The Effects of Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Reading-Style Grouping On EFL Students' Non-Preferred Reading Style and Reading Comprehension
The Effects of Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Reading-Style Grouping On EFL Students' Non-Preferred Reading Style and Reading Comprehension
The Effects of Homogeneous Versus Heterogeneous Reading-Style Grouping On EFL Students' Non-Preferred Reading Style and Reading Comprehension
Homogeneous
omogeneous versus Heterogeneous Reading-
Reading-Style
Style
Grouping on EFL Students’
Students’ Non-
Non-Preferr
referred Reading Style
Style and
Reading Comprehension
Comprehension
Professor of Curriculum
Curriculum and Instruction of
English as a Foreign Language at
Suez Canal University, Egypt
January 2009
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of homogeneous
versus heterogeneous reading-style grouping on EFL students’ non-
preferred reading style and reading comprehension. The study used a
pretest-posttest experimental design. The original subjects of the study (N=86)
were Egyptian English major senior students during the 2005/2006 academic
year. At the beginning of this academic year, the Analytic/Global Reading
Styles Inventory (AGRSI) was administered to these subjects to measure each
student’s analytic and global reading styles. Based on their scores on the
inventory, strongly analytic and strongly global subjects (N= 62) were
randomly assigned to homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Afterwards,
both groups were tested to measure each student’s reading comprehension
before treatment using the Reading Comprehension Test developed by the
researcher. Each group was then randomly assigned to pairs. During
treatment, the members of each pair alternatively exhibited their reading
behaviors by thinking aloud while reading and sharing answers to post-
passage questions after reading. The study lasted for 28 weeks, one ninety-
minute session per week. After treatment, the AGRSI and the Reading
Comprehension Test were readministered to both groups to measure each
student’s non-preferred reading style and reading comprehension. The
differences in the pre-to-posttest improvement between the two groups were
then analyzed for significance using ANCOVA. The results indicated that
the heterogeneous group students demonstrated significantly greater pre-to-
posttest improvement in both their non-preferred reading style and reading
comprehension than the homogeneous group students [f (1, 59)=60.33, p <
0.001; f (1, 59)= 43.18, p < 0.001, respectively]. Based on these findings, the
researcher concludes that the non-preferred reading style can be developed
when students learn with and from others with different reading styles and
that reading comprehension is neither a bottom-up nor a top-down process
but an interaction between the two. Therefore, it demands the development
and integration of both the left and right hemisphere functions of the brain.
The study concludes with suggestions for further research.
1
Introduction
Group work has been and continues to be used for teaching reading
(Madden, 1988), increasing self-esteem (Foot and Howe, 1998; Jacob, 1999;
Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Rapp, 1991), and helping teachers to manage
large classes and to exercise more control in them (Bassano and Christison,
Carta and Hall, 1988; Touba, 1999). Despite these considerable advantages,
it is common to hear many Egyptian EFL teachers say that they used group
work, but it did not work with their classes. Support for this statement
comes from many ELT practitioners around the world (e.g., Alexander,
Rose and Woodhead, 1992; Jacobs, 1988; Wheeler, 1994). Such practitioners
assert that simply placing students in groups does not ensure that they will
researchers (e.g., Carrier and Sales, 1987; Klein, Erchul and Pridemore,
1994; Milleret, 1992; Wong Fillmore, 1985) have also found that group work
2
is not invariably successful. In this respect, Slavin (1990b) states:
together but are given little structure and few incentives to do so, has been
(pp. 30-31). Similarly, reflecting on group work research in the UK, Bennett
and Dunne (1991) report that merely having pupils learn in groups does not
Research on ... groups has shown that in reality these [groups that
In their discussion of the possible reasons that explain why some groups do
not function effectively, many educators (e.g., Cooper, Marquis and Edward,
1986; Salomon and Globerson, 1989; Slavin, 1983) state that a group's
failure to optimally achieve its leaning potential may be due to social loafing,
3
free-riding, and diffusion of responsibility. In the same vein, many social
psychologists (e.g., Fandt, Cady and Sparks, 1993; Kerr, 1983; Kerr and
McGrath, 1993; Reid and Hammersley, 2000) assert that group work can
Group members get jealous of or bored with one another, they feel
362)
In order for group work to be effective, many educators (e.g., Bennett, 1998;
Bennett and Cass, 1988; Jacobs and Hall, 1994; Wiener, 1986) argue that
teachers should pay careful attention to the size and composition of the
learning groups. With respect to group size, there has been a remarkable
agreement that small groups have advantages over large groups. According
to Johnson, Johnson, Holubec and Roy (1984) small groups take less time to
get organized. It's also very difficult to drop out of a small group (Kohn,
4
Sharan and Steinberg (1980) state, "provides for the acquisition of social
large groups, as Dansereau (1987) states, "are more likely to result in the
formation of coalitions and passivity on the part of some students" (p. 618).
Pennington, Gillen and Hill (1999) and Watkins (2004) assert that as group
They conclude from their study that "students feel more comfortable,
productive and relaxed by working ... in pairs, where their voices would be
educators (e.g., Chorzempa and Graham, 2006; Mathes and Fuchs, 1994;
levels. However, this type of grouping, as McGreal (1989) states, can cause
problems when inferior students find out who they are. Abadzi (1984),
Feeney (1992), George (1993), Hoffer (1992), Slavin (1988) and Wheelock
5
(1992) assert that ability grouping hurts lower ranking students and
damages their self-esteem. Oakes (1985, 1986) also contends that students in
the lower track are usually seen by others as dumb and see themselves in this
way. Fiedler, Lange and Winebrenner (1993) and Mathison, Freeman and
Wilcox (2004) add that students in the higher track develop an elitist attitude
many research studies do not support the use of ability grouping to improve
academic achievement (e.g., Gamoran, 1987; Slavin 1987, 1988). For reviews
of research in this area, see Barr (1995), Kulik and Kulik (1982), Lindle
several educational experts such as Braddock and Slavin (1993) argue that
2003; Martin and Paredes, 2004; Riding and Sadler-Smith, 1997; Sadler-
Smith, 1998; Sudzina, 1993; Volkema and Gorman, 1998) suggest assigning
As Sudzina (1993) puts it: “Rather than ability grouping, it appears that
grouping students for reading based on their reading styles would enhance
6
reading” (p. 19). However, some of these educators call for grouping
students of the same style while others call for grouping students of different
styles. Each type of grouping, as its supporters claim, has several advantages
over the other. Surprisingly, in the vast literature on the teaching of reading
level. The significance of this study lies in the fact that its results could help
Egyptian EFL instructors to manage the large classes they face everyday. It
is also hoped that the results of the study could help learners to improve
Theoretical Framework
7
The brain lateralization theory – developed by the Nobel prize winner Roger
Sperry and his colleagues – contends that as the human brain matures
certain functions become lateralized to the left hemisphere and certain other
Sperry (1974) states, has its own “private sensations, perceptions, thoughts,
and ideas all of which are cut off from the corresponding experiences in the
holistic way dealing with colors and shapes. More specifically, the
8
learner, in contrast, processes the whole text before the examination of
parts is complete and even when some parts are missing or vague.
