( L___.
€;2L=? .<::2 ;1:::j
‘i.Ls° "l"
. o__ 3
D 'o __I a. l ___b
g qF—iED CL-L-3 C‘ :)
MLJ 42:“? c .3. 3 D
_m. g ..
arr];
276' - , '
._.l L___. _.

 

U7

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 5/11.

Seating Arrangements in Miss Knight's Room '

Figure l

77
. . . The room appeared to be a busy room, but
the emphasis did not seem to be on displaying
elaborate work. I sense that the emphasis is on

producing creative things in daily work rather
than displaying it.

(N. p. 20, #134 [85])

Miss Knight's own use of space reflected mobility as
well. She would often sit by students while reading to
them, and continually circulated around the room while they
were working. Rarely did she use her desk. Her "teacher"
chair had wheels and was often steered to various locations
in the room.

Brian and Rob appeared in total contrast of each other
even from the initial observations and contacts. Brian did
not appear to fit into the pattern of the mobility evident
in the classroom, but did serve as a complement with an
opposing preference. He was a very quiet individual,
preferring to observe and reflect for the most part. He
followed instructions methodically and would often become
absorbed in reading something that the others simply put
aside. His activity remained basically confined to his
desk and rarely did he move much in his chair. He seemed
to have a need to be very thorough in his activities.
During the class lessons of 3/20/87 for example, Brian was
sitting at his desk working on his Weekly Reader, a small
publication of news and interesting events, or topics for
grade school students. The students had been instructed to

complete portions of it, and had done so as a class.

78
Brian, however, continued to work on it even after other
students had stopped. The teacher instructed them to move
their desks back to their regular location, signaling the
end of a particular activity where the desks had been moved
away from each other. Brian needed to move only a little
in order to arrive at the location where he began. He
continued to write in the Weekly Reader, but paused and
listened to Miss Knight talk about another activity. He
looked at her briefly, and continued to hold his pencil
right above the Weekly Reader. When instructions were
completed, Brian continued to write in it. Within a few
seconds, however, he closed his Weekly Reader, looked at
the cover momentarily and then opened it again. He ignored
the other paper that had been given to him for the next
assignment. His eyes appeared to be reading the small
booklet again.

Rob, on the other hand, was actively mobile and seemed
to need the freedom of movement. Throughout the visits he
appeared to be verbally fluent as well. He often talked to
those around him as well as responded to class discussions
and activities. Take for example the field note entry of
5/11/87:

. . . . She (Miss Knight) is showing them how to

develop a mind map for remembering the circulatory

system of a shark. The students are copying this
diagram (from the overhead) onto their own paper

as they review the different components of the

system together. Miss Knight stops and usually

waits for them to finish copying each part that
she puts up on her own mind map on the overhead.

79

Rob seems to be able to keep up very quickly and
seems aware of where everything is in the
circulatory system. In fact, while the rest of
the students are copying, he tips his chair
backwards and rocks on it slightly on the two back
legs. At one point he says, "A unicorn, a
unicorn" and he places his pencil directly on his
forehead as if it were protruding from his brow.
He looks at the two students seated in his
particular desk grouping and then he looks around
the room to show others. He is sitting where
there are five desks together. However, there are
only two other students besides him at the
particular group today. Rob then goes over to the
kidney shaped table and briefly looks at the paper
there. He gets a drink at the fountain close to
this table. He returns to the kidney shaped
table, thumbs through a book and then goes over to
another desk. He stares briefly at it before
returning to his own. Rob puts his knees on the
back of the chair and sits on the seat with his
left leg on the ground. He tips his chair over so
it is again resting on the two back legs . . . .
At one point Rob says, "You forgot the spine. No
you didn't.” Miss Knight looks at Rob and replies,
"Don't you add to it." She had asked another
student to respond, and Rob had somewhat blurted
out the answer. At that point Rob clasps one hand
over his mouth and he looks at Lionel by him.

They talk a little bit . . . . He raises his hand
for something else, too, and says, "Oh, I wanted
to say that" when another student was called

upon . . . .

(N. p. 401-402, #1545-1551)

During the administration of the Leerpipg_§ryie_
Ipyeprery, both students exhibited distinct characteristics

associated with distractibility and non distractibility.

The pattern followed that of the classroom observations and

were recorded, in part, in the field notes of that day:

. . . . Rob finished the first side first. He
turned his page over and said, "Oh my gosh!" The
back side was completely full of statements. The

80

front side had been divided between the beginning
statements and a large section for general data
and codings. Rob shifted around in his chair in a
rather uneasy manner as if deciding whether or not
he was up to finishing this whole page. He asked
for a paper to guide his eyes (after initially
refusing one) . . . . In just a couple of seconds
after that, Brian turned the page and just kept
going. He did not appear to be particularly
bothered by the length of the instrument

. . . . Rob stopped with the third or fourth
statement on the back side and began to look
around the room. It appeared that he was not
certain that he really wanted to finish this whole
thing or perhaps thinking that maybe it was just
too long for him. As he reached item number 69
out of 104 questions, he stopped, got up and went
over to the drinking fountain that was located in
the room and got a drink. He came back, sat down
and began to answer a few more and then used the
eraser. He had used the eraser several times
already on this page . . . . In a couple of
seconds he put his head on his left arm which is
on the table at this time. He continues to darken
the circles for the answers. He is appearing
restless, shifting back and forth in his chair,
still with his head on his arm. He lifts his head
in a few seconds, however, and shifts his paper,
but still continues to work on it. Another person
enters the room at that time and leaves something
on the teacher's desk. She hums something just
slightly and Brian gives her a quick glance, but
then continues his task. Rob does not respond at
all to this and now appears to be toward the
bitiom of the page. He appears more intent now to
f n sh . . . .

(N. p. 100-101, #474-480)
Unlike the antiquated, bespeckled, frail, and unsocial
stereotypical image of gifted students, Rob was of average
height, and even outweighed his classmates considerably.
He usually wore sweat pants and tee shirts with white

athletic shoes. His appearance was always casual and his

tee shirts were frequented with advertisements or

81
insignias. On only a few occasions did he wear a different
type of clothing. It was on those occasions, however, that
a considerable discomfort was noticeable. Take, for
example the field note entries of 5/11/87 when Rob wore a
pair of jeans and a red tee shirt:

. . . Rob goes over to get a drink, pulls up his
socks and then his pants . . . .

(N. p. 403, #1557)

. . . . As they line up for recess Rob tugs at his
underwear. He reaches into his jeans in the back
and tugs at them. His jeans are gaping open in
the back and the waist appears much larger than
the rest of the pant. The pant legs are also
turned up about five inches at the bottom.

Perhaps they are new and not broken in yet . . .

(N. p. 405-406, #1567)

In an interview with Miss Knight she felt that Rob had
a great deal to share and was very quick at grasping
anything new, but that he also was quite immature compared
to other third graders. In addition, she states:

"Now Rob I see -- he came in -- was new to the
school this year and I knew his mother and I tried
to make him comfortable with that. I wanted his
transfer here to be comfortable, plus he had
friends in the area anyway. The more comfortable
he has gotten, the sillier he has become and the
more he acted out. He was always kind of a snuggy
little guy like sometimes he would come up and
just say 'I need a hug.' And he would need that
little loving type of thing. He likes to work on
projects and like that independent thing. I can
see he'll be easily bored with routine daily drill
type things. He'll do it, but earlier on it was
hard to get things all the way finished and back
to me. I had to be in charge of that . . . ."

(N. p. 500-531, #1948 TS 9)

82

In contrast she describes Brian as being very quiet and
reserved. He would not, for example, ask if he could go
ahead in his work or do other things at the beginning of
the year. His own identity seemed to have been viewed only
in comparison to his twin brother. Miss Knight continues:

"He reminds me of a little old man. He's so in

charge of himself and such an independent little

guy and such a sense of responsibility and I

probably see the most growth in him because early

on I've heard people say how they (Brian and his

twin) couldn't do anything without mother's

direction and they walk like little robots and

didn't smile or wouldn't have gotten up and asked

anything. Even early on in the year, he was very

interested in working independently in math. He

had a voracious appetite for it. Especially

working independently in math, he just was very

interested. Just had a voracious appetite for

it. He could just slip through it so I just let

him go as fast as he wanted to.”

(N. p. 527, #1939 TS 9)

s o e e Needs Stu e s

It appeared, that both Miss Knight and Mrs. Greenman
exemplified a tolerance level far beyond what other
teachers might have, but one which expressed concern and
understanding of individual students. The other teachers
involved with these students also expressed similar
attitudes, but seemed to extend them quite differently.
The interactions of the students at Barrington Elementary,
for example, were not considered significantly different
during the time they went to music class or gym glass.
They remained a part of the total class unit and did not

appear to be viewed apart from that structure. It is

83
questionable if the music or gym teachers were even aware
of their label of ”gifted.” As a district, this system
practices no formal identification process to classify
students as gifted and relies upon teacher recommendation
to group students-academically. There is no special
program available for gifted students, but attempts are
made to place teacher selected students in classrooms with
the teachers who have been trained to use Bloom's Taxonomy
of Thinking Skills. In discussions with the parents it is
interesting to note that both Rob and Brian were formally
identified as gifted by outside sources and were monitored
by their parents as early as the pre-school years.

At Harrison Elementary, however, the reception and
integration of the resource room students varied
considerably. The most striking observation throughout the
time in the mainstreamed classrooms was the distinct
seating arrangements and the location of the students
coming from the resource room. With few exceptions, they
were always seated together and the seats were assigned.
At first, Russ and Dori were seated in a grouping of four
desks with another resource room student at the same
grouping. The fourth desk remained empty. In later
visits, all three students sat by each other in a row with
the desks facing a brown vinyl wall. Two additional desks
faced this wall, but they remained unoccupied. The rest of

the students were seated at various table groupings in

84

the room (Figure 2). In Jason's mainstreamed classroom a
similar pattern existed. The resource room students sat in
a row by the outside wall of the room, but the desks were
arranged so that they were behind each other and faced the
front of the room. The first desk was occupied by Jason,
the second by another resource room student and an empty
desk separated the third of Mrs. Greenman's pupils. One
additional student of hers sat, unexplainably, in the back
of another desk grouping, next to an empty desk (Figure 3).

Bob was placed yet in a different classroom to be
mainstreamed. He sat in the last seat of the row closest
to the inside wall of the room (Figure 4). This room was
arranged in definite rows and all faced the front. It was
not until the year almost ended that a new resource room
student joined this particular classroom and he was also
seated in the last seat of a row but on the opposite side
of the room from Bob. It should also be made clear that
Bob, Russ, and Dori were mainstreamed for specific subjects
and Jason was mainstreamed for a particular period of the
day. Jason's activities, as well as that of the others
that were there at the same time, varied from current
events, handwriting, crafts and social studies lessons
during this designated time frame.

Even more poignant than the seating arrangements were

the interactions of the students in the mainstreamed

. 85 '

 

 

 

 

 

4/15

room student

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4/21

' Seating Arrangements in

. Figure

86

 

 

 

 

 

J = Jason

* 8 Other resource room students '

 

V

El

[.3

UV

'7!
[l ...

E] (El

 

Utaca

. Cl
mag
Ll

El
Cl ‘Cl C] (El

U

‘El

E3

 

 

 

 

 

CD

 

 

 

5/20

Seating Arrangements in Mrs. Laramy's Room

Figure 3 .

° "87-

 

 

AU.

 

I
DEE. D. U

DDDDD..
SUBBED. _

EDD. U. DE.
DE. D. D. DD

 

 

 

4/16

 

 

DODGE
DDDDD

QED. U. DD.
. .HZHZU. D. DD.

 

 

 

DU. D.D.U.D

4/23

'Seating Arrangements in Miss Murray's Room

Figure 4

88
classrooms. The reasons and explanations for these
occurrences are, undoubtedly, vast and beyond total
isolation or definition. Nevertheless, the observations
are significant in providing pieces of the puzzle.

Although the efforts of mainstreaming students can
result in a multitude of complexities as well as successes,
it appeared that the importance of such an opportunity was
most accepted by Dori. Not only did it provide her with
activities in art (and later in math as well), it also
allowed her the social contacts that her verbal ability
appeared to need.

Except for a very brief period of time, Dori was the
only female student in the resource room. More
importantly, however, she was among the rapidly growing
minority population at Harrison School. In Mrs. Greenman's
room there were two other black students, but Dori showed a
decided preference to be part of a wider social circle.
Even in her clothing, Dori stood out from the others in the
room. She wore name brands that were currently popular and
her dress was always immaculate. Mrs. Greenman explained
that this particular family had the money to purchase
anything. Dad owned several antique cars, had several
apartments and lavished particularly his girls with a great
many gifts. Mrs. Greenman thought that Dori was
particularly interested in going to the math section or

being put in there, because of the social issues involved.

89

W
The observations of Dori helped frame this idea. It

was quite noticeable how freely she spoke with the black
female students in Mrs. VanLaan's room, and how they, in
turn, approached her. Equally important was how she chose
not to speak to the black male students and avoid the other

students altogether. For example:

. . . . She (Dori) has her paper on top of her
math book while she's coloring. She looks up and
she turns around to her right slightly and says
something to another black student that is sitting
diagonally away from her. Her face is rather
sullen and unresponsive, almost angry. He says
something back but she continues to draw. It
might appear that he said something to her first

. . . . Another black female student comes up to
the teacher's desk and says something to Dori on
the way. The teacher's desk is very close to
Dori's. Dori holds up her paper and says
something to her and then continues coloring.

This student then goes back to her own seat. Dori
goes up to a table by the teacher's desk and gets
what looks like a cardboard pattern for a cracked
egg shape design. She goes over to the counter
and selects a piece of paper from the supplies
there. On the way back to her desk, however, she
is stopped by this same black student, and another
black female that is sitting right across from
her. They talk to her a few minutes but Dori
stays only a moment and then sits down at her own
desk. Now she has the chick pattern and the half
egg pattern. The student that had stopped her
comes over to her and talks about something. She
also has two patterns in her hand and Dori says,
"I traced this and this." It is unclear what else
she said after that. She does, however, get the
scissors out of her desk and gives them to this
particular student . . . .

(N. p. 187, #828-829)

The selective interaction was noticeable with each

observation. Dori appeared very social and the black

90
female students, particularly, came to her to talk with her
or to look at what she was doing. Her image seemed to be

enhanced by the designer clothes and the very astute

social manner she exemplified. Mrs. Greenman concurred

these things were very important to Dori.

". . . . That her whole communication is geared
towards that. Her speech, clothes. That she is
very social, that she can communicate this way and
that she's very knowledgeable along that line and
the father has made it a point to give her the

best of what he could . . . .
(N. p. 191, #842)

In addition, the interaction with predominantly black
students was evidenced in a limited setting. Was it
evident elsewhere as well? Mrs. Greenman felt that this
was a very big issue for Dori and that there was something

to it. She states:

". . . It seems to be that there is a coalition
that is formed, or a support group that is formed
among these particular black students and that
Dori's quite an instigator. That has become very
evident and that Dori does rely upon that
interaction with them and since she's very, very
verbal she can be a leader among them . . . ."

(N. p. 269, #1115)

A similar pattern of selective interaction seemed to be
followed by Jason. In Mrs. Greenman's room he interacted
freely with all the other students. Take for example a

field note entry of 4/9/87:

. . . . Russ was working at a table in front of
the room. Jason was watching the students, trying
to make eye contact with them. He looks around
constantly, turning his head from student to

91
student. Finally Russ turned around and Jason
signaled something to him. Kevin then used sign
language with Jason and another student, Robby,
used sign language with Jason, too . . . .

