This study was designed to document whether there are differences in how students with different learning styles, as defined by the framework of Jungian mental preferences, approach mathematical tasks. These preferences are similar to our physical preferences for handedness or eye dominance: Normal people can use both, but prefer one to the other. The preferences examined in this study are

¥       Extraversion: gaining energy through action and interaction with others and the environment

¥       Introversion: gaining energy through reflection and time away from activities and others

¥       Sensing: first paying attention to information gained through the five senses as well as what is known from past experiences and learning

¥       Intuition: first paying attention to information gained through hunches, insights, connections and analogies.

The framework of Jungian typology suggests that there may be differences in how students most easily reach conceptual understanding of mathematical concepts. Differences on the Extraversion-Introversion dichotomy might include needs for interaction and reflection. Differences on the Sensing-Intuition dichotomy could include the usefulness of concrete representations and real world connections, making connections among different problems and/or prior knowledge, clarity of reasoning and use of symbolic language.

 This study attempted to avoid two possible difficulties with assessing the merits of taking learning styles into account during instruction. First, because content often may drive optimal instructional design, criteria for designing the tasks were: they would progress students through a sequence of concepts that build toward conceptual understanding of fractions; different methods and materials could be used to solve the problems; connections could be made among the problems that could facilitate solving the later problems; and the tasks would reveal how students thought about and solved the problems. Second, because successful students may already have strategies for learning in styles other than their own, the study focused on struggling students.

 The project involved filming 47 of 130 sixth grade students at an urban middle school.  Those chosen both returned parental permission slips and had Cognitive Ability Level Test (CALT) scores indicating that they were about 6-18 months behind grade level in mathematics; the year before, the researchers tested the tasks on other students and determined that students with lower CALT scores were not comfortable engaging in the tasks. A script was developed, based on a pilot study of 36 students the year before, to ensure that all students received the same instructions and that the actions of the facilitator did not influence how the students completed the tasks. To avoid bias, the facilitator and camera operator were not part of the research team and did not know the purpose of the study.

The film transcripts, student actions in the films, and records of student work were coded by the facilitator, using a system developed by the researchers during the pilot study. They were coded for mathematical processes, materials used, accuracy, types of errors, student perseverance, requests for assistance, ability to transfer learning to new problems, use of calculations, and multiple other factors.

Student mental preference identification was based on results of the Murphy-Meisgeier Type Indicator for Children (MMTIC), a self-reporting instrument similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indictor tool for adults and published by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

A summary of the significant type preference effects as shown by chi square analysis is as follows:

¥       75 percent of the students who preferred Sensing asked permission before using any of the materials, versus 25 percent of the students who preferred Intuition, χ² (1, N=47) = 11.24, p = .0008. More significant to instruction, 50 percent of students who preferred Sensing waited or asked for permission before trying a strategy to solve a problem, versus 4 percent of Intuitive students, χ² (1, N=47) = 12.23, p = .0005.

¥       While 67 percent of students with a preference for Extraversion used trial and error, either moving tiles into possible combinations or drawing rectangles with different numbers of squares until they found a solution, only 15 percent of students with a preference for Introversion did so, χ² (1, N=47) = 12.92, p = .0005.

¥       Students who preferred Intuition were significantly less likely than Sensing students to complete problems literally rather than mathematically, with 54 percent of students who preferred Sensing doing so and 9 percent of Intuitive students doing so, χ² (1, N=47) = 11.18, p = .0008.

¥       Students with a preference for Sensing were unlikely to calculate common denominators, χ² (1, N=47) = 15.39, p = .0001. 65 percent of students with a preference for Intuition calculated a common denominator to complete at least one task.

¥       Students who preferred Intuition were significantly more likely to use incorrect colors or miscount tiles or squares. Only 4 percent of students who preferred Sensing made such an error versus 43 percent of those who preferred Intuition, χ² (1, N=47) = 10.12, p = .005.

¥       Students with a preference for Intuition were significantly less likely to misunderstand that the numerator gives the number of equal parts, rather than the number of pieces, of each color, χ² (1, N=47) = 6.88, p = .0087. While 54 percent of Sensing students made this error, only 17 percent of Intuitive students did so.

After the sixth grade mathematics teachers studied the preliminary research results, they decided to group students by their mental preferences for an instructional intervention on fractions. The data was collected informally through teacher journals and conversations, but indicate that the results of the core project may have instructional implications.

Results from the filming project indicate that using Jungian type preferences as a framework for learning styles could be important in understanding how to accommodate student strengths and motivational needs. A limitation is that while this project demonstrated visible differences, related to mental preferences, in how students approach mathematical tasks, further study beyond the informal intervention observations described in the above paragraph is needed to determine whether classroom structures and strategies that honor these differences would result in improved student mastery of mathematical concepts.

Session Organization

Presenter will give an overview of the research methodology (5 minutes) and show brief film clips that demonstrate the learning style differences identified in the study (10 minutes). Presenter will provide a 1-page summary of the research findings and implications for further research for participants to respond to during the 15-minute roundtable discussions.