The brain lateralization theory also proposes that the degree of lateral
theory (e.g., Ausburn and Ausburn, 1978; Felder and Henriques, 1995;
Leonard and Straus, 1997; Oxford, 1989; Oxford, Ehrman and Lavine,
1991; Peacock, 2001; Reid, 1987, Riding, 1991, 1994, 1997; Riding and
Cheema, 1991; Riding, Glass and Douglas, 1993; Riding and Rayner, 1998;
Smith, 2004; Witkin, 1973) argue for matching each student’s preferred
style with educational interventions that best suit this style to activate and
9
place with greater ease, maximum energy flow and fruitful results. As
learn with the least stress, to get maximum results from the time
Along the same line of thought, supporters of the brain lateralization theory
students in a class and the teaching style of the instructor (Felder &
10
to be bored and inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, get
discouraged about the course, and may conclude that they are no
good at the subject of the course and give up (Felder & Silverman
1988; Godleski 1984; Oxford et al. 1991; Smith & Renzulli 1984).
(p. 21)
Despite the fact that the brain lateralization theory is mainly based on
over the world. This popularity may be due to the fact that this theory
provides a rational basis for individualized instruction; and thus, fits well
with the individualization movement which was launched in the USA in the
early seventies. But Lefton and Brannon (2003), with reference to Doty
11
misconception of hemispheric specialization is that the right
necessarily more creative than the left; it depends on the task. For
left hemisphere must find the words and the right hemisphere must
in everyday tasks; for example, the left side of the brain may
1991, 1997, 1999, 2001) points out that observed behavior, personal factors
termed triadic reciprocal determinism. For Bandura, this term means that
the foregoing three elements interact with and influence one another.
12
According to him, learning takes place from observing others and imitating
people’s thoughts, cognitions and beliefs, which in turn influence their overt
behavior.
behavior will lead to the desired outcomes. In this sense, most of people’s
evaluative reactions to their own actions. Bandura also argues that self-
efficacy determines the types of behavior people will engage in, how much
effort they will expend on activities, how long they will persist on challenging
tasks, the amount of risk they will take and the types of strategies they will
use to achieve success. He further argues that the acquisition of high or low
13
efficacy expectations depends on performance accomplishments, vicarious
inherited; and therefore, resistant to change over time. It further argues that
the environment can play only a supportive role in the scope of these
genetically coded styles. In view of this, the adherents of this theory suggest
(1973) states:
14
[P]ersons of the same style use similar modes of communication
consequences for their ability to get along with each other. …It
seems that persons of the same cognitive style ''emit'' similar signs.
To the extent that this puts them on the same ''wave length,'' it is
observed behavior and the social environment. This mutual influence makes
an innate component. In view of this, the adherents of this theory (e.g., Ben-
15
performances because group members with diverse cognitive/learning styles
display new behaviors to each other, which can subsequently lead to change
in their personal traits, abilities, and beliefs. They further argue that if socio-
This section overviews two areas of research related to the present study.
style. In the first area, some studies indicate that cognitive/learning styles are
stable across situations and/or cultures over time (e.g., Brody, 1972; Clapp,
1993; Claxton and Ralston, 1978; Cornett, 1983; Diamond, 1977; Honey and
Mumford, 2000; Kirton, 1998; Kolb, 1976; Kubes, 1998; Murdock, Isaksen
and Lauer, 1993; Oreg, 2003; Oreg et al. 2008; Sadler-Smith, Spicer and
Tsang, 2000; Swailes and Senior, 1999; Tullett, 1995, 1997; Veres, Sims and
Locklear, 1991), whereas other studies indicate that such styles are malleable
Pinto-Zipp, 2005; Jangaiah, 1998; Messick, 1984; Pask, 1976; Pinto, Geiger
16
and Boyle, 1994; Price, 1980; Reynolds and Torrance, 1978; Streufert and
Nogami, 1989; Tucker, 2007; Volet, Renshaw and Tietzel, 1994). In the
second area, some studies show that learners perform better when they are
taught in their preferred style (e.g., Barber, Carbo and Thomasson, 1998;
Brooks, 1991; Ford, 1995; Lenehan, Dunn, Ingham, Murray and Signer,
1994; Miller, 1998; Skipper, 1997; Spires, 1983), whereas other studies show
Berman, 1996; O’Brien and Thompson, 1994; Rush and Moore, 1991;
Vaughan and Baker, 2001). For reviews of research in this second area, see
Doyle and Rutherford (1984), Hayes and Allinson (1996), Nicholls (2002),
It appears then that the findings of the previous research in the two areas
studies were conducted such as the length, material, source, field, type and
place of instruction. These contradictory findings might also arise from the
status and grade level, which could affect the dependent variable(s) in these
17
studies. It also appears from the previous research that no studies have
lateralization theory and the social cognitive theory into group work in the
This study aimed at testing the following null hypotheses at the 0.05 alpha
level:
group.
group.
18
Operational Definition of Terms
The terms below, wherever seen in this study, have these definitions:
in which students of the same reading style are assigned to pair groups
(analytic with analytic and global with global) within the same class.
in which analytic and global students are mixed together in pairs (one from
The term 'preferred reading style' refers to the strongly favored way of
present study, this strongly favored way is designated by scores above 75 out
Styles Inventory.
The term 'non-preferred reading style' refers to the slightly favored way of
present study, this slightly favored way is designated by scores below 50 out
19
of a possible 100 on one of the two sections of the Analytic/Global Reading
Styles Inventory.
The term 'dual reading style' refers to the way of processing (perceiving,
In the present study, this dual way is designated by scores above 75 out of a
Inventory.
