Vol. 01 No.
4 June 2009
LEARNING STYLES OF HIGH AND LOW ACADEMIC ACHIEVING
FRESHMAN TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS:
AN APPLICATION OF THE DUNN AND
DUNN’S LEARNING STYLE MODEL
1
Elizabeth Montemayor, MA
2
Maria C. Aplaten, MA
3
Glena C. Mendoza, M.A.
4
Gemma M. Perey, M.A.
ABSTRACT
The research dealt on the learning styles of high and low academic
achieving freshman teacher education students of the University of the
Cordilleras. Using the parameters set in the research, there were 19
students classified as low achievers and 29 students classified as high
achievers. Results of the study revealed that no significant difference exists
in the learning styles between the low achieving and high achieving
students. Since the students do not vary in terms of their learning style
when compared according to level of academic performance, it is
recommended that teachers, whenever possible, must incorporate in their
teaching strategies specific methods that are reflective of visual, auditory,
tactile, and kinesthetic styles of learning. Students must also provide input
as to their preferred learning style in designing the syllabus to be used by
the teacher in the course.
Key Words: Auditory Learning Style, High Academic Achievement,
Kinesthetic Learning Style, Low Academic Achievement, Tactile Learning
Style, Visual Learning Style
I. INTRODUCTION
The main role of the teacher is to facilitate the learning of
students. Hence, he or she has to devise ways on how to motivate
the students to learn. One of the ways on how to motivate students
to learn is to determine and dwell on their strengths and interests,
learning preferences and styles.
Students learn in various ways. It is claimed that individuals
learn better when they are learning in different ways and that they
have different learning styles that work best for them (Cuaresma,
2008; Ornstein and Lasley (2000). Teachers must therefore devise
1,2,3,4
FacultyMembers, College of Hotel, Restaurant Management and
Tourism
58
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
teaching-learning approaches to address these varied learning
styles.
The responsibility for engaging in learning, including control,
direction and focus, belongs to the individual learner. It is therefore
helpful to encourage students to identify and understand their
learning styles” (Teaching resources”, n.d.). Dunn and Griggs (1998)
said that findings of studies revealed that students learn more and
like learning better when they are taught through their identified
learning styles.
LearningStyles.Net (2008) identified the benefits of
understanding the learning styles of students. These are as follows:
(1) permits students to identify how they prefer to learn; (2) provides
a computerized graphical summary of each student's preferred
learning style; called the Individual Learning Styles Profile; (3)
suggests a basis for redesigning the classroom environment to
complement many students' needs for sound, quiet, bright or soft
light, temperature, or seating design; (4) sequences the perceptual
strengths through which individuals should begin studying; shows
how to reinforce new and difficult information for various individuals;
shows how each student should do his or her homework; (5)
indicates the methods through which students are likely to excel; (6)
extrapolates information concerning which students are conforming
or nonconforming and how to work with those who are
nonconforming; (7) pinpoints the best time during the day for each
student to be involved in required difficult subjects and thus permits
grouping students for instruction based on peak energy times; (8)
itemizes the types of students for whom snacks while learning may
accelerate the learning process; and (9) suggests for which students
analytic or global approaches to learning new and difficult material
are likely to be important.
Recognizing students learning styles not only profits the
students but the teachers as well. It is believed that it can help the
teachers in developing an educational program that offers the most
effective activities for the students. This idea conforms to that of
59
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
Schroeder (1996) who stated that the typical students’ learning style
profile is changing in campuses today and that, there is much
greater variation in the range of learning style preferences among
students. Therefore it would be wise to understand what learning
style preferences are, and how to address them when preparing
instructional materials and the entire lesson as well.
Ongan-Carino (2001) cited a comparative study conducted
by Currie (1987) on the learning styles of Bohemians, Jamaicans,
Afro-Americans and Caucasians, Afro-Chinese, Greeks and
Mexican-Americans. Conclusions derived form the study are the
following:
1. Knowing the learning styles of students, educators can
organize the classroom setting to respond to their
learners’ needs for a quiet place, bright or soft
illumination, warm or cool room temperatures, seating
arrangements, mobility or group preference;
2. Recognizing the patterns which learners may tend to
concentrate best alone, or with others, or with certain
types of teachers – can be helpful in classroom
management.
