INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or

notations which may appear on this reproduci>n.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages

W
to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
IE
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
EV
the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed,
a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er of a large sheet and to
PR

continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
M oonlm s
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
 8516030

Hauck, LaVerno Sam uel, Jr.

DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATION MAPPING STRATEGIES IN LEFT AND

RIGHT BRAIN LEARNERS

The Pennsylvania State University D.Ed. 1985

University

W
Microfilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 46106
IE
EV
PR
 The Pennsylvania S t a t e U n iv e r s it y

The Graduate School

Division o f Occupational and Vocational Studi es

Diff er e nc es in Information Mapping S t r a t e g i e s

in Le ft and Right Brain Learners

W
A Thesis in
IE Vocational Education

by
EV
LaVerne S. Hauck, J r .

Submitted in P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t
PR

of t h e Requirements
f o r t h e Degree o f

Doctor o f Education

May 1985

I g r a n t The Pennsylvania S t a t e U n iv e r s it y t h e none xclusive r i g h t

to use t h i s work f o r t h e U n i v e r s i t y ' s own purposes and t o make s i n g l e
copies o f t h e work a v a i l a b l e to t h e p ublic on a n o t - f o r - p r o f i t b a s i s
i f copies a r e n o t o th e rw is e a v a i l a b l e .

LaVerne S. Hauck,
We approve th e t h e s i s o f LaVerne S. Hauck, J r .

Date o f S i g n a t u r e :

E l i z a b e t h M. Ray
P r o fe s s o r o f Home Economics Education
Head o f D iv is io n o f Occupational
and Vocational S tu di es
Chairperson o f Committee
Thesis Adviser

W
7kJLUA./»ll485' IE jC uuU JAJ S . SLl U j
Susan F. Weis
A ss oc ia te P r o f e s s o r of
Home Economics Education and
EV
A ss o c ia te P r o f e s s o r o f Education
P r o f e s s o r - in - C h a r g e o f
Vocational Education
PR

j ’f t o d .t t j . ISI S L
Samuel M. C u r t i s
P r o f e s s o r o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Education

OtiuJL / 3; nr>' C uJL L _

F r e d r ic k G. Welch
P r o f e s s o r o f Vocational Education

Andris F r e i v a l d s
A ssistant Professor of
I n d u s t r i a l Engineering
 ABSTRACT

State ment o f t h e Problem. Language pla ys an important fu nc tio n

in d a i l y l i v i n g , and th o s e persons in our s o c i e t y who excel in

language a r e held in high re ga rd . The school system promotes t h i s

idea by p la c i n g a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount o f time and e f f o r t in to

verbal and s e q u e n ti a l l e a r n i n g . There i s a segment of th e school

W
popula tio n t h a t would be b e t t e r served by a l t e r n a t i v e teaching

methods. The l i t e r a t u r e o f th e time is r i c h with sugges tions t h a t

e d u c a to rs should te ac h t h e "whole" c h i l d .
IE In a c o g n i t i v e se ns e ,

t h e "whole" makes r e f e r e n c e to both hemispheres o f the human b r a i n .

Purpose o f t h e S tu d y . The purpose o f t h i s study was t o determine

EV
i f r i g h t bra in l e a r n e r s could achieve t h e same degree o f s u b j e c t

mastery as l e f t b r a i n l e a r n e r s , when t h e l e a r n i n g ma te ria l was p r e ­

se n te d in an Information Mapped format. Other f a c t o r s t h a t were

PR

a na ly z e d, in a d d i t i o n to hemispheric dominance, were reading l e v e l ,

grade p o i n t averag e, and gender.

Methodology. The sample c o n s i s t e d o f 199 male and female

e i g h t h - g r a d e s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g a comprehensive pu bli c secondary

s cho ol. The s t u d e n t s were randomly assigne d to th e experimental

groups. The s u b j e c t s were given t h e Your S ty l e o f Learning and

Thinking (SOLAT), by Torrance, to determine hemispheric dominance.