Method
Subjects
The original subjects for the study were 86 English major senior students in
academic year. All of them were Arabic native speakers and predominantly
female with only four male students. All had a mean age of 21 years, plus or
minus 0.5 months and were nearly of the same socioeconomic status with
20
respect to their parents’ monthly income. Of these original subjects and
were eliminated from the study because seven of them had strong preference
for both analytic and global styles and seventeen were found to be
chose only strong analytic and strong global subjects to participate in the
study. Each of these participants scored above 75 on one of the two sections
of the inventory and below 50 on the other. These selected subjects (N=62)
two groups, subjects were further assigned to pairs, ensuring that the groups
Table 1
Students
Homogeneous Analytic/Analytic 8 32
Global/Global 8
Heterogeneous Analytic/Global 15 30
21
Instruments
agreed upon in most of the cognitive style literature. However, this inventory
differs from the existing ones in that the existing inventories regard analytic
exist, before the start of the experiment and to measure improvement in the
non-preferred style with the end of the study. This contention is supported
their pilot studies was predominantly stronger in two styles. Gaden (1992),
for example, found that 56% of 147 physical therapy students in four
22
example, found that 58% of the athletic students in her study were
The purpose of the inventory is to identify students with strong analytic and
those with strong global reading styles before the beginning of the study and
categorized into two sections (20 items for each). The first section measures
the analytic reading style and the second measures the global one. Both
sections give information about what students like to do before, during, and
theorists, but it agrees with many educators’ and psychologists’ point of view
that cognitive processes occur at the pre-, while-, and post-reading stages
Meeuwsen, 2008; Janus and Bever, 1985) and that these processes are
Garity, 1995; Gul, 1987; Kerka, 1986; Kogan, 1971; McKay, Fischler and
Dunn, 2003; Messick, 1976, 1987, 1994), which in turn characterize actual
23
The inventory is based on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with the score of 1
section, the total score ranges from 20 to 100, with scores above 75 indicating
To establish the validity of the inventory, two pilot studies were conducted.
In the first study, the researcher asked ten English major senior students to
read this inventory and to underline the difficult words and items they did
not understand immediately. After that, the researcher changed the difficult
words and items they underlined and made sure that the new words and
pilot study, the inventory was given to a jury of four university professors
(two from the Department of Psychology and the other two from the
its construct. They all indicated that each item in the inventory measures
24
part of the study and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for
each section. These coefficients were found to be 0.78 for the first section and
0. 83 for the second section, which indicated that the items in each section
comprehension before and after the experiment. The questions called for
both analytic and global thinking. Ten of them were analytic and the other
ten were global. To establish its validity, the Reading Comprehension Test
English and the other two from the Department of Curricula and
Instruction) to give their opinions of its level, timing, instructions and layout.
They indicated that the level and the timing were appropriate, the
instructions were understandable, and the layout was neat. To ensure its
students out of the participants of the study, and was readministered ten
days later to the same sample to assess its stability over time. The Pearson
25
correlation coefficient between scores on the two occasions was found to be
0.85 (p < 0.01, two tails), which indicates a good level of reliability.
The materials for the study were twenty eight reading passages. These
and newspapers. All these passages had not been read by the subjects prior
to the onset of the study. Each passage consisted of two long paragraphs
global reading skills for the homogeneous group, depending on matching the
preferred style of each subgroup, and on both analytic and global reading
In order to establish the validity of these materials they were given to two
opinions about the level of the reading passages and the skills measured by
the questions after each passage. The researcher took their opinions into his
accordingly.
26
Variables of the Study
randomly selecting one student from each of the two reading styles (analytic
members of each pair alternatively read the first paragraph of the passage
and thought aloud while reading. One pair member then served as a recaller
of the information without looking at the passage and the other member
recall. After that, both members read the second paragraph of the passage
and switched roles. Finally, each member independently answered the six
questions after the passage and shared answers with the other member.
each group. He also moved from pair to pair to ensure that students did not
27
The dependent variables in the study were: (1) students’ non-preferred
were controlled in both groups of the study. Both groups were also
monitored by the same teacher (researcher) during two different, yet similar
covariance to control for the initial differences between the two groups in the
For data analysis with SPSS, the dependent variable was the scores on the
posttest, the fixed factor was the homogeneous and heterogeneous groups
28
hand and the difference between the analytic and global scores of each student
on the other hand, the researcher selected only strongly analytic and strongly
global subjects, who were not dual reading style (bicognitive) learners, to
and how to think aloud while reading, depending on the preferred reading
style of each group/subgroup. Each pair then worked together for 28 weeks,
one session per week. Each session lasted for ninety minutes. At the end of
the study, the AGRSI and the Reading Comprehension Test were again given
mean scores between the two groups were analyzed for significance using
ANCOVA.
29
Design of the Study
the AGRSI and the Reading Comprehension Test. After treatment, the same
Table 2
Homogeneous Group 01 02 X1 01 02
Heterogeneous Group 01 02 X2 01 02
Where:
30
Data Analysis
Data analysis was carried out to determine whether there was a statistically
significant difference between the mean scores of the two groups in each of
the two dependent variables after the effect of the covariate was removed.
Before the comparison of the adjusted mean scores of the two groups,
ANCOVA analysis, the researcher made sure that the Levene's test of
were 27.66 with a standard deviation of 7.25 for the homogeneous group
and 39.87 with a standard deviation of 11.56 for the heterogeneous group.
