DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 464 094TM 033 774

AUTHORHlawaty, HeideTITLEComparative Analysis of the Learning Styles of German
Adolescents by Age, Gender, and Academic Achievement Level.
PUB DATE2002-04-00NOTE17p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the America
n
Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April1-5, 2002).
PUB TYPEReportsEvaluative (142)Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
EDRS PRICEMF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS*Academic Achievement; *Adolescents; Age Differences;
*Cognitive Style; Comparative Analysis; Foreign Countries;
German; Gifted; Learning Strategies; *Sex DifferencesIDENTIFIERS*Germany
ABSTRACT
This study identified and compared the preferredlearning-style characteristics o
f German adolescents and analyzed thesimilarities and differences by age, gender
, and academic achievement withinand among groups of students in different educa
tional settings. Participantswere 869 German adolescents aged 13, 15, and 17 yea
rs old from grades 7through 13, with approximately equal representation of males
and females.
Students were administered the German language version of the Learning StyleInve
ntory (R. Dunn, K. Dunn, and G. Price, 1996, 2000). Data were availableabout stu
dents' academic achievement, gender, and age. Results show thatyounger adolescen
ts in Germany appear to be more persistent, authority-,
parent-, and teacher-motivated than older students. As they mature, thesestudent
s become less tactual and more in need of light. Age differences inlearning-styl
e preference indicate a shift from adult-based to self-drivenmotivation that sho
uld be incorporated into classroom instruction. Males andfemales in this populat
ion have distinctly different learning-stylepreferences, of which teachers and s
tudents should be aware. Of the threeacademic achievement levels investigated in
this study, the academicallygifted students were the least parent- and teachermotivated, while lowachievers favored the presence of an authority figure in the
ir environment.
(Contains 3 tables and 74 references.)(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.

Comparative Analysis of the LearningStyles of German Adolescents by Age,

Gender, and Academic Achievement Level
Heide Hlawaty
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HASBEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
VThis document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationori
ginating it.
0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.
This paper is prepared for the:
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New Orleans,
LAApril 2002
2BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1
Comparative analysis of the learning styles of German adolescents by age,
gender, and academic achievement Level.
Heide Hlawaty, St. John's UniversityIntroduction
German education, with_ its_emphasis on high scholastic performance, hasbeen a s
ource of interest for educators for many years (Foraker, 1999).
Scholastic_aptitude athamosLimpnrtnt factor. oLthe.German ediir.ation system,
a system quite different from its American counterpart (Noack, 1999). In theGerm
an education system, sti wients are_groupedby academic achievement.
Although several comprehensive schools exist throughout Germany, mostadolescents
are separated academically_ by the_fifth grade. Therefofe, acomparative study o
f high versus low achievers necessarily requires visitationand inclusion of same
-agedshidents in many diverse. schools._ This informatiqn isof interest because
how students learn is an important component of what andhow much they learn. How
.studentslearn,_ or in other words, their learning style,
can be used to identify how achievement is affected by students' learning stifle
s.
Thus, acorrelationaLstudy afi their learning_stylesis of interest.
Statement of the Problem
Students in every_nation of the worldlearmnew and difficult mateqal inways that
are often similar and, at the same time, different from the way otherstudents of
the same age,_ gender, raceseligion,_nitItura and nationality prefpr tolearn (D
unn & Griggs, 1995). Multicultural research conducted with the Dunn andDunn Mode
l of Learning..Stylesindinatedthatrnultiple patterns of learning styleexist betw
een and within groups of students of different academic levels, ages,
ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic status (Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1p93).
Well known methodologies that elicit creative thinking, use multipleintelligence
s, or individualize instruntion.based on students' learning-stylepreferences are
mostly unfamiliar to educators around the globe despite the factthat their stud
ents' learning-style_strengths significantly differ by grade lqvel,
gender, academic achievement, and creative talent areas (Honigsfeld, 2000;
Pengiran-Jadid, 1998). To date, there hasbeen no research conductqd inGermany, o
r in other German-speaking countries, with the Dunn and Dunnmodel. In these coun
tries,, class instruction remains typically generalized fqr allstudents and is c
onducted in a conventional lecture manner. Therefore, ifstudents are expected tc
learn and retain complex information to maximize ttieirpotential and become suc
cessful life-long learners in the new millennium,
identification of and response to their learning-style-preferences appear to ben
ecessary (Dunn, 1990, Honigsfeld, 2000). That similarly aged and achievingyouth
of one nation may conceivably differ from those_of other nations,
apparently is of current international interest (DiSebastian, 1994; Dunn, 1989,1
993; Dunn et al., 1997; Hong, Milgram, &Perkins,A995; Hong &Sub, 195;
Honigsfeld, 2000; Honigsfeld, 2000; Ingham, 1992, 1993; Ingham, Ponce Meza,
& Price, 1998; Lam-Phoon, 1986; Lo, 1991; Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1993;
Nganwa-Bagumah & Mwamwenda, 1991; Pengiran-Jadid, 1998; Roberts, 1984;
Sinatra, Sazo de Mendez,A Price,_1993; Soliman, 1993; Spiridakis, 1993, S9h &
Price, 1993; Vazquez Arce, 1985, Wechsler, 1993).

