Relationship Between Modality Preference and Performance

Waugh, Ruth

doi:10.1177/001440297303900604

Cited by 28 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The superiority of auditory learners was reported by Bateman (1969) for both reading and spelling and by Waugh (1973) for word recall but not for word recognition. A visual learner superiority was reported by Newcomer and Goodman (1975) for recognition of both nonsense syllables and meaningful statements and by Sabatino and Dorfman (1974) for spelling but not for word recognition.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review

Tarver

Dawson

1978

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching to a child's strengths versus improving areas of weakness has long been a key concept in remedial planning for many practitioners. Strengths and weaknesses have often been related to sensory modality capabilities resulting in the notion of auditory learners, visual learners, and learners needing haptic and kinesthetic feedback. This excellent review of research which assesses the validity of the modality strength concept finds strikingly little support; thus, practical wisdom is not supported by research data. Because the modality preference/strength concept has intuitive appeal and is apparently useful to many practitioners, the possibility certainly exists that the research is inadequately designed or insufficiently sensitive to validate this central principle. Comments regarding the methods of the studies and the conclusions of this review are invited from practitioners and researchers. — G.M.S. The question of whether to teach to a child's strength or to his weakness has long been debated in educational literature. This paper reviews 15 studies investigating the interaction between perceptual modality preference and method of teaching reading. Three questions were addressed in reviewing these studies: (1 ) Is there a significant interaction between modality preference and method of teaching reading? (2) Does modality preference affect t reading achievement regardless of method of teaching reading? (3) Does the method of teaching reading affect reading achievement regardless of modality preference ? With respect to the first question, this review found no evidence supporting an interaction between modality preference and the method of teaching reading. With respect to the other two questions, evidence is less clear-cut. These findings are discussed with implications for further research. inherent in many concepts fostered within the field of learning disabilities -individualization of instruction, intra-individual differences, diagnosticprescriptive teaching -is the notion of

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review

Tarver

Dawson

1978

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, it may be that instruments have not yet been developed which can accurately determine modality strength. Reliabilities of the screening instruments used in the studies reviewed here have generally been low, and there has been an absence of convincing validity measures (Bateman, 1967;Hartman & Hartman, 1973;Sabatino, Ysseldyke, & Woolston, 1973;Smith, 1971;Waugh, 1973). Fourth, instructional procedures that are modality-pure have generally not been employed (Bateman, 1967;Vandever & Neville, 1974;Wolpert, 19'71 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Benefits and Prevalence of Modality Considerations in Special Education

Arter¹,

Jenkins

1977

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questions related to the validity, efficacy, and prevalence of the psychoeducational practice of modifying instruction in accord with children's relative modality strengths are examined in a research review and in a survey of practicing special education teachers. Despite attempts to assess relative modality strength using 32 separate tests, subtests, or combinations thereof in conjunction with a variety of instructional interventions, no one has successfully demonstrated that beginning reading instruction can be improved by modality and instructional matching. In spite of the absence of evidence that supports modality instructional matching, textbooks urge teachers to adopt this approach, and the majority of special education teachers believe in and employ this model. Implications of these findings are discuseed both for teacher training programs and for instructional practice.Psychoeducational diagnosis typically aims to produce two kinds of information, both of which are seen as central to planning an individualized program of instruction. The most basic information acquired in diagnosis is an educational inventory of the academic skills which the learner has either mastered or failed to master. The second kind of information generated by diagnosis is primarily psychological in nature, focusing on the unique cognitive, perceptual, and expressive abilities that the learner brings with him to the instructional setting. While the first kind of information is essential to determining what should be taught, the second is suggestive of how something should be taught. The particular constellation of psychological abilities is said to reveal individual learning styles which, in turn, determine special instructional methodologies and materials. One aspect of learning style that has received considerable attention in special education is children's modality preferences (Carlson

show abstract

“…Waugh (1973) obtained comparable results: children taught by a method corresponding to their sensory modality preference performed no better than those taught by a method that did not correspond to their modality strengths. He concluded that reading is a multisensory process and, therefore, cannot be taught with emphasis on only one learning channel.…”

Section: Information Processing Controversymentioning

confidence: 91%

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Meyers

1983

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of an information processing model for diagnosing and remediating learning disabled children is the focus of much debate. Although this approach is widely practiced in classrooms, advocated by many leaders in the field, and included in federal definitions, the empirical literature is not supportive, and many researchers are ready to dismiss its validity. One of the problems associated with this approach is the assessment instruments. This article reviews both sides of this controversy and suggests the use of the Slingerland Screening Tests as an alternative diagnostic tool for examining information processing skills. A brief overview of this test is presented as well as a discussion of advantages and purposes relevant to the information processing approach. Implications for subsequent research are suggested.T he information processing, model for determining appropriate instructional methods and materials for learning disabled children is currently under serious scrutiny. This model has provided a foundation for the diagnosis, planning, and instruction implementation for many years in the learning disabilities field. The components of this model have been given a variety of labels including "perceptual skills," "learning modalities," "learning styles," and "information processing skills." The focus, regardless of terminology, is on methods of learning-including input or receiving information, integration, and output or expression. The popular theories suggest that an individual's strengths and weaknesses in these skills must be determined through various diagnostic procedures in order to plan and implement appropriate instructional strategies and remedial techniques. For example, a visual learner should be provided instruction with a visual emphasis (i.e., sight word approach.to reading). An auditory learner, on the other hand, would benefit from an auditory approach such as phonics.A conflict, however, exists between research and the learning disabilities theories and educational procedures advocated by some authorities. Empirical evidence does not support differential instruction based on preferred learning styles, and yet this approach is still practiced widely in the schools, discussed in major texts, and emphasized in teachertraining programs. It appears that this model has a strong intuitive value for practitioners in spite of the empirical literature's criticism.Further acceptance of this theory in practice can be seen in the terminology of federal and, in some cases, state definitions and guidelines concerning LD children. The current federal regulations describe learning disabilities in terms of psychological processing disorders. Several states also have incorporated this focus into their definitions. Still, the diagnostic and remedial methods used to operationalize these descriptions have been strongly criticized (Torgesen 1979) so that further research is needed to substantiate this approach to diagnosis and instruction. INFORMATION PROCESSING CONTROVERSYA brief review of the literature...

show abstract

Relationship Between Modality Preference and Performance

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review

Modality Preference and the Teaching of Reading: A Review

Examining the Benefits and Prevalence of Modality Considerations in Special Education

Information Processing and the Slingerland Screening Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About