Sensory modalities (learning styles) were assessed the second week of June, 1999, approximately 2 weeks prior to the end of the Grade Three school year. The instrument used, the PLS Learning Styles Inventory (Haggart, 1995), was specifically developed for 7 to 12 year old children, Grades Three-Six. A self-assessment device, it was selected because it measures sensory modalities and because of its perceived appeal to this age group. It employs an attractive and user-friendly folder with stickers. The Inventory also came packaged with a Teacher's Guide and a Directions and Application Booklet. These provide details on the interpretation of outcomes, application of the Inventory in the classroom, management and curriculum ideas, ethical considerations and step-by-step instructions on administering the Inventory. In this study, instructions were followed as laid out in the guide. Despite the fact that the Inventory was not available in French, it should not impinge upon the results. The instructions were presented orally in their mother tongue to avoid problems with reading comprehension.

A number of instruments with varied criteria for gathering information on learning styles are available on the market. Specific to devices with psychometric properties, many researchers referenced in this paper have questioned their reliability and validity. They all advise caution in using self-reporting learning preference instruments. (Chun and Plass, 1997; Plass, Chun, Mayer and Leutner, 1998)

The PLS authors offer this perspective on their Inventory.
ìWhile it is not as conclusive as some more involved and lengthy inventories, it is reasonably accurate and generates more than enough data about each child for teachers to gain a firm understanding of their class(es) as a whole and students as individuals.î (Haggart, 1995, p. 1)

During the design of the Inventory, the external consistency of the PLS was matched against other instruments such as the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Styles Inventory (1989, cited in Haggart, 1995). Also, validity tests addressed an ìemulationî problem which found that students tend to copy the style of their teacher. Though results of the first field test found an unacceptable disparity between teacher and student perceptions, a second field-test established a high degree of confidence in the relationship between teacher and studentís ability to predict attributes (Haggart, 1995).
Table 4.1 below provides a list which includes the individual student identification number (ID #), inventory score, modality preference and sex.

Results indicated that there were eight visual learners, two tactual learners, two kinesthetic learners and a no preference (NP) learner with the same score for the kinesthetic and tactual domains. Because none of the students were identified as having a dominant auditory preference, the effects of multimedia on the auditory learner could not be addressed in this study. Though some students had similar but lower scores for the auditory and other sensory channels, for this study, studentsí highest scores defined their dominant learning styles.
In support of this view, PLS designer and creator, Bill Haggart offers this commentary:
ìThe highest number on the PLS Inventory is the best indicator of modality preference. When other modality results are similar, we can only assume it is not as strong as we would like.î (Bill Haggart, 2000)
Following the assessment, students were informed about their learning preferences and style types were discussed.
On the question of why no auditory type was identified (normally they make up 10 to 20 percent of a population), Haggart (2000) suggested the reason for this may be related to the emulation problem alluded to earlier. Outcomes may have reflected the teacherís teaching style in that students may have been inclined to pattern their teacher. Of course, the small size of the sample also has to be taken into account.
 

Return to home page