One of the first correlational studies that revealed relationships between academic achievement and preferences for learning at a given time during the day was conducted by Clara Amelia Murray (1980). While comparing the learning styles of seventh and eighth grade, low-achievers in a public middle school, she discovered that many of the female low achievers preferred learning in the evening, whereas male counterparts were afternoon preferents. Those initial data suggested a need to further examine the relationships between biologically-based time preferences and school achievement.

Within the next five years, at least nine separate investigations examined the learning styles of various multicultural groups (Dunn & Griggs, 1990). Among the findings were that:

• Asian college students preferred early-morning learning significantly more than caucasians (Lam-Phoon, 1986);
• Mexican-Americans shared an early-morning preference with Asians but disliked afternoon learning (Dunn, Gemake, Jalai, Zenhausern, & Quinn, 1990; Sims, 1988); and
• Later in the day was preferred by Caucasian, African-American, and Greek elementary students (Dunn, et al. 1990).

As a result of a correlational study, Gadwa and Griggs (1985) reported that high-school dropouts in the state of Washington were self, peer and collegial/teacher-motivated, needed a great deal of variety when learning, and preferred evening as their optimal time for learning; they had difficulty learning in the morning.

As an outcome, Lynch (1981) analyzed the relationship between time-of-day preferences and the English achievement of chronically truant eleventh and twelfth graders. He found that students achieved significantly higher test scores, and were absent significantly fewer times when their English course periods matched their preferred time. And, having had extensive experience with low auditory/low visual learners, Barbara Gardiner (1986) experimented with Multisensory Instructional Packages (MIP) with fourth-grade underachievers at specific times of the day. Significantly higher social-studies test scores resulted with MIP versus traditional instruction and during afternoon, rather than morning teaching.

Nine hundred and sixty sophomores and juniors were tested with the Learning Style Inventory (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1978) to identify their individual learning style characteristics (Lynch, 1981). The attendance records of the entire group were reviewed to identify those who qualified as either initial or chronic truants by criteria established for this study. Based on data elicited from the New York State Attendance Register and students' records maintained by the Dean of Students, 136 comprised the total population for this investigation.

Lynch categorized all subjects with regard to:

• degree of truancy (initial or chronic);
• whether or not they were assigned to the same or a different English teacher for the two consecutive years of the study; and
• their learning style Time of Day preferences.

Each condition provided for its own control because of the matched versus mismatched comparisons. Thus, the traditional control group design from Campbell and Stanley was strengthened.

The design of this investigation incorporated two dependent variables (English course grade-point-average and the number of days of partial or full truancy) and three independent variables (degree of truancy, English teacher assignment for the two consecutive years of the study, and the learning style Time preferences of the participating students).

Data were analyzed and the hypotheses tested using Three-Way Analysis of Variance procedures with Tukey post hoc comparisons. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation also was utilized to determine the relationship between academic achievement and attendance. Although substantiated hypotheses exceeded previously established standards, the p<.05 level of confidence was accepted for statistical significance.

Findings indicated that:

• the matching of individuals' schedules on the basis of learning style preferences affected attendance more significantly than the matching of teachers;
• mismatched, rather than matched, teacher assignments significantly reduced truancy among chronic truants; and
• a correlation did exist between academic achievement and number of days of partial or full truancy.

Summarily, the greatest single influence on the reduction of truancy among chronic truants was the matching of the students' learning style Time preferences with their English course period schedules. The study further demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean number of days of partial or full truancy when the single element (the Time of Day for English class schedule or teacher assignment) of the chronic truants' educational environment was changed. These findings caused Lynch (1981) to recommend that schools adjust students' academic schedules to respond to their learning style Time of Day preferences.

Most researchers experimented with underachievers, but Susan Smith (1987) examined the effects of learning-style time preferences on average-to-high-achieving high school students on matched and mismatched mathematics course schedules. When matched, even achieving students' scores evidenced a trend toward significantly higher achievement (.10). Time preferences apparently affect underachievers more than average students. Either that, or those to whom time-of-day is crucial, become underachievers because they cannot flex sufficiently during the wrong academic time schedule for them.

Building on the foundation established by previous researchers, Virostko (1983) monitored the reading and mathematics achievement of 296 elementary students over a two-year period. Students' schedules were designed to offer one subject at their preferred time of day and the other at their non-preferred time. At the end of the first year, children achieved statistically higher scores (p<.001) in the subject that matched, rather than mismatched, their time preference on the New York State PEPS Tests. During the second year of that study, when each student's schedule was reversed, 98 percent of the students achieved statistically higher scores in the opposite subject (p<.001). More recently, Missouri and Cramp (1990) replicated Virostko's research with a smaller group and revealed essentially similar findings.

In 1985, Lemmon administered the Iowa Basic Skills Tests in the morning and in the afternoon, and scheduled elementary school students so that they took their tests at their best time of day. She also allowed the youngsters to sit where they chose - either in their chairs or on the carpeted floor. Students made significant gains over each of their previous two year's scores on those same standardized tests in both reading and mathematics. In North Carolina, Andrews (1990) identified the time preferences of his underachieving elementary population and found that: 55 were "morning birds"; 70 were "night owls"; 41 were late-morning preferents; 100 were virtually non-functional in the morning but "came alive" in the afternoon. Thus, the majority should have been taught basic required subjects in the afternoon and/or late morning; night children should have been taught how to study at home in the evening. Andrews reversed the reading schedules for his students who, in 1986, had achieved only at the 30th percentile in reading and math on the California Achievement Tests. In one year, his school moved to the 40th percentile, by the second year the scores were between the 74th and 78th percentile, and the third year, they had risen to the 83rd percentile. These were the same children, but their reading and mathematics standardized achievement test scores had been negatively affected by mismatching their time preferences and their instructional schedules and other elements of their learning styles. Because of the extreme gains evidenced by this school on standardized tests, Andrews has secured State Department of Instruction approval to test pupils in a learning-responsive environment. Stone, Principal, Fred L. Wilson Elementary School, Kannapolis, North Carolina, had essentially similar experiences with his underachieving population (1992).

Because of the many successes experienced by previously underachieving high-school students in Texas (Harp & Orsak, 1990; Orsak, 1990) when they were taught in accordance with their learning style strengths, Dotson, a curriculum coordinator for the Jacksonville Public schools, petitioned the State Educational Department to permit students to be taught in a timed responsive environment. That, too, led to statistically increased achievement for students tested at their best time of day (Dunn, 1995).< /P>

Differences do exist among the times during which humans are able to learn new and difficult academic material; those differences are based upon biologically-imposed circadian rhythms. Underachievers appear to be late-morning, afternoon, or evening preferents - who learn well at those times of the day (Andrews, 1990-91; Gadwa & Griggs, 1985; Harp & Orsak, 1990; Orsak, 1990). Talented students in art, dance, drama, music, and sports often are afternoon and evening preferents who actually achieve statistically higher test scores when permitted to learn and take tests at their best time of day (Milgram, Dunn, & Price, 1993).

The mean of the NCE scores for the reading students matching the instructional time for reading was significantly higher at the.05 level than the reading students mismatched with the instructional time (Cramp, 1990). The mathematics students who matched also scored significantly higher at the .05 level than the mismatched group of mathematics students. The study supports the belief that matching instructional time blocks to students' time preferences will increase achievement.

Close This Window