Teaching to a child's strengths versus improving areas of weakness has long been a key concept in remedial planning for many practitioners. Strengths and weaknesses have often been related to sensory modality capabilities resulting in the notion of auditory learners, visual learners, and learners needing haptic and kinesthetic feedback. This excellent review of research which assesses the validity of the modality strength concept finds strikingly little support; thus, practical wisdom is not supported by research data. Because the modality preference/strength concept has intuitive appeal and is apparently useful to many practitioners, the possibility certainly exists that the research is inadequately designed or insufficiently sensitive to validate this central principle. Comments regarding the methods of the studies and the conclusions of this review are invited from practitioners and researchers. — G.M.S.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateman, B.: A controversial view: Research and rationale. In L. Tarnopol (Ed.). Learning Disabilities. Springfield: Thomas, 1969.
2.
Bliesmer, E.P., and Yarborough, B.H. : A comparison of ten different beginning reading programs in first grade. Phi Delta Kappan, 1965, 46, 500-503.
3.
Bracht, G.H.: Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 627-645.
4.
Bruininks, R.H.: Teaching word recognition to disadvantaged boys. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1970, 3, 28-36.
5.
Burstek, L.: Sensory mode and lesson presentation as a factorin the reading comprehension improvement of adolescent retarded readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 047 435)
6.
Camp, B.W.: Learning rate and retention in retarded readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 65-71. a
7.
Camp, B.W.: Psychometric tests and learning in severely disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 512-517. b
8.
Chall, J.S.: Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
9.
Cronbach, L.J., and Snow, R.E.: Individual Differences in Learning Ability as a Function of Instructional Variables. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 029 001)
10.
Cullinan, B., Ringler, E., and Smith, I.L.: Preferred Learning Modality and Differential Presentation of Reading Tasks . Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Research and Development, 1969. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 042 589)
11.
Gibson, E.J., and Levin, H.: The Psychology of Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1975.
12.
Gillespie, P.H., and Johnson, L.: Teaching Reading to the Mildly Retarded Child. Columbus : Charles E. Merrill, 1974 .
13.
Gurren, L., and Hughes, A.: Intensive phonies vs. gradual phonics in beginning reading: A review . The Journal of Educational Research, 1965 , 58, 339-346.
14.
Hallahan, D.P.: Distractibility in the learning disabled child. In Cruickshank, W.M., and Hallahan, D.P. (Eds.). Perceptual and Learning Disabilities in Children (Vol. 2). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1975.
15.
Hallahan, D.P., and Cruickshank, W.M.Psychoeducational Foundations of Learning Disabilities . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
16.
Harris. A.J.: Individualizing First-Grade Reading According to Specific Learning Aptitudes . New York: City University of New York, 1965.
17.
Johnson, D.J., and Myklebust, H.R.: Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. Neu;York: Grune and Stratton, 1967.
18.
Kirk, S.A., and Kirk, W.D.: Psycholinguistic Learning Disabilities. Chicago : University of Illinois Press, 1971.
19.
Lilly, S.M., and Kelleher, J.: Modality strengths and aptitude-treatment interaction. Journal of Special Education, 1973, 7, 5-13.
20.
Newcomer, P.L., and Coodman, L.: Effect of modality of instruction on the leaming of meaningful and nonmeaningful material by auditory and visual learners. Journal of Special Education, 1975, 9, 261-268.
21.
Potts, M.: The relative achievement of first graders under three different reading programs . The Journal of Educational Research, 1968 , 61, 447-450.
22.
Ringler, L.H., and Smith, I.L.: Learning modality and word recognition of first-grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 307-312.
23.
Robinson, H.M.: Visual and auditory modalities related to methods for beginning reading . Reading Research Quarterly, 1972, 8, 7-39.
24.
Sabatino, D.A., and Dorfman, N. : Matching learner aptitude to two commercial reading programs. Exceptional Children, 1974, 41, 85-90.
25.
Sabatino, D.A., and Hayden, D.L.: Prescriptive teaching in a summer learning disabilities program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1970, 3, 220-227.
26.
Sabatino, D.A., and Streissguth, W.D. : Word form configuration training of visual perceptual strengths with learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 435-441.
27.
Sabatino, D.A., and Ysseldyke, J.E., and Woolston, J.: Diagnostic-prescriptive perceptual training with mentally retarded children . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1973 , 78, 7-14.
28.
Silberberg, N.E., Iversen, I.A., and Goins, J.T.: Which remedial reading method works best?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1973, 6, 547-556.
29.
Smith, C.M.: The relationship of reading method and reading achievement to ITPA sensory modalities. The Journal of Special Education, 1971, 5, 143-149.
30.
Smith, I.L., and Ringler, L.H.: Preferred sensory modality, reading readiness and reading achievement in first-grade children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971 , 32, 764-766.
31.
Vandever, T.R., and Neville, D.D.: Modality aptitude and word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1974, 6, 195-201.
32.
Wallace, G., and Kauffman, J.M.: Teaching Children with Learning Problems. Columbus : Charles E. Merrill, 1973.
33.
Waugh, R.P.: Relationship between modality preferenee and performance. Exceptional Children, 1973, 39, 465-469.
34.
Wepman, J.: The perceptual basis for learning. In E.C. Frierson and W.B. Barbe (Eds.). Educating Children with Learning Disabilities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
35.
Ysseldyke, J.E. : Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In L. Mann and D. Sabatino (Eds.). The First Review of Special Education. Philadelphia: Journal of Special Education Press, 1973.