The SOLAT was used t o c l a s s i f y t h e d i f f e r e n t l e a r n in g s t y l e s of the

s u b j e c t s i n t o one o f t h e following c a t e g o r i e s : l e f t , r i g h t , or
integrated. A f o u r t h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , mixed, was a ls o used f o r sub­

j e c t s n o t de monstrating a dominant s t y l e o f information p ro c e ss in g .

All experimental groups were given a s e l f - p a c e d l e a r n i n g packet

prepared in th e Information Mapping format. At the completion o f the

l e a r n i n g phase, th e s u b j e c t s were given an achievement t e s t t o measure

learning.

C o n c l u s io n s . (1) Mean achievement t e s t s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h ig h e r than chance a f t e r a l l s u b j e c t s were exposed to th e Information

W
Mapping l e a r n i n g pack et. (2) Stu dents with an i n t e g r a t e d s t y l e o f

c e r e b r a l dominance had s i g n i f i c a n t l y hi g h e r mean s cor es on t h e Basic

P r i n c i p l e s o f Hydraulics l e a r n i n g t e s t than th os e who had a l e f t

IE
s t y l e o f c e r e b r a l dominance. (3) Stu dents with an i n t e g r a t e d or

r i g h t s t y l e o f c e r e b r a l dominance had s i g n i f i c a n t l y hig he r rea din g

EV
l e v e l s than th o s e s t u d e n t s who had a l e f t s t y l e o f c e r e b ra l dominance.

(4) There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between gender and hemispheric

dominance. (5) There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between gender

PR

and l e a r n i n g t e s t s c o r e s , with males scoring s i g n i f i c a n t l y hig he r

than females.
 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... 111

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... vli

LIST OF FI GU R ES ................................................................................................... ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................... x

Chapter

W
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1

Need f o r t h e S t u d y ............................................................................. 5
Statement o f t h e Problem ................................................................. 6
Research Questions .............................................................................
IE 7
Question # 1 ...................................................................................... 7
Question # 2 ...................................................................................... 8
Question # 3 ...................................................................................... 8
Question # 4 ...................................................................................... 8
EV
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study ................................................................. 9
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms .............................................................................. 10

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................ 11

Brain B a s i c s .......................................................................................... 11
PR

Hemispheric Dominance ......................................................................... 12

Hemispheres Compared ......................................................................... 14
T e l e v i s i o n and t h e Right Hemisphere ........................................... 17
Methods o f Determining Cerebral Dominance ................................. 18
Gender D i f f e r e n c e s in Brain Functions ....................................... 19
Inf orma tion Mapping .............................................................................. 21
Inf orma tion Mapping S tu d i e s ............................................................ 22
Related S tu d i e s in Education ........................................................ 23
Summary........................................................................................................ 24

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES..................................................................... 25

The P o p u l a t i o n ............................................................ 25
S e l e c t i o n o f Sample ............................................................................. 26
Experimental Design . . . . . . . ................................................ 27
In s t r u m e n t a t i o n ...................................................................................... 29
Your S t y l e o f Learning and Thinking (SOLAT) .................. 29
Inf ormation Mapping Unit ............................................................ 31
Learning T e s t .................................................................................. 32
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

C h ap ter Page

Experimental Procedure ..................................................................... 32

S O L A T ................................................... 32
T r e a t m e n t .......................................................................................... 33
Learning T e s t .................................................................................. 33
S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis ......................................................................... 34

IV. RESULTS.............................. . .................................................................... 35

R ep r es e n ta ti v en e ss o f t h e Sample ................................................ 36
D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s ..................................................................... 37
Test o f th e Hypotheses ..................................................................... 45
Research Question...#1 .................................................................... 45

W
Research Question #2 .................................................................... 51
Research Question #3 ..................................................................... 51
Research Question #4 .................................................................... 52
Additional Findings .............................................................................. 56
Summary o f R e s u lt s on Hypothesis Te s ti n g ..............................
IE 60