(N. p. 148, #689)
And 4/22/87:

. . . . Jason leaves the room, too, and says,
”Gotta go to library." He comes back in a minute
and appears to kick another student as that
student leaves the room. On his way to his seat
he grabs a box of crayons off of Kevin's desk and
takes them to his own desk. Kevin complains to
the aide . . . . The aide talks to Jason and
settles the crayon dispute. Jason comes back to

the kidney shaped table to work with the
aide O O O O

(N. p. 258, #1067)

In his mainstreamed classroom, however, Jason remained
much quieter and more reticent. He limited his contacts to
the resource room student right behind him or to the other
black students in the room, particularly the one student
that sat across the room from him by the door. At the end
of a class session on 4/9, for example, Jason hurried out
of this classroom and into Mrs. Greenman's room right
across the hall. He put down his Weekly Reader magazine
and zoomed back into Mrs. Laramy's room, touched the head
of the black male student right by the door and hurried
away quickly. Before this student could turn around, Jason
was already across the hall, standing in the doorway
waiting for a response. The black student gave him a smile
but did not get up. Jason then scurried fully into Mrs.

Greenman's room.

92
There were several other black students in Jason's
mainstreamed classroom, but he seemed to prefer the
contacts with this particular student by the door. For
example a field note of 5/20/87 talks about the same
student:

. . . . Jason gets up and goes to the other side
of the room to talk to a black male who sits close
to the door . . . .

(N. p. 499, #1843)

Although the proximity to other black students could
have been a deterrent for Jason, he provided his own means
of maintaining contacts when he wanted them. He seemed to
be comfortable with limited interactions, but also knew
whom to go to for directions when he needed help. Take,
for instance, a day when Mrs. Laramy needed to leave early
and the school principal sat in the room for a short period
of time. Jason and the other resource room students were
working on a particular activity that had been completed by
most of Mrs. Laramy's class during the morning hours. He
had finished using a container of crayons and was now ready
for the next step. Several desks had been pushed together
in a new seating arrangement and Jason sat next to a black
female student although his desk remained sandwiched
against the outside wall. This student had been working on
the same activity and was now finished with the crayons, as
well. The field notes continue:

. . . . Jason is looking inside his desk. He says
something to the black female by him. She grins

93

and glances at the principal. They then talk some
more. When the principal mentions something about
the noise level, the girl looks back at him.
Finally Jason and the girl get up and come to the
long table where the principal is sitting. Jason
is carrying a paper and a pair of scissors. The
girl goes over to Mrs. Laramy's desk and gets a
pair of scissors even though Jason held up his and
said, "Here". He stops by the desk of another
black female and says something while pointing
deliberately to his paper. She says something to
him and he goes back to his seat and begins to cut
something out. The girl sitting by him has also
returned and is cutting with the shears she
obtained from Mrs. Laramy's desk . . . .

(N. p. 500-501, #1851-1852)

In discussing these interactions with Mrs. Greenman it
became clear that, perhaps Jason's level of security was at
stake this year. It was his first year at Harrison School,
having experienced no success in a variety of preceding
resource rooms, and he is living with his father after a
recently finalized divorce. In a taped interview of
4/16/87, Mrs. Greenman talks with the researcher about the
differences that were being observed between the two
classrooms:

Researcher: . . . .(Jason) definitely is a

quieter student than he is when I'm
in your room. I think, that's the
comfort level, too.

Mrs. Greenman: Yeah, right. There's too much to

risk there. There is a real
difference between the two
environments as far as how he could
perceive himself maybe . . . .

(N. p. 211, #906 TS 6)

In contrast to Dori and Jason, the patterns of

94

socializing of Russ and Bob were not nearly as selective
but did remain confined to the students in the immediate
proximity of their desks. Russ, for the most part, was
very quiet and intent on his work when he was in Mrs.
VanLaan's classroom. Most often, he would turn to either
of the other two resource room students that were seated
next to him. On occasion, however, he did interact with
some of the other students closest to him in his
mainstreamed classroom. For example, in the field notes of
5/19/87 he appears to be interested in establishing some

communication with others and does so selectively:

. . Russ is turned sideways so that he's
facing the right side of his seat and he seems to
be listening to the students talk right by him.
He then talks to the student sitting two desks
away from him. No one is sitting between
them . . .

(N. p. 484, #1792)

And on 4/28/87 during a small group activity with the

student teacher:

. . . . Russ lays on the floor in back of the
others and counts the markers. The student
teacher discusses some problems with the
students. Russ watches her and then she begins to
work with one student at the blackboard. The
others begin to line up as if waiting for their
turn, too. Russ, however, is kneeling between
James (a black resource room student) and George
(another black student). He is kneeling in such a
way that he sways back and forth so that George
can't tag James. They appear to have a little
game going . . . .

(N. p. 304, #1236)

95

Bob, as well, associated only with those immediately close

to him, but his interactions appeared to convey deliberate
attempts at conversation. He was not nearly as intent on

doing his work. Frequently, Bob would whisper to someone

close to him or maintain eye contact and smile. During music

practice, for example, Bob often attempted interactions:

. . . And then when the students are singing
again, he (Bob) looks at his neighbor and at the
student in back of him and smiles each time at
them . . .

(N. p. 312, #1260)

. . Bob smiles up at the student who is in
back of him . . .

(N. p. 312, #1261)

. . . . He makes a face at a black student that is
standing next to him right now because the student
that had been next to him on his left side has
gone to rehearse his part in front of the group.
This girl, however, doesn't even look at him. He
scratches his head, and leans back far enough to
sit down on the back bleachers. He watches the
students come back up on the risers as they finish
with their parts. Bob smiles at the student that
ends up behind him again . . . .

(N. p. 313, #1263)

. . . . During a solo part Bob smiles and steps on
the student's foot next to him on his immediate
right. They both are trying to step on each other
but it is not clear how this activity started.
This is the student, however, that had his hands
on his hips and never smiled at Bob, even in Bob's
attempts to recruit a response. Neither does he
smile now. He appears to keep a straight face
during the entire playful activity. Bob whispers
something to the student in back of him. Bob
turns to his left so that he can see him up on the
riser. He shields his mouth with one hand while
whispering and breaks into a smile at the

end . . . .

(N. p. 313, #1265)

96

In other class activities Bob often whispered or talked
to the students in his immediate proximity. Since he sat
in the last seat of a row against the wall, the closest
students by him were seated directly in front of him and to
. the immediate left in the next row. On several occasions
these two students initiated the interaction as well. It
is of interest to note that both students had distinct
characteristics that served as part of their identity in
this classroom. Sebastian, the student directly in front
of Bob, came from Poland and audibly flavored his speech
with traces of an accent. When Bob was in the classroom,
Sebastian often turned to him. Take for example a field
note entry of 4/30/87:

. . . . Sebastian is not sharing his book with

anyone. Occasionally he turns around and looks at

Bob. He has his body turned to the left in his

chair so that his left shoulder is facing Bob's
dGSk O O O I

(N. p. 342, #1347)

The other student who sat immediately to Bob's left was
Jeremy. During the course of the observations, Jeremy
often took it upon himself to help Bob, and, at times, even
did the work for him. Bob never rejected these efforts,
but never openly requested them, either. An entry of
4/29/87 explains:

. . . . Bob asks for scissors because this
particular project needs to be cut in parts. The
student (Jeremy) next to him in the next row says
"Well, why didn't you tell us?" Bob replies,
"Well, I just got here." Jeremy says, "Oh,

97
Miss Murray, he needs scissors." Miss Murray
responds, "I know, we have a problem with
scissors." She asks some students if they are
finished with theirs and finally finds one that is
finished with the cutting. She brings the
scissors back to Bob, and then she explains to him
what he is to do. He follows the directions and
begins the cutting process. Jeremy asks him,
”Bob, do you need a pencil?" Bob replies, "Yeah"
. . . . Jeremy then tosses him a pencil. In a
few seconds, Bob tosses it back and says, "I can

use my hands for the rest of it." He is curling
the ends of the paper . . . .

(N. p. 323, #1291-1292)

A few minutes later when Bob had been given a green
pipe cleaner, he watched the demonstration to find out how
to transform it into a flower stem. He held it up to his
left eye as if looking through it like a telescope of some
sort and then he watched Jeremy turn his pipe cleaner into
the exact shape that had been demonstrated. Bob asks him,
with a slight sense of wonder in his tone, how he had been
able to do that. The reply was followed by immediate
action:

. . . . Jeremy asks, ”Do you want me to do it for

you?” He goes over immediately without waiting

for a response and works with Bob's pipe cleaner

to shape it similarly to his own . . . .

(N. p. 323, #1294)

Bob, however, does not watch Jeremy or act particularly
pleased. Instead he spends the time talking to Sebastian
in front of him.

In a later conversation with Miss Murray these

observations were noted, and she states:

98
. . . . ”Oh, yes. Jeremy will take care of anyone
that let's him . . . .
(N. p. 325, #1301)
She also commented that Bob liked to have others do things
for him. She referred to the example of the stems as a
typical incident.

The interactions exhibited by the two "gifted"
students, Rob and Brian were in total contrast to each
other. Even when not in their own classroom, they never
needed to adjust to a different group of students,
structure, or procedure that varied considerably. Their
identity as a member of the group never seemed in jeopardy,
although, at times, their ability stood them apart. They
appeared comfortable and at ease relating to others, but
exhibited very individual ways of doing it.

Rob was always noticeably more active and loud. He
spoke freely with anyone in the room and never limited his
contacts to just those around him. The structure of the
room, however, did enhance this mobility and encourage
diverse interactions. Take for example an activity on
4/24/87:

. . . . Miss Knight asks the students if they have

heard of the term "pack rat". Rob raises his hand

and then he raises both. A short class discussion
ensues to which Rob is very attentive although he

had not been selected to respond to the inquiry.

Within seconds, Miss Knight instructs the students

to discuss things that they think are worth saving

and to do this with their "partners". As the

students gather with their different partners, who
are not in the same seating groups necessarily,

Rob points to the back of the room. He begins to
walk toward the sink. There is a student by the

99

drinking fountain and as he turns around, he goes
toward Rob. They meet right by this student's
desk and put their arms around each other. Rob
says, ”Okay, what are you going to say?" They
both share this student's chair and they lean over
the desk almost lying on it together while they
keep their arms around each other. This is the
same student who had started to sing in music when
no one else did, and Rob had put his hand on his
head. He is the only black student in this
classroom . . . .

(N. p. 296-297, #1213-1214)

Rob was often seen talking to this student, and it
appeared that they were friends, more so than with all the
other students that he maintained contacts with. In fact,
during a particularly large class project on 5/14/87 where
both Rob's and Lionel's mother were present, they were
overheard discussing the need to maintain their contacts
even after Rob's family moved away this summer.

Brian, on the other hand, initiated very few
interactions, but did share his thoughts and ideas in small
groups. He was never seen to exert himself in these
groups, but chose instead to maintain a contributing role.
Consider an activity of 4/17/87 for example, when the class
had been assigned to work in their seating groups for an

activity:

. . . As they begin to do this, Brian is talking
with his group at his table area. They talk in
whispers so as not to interrupt each
other . . . .

(N. p. 215, #916)
And a few seconds later:
. . . . Brian is sitting on his knees on his chair

leaning over the table on his elbows . . . I can
see his lips move. His eyes are towards the

100

group . . . . In this particular group there are
three boys and one girl. The girl is serving as
the recorder. All of them, however, are talking
and their lips are seen moving as they share with
each other . . .

(N. p. 216, #919)

W

Miss Knight saw Brian and Rob as very capable students,
but with definite individual differences. Rob presented
himself as verbally fluent and seemed to exhibit a wealth
of information during class discussions and activities. At
times, however, his behavior seemed to escalate with such a
force that he seemed to lose all perspective of
expectations. His name often appeared on the board,
indicating time owed for inexcusable behavior.

Although his behavior was quite prominent, it appeared
to occur throughout a variety of activities. During a
group related activity, for example, Rob looked at the
others in his group and appeared to be either waiting or
choosing not to contribute anymore:

. . . . He forms a tube out of a sheet of notebook
paper and balances it on his head. He places the
palms of his hands together, closes his eyes and
bows slightly as if emulating a religious practice
of some sort. The paper tube falls from his

head. He laughs with the boy next to him who had
watched the activity. They both turn around and
call to another student sitting across the room.
They use a very loud whisper, yet deliberately
muffling any escalation in their voices. When the
student looks at them, Rob repeats the action. He
places the tube on his head, holds his hands
together in front of him, touches his chin with
the tips of his fingers and bows ever so

slightly. The tube again falls off. The student
watching turns away, but Rob repeats the action
one more time for his neighbor. The neighbor

101

then tries it on his own head. The tube falls off
whereupon Rob lunges for it and quickly throws it
into his desk. He follows this action by rolling
another paper into a tube shape. Rob looks
through it with one eye, and then he places the
tube in front of his mouth. His eyes circle the
room as he holds the tube intact. It is difficult
to hear if any sound is coming through the

tube . . . .

(N. p. 225, #952)

On yet another occasion, this time during a whole class
activity, Rob had filled in his paper and was waiting for
Miss Knight to continue to the next part. She, in turn,
had provided time for the class to copy her overhead. As
they contribute to the labeling of the parts of a shark's

circulatory system:

. . . . Rob seems to be able to keep up very
quickly and seems aware of where everything is in
the circulatory system. In fact, while the rest
of the students are copying, he tips his chair
backwards and rocks on the two back legs

slightly. At one point he says, "A unicorn, a
unicorn," and he places his pencil directly on his
forehead as if it were protruding from his brow.
He looks at the two students seated in his
particular desk grouping and then he looks around
the room to show others . . . . Rob then goes over
to the kidney shaped table and briefly looks at
the paper there. He gets a drink at the fountain
close to this table. He returns to the kidney
shaped table, thumbs through a book and then goes
over to another desk. He stares briefly at it
before returning to his own. Rob puts his knee on
the back of the chair and sits on the seat with
his left leg on the ground. He tips his chair
over so it is again resting on the two back legs

. . . . Miss Knight continues the lesson . . . .

(N. p. 400-401, #1547-1548)

Miss Knight describes Rob as volunteering easily and

being able to contribute a great deal. He can be counted

102
on to know the answer or grasp new concepts quickly. In
addition, she says:
Teacher: He loves synthesis, but I know his mom
says that, that she's good at that too.
He loves that label synthesis, too.
Anything that he gets to create. That's
his favorite thing to do.
Researcher: So he's good at creating.
Teacher: He enjoys using his hands and creating
things more than the academic type paper
work. He likes that freedom.

(N. p. 533, #1953 TS 9)

On 5/1/87 an announcement was heard over the intercom
system at Barrington School. It pertained to the school
carnival and the winners of the decorated cake contest.

For the most original at this grade level, Rob received
first place. Of greater interest is, perhaps, the fact
that Miss Knight's room obtained the second and third prize
in this category as well.

Brian's behavior carried a much more subtle image and
resulted in different role expectations in the classroom.
Miss Knight saw him as quite responsible and a good
independent worker. She had allowed him to complete the
third grade math curriculum in his own time and offered him
enrichment and computer work to accelerate his learning.

Brian did not volunteer much and even during sharing
activities he chose to pass rather than take a turn to
contribute. Miss Knight felt that he was someone whose
expressive mode is not through auditory means. She

continues:

103

. . ”He seems very confident, very
comfortable. He doesn't seem to be, even if he
gets disgusted, I'm sure he gets tired of my
management system or lack of it, in order to quiet
children down or whatever, where he ends up
getting punished sometimes because he's quiet. He
and Marissa are very quiet and they have to spend
a lot of their life waiting for other people to
get control . . . . One day not long ago, I called
the two of them out in the hall and said, 'You
guys just go on outside for recess. There's no
sense in wasting your time.' He (Brian) was like
a jet down the hall. He was ready to go."

(N. p. 530, #1946-1947 T8 9)

Towards the end of the year, Brian was seen using his
ability on the computer to work with another student. It
appeared that students were working on individual reports.
A field note entry of 5/22/87 explains:

. . . Brian kneels on his chair at the computer
and he helps another student who is sitting in

front of the keyboard now. Brian points to the

keys and then talks to this student as if giving

directions to him. Miss Knight says something

about not running the printer right now because

she didn't want the noise . . . .

(N. p. 520, #1918)

Perhaps Miss Knight is trying to capitalize on Brian's
abilities and characteristics. In any event, she appears
sensitive to the individual differences that Brian and Rob
present.