Bill (1998) averred that knowing the learning style of the
students can be beneficial in several ways. The instructor can
orient his lecture toward those students with the modal learning
style keeping in mind that some students may be at a
disadvantage. By varying the explanations, the instructor can reach
a larger proportion of the students. Knowing the learning style can
also be very helpful when working on an individual basis with the
student. Students should know their learning styles in order to
make better use of their study time.
Learning styles are simply different approaches or ways of
learning (Ldpride.net. (n.d.). Dunn and Dunn (1992) defined learning
style as the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on,
process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information (“Learning
Styles”, n.d.). Furthermore, Dunn, Beaudry, and Klavas (1989)
60
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
maintained that learning styles pertain to a biologically and
developmentally imposed set of personal characteristics that make
the same teaching method effective for some students and
ineffective for others (Geocities.com).
The interaction of these elements occurs differently in
everyone. Therefore, it is necessary to determine what is most likely
to trigger each student's concentration, how to maintain it, and how
to respond to his or her natural processing style to produce long term
memory and retention (learningstyles.net,n.d.). Learning and
teaching styles are not abilities, but, rather, preferred ways of using
one’s abilities (Drysdale, Ross, &Schuyltz, 1997 as cited by
Santrock, 2006). Experts identified the different learning styles as
visual learners, auditory learners, kinesthetic learners and tactile
learners.
Visual Learners. These are the learners who learn best by
seeing. These learners need to see the teacher's body language
and facial expression to fully understand the content of a lesson.
They tend to prefer sitting at the front of the classroom to avoid
visual obstructions (e.g. people's heads). They may think in pictures
and learn best from visual displays including: diagrams, illustrated
text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts and hand-
outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often
prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the information (Ldpride.net,
n. d.). Visual learners easily remember visual details and prefer to
see what they are learning. They prefer to write down instructions
and may have trouble following lectures (time4learning.com, n.d.).
Auditory Learners. Auditory learners gain knowledge through
listening. Students with this learning style learn best through verbal
lectures, discussions, talking things through and listening to what
others have to say (Ldpride.net (n.d.). Auditory learners interpret the
underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice,
pitch, speed and other nuances. Written information may have little
meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit from reading
text aloud and using a tape recorder. Auditory learners remember
61
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
by talking out loud, like to have things explained orally and may have
trouble with written instructions. Auditory learners may talk to
themselves when learning something new (time4learning.com, n.d.).
Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners. Learners belong to this
category learn through moving, doing and touching.
Tactile/Kinesthetic persons learn best through a hands-on approach,
actively exploring the physical world around them. They may find it
hard to sit still for long periods and may become distracted by their
need for activity and exploration (ldpride.net, n. d.). Kinesthetic or
tactile learners prefer activities that allow them to do what they
are learning about. Tactile learners like to touch things in order
to learn about them and like to move around when talking or
listening (time4learning.com, n.d.).
In a study relating learning style preferences and achievement
among achieving and underachieving gifted middle school students,
Reyneri, et al (2003) found that both achieving and underachieving
students have several learning style preferences that were quite
similar. However, the study also revealed that revealed some
differences between achievers and underachievers in their
preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments,
and level of need for mobility. Many low achievers showed a strong
need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; intake of food, drinks, or
both; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design;
and dim lighting. The low achievers neither did nor perceive
themselves to be persistent, and scores revealed that they needed
structure in assignments. Persistence seemed to be a key to
success for the achieving learners in this study since they were able
to maintain high academic performance in all content areas. Over
half of the low achievers, on the other hand, did not judge
themselves to be successful at task completion
In another study conducted by Burns, Johnson & Gable
(1998) on the differences between the learning style preferences of
high academic achieving students and the preferences expressed by
same-age students with average or below average academic
62
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
achievement obtained from 500 students in grades 4 - 5, they found
out that while significant differences (p< .001) in the preferences
distinguished between the average and above average achieving
students groups, there was minimal overlap with the preferences
identified in original investigation. The authors conclude that the
differences within an achievement group may be as great as
between groups, and that it is improper to prescribe instructional
methods or categorize groups of learners by presuming that they
have similar style preferences.
It is then the purpose of this study to determine if there are
differences in the learning styles of high and low academic achievers
among freshman teacher education students of the University of the
Cordilleras, a higher education institution located in Northern
Philippines It is hypothesized that there are significant differences
in the learning styles of the aforementioned groups of students.
