Perceptualand Motor Skills, 1992, 7 5 , 99-104. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1992
LEARNING STYLE A N D PERSONALITY TYPE ' ROBERT J . DRUMMOND AND ANN H. STODDARD College of Education and Human Services University of North Florida Summary.-To investigate the relations between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Gregorc Style Delineator and to examine the construct validity of the Style Delineator, 41 undergraduate students preparing to be teachers were given both tests. Observed differences in learning styles by personality type partially support the construct validity of the Style Delineator. Judging individuals (n = 25) tended to perceive themselves as concrete sequential thinkers as opposed to perceptive individuals (n = 16) who thought of themselves as concrete random thinkers. Feeling types (n = 29) tended to prefer random modes of thinking.
Much attention has been directed recently to the importance of the construct of learning style in education. Butler (1988) postulated four major advantages of the assessment of learning style. First, it facilitates instructors' examining how they themselves learn. Second, it forces instructors to exarnine whether they have developed or masked their own learning styles. Third, it forces teachers to examine whether they are harming or frustrating their students by how they teach and fourth, the knowledge provides a basis for planning strategies to help students who have different learning styles including styles different from their teachers' style. Teachers can vary the type of learning styles necessary for learning and offer the students choices. Derry (1988189) concludes that by increasing the students' repertoires of tactics for learning, teachers can prepare them to develop their own strategies for problem solving in the classroom by placing emphasis on teaching strategies. Butler (1988) identifies four major dimensions of learning style: cognitive, affective, physiological, and psychological. The cognitive relates to the different ways that students perceive and order information and ideas mentally. The affective relates to how social and emotional factors affect learning situations. The physiological relates to what senses, auditory, visual, or kinesthetic, are utilized in learning. Psychological relates to how inner strength and individuahty affect the learning of the individual. Bonham (1988) concludes "the general view of learning styles is one on thinly developed theory and weak instruments, supported by fragmented research, often in settings not typical" (p. 17). There has been much emphasis placed on searching for students' strengths and the best modality for teaching to meet the needs of learners better. One of the newer instruments
'Address correspondence to R. J. Drurnmond, College of Education and Human Services, University of North Florida, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
100
R. J. DRUMhlOND & A. H. STODDARD
and models for measuring the cognitive dimension of learning style is that of Gregorc (1985). The Gregorc Style Delineator (1985) is a self-report inventory designed to investigate two types of mediation abilities in individuals: perception and ordering. The two dimensions of perception measured are abstractness and concreteness. The two dimensions of ordering are sequential and random. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been used extensively as a personality assessment tool in teaching and instruction (Lawrence, 1984). Ehrman and Oxford (1990) found that introverts, feelers, and perceivers achieved higher scores on language learning in intensive training settings than the other Myers-Briggs types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based upon Jung's four types of basic preferences and the ways in which these four preferences are expressed through perceptions, judgments, interests, values, and motivations. The first, extraversion-introversion, tells us how an individual is energized. The second, sensing-intuition, tells what an individual pays attention to while thinking-feeling gives us insight into how an individual makes his decisions. The last, judgment-perception, provides information on the type of life-style an individual adopts. The purposes of this study were to investigate the relationship between the Gregorc Style Delineator and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to explore the construct validity of the Gregorc Style Delineator.
