Developmental Literacy Programs in North Carolina Community Colleges: Instructional Methods and Student Learning Styles

Dr. Kathleen Roberts Toothman
rosbarn@yahoo.com
Western Carolina University

     In order to promote the success of students who enter college under-prepared for college level English, educators need to understand
the characteristics possessed by students enrolled in developmental literacy courses. The purpose of this study was to determine the
instructional strategies used to teach the students enrolled in developmental literacy programs in North Carolina Community Colleges.
The study also examined the learning styles of students enrolled in North Carolina community colleges' developmental literacy programs and
determined if any statistical significant relationships between students' learning styles and age (traditional and nontraditional-aged)
or gender were present. Then the strategies used to teach students in developmental literacy courses were evaluated to determine how well
individual learning styles were being addressed.

     After completing three phases of the study (Program Survey, interviews, and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI 3.1; Kolb,
2005)along with the Student Questionnaire) the results were analyzed. The results showed a variety of delivery methods being used to address
the four learning styles. No statistically significant differences were found in the learning styles of traditional and nontraditional-aged students or between male and female students. Furthermore, the Phase Two colleges were addressing the needs of students' learning styles by incorporating various instructional strategies into the developmental
literacy courses. Statistically significant differences showed colleges were using fewer strategies that were beneficial to Accommodators. Overall, the colleges are trying to meet the needs of the students, but often instructors are limited in the strategies they can use due to things outside of their control.

      The need for developmental education offered by community colleges has increased and the field of developmental education has experienced
growth (McCabe, 2003). There is some evidence for the necessity of making students aware of their preferred learning styles, so they may understand how they learn and may become active participants in their learning experience (Jones et al., 2003). The learning styles of students enrolled in developmental literacy courses need evaluation
because literacy is central to the learning process across disciplines (Price, 1998). This study is an extension of previous research regarding the learning styles of students. There is limited research available on the learning styles of students enrolled in developmental literacy programs.

     The delivery methods of developmental literacy courses and strategies used to instruct students enrolled in developmental literacy courses were evaluated. In addition, the learning styles of traditional and nontraditional-aged students or male and female students enrolled in North Carolina community colleges' developmental literacy programs were
analyzed. Furthermore, the strategies used to teach developmental literacy students were explored along with the relationship between the students' learning styles and the strategies used to teach the students enrolled in North Carolina's community colleges' developmental literacy programs.

Research Question 1: Instructional Strategies

        During Phase One, the community colleges responding to the Program Survey(N = 21) had a variety of structures to deliver developmental courses. The most common structures included a separate developmental education department (61.9%) or separate academic departments (38.1%). The colleges offered a variety of services ranging
from diagnostic testing to peer counselors. A variety of counseling, tutoring, testing, labs, and educational materials were being offered to meet the needs of the students enrolled in developmental literacy courses, which is supported by Saxon, Sullivan, Boylan, & Forest (2005). Writing labs were offered more than reading labs. Another finding was
diagnostic testing was offered more than exit testing. Furthermore, strategies used within the classroom varied throughout the participating institutions, which is supported by
Boylan's (1999) research. The majority of faculty members provided printed materials for instruction, graphics, computer-based materials, hands-on materials, and audiovisual materials along with traditional instructional activities ranging from lecture to assessment. Furthermore, the majority of faculty members provided learning supports
including instruction for use of the library, study strategies, and instructions for research skills. The literature supported the use of various college services and strategies within the classroom to address learning styles (Blustein, 1986; Boylan, 2002; Gruenberg, 1983; Guffey, Rampp, & Masters, 1998; Judd et al., 1985). All institutions had the
majority of faculty members encouraging lifelong learning.

      During Phase Two, the interview participants(N = 4)discussed a variety of resources and strategies they use to make the students successful in the developmental literacy courses. Textbooks, vocabulary activities, lecture, group activities, graphic organizers, computer activities, discussion, multi-media, class work, and individual work were discussed. Furthermore, the instructors were doing best practice activities to meet the various needs of the students.

     The colleges (N = 21) and interview participants (N = 4) reported strategies that promoted metacognition. Furthermore, according to the Program Survey the majority of faculty members supported metacognition, which is necessary (Boylan, 2002; Craig, 1986; James & Maher, 2004). In addition, instructors used traditional instructional methods including lectures, notes, and tests.

Research Question 2: Learning Styles of Students

     During Phase Three the learning styles of students and developmental literacy programs they encountered were evaluated. Students (N=109) from the two pilot schools and four selected community colleges completed the Kolb Learning Style Inventory and Student Questionnaire. There were more Divergers (35.8%) than Accommodators
(33.9%), Assimilators (25.7%), and Convergers (4.6%). Jones, Reichard, and Mokhtari (2003) study supported the dominance of Divergers, which was the preferred learning style for English. In addition, Jones et al. found Assimilators and Convergers had higher GPAs than Divergers and Accommodators, which supports the higher percentage of Divergers and Accommodators found in this study that place into developmental literacy courses. After all students who end up in developmental literacy courses
were not previously successful in school. However, the findings of this study do not coincide with the normative sample used in the college educational major study (Kolb, 2005), which found more Accommodators (29.7%) than Assimilators (28.8%), Convergers (23.0%), and Divergers (18.5%). Small sample size and one educational population sample may have influenced this study, which may not represent a more diverse population.