II. METHODOLOGY
The descriptive –comparative method was utilized in the
study because the purpose of the study was to compare the learning
styles of the high and low academic achieving freshman teacher
education students. High academic achieving students are those
who garnered an average of 88.00 and above while low academic
achieving students are those who earned an average of below 82.00
in their midterm grades. There were 29 students who were classified
as high achievers and 19 students classified as low achievers.
The instrument used was the Learning Style Inventory
developed by Dunn and Dunn (1996). The instrument is composed
of 32 items intended to determine the perceptual strengths related to
the auditory, visual, tactile or kinesthetic learning styles.
Weighted mean and the t-test were used to statistically treat
the data. To determine general extent of practice of the learning
styles, the following scale was used: Always (A-3.20-4.00);
Frequently (F:2:40-3.19); Occasionally (O:1.60-2.39); Rarely (R:.80-
63
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
1.59); and Never ( N:.00-.79). The t-statistic was used to test the
null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the learning
styles between the high and low academic performing students.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Research findings on the learning styles of the high and low
academic achieving students are presented, compared and analyzed
as follows:
Auditory Learning Style
Table 1 shows a comparison on auditory learning styles of
the high and low academic achievers. It is reflected that the low
academic achievers obtained a higher overall mean of 2.50 as
compared to the overall mean of the high achievers which is 2.45.
These mean values indicate that generally, both groups “frequently”
adopt the auditory learning style. Apparently, the high and low
academic achievers believe that they learn best by listening. It is
important that information should be presented orally for them to be
able to remember, grasp and understand the meaning of the
information. Tone of voice, pitch and other nuances are of
significance to them. According to Reif and Heimburge (2006),
auditory learners are able to understand information well if reinforced
through melodies, beats, and rhythms. They like that directions and
questions be given orally and are required to repeat them.
To determine if there is a significant difference between the
overall means, the t-test was used. The computed t-value (.329)
indicates that the mean difference is not significant. The null
hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference
between the means is therefore accepted. This implies that the
observed difference is only due to chance. Generally, the high and
low academic achievers have the same preference and or extent of
practice for auditory learning.
The same findings are shown when the specific items are
compared. All the mean differences are not significant implying that
64
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
that the high and low academic achievers have similar specific
auditory learning styles.
Table 1. Comparison of the Auditory Learning Style of the
Respondents according to Achievement Level
High Low
Auditory Achievers Achievers Remarks
tcv
(29) (19)
I learn best by listening to
verbal instruction or 3.07 2.79 1.04 NS
explanations.
I form the sound of words to 1.55
2.69 3.11 NS
recall them.
I remember information by 0.31
2.76 2.84 NS
hearing myself say the words.
I read aloud instead of silently 1.06
1.86 2.26 NS
talking to myself.
I memorize information or
associate my memories with 1.93 1.84 0.28 NS
songs.
I take active part in 0.93
2.55 2.32 NS
discussions.
I learn best by talking to other 0.70
2.66 2.42 NS
people.
Saying the words out loud 1.29
2.03 2.42 NS
makes me at ease.
Overall Mean 0.33
2.45 (F) 2.50(F) NS
NS- Not Significant F – Frequently
Visual Learning Style
Table 3 shows the comparison between the visual learning
styles of the high and low achievers. The high achievers obtained an
overall mean of 2.56 while the low achievers had 2.38. The high
achievers “frequently” practice this type of learning style whereas the
low achievers “occasionally” practice this type. This implies that the
high achievers prefer to learn by seeing, watching, and observing
more than the low achievers. This is evidenced by a significant
difference (p<.05) between the mean scores of the two groups in the
item which states that “I learn best by seeing, reading, and
watching”. Moreover, the high achievers also like demonstrations,
seeing diagrams, posters and slides more than the low achievers.
This is evidenced by a significant t-value (p<.05). Rief and
Heimburge (2006) claimed that visual learners remember best
though pictures and images.
65
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
To determine if the overall mean difference is significant, the
t-test was used. The computed t-value (1.425) is not significant
hence the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant
difference between the overall means is accepted. This implies that
despite significant differences between the two groups in terms of
specific learning styles, in general, the high and low achieving
students have the same preference for visual learning style. The
observed difference between the overall means is only due to
chance.
Table 2. Comparison of the Visual Learning Style of the
Respondents according to Achievement Level
High Low
Remarks
Visual Achievers Achievers
tcv
(29) (19)
I learn best by seeing, reading, 2.17 p< .05
3.52 2.89
and watching.