METHOD The sample consisted of 41 undergraduate students enrolled in a Dynamics of Learning class, an educational psychology class required of education majors at an urban regional university. The group were all women and were juniors or seniors. The median age was 2 1 years. They were administered the Gregorc Style Delineator and the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The former has four scales: concrete sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, and concrete random. The concrete sequential learner describes himself as structured, practical, predictable, and thorough. Concrete sequential learners want to see their world in an ordered, sequential, rectilinear, and one-dimensional manner. Their thinking is instinctive, deliberate, and methodical. They like a train of thought to have a clear beginning and a clear end (Gregorc, 1985, p. 19). The abstract sequential learner is logical, analytical, conceptual, and studious. Students scoring high on this scale base their approach on intellect and the laws of logic. They mentally outline, correlate, compare, and categorize data based upon criteria which are acceptable to current academic and scientific thinking (Gregorc, 1985, p. 23). The abstract random learners are viewed as sensitive, sociable, imaginative, and expressive. This type of learner lives in a world of feeling and imagination. Events are viewed holis-
LEARNING STYLE AND PERSONALITY TYPE
101
tically. Their thinking process is anchored in feelings. Their judgments are influenced by past emotional experiences. The concrete random learner is characterized as intuitive, original, investigative, and able to solve problems whereas the concrete sequential learner is structured, practical, predictable, and thorough. The Style Delineator consists of ten sets of four adjectives. The test taker is asked to rank order each set of four adjectives, one representing each of the learning styles. The word that is the most descriptive of the individual is rated "4" whereas the word that is least descriptive of the individual is rated "1." No ties in rank are allowed. The scores on each scale can range from a low of 10 to a high of 40. Studies (Joniak & Isaksen, 1988; O'Brien, 1990) have partially supported Gregorc's model and the internal consistency of the scales. Students were administered Form G of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The test measures four bipolar aspects of personality: Introversion-Extraversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceptive. All 16 types were represented in the sample; seven were ESFJ, four each of ISTJ, ESFF ENFP, and ISFJ; three of INFP; two each of ESTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, ISFP, and ISTP; and one each of INTP, ENFP, INTJ, ENTJ, and INFJ. The four scales on the Gregorc Style Delineator were correlated with the eight scales on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Differences in the scores on the former were also compared by each of the four major dimensions of the latter by t test.
RESULTS The Pearson product-moment correlations between the two measures are reported in Table 1. Of the 32 comparisons, 20 were significant. The four comparisons between the Gregorc Delineator and Sensing were significant as well as the four comparisons between Gregorc Delineator and Intuition. The correlation between Concrete Sequential and Sensing was .615 ( p = 0.001), those between Concrete Random and Sensing -.650 (p = 0.001), between Abstract Sequential and Sensing .337 ( p = 0.05), and between Abstract Random and Sensing -.356 (p = 0.05). The correlation between Intuition and Concrete Random was .528 (p = 0.001) but -.584 between Intuition and Concrete Sequential. A similar pattern existed between Intuition and Abstract Random .271 ( p = 0.05) and Intuition and Abstract Sequential -.290 ( p = 0.05). The highest correlation computed was -.765 (p = 0.001) for Perceptive with Concrete Sequential. There was a positive correlation .601 (p = 0.001) between Concrete Random and Perceptive. The Abstract Random scale correlated .444 ( p = 0.01) with Perceptive. Judging correlated .692 ( p = 0.001) with Concrete Sequential, -.429 ( p = 0.01) with Abstract Random and -.488 ( p = 0.001) with Concrete Random. Feeling correlated .473 ( p = 0.001) with
102
R. J. DRUMMOND & A. H. STODDARD TABLE 1 PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEENGRECORC STYLEDELINEATOR A N D MYERS-BRIGGS TYPEINDICATOR
Myers-Br~ggsScale
Gregorc Style Delinearor Concrete Abstract -.----- Abstract Sequential Sequential Random ~~
-.04 .62' .06 .69* .08 -.58* .20 -.77*
Extraversion Sensing Thinking Judging Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceptive
.19 -.36* -.39* -.43' -. 18 .29* .47* .44*
-.28* .34' .36* .22 .27* -.29* -.32 -.25
Concrete Random .12 -.65' -.02 -.49* .17 .53* .04 .60*
* p < .05.