2
Need for the Study
Brunner and Dunn. (1997) reportedthet perentsand eductators_sharemisconceptions
about what constitutes effective learning. During the past threedecades, researc
h basecLontheDunn anaDunn Model has revealeathatsixcharacteristics significantly
discriminated between the learning styles of groupsand among individuals within
the same group. (Dunn20O0; Research on theDunn & Dunn Model of Learning Styles,
2001). These six characteristics were (a)
levels of academic achievement (Calmana,_ 1985; Honigsfeld, 2001; Mc(abe,
1992; Yong & McIntyre, 1992; Young, 1985); (b) gender (Honigsfeld, 2001;
Jenkins, 1991; Lam-Phoon, 1986;_Marcus,. t979;Pengiran-Jadid, 1998b; Pizzo,
Dunn, & Dunn, 1990; Ponder, 1990; Zikmund, 1988); (c) age (Dunn & Griggs,
1995; Honigsfeld, 2001; Price_1980), (a brain processing..(Cody, 1983; aynn,
Bruno, Sklar, & Beaudry, 1990; Dunn, Cavanaugh, Eberle, & Zenhausern, 1982;
Guastello &Burke, 1998-199q, Honigsfeld, 2001; Tanenbaum, 1982); (e)
creativity domains (Honigsfeld, 2000; Milgram, Dunn, & Price,1993; PengiranJadid, 1998); and (f) culture (Brunner &Dunn,. 1997; Fionigsfeld, 2001; lngha)m
&
Price, 1993; Jalali, 1988; Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1993).
Therefore, the purpose_ofthis_study was taidentify and_thepreferred learning-sty
le characteristics of Germanadolescents7arrfirZelnalyzethe similarities and diff
erences_by age.gender,ancLacademic achievementwithinand among groups of students
in different educational settings.
Research Questions
The following qiiestions were_examinecLthrough this study:
(1)What is the nature and range of learning styles among 13-,.15-,
and 17-year-old.German adolescgnts?
(2)Will German male students evidenbe significantly different
learning,stylepreferences from German femalestudgnts?
(3)Will there be differences or similarities among the lealming-style
e)
preferences_of academically different achieving_shidnts?
Population and Sample
Participants for this invastigalion consisted of 1_3-, 15-, ancL17-yeac-oldGerma
n students attending 8 urban, suburban, and rural schools in the sthte ofNorth R
hine-Westphalia.A total of 869_adolescents from a popilletion of over7, 000 stud
ents participated in this study. Students attended grades 7 through13, depending
on the school type. Males_ andlemalesmere represen d inapproximately equivalent
numbers. Data were collected from two exe plars ofeach of the existing four sec
ondary,schooltFes.
Instrumentation
The German language versions of the/ earning Style Inventory (LSI)
(Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1996, 2000) for Grades 5-12 were used to identify thelearn
ing-style preferences of the participants.. Thisversion was first translatedinto
German (Hlawaty, 2000) and retranslated back into English by a panel ofexperts.
The following 22 learning-style preferences are determined through theuse of th
e LSI:
1. Noise levelThe need for quiet of saynd.

2. LightThe need for low or brightlight.

3
3. TemperatureThe need for cool or warm temperature.
4. DesignThe needfor an informal or formaLlearning environment.
5. MotivationBeing unmotivated versus self-motivated.
6. PersistentLeveLs of_ persistence.
7. Responsible (Conforming) Levels of responsibility or conformity.
8; StructureThe need-for structure.
9. Alone/PeersLearning alone versus being peer-oriented.
10.Authority Figure&--The need_far an authority figure to be present.
11. Several WaysLearning through several ways.
12. AuditoryAuditory perceptual strerigth.
13. VisualVisual perceptual strength.'
14. TactualTactuaL perceptuaLstrength.
15. KinestheticKinesthetic perceptual strength.
16. IntakeThe need for intaKe.
17. Time of dayFunctioning best in the evening versus morning.
la. Late morningFunctioning_ bestin the late_ morning.
19.AfternoonFunctioning best in the afternoon.
20. MobilityThe need for mobility.
21. Parent MotivatedBeing parent-figure motivated.
22. Teacher MotivatedBeing_teacher mativated.
The LSI is a 104-item, self-report questionnaire that was developed'with content
and factor analysis. It measures_students'_ perceptions of how theyprefer to le
arn through the use of a five-point Likert-type scale and can becompleted in app
roximately 30.-40_ minutes The_LSLhas_high reliability andface/construct validit
y (Kirby, 1979), and was rated as having good or bettervalidity and reliability
than nine other instruments_ thatmeasure learning styles(Curry, 1987; DeBello, 1
990; Tendy & Geiser, 1998-1999). Valid LSIs withlconsistency scores of 70 or aba
ve_were receivedfrom 869 German students\whooccupied the final sample of this in
vestigation. These scores indicate the overallextent of agreement between themil
itiple-measured_question items of the,LSI.
Based on the LSI, scores of 817 randomly selected students in grades 5 through12
, Price and Dunn (1997) reported_that q5%_(2_1_ 0122) of the relishilities_rreeq
ual to or greater than 0.60 for the Likert scale of the English version. Similar
lyhigh reliability coefficients were_utilized for the_German translated version.
These German students were administered an information sheet that wassent to sch
ool principals with the initial contact letter and information, andquestions wer
e answered as requested. Over a period of six weeks, theresearcher personally co
llectedthe_German data, in order to maintain theintegrity of the LSI. These meas
ures were undertaken, to ensure as much controlof variables, as possible.
Participants were_askedtareport their gender and age/year of birth on thequestio
nnaire. The sample's academic achievement level was ranked by theirattendance at
one of the four school types_Each student was assessed to beeither gifted, high
-, or average-achieving; or low-achieving.
Germany's tripartite educational system_ was based on the premise\ that
students of varying academic abilities should be in separate schools in order. t
o