In looking at Dori and Russ as the "learning
disabled/gifted" students it was somewhat surprising to
discover that both of them were in the same mainstreamed

classroom. Whether this was by accident or design was not

104
investigated. However, in analyzing the standards of
behavior that were expected of them, it became evident that
they were not viewed as "learning disabled/gifted", but
looked upon, instead, as ”resource room students." In
fact, these students were often viewed as all one entity by
the mainstreamed teachers and, occasionally, the students
themselves interpreted a response given to one as being
applicable to all. They were always referred to as "Mrs.
Greenman's students' and terms such as, ”in per room the
rules are . . . ” were often used.

On one day, for example, Dori and Russ left their
mainstreamed math class without being noticed by the
student teacher. When Mrs. VanLaan entered the room she
inquired about Dori but received no response:

. . . . The student teacher has been very busy
with the other students and, apparently, has not
seen Dori or Russ leave the room. I quietly ask
Mrs. VanLaan if Russ and Dori are coming back into
the room and she says, "I don't know what happened
there." She turns to Jamie (a third mainstreamed
resource room student) and asks if Russ had
finished his math. Jamie nods his head, yes.

Mrs. VanLaan is giving some directions to
individual students and then again asks the
student teacher about Russ and Dori. The student
teacher glances over at their desks and says, "No,
I wasn't even aware that they left." Mrs. VanLaan
talks to a few more students on her way to the
back of the classroom where I am sitting, and then
she tells me that they're not sure of what
happened and that she would go check. She leaves
the classroom and disappears in the direction of
Mrs. Greenman's room. When she comes back , I
ask her quietly at an appropriate time, why the
two left. Mrs. VanLaan explains that, apparently
Jamie had asked the student teacher if they could
leave when they were finished with their math.

He, apparently, meant all three of them and the
student teacher simply had replied, "yes" to

105

Jamie. Jamie at this time, was still working on
his math. Mrs. VanLaan also added that they
should not do that. That they are told that they
must ask permission to leave her classroom. "These
are part of the rules that they must abide
by” . . . .

(N. p. 249, #1033-1035)

When the class activity shifted from math to a discussion
of a field trip, Jamie was asked to go get Dori and Russ.
It appeared that these students were often given
instructions as a group, or spoken to as a group. For

example:

. . . . Miss Laramy tells Jason, Kevin, and
Ritchie (the resource room students mainstreamed
into her classroom) that they will work on
something that the rest of the class finished this
morning, but she will allow them some time now to
do that while her own class works on something
else . . . .

(N. p. 497, #1837)

. . . . The students are collecting the Weekly
Reader, but they do not collect them from Mrs.
Greenman's students. The teacher then asks Jason,
Kevin, Ritchie, and Robby to throw out any scraps
that might be in their desks. That this would be
a good time to do that . . . .

(N. p. 156, #721)

. . . . And the teacher continues, "Mrs.
Greenman's people didn't have a chance to share
last time". . . .
(N. p. 156, #722)
Because their particular seating arrangements (Figures
2 and 3) kept them close together, it seemed to add to the
convenience of viewing these special students as a group.

Although it is not clear why they were always seated close

in proximity to each other, on at least one occasion this

106
practice did isolate the students completely. On 5/21/87
the students had participated in a special program and
missed their regular recess time. The teachers involved
had decided to provide a short time for drinks and bathroom
needs and then supervise their own brief recess outside.
Mrs. Greenman was informed of this plan and instructed Russ
to return to Mrs. VanLaan's room for now. He had been
talking with her briefly. He complied and found that in
Mrs. VanLaan's room the students were being excused to go
to the bathroom and get drinks by table groups. The field

note entry continues:

. . . . During this time, Russ and another student
are in their seats in the row against the wall.
Dori is there, too. Jamie is sitting by the
teacher's desk all by himself. Their group has
not been called. It is not certain if they have a
table group number like all the other table groups
do. In a couple of minutes Dori is called out by
the speech teacher, and leaves the room. All of
the other students are given a turn to go to the
bathroom and get drinks except for Russ, and
another student who are still sitting by the wall,
and Jamie who is sitting by the teacher's desk.
The lights are then turned off and the student
teacher begins to excuse them to line up for
recess. She calls them again by table groups.
Russ still remains seated. The student teacher
calls the last table group and sees that there are
still three students in their seats. She tells
them that the last group includes Mrs. Greenman's
students. Russ, Jamie, and the other student then
get up, too . . . .

(N. p. 515-516, #1900-1901)

In a later conversation with Mrs. Greenman this incident

was shared:

107

Researcher: . . . . I just thought it was kind of
interesting to see that this didn't seem
to be intentional and yet, indeed, it
was. Just by placing them where they
are, that they weren't called upon and
that they never did get a bathroom
break, but they did line up for recess.

Teacher: Yes, that's just exactly how prejudice
works, too.
(N. p. 517, #1905)

The expectations portrayed for resource room students
was basically that they sit and do their work. Although
this appeared to be the same for all the other students, an
additional contingency was often implored when behavior of
these special needs students was not acceptable. Several
field note entries speak to the manner in which the
students were informed that their behavior was not up to

expected standards. For example:

. . . . Mrs. VanLaan approaches Jamie from Mrs.
Greenman's room. He does not appear to be working
on his math. He seems to be staring into space
and has his pencil up in the air. Mrs. VanLaan
tells him that as long as he's not working, he
might as well go back to Mrs. Greenman's
classroom. He closes his book, puts it in his
desk, and follows her out of the room . . . .

(N. p. 185, #820)

. . . . Mrs. VanLaan asks Russ if he drew a
picture and says, "Did you get a paper?" Russ
keeps his head lowered and does not appear to
respond. Mrs. VanLaan then goes over to him and
talks to him. The conversation ends with, "Or
we'll go right back to Mrs. Greenman's room, and I
will follow you there and explain what
happened" . . . .

(N. p. 252, #1049)

108

. . . . And the student teacher says, "Jamie, you
can go back to your own classroom, and you can
tell them why . . . .

(N. p. 305, #1242)

Another incident follows this same tone, but it is
interesting to note that, in this case, Mrs. Laramy never
saw the actual occurrence:

. . . Robby (another resource room student) came
in a few seconds later and Mrs. Laramy told him
that they were going to be working on their
Mother's Day things. He tells her that he left
his picture in the other room. He leaves to
retrieve it from Mrs. Greenman's room. Before he
came back in, another student calls for Mrs.
Laramy's attention and says, "Mrs. Laramy, Mrs.
Laramy, Jason just punched Robby in the mouth."

As Jason comes in the room, Mrs. Laramy takes both
Robby and Jason out of the room and then she comes
back without them. The students are working on
various projects and in a few seconds, I quietly
whisper to her and ask if Jason and Robby were
going to be coming back into the room at all. She
looked up momentarily and firmly stated "No, I
doubt it." Her tone and facial expression
appeared to be rather matter of fact, almost as it
she had taken care of it and didn't need to worry
about it anymore . . . .

(N. p. 373, #1454)

In recognizing the art abilities of Dori and Russ, the
teachers could, perhaps, be conveying expectations related
to their talents. Dori and Russ were praised for their
work, and it appeared that they were acknowledged for these
efforts. However, a certain amount of surprise was also
expressed when their work was particularly outstanding. It

was not clear whether they expected good work, but not

outstanding work, whether they did not see any really

109
outstanding talent in spite of their verbal confirmations
at times, or that perhaps, the value in these talents was
seen as so much less than the importance of academic
skills. The thoughts remain unanswered, but are inspired

by field note entries such as:

. . . . Mrs. VanLaan has left the room momentarily

and when she comes back in again she sees the

(mosaic) egg and she says, ”Oh, you found it. Oh,

my! I didn't get to see it because I was gone

Thursday and Friday.” There is surprise and

amazement in her tone. She expresses admiration

for what he (Russ) had done . . . . She comments

about not ever seeing such a good creation in this

particular project before . . . .

(N. p. 261, #1078)

It should also be made clear that Mrs. VanLaan is a veteran
of many years of teaching, most of them having been at
Harrison Elementary.
P essu s s ders

The pressures of outsiders that were exerted upon the
students with these labels varied from subtle glances to
overt confrontations. For the most part, the pressures
were maintained by the teachers in their expectations of
the students. A hierarchy of structure became quite
evident during the months of observations, and several
individuals became key in the orchestration of the
ranking. As discussed previously, the homeroom teachers

would often send the learning disabled students back into

"their" classroom. Mrs. Greenman, on occasion, sent

110
students to the principal. It seemed, however, that the
primary person exerting standards for behavior was the
playground aide. She would often send students in from
recess or deny them a recess period for various rule
infractions. As a result, most of the resource room
students had spent time standing in the hall at one point
or another. It is not, however, possible in this study to
determine if they spent more time there than any other
members of the student body did.

What did appear, in the mainstreamed classrooms, was a
more subdued version of applying pressure, and it came from
the other students. Although not atypical of this age
group, the actions seemed to be directed to the special
students. For example, on 3/11/87, Russ was the only
student seated in a four desk arrangement. He was working
on math, although other students were working on other
activities. Another student came over and sat to the left
of him at one of the empty desks. The field note

continues:

. . . . They do not speak or even look at each
other. The other student looks back and forth
from the board as if copying something . . . .
While Mrs. VanLaan has her head turned, Russ
quickly counts with his right hand and utters some
numbers out loud . . . . The other student sitting
by Russ looks over at Russ' paper. Russ looks up
at him and the student then snickers and grins
broadly. Russ gives him a kind of disgusted
look. He peers at him as if to say "Mind your own
business". . . .

(N. p. 90, #429-433)

111

In another instance the students are copying a large
whale on their paper. They are going to use this for a
writing activity and have been assured that they need not
be artists to do this. Bob is very hesitant, and never
attempts any part of the directions until the teacher
demonstrates the assignment on the board. He draws his
whale and then waves, but when asked to write some things
on the waves, he stops. Bob puts his pencil in his mouth
when another student looks over at his desk and says quite
sarcastically, ”Yours looks like a balloon fish," and he
laughs slightly at him. (N. p. 173-174, #779)

One additional person seemed to play a significant role
as far as Bob was concerned. Although limited to only one
entry the reference provided new insight on the pressures
that were extended to Bob. Consider the field notes taken

when Bob was sitting in the hall instructed to work with

another student:

. . . . The night custodian, John, comes down the
hall with his vacuum. The vacuum, however, is not
on. He seems to be just moving it to a room that
is towards the end of this hall. He turns to Bob
and says, "Caught you again last night, didn't
I?" Bob just shakes his head, but does not
maintain any eye contact with him. The janitor
continues, "I turned you in for running this
time.” Bob continues to shake his head and looks
at him very quickly with no smile. The custodian
disappears into a little storage room close to
this classroom. Bob looks down and says, "Oh,
there's ants here," and he moves away from the
locker. He is now sitting towards the middle of
the hall. The other student is trying to work on
the first question they had been instructed to
answer. The janitor comes back, and he tells Bob
to move out of the middle of the hall. He puts

112

his hand on Bob's head. Bob repeats, ”There's
ants there.” The janitor puts his glasses on and
looks at the spot indicated. "You know what
that's from, don't you?" he asks. Bob says,
"Yeah, food. I didn't put any food there. It's
from this locker." The custodian talks to him
about something else, something about his wife
asking about Bob, and the janitor ”thought he'd
been pretty good except now maybe he got tired of
being good . . . .

(N. p. 202, #879-880)

To help in clarifying this relationship, it was
discovered that the janitor's wife had known Bob in his
previous school and had periodically inquired about him.
The janitor apparently knew Bob, too, and was not hesitant
to express opinions about his behavior.

The pressures applied to Rob and Brian at Barrington
School came in somewhat different forms. A most direct
example presented itself in music class, when the music
teacher asked Rob to try a solo part because his brother
had such a nice voice:

. . . . When the next song is played, Mrs. Daniels
asks who would like to try a part of this as a
solo. She turns to Rob and says, "Rob, I'd like
to hear you sometime." Rob simply says, "Ahhh"
Mrs. Daniels continues, "Your brother really has a
nice voice," and Rob says, "I know. Everybody
says that." Then Mrs. Daniels replies, "Oh, I'm
sorry, I shouldn't say that?" Rob says "No, I
didn't mean that. I'll sing." Mrs. Daniels then
asks, "Which verse would you like to do?" Rob
picks the second one and Mrs. Daniels tells the
students that they are all going to sing the first
verse, and Rob will sing the second. She plays
the first one and they all sing. Then Rob starts
to sing the second verse but stops to say,
"They're bothering me." He motions with his hand
at those around him. Mrs. Daniels says, "Okay,
we'll come back to you." She asks the students to
listen as she repeats the words to the song, and
they repeat them after her . . . They begin the
song again and she asks Rob to sing. He tries,
but then stops and again says, "I can't do this

113
with them here" . . . His voice sounded
uncontrollably high pitched and not at all in tune
with the notes. Mrs. Daniels continues on and
asks everyone to sing. She says something to the
effect of doing it another time . . . .

(N. p. 354-355, #1383-1386)

On several occasions Rob was compared to his older
brother. In fact, it was difficult to tell them apart from
a distance because they were often dressed alike. They
preferred to wear the same type of sweat pant, tee shirt
combinations and were most often in the color red. They
even wore the same type and color of shoe. On one occasion
the researcher spoke to Rob and called him by his brothers'
name. He immediately corrected the name and said "Rob."
After hearing an apology he simply replied, "It's okay. We
look alike." (N. p. 522, #1923)

Brian was often associated with his brother, too, but
the association resulted from the fact that they were twins.
Unlike Rob, Brian did not dress at all like his brother and
his mother appeared particularly aware of allowing them to
develop individually. A

One of the strongest examples, however, of outside
pressures was seen in the strong parent involvement of both
Brian's and Rob's mothers. Although maintaining their own
professional careers, both of them were actively involved in
the school, in organizations for the gifted, and in the
lives of their children. They were often seen assisting in

school with things such as the school carnival, room

114
parties, class trips, and class activities. They appeared
interested in all that went on and seemed to want their
children to participate in everything. (N. p. 160, #734)
Whether their presence was viewed as a direct pressure by
Brian and Rob is an open question. Nevertheless, it
appeared as a possibility.
W

In some instances, a student might know a great deal
about a special area or topic he or she is interested in,
and might even have gained more information or knowledge
about it than the teacher. This is a potentially
threatening situation that would need to be resolved.

With neither Dori or Russ did this seem to be a
situation that arose. However, the strong will or belief
that was occasionally exhibited by the students when they
were sure they were right, can easily fall into this
negotiation pattern. Mrs. Greenman had repeatedly spoken of
the strong will, or "stubborn to the bone" attitude of the
students labeled as learning disabled, and she offered an
example of a time when Russ appeared absolutely certain that
he could predict the future. She explains:

". . . . Every now and then Russ used to get into

the mood when I was talking to him about

something, where he simply, absolutely would shake

his head continuously and that there was no way of

getting your message through to him. Yesterday,

for example, when he told me that he could tell

the future. I tried to explain that no one

actually could tell the future. We can predict

and we can assume and whatever, but no one can

actually tell the future. He absolutely insisted
that he could tell the future, that his dad was

115

going to look for tires today. I tried to explain
to him again that, yes, he may plan to look for
tires but that there are always things that could
happen to interrupt that plan or time or whatever,
but Russ insisted, no, he can tell. That that's
what his dad was going to do. So today when he
came to school the first thing he told me was,
'See, I told you I could tell the future. My dad
went to look for tires.'"

(N. p. 371, #1446-1447)

Mrs. Greenman was simply saying that there was no way of
really changing his mind once he had his mind set on one
particular thing. She did, however add:

". . . . Well, that was part of it and that was in
there, that was part of it, but that was not--it
was a deeper understanding of predicting the
future, of understanding the terminology. He was
not being stubborn at that point. I really felt
like there was just a basic break down in word
meaning maybe."

(N. p. 472, #1764 TS 8)

The conversation continued and showed how sensitive Mrs.
Greenman appeared to be to this kind of student:

Teacher: And if he has come to the conclusion.