Abstract Random and -.324 (p = 0.05) with Abstract Sequential. Extraversion correlated significantly with only Abstract Sequential (p = 0.05). Introversion correlated ,274 with the Abstract Sequential Scale. The means by preferred type on each of the four scales on the Gregorc are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between Extraverts and Introverts on any of the scales. There were two significant differences between the Sensing and Intuition students on the Concrete Sequential and Concrete Random scales and also two significant differences when Thinking and Feeling students were compared on the Abstract Sequential and Abstract Random scales. There were differences found between TABLE 2 MEANSCORESON GREGORC STYLEDELINEATOR FOR FOUR MYERS-BRIGCS TYPEINDICATOR PREFERENCES Myers-Br~ggsType Extraversion I nt reversion (n = 22) (n = 19)
Gregorc Scale
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential
M SD M SD M SD M SD
M
23.82 7.47 19.73 4.22 29.77 6.04 26.68 5.48
24.47 5.28 22.16 5.25 28.05 4.79 24.89 6.02
Sensing (n = 25)
Intuition
26.32
20.69
t
P
-.32
.75
-1.64
.ll
1.00
.32
1.00
.33
2.97
,005
(n = 16)
(continued on nex t page)
103
LEARNING STYLE AND PERSONALITY TYPE
TABLE 2 (CONT'D)
Gregorc Scale Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential
Myers-Briggs Type
M SD M SD M SD
21.60 5.06 28.12 5.49 23.68 5.20 Thinking (n=12)
19.69 4.33 30.31 5.41 29.25 4.92 Feeling (n=29)
M SD M
25.17 5.57 23.25 4.92 26.00 5.48 25.42 6.56 Judging (n = 25)
23.69 6.87 19.86 4.50 30.21 5.10 26.03 5.47 Perceptive (n = 16)
27.16 5.87 21.76 5.19 27.48 5.07 23.64 5.39
19.38 4.18 19.44 3.93 31.31 5.47 29.31 4.50
SD Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
M SD M SD
M SD M SD M SD M SD
t
P
1.25
.22
-1.25
.22
-3.41
.002
0.66
.51
2.13
,039
-2.35
,024
-0.31
.75
4.60
< .001
1.53
.13
-2.25
,032
-3.64
,001
Judging and Perceptive students on the Concrete Sequential, the Concrete Random, and on the Abstract Random scale.
DISCUSSION The pattern of relationships between the Gregorc Style Delineator and Myers-Briggs Type Inlcator indicate that the Gregorc measures some of the same dimensions as the Myers-Briggs but uses different labels. The Gregorc has just four scales as compared to 16 combinations of the four preferences on the Myers-Briggs. The Concrete Sequential 'scale is related to the Myers-Briggs Sensing and Judging preferences, Abstract Random to Feeling and Perceptive preferences, and Concrete Random to Intuition and Perceptive preferences. Concrete Random individuals tend to fit the descriptors used in the Myers-Briggs to describe ENFP and partially ENTP. The results of this study need to be cautiously interpreted. The sample was small (41) and although all types were represented, the group tended to be homogeneous. The use of points instead of continuous scores on the My-
R. J. DRUMMOND & A . H. STODDARD
104
ers-Briggs may have given an inflated picture of the relationship between the two tests. Larger samples are needed to study further the relationship between the two instruments and the analysis could then be done by the 16 types. Learning style instruments such as the two used in this study need to be validated through observation as well as through construct and criterion-referenced validity studies. Further research is also needed on the Gregorc Delineator to explore whether arranging the curriculum or instructional procedures according to the model does in fact lead to mastery of material to be learned by the students and positive attitudes towards the experience. REFERENCES BONFIAM,L. A. (1988) Learning style use: in need of perspective. Li/etime Learning, 11(5), 14-17.
BUTLER,K. A. (1988) How kids learn: what theorists say. Learning, 17(4), 30-43. DERRY, H. (1988189) How students learn. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 4-10. EHRMAN, M., & OXFORD, R. (1990) Adult language learning scyles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
GREGORC, A. F. (1985) Gregorc Style Delineafor: deuelopmenial, technical, and administrative manual. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.
J O N I AA.K J., , & ISAKSEN, S. C. (1988) Internal consistency and its relationship to Kirton's adaptive-innovative distinction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 10431049. LAWRENCE, G. (1984) A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type, 8, 2-15. MYERS, J. B., & MCCAULLEY, M. H. (1985) Manual: a guide to the development o/ the Myers-Brim Type Indicator Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. O'BRIEN,T. l? (1990) Construct validation of the Gregorc Style Delineator: an application of LISREL 7 . Educational and Psychological Measuremen!, 50, 632-636.