     No statistically significant difference between traditional and nontraditional-aged students' learning styles or male and female students' learning styles was found. This study confirmed Price's (1998) study, which found no statistically significant relationship between age and learning style. Miglietti and Strange's (1998) study that did not
find statistically significant relationships between students' age or gender and learning styles was confirmed. This study further supported previous studies that found no statistically significant relationship between the students' gender and learning styles (Johnston, Jr., 1997; Jones et al., 2003; Severiens, Dam, & Nijenhuis, 1998). However, this
study did not support Orr et al. (1999) and Severiens and Dam's (1997) studies, which found a statistically significant difference between male and female preferred learning styles. The different instruments and populations being used could account for the difference in findings.

     There may also be no persistent differences in these groups in the population, especially with age groups being divided with one year (e.g., 24 and 25). Traditional-aged students dominated the population in the study; it was a relatively young population. In addition, most males were Divergers (45.0%) and most females were Accommodators (39.1%), and Convergers were represented the least by males (5.0%) and females (4.3%)

Research Question 3: Relationship Between Strategies and Learning Styles

      Students reported using a variety of services and strategies within the developmental literacy programs. Reading labs, learning centers, and career counseling were the services most frequently cited. The students reported experiencing traditional to nontraditional instructional teaching strategies (lectures to fieldwork). The percent of matching strategies in relationship to their learning style was almost even across all four learning styles. Furthermore, many students were in their first semester of developmental literacy courses and had not experienced the full range of strategies available to them.

      Non-overlapping strategies were analyzed to determine how each learning style was being addressed. The colleges (N = 21) used a variety of strategies to address the various learning styles, when compared to best practice strategies. Assimilators, Convergers, and Divergers had their learning styles addressed with 30% to 35% of the best practice strategies while Accommodators had the least strategies being provided. The Kruskal-Wallis test, p<.001, revealed statistically significant differences between the distributions of percent of strategies used to meet each learning style. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant difference, p<.001, between Accommodators and each of the remaining learning styles. Accommodators received fewer unique learning strategies to accommodate their learning style when compared to each of the other preferred learning styles, which supported Loo's (2002) study that found significantly lower proportions of Accommodators. If teachers teach to the dominant groups, then maybe Accommodators are simply overlooked because there could be fewer of them in the world's population. However, the literature supported the necessity for a variety of strategies to reach the different types of learners (Boylan, 2002; Guffey, Rampp, & Masters, 1998; James & Maher, 2004; Judd et al., 1985).

References

Blustein, D. L., Judd, T. P., Krom, J., Viniar, B., Padilla, E., Wedemeyer,    R., et al. et al. (1986). Identifying predictors of
academic performance of community college students [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 242-249.
Boylan, H. R. (1999). Demographics, outcomes, and activities [Electronic version]. Journal of Developmental Education, 23, 2-6.
Boylan, H. R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement
Network with the National Center for Developmental Education.
Guffey, J. S., Rampp, L. C., & Masters, M. M. (1998). A paradigm shiftvin teaching the academically unprepared student: Building a case for an
andragogical methodology [Electronic version]. College Student Journal, 32(3), 423-429.
James, W. B., & Maher, P. A. (2004). Understanding and using learning styles. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for
effective instruction (3rd ed., pp. 119-139). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Johnston, B. L., Jr. (1997). Learning style preferences of physical education majors. Physical Educator, 54(1), 31-34.
Jones, C., Reichard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (2003). Are students' learning styles discipline specific? Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 27, 363-375.
Judd, T. P., Padilla, E., Wedemeyer, R., Krom, J., Williams, D., & Bluestein, D. (1985). A research based approach to students in academic
difficulty: Characteristics and intervention. Paper presented at the ASHE 1985 Annual Meeting, Rockland, NY. Rockland Community College.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED259631).
Kayes, D. (2005). Internal validity and reliability of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory Version 3 [Electronic version]. Journal of Business &
Psychology, 20(2), 249-257.
Kolb, A. Y. (2005). Learning Style Inventory, version 3.1 (KLSI 3.1) 2005 technical specifications. Retrieved March 21, 1007, from
www.hayresourcesdirect.haygroup.com
Loo, R. (2002). A meta-analytic examination of Kolb's learning style preferences among business majors. Journal of Education for Business,
77(5), 252-256.
McCabe, R. H. (2003). Yes we can! A community college guide for developing America's underprepared. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation
in the Community College and American Association of Community Colleges.
Miglietti, C. L., & Strange, C. C. (1998). Learning styles, classroom environment preferences, teaching styles, and remedial course outcomes
for adults at a two-year college. Community College Review, 26(1), 1-19.
Orr, B., Park, O., Thompson, D., & Thompson, C. (1999). Learning styles of postsecondary students enrolled in vocational technical institutes.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4). Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v36n4/orr.html
Price, E. C. (1998). A comparison of learning styles and coping techniques in traditional and nontraditional community college students.
Dothan, AL: Wallace Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425145).
Saxon, D. P., Sullivan, M. P., Boylan, H. R., & Forrest, F. D. (2005). Developmental education facts, figures, and resources. Research in
Developmental Education, 19(4), 1-5.
Severiens, S., & Dam, G. T. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 79-93.
Severiens, S., Dam, G. T., & Nijenhuis, E. (1998). Ways of knowing and patterns of reasoning: Women and men in adult secondary education.
Gender & Education, 10(3), 327-342.