If he has thought it through, if he has
decided that he's going to do such and
so - and at that point we dropped it.
But I could imagine that kind of a child
being destroyed. If you were going to
be determined that he was going to see
it your way.

Researcher: Well, a power lock could ensue with that
and he doesn't really mean it that way,
but you could interpret it as such.

Teacher: You certainly could, as totally defiant.

Researcher: That's right. This stubborn kid, I'm
going to show him.

Teacher: Yeah . . . .

(N. p. 473, #1766 TS 8)

In this respect, Mrs. Greenman and Miss Knight had a

116
great deal in common. They were both teachers who were
respected by their peers as well as by their immediate
supervisors. They both made a point to attend conferences
and workshops about things that particularly were of
interest to them, or might assist them with their
students. They both had not stopped learning themselves.
In fact, Miss Knight commented about the idea that "the
more she learns, the dumber she gets." (N. p. 238, #997).
Most of all, they both felt that there are many ways to
interpret situations and that the need is there to explore
those ways.

Miss Knight gave no indication of power struggles with
either Rob or Brian. None were evident in the months of
on-going research, but her manner of dealing with the
students became key, as it did with Mrs. Greenman.

Miss Knight appeared ”at home" in the classroom with
her students. In her every day dealings with them she was
able to answer questions, make comments, direct activities
and, in general, conduct her classroom in a way that
appeared to work for her. She smiled a lot, talked with
the students, laughed with them, gave positive comments on
their work, and was observed receiving regular and frequent
hugs from her students. By her own admission she was a
teacher who enjoyed the "feisties", the students who were
alert, active, and bright. (Int. #8 350 [85]) She thrived
on this kind of student.

117

A student comment about Miss Knight's top reading group
provides the clues as to how the students are viewed and
how they see this room.

"In (Miss Knight's room) it makes it a little more

challenging and a little more fun than the regular

third grade classes cause we get to show how smart

we are and in other third grade classes you're

kind of scared to show how smart you
are. . . ."

(St. In. #2045 [85])

Ingenterx_§slestien

Today, some educators have intentionally departed from
the traditional discussion of classroom materials and
pupil-teacher ratios and are raising critical questions
about the ways in which students learn. These efforts and
related research focus on student learning skills and
”learning styles.” Until recently, however, information
and research on the ways that students learn have seldom

been a part of proposals to individualize education.

Publications such as nieez's Serpent Learpipg sryies:
2isgn9sin9_and_£ressribins_£rssrams point to new directions

that school systems may profitably examine as they review
their effectiveness. The key to effective schooling is to
understand the range of student learning styles and to
design instruction and materials that respond directly to
individual learning needs (p. 43).

Selected for its consistency in discriminating between

extreme populations and its ease of administration, the

118
Leerping_§ry1e_1pyeprery (LSI) by Dunn, Dunn, and Price was
used. Developed through content and factor analysis, the
LSI uses dichotomous items and can be completed in
approximately 30 to 40 minutes. It can be administered
orally or silently. Interpretation of the LSI is based
upon identifying extreme preferences: that is, those
elements in which the standard scores are between 20-40
(Reject areas) or 60-80 (Preference areas). If scores are
in the middle range (41-59) of most elements, there is no
strong preference for the element and accommodations do not
have to be made in terms of the learning environment.
Learning alone, and morning to evening, are two elements on
a continuum. In these cases, scores between 20 and 39
indicate preferences for learning alone or in the evening:
scores between 60 and 80 suggest peer-oriented morning
learners.

Brian, Rob, Dori and Russ each selected to read the
items on the inventory by themselves. Continual
assistance, however, was provided for Dori and Russ in
guiding them through the instrument. With Jason and Bob
the inventory was read to them. Brian and Rob were given
the inventory at the same time. The others were
administered by individually conducted sessions. Each
student, however, was greatly relieved that this was not a
”test” and that there were no correct or incorrect

responses to be found. Their individual preferences were

119
the only things that were important here.

At the completion and scoring of the Leerhipg_§ryie_
Ipyeprery (LSI) it was remarkable how different they all
were from each other. Close scrutiny, however, provided
some interesting comparisons and similarities of
individuals.

Welshm-

Recent national focus on the gifted/talented has led to
numerous investigations concerning how such students learn.
These investigations evidenced consistent patterns of
independence, self (internal) motivation, persistence,
strong perceptual senses, and the need for options among
a) high I.Q., b) musically, and c) artistically gifted
students. They also verified that the gifted strongly
preferred independent studies and projects to lectures or
discussions.

According to Dunn (1983), secondary traits also show
that gifted students often prefer a formal rather than an
informal design, need neither intake nor mobility, and have
several high energy times of day/night. One of the major
characteristics of the gifted is independence, or
nonconformity, which is measured on the LSI by
responsibility. Low responsibility is a measure of
nonconformity/independence. Many gifted students score
high on responsibility/conformity, but more score low on

that item. The gifted appear to "see" things differently

120
and need ”space” so they can bring their own uniqueness
into what they are doing.

Although Rob and Brian did not match all of these
characteristics, both showed a preference for learning
alone, and both strongly preferred independent studies and
projects to lectures or discussions. Miss Knight herself
recognized this preference in class, and she states:

”. . . . He (Rob) likes to work on projects, and,

like that independent thing. I can see he'll be

easily bored with routine daily drill type

things . . . .

(N. p. 530, #1948 TS 9)

And

". . . He (Rob) does neat beautiful work. Takes
quite a bit of pride in his work. And he loves
projects. He's quite a project child at home,
too . . . ."

(N. p. 531, # 1950 T8 9)

In discussing Brian, Miss Knight conveys how very
independent he is and what a sense of responsibility he
has. She continues:

". . . Even early on in the year, he was very

interested in working independently in math. He

had a voracious appetite for it. Especially

working independently in math, he just was very
interested . . .

(N. p. 527, #1939 TS 9)
Several other areas appeared to be important to Brian,
as well. He expressed strong preferences for being
persistent, responsible, and needing little intake or

mobility. These items correlate with the general findings

121
of the preferences verified by other gifted students. In
addition, however, Brian also preferred to have sound
present while he was working, and expressed a strong need
for low light.

The Leerpipg_§ry1e_1pyeprery results for Rob are
illustrated in Figure 5. Preference for a formal design
indicates that he generally studies at a desk and chair and
probably associates learning with a formal environment. He
may think better on a wooden chair and desk, as in a
library, classroom or kitchen. Bob would also be inclined
to turn on all the lights because he likes light. It does
not need to be extremely bright, but he likes more light
than less. He would not do well in an unlit corner of the
room. He also has a strong preference for intake and needs
frequent opportunities for nutritious foods, drinks, and
snacks. In the area of needing mobility, Rob showed a
consistent pattern of moving and needs to be provided with
frequent breaks, assignments that require movement to
different locations, and schedules that permit mobility in
the learning environment. Confined and required to remain
immobile will result in little or no learning for him. A
low score on authority figures present indicates a need for
less authority oriented tasks and learning that is more
self directed or geared toward personal interest. Learning
in several ways is also not comfortable for Rob, indicating

that he does not enjoy a great deal of variety but much

122

LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY 0? R08

 

 

   
   
    
   
   
    
      

 

 

 

 

 

    
      
   

Raw Standard
Scorc Score Element 20 30 40 50 60 70 8O
8 51 1. Noise Level §'=E*===:'=s'g=:
1 1 60 2 . Light - 5'3 ' ....
14 59 3. Temperature >§€ . _ff
11 64 4. Design is; :; ... ggfifii
20 49 5. Motivation 333$ ,:;§"' II:
9 42 6. Persistence §§§§ i
6 43 7. Responsibility 'EEE
10 52 8. Structure Egge
9 41 9. Alone-peer oriented ‘35:;
6 40 10. Authority E-sss
4 34 11. Varied fig;
7 41 12. Auditory "égisa
7 51 13. Visual Egg;
13 51 14. Tactile $33.55:
15 44 15. Kinesthetic gage;
15 63 16. Intake ggggg
7 41 17 . Evening-morning fig
7 51 18. Late morning ==::‘
11 52 19. Afternoon 4
12 59 20. Mobility *“
10 40 21. Adult motivated
14 52 22. Teacher motivated
Low Average High
LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY OF BRIAN
Raw Standard
Scorc Score Element 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
4 35 2. Light g T L'
11 49 3. Temperature g ’33:
9 57 4. Design 3
24 58 5. Motivation £3:
14 61 6. Persistence fig; ,g
12 63 7. Responsibility fig; .3
12 59 8. Structure 3;; g:
10 42 9. Alone-peer oriented 38%
8 47 10 Authority ggé :y:
10 54 11 Varied ti .} -E§§E§
9 so 12. Auditory ‘ :3 .i
9 61 13. Visual -§§§§g§
15 58 14. Tactile ..§§g§§
19 55 15. Kinesthetic 2‘?
6 40 16. Intake
14 58 17. Evening-morning 9%
8 55 18. Late morning
12 55 19. Afternoon
4 36 20. Nobility
12 54 21. Adult motivated
15 55 22. Teacher activated

 

 

 

 

Low Average High

Rob's and Brian's Learning Style Inventory
Figure 5

123
prefers to learn in a basic pattern, probably by himself.
Rob's optimal time preference is early evening and he
should be permitted to schedule difficult assignments at
that time. The low score on parent figure motivated
corresponds to his need to work by himself. He should not
be required to work with his parents. For Rob, intrinsic
motivation for outcomes should be used rather than how it
will make others feel.

Rob, preferred a bright light, required intake, needed
mobility, and had a low preference for learning in several
ways, having an authority figure present, and being parent
motivated. One of his preferences, however, did correspond
to the studies of gifted students in that he showed a
decided preference for a formal design.

Figure-5 summarized the Lg;zning_§§ylg_1nygn§gzy
results of Brian. There are seven elements on the LSI that
discriminate significantly in terms of his learning style
preferences. He shows a decided need for low light,
indicating a preference for placement under indirect or
subdued light away from windows. His low scores in the
areas of intake and mobility indicate that no special
arrangements need to be made for him in these areas. His
strong preference for sound while learning suggests that
background music may enhance the learning process. Brian
is also inclined to be persistent. Persistence is highly
correlated with a long attention span and the ability to

124
sustain interest and involvement over a period of time. He
thrives on projects that demand persistence, particularly
tasks which require self-learning with a high degree of
independence. In the area of responsibility, Brian shows a
strong willingness to follow teachers' directions and to
conform to expectations and standards.

Brian's perceptual strengths lean toward the visual
approaches such as those that require reading and seeing.
Programmed learning activities can be recommended, as well,
since Brian indicates a slight preference for structure.
Written assignments and evaluations are also usable, but
knowledge should be reinforced through tactile,
kinesthetic, and then auditory resources. His time of day
preference is late morning although he can tolerate
afternoon work if he has an interest in it.

In analyzing and comparing it is, however, important to
recognize that assessments of individual students, or even
small groups, need to extend beyond group characteristics.
Within each group there are broad differences as well as
similarities in terms of learning style preferences.
NW

The dilemma of the learning disabled student has also
been recently investigated in various studies. Again, no
study has been all inclusive, nor can the investigations be
applicable to all such students. They do, however, serve

as a beginning in analyzing the learning styles of learning

125
disabled students.

Several Lg;rning_§;ylg_lny§ntgzy variables seem to be
emerging as significantly discriminating between learning
disabled students and non-learning disabled students.

Among the findings are trends that describe these students
as less persistent, preferring to learn with adults or with
peers. A study by Price, Dunn, & Sanders (1981) also
indicated that students with significantly lower
achievement levels were adult motivated rather than
self-motivated, functioned best in the late morning,
preferred learning through their tactile and kinesthetic
senses, and preferred an informal environment when studying
or learning.

Bob's Lg;zning_§tylg_1nygn;gzy (Figure 6) delineates
six elements that seem particularly significant for him.

In the area of responsibility, he shows a desire to conform
and follow the directions of the teacher. He would do well
with short term assignments, and alternatives to regular
work. Bob has a strength in the visual and kinesthetic
areas implying that the use of pictures, filmstrips, films,
graphs, transparencies, computer monitors, diagrams,
drawings, and other resources that require seeing would be
of help to him. He also needs opportunities for real and
active experiences in planning and carrying out

objectives. His time of day preference is late morning and

afternoon. In the area of learning in several ways, Bob

126

LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY OF BOB

 

 

     
     

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  

 
  
  
  
   
  
   
   
   
   

   

   

Raw Standard
Score Score Element 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
5 41 1. Noise Level ssgggggggi
7 46 2 . Light gt: - :5
9 43 3. Temperature gg§§§
6 45 4. Design §§§g
24 58 5. Notivation *fifix “cgggggg
10 46 6. Persistence ......
12 63 7. Responsibility
8 45 8. Structure
10 42 9. Alone-peer oriented
8 47 10. Authority
5 37 ll. Varied
10 55 12. Auditory
9 61 13. Visual
15 58 14. Tactile
21 61 15. Kinesthetic
13 58 16. Intake
13 55 17. Evening-morning
10 63 18. Late morning
14 61 19. Afternoon
12 59 20. Nobility
12 54 21. Adult motivated
15 55 22. Teacher motivated
Average High
LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY OF JASON
Raw Standard
Score Score Element 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
5 41 1. Noise Level 33533333:
7 46 2. Light ZEJ'II
12 52 3. Temperature g3; ggfigggg
6' 45 4. Design ififia: ggfig
23 55 5. Notivation fifiifié '52'
12 53 6. Persistence {géfgfié - -
7 46 7. Responsibility §§§§=
10 52 8. Structure 3;;
9 41 9. Alone-peer oriented g“:
10 53 10. Authority 5;;
6 41 11. Varied J... L
12 64 12. Auditory ;" - - - . ”:3”
a so 13. Visual f5 2:: T”
15 53 14. Tactile g3;
17 50 15. Kinesthetic §§§ "
7 43 16. Intake *2”?
10 48 17. Evening-morning ”'
7 51 18. Late morning
10 49 19. Afternoon
12 59 20. Nobility
12 54 21. Adult motivated
15 55 22. Teacher motivated

 

 

 

 

Bob's and Jason's Learning Style Inventory

figure 6

Average

High

127
indicates that this is not his preference. His inventory
indicates that he has a difficult time concentrating with
others present and prefers to work alone.

The Preference Summary of Jason‘s inventory (Figure 6)
was quite unique in that it showed only one element that
appeared in the significant category. As his perceptual
preference he selected the auditory modalities, meaning
that he would learn effectively through the use of tapes,
videotapes, lectures, discussions, records, radio, precise
oral directions or explanations when given assignments,
setting tasks, reviewing progress, or for any performance
requiring understanding, evaluation, and/or retention. It
should, however, be reinforced through tactile, visual and
kinesthetic resources. The discussion of this particular
inventory will be expanded in a later section.

It is also of interest to note how similar the standard
scores were for Bob and Jason. On several items, seven to
be exact, their scores were identical, although the scores
were within the non significant, or "it depends” middle
range of numbers.

MW

Labeled as "learning disabled/gifted" Russ and Dori fit
into neither category by itself. Their Lg;znigg_§§ylg_
Inygntgrieg, as well, proved to be quite different from all
the others. Five items received an identical standard
score and four of those items discriminated significantly

in terms of their learning style preferences (Figure 7).

.1228

LEARNING STVLE INVENTORY OF RUSS

 

Raw
Score

Standard
Score

Element 20 30 4O 50 6O 7O 80

 

spa—lameness—
O

- I. - - - - - - - - - . - -
No 1 se Leve 1 saggy=§sgssagszeaseag===s=i¥a= ===s -r='-
-’ - -

.:. 1.. W .3355:
Light fizn ' F55
Temperature 2? h??&%¥
Design - 3
Notivation
Persistence _ z; .5
Responsibility .;?7' iii""”
Structure =3 '-
dlone'peer oriented
Authority
Varied
Auditory
Visual

     
 

 

.&C.'..'. .O... . .. I'I.C.C.....I IO. .-

TWHME

   
 
   
  

   

Tactile gig =-=- ------- jg
Rinesthetic g; E?