I need to construct and use
NS
strong visual image 2.79 2.74 0.21
association to learn.
I need to create a picture on
NS
paper or in my mind to 2.48 2.37 0.35
remember it.
I like to create pictures to 0.06 NS
1.97 1.95
match with the words.
I need to see the words rather 1.03 NS
2.55 2.26
than the images.
22.I daydream to imagine what 0.20 NS
1.21 1.16
things look like.
26.I like demonstrations,
p < .05
seeing diagrams, Slides, 3.31 2.68 2.46
posters, and visual aids.
30.Reading or seeing the 1.35 NS
2.66 3.00
words best describes me.
Overall Mean 1.43 NS
2.56 (F) 2.38 (O)
NS- Not Significant F – Frequently O- Occasionally
Tactile Learning Style
Table 3 indicates that generally, both groups of respondents
“occasionally” practice the tactile learning style as evidence by a
mean value of 2.21 for the high achieving group and 2.12 for the low
achieving group. This means that both groups sometimes resort to
learning by touching or sensing the learning material. According to
Boiser (2004), tactile learners learn by associating feelings with
66
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
concepts and information. Tactile learners favor subjects that allow
them with their hands and learn best by handling the texture and
shapes of objects (Vega and Prieto, 2006).
Specifically however, the high achievers “always” learn by
taking down notes while listening and highlight pertinent information.
The same can be said of the low achieving group. This is because
students, whether high achieving or low achieving, are accustomed,
to taking sown notes during lectures for future referencing.
Moreover, highlighting important parts of the notes is also commonly
practiced for emphasis.
Table 3. Comparison of the Tactile Learning Style of the
Respondents according to Achievement Level
High Low
Achievers Achievers tcv Remarks
Tactile
(29) (19)
3. Using my hands feeling/
touching is my style in 1.86 2.05 0.58 NS
learning.
7.I like to play with objects while 0.03
1.38 1.39 .NS
learning.
11. I learn by taking down notes 1.80
3.45 3.00 NS
while listening.
15.I underline ideas while 1.31
3.03 2.68 NS
listening.
19.I need to highlight pertinent 1.37
3.24 2.84 NS
information.
23.I doodle, fold a paper, play with
pencil or ball pen while 1.10 1.00 0.30 NS
learning.
7.I manipulate objects while 0.23
1.76 1.68 NS
studying.
31. Moving my fingers, pencil, or
my ball pen stimulates my 1.86 2.26 1.20 NS
earning abilities.
Overall Mean 0.56
2.21 (O) 2.12 (O) NS
NS- Not Significant O-Occasionally
To determine if there is a significant difference between the
overall means, the t-test was used. As shown, the computed t-value
(.555) is not significant. This means that there is no difference
between the means of the two groups. The observed difference is
only due to chance. The high and low academic achievers have the
same preference for tactile learning style. The same finding is
gleaned from the comparisons in the specific items.
67
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
Table 4 shows that the high and low academic achieving
students obtained overall means of 2.06 and 2.03, respectively. This
means that both groups of respondents “occasionally” practice the
kinesthetic learning style. Apparently, they are the type of learners
who sometimes prefer to move while learning. Kinesthetic learners
tend to talk and confer with their seatmates and teachers, they love
doing role playing and miming in the classroom. They favor subjects
that require them to be mobile, walking around and acting out what
needs to be learned (Tileston, 2004).
Table 4. Comparison of the Kinesthetic Learning Style of the
Respondents according to Achievement Level
High Low
ITEM Achievers Achievers Remarks
tcv
(29) (19)
I need to be physically involved to 0.51
3.07 2.89 NS
learn.
I learn by walking around or 0.03
1.48 1.47 NS
moving my legs.
0.15
2.28 2.32 NS
I act out what needs to be learned.
I learn while in motion, like 0.24
1.14 1.21 NS
swiveling in chair.
I put ideas into action in order to 0.67
2.31 2.50 NS
learn them.
I like to be directly involved in
activities like role playing, mime, 2.59 2.58 0.02 NS
and the like.
I can memorize well while Moving 1.11
2.34 1.95 NS
or walking.
I can memorize well by moving in 0.12
1.28 1.32 NS
my chair.
