EFFECTS OF TACTUAL KINESTHETIC INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES ON THE SOCIAL STUDIES ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDE TEST SCORES AND SHORT- AND LONG-TERM MEMORY OF SUBURBAN FOURTH-GRADE STUDENTS

This investigation analyzed the effects of tactual and kinesthetic resources on the social studies achievement and attitude test scores and shortand long-term memory of fourthgrade suburban students. Students’ learning-style perceptual preferences were identified using the Learning Style Inventory and subsequently youngsters were taught social-studies content using tactual and kinesthetic instructional resources and traditional method (alternately). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant interaction (p < .0001) between tactual and kinesthetic preferences and instructional methods and simple main effects analysis supported those results. Tactual and kinesthetic learners scored significantly higher (p < .0001) mean posttest scores when instructional methods were congruent rather than incongruent with their learning styles. Furthermore, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) main effect of instructional treatment was highly significant (p < .001), revealing statistical differences in social studies long-term memory for content taught with tactual/kinesthetic and traditional instructional resources. Additional simple main-effects tests demonstrated that students achieved significantly higher posttest scores (p < .0001) for social-studies content taught using tactual/kinesthetic instruction than with a traditional approach. Students rated tactual/ kinesthetic lessons statistically higher (p < .0001) than when they were taught social studies content with traditional methods. The findings of this investigation veriNATIONAL FORUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION JOURNAL 14 fied that, when the appropriate instructional method was matched with students’ tactual and kinesthetic strengths, higher achievement gains and more positive attitudes resulted than with traditional instruction. Some recommendations are suggested. esearch has demonstrated that many students do not become strongly visual before third grade; auditory acuity first develops in many after sixth grade, and boys are often neither strongly visual nor auditory even during high school (Restak, 1979). Young children are almost exclusively tactual/kinesthetic learners (Crino, 1984; Keefe, 1982; LeClair, 1986; Price, 1980). Students who are unsuccessful or who are underachievers in school, learn best through tactual (hands-on) and kinesthetic (active) resources and their strongest perceptual strength is neither auditory nor visual (Drew, Dunn, Quinn, Sinatra, & Spiridakis, 1994; Dunn et al., 1994). When those children are initially taught new and difficult information auditorally, many become confused and find it difficult to process the information (Dunn & Dunn, 1992). These findings are substantiated by Dunn (1997-98) who reported: Less than 12% of elementary school children are “auditory” learners; few children or adults are capable of remembering approximately 75% of academic information they listen to for between 30-40 minutes. Less than 40% are “visual” learners; few children or adults are capable of remembering information they read for between 30-40 minutes. (p. 5) Despite these facts, conventional teaching practices continue to be unresponsive to the needs of tactual and kinesthetic learners who tend to process and remember new and difficult information or skills when they use manipulative materials or participate in concrete “real life” activities. Those students comprise the majority of elementary school classrooms (Dunn & Dunn, 1992). Each individual has a learning-style that is uniquely his or her own and it will differ significantly from other individuals. The stronger the preference the more important it is to provide compatible instructional strategies (Braio, Dunn, Beasley, Quinn, & Buchanan, 1997). According to Dunn and Dunn (1992), “Instruction should be introduced through an individual’s strongest perceptual strength and reinforced through the weaker modalities sequentially” (p. 137). However, classroom teachers seldom introduce new information through students’ tactual/kinesthetic preferences (Drew et al., 1994). Teachers usually teach by lecturing and explaining (auditory); by writing on the blackboard and assigning readings (visual). Students who are able to process information in these ways (visually and auditorally) are the ones who retain what they have been taught and therefore perform well on written and teacher directed tests. Thus, educators believe that the brighter students are auditory and/or visual learners because they are the youngsters who tend to be successful in our schools (Dunn & Dunn, 1992). They are not aware that, because students’ learning styles vary, instructional practices that are beneficial to one group are unlikely to be beneficial to all students. Instead, those same instructional practices will impede or diminish learning in another group of children (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). Since very little is done instructionally in most classes to accommodate the tactual and kinesthetic perceptual strengths, these youngsters are in a real sense handicapped (Dunn & Dunn, 1992). As children mature and grow older, some may begin to combine their tactual strengths with visual preferences while others eventually might develop auditory strengths. If and when they do, only then will they be able to function successfully in the traditional classroom where lecture, discussion, and visual stimulation are the norm (Dunn & Dunn 1992). However, “Many males remain essentially tactual or kinesthetic all their lives” (Dunn, 1997-98, p. 5). It is crucial therefore, to individualize instruction to accommodate tactual and kinesthetic learning styles and provide a positive learning environment in which all students can achieve academic success (Dunn & Dunn, 1992). R A.V. ROBERTS, R. DUNN, D. HOLTSCHNIEDER, A. KLAVAS, B. MILES, P. QUINN 15 Many experimental studies have reported significantly higher achievement for students when their perceptual preferences were accommodated. That conclusion was documented at the elementary level by (a) Carbo (1980) with kindergarten students in Reading; (b) Drew (1992) with fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade Cajun and Louisiana Indian students in story recall; (c) Jarsonbeck (1984) with fourth-grade underachievers in Mathematics; (d) Turner (1992) with fifth graders in spelling; (e) Weinberg (1983) with third-grade underachievers and (f) Wheeler (1980, 1983) with second-grade Learning Disabled students. Similar results were evidenced by Curry (1994), Gardiner (1986), Garrett (1991), Kroon (1985), and Martini (1986) at the junior high and high school levels. Those researchers confirmed that students who were identified as tactual and kinesthetic learners were far more likely to achieve when taught through their tactual and kinesthetic strengths than through either visual or auditory strengths. Research conducted at adult levels also substantiated that when instructional methods were complementary to adults’ perceptual preferences, they achieved significantly higher test scores than when instructional methods were incongruent (Buell & Buell, 1987; Ingham, 1989). In addition, they found that more positive attitudes were evidenced through a close match between participants and their instructors. Thus we investigated the impact that tactual and kinesthetic instructional resources would have on students’ social studies achievement and shortand long-term memory when students identified as tactual and kinesthetic learners were taught in a manner that was complementary rather than dissonant to their learning styles. We also assessed students’ attitudes toward learning social studies as instructional methods were altered.