UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The interaction of cognitive style, as measured by the Myers-Briggs type indicator, and structure in… Ray, Martha Margaret 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 R39.pdf [ 3.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097024.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097024-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097024-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097024-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097024-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097024-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097024-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097024-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097024.ris

Full Text

THE INTERACTION OF COGNITIVE STYLE, AS M E A S U R E D B Y T H E M Y E R S - B R I G G S T Y P E I N D I C A T O R , A N D S T R U C T U R E IN LESSON DESIGN IN A N ENGLISH LESSON by MARTHA MARGARET RAY B. Ed., University of British Columbia, 1981  A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES  Dept. of Educational Psychology and Special Education (Communications M e d i a and Technology in Education)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A  M a r c h , 1987  0  M a r t h a Margaret Ray, 1987  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of British Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y shall make it freely available for reference and study.  I further agree that permission for extensive  copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.  It is understood that copying or publication of  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education (Communications, M e d i a and Technology in Education) The U n i v e r s i t y of British C o l u m b i a 2125 M a i n M a l l Vancouver, B . C . V 6 T 1W5  Date  3QJ9S7  ABSTRACT  This study tested the hypothesis that students who were identified as possessing an intuitive preference,  or cognitive style, on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator  would  learn most about a series of poetry concepts i f they were in an environment which emphasized discovery learning and low levels of structure.  Conversely, those students  who were identified as possessing a sensing preference,  or cognitive style on the  indicator would learn most in a more directed and structured environment.  Data was  gathered on 167 Grade 8 students who had been randomly assigned to two treatment groups.  Analysis of variance and linear regression revealed significant disordinal  interaction for one of the two treatment methods. the hypothesis:  " N " students achieved most  The interaction partially supported  in a discovery-learning environment  (P<005 and P<.001), while "S" students were not significantly advantaged in the more directed and structured environment.  - ii -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER  I.  II.  III.  PAGE  THE PROBLEM  1  Background of the Problem  1  Purpose of the Study  3  Theoretical Framework and D e f i n i t i o n of Terms  5  Learning Outcomes  8  Cognitive Style Variables  8  Aptitude-Treatment Interaction  10  Delineation of the Research Problem  11  Statement of Hypothesis  13  REVIEW OF R E L A T E D LITERATURE  14  A T I Concept — an overview  15  Recent Trends in A T I Research  18  Learning Structure as Treatment  19  Cognitive Style - an overview  23  Cognitive Style as Attribute  24  Other Research on Cognitive Style and the Interaction with Learning Structure  25  M B T I Research in Education Sensing/Intuition Judging/Perceivng  26 27 28  Summary  30  PROCEDURES  31  Introduction  31  Experimental Design  32  Sample  32  Development of Treatments  33  Development of the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  38  - iii -  IV.  V.  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator  39  R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y  41  ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A  43  Analysis  43  1.  Comparison of Treatment Group Means  43  2.  Comparison of Treatment Outcomes Over Time  46  3.  V a l i d i t y of Test Instruments  48  4.  Comparison of Treatment Group Attribute Distributions  49  Hypothesis  51  Findings  61  A d d i t i o n a l Findings  63  DISCUSSIONS, C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  69  Introduction  69  Discussion  70  L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study  72  Conclusions and Recommendations  74  Implementation  75  BIBLIOGRAPHY  77-85  - iv -  LIST O F T A B L E S  TABLE  PAGE  I  Schematic for Treatment A  6  II  Schematic for Treatment B  7  III  Sample Sequence of Treatment A  36  IV  Sample Sequence of Treatment B  37-38  V  Sample L i s t i n g of M B T I Test Items  40  VI  Sample L i s t i n g of Significant S — N Correlations with Other Measures  42  Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment A and B on Posttest  44  Analysis of Variance for Treatment A and B on Posttest  44  Means and Standard Deviations for Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest  45  Analysis of Variance for Treatment A and B on Delayed Posttest  45  Means and Standard Deviations for Method A on the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  46  Means and Standard Deviation for Method B on the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  47  Analysis of Variance for Scores on Posttest and Delayed Posttest for Treatment A  47  Analysis of Variance for Scores on Posttest and Delayed Posttest for Treatment B  48  VII VIII IX X XI  XII XIII XIV XV  Correlation of Posttest Scores with M i d - T e r m Scores  49 c  1  XVI  Correlation of Delayed Posttest Scores with M i d - T e r m Scores  i 49 /°  XVII XVIII  J  Means and Standard Deviations of S — N and J — P Preference Scores for Method A and B  50  Analysis of Variance of S — N Preference in Treatment A and B  50  - v -  XIX  XX  XXI  XXII  XXIII  XXIV  XXV XXVI XXVII  Analysis of Variance of J — P Preference in Treatment A and B  51  Regression Output for S — N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on Posttest  54  Regression Output for S — N Preference Interaction on Tretment A and B on the Delayed Posttest  55  Regression Output for S — N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on Posttest without the Effect of J  57  Regression Output for S — N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest without the Effect of J  59  Most Advantageous Treatment Method for S -- N Students  62  Percentage of Male and Female Thinkers and Feelers  64  Regression Output for Male S-N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Posttest  67  Regression Output for Female S-N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Posttest  68  - vi -  LIST O F F I G U R E S FIGURE 1.  PAGE  Types of Relationships between Treatment and A p t i t u d e  11  2.  Experimental Design  33  3.  Disordinal Interaction of S and Treatment A and B on Disordinal Interaction of S and Treatment A and B on  4.  5.  6.  7. 8.  — N Preference the Posttest -- N Preference the Delayed Posttest  53 56  Disordinal Interaction of S — N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest without the effect of the J preference  58  Disordinal Interaction of S — N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest without the effect of the J preference  60  Disordinal Interaction of Male S-N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest  65  Disordinal Interaction of Female S-N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest  65  - vii -  CHAPTER  THE  I  PROBLEM  Background of the Problem  Educators have intuitively recognized that individuals d i f f e r in learning style and  that  each learns  in  a highly  specific and  individual  way.  The  following  quotations support this notion:  "it is the (teacher's) ability to regard, upon occasion both himself and the child as just objects working upon each other in specific ways that compels him to resort to purely arbitrary measures, to fall back upon mere routine traditions of school teaching" (Dewey, 1900) "individuals possess no such thing as a unitary learning ability" 1946)  (Woodrow,  "each particular activity can best be performed (learned) by methods which to an important degree are particular to that activity ... to a degree varying with the individual" (Woodrow, 1946) "one thing we can all be quite certain of: wherever in the vast realm of human learning we wish to look for individual differences, we surely will find them." (Jensen, 1967) "no single instructional process provides optimal (Bracht, 1970)  learning  These beliefs are not restricted to the education field.  for  all students."  Support for the concept  of individual differences, that individuals in fact do vary in many important and significant  ways, comes from many different areas of research:  from behavioral  genetics to psychology. (McClearn and Meredith, 1966; Newell and Simon, 1972). These fields of study have generated theories to account for the differences researchers observed.  - 1 -  In the area of education, however, teachers have been faced with a lack of guidelines instruction  or  principles  (Goldberg,  to  employ  Swartz  frustration when he stated  and  in  developing  Stewart,  strategies  1977).  D i vesta  for individualizing (1974)  "a major source of our dissatisfaction  echoed  has roots  his in a  philosophy of education based on objectives that the child must adapt to education". He felt improvements in education would only come by "adapting education to the child".  Tobias (1976) stated:  "There are few systematic attempts to adapt method of instruction to student characteristics, existing adaptations generally consist of varying instruction rate to student needs rather than instruction method".  In  considering the  search  for  instructional principles which  take  learner  differences into account, Snow (1977) stated that until the 1950's there was "no place for individual differences in theories of learning" and there existed a distinct lack of instructional theory based on these differences. instruction by  He urged researchers to individualize  aiming at particular kinds of students,  not the  mythical "average"  student. His work with Cronbach (Cronbach and Snow, 1977) has made possible a theoretical  framework for individualizing instruction through the recognition that  individual differences not only predict learning outcomes but also interact with the instructional treatment variables.  This forms the basis of the Aptitude Treatment  Interaction concept. (ATI).  In the school environment, individual differences such as general intelligence, language development, psycho-motor skills, cognitive development, prior learning, self concept and attitude are recognized by teachers, impacting directly on learning.  Differences  administrators and counsellors as  in cognitive  style are generally  not  considered and since they are a relatively stable measure of individual differences, are  -2 -  worthy of our study.  A reliable test measure, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)  has improved our ability to identify cognitive style and provides a useful research tool for the purposes of this study.  Most education researchers recognize that a perfect teaching model does not exist (Joyce and Weil, 1980) and further that "no model of teaching is designed to accomplish all types of learning or to work for all learning styles" (ibid).  Most  teachers, having experienced ineffective teaching and poor performance from some of their  students,  individual  have  differences.  developed  a  Difficulties  repertoire arise  of  when  teaching  instruction  strategies  to  is effective  consider for  some  students and not others; a more serious consequence arises when instruction actually deters or hinders achievement for some learners.  The transactional  late  curriculum  theorist,  Hilda  Taba,  (1965)  discussed  the  active  aspect of learning when she considered the interaction between  the  i n d i v i d u a l in a learning environment and the data or information to be learned.  She  stated "the materials of instruction become available to the i n d i v i d u a l when he or she performs certain cognitive operations  on them - organizing facts, relating points,  generalizing or making inferences", (p.49).  Purpose of the Study  This  study  focuses  on  specific student  differences  as  reflected  by  their  particular cognitive style and the interaction with information presented to them using two different teaching models.  Cognitive style is defined by Cronbach and Snow  - 3-  (1977) as habitual patterns or preference strategies of information processing.  The  instrument used to measure these preferences is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This indicator identifies four scales:  Introversion-Extroversion (I-E), T h i n k i n g - F e e l i n g (T-  F), Intuitive-Sensing (N-S) and Perceptive-Judging (P-J). These terms w i l l be defined in the following section. The two teaching models used in this study reflect different degrees of structure and are based on the theories of Bruner and Gagne.  Bruner's  model is less structured and allows the learner to discover relationships and concepts in the learning materials for himself. structured  The model based on Gagne's approach is more  and leads the learner through  builds on previously presented  concepts.  a step-by-step  lesson where information  These models, and variations thereof,  are  commonly used by educators and c u r r i c u l u m developers. (Joyce and Weil, 1980).  A research design which involves the interaction between student differences and lesson design is referred to as "Aptitude Treatment Interaction". Snow, 1969).  (Cronbach and  This theory offers a framework from which educators might develop  principles to match lesson design or instructional practices to learning style.  With these concepts in mind, the researcher  sought to answer the  following  question:  Is there an interaction between the amount of structure in lesson design and the cognitive style of the learner, as measured by two scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which play a part in cognition, namely intuition and sensing, and perceiving and judging ?  - 4 -  Theoretical Framework and D e f i n i t i o n of Terms  T h i s section describes the theoretical framework and defines the terms used in the study.  Further clarification of the key concepts is given i n the literature review,  Chapter 2.  Joyce and Weil (1980) define a teaching model as a prescription for a learning sequence.  They describe four basic families of teaching models and numerous models  w i t h i n each of these families.  The author has chosen to focus attention  on the  information-processing family of teaching models because the lesson objectives in the experimental study dealt with the attainment of concepts and problem solving.  Joyce  and Weil (1980) described information processing as "the ways people handle stimuli from the environment, organize data, sense problems, generate concepts and solutions to problems" (p.9).  Students acquire concepts when they are able to identify the  critical attributes of a concept and therefore recognize examples and non-examples of the concept. A concept is defined by Houston (1986) as "a symbol or group of symbols that stands for a class, or group, of objects or events that possess common properties" (p.330).  