III t .NC 5%. -:-.-.-- -------------------------
Evening-morning

Late morning e: :. .i?

AI t e rnoon ::-E . __: -'§'E=E=E:E=E:S=E:fi'
Nobility 33.33.: ' . s E.

Adult motivated gag §§§§§
Teacher motivated P.: 5::-

 

A

Low Average High
LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY OF DORI

 

Raw
Score

Standard
Score

Element 20 30 4O 50 60 70 8O

 

p
medcswbuNe-o
O

”wherever-purchas—
HOWDQOMQUNH
O. I I... C O C O

22.

  
  
    

Noise Level f“‘ E i a g g g'ssL. s s "g;
Light $23.

Temperature gf'

Design g 5
Notivation § .331iig
Persistence g *'
Responsibility i?

Structure g

Alone-peer oriented ii

Authority ig:

Varied f}: .. ..:
Auditory iggfia ...:;.§§:i£sgaaig
Visual gag;

 
    

 

T‘C E A 1 8 325:; 353.233: ---E§§;§
Rinesthetic 33%;; .:. gig;
InLONC 335355;; -: l |
Evening-morning ggg‘ ' ’ '25

Afternoon :gg:g=-=;;§§§§§§;

Nobil i ty 3553;}; | T
Adult motivated ":22: iii

Teacher motivated

 

 

 

Russ' and Dori's Learning Style Inventory
Figure 7

129

Both Russ and Dori were perceptually strong, indicating
that a broad range of teaching techniques can be utilized,
including auditory approaches such as lecture discussion,
tactile approaches such as manipulatives and three
dimensional materials and written or graphic records, and
kinesthetic approaches such as being actively involved and
experiencing things first hand. They both also scored the
highest preference possible in the areas of parent and
teacher motivated, indicating a very strong need to have a
work area near the teacher, to have continual
communications with the home (notes, tapes, student's work)
to receive praise in front of parents, and to be involved
with other adults when working.

In addition, Russ showed a strong preference for having
sound present, needing intake, needing mobility and finding
the afternoon and evening to be primal working times for
him. He also indicated that he preferred low light when
working and desires a structure in which he is able to
define the parameters of the task himself. Russ prefers,
as well, to work alone and work with a colleague-type
adult, not one that is particularly in charge or has
authority.

Dori's remaining Preference Summary included strong
preferences for sound present, strength in being motivated,

particularly adult and parent motivated, responsible, or

130

conforming and needing a substantial amount of structure
provided in her work. She seems to function best in late
morning and early evening. Additionally, Dori prefers a
slightly cool temperature, implying a need for adequate
ventilation or air conditioning. The area of visual
modality was quite low, as was the need for mobility and
requiring intake.
WWW

Prior to the administration of the ngzning_§;ylg_
Inggntgzy, the students had been informed that, more than
likely, they would not be surprised at what the Preference
Summary would show. The preparation continued with
examples of inventory items given and discussed. Host of
the students identified readily with the examples and could
express their preferences without hesitation. Of
particular interest were some comments made by Rob. He
seemed to have a quick grasp of the concepts on the
ngzning_§tyle_1ny§ntgry and made it immediately applicable
to himself. In seeking out some of the differences that
might be evident in their classroom, Rob and Brian both
volunteered a few things. Rob then stated that he needed
to move around. That if he sat in a chair for a long
period of time, he "felt real restless and he just had to
move around.” (N. p.99, #469) During the course of
filling in the inventory, Rob and Brian both exhibited very
distinct styles and approaches to the task. Brian sat

131
quietly, hardly moving his body, except for his pencil hand
and the quiet moving of his jaw as he chewed gum. He
hardly shifted his body nor raised his head during the time
he was concentrating. Rob, however, seemed to move
constantly, looking around the room, getting up to get a
drink, using an eraser often, resting his head on the table
and shifting back and forth in his chair. His earlier
statement seemed to confirm his own understanding of
himself in this regard.

In analyzing the Learning_§tylg_1ny§n§g:y Preference
Summary several weeks later, Rob readily acknowledged the
items that appeared important to him and freely provided
additional confirming examples of the preferences
discussed. In addition, during a later session with his
mother, she, too, commented on how his behaviors at home
were representative of the preferences indicated on the
summary. She felt particularly pleased that Rob was not
parent figure motivated and interpreted that to imply that
she had accomplished her task as a parent in that he did
not need to rely on her for every direction and need.

Brian's mother, as well, was quite interested in seeing
his Preference Summary and had often inquired about this
study. In a field note entry she explains her interest:

. . . . She said, yes, she thought it (watching

the students) was interesting, too, since Brian is

a twin. She watches both of them and they are

very different, and that she is always amazed at

how each of them act differently instead of

assuming that they might act the same because they

are twins . . . .
(N. p. 160, #735)

132

After hearing the interpretation of Brian's Learning
fitylg_1ngen§gzy Preference Summary, she commented on how
well it seemed to describe him, and was pleased that she
was given a copy to take with her. She did not expand
greatly on providing further examples of his activities at
home, like Rob's mother, but listened intently and talked
only briefly. The similarities of mother and child,
although subtle, seemed to be noticeable, particularly in
the manner in which each approached a task. This was
further evidenced one day, when, by chance, the opportunity
presented itself to view both mothers with their children
in a school related activity.

On 5/14/87 in Mrs. Knight's class, the students were
preparing to dissect sharks as a culmination to a year's
study of oceans and sea life. Several parents had
volunteered to assist, at the general request of Miss
Knight. Rob's mother as well as Brian's mother had been
among those to offer their help. Each adult present was
assigned to assist one of the groups of students. Brian's
group was working with his mother and Rob's group was
working with his. The students had been duly instructed to
follow the procedures and to treat this learning process as
an adventure as well as a scientific exploration. The
parents, however, did not hear this particular admonition
since it had been given to the students in their classroom

and now they were all working in the gym. After Miss

133
Knight demonstrated the dissecting process, the students
returned to their groups to begin dissecting their own
sharks. The field note entries of that event describe the
approaches used by Brian's as well as Rob's group:

. . . . The term, "Oh, how scientific" can be
heard since the students have been instructed that
they are not allowed to say, ”Oh, gross" or use
other similar expressions in this process. The
students are following a shark dissecting check
list so that each step of the way is recorded and
monitored. Brian is checking off items on his
group list while the others are doing the actual
dissecting at this time. In viewing Rob's group
it is noticeable that he is bouncing up and down
as he watches the others begin the dissecting. He
points to something on the newspaper that is
covering the table and says, ”Look, mom" and then
mentions something about it. There are four
students in his group . . . . Rob watches the
cutting of the shark and he pounds with open hands
on the table. As the shark is opened Rob says,
"Oh, the liver, the gall bladder” and points to
the different parts. His mother tells him to get
out their diagrams. Rob watches as one student
cuts out the liver. Rob's head is very close to
the shark while this is going on. He does not
seem to be aware of the very strong smell of
formaldehyde which is permeating the entire
gym . . . . Rob hangs on to one piece of the shark
as it is cut and he says, "You should feel this.
It's soft on one side and like sandpaper on the
other." He's holding the shark open while he's
saying this and while the different parts are
being labeled and identified on a chart on the
floor . . . . In Brian's group, Brian points to a
part and says, ”That's the cordal system vein" and
his mother asks, "The what?" He repeats it as
someone else is checking off the digestive system
parts on the sheet. Rob's group had not been
checking anything off, but when I returned to his
group they were now trying to backtrack and check
things off. Lionel and Rob are discussing which
parts to check off and the rest of the group joins
n O O O O

(N. p. 425-427, #1623-1628)

Later, a research memo puts the thoughts into words:

134

. . . . In Brian's group the students seem to be
more subdued and proceeding methodically as
instructed. Brian's mother appears very
systematic in checking the things off, following
the procedures and making sure the items are
analyzed completely before they move on to the
next step. In Rob's group, however, Rob's mother
exhibits a personal interest and exuberance for
the project and appears to lose track of
maintaining the check sheet and proceeding in the
order planned. Their particular floor exhibit
however, appears to have many items already
labeled and placed for view. The other groups are
progressing much slower in the same process.

There seems to be just a slight connection between
the type of behavior that was exhibited by the
mothers and the type of behavior that is exhibited
by Brian and Rob . . . .

(N. p. 430, #1640)

A discussion with Miss Knight several days later added more

detail, as well:

. . . . It had been a great opportunity to see
both mothers working with their children and that
a definite similarity of pattern had been
evident. Brian's mother encouraged the students
to go step by step to follow the outline very
accurately, and to explain each step in detail.
Miss Knight added a comment, "Yeah, she's a
scientist. So that would be the process she would
use." And she laughed at the accuracy at which
that particular group followed the whole process
whereas "in Rob's group with Rob's mother, they
seemed to just be interested in what was coming up
next as quickly as absolutely possible and totally
ignored the check list at first-then all of the
sudden did get it out and tried to get caught up
but at the same time keeping the momentum going of
the action. Just the finding and just the
sharing. It was as if none of them could actually
wait or analyze, but they just wanted to keep
going . . . . ”

(N. p. 460, #1725)

In classroom work, Brian very methodically followed

instructions and completed any assignment given him. Rob,

135

on the other hand, got excited easily, liked to become

immersed in a task, but often became sidetracked and failed

to reach fruition. Hiss Knight describes Brian's

persistency and his tolerance for concentration in this

manner 3

". . . . You've noticed, too, that it doesn't seem
to bother him one way or another if someone is
standing on his head next to him and he's intent
on doing something, he goes for it, and he
finishes it and tries to get right through it."

(N. p. 529, #1944 T8 9)

She additionally comments about Rob's enjoyment of

getting involved rather than listening or hearing about

something:

Teacher:

Researcher:

Teacher:

. . . . "Because when they've had
choices like to do pieces of
literature and different activities,
he always does something like a play
or something to act out. It would be
quite detailed. Like an incident that
we did of 1:;_§1§gp§_gyg;. It ended
up not having much to do with what the
original direction was. He brought in
tons of stuffed animals. He loves
stuffed animals. He had this light in
his house. It was all elaborate. It
didn't go together real well. He
didn't manage to pull it altogether.
He had a lot of fun trying to get it
all organized. He brought tons of
things to school. He had a huge stack
back there, but it ended up not being
a very polished product. I had higher
expectations for him then some of the
quality of work that I've seen him do.
It sounds like he maybe had too many
ideas and couldn't pull them together
or--
It was more of a thing you expected
him to play at home and act it out
fiddling around like some evening at
home . . . .

(N. p. 533-534, #1955-1956 T8 9)

136

In further analysis of all the LSI Preference
Summaries, it is important to note the consistency score
provided on each profile. A consistency score is
calculated for individuals based on their responses to
questions that are repeated throughout the Inventory. The
higher the consistency score, the greater the confidence
that can be placed in interpreting the student's
responses. For the Inventory results to be meaningful, the
student should have a consistency score of at least 70
percent, indicating that responses to 70 percent of the
item pairs were identical. If the consistency score falls
below 70 percent it is indicative that the results are not
meaningful (Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1985).

Both Rob and Brian obtained consistency scores of 100
percent. Dori obtained 100 percent as well, and Russ
received a score of 88 percent. Jason and Bob, however,
both received 75 percent. What is of particular interest
to regard, however, is the manner exhibited by Jason and
Bob as they recorded their responses. Jason especially was
very willing to participate, but whether or not he fully
understood, was distracted, or simply did not know himself
remains in question. Consider the account of this endeavor
in the field notes of 4/4/87 when the instrument was first
administered:

. . . The library appeared to have no students

in it at the time so we inquired to see if we
might be able to just sit in the library for a

137

few minutes to fill in the inventory. The
librarian thought it would be a good time now so
we found a table, sat down, and began to work on
it. After we had one question read, a class began
to come into the room and the librarian told us
she had forgotten all about this class. Jason and
I decided we'd better find a different room. We
began walking down the hall again going back
towards Hrs. Greenman's classroom. Jason
suggested we might try the special services room
which is often used by the speech teacher. we
did, however, notice that there was someone in the
room. At that time the school secretary came
walking down the hall and saw us looking for a
room. She suggested we follow her to the computer
room that might be available. We followed her
almost the full length of the hall and found the
computer room to be empty. We sat at the table in
the room and began again to work on the Learning
Style Inventory. I explained again to Jason how
he was to answer the particular questions and that
there was indeed no right or wrong answer. It was
all a matter of what his likes and dislikes were
according to what was asked of him. He nodded in
agreement as if to say that he understood. we
used a cover paper to help us keep track of each
of the questions so that his eyes could follow the
lines easier. I read the questions to Jason as
they appeared. The first time we began it, he had
some difficulty with reading them. He did, on
occasion, ask for explanations of particular terms
or statements. After a few minutes of working,
however, another student came into the room and
sat down at the far end of the table. I asked her
if she was going to work in the room and she
indicated no, but that there were some other
students coming, too. Jason and I decided to wait
until they came to see if we might need to find
yet a different room. The teacher appeared
shortly with a few other students, saw that we
were working in the room and decided that she
would find a different place to work. She stated
that "This had been one of those days.” We
continued to work on the inventory. Another
teacher came by, also looking for a room to work
with a particular student. She advised us that
she would be able to find a different room seeing
that we were working in this one. Jason and I
then continued uninterrupted until we finished the
questionnaire . . . .

(N. p. 166-168, #754-758)

138

During the remainder of the session Jason erased
frequently, although a deliberate attempt was made not to
view his responses. After reading a statement, for
example, the researcher often looked out the window
deliberately in order to attempt to make him comfortable.
When finished, however, his responses were noticeably
marked under the "uncertain" category of the inventory.
Hrs. Greenman later added that perhaps he really was not
able to listen to himself.

With Bob, the situation was somewhat different in that
we found a room on the first try and were not interrupted
during the time there. He did, however, offer a nervous
smile and when told that this was not a test he said rather
flippantly, "Aw shucks, I though it was a test."

(N. p. 179, #798). Although the questions were read to
him, he appeared somewhat restless. At times he shifted
around in his chair but was not evidently uncomfortable.
Some of the terms needed to be explained to Bob, but we
finished rather quickly and proceeded back to the
classroom. He stopped to get a drink of water and then
talked about one of the items on the inventory. It was the
statement that asked whether or not he could sit still for
long periods of time and each time it appeared he had
answered "No, I can't.” It was curious to find out,
however, that his Preference Summary did, indeed, indicate
a need for mobility, but that it also depended on the

139
particular task he might be working on. He did not need it
as an absolute ingredient to finish work.

Responses to the interpretation of the Preference
Summaries varied only slightly from student to student.
They were generally pleased to hear about themselves and
expressed an unexpected interest in the print-out itself.
Perhaps the most poignant response came from Russ and his
parents. His mother especially had been particularly
interested about this and was most anxious to find out what
the instrument showed. She had, apparently, been very
involved in understanding and helping Russ in any way she
could, and was always looking for additional clues,
methods, and advice. His father, on the other hand,
appeared very quiet and did not share his thoughts until
the end of the session. At that time he stated that some
of the things sounded like him and that he had had a great
deal of difficulty learning in school. Unlike Russ, he
continued, he didn't have the help that's available now.
Russ appeared pleased with the entire evening session.

When asked whether he minded the presence of the researcher
in his classrooms he replied ”No-o-o, I kinda like it!"
(N. p. 539, #1977)

The following day in school, Russ related the visit to
Mrs. Greenman with much enthusiasm and delight. As an
interesting side line, Hrs. Greenman related the following

event:

140
'. . . . We turned some of the lights off and he
(Russ) is sitting in the center of the room which
would be directly under the center row of
fluorescent lights. The center row of lights was
turned off and at one point one of the students
tried to turn on the center row, Russ looked up
and said, 'No, don't do that, I'm so much more
comfortable without the center row on.' It was
just kind of cute, indicating that he felt very
secure in knowing that he was more comfortable

without the direct light above him and that now he
was beginning to verbalize that fact". . . .

