Effects of learning-style-responsive materials on underachieving remedial-writing students at an urban community college.

摘要

This investigator analyzed the effects of learning-style responsive materials on underachieving remedial-writing students at a New York City community college. The participants were drawn from a group of students who had passed their remedial-writing courses but failed the ACT Writing Sample Assessment. The students registered for either of two workshops and completed the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1996) and the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) (Spielberger, Barker, Russell, Crane, Westberry, Knight, et al., 1979, 1995). The PEPS determined their learning-style preferences, and the STPI measured their levels of anxiety and curiosity before and after exposure to the treatment.; In the Experimental Group, the researcher explained the concept of learning-style preferences and instructed students to use materials that matched their strongest perceptual preferences first. Next, students were directed to use materials that matched their secondary or tertiary preferences. Finally, students engaged in a creative follow-up activity. Afterward, the participants were given practice topics to write.; In the Control Group, the instructor provided a traditional lecture to the entire class to explain the organization of an ACT Writing Sample Assessment composition, and the lecture was supplemented by group exercises. Afterward, the participants were assigned specific compositions that the instructor corrected. After participating in the workshops, both the Experimental and Control Groups retook the STPI (Spielberger et al., 1979, 1995). Finally, both groups retook the ACT Writing Sample Assessment .; Statistical analyses revealed that the Experimental Group achieved significantly higher scores than the Control Group at p .01. The Experimental Group achieved a mean score of 7, and the Control Group 6. Findings supported no significant differences between the Experimental and Control Groups' level of state-anxiety (S-Anxiety). However, a significantly higher level of state-curiosity (S-Curiosity) was detected in the Experimental Group at the p = .035.; A correlation analysis showed that there was no significant relationship between S-Curiosity scores and the ACT Writing Sample Assessment scores, and that no significant correlation existed between S-Anxiety scores and the ACT Writing Sample Assessment scores. However, in the Control Group, an unanticipated negative correlation (−.450) was identified between S-Anxiety and S-Curiosity (p .01).