Two teaching approaches were used by the author in a 30 minute lesson on elements of poetry using overhead transparencies  and audio cassette tape.  approaches d i f f e r e d in the amount of structure implicit in each.  These  Model A is a more  structured version based on Gagne's principles (Gagne and Briggs, 1974) while Model B is less structured and is based on the notion of discovery learning proposed by Jerome Bruner (1967).  - 5-  TABLE I Schematic of Teaching Model A 1.  Statement of Objectives Modelled Performance  Teaching Model A is an adaptation presents a clearly outlined step-by-step  3.  Provision of D e f i n i t i o n  4.  Presentation of Examples  5.  Stimulus Presentation  6.  E l i c i t a t i o n of Response  7.  Feedback  8.  Assess Learning (Posttest, (PT), Delayed Posttest (DPT) outcomes)  I I  of an approach to lesson design  which  sequence for learning suggested by Briggs  (Gagne & Briggs, 1974 p.140-177). A step following statement of objectives calls for the provision of learning guidance by allowing the student  to speculate  on the  meaning and nature of the concept to be defined, with an attempt made at definition. In the author's design, this step was eliminated i n order to structure the lesson i n a more deductive  and less inductive manner.  outlined in Table 1 above.  - 6-  Essentially, Model A followed the steps  T A B L E II Schematic of Teaching Model B List of Concepts 2.  Examples and non-examples given (30 second discussion time)  Feedback and attribute identification  4.  Non-examples given and nonattributes identified (15 second processing time)  5.  Example and d e f i n i t i o n statement |  6.  Repeat steps 2-5 for each attribute  7.  Assess learning (PT, D P T outcomes)  Teaching Model B is based on Bruner's (1959, 1966) principles and reflects his belief that materials should have a low degree of structure i n order that students are actively involved  i n concept learning.  This approach d i d not provide a general  introduction or statement of objectives, but each concept was named. Students were required to discover for themselves the attributes which were critical for each concept and  then  encouraged  to discuss  their  findings  before being  Essentially this model followed the steps outlined i n Table 2 above.  - 7-  given  feedback.  Learning Outcomes  The effectiveness of each teaching model was measured by posttest immediately following instruction. A delayed posttest was administered one week later. Test items were the same on both tests, but the order of the items was changed. N o test examples were taken identify  from those used in classroom instruction.  examples of alliteration, assonance,  Students  consonance,  were required to  onomatopoeia,  metaphor,  simile and personification on a two page written test.  Cognitive Style Variables  An  i n d i v i d u a l ' s cognitive style  is described  perceiving the world or processing information are many models of cognitive style.  as  his  habitual  pattern  (Cronbach and Snow, 1977).  of  There  The measurement instrument used to determine  cognitive style in this study, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, is based  on  the  psychological type theory of C.G. Jung (Myers 1962 and 1976; Jung, 1921, 1971).  Jung postulated that there are two basic orientations which he called aptitudes and labelled as introversion (I), and extroversion (E).  This dimension identifies the  basic orientation to l i f e - either a preference for dealing with the external world of people and things (E), or a preference for dealing with the inner world of ideas and concepts (I).  Jung also postulated that there are four functions (or mental processes),  two relating to the gathering of data, namely sensing (S) or i n t u i t i o n (N); and two relating to the judging of the data, namely, t h i n k i n g (T) and feeling (F).  - 8-  According s e n s i n g or an and  other  sensing  to M y e r s , g a t h e r i n g d a t a  i n t u i t i v e mode.  senses  as  "a  to gather  People  who  of  present  d e t a i l and  relationships  and  Lawrence (ibid) described insight into complexity,  possibilities  be  done  i n either  that  are  in) an  experience,  an  ears  expertise in  acute  powers  beyond  the  intuition ability  reach  of  the  The  last  individual's  scale o f  attitude  to  the M B T I the  was  external  f u n c t i o n thus: " i t p r o v i d e s  to see  abstract, s y m b o l i c  and  closure.  A  added  world.  perceptive preference  on  (p.7).  by A  Myers  (1962) a n d  judging  preference  i n d i v i d u a l p r e f e r s to h a v e t h i n g s d e c i d e d , j u d g e d , settled a n d toward  of  senses.  t h e o r e t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .. (it is) a c a p a c i t y to see f u t u r e p o s s i b i l i t i e s ... a r e l i a n c e i n s p i r a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n on past experience."  a  use t h e i r i n t u i t i v e f u n c t i o n look f o r  a strongly developed  (it is r e f l e c t e d  can  a c a p a c i t y f o r r e a l i s m .. a r e l i a n c e on  e x p e r i e n c e r a t h e r t h a n theory." (p.7). P e o p l e who meaning,  out  L a w r e n c e (1983) d e s c r i b e d  awareness  o b s e r v a t i o n , a m e m o r y f o r facts a n d  finding  p r e f e r s e n s i n g (S), use t h e i r eyes and  information.  differentiated  or  planned.  deals  with  an  i n d i c a t e s the The  indicates a desire for flexibility  d r i v e is and  the  d r i v e is t o w a r d s an open, u n s t r u c t u r e d e n v i r o n m e n t .  The other  sub-scales o f the  (Myers  and  b e t w e e n the N — S themselves.  indicator  McCaulley, and  P—J  1985).  h a v e been  found  to be  independent  H o w e v e r , there does tend  to be  new  S e n s i n g types, who  ideas  and  each  correlation  scale w h i c h M y e r s b e l i e v e d to r e f l e c t a f a c t about the types r e p l y on  past e x p e r i e n c e t e n d  to be m o r e j u d g i n g i n  n a t u r e ( t h e r e f o r e r e f l e c t i n g a J p r e f e r e n c e ) w h i l e i n t u i t i v e types, who to  a  of  possibilities  tend  to  be  reflecting a P preference).  - 9 -  more  spontaneous  are m o r e o p e n  in nature  (therefore  It is important to note that all individuals possess the characteristics identified by  the M B T I , but  preference.  they do not use them w i t h equal l i k i n g ,  frequency, skill or  The indicator, therefore, sorts individuals on four scales.  (I)  Introversion  -— Extroversion (E)  (N)  Intuition  - Sensing (S)  (T)  Thinking  — Feeling (F)  (P)  Perceiving  - Judging (J)  O f particular interest to the researcher and relevant to this study are two of the scales most concerned with cognition.  These are the N—S scale and the P—J scale.  Both these sub-scales were used by Eggins (1979) in her study on concept attainment. The literature review in Chapter 2 further supports the relevance of these sub-scales in the educational environment and the impact of a deductive and inductive teaching approach on the achievement of individuals exhibiting either a N—P or N—J and a S— P or S—J preference.  Aptitude-Treatment Interaction  Aptitude-Treatment Interaction (Cronbach and Snow, 1969), Trait-Treatment Interaction (Berliner and Cahen, 1973) or A t t r i b u t e Treatment Interaction (Tobias, 1976) are terms used for a research design which attempts to determine the interaction of  learner  characteristics (aptitude)  Three possible relationships found interaction or disordinal interaction.  with in the  teaching model or strategy research  are:  (treatment).  no interaction, ordinal  These are presented graphically in Figure 1  below.  - 10 -  No Interaction Figure 1:  Ordinal Interaction  Disordinal Interaction  Types of relationships between treatment and aptitude  O f concern to the researcher are those instances of disordinal interaction.  In  these cases, one instructional treatment is found to be significantly better for students exhibiting a certain trait, ability or aptitude, (e.g Sensing) and another treatment is found to interfer with or hinder learning for that student. (Berliner and Cahen, 1973; Cronbach and Snow, 1977).  Delineation of the Research Problem  A lesson based on elements of poetry and following the two teaching models outlined above was prepared using overhead transparencies  and audio cassette tape.  Both presentations were approximately 30 minutes i n length and contained as many of the same sample items as was possible. The same voice was used on both tapes and an  - 11 -  effort  was made to keep tone consistent.  One hundred  and sixty-seven Grade 8  English students in seven intact classrooms were randomly assigned to one of the teaching  treatments.  Learning outcomes  were  measured  by  immediate posttest and a delayed posttest given seven days later.  a thirty-seven  item  The delayed posttest  contained the same items, but in a different order.  Attribute, in this case, cognitive style, was defined using the 126 choice pencil and paper test called the M B T I .  item forced  The tests were scored using a computer  program and students were identified on four scales:  I - E , N--S, T - F , and P - J .  The N—S and P—J sub-scale were used in this study.  The questions to be answered by this study are:  1.  is instruction for the S (sensing) and N (intuitive) attribute as effective using either model (i.e. w i l l the results show no interaction?)  2.  is instruction for N's better under Model B than for S's when the effect of the J preference is withheld (i.e. w i l l the results show disordinal interaction?)  3.  is instruction for S's better under Model A than for N's when the effect of the J preference is withheld (i.e. w i l l the results show disordinal interaction?)  - 12 -  It was anticipated that students who scored high on the J scale of the indicator (defined as the need for order, judging and closure) would perform well on either method, regardless i f they were N or S, because of an anticipated higher for accomplishment and achievement.  preference  This is generally supported by the research  literature.  It was anticipated that students who indicated an N preference would perform best under Model B when the effect approach encourages process.  of the J preference  is withheld, since this  learners to use their own analytical powers in the learning  It was also anticipated that students who indicated an S preference  would  perform best under Model A when the effect of the J preference is withheld, since this approach  is less inductive in nature and presents the material in a highly  structured and concrete manner.  This is also generally supported by the  research  literature.  Statement of Hypothesis  There w i l l be an interaction between student preference on the M B T I scales of S—N and  the outcomes of the teaching models as measured by immediate and delayed  posttest, when the effect of the J preference is not included in the data analysis.  - 13 -  C H A P T E R II  REVIEW OF R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E  For purposes of this study, literature which is relevant to the problem of how structure i n learning treatment, or lesson design affects the performance of particular learners w i l l be reviewed. The following sections relate to the literature search:  1.  A T I concept — an overview  2.  Recent Trends in A T I Research  3.  L e a r n i n g Structure as treatment  4.  Cognitive Style — an overview  5.  Cognitive Style as aptitude  6.  Other Research on Cognititive Style and the Interaction with L e a r n i n g Structure  7.  M B T I research in education Sensing/Intuition Judging/Perceiving  - 14 -  The A T I Concept — an overview  The  A T I (Aptitude Treatment  Cronbach's (1957)  attempt  Interaction)  to bring together  the  paradigm  was  correlational  the and  product  of  experimental  approaches to the study of how individuals learn.  Specifically A T I studies search for an interaction between the characteristics of a learner and teaching styles or strategies.  The notion is that when an educator  considers learner characteristics he may find that some treatments are much more beneficial  to the learner  than  others.  Berliner  and  Cahen (1973) reviewed  the  historical background of the A T I philosophy and noted that educators as early as Charcot in 1887, (cited in Carrier and McNergney, 1979) recommended capitalization on the preferred learning mode of students. and "visile". different outcomes.  Charcot  identifies learners as "audile"  L e w i n , 1935, (cited in Carrier and McNergney, 1979) also suggested that  learners  and  different  treatments  may  interact  to  produce  different  In the classical interaction statement, he defined behavior as being a  function of both person and environment.  Woodrow (1946) among others began to  search for i n d i v i d u a l differences and how these affected achievement in the school environment. The trend of education research of the early 1960's saw an emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l differences, as educators began to look beyond the mechanistic approaches to education  suggested  by  Skinner and, researchers  who advocated  programmed  instruction and other educational technologies as optimal learning strategy.  Mumford  in 1964 (cited in Torkelson, 1977) discussed the social, intellectual and humanistic consequences of the 'automation of knowledge' and urged educators to consider the possible dehumanizing effects system.  of large-scale use of automation  in the  Hoban, in 1970, (cited in Torkelson, 1977) in a similar  education  manner,  urged  educators to evaluate very carefully the "big technologies" - television, computers and  - 15 -  auto-instruction because he suggested  they were "depersonalizing".  Saettler, (1967,  cited i n Torkelson, 1977) urged that the focus of research into instructional methods should  move away  from one centered  around "technical accomplishments" to one  embracing a "behavioral science concept" which would consider 1) what to teach; 2) to whom; 3) i n what way. M a n y researchers began to consider the interaction of student characteristics and educational treatment as a viable alternative.  Despite the intuitive sense of "rightness" of these ideas and their potential usefulness w i t h the  to education practice, research reviews indicated some problems existed research  which  investigated  interactions.  Bracht and Glass (1968)  for  example, reported many disappointing results and conceptual as well as methodological problems. Bracht's (1970) review of 90 research articles found only five which showed disordinal interaction.  Cronbach focusing  and  attention  on  Snow (1969) suggested the  elimination of  approaches design  to strengthening  weaknesses  such  treatments, poorly defined aptitudes and incorrectly reported data.  as  A T I by haphazard  They went on to  suggest that early research to detect A T I was restricted by statistical designs which often d i d not reveal interactions.  (Cronbach and Snow, 1977). They reported that the  use of regression analysis and the setting of confidence levels are two widely used statistical techniques that have, since the mid 1970's, detected interactions with more surety.  