31
covariance was employed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure
Table 3
Results of ANCOVA for the Non-Preferred Reading Style Scores
with Partial Eta Squared and Observed Power
AGRSI, was found between the homogeneous group and the heterogeneous
group in favor of the latter group [f (1, 59)= 60.33, p < 0.001, with large
32
was rejected. This finding could be attributable to seven reasons. The first
reason is that the lifelong ability of the normal human brain to reorganize
itself and to learn new functions coupled with the heterogeneous social
enabled both analytic and global students who worked together in this
In line with this explanation stands the fact that the human brain’s structure
of the plasticity of the brain (Doidge, 2007). This plasticity provides the basis
for learning a wide range of new functions and new styles even through
adolescence. Support for this fact comes Lefton and Brannon (2003) in the
following way:
develop new, different connections among brain cells that did not
33
person’s lifetime. Our brains are constantly being organized and
Further support for the same fact comes from research on brain plasticity,
following:
fiber tracts (Gotay et al. 2004; Paus et al., 1999; Thompson et al.,
2000). …Throughout the life span, the brain retains its plasticity,
the environment. …In any event this line of research highlights the
34
A second reason, closely related to that just given, for the better
style is that the novelty and richness of the social cognitive environment, in
which both analytic and global students worked together throughout the
experiment, could have led to the generation of new neurons and new
synapses, that allowed for fresh neural and synaptic connections in their
thereby enabling students to develop style flex-abilities and to use both sides
affirms that the elaboration and reorganization of the brain are predisposed
Elkind, 1999; Kempermann, Gast and Gage, 2002). It also affirms that the
formation of new neurons and new synapses occurs in the adult human
35
extensive connections between the left and right hemispheres, which could in
turn activate the brain as a whole and achieve whole brain functioning,
data analyses of the pretest and posttest scores for analytic and global
subjects in the heterogeneous group, using the paired samples t-test, show
that analytic subjects became significantly more global than previously and
df=14, p < 0.001; t=7.66, df=14, p < 0.001, respectively), whereas neither
A fourth reason is that the observation and imitation of the behavior that
might have led to stimulating the resting neurons in this hemisphere over
and over again, causing them to branch out and become faster and easily
them easier and preferable to read with. A fifth reason is that both analytic
and global students in the heterogeneous group might have realized the
36
usefulness of the non-dominant style for reading comprehension. Thereby,
they deliberately chose to exercise and apply it, which could in turn result
of reading activities.
unconscious minds, which could in turn lead them to control the non-
according to the requirements of the task and to invest extra conscious effort
group were more likely to observe and imitate each other’s behavior because
they had different but complementary styles. This could subsequently raise
the homogeneous group did not have the opportunity to watch or imitate
zone, which in turn fostered their stereotypical reading style. In line with
this explanation, Hayes and Allinson (1998) note that homogeneous grouping
37
leads to the formation of a shared mental model that fosters stereotypical
thinking. Confirming this, Leonard and Sensiper (1998) state: “If all
10.44 with a standard deviation of 2.9 for the homogeneous group and 13.50
employed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SPSS. The
38
Table 4
group and the heterogeneous group in favor of the latter group [f (1, 59)=
Therefore, the second null hypothesis was rejected. This finding could be
attributable to three reasons. The first reason is that the flexible use of
reading styles and the utilization of both the left and right hemispheres of
39
might have enabled them to process different sorts of information and to use
and decoding abilities (e.g., Baumann and Kameenui, 1991; Beck, Prefetti
and McKeown, 1982; Daneman, 1988; Golinkoff and Rosinski, 1976; Gough,
1984; Stanovich, 1986; Tunmer and Hoover, 1992; Tunmer, Nesdale and
Wright, 1987; Vellutino and Scanlon, 1991). A second reason for the better
is that their self-efficacy might have been enhanced because the analytic
student and the global student had much to learn from each other and each
this reason, Lehman (2007) notes that grouping can result in higher
vein, Hayes and Allinson (1997) contend that exposing learners to activities
that mismatch their preferred learning style will develop the learning
40
situations. A third reason for the higher gain achieved by the heterogeneous
interaction between analytic and global students might have developed their
progress” (p. 119). O'Connor, Gruenfeld and McGrath (1993) have also
found that high levels of group conflict yield better task performance than
does low conflict. On the opposite side, the homogeneous group students
were unlikely to gain or exchange experiences that could enhance their sense
reliance on only one reading style might have limited their cognitive
processes and narrowed their thinking, which could in turn hinder much
41
mistaken only to rely on word by word bottom up processing in a
In support of the same reason, subordinate data analyses of the pretest and
posttest scores for analytic and global subjects, using the paired samples t-
test, show that both analytic and global subjects in the heterogeneous group
0.001; t=9.53, df=14, p < 0.001, respectively). This indicates that both
Overall, this study indicates that cognitive/learning styles are a key factor in
grouping. These results suggest that the non-preferred reading style can be
developed through observation and imitation when students learn with and
42
her review of the main trends in cognitive style research, Kozhevnikov
[S]tudies also made it clear that cognitive styles are not simply
on their non-preferred style. This enables them to balance both sides of the
brain and achieve whole brain functioning. It also enables them to gain new
skills, which in turn improve their non-preferred reading style and reading
43
style characteristics…, but then be able to select the information
Claxton and Murrell (1988) have made a similar observation in the following
way:
into play ways of thinking and aspects of the self not previously
44
The results of the study also suggest that both bottom-up and top-down
processes are important for reading comprehension. One of them could not
and without top-down processing the reader cannot understand the text as a
what is in the text and what is happening in the reader’s mind. In support of
this conclusion, Aslanian (1985) concludes from her study: “If readers rely
too heavily on their knowledge and ignore the limitations imposed by the
text, or vice versa, then they will not be able to comprehend the intended
meaning of the writer” (p. 20). The same conclusion is also supported by
trying to understand into its parts. But analysis is only one part of
45
In short, the findings of this study cast doubt on the stability of reading
styles and show that group work is more effective in corporation with the
The generalizability of the findings of this study is limited to the size of its
participants. It is also limited to analytic and global reading styles and the
inventory used for measuring these styles. The researcher investigated only
these two styles because they are most important to reading comprehension
and encompass most of the other learning styles, a belief shared by Oxford
and Anderson (1995) Oxford, Ehrman and Lavine (1991) and Schmeck
(1988). The generalizability of the findings of this study is also limited to pair
each pair an equal opportunity to observe and imitate each other’s reading
behaviors.
Based on the findings of this study and within its limitations, the researcher
46
(1) Reading teachers should stop passing on bits and pieces of information to
with each other. They should also take heterogeneous grouping into
easily movable tables and chairs that offer possibilities for classroom
(2) Reading teachers should provide students with tasks that cater to both
analytic and global reading styles because both styles are just like
deficiency. Each has its own functions which cannot be carried out by
the other and students inevitably encounter tasks that require the use of
47
of both styles to their students, by thinking aloud while reading to them,
(3) Reading teachers should help students develop a strong sense of self-
(4) Students need to reflect not only on what they read, but also on how they
enable them to revise and modify their own reading styles and to
Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to investigate the effect
48
grouping on students’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards group mates and
49
References
Abadzi, H. (1984). Ability grouping effects on academic achievement and self-esteem in a
southwestern school district. Journal of Educational Research, 77(5), 287-292.
Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992). Curriculum organization and classroom
practice in primary schools. London: HMSO.
