User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > The Journal Of Secondary Gifted Education > Volume 14 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Andrews, R. H. (1990). The development of a learning styles program in a low socioeconomic, underachieving North Carolina elementary school. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6, 307–314.
  • Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
  • Baker, J. A., Bridges, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement among gifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 5–14.
  • Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning style strategies can help students at risk. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 55–58.
  • Cody, C. (1983). Learning styles, including hemispheric dominance: A comparative study of average, gifted, and highly gifted students in grades five through twelve. (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 1631A.
  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B., (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 48, 15–19.
  • Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D. P., Eberle, B. M., & Zenhausern, R. (1982). Hemispheric preference: The newest element of learning style. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 291–294.
  • Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 7–12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1990). Research on the learning style characteristics of selected racial and ethnic groups. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 6, 261–280.
  • Dunn, R. S., & Price, G. E. (1980). The learning style characteristics of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 33–36.
  • Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140–146.
  • Fehrenbach, C. R. (1993). Underachieving gifted students: Intervention programs that work. Roeper Review, 16, 88–90.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1997). Educating teachers for work with talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 547–552). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gadwa, K., & Griggs, S. A. (1985). The school dropout: Implications for counselors. The School Counselor, 33, 9–17.
  • Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Gemake, J., Jalali, F., Zenhausern, R., Quinn, P., & Spiridakis, J. (1990). Cross-cultural differences in the learning styles of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students of Afro, Chinese, Greek, and Mexican heritage. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 18, 68–93.
  • Gowan, J. C. (1955). The underachieving gifted child: A problem for everyone. Exceptional Children, 21, 247–249, 270–271.
  • Griggs, S. A., & Price, G. E. (1980). A comparison between the learning styles of gifted versus average suburban junior high school students. Roeper Review, 3, 7–9.
  • Klavas, A. (1994). In Greensboro, North Carolina: Learning style program boosts achievement and test scores. The Clearing House, 67, 149–151.
  • Lupart, J. L., & Pyryt, M. S. (1996). “Hidden gifted” students: Underachiever prevalence and profile. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 36–52.
  • Peterson, J. S., & Colangelo, N. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 399–407.
  • Price, G. E., & Dunn, R. (1997). Learning style inventory (LSI): An inventory for the identification of how individuals in grades 3 through 12 prefer to learn. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
  • Price, G. E., Dunn, K., Dunn, R., & Griggs, S. A. (1981). Studies in students’ learning styles. Roeper Review, 4, 223–226.
  • Pyryt, M. C., Sandals, L. H., & Begoray, J. ( 1998). Learning style preferences of gifted, average-ability, and special needs students: A multivariate perspective. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13, 71–76.
  • Redding, R. E. (1989). Underachievement in the verbally gifted: Implications for pedagogy. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 275–291.
  • Redding, R. E. (1990). Learning preferences and skill patterns among underachieving gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 72–75.
  • Restak, R. (1979). The brain: The last frontier. New York: Doubleday.
  • Ricca, J. (1984). Learning styles and preferred instructional strategies of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 121–126.
  • Seeley, K. R. (1993). Gifted students at risk. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 263–276). Denver: Love.
  • Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Understanding a lack of motivation to excel. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 66–69.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 14
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2003



Gifted Achievers and Gifted Underachievers: The Impact of Learning Style Preferences in the Classroom

Letty J. Rayneri, Brian L. Gerber, and Larry P. Wiley

This article focuses on the learning style preferences of achieving and underachieving gifted middle school students. Learning style was determined through administration of the Learning Style Inventory (LSI). Both groups of participants revealed several learning style preferences that were quite similar. However, examination of LSI profiles revealed some differences between achievers and underachievers in preferences for quiet or sound, flexibility or structure in assignments, and level of need for mobility. Many low achievers showed a strong need for tactile and kinesthetic modalities; intake of food, drinks, or both; sound in the learning environment; informal seating design; and dim lighting. The low achievers did not perceive themselves to be persistent, and scores revealed that they needed structure in assignments. Persistence seemed to be a key to success for the achieving learners in this study since they were able to maintain high academic performance in all content areas. Over half of the low achievers, on the other hand, did not judge themselves to be successful at task completion.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.