Berliner and Cahen's (1973) review found that the A T I concept applied to other fields of study apart from education.  was being  They found applications to  such diverse fields of social science as medicine, anthropology, pharmacology and special education.  They also report a diversity of terminology - aptitude treatment  - 16 -  interaction, first coined and used by Cronbach and Snow (1969), attribute - treatment interaction, preferred  used  by Tobias (1969)  (Berliner  and  Cahen,  and  trait  1973).  - treatment  These  findings  interaction tend  w h i c h they  to  support  the  generalizability of the concept to other areas of research, and the variations in focus by some researchers.  The extensive survey of A T I research conducted by Cronbach and Snow (1977) reviewed social, philosophical, methodological and educational aspects of aptitude and instruction.  Their review included all areas of student characteristics,  including  abilities, ( A l v o r d , 1966; Bunderson ,1967; Gagne and Paradice, 1961; Yeager and Kissel, 1969), cognitive styles (Hunt and Sullivan, 1974; Stannes and Gordon, 1973; G r i p p i n , 1974), personality  traits (Harvey,  1970; Cattell, G u i l d f o r d  and  Zimmerman,  1966;  Whitehall and Jipson, 1970), and intellectual processing skills (Goldman, 1972; Greeno and  Mayer,  1972).  Their  review  of  treatment  includes  studies on  programmed  instruction (Roebuck, 1970; Bushman, 1971; and Berliner and Melanson, 1971 (cited in Cronbach  and  Snow,  c u r r i c u l u m (Olander  1977))  as well  as discovery  methods and  other  innovative  and Robertson, 1973; Barish, 1970; Rizzuto, 1970).  Statistical  methods and research designs are also presented in this review. were that  aptitude treatment  interactions  exist.  They  Their conclusions  stated, however,  that  no  interactions  were so well confirmed that they could be used directly as guides  instruction.  They called for more research which defines clearly what is meant by  learner differences  and w h i c h uses statistically sound analysis of data.  to  Holtan (1982)  reports that the use of analysis of variance and regression techniques are now being widely adopted.  - 17 -  Recent Trends in A T I Research  A u s b u r n and A u s b u r n (1978) suggested that in order for A T I research to yield results which have significance for education practice, it must consider the interaction of learner characteristics, task requirements and instructional variables.  Hart's 1985  A T I study used a media attribute approach and found A T I . Kyllonen's (1984) study showed the importance of including characteristics of task items on treatment effect. Certainly as the use of educational media increases this would appear to be a valuable area for further study.  Another area of research includes locus of control, where emphasis is placed on the learner's choice and use of educational options.  (Peterson, J a n i c k i and Swing  1981). Tobias (1984) studied student selection of macroprocess to improve learning in a lesson about data processing. Her study indicated students were often not aware of what microprocesses were best for them and therefore often d i d not benefit from their use.  Slavin  and  Oickle  interacting w i t h learning.  (1980)  investigated  the  social  conditions involved  H i s treatments included team assisted  ability group active teaching and an untreated  control group.  and  individualization, Achievement and  attitudinal effects were compared. Teacher role and interaction of teaching style was investigated by Marshall and Weinstein (1985) and Paradise and Block (1984) and the importance  of  student-teacher  congruity, in terms  of  cognitive style  and  other  personality factors was demonstrated.  Another important trend in A T I research is Snow's work on aptitude.  (Snow  and Lohman, 1984). Their aptitude theory seeks a grounding of i n d i v i d u a l differences  - 18 -  in general psychological terms in order to explain the nature of cognitive aptitude in learning from instruction. This reflects Snow's hope that the end result of research into A T I would be a theory of cognitive process. (Snow, 1977).  Despite the problems experienced by A T I research, Cronbach and Snow (1977) supported this approach with the belief that:  "to abandon the aptitude-treatment interaction model is to assume there is only one path toward educational developmental, and that i n d i v i d u a l differences have no implication save the fatalistic one, of telling the educator that some pupils w i l l advance more rapidly than others no matter what he does", (p.193).  Learning Structure as Treatment  The two teaching methods used in this study differed from one another in respect of the type and degree of structure.  Method A contained the most structure  and began w i t h a presentation of rules, principles or definitions and then moved towards application and practice. In this respect this approach may be considered an example of a deductive sequence. (Shavelson and E b r a h i m , 1978). Method B imposed much less structure on the learner and began with the presentation of specific cases and examples, moving from the specific to the general rules or principles.  In this  respect this approach may be considered an example of an inductive sequence (ibid).  The literature on teaching methods in A T I tends to pair instructional methods for purposes of comparison.  There are five main categories of comparison:  (1)  methods and sequences of programmed instruction, (2) programmed vs. conventional  - 19 -  instruction, (3) mastery vs. conventional instruction, (4) more verbal vs. less verbal instruction (5) inductive vs. deductive instruction.  This review w i l l concern itself  w i t h the last category.  Many  studies  have  been  conducted  which  attempt  to  assess the  relative  effectiveness of inductive vs. deductive instruction (Gagne and Paradise, 1961; K i n g , Roberts and Dropp, 1969; Remstad, 1969; Sakmyster, 1972; Steve and Tennyson, 1974; Dossey, 1975; Douglas and Kahle, 1977). studies  concerned  with  the  specific  More relevant for our purposes are those  interactions  of  learner  characteristics  and  deductive vs. inductive approaches.  Sobel (1956) conducted a study to assess concept attainment for grade 9 Algebra students.  U s i n g general mental ability as the aptitude, the inductive method  found to be more effective for the highs while no difference was found  was  between  treatment type for the lows.  A similar ordinal interaction was found by M a y n a r d and Strickland (1969) who compared a lecture or guided discovery sequence with a self discovery  sequence.  Students scoring high in mental ability d i d better on the discovery method, lows showed no difference.  Trown  (1970), in a study  assessing  the  interaction  between  a  construct and structure in learning materials found introverts benefitted deductive sequence, extroverts from the inductive sequence.  - 20 -  personality from the  Mayer  and  Greeno (1972) found that college students of high crystallized  ability performed better on a treatment emphasizing meanings of concepts. Students w i t h low crystallized ability performed better on a treatment emphasizing algorithms.  Egan and Greeno (1973) also w o r k i n g with crystallized ability found that a deductive approach was most beneficial to low ability college students than was the inductive approach, which benefitted the high ability student.  Branch (1973) used a personality construct, analytical style (defined by Siegel and  Siegel, 1965) i n his A T I research. The inductive treatment was found to be better  for the lows, while no difference was found between treatment methods for the highs.  Mayer (1974) found disordinal A T I in his study.  Results showed that low  ability (crystallized ability aptitude) performed best in the deductive treatment while highs performed best in the inductive treatment.  Catanyano and Goodwin (1977) also found inductive sequences more effective for high crystallized ability college students and the deductive approach best for the low ability students.  A study  by Rizzuto (1970) conducted  over one month of instruction used  inductive and deductive instruction i n English.  The Grade 8 students were tested for  verbal ability ( S C A T ) as one aptitude measure.  The other measure was student sex.  Three classes received formal and precise instruction, following a deductive approach while the other three were structured more inductively with the teacher acting as the catalyst and fielding many open-ended questions. H i s study extended over twenty - 45 minute class periods.  Although results for ability x treatment were not significant, he  - 21 -  found that sex of the student was significant. G i r l s d i d much better on the inductive treatment than d i d boys.  In reviewing the study by Rizzuto, Cronbach and Snow  (1977) report that the statistical approach diluted the results, and a much more significant  disordinal  interaction may, in fact, have been produced.  They were  u n w i l l i n g to accept the null hypothesis and consider the study to be inconclusive.  Storm and Hocwar (1982) found course structure interacted w i t h personality attributes.  Those who preferred  moderate  to high structure  were identified  as  dependable, cooperative, resourceful and adaptable on the Adjective Check List scale (ACL).  M c G i v e r n and L e v i n (1983) used fifth graders identified as having either high or low levels of vocabulary knowledge. Three treatment designs, varying in amount of structure were used to test for A T I . Interaction was found which showed that degree of structure made far less difference for high knowledge than for lows. Lows were considerably disadvantaged in the low level structure treatments.  Several studies were found to be inconclusive with respect to interactions with deductive/inductive sequences  (Brown, 1963; Becker, 1967; Rector and Henderson,  1970; Barrish, 1970; Olander and Robertson (1973).  It would appear that some studies d i d produce inconclusive results, of these, however, only students).  Olander  Many  and  A T I ' s were  Robertson's research  used  a large sample size (374  found between structure  in learning materials and  different student aptitudes. Neither an inductive nor a deductive approach was found to be best for all learners.  - 22 -  Cronbach and Snow (1977), found that the studies in this area often d i d not report interactions with general mental ability and lesson design.  Studies subsequent  to their review have found that complex interactions may exist (Tobias, 1984), and that researchers must look beyond main effect or first order interactions.  Cognitive Style -- an overview  There has been much research done which attempts to define how individuals process information. Lowenfeld (1945) identified learners as V i s u a l / H a p t i c perceptual types.  W i t k i n (1950) defined learners as Field Dependant or F i e l d Independent based  on their ability to perceive objects distinctly from an imbedded background.  Kagan  (1966) defined a cognitive style dimension in terms of the tempo of hypothesis testing. He identified learns as reflective or impulsive.  Santostefano (1964) elaborated on the  work of H o l z m a n (1954) and Gardener (1959) and suggested Levelling/Sharpening as a measure of cognitive style. H e later redefined this trait as constricted/flexible control (Santostefano,  1971).  Goldman (1972) classified learners as logical (those learning  from rational processes), or mnemonic (those learning from examples).  The  researcher's  choice of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator  as a test  to  determine cognitive style is predicated on the findings in many recent research studies which have implications for effective teaching. The M B T I classifies learners as one of sixteen possible types - that is the result of the various permutations of the four scales ( E / I , N / S , T / F , P / J ) . This classification system allows much more scope in accounting for learner differences than a theory which identifies only two types of learners.  - 23 -  Correlations have been found between some of the scales of the M B T I and other measures of Cognitive Style.  Eggins (1978), for example, found that S / N correlated  with Witkin's field dependent and field independent types.  Cognitive Style as attribute  Cronbach (1967) called for a new definition of aptitude which would consider styles of thought and personality traits as well as ability.  The rationale for this  approach was that the traditional A T I research which focused on ability failed to expose the processes which generated  i n d i v i d u a l differences.  This researcher  has  elected to use the term attribute as defined by English and English (p. 39) and favored by Tobias (1969). Cognitive style is defined as "an habitual pattern or preferred style of information processing" (Cronbach and Snow, 1977, p. 375). Some researchers used the term to refer to processes distinct from abilities and personality traits, although there is no logical or empirical basis for this distinction.  The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its 16 different type styles is considered a cognitive style in this study, since at least two of its four scales identify preferred modes of gathering and processing information. These are N—S and P—J and they are used in this study.  Eggins (1979) defined the M B T I as a personality trait measure.  A  review of the literature, however, shows that personality traits belong to a large category which include such relatively unstable attributes  as anxiety, (Spense and  Spense, 1966, Myers and Dunham, 1971, Walters and Tobias, 1985) neuroticism, (Leith and Wisdom, 1970) and dogmatism (Rehn, 1985), as well as more stable attributes such as extroversion and introversion ( A m a r i a and L e i t h , 1969). In addition, numerous A T I studies have been conducted which use such well established Personality Tests as the  - 24 -  Omnibus Personality Inventory (Mayer, 1974) and the Gordon Personality Profile (Tallmadge and Shearer, 1971) to identify how learners process information.  There  seems to be no clear distinction between personality trait and cognitive style. researcher  has used Cronbach and Snow's definition  This  of cognitive style and  considered that the constructs of the M B T I do in fact represent  attributes  has  which  reflect an habitual, consistent and preferred mode of processing information.  Other Research on Cognitive Style and the Interaction with Learning Structure  Hunt and H a r d t (1967) defined a learner difference they called conceptual level  (CL).  They  found  that  high  C L students performed  environment, low C L students needed more structure. confirmed these findings in further research.  best  in a  flexible  H u n t and Sullivan (1974)  Other studies with respect to C L and  structure include H u n t and Tomlinson (1971) and Hunt and Noys (1972).  G r i e v e and Davis (1971) compared expository/discovery teaching in a Grade 9 geography class.  The results on a posttest were analyzed separately  for sex and  students from the extremes of field dependence - independence range were included. A T I was not significant for girls, but field  dependant  boys were found to have  benefitted most from the discovery approach. W i t k i n (1976) stated this was due to the fact that a more intensive, personal and concrete experience with a more congenial social context was provided in the discovery approach.  