Alfonseca, E., Carro, R., Martin, E., Ortigossa, A. and Paredes, P. (2006). The impact of
learning styles on student grouping for collaborative learning: A case study. User
Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(3-4), 377-401.
Aslanian, Y. (1985). Investigating the reading problems of ESL students: An alternative.
ELT Journal, 39(1), 20-27.
Ausburn, L., and Ausburn, F. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and
implications for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology,
26(4), 337-354.
Bada, E. and Okan, Z. (2000). Students' language learning preferences. Available at:
http://www.home.msn.com. Accessed June 4, 2005.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
--------------. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
--------------. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
--------------. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin and O. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd edition, pp. 154-198). New
York: Guilford.
--------------. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Barber, L., Carbo, M., and Thomasson, R. (1998). A comparative study of the reading
styles program to extant programs of teaching reading. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta
Kappa.
Barr, R. (1995). What research says about grouping in the past and present and what it
suggests about the future. In M. Radencich and L. Mckay (Eds.), Flexible grouping
for literacy in the elementary grades (pp. 1-24). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barr, R., Blachowicz, C. and Wogman-Sadow, M. (1995). Reading diagnosis for teachers:
An instructional approach (3rd edition). London: Longman.
Bassano, S. and Christison, M. (1988). Cooperative learning in the ESL classroom.
TESOL Newsletter, 22(2), 7-10.
Baumann, J. and Kameenui, E. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode To
Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 604-632). New York: Macmillan.
Beck, I., Perfetti, C. and McKeown, M. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary
instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 17, 462-481.
Ben-Ari, R. (1997). Complex instruction and cognitive development. In E. G. Cohen and
R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological
theory in practice (pp. 193-206). New York: Teachers College Press.
50
Bennett, N. (1998). Managing learning through group work. In C. Desforges (Ed.), An
introduction to teaching: Psychological perspectives (pp. 150-146). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Bennett, N. and Cass, A. (1988). The effects of group composition on group interactive
processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 19-32.
Bennett, N. and Dunne, E. (1991). The nature and quality of talk in cooperative
classroom groups. Learning and Instruction, 1, 103-118.
Bernstein, D. Penner, L., Clarke-Stewart, A., and Roy, E. (2006). Psychology (7th edition).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Birnbaum, J. (1986). Reflective thought: The connection between reading and writing. In
B.T. Peterson (Ed.) Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 30-45).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bonham, L. (1989). Using learning style information, too. In E. R. Hayes (Ed.), Effective
teaching styles. (New Directions for Continuing Education, No. 43). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Braddock, J. and Slavin, R. (1993). Why ability grouping must end: Achieving excellence
and equity in American education. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 20(1), 51-64.
Brody, N. (1972). Personality research and theory. New York: Academic Press.
Brooks, J. D. (1991). Teaching to identified learning styles: The effects upon oral and silent
reading and listening comprehension. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toledo.
Brown, A. and Palincsar, A. (1989).Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction:
Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brunk-Chavez, B., Shaffer, N., Varela, S., Storey-Gore, T, and Meeuwsen, H. (2008).
Professional development modules project in reading comprehension. Available at:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=beth. Accessed
December 6, 2008.
Butler, K. (1988). Learning and teaching style: In theory and practice (2nd edition).
Columbia, CT: The Learner's Dimension.
Butler, T. and Pinto-Zipp, G. (2005). Students’ learning styles and their preferences for
online instructional methods. Journal of Educational Teaching Systems, 34(2), 199-
221.
Carrier, C. and Sales, G. (1987). Pair versus individual work on the acquisition of
concepts in a computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 14, 11-17.
Chakraborty, I., Hu, P. and Cui, D. (2008). Examining the effects of cognitive style in
individuals' technology use decision making. Decision Support Systems, 45(2), 228-
241.
Chinien, C. and Boutin, F. (1993). Cognitive style FD/I: An important learner
characteristic for educational technologists. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 21(4), 303-311.
Chorzempa, B. and Graham, S. (2006). Primary-grade teachers' use of within-class
ability grouping in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 529-541.
Clapp, R. (1993). The Stability of cognitive style in adults: A longitudinal study of the
KAI. Psychological Reports, 73(3), 1235-1245.
51
Claxton, C. and. Murrell, P. (1988). Learning styles. Available at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage.../d2.pdf.
[ED301143].
Claxton, S., and Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and
administration. Washington D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
(Higher Education Report, No. 10).
Coakes, S. and Steed, L. (2003). SPSS: Analysis without anguish: Version 11.0 for
Windows. Brisbane: John Wiley.
Coker, C. (2000). Consistency of learning styles of undergraduate athletic training
students in the traditional classroom versus clinical setting. Journal of Athletic
Training, 35(4), 441-444.
Cooper, C., Marquis, A. and Edward, D. (1986). Four perspectives on peer learning
among elementary school children. In E. C. Mueller and C. R. Cooper (Eds.),
Process and outcome in peer relationships (pp. 269-300). New York: Academic Press.
Cornett, C. (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Daneman, M. (1988). Word knowledge and reading skill. In M. Daneman, G. MacKinnon
and T. G. Walker (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp.
145-175). San Diego: Academic.
Dansereau, D. (1987). Transfer from cooperative to individual studying. Journal of
Reading, 30, 614-619.
Davey, B. (1990). Field dependence-independence and reading comprehension questions:
Task and reader interactions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 241-250.
Diamond, L. (1977). Resistance to change: Relationship of personality and cognitive ability
to innovation diffusion process. Available at: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ [ED146561].
Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from frontiers
of brain science. New York: Viking Adult.
Doise, W. and Hanselmann, C. (1991). Conflict and social marking in the acquisition of
operational thinking. Learning and Instruction, 1, 119-127.
Doyle, W. and Rutherford, B. (1984). Classroom research on matching learning and
teaching styles. Theory into Practice, 23(1), 20-25.
Driver, M. (2003). Diversity and learning in groups. The Learning Organization: An
International Journal, 10(3), 149-166.
Dunn, R. and Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary school students through their
individual learning styles. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
--------------. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles of inservice system. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Elkind, D. (1999). Authority of the brain. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 20(6),
432-433.
El-Samaty, M. (2000). Coping with a large class size. Paper presented at the Second
Annual Convention of Egyptesol, Cairo, Egypt, November 3-5, 2000.
Emmer, E., Evertson, C. and Worsham, M. (2000). Classroom management for secondary
teachers (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fandt, P., Cady, S. and Sparks, M. (1993). The Impact of reward interdependency on the
synergogy model of cooperative performance: Designing an effective team
environment. Small Group Research, 20(1), 101-115.