4.
4
reach their highest potential (Foraker, 1999). Because the curriculum, standards
of performance, and srademic orientation_of instruction in the Gymnasium aremean
t to challenge the best and brightest, these students represented the giftedpopu
lation. Students of the_Realsrhu/e were_of moderate academic ability andwere con
sidered average/high achievers. At the lower secondary level, theHauptschule was
organized for students_who_were least academically able,, withthese learners ca
tegorized as the low achievers. The level of social status andrespect accorded t
o Germanteachers_variertwith the_type and location of schoolat which they taught
, with teachers reporting a status hierarchy among their)
peers at different types of schools ECK example, Gymnasium teacbers.tendd tobe h
eld in much higher esteem than other teachers. Realschule andGesamtschule teache
rs had lass status,_ and_Hauptscbule teachers hai thelowest status of all teache
rs. Although the Gesamtschule included stud nts of allabilities, it was an unspo
ken assumptionthat most_parents sent their giftedchildren to Gymnasium, rather.
than Gesamtschule, thereby increasing)thepossibility that these individuals woul
ddernonstrate their gifted naliber (NatiralInstitute on Student Achievement, Cur
riculum, and Assessment, 1999).
Data Analysis Procedyres
Scaled scores for the 22.1earningrstyle_elements_were examined, asmeasured by th
e Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1996,2000). Means and sta
ndard_deviations_were_ralotilated far the descriptivestatistics. Inferential sta
tistics were established by univariate analyse ofvariance (AN/OVAs), t tests,. a
ncLmultivariate analyses of variance_.(MANCLyAs).
In the case of a three-level dependent variable (age and academicachievement lev
el), Type_l error was_contralled_through the utilization ot theextended-Fisher p
rocedure for multiple comparisons (Levin, Serlin, & Seaman,
1994). Significant omnibus onerway miltivariate analyses of varilnce(MANOVA) (a
= 0.05) were further followed by level-specific pairisemultivariate analyses of
varianca(MARCIVA)_ at_ a_=Subsequent..osthoctests were conducted with a Bonferron
i adjustment of a = 0.002. Tamahane's T2tests of unequal variance_were4aerformed
for learningrstyle variables,thatrevealed significant differences of variance t
hrough Levene's test forhomogeneity of variance_ In the.rase of homogeneous vari
ance; theTamahane's T2 procedure is approximately equal to Fisher's LSD. When th
edependent variable contained more_thanthree_levels,Dunnett-C postrhoc testsfor
multiple comparisons, with a Bonferroni adjustment to a = 0.002, wereutilized.
Eta-squares (re) were reported as effect sizes to determine the magnitudeof the
results regardless of sample. Size As_suggested_by Huberty and Lowman(2000), eff
ect sizes should be reported for group mean comparisons involvingmultilevel grou
ping variables, such as the_threa-level age variable, twa-Ilevelgender variable
and three-level achievement variable. An 0.15 <re was reportedas a large effect
size, 0.01 <n2-> 0.09 as a medium effect size, and re< 0.01 as asmall effect siz
e (Cohen, 1988).
Results
6

5
Age. Utilizing the extended-Fisher application for multiple comparisons, asdescr
ibed by Levin, Serlin, &Seaman_41914),_ an omnibus one-way multiviateanalysis of
variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of thethree levels of a
ge on the_22 dependent_leaming,style_elements, regardle.5s ofgender or academic
achievement level. The results of this procedure illustratedsignificant differen
ces among_the_three_age groups, Wilks' A = 0_71, F (44, 1690)
= 7.16, p< 0.001.
Follow-up level-specific_MANOVArevealed significant differences_ amongall three
pairwise comparisons of age groups:
(1)13- vs. 15-year-olds, Wilks'_A= CLara,F (72,675)=4.83,_p_< G.Q01;
13- vs. 17-year-olds, Wilks' A = 0.62, F (22,493)(2)=13.56, p < 0.001; and(3)15vs. 17-year-olds, Wilks! Ll= 0.80.,.F (22,501)=5.53, p_< 0.001.
Adjusted via a Bonferroni correction, Tamahane's T2 post-hoccomparisonsmere cond
ucted to avail late diffprences_among thadApAndentlearning-style variables on th
e three age levels, revealing significant F values for9 of the 22 elements (ligh
t, temperature, persistence, authority-figure_prent,
tactual perceptual strength, intake, afternoon, parent-motivated, and teachermotivated); each pairwisar.omperison was tasted at_the 0 002 level.
The strength of association between age and the learning-style variables,
as assessed by rf ranged from small-to medium effect size. The learning-styleele
ments of temperature, persistence, tactual perceptual preference, andafternoon h
ad small effect sizes (n2 < 0.01); whereas the elements of light,
authority-figure, parent-motivated, and teacher-motivated had medium effectsizes
(0.01 <112> 0.09).
Gender. A series_of independent-sarnples_trtests were conducted toassess the hyp
othesis that German male and female students would havesignificantly different l
earning-style_preferences_regardiesS. of age_and academicachievement. Utilizing
a Bonferroni adjustment to amend the level of significance(a = 0.002), the Mests
for ell tality of means_revealed significant differences,for 5of the 22 learnin
g-style elements (light, motivation, responsibility, learning inseveral ways, an
d intake) at the p_<0.0a1, and p < 0.0001. The effectsize of the relationship be
tween gender and the learning-style elements, asmeasured by 112, was small (1-12
> 0.01) for light and intake, and medium in scope(0.01 <ri2> 0.09) for motivatio
n, responsibility, and learning in several ways.
Academic achievement An omnibus_one,way_multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA
) was conducted to determine the effect of the three levels ofachievement on the
22dependentiearningrstyle elements, regardless of aRe orgender. Significant dif
ferences were found among the three achievement graDups,
Wilks' A = 0.81, F (44, 1690) =pal.
Follow-up level-specific MANOVA revealed significant differences amongall three
pairwise combinations_of. achievement_grokups:
(1) gifted- vs. low achievers,Wilks' A = 0.78, F1(22, 404) = 5.16, p < 0.001;
(2) gifted- vs. high/average anhievers,Wilks! A = cLa9, F (22, 721) = 4.06,
p < 0.001; and(3) high/average- vs. low a'chievers,_ Wilks' A =1189, F (22, 544)
=
p < 0.001.