M c L e o d and Adams (1980)  investigated aptitude treatment interactions in the area of mathematics instruction using expository and discovery methods and found interaction.  Decreasing the level  of structure benefitted high achievers and disadvantaged low achievers. Their earlier  - 25 -  work (McLeod and Adams 1979) used field dependence/independence  as aptitude and  varying levels of guidance (more or less structure) in mathematics education. also detected  interaction between  field independence  They  and a lower level of teacher  guidance.  A number of A T I studies using field dependence and field independence as the attribute measure and structure as the treatment have not produced significant results. (Kennels, 1970; G r i p p e n , 1973; A n g l i n , 1979; Schwen, Bednar and Wolfe, 1979).  It is  important to note, however, that further developments in data analysis have indicated A T I where none were i n i t i a l l y reported. (Cronbach and Snow, 1977).  M B T I Research in Education  The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was published in 1962 by the Educational Testing Service (ETS).  Large scale studies to examine aptitude  and  achievement  patterns i n over 3,000 high school students and 8,000 college students have also been conducted in conjunction with E T S .  C a r l y n n (1977) has produced intercorrelation,  r e l i a b i l i t y and validity data on the M B T I which demonstrates its usefulness instrument.  M c C a u l l e y (1981) confirmed these findings.  as an  More recently, test-retest  r e l i a b i l i t y showed correlations generally in excess of .8. (Myers and M c C a u l l e y , 1985). It was also found that significant correlations existed between M B T I dimensions and such well established tests as the 16PF (16 Personality Factor), the M M P I (Minnesota Multi-Phasic Inventory), the O A I S (Opinion Attitude Interests Survey) and the A l l p o r t Vernon-Lindzey study of values. (Myers and McCaulley, 1985).  - 26 -  The M B T I is being widely used on learning and study skills centres to help students learn to understand their own particular learning style and to help teachers understand what teaching method, strategy or style is best for them. (Lawrence, 1984).  This review focuses on the research done in two of the four scales of the M B T I - those w h i c h are relevant to this study. preferences  and  their  impact  M u c h of the research identifies learning  on achievement,  as the  following  research  review  indicates.  Intuition/Sensing  M c C a u l l e y and Natter (1974) reported that television and audiovisual aids were most appreciated by sensing types.  Sensing types were also found to have benefitted  most from this type of instruction (Golanty-Koel, 1978).  They preferred laboratory  exercises and demonstrations (Golliday, 1975; Roberts, 1982), and found memorizing an easy task.  (Hoffman, Waters and Berry, 1981).  This type of learner tended to be  slower to generalize from examples to concepts (Yokomoto and Ware, 1981); or from reading material to real l i f e (Golanty-Koel,  1978).  They preferred  independently and appreciated opportunities to practice new skills. found to set modest  not to work  They were also  academic goals for themselves, (Grant, 1965; M c C a u l l e y  and  Natter, 1974; Sachs, 1978). McCaulley (1976) addresses the issue of higher performance of the i n t u i t i v e student  in school and notes that academic aptitude tests tend to  emphasize symbolic and abstract t h i n k i n g and de-emphasize practical intelligence and common sense (the strengths of the sensing student).  M c C a u l l e y and Natter (1974)  found that sensing students tried to meet academic goals by planning their time and w o r k i n g i n a systematic way.  - 27 -  Carlson and L e v y (1973), McCaulley and Natter (1974), and Smith, Irey and M c C a u l l e y (1973) found that intuitive types preferred to work on their own initiative. Intuitive types preferred to work with modules which were self paced and enabled them to avoid extensive practice. They were found to prefer learning activities which involved experimental or interpersonal laboratories, rather than step-by-step laboratory exercises or demonstration.  (Golliday, 1975; Roberts, 1982).  They also reported to  feeling academically superior to other students and expected to achieve higher grades (Grant, 1965; Sachs, 1978). Research, in fact, does indicate that i n t u i t i v e types score higher on academic aptitude measures than sensing types (Myers, 1962, Reynolds and Hope, 1970).  Essay questions were favored by intuitives (Grant, 1965) and teachers  tended to see them as more insightful and making more meaningful comments in class discussions (Carskadon, 1978).  Judging/Perceiving  Judging types to a significant degree  reported  that they  work  efficiently  according to their schedules, get their assignments in on time (McCaulley and Natter, 1974) and preferred to learn from clearly organized materials (McCaulley and Natter, 1974; Carlson and L e v y , 1973, Smith, Irey and McCaulley, 1973).  Students of the  judging type were found to achieve slightly better than perceptive types — their characteristics of compliance with rules and their systematic approach to work are seen as much more conducive to study skills.  Perceptive types were found to be more  l i k e l y to start late on assignments, let their work pile up and consequently need to cram at the end of a course before the final examination (McCaulley and Natter, 1974). The spontaneous and flexible approach of the perceptive type may clash with a  - 28 -  highly structured authoritarian approach. Shymansky (1978) found that a reduction in structure and the guidance of a non-authoritarian and non-directive teacher was more compatible w i t h the perceiving learner.  The literature reviewed indicated that most data collected from M B T I research was used to correlate type and achievement. used the M B T I as a measure of attribute. the author's work.  O n l y one A T I study was found which  The study by Eggins (1979) is relevant to  This study used the A T I concept with the M B T I constructs of  Intuition—Sensing and Perceiving—Judging as one of several attribute measures, and the type of classroom instruction method as treatment.  This research study dealt with the teaching of a Science concept using slides and an audio tape to 350 Grade 6 students.  The three lesson designs were structured  using different models of teaching: an inductive approach; a didactic approach; and a highly structured and concrete approach. the three methods of teaching.  Students were randomly assigned to one of  In addition to the M B T I , crystallized intelligence (as  measured by reading comprehension), fluid intelligence (as measured by the Figures Analysis Test) and field independence/field dependence (as measured by the Group Embedded Figures Test) were used for aptitude measurement.  Concept attainment was  measured by immediate posttest and by a delayed posttest ten days later.  Eggins found that field dependent as well as field independent i n t u i t i v e types benefitted most from the less structured, inductive approach. The structured, concrete method was most effective for the sensing types, i f they were field dependent.  The  didactic approach was more effective for field independent sensing types. Students w i t h high crystallized intelligence received scores above the mean on the posttest, regardless of teaching method.  Perceiving types of high crystallized intelligence  - 29 -  performed effective  best on the more structured w i t h the low crystallized  method.  The didactic method was more  intelligence perceiving type of learners.  Sensing—Judging and Intuitive—Judging types succeeded with all three models. Sensing—Perceiving  types  and  the  Intuitive—Perceiving types  were  The The  significantly  affected by the instructional design. The Intuitive—Perceiving types benefitted by the inductive approach. It was found that they remembered significantly less i f taught by the highly structured method.  The Sensing—Perceiving types, who are most often  underachievers in school, were most successful with the structured lesson design.  Summary  This literature review has focused on how structure affects the performance of particular learners.  in learning  treatment  The research tends to suggest that  different amounts of structure (deductive vs. inductive, guided vs. unguided, concept vs. algorithm, high structure vs. low structure) does impact on the performance of different  types of learners.  O n the whole, the less structured inductive type of  approach was best suited to those individuals who were identified as exhibiting these characteristics:  high mental ability, extroversion, high crystallized ability, or low  analytical style.  The research on the educational applications of the Myers-Briggs  Type Indicator supports its value as a tool to predict learning style preferences and achievement.  The study by Eggins (1979) used an A T I concept and found significant  interaction between learner attributes on the Sensing (S) and Intuitive (N) scale and the amount of structure in lesson design. Essentially she found that N types preferred and achieved most in a low structure discovery learning environment than d i d S types who were more successful in a structured environment.  - 30 -  C H A P T E R III  PROCEDURES  Introduction  The experiment began w i t h all students being tested using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator F o r m G . The test was administered and scored in late November, 1986. In January, 1987 all students were given a survey test to determine the nature and extent of f a m i l i a r i t y with poetry concepts. chosen.  A s a result, eight poetry concepts were  These included four methods of creating sound:  alliteration, consonance,  assonance and onomatopoeia; and three methods of making comparisons: metaphor, simile and personification.  Although several students indicated that some of the  concepts seemed familiar, none were able to define or label examples of the concepts. The survey also contained concepts which were not chosen for the experiment.  The  survey was administered one month before the actual lesson and posttest were given to avoid contamination. The concepts used in the experimental lesson were all w i t h i n the scope and sequence of the Grade Eight Language Arts c u r r i c u l u m .  In mid-February, 1987, classes were randomly assigned to one of the treatment lessons.  Instruction was given and the posttest administered.  given one week later.  - 31 -  A delayed posttest was  Experimental Design  This experiment followed a modification of Campbell and Stanley's "Posttestonly no control group design" N o control group was used, but comparisons were made between the effects of the two treatments.  Attribute Measure  Figure 2 below shows the design:  Method A  •PT  •DPT  Method B  •PT  •DPT  Random Assignment  Figure 2: Experimental Design  The experimental design in this study follows the format used in the Eggins (1979) study, but the author's study makes use of a survey test.  It should be noted  that this survey was used only to determine the concepts used in the lesson content, rather than as a method for assigning students to a specific treatment group.  Sample  Permission was obtained from the Principal of Delview Junior H i g h , North Delta, B . C . and the Department Head of English to conduct the experiment using all  - 32 -  Grade 8 English  students  at  the  school (187) in seven different  classes.  (The  difference between sample size, 167, and total enrollment was due to absences.)  After  absentee students  were eliminated from  the  study, sample size for  Treatment A was 68 students and for Treatment B, 98 students.  The smaller number  for Method A resulted from the fact that the seven classes were kept in tact and Method A was administered to only three classes.  It was felt that keeping classes  intact would be the least disruptive to the students and the school timetable.  Cronbach and Snow (1977) suggest that at least 100 students be used for each treatment group.  The smaller sample sizes in this study is seen as a limitation of the  research.  Students who were absent d u r i n g M B T I testing were allowed to participate in the lesson and post-test, but results were not included. Students who were absent for the lesson and post-test were not included. Those absent for the delayed post-test were not included.  Development of Treatments  The overhead transparencies and audio tape presentations conformed to these criteria:  1.  Poetry  concepts  consonance,  were  assonance  classified and  as  sound  onomatopoeia;  metaphor, simile, personification.  - 33 -  device techniques: alliteration, and  methods  of  comparison:  2.  The programs developed were a modification of the principles outlined by Bruner (1967) and Briggs and Gagne (1972).  3.  A s many poetry examples as possible were common to both groups.  4.  The length of each presentation mode was approximately 30 minutes in length.  5.  The narrator took care to maintain the same voice tone and level for both presentations.  6.  The presentation students.  7.  material was w i t h i n the comprehension level of Grade 8  Examples were taken from regular school textbooks.  Materials covered followed the scope and sequence  for Grade 8 English as  outlined by the M i n i s t r y of Education, in the Language Arts C u r r i c u l u m .  8.  Both treatment groups used overhead transparencies and audio cassette tape.  9.  Background music used for both groups was Stivell's Renaissance of the Celtic Harp.  The researcher, with an assistant, presented the instructional sequence to each English class i n its regular timetable slot.  Instructions were given to each group and  information regarding the purpose of the study was also provided.  Students were  encouraged to ask questions before the program was started, since there was no opportunity to do so after the program began.  - 34 -  Method A , the more structured approach, began with a statement of objectives and moved from the concrete to the more abstract examples of each concept.  This  sequence is a modified version of the principles set out by Briggs and Gagne (1974). Chapter I gives a more detailed description and schematic.  A sample sequence is  summarized in Table 3.  Method B had a much less structured approach.  T w o features of the program  were typical of Bruner's ideas: (1) students were given the opportunity to discover which critical attributes are essential for each concept, (2) students were given the opportunity to discuss their ideas with another student.  Feedback was then given  about the critical attributes of each concept.  Chapter I also gives a more detailed  description of this approach with a schematic.  A sample sequence is summarized in  Table 4.  - 35 -  T A B L E III Sample Sequence - Method A: Concept - Consonance  AUDITORY SEQUENCE  OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES  (* indicates verbal instruction)  Notice the repetitive sound in these examples:  1)  H i p , Top, Skip, Flop went the frog, grinning a winning smile...  