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 63

P r o c e d u r e ................................................................................................... 64
EV
F i n d i n g s .............................................................................................. . 66
Achievement vs. La te ra l Dominance ....................................... 66
Reading Level vs. L a te ra l Dominance ................................... 67
Student Gender vs. Hemispheric Dominance .......................... 68
M ul tip le Va ria bles ......................................................................... 68
D i s c u s s i o n ............................................................................................... 69
PR

C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................................................................... 74
Recommendations ...................................................................................... 74

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 76

APPENDIX A. LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM HEMPFIELD SCHOOL

D I S T R I C T ...................................................................................... 83

APPENDIX B. DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPATING TEACHERS ............................ 87

APPENDIX C. APPROVAL LETTER FROM OFFICE FOR THE PROTECTION

OF HUMAN SUBJECTS..................................................................... 90

APPENDIX D. CHILDREN’S FORM OF THE SOLAT: FORM A .......................... 92

APPENDIX E. TEST ON BASIC PRINCIPLES OF HYDRAULICS ....................... 97

APPENDIX F. LETTER FROM E. PAUL TORRANCE............................................. 104

APPENDIX G. LEARNING PACKET: BASIC PRINCIPLES OF

HYDRAULICS in pocket
 vi i

LIST OF TABLES

T a b le Page

1. Modified P o s t t e s t Design ...................................................................... 28

2. Means, Standard D e v ia ti o n s , and Range o f Scores f o r Grade

Poi n t Average (GPA), Reading Level (READ-L), and Learning
Tes t ( L - T E S T ) .......................................................................................... 38

3. Gender o f t h e Sample as I t R el ate s to t h e GPA, READ-L,

and L-TEST M e a n s ...................................................................................... 39

4. Means, Standard D e v ia ti o n s , and Range o f Scores o f th e

W
Three Measures of t h e SOLAT (fi = 1 9 9 ) ....................................... 39

5. Gender as I t R e l a te s to t h e Three Measures of the

S O L A T ............................................................................................................ 40

6.
IE
D i s t r i b u t i o n and P e rce ntag es o f Information Pr oce sso rs
Determined by t h e S O L A T ..................................................................... 41

7. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Learning Test Score Means by Hemispheric

EV
D o m i n a n c e ................................................................................................... 46

8. One-Way A na ly sis o f Variance on Latera l Dominance and

Learning T e s t ........................................... . .......................................... 46

9. Tukey's S t u d e n t i z e d Range Test Used as a Follow-up

PR

Procedure t o Determine S i g n i f i c a n c e Between L at eral

Dominance and Learning Test Scores ................................................ 48

10. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reading Level Means in R el at io n t o t h e

Hemispheric Dominance o f th e Sample ........................................... 49

11. One-Way A na lys is o f Variance o f La te ra l Dominance and

Reading Level ........................................................................................... 49

12. Tukey's S t u d e n ti z e d Range Test Used as a Follow-up t o

Determine S i g n i f i c a n c e Between L a te ra l Dominance and
Reading L e v e l ......................................................................... 50

13. One-Way A na lys is o f Variance o f Reading Level and

Learning T e s t .......................................................................................... 52

14. Two-Way A na lys is o f Variance: Hemispheric Dominance and

READ-L by L- TES T...................................................................................... 54
 viii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

15. Analysis o f Variance: READ-L and GPA by L-TEST........ ............. 55

16. One-Way Analysis o f Variance Between Gender and

Grade-Point Average .............................................................................. 57

17. Mean Grade Po in t Averages by Gender ............................................. 57

18. One-Way Analysis o f Variance Between Gender and Reading

L e v e l ................................................... 58

19. Mean Reading Level and Gender o f th e S a m p l e ........................... 58

W
20. One-Way Analysis o f Variance Between Gender and Brain
D o m i n a n c e ................................................................................................... 60