6
Adjusted via a Bonferroni correction, Tamahane's T2 post-hoc comparisonswere con
ducted to evaluate differences among_thadependent learning-stylevariables on the
three achievement levels, revealing significant F values forA ofthe 22 elements
(authority-figurapresent,mobility_rparent-motivatecLandteacher-motivated); each
pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.002 level.
The strength of association betweenage and the_ learning-styla variables, asasse
ssed by ri2, had a medium effect size (0.01 <n2> 0.09).
Discussion
Age._ The results of thisinvestigation indirtated that 9 of the 22 elemeptslight
, temperature, persistence, authority-figure present, tactual perceptualstrength
, intake, afternoon, parenL-motivated, andteacher-motivated-significantly discriminated among the three age groups, graphically displayed in
Table 1. The learning-stylaelernents_of temperature, persistence, ta\ctualpercep
tual preference, and afternoon had small effect sizes, whereas theelements of li
ght, authority-figure,parentruotivatpd, and teacher-motivatehadmedium effect siz
es.
Many of these findings werareflectecLin previous research results_ Similarto Pri
ce's (1980) and Honigsfeld's (2001) investigation, older German students inthe c
urrent study needetimoralighLanclwere lessariult-motivated than youpgerparticipa
nts. Conversely, younger students were more tactual than older)
adolescents_As originally founcLby Dunn andGriggs (1995), time-akdaypreferences
were evidenced by the afternoon proclivity of this German sample.
Table 1Summary of Significant AgaDiffemnres in I P.Rrning_Styles of Ge7anAdolesc
ents
ELEMENTS13-YEAROLDS15-YEAROLDS17-YEAROLDSLight*
WarmthAAPersistentAuthority-Figure*
Tactual Perceptual StrengthIntakeAAfternoonaParent-MotivationaTeacher-Motivation
Note. *-most preference than other age groups
A-more than 13-yeaK-oldsX-more than 15-year2oldsI-more than 17-yearrolds
8

7
Corroborated by these current findings, Nganwa-Bagumah andMwandwenda(1991) repor
tedperceptual-preference_changes similar tathosedescribed by Jorge (1990) and Du
nn (1997) regarding younger students'predilections for tactually- ancLkinestheti
cally-basedlearning. Honigsfeld(2001) reported that persistence was consistently
discriminated among thethree agagroups of la-, la-, and_17-year old adolescent&
She found thatyounger learners were more inclined to achieve better with tactua
l andkinesthetic instructional approaches, whereas_older students performecLmore
positively with visual- and auditory-based methodologies, with an accompanyingin
formal learning erwironment_Thedecrease in persistence among_the_oldestgroup als
o confirmed Dunn's (1985) results.
This sample of older student&evidenced apreference for robust lighting, atrait c
ommonly associated with Analytic Processors. Dunn and Griggs (1995)
postulated that the alder adolescents became, orthalcingerr. they stayed inschoo
l, the more they tended to become Analytic Processors. Another plausibleexplanat
ion was the nature& thellerman education system. Arrordinglo_policy,
17-year-old students were precluded from the lower-achievement Hauptschuleand av
erage-achievementReakchu/e_The sSI ImptiQa that youngsterwhoattended these schoo
l types were underachievers and possessed GlobalProcessing styles explained why thernajority of 17-year-olds in thisstudypreferr
ed a brightly lit learning environment (Honigsfeld, 2001).
Because of the wide rangeof psychological, physiological, and emotionalchanges t
hat German adolescents experience as they develop, certain profiles oflearning-s
tyle characteristic&may be exp_ected in mostclassrooms in the Germanrepublic. Yo
unger adolescents appear to be more persistent, authority-, parent-,
and teacher-motivated than older studAnts_Asthey mature, these studentsbecome le
ss tactual and more in need of light. Age differences in learning-stylepreferenc
e indicate a shift from edult-baced ta self-driven motivation, which, if notalre
ady in place, should be incorporated into classroom instruction. These trendswer
e reported earlier by DunmanciGriggs (1995)_for American adolescents.
Gender. Diverse and significant gender variables were revealed through ttests for 5 of the 22 learning-style elementsAight motivation, responsipility,
learning in several ways, and intake. Results were graphically depicted'in Table
2. The effect size of the relationship_between gender and the learning,styleelem
ents was small for light and intake, but medium in scope for motivation,
responsibility, and learning in severalways.
Findings specific to self-motivation and persistence were consistent withpreviou
s investigations by Hong ancLSuh (1995), Honigsfeld (2001), Jenkins(1991), Lo (1
994), Mariash (1983), and Pengiran-Jadid (1998). Results related tofemales prefe
rences for sociological_ variety supportedJorge's (1990) andlamPhoon's (1986) conclusions. Females preferring intake over males was anunexpecte
d outcome anci_did noLcorrohoratewith the results of previous stuflies(Lam-Phoon
, 1986; Yong, 1992).
German males andfemales have distinctly different learning-stylepreferences, of
which teachers and parents should be aware. These adults need
to become more cognizant_oflemales self-motivation and sense of responsibility