2)  Consonance is the repetition of final consonant sounds i n neighbouring words.  [Overhead read] [Overhead read]  [Overhead read]  Lets look at three more examples on your worksheet, underline what words create consonance.  * Again, you w i l l have about 20 sec.  ...without stopping, humming or swallowing his lifesaver...  [MUSIC]  ...with one sharp chop and a whop... ...with wicked and hooded eyes...  * The "ing" sound in stopping, humming, swallowing, creates consonance i n example 1 * The repetition o f the "p" sound i n example 2, and * the "ed" sound i n example 3 also creates consonance  3)  ...without stopping, humming or swallowing his lifesaver... .with one sharp, chop) and a whop... ...with wicked and hooded eyes...  - 36 -  T A B L E IV Sample Sequence - Method B: Concept - Consonance  AUDITORY SEQUENCE  [Overhead is read]  OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES  1)  This is an example: ...without stopping, humming or swallowing his life saver...  A g a i n , w i t h your partner try and determine what consonance is all about. Remember, you are looking for sound devices  This is an example: ...with wicked and hooded eyes  [MUSIC]  This is not an example: ...she winked an evil eye...  [Overhead is read]  This is not an example: ...he rode across the purple moor...  2)  ...without stopping, humming or swallowing his lifesaver... ...with wicked and hooded eyes... i»-Consonance is the repetition of sounds in I neighbouring words  T h i n k carefully what k i n d of sound devices  (LIFT TAB TO REVEAL DEFINITION)  This is not an example: ...Giant geraniums gyrated...  [Overhead is read]  This is not an example: ...Featureless Fileclerks flocked... ( 1 0 sec. to process information) [Overhead is read]  This is an example: ...He came riding, sliding, g u i d i n g *  ^ C o n s o n a n c e is the repetition of ENDING sounds in neighbouring words  (LIFT TAB TO REVEAL DEFINITION)  - 37 -  T A B L E I V (cont'd) AUDITORY SEQUENCE  OVERHEAD TRANSPARENCIES  [Overhead is read] * A g a i n , try and determine why 1&2 are examples and 3&4 are not.  This is an example: ...With one sharp chop and a whop., This is not an example: ...It was pie in the sky... This is not an example: ...The happy monkey chose to flee..  [MUSIC]  [Overhead is read] This is an example: ...With one sharp_ chop, and a whop... onsonance is the repetition of ending consonant sounds in neighbouring words (LIFT TAB TO REVEAL DEFINITION)  Development of the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  The learning level achieved by students was measured by posttest and delayed posttest.  These tests were scored out of 37 possible marks.  same items:  Both tests contained the  10 true/false, 20 examples to be labeled and seven definitions. The order  of the test items was changed for each test. The following guidelines were followed in test construction:  1.  all test items were clear and concise examples of the concepts taught;  2.  none of the test items were examples used during the instructional sequence.  - 38 -  3.  each treatment group was given 20 minutes to complete posttest and the delayed posttest.  4.  the test measure was reviewed with the Head of the English Department and another English teacher staff member.  Myers-Briggs Type Indicator  The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form G , consists of 126 forced-choice items. Parts I and III require the student to choose from alternatives prepared to represent  the  preferences of each of the typeologies outlined by Myers and based on Jung's theory. Part II represents word-pair items and the student chooses the most appealing.  Final  scoring gives the student a position on each of the four continuous scales measured by the M B T I .  Table 5 provides sample items from each part of the test.  The reader is  referred to Chapter 2 which provides the related literature review of this measure.  - 39 -  TABLE V Sample Test Items - M B T I  PART I  *  *  Do you usually get along better with: (A)  imaginative people, or  (B)  Realistic people  In a large group, do you more often: (A)  introduce others, or  (B)  get introduced  Does following a schedule: (A)  appeal to you, or  (B)  cramp you  Is it a higher compliment to be called: (A)  a person of real feeling, or  (B)  a consistently reliable person  PART II  *  (A) (A) (A) (A)  statement systematic uncritical sociable  concept (B) casual (B) critical (B) detached (B)  PART III  *  O n most matters, do you: (A) have a pretty definite opinion, or (B) l i k e to keep an open mind Would you be more w i l l i n g to take on a heavy load of extra work for the sake of: (A) extra comforts and luxuries, or (B) a chance to achieve something important Do you usually: (A) (B)  enjoy the present moment and make the most of it feel that something just ahead is more important  Which mistake would be more natural for you: (A) to d r i f t from one thing to another all your l i f e (B) to stay in a rut that didn't suit you - 40 -  R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y  Test-retest reliability showed correlations generally in excess of .8. (Myers and M c C a u l l e y , 1985).  Since the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was designed to implement  Jung's theory of psychological types, its validity demonstrate factors predicted by the theory. effects of the basic preferences predictions of the theory.  is determined  by its ability  to  Behaviors are overt indicators of the  and these should therefore be consistent with  the  R i c h (1972) found correlations ranging to .68 among the  M B T I and two other Jungian Instruments, the JTS (Jungian Type Survey) and the Grey-Wheelwright,  which  suggests  that  the  instruments  are  tapping  with  measurement  the  same  constructs.  The  MBTI  has  also  been  correlated  personality, interest surveys and academic tests.  other  scales  of  It should be noted that correlations  are limited in terms of evidence for construct validity since they report on each dimension separately  and not on each of the sixteen types as a dynamic entity.  However, significant correlations were found between M B T I dimensions and specific factors measured by such well established tests as the 16 P F (16 Personality Factor), the  MMPI  (Minnesota Multi-Phasic  Inventory),  the  OPI  (Omnibus  Inventory), the O A I S (Opinion A t t i t u d e Interests Survey), and the L i n d z e y Study of Values.  (Myers and McCaulley, 1985).  Personality  Allport-Vernon-  Table 6 provides a sample  listing of the Intuition/Sensing correlations with the above-mentioned measures.  - 41 -  T A B L E VI  Correlations of Sensing and Intuition with other measure  TEST  S E N S I N G T Y P E (S)  I N T U I T I V E T Y P E (N)  Factor G : Factor N : Factor Q^:  Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor  16PF  Personality Factor Test  Proper, rule bound Shrewd, worldly Controlled  B: E: I: M: QI:  Intelligence Assertive Tender Minded Imaginative Experimenting Independence Creativity  OPI  Omnibus Personality Inventory  PO: MF: IDC:  Practical Outlook Masculinity-Femininity Intellectual disposition for practical learning  Tl: T h i n k i n g introversion T O : Theoretical orientation TS: Estheticism C O : Complexity A U : Autonomy R O : Religious Orientation IE: Impulsive Expression A M : Altruism  OAIS  Opinion Attitude Interests Survey  ALLPORTVERNONLINDZEY STUDY OF VALUES  Business Biological Sciences  Humanities Social Sciences Creative Personality  Economic  Esthetic  A l l correlations are significant to p < .001. N varies from 66 - 645 Source: Myers & McCaulley: (1985) The Manual pgs. 184-187  - 42 -  C H A P T E R IV  ANALYSIS OF THE DATA  Analysis  The hypothesis, stated operationally in Chapter I, defines the area of interest in this study.  The researcher sought to determine i f there was any possible interaction  between student characteristics and the degree of structure in lesson design.  Prior to testing of the hypothesis, analysis were done to check for potential confounding effects as set out below.  1.  Comparison of Treatment G r o u p Means  A primary requirement of aptitude treatment interaction, attribute treatment interaction or trait treatment interaction research is that the means for each treatment group  be  similar,  that  is, that  attributable to treatment alone.  no  significant difference  exists  which  may  be  Table 7 and 9 indicate that means are similar for  both groups on the posttest and delayed posttest. The one way analysis of variance for the two treatment groups on both test measures is presented in Tables 8 and 10. analysis indicates that there were no significant differences.  - 43 -  The  T A B L E VII Means and S.D. for Both Teaching Methods on P.T.  METHOD  n  MEAN  S.D.  A  68  22.97  8.84  B  99  23.33  8.23  167  23.19  TOTAL  T A B L E VIII One Way Analysis of Variance for the T w o Treatment Methods on P.T.  SOURCE OF V A R I A N C E  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  5.23  5.23  Within Groups  165  12019.46  72.85  TOTAL  166  F  .0718  (P=.7891 - not significant)  - 44 -  TABLE IX  Means and Standard Deviations for both Teaching Methods on D.P.T.  METHOD  n  MEAN  S.D.  A  68  23.32  7.75  B  99  22.99  6.89  167  23.12  TOTAL  TABLE X One Way Analysis of Variance for the T w o Treatment Methods on D.P.T.  SOURCE OF V A R I A N C E  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  4.39  4.39  Within Groups  165  8783.99  53.24  TOTAL  167  F  .0825  (P=.7743 - not significant)  - 45 -  2.  Comparison of Treatment Outcomes Over Time  This analysis was done to ensure that the learning effect  had not  changed  significantly over time.  Tables 11 and 12 provide the means and standard deviations for Methods A and B on the posttest and delayed posttest.  A one-way analysis of variance was also  performed on the posttest and delayed posttest scores for Treatment A and Treatment B separately.  A g a i n no significant difference was found. The results are analyzed on  Tables 13 and 14.  TABLE XI  Means and Standard Deviations for Method A on P.T. and D.P.T.  METHOD A n = 68  MEAN  S.D.  Posttest  22.97  8.84  Delayed posttest  23.32  7.75  TOTAL  23.15  Pearson Product Moment Correlation established reliability between the posttest and the delayed posttest at r=.78.  - 46 -  TABLE XII  Means and Standard Deviations for Method B on P.T. and D.P.T.  METHOD B n = 99  MEAN  S.D.  Posttest  23.33  8.23  Delayed posttest  22.99  6.89  TOTAL  23.16  Pearson Product Moment Correlation established reliability between the posttest and the delayed posttest at r=.82.  T A B L E XIII One Way Analysis of Variance for Treatment A on the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  SOURCE OF VARIANCE  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  4.17  4.27  W i t h i n Groups  134  9398.15  70.14  TOTAL  136  F  .0595  (P=.8077 - not significant)  - 47 -  TABLE XIV One Way Analysis of Variance for Treatment B on the Posttest and Delayed Posttest  SOURCE OF VARIANCE  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  5.72  5.72  Within Groups  196  11405.30  58.19  TOTAL  198  3.  F  .0983  (P=.7542 - not significant)  V a l i d i t y of The Test Instruments  A n attempt to establish validity of the posttest and delayed posttest was made through consultation with the head of the English department member of that department.  and another  staff  Three questions were subsequently eliminated from the  tests as these questions, in the opinion of the staff members consulted, were felt to be ambiguous. The tests were therefore scored out of a maximum score of 37. R e l i a b i l i t y of  the tests was established  through  correlation of test scores with  administered (January, 1987) cross-grade mid-term examination scores. did not participate in the construction of the cross-grade test.  the  recently  The researcher  The Pearson-Product  Moment Correlations were established at r=.71 for the posttest on Method A , r=.71 for the posttest on Method B, and r=.62 and r=.74 on the delayed posttests respectively. Results are set out in Tables 15 and 16.  - 48 -  TABLE X V Correlations of Posttest Scores with Mid-term Scores  n  METHOD  CORRELATION  A  68  .7053  B  99  .7092  TABLE X V I Correlations of Delayed Posttest Scores with Mid-term Scores  METHOD  4.  n  CORRELATION  A  68  .6198  B  99  .7369  Comparison of Treatment G r o u p Attribute Distributions  To  ensure that  student  attribute  had  been  randomly  distributed  in  each  treatment group, a comparison of the means and standard deviations of the continuous scores of the S—N and J—P construct of the M B T I for Method A and Method B was performed.  The results are presented  in Table 17. A one-way analysis of variance  presented in Tables 18 and 19 indicated that no significant difference was found.  - 49 -  TABLE XVII Comparison of the Means of the Continuous Scores of the S-N and J-P Constructs for Method A and B  CONSTRUCT  METHOD A  METHOD B (n=99)  (n=68)  S/N  100.06  98.92  J/P  112.85  109.40  TABLE XVIII Analysis of Variances of S-N Preferences in Treatment A and B  SOURCE  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  52.35  52.35  Within Groups  165  64939.32  393.57  TOTAL  167  F  .1330  (P=.7158073 - not significant)  - 50 -  TABLE X I X Analysis of Variances of J-P Preferences in Treatment A and B  SOURCE  D.F.  S.S.  M.S.  Between Groups  1  479.50  479.50  Within Groups  165  108210.14  655.82  TOTAL  167  These data  F  .7312  (P=.3937344 - not significant)  indicate that no significant differences  exist which  could  be  attributable to treatment alone, to the decay of learning over time, to lack of validity of the instrument or to differences in attribute distribution.  Hypothesis  The hypothesis is stated in the null form in four parts to permit statistical analysis of possible interaction between either or both scales used from the M B T I and the outcomes of the two treatment methods:  Hypothesis:  a.  There w i l l be no significant interaction between the S—N scales of the indicator and treatment A as measured by immediate and delayed posttest.  - 51 -  b.  There w i l l be no significant interaction between the S—N scales of the indicator and Treatment B as measured by immediate and delayed posttest.  c.  There w i l l be no interaction between the S—N scales of the indicator and Treatment  A (when only those  individuals expressing a P preference  are  considered) as measured by immediate and delayed posttest.  d.  There w i l l be no interaction between the S—N scales o f the Treatment  B (when only  those  indicator and  individuals expressing a P preference  are  considered) as measured by immediate and delayed posttest.  To test parts (a) and (b) of the hypothesis, a linear regression and T-test were performed on the data. data, E P I S T A T  T w o statistical computer packages were used to analyze the  and L O T U S  1-2-3.  The regression analysis data is summarized in  Table 20 and the graph in Figure 3 shows disordinal interaction between the attributes and the treatment methods.  For treatment A and the S—N scales of the indicator, no  significant correlation was found on the posttest (r = .0933, T = .7613 and P = .4492). For treatment B and the S—N scales of the indicator, a significant correlation was found on the posttest (r = .2941, T = 3.0306, P = 3.1295489E-03 or P < .005 with 97 d.f.)  - 52 -  POSTTEST OUTCOME  36 TREATMENT B 32  28  TREATMENT A  24  20  16  12  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  S PREFERENCE  70  80  90  100  110  120  130  140  150  N PREFERENCE  Figure 3: Disordinal Interaction of S—N Preference and Treatment A and 13 on the Postttest  TABLE X X Regression Output for S—N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on Posttest  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom  18.9363 8.9304 0.0087 68.0000 66.0000  X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.0403 0.0529  Treatment B Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom  10.8633 7.9447 0.0865 99.0000 97.0000  X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.1261 0.0416  - 54 -  TABLE X X I  Regression Output for S—N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  18.9569 7.8186 0.0133 68.0000 66.0000 0.0436 0.0463  Treatment B Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  9.3445 6.4241 0.1477 99.0000 97.0000 0.1379 0.0336  Figure 4 indicates similar results were obtained on the delayed posttest. regression output is summarized in Table 21.  The  A g a i n , no significant correlation was  found for Treatment A and the S—N scales of the indicator (r = .1153, T = .9423, p = .3491), but a significant correlation was again found between the S—N scale of the indicator and Treatment B (r = .3843, T = 4.0997 and P = 8.550132E-05 or P < .001 with 97 d.f.)  Parts (c) and (d) of the hypothesis were designed to investigate the significance of the effect of the "J" subscale of the indicator. review in Chapter II, research  As was reported i n the literature  indicated a correlation between school success and  DELAYED POSTTEST OUTCOME 36 TREATMENT B 32  28  TREATMENT A  24  20 1 •\  16  12  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  S PREFERENCE  70  80  90  100  110 N  120  130  140  150  PREFERENCE  Figure 4: Disordinal Interaction of S—N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest  achievement and i n d i v i d u a l s expressing a J preference on the M B T I .  These students  were eliminated from the analysis of the data summarized below. The same procedure was used to test these parts of the hypothesis as was used for parts (a) and (b).  The regression output is summarized in Table 22 and the graph in Figure 5 again shows disordinal interaction between the aptitudes of S—N and the treatment methods  (but  significant  now with  the  effect  of the  J preference  eliminated).  correlation was found on the posttest for Treatment  Again,  no  A and the S—N  preference (r = .1609, T - 1.0565 and P = .2968). For Treatment B and the S - N scales of the indicator, a significant correlation was found on the posttest (r = .3615, T = 3.0032 and P = 3.891051E-03 or P < .005 with 60 d.f.)  TABLE  XXII  Regression Output for S—N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Postest (with the effect of the J Preference Eliminated)  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  14.8416 8.7618 0.0259 44.0000 42.0000 0.0696 0.0659  Treatment B Regression Output: 7.1738 7.7591 0.1307 62.0000 60.0000  Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.1521 0.0506  POSTTEST OUTCOME  36  TREATMENT B  32 28  TREATMENT  24 20 16 12  0  10  20  30  40 S  50  60  PREFERENCE  70  80  90  100  110 N  120  130  PREFERENCE  Figure 5: Disordinal Interaction of S—N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest without the E f f e c t of J  140  150  A  Figure  6  indicates  similar  results  were  found  on  the  delayed  posttest.  Regression output is summarized in Table 23. N o significant correlation was found on Method A and the S - N scale (r = .2588, T = 1.7363 and P = .0898). However, the most significant correlation of the study was found between Method B and the S—N scale (r = .5353, T = 4.990, P = 7.152558E-06 or P < .001 with 60 d.f.)  TABLE XXIII  Regression Output for S--N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest (with the effect of the J Preference Eliminated)  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom  12.3557 7.8001 0.0670 44.0000 42.0000  X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.1019 0.0587  Treatment B Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom  3.8649 5.7229 0.2865 62.0000 60.0000  X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.1832 0.0373  - 59 -  T R E A T M E N T 13  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  S PREFERENCE  70  80  90  100  110 N  120  130  140  150  PREFERENCE  Figure 6: Disordinal Interaction of S - N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Delayed Posttest without the Effect of J  When the effect of the J preference is not included in the data analysis, no significant interaction is found between the S—N preference and Treatment A . The hypothesis cannot be rejected for part (c) based on the results noted on the posttest and the delayed posttest.  In Treatment B, the data again indicates that the interaction between the S—N preference is significant and the hypothesis therefore is rejected for part (d), based on the results of the posttest and the delayed posttest.  Findings  The results and analyses made in this chapter are considered in this section. Findings are subject to the limitations outlined below.  Interaction of S—N and Treatment Method  An  interaction between  the  sensing — intuitive scale of the  MBTI  and  Treatment B was found. Although Figures 3-6 show disordinal interaction between the two treatment groups and the S—N attribute, the slope of the line of regression for Treatment A indicates no significant difference was found. The lines cross in roughly the middle of the attribute scale, a requirement for disordinal interaction. There are significant difference  between the attribute measure and Treatment B. The slope of  the regression line indicates that S types were disadvantaged on Method B while N types were advantaged and scored higher than N types on Method A . Intuitive types scored  higher  than  sensing types  on  either  advantageous.  - 61 -  method,  but  Method  B was  most  TABLE XXIV Most Advantageous Treatment Method for S — N Students  ATTRIBUTE  TREATMENT METHOD  Intuitive  B (significant)  Sensing  A (not significant)  These results were consistent with those of the delayed posttest.  Research indicates that scales of the M B T I are independent of each other, but a small correlation does exist between —N and —J. correlated  with  school  achievement  approaches which emphasize closure.  since  these  The J preference has also been individuals  prefer  organized  For this reason "J" types were not included in  the data analysis for parts (c) and (d) of the hypothesis.  The results were consistent  w i t h those obtained above when both J and P were considered, with slightly lowered scores for S—N under both methods being observed. This tends to support the research which notes the correlation between the J scale and achievement.  A g a i n , the most advantageous method for N being disadvantaged.  types is Method B with S types  S types scored higher on Treatment A then they d i d on B, but  not significantly so.  - 62 -  A d d i t i o n a l Findings  Another observation often made by English teachers in their classrooms is that girls perform much better than do boys in this subject. possible sex effect and methods.  found a significant effect  The researcher investigated a  for girls under both treatment  Figures 7 and 8 indicate the results of the linear regression and  interaction between attribute and treatment for males and females.  the  The regression  output is summarized in Tables 26 and 27. Under Treatment A girls performed much better i f they were sensing (S) types and were very disadvantaged intuitive (N) types.  The stronger  the N preference, the lower the  i f they  were  performance.  Conversely, the "S" type female was very disadvantaged under Treatment B. The " N " types performed best under Treatment B and the stronger the preference, the higher the score.  The possible reasons for this effect were not investigated in this study since the literature reports no correlation between sex and the intuitive—sensing or judging— perceiving preferences.  These two subscales relate most directly to cognitiion and  concept attainment as reported by Eggins (1979).  The researcher (McCaulley and Myers, 1985) does report a difference between sex and the feeling (F) and t h i n k i n g (T) subscales of the indicator. Generally 75% of males are T " types and only 25% of females are T " types. Conversely, 75% of females are "F" types and only 25% of males are "F" types.  There may be a culturally  determined bias w i t h respect to the distribution of this attribute among males and females.  Table 25 indicates the findings of this research to be consistent with the  theory.  - 63 -  TABLE X X V  Percentages of Male and Female Thinkers and Feelers  M A L E S n=89  F E M A L E S n=78  T  71.9.%  28.2%  F  28.1%  71.8%  - 64 -  POSTTEST OUTCOME  36 32 TREATMENT A  28 24 TREATMENT B  20 16 12  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  S PREFERENCE  70  80  90 •  100  110  120  130  140  N PREFERENCE  Figure 7: Disordinal Interaction of Male S - N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest  150  POSTTEST OUTCOME  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  S PREFERENCE  70  80  90  100  110  120  130  140  150  N PREFERENCE  Figure 8: Disordinal Interaction of Female S-N Preference and Treatment A and B on the Posttest  TABLE XXVI Regression Output for Male S—N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Posttest  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  8.2122 8.7452 0.0862 42.0000 40.0000 0.1290 0.0664  Treatment B Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  14.2725 8.8387 0.0165 47.0000 45.0000 0.0695 0.0799  - 67 -  TABLE XXVII Regression Output for Female S—N Preference Interaction on Treatment A and B on the Posttest  Treatment A Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  37.0384 7.7058 0.0840 26.0000 24.0000 -0.1086 0.0732  Treatment B Regression Output: Constant Std E r r of Y Est R Squared No. of Observations Degrees of Freedom  13.0639 6.6878 0.1286 52.0000 50.0000  X Coefficient(s) Std E r r of Coef.  0.1216 0.0447  - 68 -  CHAPTER V  DISCUSSION, C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S  Introduction  A strong personal interest in maximizing the effectiveness of instruction as well as an interest in the differences that learners bring to the learning environment motivated this study.  There are few guidelines for educators to use when designing  instruction to consider the personological differences which impact on performance and achievement.  Instruction is often planned for the average student, with the rate  of instruction being the variable for the slower student.  This study used a well  established test, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, to assess learner differences.  The  test is easy to administer and score and therefore could be used by teachers to identify learner attributes.  The possible interaction between the attributes identified by the  M B T I and the two treatment methods which varied in the amount of structure (a more structured, deductive-type treatment and a less structured, discovery-type treatment) was examined. The researcher's hope is that the results generated by the study might provide guidelines for teachers who seek to make instruction more efficient by consideration of i n d i v i d u a l differences.  The treatments used in this study followed the principles established by Gagne and Bruner. Method A used a modified version of a Gagne and Briggs sequence which followed a more deductive approach, while Method B was based on Bruner's theories of discovery learning and followed a more inductive approach.  Both treatments used  overhead transparencies and audio tape, in order to ensure consistency of treatment and eliminate presentation variables.  - 69 -  Method  A began  with  a clear statement of objectives and  a  step-by-step  sequence with took the learner from a clear presentation of the expected performance, (e.g. the identification of simile), through practice, restatement, concept definition and test of the learning.  Method B, on the other hand, was less structured and allowed the learner to "discover" the  relationships in the learning materials by identifying  attributes of each concept to be learned. and then were given  feedback.  the  critical  Students shared their ideas with a partner  The learning outcomes of both treatments were  measured by immediate and delayed posttest.  The results of the study were analyzed using a regression model to detect aptitude treatment interaction.  A l l analyses were done using a computer package,  except the A N O V A tables, which were scored by hand.  Discussion  The analyses of the results, as outlined in Chapter I V indicate that the aspects of cognitive style investigated in this study, namely sensing (S) and intuition (N) do interact with the two teaching methods used.  Students were found to perform best  under the treatment method which was most consistent with their preferred mode of data gathering as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.  The structured approach of Treatment A which presented the information to be learned i n small, concrete steps and provided an opportunity to practice the learning  - 70 -  was preferred by the sensing types who consistently scored higher under this method. This finding is consistent with the theory which describes these students as "hands-on" learners who need to "do" to learn effectively. and details in order to master concepts.  They also need to collect many facts  It would be expected that these learners  would be disadvantaged in a learning environment which  focused on speculation,"  hypothesis testing and the relationships between ideas.  The sensing type of learner often has d i f f i c u l t y in a school environment where the emphasis so frequently is not on "practical" skills or common sense learning. Many subjects, such as English, are inherently d i f f i c u l t for them.  The study of poetry, and  other forms of literature, require the student, for example, to be able to generate ideas, to see relationships, to understand symbols and to draw subtle comparisons. To take this information and put it into a written format - another skill requiring the manipulation of ideas and symbols - can be very d i f f i c u l t for them to master.  They  may well, w i t h a good deal of effort, produce an acceptable paragraph or essay, but the originality of ideas and the depth of insight that English teachers look for, often is l a c k i n g in their work. They simply do not perceive the world in the same manner as an i n t i i t i v e student.  The i n t u i t i v e learner performed best under the less structured Treatment  B.  This method  provided the opportunity  approach of  for students to  speculate,  hypothesize and generally search for possibilities and relationships. This treatment is consistent with the intuitive's preferred mode of data gathering.  They are "insightful"  learners who may become quite frustrated  in learning environments which demand  they  before  accumulate  many  details  and  facts  the  broad  picture  is glimpsed.  