Accepted June 1, 1992
LEARNING STYLE A N D PERSONALITY TYPE ' ROBERT J . DRUMMOND AND ANN H. STODDARD College of Education and Human Services University of North Florida Summary.-To investigate the relations between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Gregorc Style Delineator and to examine the construct validity of the Style Delineator, 41 undergraduate students preparing to be teachers were given both tests. Observed differences in learning styles by personality type partially support the construct validity of the Style Delineator. Judging individuals (n = 25) tended to perceive themselves as concrete sequential thinkers as opposed to perceptive individuals (n = 16) who thought of themselves as concrete random thinkers. Feeling types (n = 29) tended to prefer random modes of thinking.
Much attention has been directed recently to the importance of the construct of learning style in education. Butler (1988) postulated four major advantages of the assessment of learning style. First, it facilitates instructors' examining how they themselves learn. Second, it forces instructors to exarnine whether they have developed or masked their own learning styles. Third, it forces teachers to examine whether they are harming or frustrating their students by how they teach and fourth, the knowledge provides a basis for planning strategies to help students who have different learning styles including styles different from their teachers' style. Teachers can vary the type of learning styles necessary for learning and offer the students choices. Derry (1988189) concludes that by increasing the students' repertoires of tactics for learning, teachers can prepare them to develop their own strategies for problem solving in the classroom by placing emphasis on teaching strategies. Butler (1988) identifies four major dimensions of learning style: cognitive, affective, physiological, and psychological. The cognitive relates to the different ways that students perceive and order information and ideas mentally. The affective relates to how social and emotional factors affect learning situations. The physiological relates to what senses, auditory, visual, or kinesthetic, are utilized in learning. Psychological relates to how inner strength and individuahty affect the learning of the individual. Bonham (1988) concludes "the general view of learning styles is one on thinly developed theory and weak instruments, supported by fragmented research, often in settings not typical" (p. 17). There has been much emphasis placed on searching for students' strengths and the best modality for teaching to meet the needs of learners better. One of the newer instruments
'Address correspondence to R. J. Drurnmond, College of Education and Human Services, University of North Florida, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
100
R. J. DRUMhlOND & A. H. STODDARD
and models for measuring the cognitive dimension of learning style is that of Gregorc (1985). The Gregorc Style Delineator (1985) is a self-report inventory designed to investigate two types of mediation abilities in individuals: perception and ordering. The two dimensions of perception measured are abstractness and concreteness. The two dimensions of ordering are sequential and random. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has been used extensively as a personality assessment tool in teaching and instruction (Lawrence, 1984). Ehrman and Oxford (1990) found that introverts, feelers, and perceivers achieved higher scores on language learning in intensive training settings than the other Myers-Briggs types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based upon Jung's four types of basic preferences and the ways in which these four preferences are expressed through perceptions, judgments, interests, values, and motivations. The first, extraversion-introversion, tells us how an individual is energized. The second, sensing-intuition, tells what an individual pays attention to while thinking-feeling gives us insight into how an individual makes his decisions. The last, judgment-perception, provides information on the type of life-style an individual adopts. The purposes of this study were to investigate the relationship between the Gregorc Style Delineator and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to explore the construct validity of the Gregorc Style Delineator.