Area Mean 2.06 (O) 2.03 (O) 0.56 NS
NS- Not Significant O-Occasionally
To determine if there is a significant difference in the overall
means between the two groups, the t-test was used. The computed
t-value is .555 which is not significant. This means that the observed
mean difference is only due to chance. The high and low achieving
students’ extent of practice of the kinesthetic learning style does not
vary. Comparison of the mean values in the specific items also
yielded the same result.
Based on the findings, it appears that learning style has not
caused variation on the performance of the students. The high and
low academic achievers have the same preference for the learning
68
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
modalities under study. This finding is similar to the result of a study
conducted by Renou (2004). In her study on perceptual learning
style and achievement in a university level foreign language course,
she found out that there is no significant difference between the
predominant learning style groups and course graders. In other
words, whether one is a visual, auditory, tactile or kinesthetic learner,
this has no significant bearing on achievement in school as
measured by grades. Morevoer, Reyneri, et al (2003) found out in
their study that both achieving and underachieving middle school
children have the same learning styles. These findings are however,
contrary to the results of a study conducted by Kia, Alipour, and
Ghaderi (2001). In their research, they found out that among
students in Payame Noor University in Iran, those with visual
learning style have the greatest academic achievement.
Despite inconsistencies in the findings of researches relating
achievement and learning styles, results of the studies imply that a
mixed modality instruction facilitates the learning of the students
more than when they are taught solely based on their preferred
learning modality, in the same manner, teaching a student based on
his preferred modality results in better learning than when he or she
is taught using strategies that are not in consonance with his or her
preferred learning style
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the research findings, it is concluded that
generally, learning style does not Influence academic performance.
A student, whether high achieving or low achieving, does not have a
clearly defined learning style preference. With this inference, it is
recommended that seminars and trainings be conducted to acquaint
teachers on the various learning styles. Moreover, in designing
teaching plans and strategies, the teacher should consider how the
different learning styles under the Dunn and Dunn’s model can be
incorporated in the teaching-learning process. Students must also
provide input as to their preferred learning style to be considered by
the teacher in designing the course syllabus.
69
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
REFERENCES
Bill, J. (1998). Problems in statistics: Learning style, age, and part-
time students. Retrieved: April 26, 2009 from:
http://www.,articlearchives.com/sciencetechnology/mathema
tics-statisticalmethod/1506000-1.html.
Boiser, D.C.(2004) Teaching Made Easy: Strategies and Styles.
Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.
Burns, D., Jonson,S, and Gable, R. (1998). Can we generalize
about the learning style characteristics of high academic
achievers? Retrieved April 26, 2009 from:
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid.
Cuaresma, J. (2008). Learning style preferences and academic
performance of PHEM majors at the University of the
Cordilleras. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. University of
the Cordilleras, Baguio City.
Dunn, R. & Honigsfeld, A. (2003, March/April). High school male
and female learning-style similarities and differences in
diverse nations. The Journal of Educational Research. 96(4).
Pp. 196-197.
Kia, M. Alipou, A. and Ghaderi, E. (2009). Study of learning styles on
their roles in the academic Achievement of the students of
Payame Noor University. http://tojde.andolu.edu.tr/tojde
34/notes, Retrived June 11, 2009.
LdPride.net. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2009 from:
http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.
Ongan-Carino, F. (2001). Learning styles and academic
performance of criminology students in English. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Baguio Colleges Foundation, Baguio City
Prieto, N. and Vega, V. (2006). Facilitating Learning. Mandaluyong
City: Book Atbp. Publishing Co.
Reif, S.F. and Heimburge, J.A. (2006). How to reach and teach all
children in the inclusive classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Renou, J. A study of perceptual learning style and achievement in a
university level foreign language course, Universidad De
Puerto.
Rico. http://crisolenguas .uprrp.edu/article/JaneRenou.pdf. Retrieved
June 11, 2009.
70
Vol. 01 No.4 June 2009
Reyneri, L., Gerber, B. and Wiley, L. (2003). Gifted achievers and
gifted underachievers: The impact of learning style
preferences in the classroom. Retrieved April 26, 2009
from: http://www.questia.com/goggleScholar.qst?docId=
5001 950608.
Santrock, J. (2006). Educational psychology: Classroom update:
Preparing for PRAXIS and practice. (2nd ed.). USA:
McGraw-Hill International.
Tileston, D.W. (2004). What every teacher should know about
diverse learners. California: Corvin Press.
71