52
Feeney, J. (1992). Oh, to fly with the bluebirds…Looking back on tracking. Schools in the
Middle, 2(1), 38-39.
Felder, R. and Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second
language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Fiedler, E., Lange, R. and Winebrenner, S. (1993). In search of reality: Unraveling the
myths about tracking, ability grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 16(1), 4-7.
Foot, H. and Howe, C. (1998). The psychoeducational basis of peer-assisted learning. In
K. Topping and S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 27-43). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ford, N. (1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An individual
differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 241–
259.
Gaden, K. (1992). Inclusion of Gregorc’s mind styles concepts in physical therapy
curriculum and instruction in selected baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate
programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University, Michigan.
Gamoran, A. (1987). Organization, instruction, and the effects of ability grouping:
Comment on Slavin's best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 341-345.
Garity, J. (1985). Learning styles: Basis for creative teaching and learning. Nurse
Educator, 10 (2), 12-16.
George, P. (1993). Tracking and ability grouping in the middle school: Ten tentative
truths. Middle School Journal, 24(4), 17-24.
Goldenberg, C. (1992). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through
discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316-326.
Golinkoff, R. and Rosinski, R. (1976). Decoding, semantic processing and reading
comprehension skill. Child Development, 47, 252-258.
Gough, P. (1984). Word Recognition. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading
Research (pp. 225-254). New York: Longman.
Gray, J. (1976). A developmental perspective of cognitive style. Available at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ [ED127530].
Greenough, W., Black, J. and Wallace, C. (1987). Experience and brain development.
Child Development, 58, 539-559.
Greenwood, C., Carta, J. and Hall, R. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in
classroom management and educational instruction. Social Psychology Review, 17,
258-275.
Gul, F. A. (1987). Field dependence cognitive style as a moderating factor in subjects:
Perceptions of auditor independence. Accounting and Finance, 27(1), 37-48.
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C. (1996). The implications of learning styles for training and
development: A discussion of the matching hypothesis. British Journal of
Management, 6(1), 63-73.
--------------. (1997). Learning styles and training and development: Lessons from
educational research. Educational Psychology, 17 (1&2), 185-193.
--------------. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and
collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847 - 871.
53
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S. and Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning style and
cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72(1), 99-106.
Hoffer, T. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and
mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 205-227.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (2000). The learning styles helper’s guide. Maidenhead: Peter
Honey Publications Ltd.
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context: An educational innovation in everyday
classrooms. Albany State University: New York Press.
Jacobs, G. (1988). Co-operative goal structure: A way to improve group activities. ELT
Journal, 42(2), 97-101.
Jacobs, G. and Hall, S. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning. English Teaching
Forum, 32(4), 2-5, 13.
Jangaiah, C. (1998). Learning styles. Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation.
Janus, R. and Bever, T. (1985). Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of
the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 14, pp. 473-487.
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Holubec, E. and Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation
in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kathleen, A. (1993). Learning and teaching style in theory and practice (2nd edition).
Columbia, CT: The Learner's Dimension.
Kempermann, G., Gast, D. and Gage, F. H. (2002). Neuroplasticity in old age: Sustained
fivefold induction of hippocampal neurogenesis by long-term environmental
enrichment. Annals of Neurology, 52, 135-143.
Kerka, S. (1986). On second thought: Using new cognitive research in vocational education.
Available at: www.ericdigests.org/pre-924/new.htm [ERIC Digest No. 53]
Kerr, N. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819-828.
Kerr, N. and Bruun, S. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation
losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94.
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622-629.
------------. (1998). Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) Manual (3rd edition).
Hertfordshire, UK: Occupational Research Centre.
Klein, J., Erchul, J. and Pridemore, D. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative
learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 24-32.
Kogan, N. (1971). Educational implications of cognitive style. In G. S. Lesser (Ed.),
Psychology and Educational Practice (pp. 242-292). Glenview, ILL: Scott Foresman
and Co.
Kohn, A. (1987). It's hard to get left out of a pair. Psychology Today, 21(10), 53-57.
Kolb, D. (1976). The learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer and Co.
54
Kowoser, E. and Berman, N. (1996). Comparison of pediatric resident and faculty
learning styles: Implications for medical education. American Journal of Medical
Science, 312(5), 214-218.
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward
an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464–481.
Kubes, M. (1998). Adaptors and innovators in Slovakia: Cognitive style and social
culture. European Journal of Personality, 12(3), 187-198.
Kulik, C. C., and Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school
students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research
Journal, 19(3), 415-428.
Larson, C., Dansereau, D., O'Donnell, A., Hypthecker, V., Lambiotte, J. and Rocklin, T.
(1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 16(4), 289-295.
Lefton, L. and Brannon, L. (2003). Psychology (8th edition). Boston: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Lehman, M. (2007). Influence of learning style heterogeneity on cooperative learning.
Available at: http://hfindarticles.com/p/articles/miqa4062/is200712/ai_n21279112.
Accessed July 12, 2008.
Lenehan, M., Dunn, R., Ingham, J., Murray, J., and Signer, B. (1994). Effects of learning
style intervention on college students’ achievement, anxiety, anger, and curiosity.
Journal of College Student Development, 35(6) 461-466.
Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation.
California Management Review, 40(3), 112-132.
Leonard, D. and Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company's whole brain to work. Harvard
Business Review, 75(4), 111-121.
Lindle, J. (1994). Review of the literature on tracking and ability grouping.(2nd Draft).
[ED384643].
Madden, L. (1988). Improve reading attitudes of poor readers through cooperative
reading teams. The Reading Teacher, 42(3), 194-199.
Martin, E. and Paredes, P. (2004). Using learning styles for dynamic group formation in
adaptive collaborative hypermedia systems. ICWE Workshops, 188-198.
Martin, K., Bartsch, D., Bailey, C. and Kandel, E. (2000). Molecular mechanisms
underlying learning-related long-lasting synaptic plasticity. In M. S. Gazzaniga
(Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd edition, pp. 121-137,). Cambridge: MA:
The MIT Press.
Mathes, P. and Fuchs, L. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students
with mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23, 59-
80.
Mathison, S. Freeman, M. and Wilcox, K. (2004). Reforming teaching/learning in a high
stakes testing environment. Albany, NY: Capital Region Science Education
Partnership, University at Albany, SUNY.