8
(conformity), and the importance these traits play in adolescent females' ownsen
se of confidence and nOntrni SinCe-Germanfemales also preferredlo learnwith more
sociological variety than males, they need more options regardingeducational sc
enarios, including.working independently, in pairs, with peers, inlarger groups,
and with teachers. Gender differences in learning style werereported in several
previous studies__(Hong._&_Siih, .1995; Honigsfeld, 2Q01;
Jenkins, 1991; Lam-Phoon, 1986; Marcus, 1979; Mariash, 1983; Pengiran-Jadid,
1998).
Table 2Summary of Significant Gender Difference.sin Leaming_Styles_of GermanAdol
escents
I.
MALEFEMALE
Li htbelt-finottvation,
ResponsibilitySociological Variety,
intakeNote.denotes greater preference for element than other gender
Academic achievement. Regardless of age and gender, Germanadolescents revealed s
ignifinant differences among_the_achievementgroups for 5of the 22 learning-style
elements--structure, authority-figure present, mobility',
and being parent- and teacher-motivatectamong theihree achievement lerels,
graphically described in Table 3. The strength of association betweenachievement
and the learningrstylavariables_hacLamedium effectize.
Of the three achievement levels investigated in this study, theacademically-gift
ed student&were_the_least parent- and_teacher-mofivated,
consistent with previous findings by Griggs and Price (1980, 1982), but not with
McCabe's (1992), Nations-Miller's_(1993ancLYong_and_ Mcl ntyre'_(1992)
research. Gifted learners also evidenced less need for mobility than high-,
average-, or low-achievers, whicb_corrohorated prior results (Calvano,_ 1985;
McCabe, 1992; Nations-Miller, 1993), but contrasted other findings (Gallucci,
1991). As determined by previous_conclusions_(Calvano, 1985; Lo,. 1994;
Milgram & Price, 1993; Pengiran-Jadid, 1998; Suh & Price, 1993), low achieversfa
vored the presence of an authorityliguraintheir environment while sing,
as well as patterns and routines.
Differences in motivation towarcLparents_andteachers may havebeeninfluenced by m
any factors, such as peer- and parental-support and theperceived connection betw
een stioness aLschool and_future employment_Theimpact of these aspects on academ
ic achievement and vocational opportunitiesconceivably might have acteclas_the_d
riving force behind students' motivItion(Foraker, 1999; Milotich, 1999). Gifted
achievers attending Gymnasium delayed
1 0

4
9
career decisions until later in adolescence, although the majority of Gymnasiums
tudents planned to take_the.Abitur to_qualify for study eta university orprofess
ional level school. By having a clear and focused future goal, low- andaverage-a
chievers may have been maramativated by.thase individualF\ whoassisted them in r
eaching those objectives, namely parents and teachers. Inaddition, bath Hauptsch
ule andRea/schukteachers_ were permitted to_ inclikde agrade for class participa
tion, especially for students who were in academicjeopardy_ Class participation
was included as part_of students' grades attheGymnasium, but marks were more str
ingently calculated there than at the otherschools.
Table 3Summary of Significant Academic Achiestement_Differencesin I earning_Styl
ef ofGerman Adolescents
ACADEMIC ACWEVEMENT
AD. ,
StructureAuthority-FigureMobility*Parent-MotivationXTeacher-MotivationNote. ip-mostpreferencethan other achievemen
t gcoups
X-more than gifted achieversa-more than high/average er.hi!versV-more than low a
chievers
Because parent- and_teacher-motivation were more prevalent in thecurrent sample'
s low-, average-, and high-achieving students, the academicallygifted youngsters
' profiles resulted in asmaller percentage of adult motivation,
indicating these young adults' relative maturity and independence. Emerging as a
new trend, students currently are_beinta_permitted to_work as of 16_years-of7age
.
Because they may be employed, school and its emphasis on scholastic abilitymay h
ave lost its appeal in lightof potential monetary prosperity. Many giftedyoungst
ers no longer place importance on pleasing their parents and teachers,
since they view employment as an alternative_route ta embarking_ on a cours,e of
study at the university level (C. Denis, personal communication, August 5, 2001)
.
German academically-giftedstudents! levels_of law parent- and_teahermotivation may have indicated their sense of self-enhanced learning. Educatorssh
ould consider an individual, stiident-centerert.or_peer approach_thatcapitalizes
on these adolescents' characteristics. External rewards may not affect theselear
ners! performance and shauld_not_he used as_an incentive for academicachievement
. Perhaps these gifted students should experience increased controlover their ed
ucational program,. such as_would_be_pravided by Contract_Activity
1 1

10
Packages (Dunn & Dunn, 1993). Educators may consider utilizing German lowachievers' sense of parent, ancLteacher-motivationto_form a professionalraRportw
ith these students to assist them to improve their academic performance.
Educational Importance of tbe_tudy
Knowledge is Power pfavicaugacenGermany has become an emergent emigrant nation,
reflecting a culturaland sncisl diversificationnoLsem before4StatistischesBundes
amt_Dentschland,
2001). This research has contributed to the ever-growing knowledge base ofindivi
duals' learning-stylacharacteristics 13y addingto_this baser we augmer4 theprosp
ect of a globally unified understanding of how students learn and how toteach th
em. It is within our power ta utilize_this_knowledge of students' lea7iingstyles
and to assist them to maximize their potential.
Rtfrrtc cebBrand, E. (1999). Effects of learning:style_based homework prescripti
ons on
urban 11th-grade low-achieving students in vocabulary (Doctoraldissertation, St.
dohn's_University, 1992).._ Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 60(02), 319A.
Brunner, C., &Dunn, R. (1994_Learningstylesin averseas_school. In
Everything you need to successfully implement a learning-styles program:
Materials ancLmethods _(pp__78.-81) New Wilmington, PA: Assaciation forthe Advan
cement of International Education.
Calvano, 11J. (1985). Theinfluencaof studentlearningstyles on the
mathematics achievement of middle school students (Doctoraldissertation, East_Te
xas_State University, 1985) Dissertation AbstrpctsInternational, 46(10), 2952A.
Cody, C. (1983). Learning styles, includinghemispheric dorninanrle: A
comparative study of average, gifted and highly gifted students in gradesfive th
rough twelve (DortoraldissertationTemple University, 1983).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(06),_ 1631A.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed
.).
Hillsdale, NJ: ErltTurn.
Cook, L. (1991). Learningstyle awareness_ and academic achievementamong
community college students. Community Junior College Quarterly ofResearch and_Pr
actice,_15,_419_-425.
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive learning styles: A review wi
th
attention to psychometric standarda_Ottawar Qntario: Canadian Caller ofHealth Se
rvices Executives.
DeBello, T. (1990). Comparison of eleven major learning styles moyels:
Variables, appropriate populations, validity of instrumentation, and theresearch
behind_them. Journal of Reading,_Writing, and LearningDisabilities Internationa
l, 6, 203-222.
DiSebastian, J. (1994). Learning in style in_Teglicigalpa, Honduras_ Inter Ed,
21(71), pp. 11, 16.
Dunn, R. (1989). Do students from different_cultures_have different learningstyl
es? Inter Ed, 16(50),.40-42.