Treatment A , which emphasized the slow methodical accumulation of facts and details  -  71 -  disadvantaged these learners.  The researcher observed that a student in Treatment A ,  who was later identified as a high i n t u i t i v e type, became quite restless. H e was heard to remark to a neighbor "...this is boring!"  The i n t u i t i v e type usually does well i n a school environment, and usually performs much better than the sensing type in the English classroom. They tend to be "readers", whereas sensing types tend not to like this medium. In class discussion their comments are more sophisticated and insightful and their written work also reflects this tendency.  M c C a u l l e y and Myers (1985) found that in a population of 530 writers  and journalists, 73.58% were intuitive types.  Another sample of writers, artists and  entertainers (n = 208) revealed that 86.08% were intuitives. (p. 151).  The S—P learners were found to be severely disadvantaged under Treatment B. This student type has been referred to as the "underachiever" in schools. Often their achievement scores are lower than what scholastic aptitude and other test measures indicate as their  ability.  This would  tend  to suggest  that their  weaknesses are not being considered when instruction is planned.  strengths  and  Perceiving learners  are flexible and spontaneous but may need guidance in controlling their spontaniety. The S—P's may need structure to exercise their skills in observation of details and their fact-oriented approach to learning.  Method B would not capitalize on their  strengths, and would be a d i f f i c u l t environment for them in which to learn.  Limitations of the Study  Readers wishing to make generalizations about this study or to use it as a basis for further research must keep in mind the following limitations of the study:  - 72 -  1.  the study used only one type of instructional media, and this type of media is not often used i n the English classroom.  2.  teaching Method B used a total of 54 overheads, Method A used only 39. was necessary  due to the use of examples and non-examples  for  This  concept  identification in Model B.  3.  the study was limited in terms of the sample size (n=167).  The number of  students in treatment A was 68, and treatment B was 99. Cronbach and Snow (1977) recommended at least 100 students per treatment group.  4.  there may be interaction between cognitive style and the form of questions used on the posttest measures.  5.  there was a lack of absolute control over students' communication between class treatments as well as between the immediate and delayed posttest.  6.  the delayed posttest was administered by the regular classroom teacher, rather than by the author, as it was least disruptive to the class schedule.  O f special concern to the author was the elimination of presentation variables. Treatment A was presented to three separate classes, treatment B to four. reason overhead transparencies and audio-tape were chosen.  - 73 -  For this  Also important was the minimization of disruption to the regular school system. The author administered all M B T I tests, presented i n i t i a l posttest.  all lessons and administered  The regular classroom teacher administered the delayed posttest since  it was felt to be least disruptive to the classes and required only 20 minutes complete.  the  School  timetables  were  not  affected,  even  though  the  time  to  between  presentations may have resulted in some loss of control over students' history.  The lesson content measured.  was chosen because learning is easily demonstrated  and  The topic is also suited to the presentation mode (large type-style was used  on the transparency examples), and is w i t h i n the teaching repertoire of the researcher. Elements of poetry is a basic part of the poetry curriculum. The appreciation and understanding of poetry is enhanced when students have acquired these concepts.  Conclusions and Recommendations  Further testing is required of these findings, but the results indicate that three principles  could  be  generated  for  teachers  to  consider  when  individualizing  instruction:  1.  The low structure discovery-learning method (as was reflected in Method B) is less l i k e l y to be effective for S learners, and even less l i k e l y for S—P learners. This learner type needs the structure and guidance of a more deductive type of instruction (as was reflected in Method A ) .  - 74 -  2.  Intuitive learners perform well under different conditions, especially i f they are N—J learners.  The low structure level of the discovery learning method (as  was reflected in Model B) was best suited to them.  3.  Intuitive learners,  especially N—P's  may  not  perform  well  under  highly  structured, concrete methods of instruction which emphasize facts and details.  Implementation  The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, when used as a measurement tool, provides a guide for teachers to help identify the cognitive style of their students.  This is useful,  for example, in i d e n t i f y i n g which students would benefit most from a low structure, discovery method of learning and which students would be disadvantaged by this approach.  It could  also be used to identify  those learners which  require more  structure and guidance in order to achieve in school.  In addition, teachers  might also use the  indicator to determine their own  cognitive style and the implications this might have on their teaching methods.  A  highly sensing teacher, for example, may have d i f f i c u l t y in presenting materials in a manner w h i c h allows the "N" learner to speculate and generate creative solutions to problems.  S i m i l a r l y , a highly intuitive teacher may have d i f f i c u l t y teaching at the  level of her more sensing students, who would require more details and facts than she might  feel  necessary  to  generate.  The  congruency  between  teacher-student  is,  therefore, another area of research which might be investigated in order to generate guidelines to make education more efficient for both learners and educators.  - 75 -  The findings of this research and other studies into how instruction can be i n d i v i d u a l i z e d could provide principles to use in a number of ways.  For example,  principles could be developed which would provide teachers with guidance in planning instruction which would capitalize on the preferred learning mode of the learner, compensate for deficiencies in an i n d i v i d u a l ' s cognitive system, and/or remediate by focusing on skills or preferences not well developed in an i n d i v i d u a l .  A l l three of  these approaches are viable models for more effective education.  The literature reviewed and the interactions found in this study, as well as the observations made by teachers i n their own classrooms, indicate that the process of efficient education is one which should take into account those differences  which  make us unique. To quote Isabel Myers-Briggs:  "an understanding of the gifts of diversity may eventually reduce the misuse and the non-use of those gifts. It should lessen the waste of potential, the loss of opportunity, and the number of dropouts and delinquents." (p. 211).  - 76 -  BIBL1GRAPHY  Adams, V . M . & M c L e o d D , D . B . (1979). The Interaction of F i e l d Dependence/Field Independence and Level of Guidance of Mathematics. Instruction Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 10. 347-355. A l v o r d , R.W. (1967). Learning and transfer in concept-attainment task: A study in i n d i v i d u a l differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y . U M 68-11, 263. A m a r i a , R.P., & L e i t h , G . O . M . (1969). Individual versus co-operative learning. Influence of intelligence and sex. Educational Research. 11, 95-103.  I.  A n g l i n , G . J . (1979, February). The interaction of general reasoning, spatial and cognitive style abilities in the instructional treatment in quadratic inequalities: A follow-up and refinement. Paper presented at the H . L . Smith Research Conference at Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , Bloomington, Indiana. Ausburn, F . B . & A u s b u r n , L . J . Learning Task Requirements, Cognitive Styles, and M e d i a Attributes: A n interactive Research Model. University of Oklahoma. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service N O E D 118 157). B a b i k i a n , Y . (1971). A n empirical exposition to determine the relative effectiveness of discovery, laboratory, and expository methods of teaching science concepts. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 8, 201-210. Barrish, B. (1970). Inductive versus deductive teaching strategies with high and low divergent thinkers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , U M 712857. Becker, J.P. (1967). A n attempt to design instructional techniques in mathematics to accommodate different patterns of mental ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , U M 67-11, 016. Berliner, D . C . & C A H E N , L.S. (1973). Trait-Treatment Interaction and Learning. In F . N . Kerlinger (ed.) Review of Research in Educaton. Itasca, 111.: Peacock Publishing Inc. A m e r i c a n Education Research Association. Bracht, C . N . (1970). Experimental Factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions", Review of Educational Research, 40, 627-46. Bracht, G . (1970). Experimental factors related to aptitude treatment Review of Educational Research, 5_, 627-645. Bracht, G . H . & G L A S S , G . V . (1968). The external validity of experiments. Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-74.  interactions. American  Branch, R . C . (1973). The interaction of cognitive style with the instructional variables of sequencing and manipulation to effect the achievement of elementary mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.  - 77 -  Brown, W.F. (1963). A n evaluation of the Madison Project method of teaching in arithmetic situations. Unpublished report, Syracuse, N . Y . , C i t y School District ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 003 053.) Bruner, J.R. (1959). L e a r n i n g and thinking. H a r v a r d Educational Review. 29, 184-192. Bruner, J.R. (1967). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Bunderson, C . V . (1967). Transfer of mental abilities at different stages of practice in the solution of concept problems. Research Bulletin, 67, 20-38. Bushman, V . (1971). A n exploratory study of the effects of socio-economic status on learning. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 8, 219-224. Carlson, R., & L e v y , N . (1973). Studies in Jungian Typology: perception and social action. Journal of Personality, 41, 559-576.  I. Memory, social  C a r l y n , M . (1977). A n assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Personality Assessments. 41, 461-473. Carrier, C. & R. McNergney (1979). Interaction Research: instruction? Educational Technology, 16, 40-45.  Journal of  Can it help i n d i v i d u a l i z e  Carskadon, T . G . (1978). Uses of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in psychology courses and discussion group. Teaching of Psychology, 5, 140-142. Catanyano, R. & G o o d w i n , W. (1977). Comparative effectiveness of three sequences of moves for teaching conjunctive and relational mathematical concepts to college students. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 8, 33-46. Cronbach, L . J . (1957). "The two disciplines of scientific psychology". P S Y C H O L O G I S T , 12, 671-84.  AMERICAN  Cronbach, L . J . & Snow, R . E . (1969). Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Unpublished report, School of Education, Stanford university. E R I C Document Reproduction Service No. E D 029021. Cronbach, L . J . & Snow, R . E . (1977). Irvington Publishers, Inc. Dewey, J (1900). 124.  Aptitudes and Instructional Methods.  Psychology and Social Practice.  New Y o r k :  The Psychological Review, 7, 105-  Dossey, J. (1975). The D i f f e r e n t i a l effect of venture length i n concept teaching strategies for disjunctive mathematical concepts. Unpublished Manuscript, Centre for the Study of L e a r n i n g and The Teaching of Mathematics, University of Georgia. Douglas, C.B. & K a h l e , J.B. (1977). The effect of differentially i n d i v i d u a l i z e d instructional materials on student achievement in Biology. Research in Science Teaching, 1977, 14, 335-340. Divesta, F . (1974). Cognitive structures and Record, 75, 357-270.  - 78 -  symbolic process.  sequenced Journal of  Teachers College  Edgerton, H . A . (1958). The relationship of method of instruction to trainee aptitude pattern. New Y o r k , N . Y . : Richardson, Bellows, Henry & Co. Egan, D . E . & Greeno, J.G. (1973). A c q u i r i n g cognitive structure by discovery and rule learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 64. 85-97. Eggins, J.A. (1979). The interaction between structure in learning materials and the personality type of learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Gagne, R . M . & Briggs, L . J . (1980). Principles of Instructional Design. University: H a l t , Rinehart and Winson, Inc.  F l o r i d a State  Gagne, R . M . & Paradise, N . E . (1961). A b i l i t i e s and learning sets in acquisition. P S Y C H O L O G I C A L M O N O G R A P H S . 75, N o . 14.  knowledge  G o l a n t y - K o e l , R. (1978). The relationship of psychological types and mass media preferences to the values of non-academic high school students. (Doctoral dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of California, Berkeley). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 4683A. ( U M 73-29, 395). Goldman, R . D . (1972). Effects of a logical versus an mnemonic strategy on performance in two undergraduate psychology classes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 63, 347-352. Goldberg, R . A . , Schwartz, S. & Stewart, M . (1977). I n d i v i d u a l differences in cognitive processes. Journal of Educational Psychology. 69, 9-14. G o l l i d a y , J . M . (1975). A n investigation of the relative effectiveness of three methods of u t i l i z i n g laboratory activities in selected topics of junior college mathematics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of F l o r i d a , 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36 (02), 611 A . (University M i c r o f i l m s N . 75-16, 383). Grant, W . H . (1965). Comparability of the Gray-Wheelwright Psychology Type Questionnaire and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Research Report, Student Counselling Service, A u b u r n University. Greeno, J.G. & Mayer, R . E . (1972). Structural and quantitative interaction among aptitudes and instructional treatments. Journal of Educational Psychology. 63, 165173. Grieve, T.D., & Davis, J . K . (1971). The relationship of cognitive style and method of instruction to performance in ninth grade geography. Journal of Educational Research. 65, 137-141. G r i p p i n , P.C. (1973). F i e l d independence and reflection - impulsivity as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task w i t h and without strong prompts. Paper presented to A m e r i c a n Psychological Association. G r i p p i n , P.C. (1974, A p r i l ) . F i e l d independence and reflection - impulsivity as mediators of performance on a programmed learning task w i t h and without strong prompts. Paper presented at the 59th A n n u a l Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service No. E D 095 220).  - 79 -  Haber, R . A . (1980). Different strokes for different folks: Jung's typology structured experiences. Group and Organizational studies, 5, 113-119.  and  Hart, L . (November 6-10, 1985). A n effective strategy to design mediated instruction for female adult compositional syntactic placement. Paper presented at the National A d u l t Education Conference. Louisville, K Y . E R I C Document Reproduction Service N O E D 249-369. Harvey, W.L. (1970). A study of cognitive and affective outcomes of a collegiate science learning game. Unpublished report, C A I Centre, F l o r i d a State university. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service Number E d 050 552). H o f f m a n , J.L., Waters, K . , & Berry, M . (1981). Personality types and computer assisted instruction in a self-paced technical training environment. Research in Psychological Type. 3, 81-85. H o l l i d a y , N . G . (1978, March). Aptitudes and Science Instruction. Paper presented at annual meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Toronto, Ontario. Holtan, B. (1982). Attribute treatment interaction research i n mathematics education. School Science and Mathematics, 82, (7). Houston, J.P. Fundamentals of Learning and Memory. (1986). (3rd ed.). C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.  University of  Hunt, D . E . (1971). Matching models in education. The Coordination of teaching methods w i t h student characteristics. T O R O N T O , Canada: Institute for Studies in Education. Hunt, D.E., & Hardt, R . H . (1967). The role of conceptual level and program structure in summer U p w a r d Bound programs. Paper presented to the Eastern Psychological Association. Hunt, D . E . & Noys, J.E. (1972). Student-directed learning from information systems. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 4, 54-63. Hunt, D . E . & Sullivan, E . V . (1974). Dryden.  Between psychology and education.  biographical Hinsdale, 111.:  Hunt, D . E . , & Tomlinson, P.D. (1971). D i f f e r e n t i a l effects of rule-example order as a function of Conceptual Level. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 3, 237-245. Jensen, A . (1967). Varieties of i n d i v i d u a l differences in learning. L e a r n i n g and I n d i v i d u a l Differences. Columbus, Oh.: M e r r i e l . Joyce, B. & Weil, M . (1980). Inc.  Models of teaching (2nd ed.).  Jung, C . G . [Psychological Type] (R.F.C. H u l l , trans.). U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1971. (Originally published, 1921.)  - 80 -  In R. Gagne (Ed.),  New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Princeton, N . J . :  Princeton  Kagan, J. (1966). Body b u i l d and conceptual Personality. 34, 118-128.  impulsivity in children.  Journal of  K i n g , F.J., Roberts, D., & K r o p p , R.P. (1969). Relationship between ability measures and achievement under four methods of teaching elementary set concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology. 60, 244-247. K y l l o n e n , P.C. (1984). Effects of Aptitudes Strategy T r a i n i n g and Task Focus on Spatial Task Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76, 130-145. Lawrence, G . (1983). People Types and Tiger Stripes: A Practical guide to learning styles. G a i n s v i l l e , F l o r i d a : Centre for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. Lawrence, G . D . (1984). A synthesis of learning style research i n v o l v i n g the M B T I . Journal of Psychological Type, 8, 2-15. L e i t h , G.O.M., & Wisdom, B. (1970). A n investigation of the effects of error making and personality on learning. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 7, 181-188. Lowenfeld, V . (1945). Tests for visual and haptical aptitude. Psychology, 58, 100-111.  A m e r i c a n Journal of  Majer, K . S . (1969). A study of computer-assisted multi-media instruction augmented by recitation sessions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, F l o r i d a State University. U M 70-3825. Marshall, H . H . & Weinstein, R.S. (1985, March). It's Not H o w M u c h Brains Y o u ' v e Got. It's H o w Y o u Use It. A Comparison of classrooms expected to enhance or undermine students' self-evaluations. Paper presented at the 69th A n n u a l Meeting of the A m e r i c a n Educational Research Association, Chicago, II. Mayer, R., & Greeno, J.G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 165-173. Mayer, R . E . (1974). A c q u i s i t i o n processes and resilience under varying testing conditions for structurally different problem-solving processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 644-656. M a y n a r d , F . J . & Strickland, J.F. Jr. (1969). A comparison of three methods of teaching selected mathematical content in eighth and ninth grade general mathematics courses. Unpublished report, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 041 763). M c C a u l l e y , M . H . (1977). The Meyers Longtitudinal Medical Study. Gainesville, F l : Centre for Applications of Psychological Type Inc.  (Monograph II).  M c C a u l l e y , M . H . (1981). Jung's theory of psychological types and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In P. McReynolds, (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment (Volume V ) (pp. 294-352). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc.  - 81 -  M c C a u l l e y , M . H . & Natter, F . L . (1974). Psychological (Myers-Briggs) type differences in education. In F . L . Natter, & S.A. R o l l i n , (Eds.), The Governor's Task Force on Disruptive Youth: Phase II Report. Tallahassee, F L : O f f i c e of the Governor. M c C l e a r n , G . E . , & Meredith, W. (1966). Psychology, L7, 515-550.  Behavioral Genetics.  Annual  Review of  M c G i v e r n , J.E. & L e v i n , J.R. (1983). The K e y w o r d Method and Children's Vocabulary Learning: A n Interaction w i t h Vocabulary Knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 46-54. M c L e o d , B . D . & Adams, V . M . (1980). Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Mathematics Instruction using Expository and Discovery Methods. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 225-234. Meyers, J. & Dunham, J. (1971, February). Effects of A n x i e t y on Aptitude by LTreatment Interactions. Paper presented at the A n n u a l Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Y o r k , New Y o r k . (ERIC Abstracts for Search No. 0705). Myers, L B . (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, M a n u a l . Consulting Psychologists Press.  Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a :  Myers, L B . (1976). Introduction to Type: M B T I . (2nd ed.) Gainsville, Florida: for A p p l i c a t i o n s of Psychological Type.  Centre  Myers, I.B. & M c C a u l l e y , M . N . (1985). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (2nd. printing). Palo A l t o , C A : Consulting Psychologists Press. Newell, A . & Simon, H . (1972). Prentice-Hall.  Human problem solving.  Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:  Olander, H.T., & Robertson, • H.C. (1973). The effectiveness of discovery and expository methods in the teaching of fourth-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 4, 33-44. Paradice, L . V . & Block, C. (1984). The relationship of Teacher-Student Cognitive Style to Academic Achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education. 7, 57-61. Peterson, P.O., J a n i c k i , T.C. & Swing, S.R. (1981). A b i l i t y x Treatment Interaction Effects on Children's Learning in Large-group and Small-group Approaches. A m e r i c a n Educational Journal: 18, (4) 453-473. Rector, R . E . , & Henderson, K . B . (1970). The relative effectiveness of four strategies for teaching mathematical concepts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 1, 69-75. Rehn, R . A . (January 17-23, 1985). Relationship between Dogmatism, Self-esteem, Locus of Control and Predisposition towards T w o Instructional Methods Among Female N u r s i n g Students. Paper presented at the A n n u a l Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. A n a h e i m , C A . ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service N O E D 256330).  - 82 -  Rennels, M . R . (1970). The effects of instructional methodology in art education upon achievement on spatial tasks by disadvantaged negro youths. Journal of Negro Education, 39, 116-123. Remstad, R . C . (1969). O p t i m i z i n g the response to a concept attainment test through a sequential classroom experimentation. Technical Report No. 85, 1969 Madison Wisconsin Research and Development Centre for Cognitive Learning. The University of Winconsin. ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service No. E D 035 956). Reynolds, R . J . (1970). Classroom verbal interaction patterns as a function instructor cognitive complexity. Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 59-63.  of  R i c h , B. (1972). A correlational study of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Jungian Type Survey. Unpublished paper prepared for course i n Jung., University of Minnesota. Rizzuto, M . (1970). Experimental comparison of inductive and deductive methods of teaching concepts of language structure. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 269273. Roberts, D . Y . (1982). Personality and media preferences students. Research in Psychological Type, 5, 84-86.  of  community  college  Roebuck, M . (1970). A definite conclusion in a comparison between conventional and programmed instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 7, 2123. Sachs, L . (1978). (Entering Resources Questionnaire data for O h i o State University M e d i c a l Students.) Unpublished raw data, O h i o State University. Sakmyster, D . D . (1972). Comparison of inductive and deductive programmed instruction on chemical e q u i l i b r i u m for high school chemistry students. Doctoral thesis for E d . D., Indiana University. Santostefano, S. (1964). A developmental study of the cognitive control of "levellingsharpening". M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Quarterly. 10, 343-360. Santostefano, S. (1971). Levelling - sharpening house test: A procedure for assessing the cognitive principle of levelling - sharpening. Boston: S. Santostefano. Schwen, T . M . , Bednar, A . K . , & Wolfe, W. (1979, February). A Comparison: predicting college level academic success with tests of cognitive style, cognitive aptitude and personality. Paper presented at H . L . Smith Research Conference, at Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , Bloomington, Indiana. Shavelson, R . J . & E r a h i m , M . (1978). I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g Introduction in Quantitative Subject - Matters: C a p i t a l i z i n g on Aptitude Treatment Interactions. (ERIC Document N o . 175 455). Siegel, L . , & Siegel, L . C . (1965). Educational Set: Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 1-12.  - 83 -  A determinant of acquisition.  Slavin, R . E . & O i c k l e , E . (1980, A p r i l ) . Effects of learning teams on student achievement and race relations i n a dissegregated middle school. Paper presented at the 64th A n n u a l Meeting of the A m e r i c a n Research Association, Boston. Smith, A . , Irey, R., & McCaulley, M . H . (1973). Self-paced instruction and college student's personality. Engineering Education, 63, 435-440. Snow, R . E . (1977). I n d i v i d u a l differences Researcher, 6, 11-15.  and  instructional theory.  Educational  Snow, R . E . & Lohman, D . F . (1984). Towards a theory of cognitive aptitude Learning from Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76, 3, 347-376. Sobel, M . A . (1956). 430.  for  Concept learning in Algebra. The Mathematics Teacher. 49, 425-  Spence, J . A . & Spence, K.W. (1966). The motivational components of manifest anxiety: D r i v e and d r i v e stimuli. In C D . Spielberger (Ed.) A n x i e t y Academic Press. Stanes, D . & Gordon, A (1973). Relationship between Conceptual Style Test Children's Embedded Figures test. Journal of Personality, 41, 185-191. Steele, F.I. (1968). Personality Behavioral Science, 4, 25-45.  and  the  "laboratory  style".  Journal  of  and  Applied  Steve, M.W. & Tennyson, R.D., Boutwell, R . C . (1974). Instance sequence and analysis of instance attribute representation 9n concept acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 821-827 Storm, B. & Hocwar, D . (1982). Course structure and student satisfaction: An attribute-treatment interaction analysis. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 21-30. Taba, H . (1965). Strategy for learning. Science and C h i l d r e n, 3, 21-24. Tallmadge, G . K . & Shearer, J.W. (1971). Interactive relationships among learner characteristics, types of learning, instructional methods and subject matter variables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 31-38. Tobias, S. (1969). The effect of creativity, response mode, and subject matter familiarity on achievement from programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 453-460. Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement Treatment Research, 46, 61-74.  Interactions.  Review of Educational  Tobias, S. (1984, A p r i l ) . Macroprocesses. I n d i v i d u a l Differences and Instructinal Methods. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association 168th, New Orleans, L . A . ( E R I C Document Reproduction Service N o . E D 259 019). Torkelson, G . M . (1977). A V C R - One Quarter Century. E v a l u a t i o n of Theory and Research. A u d i o Visual Communications Review, 4, 317-358.  - 84 -  Trown, E . A . (1970). Some evidence on the interaction between teaching strategy and personality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 209-211. Walters, J. & Tobias, S. (1985, March). The effect of anxiety and strategy training on learning. Paper presented at the 69th A n n u a l General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, II. Whitehall, R. & Jipson, I. (1970). D i f f e r e n t i a l reading program performance extraverts and introverts. Journal of Experimental Education, 38, 93-96.  of  W i t k i n , H . A . (1950). I n d i v i d u a l differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Psychology, 19, 1-15. W i t k i n , H . A . (1976). The rule of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student relations. In S. Messick (Ed.) I n d i v i d u a l i t y i n learning: Implications of cognitive style i n creativity for human development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Woodrow, H . (1946). The ability to Learn. Psychological Review, 53, 147-158. Yeger, J.L. & Kissel, M . A . (1969). A n investigation of the relationship between selected student entering characteristics and time required to achieve unit mastery. Unpublished report, Learning Research and Development Center, U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburg. E R I C Document Reproduction Service No. E D 031 938. Yokomoto, C.F., & Ware, J.R. (1982). Improving problem solving performance using the M B T I . Proceedings of the 1982 American Society of Engineering Education A n n u a l Conference, 163-167.  - 85 -  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097024/manifest

Comment

Related Items