McGreal, R. (1989). Coping with large classes. English Teaching Forum, 27(2), 17-19.
McKay, M., Fischler, I. and Dunn, B. (2003). Cognitive style and recall of text: An EEG
analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 1–21.
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick and
Associates (Eds.), Individuality in learning (pp. 4-22). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
55
--------------. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational
practice. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74.
--------------. (1987). Structural relationships across cognition, personality, and style. In R.
E. Snow and M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Cognitive and
Affective Process Analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 35-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
--------------. (1994). The Matter of style: Manifestations of personality in cognition,
learning, and teaching. Educational Psychologist, 29(3), 121-136.
Miller, J. A. (1998). Enhancement of achievement and attitudes through individualized
learning-style presentations of two allied health courses. Journal of Allied Health,
27, 150-156.
Milleret, M. (1992). Cooperative learning in the Portuguese-for-Spanish-speakers
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 435-440.
Moore, S. (1995). Building schemata for expository text through collaboration and an
integration of reading and writing. DAI-A, 56(3), 0878.
Murdock, M. C., Isaksen, S. G. and Lauer, K. J. (1993). Creativity training and the
stability and internal consistency of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory.
Psychological Reports, 72, 1123-1130.
Mynatt, C. and Doherty, M. (2002). Understanding human behavior (2nd edition). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Nagasundaram, M. and Dennis, A. (1993). When a group is not a group: The cognitive
foundation of group idea generation. Small Group Research, 24(4), 463-489.
Neely, R. and Alm, D. (1993). Empowering students with styles. The Principal, 72(4), 32-
35.
Nicholls, G. (2002). Developing teaching and learning in higher education. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
-------------. (1986). Keeping Track: Part 2: Curriculum inequality and school
reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 148-153.
O'Brien, T. and Thompson, M. (1994). Cognitive styles and academic achievement in
community college education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
18(6), 547-556.
O'Connor, K., Gruenfeld, D. and McGrath, J. (1993). The experience and effects of
conflict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 362-382.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693.
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., Bozionelos, N., Gonzalez, L., Hrebickova, M.,
Kordacova, J., Mlacic, B., Feric, I., Topic, M., Saksvik, P., Bayazit, M., Arciniega,
L., Barkauskiene, R., Fujimoto, Y., Han, J., Jimmieson, N., Mitsuhashi, H., Ohly, S.,
Hetland, H., Saksvik, I. and van Dam, K. (2008). Dispositional resistance to change:
Measurement equivalence and the link to personal values across 17 nations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 935-944.
Oxford, R. (1989). The role of styles and strategies in second language learning.
Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Oxford, R. and Anderson, N. (1995). A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language
Teaching, 28, 201-215.
56
Oxford, R., Ehrman, M. and Lavine, R. (1991). Style wars: Teacher-student style
conflicts in the language classroom. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990s for
college foreign language programs (1–25). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Pankratius, W. (1997). Preservice teachers construct a view on teaching and learning
styles. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 68-76.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 56, 128-148.
-----------. (1986). Learning strategies, teaching strategies and conceptual or learning style.
In R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 38-58.
Pennington, D., Gillen, K. and Hill, P. (1999). Social psychology. London: Arnold.
Pinto, J., Geiger, M. and Boyle, E. (1994). A three year longitudinal study of changes in
student learning styles. Journal of College Student Development, 35(2), 113-119.
Pithers, R. (2002). Cognitive learning style: A review of the field dependent-field
independent approach. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54(1), 117-
132.
Price, G. (1980). Which learning style elements are stable and which tend to change over
time? Learning Styles Network Newsletter, 1(3), 1.
Rapp, J. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning on selected student variables. DAI-A,
52(10), 3516.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1),
87-111.
Reid, M. and Hammersley, R. (2000). Communicating successfully in groups: A practical
guide for the workplace. London: Routledge.
Reynolds, C. and Torrance, E. (1978). Perceived changes in styles of learning and
thinking (hemisphericity) through direct and indirect training. Journal of Creative
Behaviour, 12, 245-52.
Riding, R. (1991). Cognitive Styles Analysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training
Technology.
-------------. (1994). Personal style awareness and personal development. Birmingham:
Learning and Training Technology.
-------------. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17, (1&2),
29-50.
Riding, R. and Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles--An overview and integration.
Educational Psychology, 11(3 &4), 193-215.
Riding, R., Glass, A. and Douglas, G. (1993). Individual differences in thinking: Cognitive
and neurophysiological perspectives. Educational Psychology, 13(3 & 4), 267-279.
Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Riding, R. and Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some
implications for training design. International Journal of Training and Development,
1(3), 199-208.
57
Riggio, R., Whatley, M. and Neale, P. (1994). Effects of student academic ability on
cognitive gains using reciprocal peer tutoring. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 9, 529-542.
Robotham, D. (2000). The application of learning style theory in higher education teaching.
Available at: http://www.chelt.ac.uk/el/philg/gdn/discuss/kolb2.htm. Accessed
November 23, 2005.
Romero-Simpson, J. (1995). The importance of learning styles in total quality
management-oriented college and university courses. In Ronald R. Sims and
Serbrenia J. Sims (Eds.), The importance of learning styles. Westport, Connecticut,
London: Greenwood Press.
Rush, G. and Moore, D. (1991). Effect of restructuring training and cognitive style.
Educational Psychology, 11(3), 309-21.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1998). Cognitive style: Some human resource implications for
managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 185-202.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D. and Tsang, F. (2000). Validity of the Cognitive Style Index:
Replication and extension. British Journal of Management, 11, 175–181.
Salomon, G. and Globerson, T. (1989).When groups do not function the way they ought
to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89-99.
Schmeck, R. (1988). Strategies and styles of learning: An integration of varied
perspectives. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.
317-337). New York: Plenum Press.
Skipper, B. (1997). Reading with style. American School Board Journal, 184(2), 36-37.
Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
-----------. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A
best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336
-----------. (1988). Tracking: Can schools take a different route? NEA Today, 6, 41-47.
-----------. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60, 471-499.
-----------. (1990b). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
-----------. (1993). Ability grouping in the middle grades: Achievement effects and
alternatives. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 535-552.
Smith, C. (2004). Learning disabilities: The interaction of students and their environments
(5th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon – Pearson.
Smith, K., Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy
versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology,
73(5), 651-663.
Sperry, R. (1974). Lateral specialization in the surgically separated hemispheres. In F. O.