12

11
Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Educational
Leadership, 48(2),_ 15-19.
Dunn, R. (1993). The learningstylAs of giftecLacinlpscents in nine cultKallydiverse nations. Inter Ed, 20(64), 4-6.
Dunn, R. (1997). Everything youneedia successfullyimpiementa learningstyles instructional program: materials and methods. New Wilmington, PA:
The-Association for the-Advancement-of-Intemational Educatiqn.
Dunn, R., Bruno, J., Sklar, R., & Beaudry, J. (1990). Effects of matching.and
mismatching minority demelopmentalcollege stticients' hemisphericpreferences on
mathematics scores. Journal of Educational Research, 83,2837288.
Dunn, R_, Cavanaugh,. D,..FherleB &Zenhausern, R_ (19R7) Hemispheric
preference: The newest element of learning style. The American BiologyTeacher, 4
4, 291-294.
Dunn, R., &Dunn, K. (1992) Teaching_elementarystudentsthrmuyi their
individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (19ga) Teaching_secondary studentsthrough their
individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., &Dunn, K (1999) The_complete_guidelathelearning-stylesinservice
system. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., &Perrin, 1 osagly Teachingyoungchildren through their
individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., &Price, G._ E_(1274-20(10) Learning_Style Invergory.
Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Dunn, R., Given, B. K, Thomson,_11 S_, &Brunner, C(1997). Theinternafional
learning-styles network: Who, when, what, where, whyand why not.
National Forum of Applied Research_ Journa4 _11(1), 24-27.
Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning styles: Teaching
and counseling adolescents._ Westport_ Cr. Greenwood.
Dunn, R., & Milgram, R. (1993). Learning styles of gifted students in diverse
cultures In R. M. Milgram,_R_Dunn &G_ E_Price_ (Eds.), .Teachingandcounseling gi
fted and talented adolescents: An international learning styleperspective (pp. 3
,23) Westport,GI: Praefger.
Foraker, W. C. (1999). The perception of ability differences in German education
.
In H. W. Stevenson, S_Y_Lee,_&R_Nerison-Law (Eds..), Contempqraryresearch in the
United States, Germany, and Japan on five educatiqnissues: Structureof the educ
ation system, standards in education, the.\roleof school in adolescents' lives,
individual differences among students, andteachers' lives (pp_ 219-254)_ Washing
ton,Nc ES.
Gallucci, A. K (1991). The relationship(s) among the academic achievement,
learning style preferences,_ancLcreativity_of gifteriancLnormal intermegiatestud
ents in a suburban New York school district (Doctoral dissertation! St.

John's University, 1992). Dissertation Abstractinternational, 5307), 39A.

Geiser, W. F., Dunn, R., Deckinger, E. L., Denig, S., Sklar, R. I., Beasley, T.
& Nelson, B. (2000-2001 )_ Effects of learning,style awareness\ and
responsive study strategies on achievement, incidence of study,,, and

12
attitude of suburban eighth-grade students. National Forum of AppliedEducational
Research Journal,_13(2), 37-49.
Guastello, E.F. & Burke, K. (1998-99). Relationship(s) between the consistency
scores_of an analytic vs_a_glnhal learningtstyle_assessment forelementary-and mi
ddle-school urban students. National Forum of TeacherEducation Journal,. 9(1),64
-69.
Hlawaty, H. (2000). Umfrage ueber Lernstil [Learning Style Inventory].
(Research Edition).
Hong, E, Milgram,(1994_ Homework style and_ homework
behavior of Korean and American children. Journal of Research andDevelopment in
Education, 28,197-207.
Hong, E., & Suh, B. (1995). An analysis of change in Korean-American and
Korean students leaming_styles_PsychologicaL Reports, 76,691-699.
Honigsfeld, A. (2000). The learning styles of high-achieving and creative
adolescents in Hungary.. GiftecLand Talentedinternational,_15(1), 39-52.
Honigsfeld, A. M. (2001). A comparative analysis of the learning styles of)
adolescents from diversartations by age,._gender,_acadernic achiavenientlevel, a
nd nationality. (Doctoral Dissertation, St. John's University)
Dissertation Abstrart International,._DAL-A_62toa,41. 969.
Huberty, C. J. & Lowman, L. L. (2000). Group overlap as a basis for effect size.
Friurational and_Psychological Measurement &Q,_543-563.
Ingham, J. M. (1992). Learning styles: Challenging and transforming education.
Innotech Journal,_1_6(1), 37-44_ Manilar_Philipp(nes.
Ingham, J. M. (1993). The learning styles of gifted addlescents in the Philippin
es.
In R. M. Milgramr_R. Dunnr&G. E._ Price (FdsTearhing_ancicounslinggifted and tal
ented adolescents through learning styles: An internationalperspective (pp. 149,
159) Wastport.GT: Praeger.
Ingham, J. M., Ponce Meza, R. M., & Price, G. (1998, November). A comparison
of the learning style and_ creative. talents_ of Mexican and Americanundergradua
te engineering students. Conference Proceedings, Frontiersin Education (pp_ 6aaed 1 ) Tempe,AZ.
Ingham, J. M., & Price, G. E. (1993). The learning styles of gifted adolescents
in
the Philippines. In_R._ M.. Milgram R._ Dunn, & E Price, (Eds_), Teacpingand cou
nseling gifted and talented adolescents: An international learnihgstyle perspect
ivejpp. 149-159) Westport, GT: Praeger.
Jalali, F.A. (1988). A cross cultural comparative analysis of the learning style
s of
dependence/independence. characteristics of selected fourth-, fifth-, andsixth-g
rade students of Afro, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican heritage(Doctoral dissertatio
n, St_John's University, 1989.). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 50(02), 34
4A.
Jenkins, C. (1991). The relationship_between selented demographic variaples

and learning environmental preferences of freshman students of AlcornState Unive

rsity (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi,
1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(01), 80A.
1 4