METHOD The sample consisted of 41 undergraduate students enrolled in a Dynamics of Learning class, an educational psychology class required of education majors at an urban regional university. The group were all women and were juniors or seniors. The median age was 2 1 years. They were administered the Gregorc Style Delineator and the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The former has four scales: concrete sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, and concrete random. The concrete sequential learner describes himself as structured, practical, predictable, and thorough. Concrete sequential learners want to see their world in an ordered, sequential, rectilinear, and one-dimensional manner. Their thinking is instinctive, deliberate, and methodical. They like a train of thought to have a clear beginning and a clear end (Gregorc, 1985, p. 19). The abstract sequential learner is logical, analytical, conceptual, and studious. Students scoring high on this scale base their approach on intellect and the laws of logic. They mentally outline, correlate, compare, and categorize data based upon criteria which are acceptable to current academic and scientific thinking (Gregorc, 1985, p. 23). The abstract random learners are viewed as sensitive, sociable, imaginative, and expressive. This type of learner lives in a world of feeling and imagination. Events are viewed holis-
LEARNING STYLE AND PERSONALITY TYPE
101
tically. Their thinking process is anchored in feelings. Their judgments are influenced by past emotional experiences. The concrete random learner is characterized as intuitive, original, investigative, and able to solve problems whereas the concrete sequential learner is structured, practical, predictable, and thorough. The Style Delineator consists of ten sets of four adjectives. The test taker is asked to rank order each set of four adjectives, one representing each of the learning styles. The word that is the most descriptive of the individual is rated "4" whereas the word that is least descriptive of the individual is rated "1." No ties in rank are allowed. The scores on each scale can range from a low of 10 to a high of 40. Studies (Joniak & Isaksen, 1988; O'Brien, 1990) have partially supported Gregorc's model and the internal consistency of the scales. Students were administered Form G of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. The test measures four bipolar aspects of personality: Introversion-Extraversion, Sensing-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling, and Judging-Perceptive. All 16 types were represented in the sample; seven were ESFJ, four each of ISTJ, ESFF ENFP, and ISFJ; three of INFP; two each of ESTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, ISFP, and ISTP; and one each of INTP, ENFP, INTJ, ENTJ, and INFJ. The four scales on the Gregorc Style Delineator were correlated with the eight scales on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Differences in the scores on the former were also compared by each of the four major dimensions of the latter by t test.
RESULTS The Pearson product-moment correlations between the two measures are reported in Table 1. Of the 32 comparisons, 20 were significant. The four comparisons between the Gregorc Delineator and Sensing were significant as well as the four comparisons between Gregorc Delineator and Intuition. The correlation between Concrete Sequential and Sensing was .615 ( p = 0.001), those between Concrete Random and Sensing -.650 (p = 0.001), between Abstract Sequential and Sensing .337 ( p = 0.05), and between Abstract Random and Sensing -.356 (p = 0.05). The correlation between Intuition and Concrete Random was .528 (p = 0.001) but -.584 between Intuition and Concrete Sequential. A similar pattern existed between Intuition and Abstract Random .271 ( p = 0.05) and Intuition and Abstract Sequential -.290 ( p = 0.05). The highest correlation computed was -.765 (p = 0.001) for Perceptive with Concrete Sequential. There was a positive correlation .601 (p = 0.001) between Concrete Random and Perceptive. The Abstract Random scale correlated .444 ( p = 0.01) with Perceptive. Judging correlated .692 ( p = 0.001) with Concrete Sequential, -.429 ( p = 0.01) with Abstract Random and -.488 ( p = 0.001) with Concrete Random. Feeling correlated .473 ( p = 0.001) with
102
R. J. DRUMMOND & A. H. STODDARD TABLE 1 PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEENGRECORC STYLEDELINEATOR A N D MYERS-BRIGGS TYPEINDICATOR
Myers-Br~ggsScale
Gregorc Style Delinearor Concrete Abstract -.----- Abstract Sequential Sequential Random ~~
-.04 .62' .06 .69* .08 -.58* .20 -.77*
Extraversion Sensing Thinking Judging Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceptive
.19 -.36* -.39* -.43' -. 18 .29* .47* .44*
-.28* .34' .36* .22 .27* -.29* -.32 -.25
Concrete Random .12 -.65' -.02 -.49* .17 .53* .04 .60*
* p < .05.