Schmitt and F. G. Wordon (Eds.), The neurosciences third study program (pp. 5-19).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Spires, R. (1983). The effect of teacher in-service about learning styles on students'
mathematics and reading achievement. DAI-A, 44(5), 1325.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360- 407.
Stark, J. and Lattuca, L. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
58
Steindler, D. and Pincus, D. (2002). Stem cells and neuropoiesis in the adult human brain.
Lancet, 359, 1047-1054.
Stevens, R., Slavin, R. and Franish, A. (1989). A cooperative learning approach to
elementary reading and writing instruction: Long-term effects (Report No. 42).
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.
Streufert, S. and Nogami, G. (1989). Cognitive style and complexity: Implications for
industrial and organisational psychology. In C. L. Cooper and I. Robinson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 43-93).
Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
Sudzina M. (1993). An investigation of the relationship between the reading styles of
second-graders and their achievement in three basal reader treatments. Available at:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ [ED353569].
Swailes, S., and Senior, B. (1999). The dimensionality of Honey and Mumford’s Learning
Style Questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 1-11.
Topping, K. (1998). Paired learning in literacy. In K. Topping and S. Ehly (Eds.), Peer-
assisted learning (pp. 87-104). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Touba, N. (1999). Large classes: Using groups and content. English Teaching Forum,
37(3), 18-23.
Tucker, R. (2007). Southern drift: The learning styles of first and third year students of
the built environment. Architectural Science Review, 50 (3), 246-255.
Tullett, A. D. (1995). The adaptive-innovative (A-I) cognitive styles of male and female
project managers: Some implications for the management of change. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 359-365.
--------------. (1997). Cognitive style: Not culture's consequence. European Psychologist, 2,
258-267.
Tunmer, W. and Hoover, W. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related
factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In R. M. Joshi and C. K. Leong
(Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 135–173).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tunmer, W., Nesdale, A. and Wright, A. (1987). Syntactic awareness and reading
acquisition. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 25–34.
Urquhart, A. and Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and
practice. London: Longman.
Uttero, D. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. The Reading
Teacher, 41(4), 390-393.
Vaughan, L. and Baker, R. (2001). Teaching in the medical setting: Balancing teaching
styles, learning styles and teaching methods. Medical Teacher, 23(6), 610-612.
Vellutino, F. and Scanlon, D. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and
reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
Vengopal, K. and Mridula, K. (2007). Styles of Learning and Thinking. Journal of the
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(1), 111-118.
Veres, J., Sims, R., and Locklear, T. (1991). Improving the reliability of Kolb’s revised
learning style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 143-150.
Vermette, P. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Student teams in K-12 classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
59
Volet, S., Renshaw, P. and Tietzel, K. (1994). A short-term longitudinal investigation of
cross-cultural differences in study approaches using Biggs' SPQ. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64, 301-318.
Volkema, R. and Gorman, R. (1998). The influence of cognitive-based group composition
on decision-making process and outcome. Journal of Management Studies, 35(1),
105-121.
Watkins, R. (2004). The handbook for economics lecturers: Groupwork and assessment.
London: Kingston University.
Wheeler, J. (1994). Overcoming difficulties in pair and group work. English Teaching
Forum, 34, 48-51.
Wheelock, A. (1992). Crossing the tracks. New York: The New Press.
Wiener, H. (1986). Collaborative learning in the classroom: A guide to evaluation. College
English, 48, 52-61.
Witkin, H. (1973). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-
student relations. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service. [ED083248].
Witkin, H., Moore, C., Goodenough, D. and Cox, P. (1977). Field-dependent and field-
independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of
Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64.
Wong Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work as input? In S. Gass and C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
60
Appendix
Analytic/Global Reading Styles Inventory (AGRSI)
Directions
The purpose of this inventory is to measure your analytic and global reading styles. It
consists of 40 Likert-scale items. These items are categorized into two sections (20 for
each). The first section aims to measure your analytic reading style whereas the second
aims to measure your global reading style. The score for each item ranges from 1 to 5,
where 1 stands for “Never or almost never true of me,” 2 for “Usually not true of me,” 3
for “Somewhat true of me,” 4 for “Usually true of me,” and 5 for “Always or almost
It is important to know that there are no right or wrong responses to all items on the
Please read each item carefully. On the attached answering sheet, record the
corresponding score for each item. Each item takes one minute to complete.
Yours truly,
61
If you are sure that you know what to do, begin. If you have any questions, ask for
Section A
Before reading,
(4) I tend to look at the length of the text to estimate the time I will take to finish reading
it.
While reading,
(9) I prefer to analyze unfamiliar words into roots, prefixes and suffixes to determine
their meanings.
(10) I prefer to use the dictionary when the structure of the word does not provide the
meaning.
[Continued]
62
(12) I tend to pay attention to linking words to understand the meaning of sentences.
After reading,
(17) I prefer to answer multiple choice questions to consolidate the information I have
read.
(20) I like to discuss the author’s line of reasoning with others to confirm my
comprehension.
Section B
Before reading,
(3) I tend to predict what the content will be in reaction to the title.
(4) I tend to look over the pictures and diagrams in the text.
[Continued]
63
(5) I prefer to get the gist of the text.
While reading,
(10) I tend to draw meanings from pictures and other visuals in the text.
(11) I tend to create mental images of the events and ideas I encounter in the text.
After reading,
the text.
(18) I tend to retain the ideas and events I visualized while reading.
(19) I tend to graphically reorganize the relationship among ideas to fix them in my
memory.
64
Inventory Answering Sheet
Name:--------------------------------------. Date:-----------------.
Directions
Record the score that represents your response to each item (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) in each of the
blanks below. Add up the individual scores of each section and put the total on the line
marked TOTAL.
Section A Section B
1 ---------- 1 ----------
2 ---------- 2 ----------
3 ---------- 3 ----------
4 ---------- 4 ----------
5 ---------- 5 ----------
6 ---------- 6 ----------
7 ---------- 7 ----------
8 ---------- 8 ----------
9 ---------- 9 ----------
10 ---------- 10 ----------
11 ---------- 11 ----------
12 ---------- 12 ----------
13 ---------- 13 ----------
14 ---------- 14 ----------
15 ---------- 15 ----------
16 ---------- 16 ----------
17 ---------- 17 ----------
18 ---------- 18 ----------
19 ---------- 19 ----------
20 ---------- 20 ----------
65