13
Jorge, F. (1990). A comparison of learning style preferences between seventhand eighth-grade_students_(floctorel dissertation, Loma_Linda_UniveTsity,
1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(10), 3365A.
Kirby, P. (1979). Cognitive style,Jearning style and.transfer skill acquiVion.
Information Series 195, National Center for Research in VocationalEducation. Col
umbus, at: Ohio_Sthte University.
Lam-Phoon, S. (1986). A comparative study of the learning styles of Southeast
Asian and American Caucasiancollege students_of two Seventh-dayAdventist campuse
s (Doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, 1988).
Dissertation Abstractainternational,48(09), 2234A.
Lenehan, M., Dunn, R., Ingham, J., Signer, B., & Murray J. (1994). Effects of
learning,style_ intervention on college students !_. achievement, anxiety,
anger, and curiosity. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 461466.
Levin, I R., Serlin, R._ C_,&_Seaman,_M_A41994)_ kcontrolled,pnwerful
multiple-comparison strategy for several situations. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 153-159.
Lo, H. (1991). A comparativestudy of learning styles_of gifted, regular cl
resource room/remedial program students in grades 3 to 5 in Taiwan,
Republic of China(Doctoraldissertation,_ University of Missouri-St_ L9uis,
1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(06), 1471.
Marcus, L (1979). Learning style_and_shility groupingamong seventh gcade
students. The Clearing House, 52, 377-380.
Mariash, L. J. (1983). Identification of learning_stylesexistent among stufnts
attending school in selected Northeastern Manitoba communities.
Unpublished master'sthesis, University of Manitoba,Winnipeg,_Cabada.
McCabe, D. L. (1992). The underachieving gifted student: An evaluation of the
relationship of learning_style andacademic self-concept to_acadcmicachievement a
nd case study of one gifted high-school student (Doctoraldissertation, VirginiaP
olytechnic_lnstitute_ancLState University, 192).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(01), 92A.
Milgram, R. M., Dunn, R., &Price,_G_ E._(Fds ). (1993)...TeachingandcounsIling
gifted and talented adolescents: An international learning-styleperspective. Wes
tport, CT: Pra9er.
Milotich, M. F. (1999). The role of school in German adolescents' lives. In The
Educational System in Germany: Case Study Findings (pp_ 136A 86).
Office of Educational Research and Improvement: U.S. Department ofEducation.
National Institute on Student Achiemement,Curriculutn, and Assessment (1q99).
The Educational System in Germany: Case Study Findings. Office ofEducational Res
earch andimprovement: U.S. Department of Education.
Nations-Miller, B. R. (1992). A profile analysis of the learning styles of tent
through twelfth grade at,risk, vocational and_gifted students in asilhurbanGeorg
ia public school (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University;

1993). Dissertation Abstracts international, 53(G8), 2784A.

14
Nelson, B., Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Primavera, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Bacilious,
Z., &
Miller, R. (1993). Effents of learning_style intervention on college_stucents're
tention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 34,364-369.
Nganwa-Bagumah, M., &Mwamwendar_i_ S_(_199_1)_ Effects on reading
comprehension tests of matching and mismatching students' designpreferences. Per
ceptual_ancL Motor Skills, 72,947-951.
Noack, E. G. (June, 1999). Comparing U.S. and German education: Like apples
andsauerkraut. Phi Delta Kappan, ao(t a),_ 771_776.
Pengiran-Jadid, P. R. (1998). Analysis of the learning styles, gender, and
creativity of Bruneian performingandnan-performing primary andeliteand regular s
econdary school students and their teachers' teaching styles(Doctoral dissertati
onr_SL JahrVa University, 1998.)_ Dissertation Abst9actsInternational, 59(06), 1
893A.
Pizza, J., Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. (.199(1)_ksouncLapproach to reading:
Responding to students' learning styles. Journal of Reading, Writing, andLearnin
g Disabilities International, 6,2497260.
Ponder, D. (1990). An analysis of the changes and gender differences in
preferences of learning_stylesat adolescence_ancithe relationship of thelearning
styles of adolescents and their parents when matched andmismatchedaccarding_ta
gender (DactoraLdissertation, Fast Texas qtateUniversity, 1990). Dissertation Ab
stracts International, 51(04), 1170A.1Price, G_ E__ (1980). Which_ learning_ sty
le_ elements are_ stable and which tend to
change over time? Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 1(3), 1.
Research on the Dunn &Dunn Model af Learning Styles_ (2001). Jamaica ,NY:
St. John's University Center for the Study of Learning and Teaching`
Styles.
Roberts, Q_ A. (1984). An_ investigation of theselationship between learning_sty
le
and temperament of senior high students in the Bahamas and Jamaica(Master's thes
is, Andrews University1.984). Masters AbstcactsInternational, 2303.
Sinatra, R., Saza de_Mendez,E.,_&PriceG_ E(1993). The learning styles, and
creative performance accomplishments of adolescents in Guatemala. InR. M. Milgra
m, R_ Dunn&_G_E_Prica(fds ), Teaching and co.unlinggifted and talented adolescen
ts: An international learning style pers ective(pp_ 161-173). Westportr.C_T: Pra
eger.
Soliman, A. S. (1993). The learning styles of adolescents in Egypt. In R. M.
Milgram, R. Dunn, &G_ E. Price_(Eds_), Teachingand counseling giftedand talented
adolescents: An international learning style perspective (pp.
211-218). Westport, GT: Praeger.
Spiridakis, J. (1993). The learning styles of adolescents in Greece. In R. M.
Milgram, R. Dunn, & G E. Price_ (Fris ), Teaching and counseling giftedand talen
ted adolescents: An international learning style perspectivb (pp.
219-227). Westport, CT: Praeger