(N. p. 542, #1991)

Upon seeing his inventory, Hrs. Greenman also stated
that yes, she could see exactly the kinds of things that he
was showing in the classroom as far as the way he chose to
sit or work or whatever. It was very clear that some of
these things were very important to him. She also wondered
if she might put this inventory in the files so that when
he left this particular school the information would go
with him.

The reaction of Dori, Jason, and Bob to the
interpretation of the LSI could not be recorded in this
study. Given the conditions of administering the
instrument and their precariously low consistency score it
was decided that Bob and Jason should take it at another
time again, but it would be best not to meet with the
parents at this time. Part way through this study, Dori's
parents were in conflict about her participation. When
this became clear, no further contacts were initiated with

her, and her LSI was left with Hrs. Greenman.

141
W

Throughout the periods of observation there were always
patterns of behavior that surfaced, but they seemed to take
on additional significance when the LSI confirmed them.

For example, Jason would often work outside the room in the
hall. This was not a form of punishment, but a choice for
him. He needed it quiet and not distracting and found, for
the most part, that he could get his work completed there.
On one occasion, however, he couldn't concentrate there
either. He moved in and out of the door constantly,
sharpened his pencil several times, asked the aide
questions, and could not contain himself in one spot. Upon
inquiry, Hrs. Greenman acknowledged that he was having a
difficult time that day because during a conflict they had
in the morning Jason had, apparently, lost bladder

control. (N. p. 109, #518)

In the research notes about Russ, the element of
movement seemed particularly important. He was always
moving when reading. In one of the earliest field notes it
was already noticeable:

. . Russ crosses his ankles and is swinging

them back and forth under his chair. His head is

tilted slightly to the left. Hrs. Greenman

whispers to me, ”Haptic" as he is reading. She is

referring to the motion that he is making as his

legs swing back and forth and his body moves

slightly along with them. Russ stops swinging his

legs for a minute while Hrs. Greenman explains

something to him. He starts reading and the

swinging starts again. Russ stops reading a

minute while Hrs. Greenman points with her finger
and says, ”she.” Russ says, "She was." He corrects

142

himself. Apparently he said ”saw” instead of
”was.”, Hrs. Greenman takes his book and asks him
some questions about what he had just read. Russ
leans back on the chair, tips it slightly and
balances on the back legs of the chair. As he
thought of the answer, he rocks his left leg back
and forth. It stops when he begins

talking . . . .

(N. p. 7, #48-52)

In addition, Hrs. Greenman wanted him to be especially
aware of how important this was for him. She would often
send him out of the room to the gym so that he could do
some exercises before reading or when he had difficulty
during reading. He asked Hrs. Greenman how these exercises
worked because he didn't understand it. Mrs. Greenman
explained very briefly how the brain works. She showed him
her two fists to indicate the left and the right side of
the brain and how sometimes they need to have a connecting
force between the two sides in order to have Russ be able
to read the words on the page. Hrs. Greenman would often
stop to explain these concepts to her students. She was
concerned that they understand themselves For example, she
related a particular incident about Russ:

”Russell, the other day he was just struggling,

just struggling. I mean every word was labor, and

he stopped after he got through with two

paragraphs, and he said, 'I just don't

understand. I can talk so well, you'd think that

I'd be able to read.' At that point I took him to

the library, and then we went through some of the

stuff. 'There's a reason for that,' I said.

'This is just between me and you, but have you

noticed the difference between how you talk and

Adam talks? Adam talks in halting phrases. It's

just very hard for him to formulate a sentence.'
'Yeah, that's true,' Russ agreed. So then we went

143

back, and I told him that they really feel that
reading is on the left side of the brain and
language is on the right side of the brain and
that his artistic ability was on the right side of
the brain and how he can see a whole picture, and
how he can improve on things, and so forth, is
right (brained). And that so much of the reading
thing is on the left. Then he gave me some
examples of how that applied. So he did
understand.

(N. p. 57, #344 TS 5)

His strong tactile preference was also evident from the
beginning, as was his ability to concentrate. He used his
hands to draw, create, and count. In fact, the process of
using his fingers to assist in math became a help as well
as a hindrance and resulted in a completely opposing
description of him. During one math class, for example, he
spent the entire period on one paper and he relied heavily
on counting with his figures. He was quite persistent in
completing the task, although it appeared that he was
struggling considerably. The field note entries of 3/11/87
describe some of his behaviors, but more importantly they
reveal the opinion of Mrs. vanLaan:

. . . . At 1:58 P.M. Russ lifts his head and
stares straight ahead. Both hands are holding his
pencil against his lips. He shifts his eyes to
his left but does not make eye contact with
anyone, and just seems to be staring. He looks at
his paper again, the fingers of his left hand
begin to move in a controlled rhythm and then his
pencil begins to move. He looks up and puts the
end of his pencil against his teeth. He pushes it
forcefully and then chews on it lightly. At 2:07
his focus is back on the paper and his pencil
begins to move, fingers move again as if

counting. He looks at his finger tips of his
finger nails on his left hand, and plays with his
hand as if creating something flying. His lips

144

make a sound to go along with it. Hrs. vanLaan
says, ”Russ, why don't you come up here with your
math paper?" Russ looks up quickly, but leans
over the paper and moves the pencil and fingers

in deliberate motion. Later Hrs. VanLaan told me
that he had replied, "I can do it." Hrs. VanLaan
called him again, "Russ, do you want to come up
here a minute?" Russ continues to move his pencil
and his fingers at the same time. He's counting
still. At 2:10 Hrs. VanLaan is working with
individual students still at her desk. Russ has
his head on his left hand now. Hrs. VanLaan gets
up and goes over to Russ' desk, She talks to him
and he says ”16". The rest is not audible. She
comes to the back of the room, sits by me and very
quietly tells me that Russ is working on
multiplication and that this seems to be very
difficult for him. ”He just simply does not know
the multiplication tables" . . . .

(N. p. 94-95, #451-454)

Russ had also chosen not to participate in an activity
intended to motivate the memorization of the multiplication
tables in Mrs. vanLaan's room. The activity required the
students to respond to multiplication flash cards,
something he had had difficulty with in Mrs. Greenman's
room. When relating this particular incident to Mrs.
Greenman, she seemed quite surprised. She explained that
Russ did know the tables, but that he simply did not trust
himself. His apparent use of his fingers to count
definitely slowed him down. She also related an activity
from earlier in the day when Russ had recited the 9's for
her and had accomplished the task quite readily.

In all the dealings with Mrs. Greenman, it was evident
that she had a genuine concern for her students, and

remained up-front in her dealings with them. She seemed to

145
have the ability to view any situation from many angles and
was never hesitant to admit that she didn't know
something. When she gained new knowledge of any sort, she
always shared it, or utilized it in some way. She had, for
example, immediately adjusted the lights in her room after
realizing Russ' sensitivity to bright light. She realized
the importance of providing for individual needs in any way
she could. Even before the LSI summaries were available,
Hrs. Greenman exhibited great sensitivity. Take, for
example, an illustration involving Dori. Hrs. Greenman was
well aware of Dori's verbal ability and her need to
socialize. She had mainstreamed her into a math class in
part to accommodate this need, and in part because she was
working on the same math concepts. (N. p. 180, #804). She
also had Dori seated in the very first desk of the middle
row. Although not confirmed by Mrs. Greenman this could
have been another attempt to provide immediate feedback as
well as maintain interaction with Dori--another element
that was later significant on her LSI.

Hrs. vanLaan, however, never seemed to address these
needs with the same deliberation. For whatever reason, the
resource room students always sat together. For the major
portion of this study, they sat facing the wall and being
the farthest distance from the teacher's desk. It did not
provide Dori with frequent teacher interaction. She was

often observed taking her work to the teacher or showing it

146
to other students. On the occasion of a new seating
arrangement (which included all the students except the
special needs students) Dori wished to have her place
changed, too, but only after other students verbalized the
same request. The student teacher, however, told the class
that she wanted to give them time to adjust to the new
arrangement before she honored any request for changing any
seats for any reason. Dori listened to this explanation
and in a few minutes approached the student teacher to
request that her seat be changed. A field note of 4/23/87

reads:

. . . . But the student teacher replies, ”Where
would you like to change to, Dori? Why would you
like to change?" She explains that Dori needs to
take time to get along and that if she continues
to be bothered, she (the student teacher) would
see what she could to about this seat. But for

now she wanted Dori to remain where she
was . . . .

(N. p. 280, #1142)
The seating arrangement never changed.

Of particular curiosity was the use of light in Mrs.
VanLaan's classroom. She had, for a long time, expressed a
sensitivity to bright light and made a point to wear
sunglasses whenever she was outside. Perhaps without
realizing it, she carried this need into her classroom.

The lights in her room were noticeably left off many
times. On occasion, she turned them off to signal for less

noise, but for the most part they were simply not turned

147
on. For example, on 5/13/87 the lights remained off after
recess until one row was turned on 20 minutes later.
During a cleanup period they were turned off again and
remained that way. On 4/28 they were turned on after
recess and then turned off forcibly because "everyone was
asking at the same time and being very rude and pushy."
(N. p. 305, #1243) Whether or not the lights were a means
of control, an individual preference, or both, would need
to be explored at another time.

Although the content of this study concentrated on
observable behaviors connected with learning styles, it
should be explained that Mrs. Greenman also used methods
that have not been as clearly recognized or scrutinized in
research. On occasion she had the students read upside
down pages, read while on their stomachs, sway while
reading, and use colored acetate sheets on their books.
One method, however, was most intriguing. Hrs. Greenman ' s
aide had a deaf daughter and she introduced the students to
signing. Not only did this appear to offer the students a
fascination, but it provided a significant breakthrough for
some of them. Hrs. Greenman talks about Jason, for
example:

"Jason has learned the short vowels. He has one

words. He was reading a whole list of 'bl' words

that used the short vowel, i, u, o, and a, and he

was interchanging the vowel sound all of the

time. There was nothing consistent there at all

so I signed the key word to him which is 'i-p'

which is the key word for '1'. And I signed 'i-p'
and I said, 'Look Jason', and he looked at it, and

and

148

he read it, and said 'ip' to himself. And he
looked at the page, and he looked at only the
'i-p.' Okay, ip, lip, clip. What a neat tool to
use because if 'i' had had to be verbally given
him, he would never have found the short
vowel-even if he knew it. He didn't have the way
to go back to it. I guess I could have written it
but it doesn't give the extra multi sensory thing
that the hand spelling does and then he had to go
back, isolate the sound for the key word."

(N. p. 72, #352 T8 5)

'. . . . When I did sign the letter to him, he
would give me the sound, now that I think about
it. When he had a problem thinking 'it' or 'at',
if I signed it to him, then he could read the
word. He could look at it and not read it, but
when I signed it to him then he knew it was 'it'
and that was finger spelling. Now, it was finger
spelling, it was not the word sign. So yes, now
that I think of it the signing was very
significant to him. It did make a connection
there evidently.

(N. p. 209, #901 TS 6)

The impact on Dori seemed equally distinct. Asked

about using signing when she was working on spelling a

brief conversation records:

Researcher: Do you ever get them mixed up in your
mind then, if you do this. I mean if
you do this with your hands does it
help you keep them straight in your
head?

Dori: Yeah.

Researcher: Okay, so if you have a difficult time
remembering how a word is spelled,
then you sign it?

Dori: Um-hum.
Researcher: Are you a good speller now?
Dori: Yeah!

Researcher: Okay, does it help you in reading,
too? I noticed you were using a
little bit of it in reading today.

Dori: Yeah -- Um-hum.

(N. p. 38, #299-230 TS 4)

149

Mrs. Greenman shares an example of Dori's use of
signing after she discusses Jason:

”. . . And it also happened with Dori with the

word 'with'. The other day she couldn't read the

word 'with'. we had used the sign previously so I

signed it to her. She looked at the word, we

reviewed a couple of times with the sign, and she

never missed it again. I'm really sold on it."

(N. p. 73, #364 T8 5)

The references to signing--practicing as a class,
practicing individually, using it while working, using it
to communicate with someone across the room, requesting
permission to leave for recess, using it in other
classrooms -- are abundant throughout the research notes.
Every student was able to use signing in some way. The
benefit accrued, however, would be a source for another
complete study.

Although the time elements prohibited lengthy
observations of how the students actually used the Learning
Sty1§_lny§ntgzy information, it was clear that for three of
them the information reinforced what they already knew.
More significant, however, is the realization that it gave
Russ, in particular, confidence to voice his preferences.
As Hrs. Greenman had stated:

. . . That he (Russ) felt very secure in knowing
that he was more comfortable without the direct

light above him and that now was beginning to

verbalize that fact . . . .
(N. p. 542, #1991)

This study will, however, not end here. About a dozen

150

learning disabled/gifted students have been given the
,Learning_§;ylg_1nygntgzy, as well. It is the intention of
the researcher to continue seeking out these students in
the hopes that our knowledge and understanding of this
select population might be enhanced. They cannot be
ignored or denied.

Perhaps a comment by Hrs. Greenman about Russ offers

the closing remarks:

'. . . . They do learn to be an individual.
That's one reason, I think, why he dares to be
artistic. Because he has had to be an individual
and stand on his own by himself because he hasn't
fit. He's gotten in all the lines with all the
rest of the kids, and it hasn't worked . . . ."

(N. p. 68, #347 T8 5)

CHAPTER V

Summary, Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

fifllfllIX

This investigation describes a qualitative study of
children who tend to be labeled as "learning disabled”,
"gifted” and "learning disabled/gifted." The focus of the
study was on the preferred learning styles of these
students. Answers were sought to the following questions:

1. How do these students interact with their age

mates and their school environment?

2. How are their preferred learning styles made

manifest in their behavior?

3. How well do they understand the ways they learn?

Six students from an approximate third grade age level
were specifically observed for this study. Two students
were classified as "learning disabled,” two others were
classified as ”learning disabled/gifted," and two
additional students were labeled as "gifted”.

Selection of students was accomplished with the
recommendation of knowledgeable teachers, discussion with
parents, interviews with the students, work samples, and
guarded amounts of testing results. The Dunn, Dunn, and
Price Learning_§;ylg_lny§ntgry was administered to each
student specifically observed and attempts were made to
find other "learning disabled/gifted” students who might
also take this inventory for comparative purposes.

151

152

During some of the visits audio tape recordings were
attempted and one video-tape was made to facilitate
”revisiting" and analysis. All methods were employed in
order to assure the procedure known as "triangulation"
(Gordon, 1980).

In addition to participant observation and these
mechanical recordings, the research included formal and
informal interviews, gathering artifacts, talking to
parents and teachers, and conducting follow-up sessions
(for interpretations) with every student who took the
Wm.

The activities that took place in Mrs. Greenman's room
and Kiss Knight's class provided a setting for a variety of
interactions. In addition, the mainstreamed classrooms of
Mrs. VanLaan, Hrs. Laramy, and Miss Hurray were utilized to
observe these interactions in an alternative setting.

The phenomena that surfaced as a result of this study
were many and varied. Not unlike the findings of Whitmore
and Maker (1985) and Elsenberg and Epstein (1981) the
handicap(s) of the learning disabled students.may have
obscured the expression of any special gifts and talents.
Russ and Dori (the two learning disabled/gifted students)
were not particularly acknowledged for their special
abilities and talents by the mainstreamed teachers and
were, instead, treated as students belonging to Mrs.

Greenman's room, or were classified as members of the

153
resource room first and foremost. Their apparent
difficulty with certain academic skills seemed to become
the primary focus of attention in the mainstreamed
classrooms and often excluded any acknowledgment of other
strengths.

Jason and Bob (the two learning disabled students)
experienced similar classifications, and terms such as
"Hrs. Greenman's students," or expressions such as, "in pg;
room the rules are . . . ." were often used with them.

The seating arrangements in the mainstreamed classrooms
also appeared to be a striking practice among the
teachers. With few exceptions, these special needs
students were always seated together and the seats were
assigned.