Abstract Random and -.324 (p = 0.05) with Abstract Sequential. Extraversion correlated significantly with only Abstract Sequential (p = 0.05). Introversion correlated ,274 with the Abstract Sequential Scale. The means by preferred type on each of the four scales on the Gregorc are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between Extraverts and Introverts on any of the scales. There were two significant differences between the Sensing and Intuition students on the Concrete Sequential and Concrete Random scales and also two significant differences when Thinking and Feeling students were compared on the Abstract Sequential and Abstract Random scales. There were differences found between TABLE 2 MEANSCORESON GREGORC STYLEDELINEATOR FOR FOUR MYERS-BRIGCS TYPEINDICATOR PREFERENCES Myers-Br~ggsType Extraversion I nt reversion (n = 22) (n = 19)
Gregorc Scale
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential
M SD M SD M SD M SD
M
23.82 7.47 19.73 4.22 29.77 6.04 26.68 5.48
24.47 5.28 22.16 5.25 28.05 4.79 24.89 6.02
Sensing (n = 25)
Intuition
26.32
20.69
t
P
-.32
.75
-1.64
.ll
1.00
.32
1.00
.33
2.97
,005
(n = 16)
(continued on nex t page)
103
LEARNING STYLE AND PERSONALITY TYPE
TABLE 2 (CONT'D)
Gregorc Scale Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential
Myers-Briggs Type
M SD M SD M SD
21.60 5.06 28.12 5.49 23.68 5.20 Thinking (n=12)
19.69 4.33 30.31 5.41 29.25 4.92 Feeling (n=29)
M SD M
25.17 5.57 23.25 4.92 26.00 5.48 25.42 6.56 Judging (n = 25)
23.69 6.87 19.86 4.50 30.21 5.10 26.03 5.47 Perceptive (n = 16)
27.16 5.87 21.76 5.19 27.48 5.07 23.64 5.39
19.38 4.18 19.44 3.93 31.31 5.47 29.31 4.50
SD Abstract Random Concrete Random
Concrete Sequential Abstract Sequential Abstract Random Concrete Random
M SD M SD
M SD M SD M SD M SD
t
P
1.25
.22
-1.25
.22
-3.41
.002
0.66
.51
2.13
,039
-2.35
,024
-0.31
.75
4.60
< .001
1.53
.13
-2.25
,032
-3.64
,001
Judging and Perceptive students on the Concrete Sequential, the Concrete Random, and on the Abstract Random scale.
DISCUSSION The pattern of relationships between the Gregorc Style Delineator and Myers-Briggs Type Inlcator indicate that the Gregorc measures some of the same dimensions as the Myers-Briggs but uses different labels. The Gregorc has just four scales as compared to 16 combinations of the four preferences on the Myers-Briggs. The Concrete Sequential 'scale is related to the Myers-Briggs Sensing and Judging preferences, Abstract Random to Feeling and Perceptive preferences, and Concrete Random to Intuition and Perceptive preferences. Concrete Random individuals tend to fit the descriptors used in the Myers-Briggs to describe ENFP and partially ENTP. The results of this study need to be cautiously interpreted. The sample was small (41) and although all types were represented, the group tended to be homogeneous. The use of points instead of continuous scores on the My-
R. J. DRUMMOND & A . H. STODDARD
104
ers-Briggs may have given an inflated picture of the relationship between the two tests. Larger samples are needed to study further the relationship between the two instruments and the analysis could then be done by the 16 types. Learning style instruments such as the two used in this study need to be validated through observation as well as through construct and criterion-referenced validity studies. Further research is also needed on the Gregorc Delineator to explore whether arranging the curriculum or instructional procedures according to the model does in fact lead to mastery of material to be learned by the students and positive attitudes towards the experience. REFERENCES BONFIAM,L. A. (1988) Learning style use: in need of perspective. Li/etime Learning, 11(5), 14-17.
BUTLER,K. A. (1988) How kids learn: what theorists say. Learning, 17(4), 30-43. DERRY, H. (1988189) How students learn. Educational Leadership, 46(4), 4-10. EHRMAN, M., & OXFORD, R. (1990) Adult language learning scyles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
GREGORC, A. F. (1985) Gregorc Style Delineafor: deuelopmenial, technical, and administrative manual. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.
J O N I AA.K J., , & ISAKSEN, S. C. (1988) Internal consistency and its relationship to Kirton's adaptive-innovative distinction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 10431049. LAWRENCE, G. (1984) A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type, 8, 2-15. MYERS, J. B., & MCCAULLEY, M. H. (1985) Manual: a guide to the development o/ the Myers-Brim Type Indicator Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. O'BRIEN,T. l? (1990) Construct validation of the Gregorc Style Delineator: an application of LISREL 7 . Educational and Psychological Measuremen!, 50, 632-636.
Accepted June 1, 1992