15
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. (2001). Demographic Information of
German Schools. Retrieved. May 27,2nO1 on the_World Wide_Web:
http://www.statistik-bund.defjahrbuch/jahrtab1.htm.
Suh, B., & Price, G. E. (1993)._ The_ learning_ styles_ of gifted adolescents_in
Korea.
In R. M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.), Teaching and counselinggiftedan
d talented adolescents- AninternationaLlearning style_ perspective(pp. 174-185).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Tanenbaum, R. (1982). An irwestigation of the_relationship(s) beimeen selected
instructional techniques and identified field dependent and fieldindependent cognitive_styles_as_e_videncecLamonghigh school studentsenrolled in
studies of nutrition (Doctoral dissertation, St. John's University,
1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(.01), 68A.
Tendy, S. M. & Geiser, W. F. (1998-99). The search for style: It all depends on
where you. look. National Forum of Teacher FrItication Journal, 9(1), 3-15.
Vazquez Arce, W. (1985). Description of learning styles of high risk adult
students takingcoursasin urban community collages in Pi Jerk) Rico(Doctoral diss
ertation, The Union for Experimenting Colleges andUniversities, Puerto Rico, 198
6) DiSSeltatiOn Abstracts Internakonal,
47(04), 1157A.
Wechsler, S. (1993). Thalearningstyles_of creative_adolescents in BraziL lp R.
M. Milgram, R. Dunn, & G. E. Price (Eds.), Teaching and counseling giftedand tal
ented adolescents- An international learning style perspective (pp.
197-209). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Yong, F. L.._(1992). A comparative_study of the_learning_styles_among4fted
African-American, Mexican-American and American-born Chinege middlegrade student
s (Doctoral dissertation, Sruithern Illinois Universlty atCarbondale, 1992). Dis
sertation Abstracts International, 53(6), 1786A.
Yong, F. L., & McIntyre, 1_ D. (19924_ A comparathrastudy of the_ learning .styl
e
preferences of students with learning disabilities and students who aregifted_ J
ournal of Learning Disabilitie25(9), 124-132.
Young, B. M. P. (1985). Effective conditions for learning: An analysis of learni
ng
environments andlearning styles in ability grouped classes (Doctoraldissertation
, University of Massachusetts, 1986). Dissertation AbtractsInternational, 47(01)
,.77A.
Zikmund, A. B. (1988). The effect ofgrada_lavel, gender, and learning style on
responses to conservation type rhythmic and melodic patterns (Doctoraldissertati
on, The_University of Rebraska-Lincoln 1988). DissertItionAbstracts Internationa
l, 50(01), 95A
17

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI

)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
TM033774at
IC
Title:
(4)490aat'AiAe
Author(s):ih 61/4 4.)
/611-rtr...4,
9,cle(e) jCorporate Source:
'
h:y
trt Ce?lc 4.4Publication Date:
,402106 Z
IL REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In orderto disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of
interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstra
ct joumal of the ERIC system,Resources In Education(RIE), era usually made avail
able to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (E
DRS). Credit is given to the source of each doCument and, ifreproduction release
Is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document
, If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the Identified document,
pleatie CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the p
age.
The sample 'ticket sham below ad beThe sample seeker Sham below will beThe sampl
e sticker shown below win beWitted to all Level I documentsdiked to ail Level 2A
documentsaffixed to di Level 28 documents
1
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AHD'DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HASBEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level
Chedt here for Level I release, pemtUngreproduction and dissemlnetkin In microfi
che or otherERIC ardtival media (e.g., electronic) and paper
Signhete,-)

please
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL INMICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTR
ONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY/
2A
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES.INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Cheek here for Last 2A release, pemtittingreproduction and dissemination In miao
fiche end In
electronic mettle for ERIC wchlval collection
subscrtbers onlyDowned, win bo processed es Indicated provided reproduction qual
ity permits.
If pemtission to reproduce Is warted, but no bus is docked. documents wel be pro
cessed al Level I.
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL INMICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN
GRANTED BY
2Bs'a*
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION.CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2BCheck here for Level 28 release, pennItUngreproduellon end dIsseminstIon
in microfiche only
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources InfOrmation Center (ERIC) nonexclusi
ve permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas Indicated above. Repr
oduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC
employees and Its systemcontractors requires pennission from the copydght holde
r. Exception is made for nonprofit reproduction bytibrades and other senrice age
nciesto sad* Information needs of educators In response to discrete Inqubles.
OrpentrationfAddress:
a).)1k6aje
Printed Name/PosItioNnek
'e/1/4H/de40626ifi<
FAX:Minton,
E.MhlAddIlas:4kt..;4
Dits:3 V. Mare,42_

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

rIf permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite
the availability of the document trbm another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (E
RIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependabl
e eource can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection
criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made avai
lable through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than th
e addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
1129 SHRIVER LABCOLLEGE PARK, MD 20742-5701ATTN: ACQUISITIONS
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or If making an unsolicited contribu
tion to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2000)