The interactions of the two "gifted" students, Rob and
Brian, did not appear to be particularly distinct from the
other students in the class and in the school. For the
most part, they were viewed as a part of the total class
unit and did not appear to be viewed apart from that
structure. It is questionable if the music or gym teachers
were even aware of their "gifted" label.

The second part of this study involved the
administration of the Learning_§tylg_lnygntgxy and its
subsequent interpretation. For the most part, considerable
differences were apparent among the preferences of all six
students. Similarities, however, did exist within each of

the particular student classifications. Dori and Russ had

154
several variables in common, as did Bob and Jason and Brian
and Rob.

The acknowledgment and understanding of learning style-
preferences were quite diversified among the teachers
involved. Such knowledge appeared to range from
considering learning style information to be immensely
valuable on the one hand, to having no awareness of its
possibilities on the other hand. Hrs. Greenman and Miss
Knight were both teachers who made every effort to continue
their own professional growth. They seemed to be on
unending quests to seek ways of reaching their students and
stimulating themselves. were the other teachers as equally
zealous in these same efforts?

Hrs. Greenman, particularly, made a point to explain
the learning processes to her individual students with the
hope in mind that the more they knew about themselves the
better able they would be to deal with learning
difficulties while maintaining their individual self
worth. was this approach, however, supported or undermined
in the mainstreamed classrooms?

Although the students themselves were forewarned that
the Leg:ning_fi§ylg_1nyen§gzy would not provide any
particularly surprising discoveries about themselves, they
were delighted with their profiles and found great
enjoyment in hearing about their preferences. For various

reasons, not all profiles were interpreted, but those that

155
were seemed to provide a sense of confidence that had not
been evident before in these students.
Disguise

As may have been surmised by the reader, the benefits
accrued with the understanding of learning styles can be
valuable to both the student and the teacher. These
efforts, however, cannot assure complete success in
overcoming all learning difficulties. In spite of the best
endeavors of Mrs. Greenman, for example, Bob was still not
reading. Yet, this student was a child with remarkable
character. His scholastic efforts were in jeopardy, but
his learning had not ceased. Hrs. Greenman concentrated on
his strengths, but other teachers could see only his
weaknesses. With these kinds of views, doesn't it appear
that most efforts of school personnel to teach Bob to read
are failing and are destined to keep on failing?

Perhaps a few more pieces have been found, but it
appears that this study has raised as many questions and
concerns as it attempted to address. The issues of
labeling, for example, could encompass an entire research
project in itself. What of the parent concern for their
children when these individuals are not acknowledged for
having any special gifts or talents, and indeed, do have
them? Why are many schools resistant to the possibility
that learning disabled/gifted categories could exist within
the same individual? What happens to the self worth of

these individuals as they endeavor to progress through our

156
school systems?

Although the researcher's interpretations were laced
with a background knowledge of the education of the gifted
and a working knowledge of learning disabled students, this
study can be viewed with varying interpretations and view
points. It would, in all probability, appear in a
different light were it viewed by someone not familiar with
students bearing these labels. In addition, the
intersection of the two fields appears to be only
recognizable to those who have encountered it. The
researcher has been one of those individuals. The
interpretations of the student behaviors and descriptions
leave ample room for dissenting points of view. However,
these observations should not be isolated from the context
in which they occurred.

To view the findings significant is also a matter of
interpretation. For the purpose of the study, it was a
great relief to find someone as knowledgeable and
interested in learning styles as Mrs. Greenman. Equally of
importance was the awareness of Miss Knight and the
enthusiasm with which she worked with her bright students.
Although her students were not all categorized as gifted,
Miss Knight expressed her interest in working particularly
with the top reading group:

. . . ”Oh, yeah, I love this class. This is my
favorite time of day. Miss Miles hates to see

157
(the) others coming because she has two bottom

groups, but I could really enjoy a whole class
like this!"

(N. p. 53, #385 [85])

Not all teachers, however, believed in these
philosophies or methods of teaching. numerous concerns
surfaced as a result. How do we educate to make
mainstreaming effective? How do we make these labels more
comfortable to accept, for the students as well as the
staff? How can we help teachers see the strengths in each
student? Why do we appear to teach towards the
weaknesses? Do we make too many assumptions when a student
carries a label? Do we allow expectations to blind the
realities? How do other mainstreamed classrooms integrate
special students? How do "regular" students view "special
needs students?"

The questions are unending. The study could continue
indefinitely! Given time (and finances) it would have been
possible to gather further research on additional
"learning disabled/gifted" students in particular. It is,
in fact, the desire and plan of the researcher to pursue
such a goal in the very near future. A fragile thread of
connection has already begun to appear just in the first
dozen or so students seen. All of them appear to be
leaning toward a strength in what is currently classified
as a dominant right hemispheric function. These students

seem to exhibit special abilities in creativity, in the

158

arts, in the advanced development of the fine motor skills
or body agility. Will these similarities exist in a
broader sample population? What of the dilemma that
schools do not allow the two labels to co-exist? Who does
recognize the gifts as well as the shortcomings of these
students? How can these special abilities be nurtured in
the schools?

commissions

What was found, essentially, in this study, were two
teachers who liked special needs students, and who used
various teaching methods to accommodate their individual
needs. In addition, these teachers provided themselves
with opportunities to stay current of educational trends
and ways to spark enthusiasm for teaching. The same
cannot, however, be said of all the teachers encountered.
What, then, happens to the students placed in the
classrooms of these teachers? Where and who are the
advocates for the special needs students?

This research study serves only as a beginning for
further investigations. It is a limited attempt to unravel
the complexities evident in special needs students and the
atmosphere that surrounds them in the schools.

In order to avoid creating unnecessary frustration and
anxiety for special needs students and to promote a
holistic approach to education, it would seem feasible to
screen students not only for the identification of

handicaps, but to determine strengths and special abilities

159
as well. Alternative program.options should be explored in
order to accommodate these varying abilities and the focus
should shift from the sole concentration on weaknesses to a
broader, more encompassing approach that would also allow
the development of the strengths. Focusing on strengths
instead of on remediating weaknesses could play a powerful
role in helping this special population realize more of
their potential.

1 According to McDermott and Aron (1978), our American
culture is preoccupied with locating the natural
intellectual skills of our students to such an extent that
we accept the flimsiest of evidence during the first days
of school. Once the students are categorized as more or
less able, we then, "by way of self-fulfilling prophecies,
arrange to have the children designated as less able
actually accomplish less than the others" (p. 45). If the
students enter a class in which they are handled unequally,
if they are given less adequate learning environments on
the basis of their less developed entering school skills,
the chances of their catching up or even fitting in
according to MoDermott and Aron, will be minimal.

If, however, mainstreaming is viewed as a primary
program goal in itself, then educators need to realize that
students will experience differing degrees of success with
this approach. This research study shows that we cannot
assume that these students will encounter acceptance and/or

success automatically. In spite of well intentioned

160
efforts, the mainstreaming options available may not
necessarily prove to be the most beneficial to the students
involved.

Efforts could be made to analyze learning style
preferences of special needs students as well as learning
and teaching style preferences of the teachers. Perhaps a
closer match of student and teacher, according to their
styles, might result in less friction and more tolerant
learning atmospheres.

At the very least, educators could help make students
aware of their particular learning styles and how these
preferences may impact on their learning processes. This
knowledge could aid students in choosing activities and
processes that utilize their most efficient or preferred
modes of learning. In addition, it might well serve as a
means of providing the reassurance so often needed by
assisting these special students in the understanding of
themselves.

Parents of special needs students often exhibit a
desire to be specifically informed about any information
that should be utilized at home and serve as a support to
the schools. This might increase an understanding of a
child's particular learning style preferences and point out
the significance of any particular element. It is of
particular importance to discover that the learning style

preferences of children are often much different than those

161
preferences exhibited by their parents.

Perhaps a final statement should deal with the testing,
or identification process used to determine the categories
of special needs. Cognitive skill testing is still the
most often "accepted" means through which students are
labeled, but why is it that our perceptions remain so
confined? When, in real life situations, do we ever depend
solely on the use of a test to determine our abilities?
Should we not seek out a broader spectrum of information in
order to understand the intricate functioning of the
individuals at risk here?

The decision making process of committees of educators
as they decide to place students into special education
programs or retain them in regular classrooms was examined
by Mehan in 1983. Often, different committee members
presented different views of the student's disposition.
Classroom teachers and parents provided accounts of the
student's performance that competed with the view of the
psychologist or district representative. Yet, the version
of the student's case that was provided by the psychologist
or the district representative prevailed by the meeting's
end. During the course of these meetings the professional
reports presented by psychologists, nurses, and
administrators were treated differently than the lay
reports presented by parents and teachers. "Despite the

fact that they were composed of a highly technical

162
vocabulary, the professional reports were accepted without
challenge or question, while the lay reports were
continually interrupted by requests for clarification and
further information" (p. 187).

Although the approaches may vary somewhat from school
to school, and district to district, it appears that too
much is still left to chance. Can we ever fully recognize
the potential that is often obscured or completely hidden

in these students?
Recommendations
Findings from the current investigation suggest a

number of possibilities for further research.

1. Most urgently the study could be duplicated using
different samples to determine whether the observations
of this study have broader application. Alternative
sample groups might include another special needs age
group, students from the same or other schools, and

schools with differing programs.

2. Duplication of the study using a different
instrument for assessing learning style characteristics
is also suggested to determine the thoroughness of
information obtainable and the usefulness of that
information. Mereover, comparisons of instruments

might assist in determining if any correlations of

163
modality preferences are evident between instruments.
A few researchers have formulated learning style
instruments that assess more than one style dimension
and several of the elements. NASSP, however, claims
that they have developed the only Leg:ning_§;yl§_
Profile that measures all major elements of the three
dimensions of style (Keefe, 1987). Certainly, this
would be worth investigating.

3. Longitudinal research on learning style preferences
and the factors affecting these choices could help
educators determine the specific needs of students and
how important they are. Learning style characteristics
should be identified and students should be matched and
mismatched to further ascertain achievement levels,
attitudes, and disciplinary outcomes to provide
accurate information for eventual staff development and

improved teaching techniques.

4. Further investigation into the use of signing is
also recommended. Publications such as Signing_1g;_
Beading_§ngg§§§ by Hafer and Wilson (1986), should be
infused into our general teacher education programs as
well as our special education sections. In addition,
the M.A.K.A.T.O.N. program, originating in England,
might be expanded in its use beyond the population of

164
the severly multiple handicapped with no speech.

5. Perhaps an investigation into the course content of
teacher preparation courses could more readily define
where, and to what extent, we are now providing
'information and resources concerning special needs
students. Is there, for example, information provided
in general education courses or only in specialized
and/or elective courses? In addition, are we providing
anything on the graduate level to assist present
classroom teachers in working with these particular

students?

Schools that have experimented with teaching students
through their individual learning styles have initially
reported the increased achievement, improved discipline and
higher attitudes of their students (Cavanaugh, 1981:
Hodges, 1982: Jenkins, 1982: Lemmon, 1982). They report
that it was neither costly nor difficult to divide a
classroom into sections within which varied activities can
be conducted. However, a crucial element that appeared to
contribute to their success was the demonstrated
instructional leadership of their principals. These were
the individuals that introduced the learning styles
construct to their faculty and assisted in the

implementation of related instructional methods. But,

165
where and with whom then, does the ultimate responsibility
lie for instructional improvement? Perhaps it would be
essentially beneficial to investigate the powers behind the
scenes and determine the support that existed with the many
successfully implemented learning styles programs.

As an outgrowth of initial research conducted by Cross
(1982), Dunn 8 Griggs (1985), Dunn 8 Price (1980), Kreitner
(1981), Ricca (1983), wasson (1980), Dean (1982), Hodges
(1982, 1985), Jarsonbeck (1984), Johnson (1984), Murray
(1980), Siebenman (1984), Tappenden (1983), Weinberg
(1983), Whitmore 8 Maker (1985), and Daniels (1983), it
would appear that we know a little about the learning
styles of "gifted” students, less about the learning styles
of "learning disabled" students, and extremely little about
the "learning disabled/gifted" students. Further
investigations should be conducted to determine whether
learning style elements congregate in these selected
populations and whether students who evidence them require
a totally different learning environment from that provided
by conventional classrooms.

The joy of learning is often a nightmare
for more than 10 million normal, bright,
intelligent children--just because no one
has recognized their learning difference.
Understand their frustration--and begin

to understand the problem.

Let no child be demeaned, nor have his
wonder diminished, because of our ignorance
or inactivity. Let no child be deprived of
discovery, because we lack the resources to
discover his problem. Let no child--ever--

doubt himself or his mind because we
are unsure of our commitment.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Learning Style Inventory

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

10.
11.

12.
13.
1‘.
15.
16.
17.

18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

34.

35.
36.

37.
38.

39.
40.

166
LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY

I study best when it is quiet.

I like to make my parents happy by getting good
grades.

I like studying with lots of light.

I like to be told exactly what to do.

I concentrate best when I feel warm.

I study best at a table or desk.

When I study I like to sit on a soft chair or couch.
I like to study with one or two friends.

I like to do well in school.

I usually feel more comfortable in warm weather than I
do in cool weather.

Things outside of school are more important to me than
my school work.

I am able to study best in the morning.

I often have trouble finishing things I ought to do.
I have to be reminded often to do something.

I like making my teacher proud of me.

I study best when the lights are dim.

When I really have a lot of studying to do I like to
work alone.

I do not eat, drink, or chew while studying.

I like to sit on a hard chair when I study.

Sometimes I like to study alone and sometimes with
friends.

I remember instructions best when I read them.

I think better when I eat while I study.

I like an outline for how I should do my school work.
I often nibble something as I study.

It's hard for me to sit in one place for a long time.
I remember things best when I study them early in the
morning.

I like to learn by talking with people.

I hardly ever finish all my work.

I usually start my homework in the afternoon.

I really don't care much for school.

I like to feel what I learn inside.

Sound usually keeps me from concentrating.

If I have to learn something new, I like to learn
about it by having it told to me.

At home I usually study under a shaded lamp while the
rest of the room is dim.

I really like to do experiments.

I usually feel more comfortable in cool weather than I
do in warm weather.

When I do well in school, grown-ups in my family are
proud of me.

It is hard for me to do my school work.

I concentrate best when I feel cool.

I like to relax on rugs, carpets, a couch, a soft
chair, or a bed when I study.

41.

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

47.
48.

49.
50.

51.

52.
53.
54.
55.
56.

57.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.

68.
69.

70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.

77.
78.
79.
80.

167

I think my teacher feels good when I do well in
school.

I remember to do what I am told.

I like to learn by reading.

I can block out sound when I work.

I am happy when I get good grades.

I like to learn most by building, baking or doing
things.

I usually finish my homework.

If I could go to school anytime during the day, I
would choose to go in the early morning.

I have to be reminded often to do something.

It is hard for me to get things done just before
lunch.

It is easy for me to remember what I learn when I
feel it inside of me.

I like to be told exactly what to do.

My parents are interested in how I do in school.
I like my teacher to check my school work.

I enjoy learning by going places.

When I really have a lot of studying to do I like to
work alone.

Sometimes I like to learn alone, with a friend or
with an adult.

I can sit in one place for a long time.

I cannot get interested in my school work.

I really like to draw, color, or trace things.

I remember best the things I hear.

I remember things best when I study them in the
afternoon.

No one really cares if I do well in school.

I really like to shape things with my hands.

When I study I put on many lights.

I like to eat, drink, or chew while I study.

When I really have a lot of studying to do I like to
work with a group of friends.

When it's warm outside I like to go out.

I remember things best when I study them early in the
morning.

I can sit in one place for a long time.

I often forget to do or finish my homework.

I like to make things as I learn.

I can think best in the evening.

I like directions before I begin a task.

I think best in late morning.

The things I like doing best in school I do with
friends.

I like adults nearby when I study.

My family wants me to get good grades.

Late morning is the best time for me to study.

I like to learn most by building, baking or doing
things.

81.
82.
83.
84.

85.
86.

87.

88.
89.

9°.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.

97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.

103.
104.

168

I often want to start something new rather than
finish what I've started.

I keep forgetting to do the things I've been told to
do.

I like to be able to move and experience the motion
and the feel of what I study.

When I really have a lot of studying to do I like to
work with two friends.

I like to learn through real experiences.

If I could go to school anytime during the day, I
would choose to go in the early morning.

I like to have an adult nearby when I do my school
work.

I can ignore most sound when I study.

If I have something new to learn I like to read to
learn about it.

I study best near lunchtime.

I like school most of the time.

I remember things when people tell them to me.

I often eat something while I study.

I enjoy being with friends when I study.

It's hard for me to sit in one place for a long time.
I remember things best when I study them before
evening.

I think my teacher wants me to get good grades.

I like to do things with adults.

I really like to build things.

I can study best in the afternoon.

Sound bothers me when I am studying.

When I really have a lot of studying to do I like to
work with two friends.

When I can, I do my homework in the afternoon.

I love to learn new things.

Developed by Dunn, Dunn, and Price, 1984

APPENDIX 3

Sample Preference Summary

169

n.02 M..—EOE.— .515 2.35.3 .5. as 8.8. 89:. . ea H>Uzm=.m_mzoo

 

an an
N... an me n
.1. a 8 e
a a _ am e
2 a. on e
2 ... so . .
4.. t 2. n
2 1: mm m
_ . m. m. 8 m
1 z z 2. e _
. 2 2 an u.
up a. an n.
: 2 mm . o
2 2 mu m
a o E. e
o a we a
. . 5 5 .. av N
. a 8 u
... . u an n
4 v 3 — .
a .1 mm c
u a me e
1 . 3. . .
on . am an r on on Scum Boom
. . . abet-Ea is:
>=<s=z=m m02u=mmmzn

is 1.52 11:20 «1.2-3.2 .28 12.838.1w . 1.5.511 ......sés 1.5118111115521520

 

.m ..oo._cm :.....e.o> 22%.me ...-am .oEwZ.

              

.. mp}: ...-5.5m .0 0WD...
4%.. «.14.. ...m: .. ‘51.... .... 5.5..
Efinggrm: 524583.51» Hr... $71.16
55.11.15. .. :0.—Z.m>2- W; m 0 MZE<N1J
11.1. .1.1.......1.1M... Mafia 1....

   

      

  

 

.M. .mmWH. ...oz.. ...D.._..1

51.111.51.11 .

.. 5 .1
.d .. .

 

  

. .1551. . 3.11.1.1 Moises 451.352....

.:.—... ...:

  

REFERENCES

Allport. G- W- WW1.
interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1937.

Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In M. R.
Jon-I (Ed-). WWI-Jon-
Linooln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962, 211-269.

Barth. R- W.

New York: Agathon Press, 1972.

Bloom. 8. 8- WW
hgnghggk_11__gggn1;izg_§gngin. New York: David McKay
Co., Inc. 1956.

Bogdan. R-C. & Biklen. 8.1L W119;

 

Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1982.

Canfield, A.A., & Lafferty, J.C. Lg;zn1ng_§t21g§
inggntgrx. Detroit: Humanics media (Liberty Drawer),
1970.

Cuba. H. W

 

170

171

haaic_aight:xordlxocahnlar2- Doctoral dissertation.
St. John's University, 1980.

Cavanaugh, D. Student learning styles: A
diagnostic/prescriptive approach to instruction.
m, 1931, 11(3), 202-203.

Cody. C- W
99v ’2! ;' ; Qua: o - » . - e z to: - ‘ —! :92
, ., . :9 _ ... - , .....- . ‘, ---.
Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1983.

Cross, Jr., S.A. Internal locus of control governs
talented students (9-12). Lg;:n1ng_§ty1§§_ng§ggrg
mm, 1982, 3 (3), p. 3.

Dean. W- L. W
W
g1§3h1§g_§;nggn;§. Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Mississippi, 1982.

DoBollo. T-A. HEW

 

MW. Doctoral
dissertation, St. John's University, 1985.

Dunn, R. Teaching students through their individual
learning styles: A research report. fituggnt_Lgazning

WW- National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 1982, 142-152.

172

Dunn, R. Gifted/talented students (4-12) require unique
instruction. MAW. New
York: St. John's University and The National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 3 3
(Autumn, l982):2.‘

Dunn, R. can students identify their own learning styles?
EQHQ:§19DAL.LI§QIIIDLRI 4° (5): 50'52-

Dunn, R. Learning styles: Link between individual
differences and effective instruction. fig:;n_§argling
zg993319n31_L§nggr§n1p. V II, N. 1, Winter 1986.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, Kc Tea2nins.students.throngh_their
Wanama-
Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company, 1978.

Dunn, R., Dunn, R., a Price, 6.3. Diagnosing learning
styles: A prescription for avoiding malpractice
suits. Kenyan. January 1977, 418-20.

Dunn, R., Dunn, R., 8 Price, G. Lg;;n1ng_§tylg_inygntgry.
Lawrence, RA: Price Systems, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1981,
1984, 1985.

Dunn, R., & Griggs, S.A. Teaching and counseling gifted
students with their individual learning style
preferences: Selected case studies. zn;_§1;;gg_gnilg
Iggghgg, 1985, (41), 40-42.

Dunn, R., 8 Price, G. E. The characteristics of gifted

students. Wigner-term. 1980. 24 (1). 33-36-
Dunn, R. Now that you know your learning style - How can

173
you make the most of it? fianly_1aa:a, 1983, la, 6
(February) 49-53.

Dunn, R. Learning style and its relationship to
exceptionality at both ends of the continuum.
Exaaptigna1_gh11gzan. Reston, VA: The Council for
Exceptional Children, 1983, 12, 6 (April) 496-506.

Dunn, R. A learning styles primer. Erinaipal, Arlington,
VA: National Association of Elementary School
Principals, 1981, fig, 5 (May) 31-34.

Dunn, R., Dunn, R., a Price, a. W
manual. Lawrence, Kansas: Price Systems Inc., 1981,
1985.

Dunn. 8.. & Dunn. K. W
Wm. Wont Nyaok. Now York:
Parker Publishing Company, 1972.

Eisonborg. Du & Epotoin. 1!- WWI};
MW- Popor presented
at the CEC-TAG National Topical Conference on the

Gifted and Talented Child, Orlando, FL: December,
1981.

Erickson, Frederick. Qualitative methods in research on

tooohino- Wain. 3rd od- .
u.c. Wittrock, Ed., 1986.

Estes, W.K. The problems of inference from curves based on

group data. WW. 1955, :1. 134-140-

174

Foster, G.G., et. al. Medality preferences and the
learning of sight words. ign;na1_91_§paaia1
Baggagign. V. 10, 1976, 352-358.

Goodlad, J. What goes on in our schools? Egnaatiana1_
Baaaarahaz, 1977, 6 (3), 3-6.

Gordon. R. Wham
tagtigaa Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1980.

Gregorc, A. P. Learning/teaching styles: Their nature and

effects. In J.W. Keefe (Ed.), S;gdan;_Laarning
WW. Reston.
VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 1979.

Guilford, J. P. Creativity. Amaxigan_£aygna19giat, 1959,
444-454.

Hafer, Jan C., and Wilson, R.H. ,fiigning_1gr_raaaing_
agggaaa. Gallaudet College Press, Kendall Green

Publications, washington, D.C., 1986.

Hill. J. at al. WWW
g9gn1§12a_a;yla_mapp1ng. Bloomfield Hills, Mi:
Oakland Community College, 1971.

Hodges. H. MW

 

lunig:_fligh_§ghggl. Doctoral dissertation, St. John's
University, 1985.

175
Hodges, H. nadison prep: Alternatives through learning
stylus. In_atndent_Learning_§txles_and_nrain
fianayiax. Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 1982, 28-32.
Hunt, D. E. Learning style and student needs: An
introduction to conceptual level. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.)
Student_Laarnine_airlesi__niagno§ins_and_
zzaaarihing‘zrggzana. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1979.
Jarsonbeck. 8- The_effe9ta_9f_a_risnt:brein_mathematigs
2urrisulnm1on_lou:ashiexingi_fourtn_grade_etudent§.
Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida,
1984.
Jenkins, J.H. Teaching to individual student learning
styles. Tha_Aaminiatratgr, 1982, §(1), 10-12.
Johnson. C- 0- Identifxing_2otential_§2hool_droeouts-
Doctoral dissertation, United States International
University, 1984.

Johnson, G. R., a Lewis, A. J. How individualized is the

nongraded school? naugatiana1_Laaaaz§n1p, 1971, 29
(2), 139-141.

Kampwirth, T.J. and Bates, M. Mbdality Preferences and
Teaching Methods: Review of Research. Agagamig
THEIQDI- V. 15, 1980, 597-605.

Keefe, J. Assessing student learning styles: An
overview. atudent_Learning_Stxle_and_§rain_nehexior-

176
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 1982.

Keefe, J. W. Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe
(Ed-h WWW
2:aaa:1h1ng_2:agzana. Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1979.

Kurt. J- W- W- Reston.
VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 1987.

King. CL. 5 Home. R- W- We
1W.
Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1979.

Kirby. P- MW
akill_aggnia1§1gn. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State
University Rational Center for Research in vocational
Education, 1979.

Kolb, D. A. Disciplinary inquiry norms and student
learning styles: Diverse pathways for growth. In A.
Chiokorino (Edd . W- San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

Kreitner, K. R. e es of
Wight:- Master's
dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1981.

Lacey, J. I. Individual differences in somatic response

patterns - WW
ESXQDQlQQX. 1950. 11. 338-350-

177
LeCompte, M. D., 8 Goetz, J. P. Problems of reliability
and validity in ethnographic research. Bayiag_a1
zauaaaiana1_3aaaazgh. Spring, 1982, 52 (1), 31-60.
Lemmon, P. Step-by-step leadership into learning styles.
Eazlx_Xaazl, 1982, 12(5) 36, 14.
Lynch, P. 1:. MW

 

~r-.-- — ~-!» 0-! :6 —~ 9 - o 9 o! 1-2! :

Wattle:- Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1981.

Maker. C- J. Wad
nanaiaappag. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children, 1977.

Maker. C- J. W-
Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1982a.
Marland. 8. 9., Jr. W-
(Report to the Congress of the United States by the
U.S. Commissioner of Education). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.
Martini, M.

 

 

—‘9 ‘— ault 0 s: :91! 0t,‘-°e 5 _Ql! ; 1 ._ 21°- 'i!

..

WM- Dootoral dissertation. st.

John's University, 1985.

178

Marx, J. L. Autoimmunity in left-handers. Sgianaa, 1982,
217, 141-142, 144.

McDermott, R. P., and Aron, Jeffrey. Pirandello in the
classroom: On the possibility of equal educational
opportunity in American culture. In In;n:aa_gfi
WWW—naming
Strngtnraa. Maynard C. Reynolds, Ed., pp. 41-64.
Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children,
1978.

Mehan, Hugh. The role of language and the language of role

in institutional decision making. (Languaga_1n_§991a§y
12(2): 187-211, 1983.

Murrain, P- Administmindetemimtienuenseming

 

Doctoral dissertation, United States International

University, 1980.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
t.’.?! 3'1! 1' 5 :9 . i’l!’: ° :1’. 8,3.5 r 3- '

prggramg. Reston, VA, 1982.

179
Nowland. T. 1!- WW1
parapaatiya. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1979.

Perrin, J- “WW2

 

Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University, 1984.
Pizzo. J- “WW

 

gzaga_a§ngantaa Doctoral dissertation, St. John's
University, 1981.

Price, G. E., Dunn, R., 8 Sanders, W. Reading achievement
and learning style characteristics. Tha_glaarinq
399:3, 1981, 54(5), 223-226.

Propst, R. Human needs and working places. In T. G.
David 8 B. D. Wright (Eds.), Laazning_znyizgnman;a.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Public Law 94-142. W
W. Sec. 620 (b) (4) (A), 39 Stat.
794.

Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. gnlta:al_ganggzagxa

Win- New York:
Academic Press, 1974.

130
Rostak. R. W- Gardon City.
u.v.: Doubleday, 1979.

Reynolds. M.. 5 Birch. J. Iea9hins_exoeetiona1_2hildren_ia
all_Amerisals_sshoola. Reston. VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.

Ricca. J- 9nrrisular_imn1isetiona_of_1earnins_stxle

 

Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at
Buffalo, 1983.

Salz, A. The truly open classroom. Kappan, 1974, 55,
388-92.Schatzman, L. & Strauss, A. L. £1§1§_I§§§§I2h1
Strategiea_fer_a_natura1_eooiolesx- Englowood CliffS:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Schmeck, R. R., Ribich, P., 8 Ramanaiah, N. Development of
a self-report inventory for assessing individual
differences in learning processes. Appliaa
El2§h21991251.fl§§§92§n§n§ 1 (1977): 413-431-

Shoa. T. C- An_1nzeatigatien_9f_the_relationshie_amons

 

edusational.fasilitiee- Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, St. John's University, 1983.

Siebenman, J. e o s

bstEeen_1sarning_stile_and_sognitizs_stxle_in

181

n9ntraditienal_cellese_readins_atudenta- Doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University, 1984.

Sontag, L. W. Mental growth and personality development:

A longitudinal study. Mgnagzapn_g:_§agia1_fiaaaa:gn_aaa
Wang, 1958, 23, 1-35. '

Speed, P. & Appleyard, D. The bright child and
adoloacant. WWW
Magazina, 1986, Issue 1.

Spires. R. The_effect_9f_teacher_inserxise_about_learnins
WW
agniayamant. Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green
University, 1983.

Spradloy. J. P. Wien- Now York: Holt.
Rinehart and Winston, 1980.

Tanenbaum, R. mmmmmmmmm

 

nutritign. Doctoral dissertation, St. John's
University, 1982.

Tannenbaum, A. Gifted_children- New York: Macmillan,
1983.

Tappenden. V- J- W

 

WWW. Doctoral

182
dissertation, Kent State University, 1983.

Thies, A. A brain-behavior analysis of learning style. In
Student_Learnins_at2lss1__Diasneeins_and_2re§cribins
zxggrana. Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals, 1979.

Thurston, L. L. Erinazy_man§a1_ab111§13a. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Travers, R. M. A study of the relationship of
psychological research to educational practice. In
R- Glaser (Ed-). Trainins_nesearch_and_zducation-

Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962,
525-558.

Tyler, L. E. Individual differences. In R. E. Ebel, V. H.

Noll. & P- M. Bauer (Ed-o). Encxclonedia_ef_nducationa1
Baaaaran (2nd ed.) London: The Macmillan Co., 1969.

Vernon, P. E. Education and the psychology of individual

differences. narxard_nducational_8exiex. 1958. 28.
91-104.

Viroetko. J- An_ana1xa1a_2f_the_relationahins_amens

4.3. ..t, 9 9’9 ' 19 1'. -°_11! -1 11°. 4 ‘111 ° '9;

 

Doctoral
dissertation, St. John's University, 1983.

Wasson. F. R- A_s9mparatixe_analiais_of_1earning_stxles

s t v

183

WWW. Doctoral
I dissertation, Florida State University, 1980.

Weinberg. 1". WWW

 

ta_tn1:g_qraaa_nnaa:aaniayaza. Doctoral dissertation,
St. John's University, 1983. .

Whitmore. J. W-
Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, Inc., 1980.

Whitmore, J. R., 8 Maker, C. J. Ingallagtaa1_§11§aana§§_in
niaahlaa_2azaana. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Systems
Corporation, 1985.

wild. J. 8. WWW

. en. ;. _ y.;, ; -.. ... :14; ,. . -:. ;. ; 5.;, ;
EW- Maetere Thesis.
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1979.

Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Barretto, R., Bacilious, z.,
Gemake, J., Griggs, S., Sanders, W., Schwartz, V.,
Sinatra, R., Spiridakis, J., and Swanchak, J. How
brainy are you about the brain? Ea:11_Xaara. Darien,
Connecticut: Allen Raymond, Inc., 15 (l)
(August/September, 1984): 46-48.