21. One-Way Analysis o f Variance o f t h e Learning Te st Scores

and t h e Gender o f t h e Sample .............................................................
IE 61

22. Mean Scores o f th e Learning T e s t in R e l a ti o n to Gender . . 61

23. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Hemispheric Dominance by Gender ............. 73

EV
PR
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f St ud e n ts in R e la tio n to Grade Po in t
A v e r a g e ........................................................................................................ 42

2. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Learning T e s t Scores in R e l a ti o n to
Grade Po in t A v e r a g e ................................................................................ 43

3. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Reading Level in R e l a ti o n to Grade

Po in t Average ........................................................................................... 43

4. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f St ud e nts in R e l a ti o n to Learning Tes t

S c o r e s ............................................................................................................ 44

W
IE
EV
PR
 X

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I t i s with a deep sense o f g r a t i t u d e t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h e r acknowl­

edges t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f h is major a d v i s e r , Dr. E l i z a b e t h M. Ray,

to t h e su cce ss o f h is st udy. Her p a t i e n c e , und e rs ta n d in g , and ad vice

were g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d .

G r a t i t u d e i s a l s o extended t o th e o t h e r members o f th e re s e a r c h

committee, Dr. Susan F. Weis, Dr. Samuel M. C u r t i s , Dr. F r e d r ic k G.

W
Welch, Dr. Andris F r e i v a l d s , and Dr. John M. Shemick, f o r t h e i r

s c h o l a r l y in p u t t o t h e study.
IE
A pp re ci at io n i s a l s o extended to Dr. Raymond S. F r o l i n g ,

A s s i s t a n t S u p e r in t e n d e n t o f th e Hempfield School D i s t r i c t , as well

EV
as Mr. Don Climenson and Mr. Grant S h u l t z , classroom t e a c h e r s , f o r

t h e i r pe rmission and w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e study.

A s p e c i a l word o f thanks i s extended t o Mr. Henry G. G i v l e r ,

PR

owner o f Steckel P r i n t i n g , I n c . , f o r th e p r i n t i n g o f th e i n s t r u c ­

t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s used in t h e study.

The r e s e a r c h e r would a l s o l i k e t o exp ress h i s s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e

to Dr. William H. S k e l l y f o r his gui dance, p a t i e n c e , a s s i s t a n c e , and

friendship. A pp re ci at io n i s a l s o extended t o Dr. Marvin Margolis f o r

h i s e x p e r t i s e w ith t h e computer and s t a t i s t i c a l package.

The w r i t e r i s e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to hi s p a r e n t s , Mr. and Mrs.

LaVerne S. Hauck, f o r t h e i r y e a r s o f su p po rt and genuine i n t e r e s t in

h i s e d u c a ti o n a l p u r s u i t s .
 F i n a l l y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r i s deeply g r a t e f u l to his wife Bonnie.

Without her l o v e , s u p p o r t , un de rs ta nd in g, and encouragement, t h i s

p r o j e c t could n o t have been p o s s i b l e .

W
IE
EV
PR
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Most o f th e p r e s e n t un de rs tan din g o f t h e human brain d a t e s back

only 25-30 y e a r s . N e u r o s c i e n t i s t s , with th e a id o f e l e c t r o n i c t o o l s ,

have made impor tant d i s c o v e r i e s about t h e b r a i n , th e most i n t r i c a t e

a p p a r a tu s known in th e u n iv e r s e (H a rt , 1983). Other d i s c i p l i n e s t h a t

W
have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e knowledge a re an thr opology, bra in e v o l u t i o n ,

computer s c i e n c e , c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e , e th o lo g y , and primate s t u d i e s .

IE
Hart s t a t e d t h a t " th e bra in i s i n t e n s e l y a g g r e s s iv e . . . as n a t u r a l l y

motivated t o le a r n as th e h e a r t i s t o pump" (1983, p. 15).

EV
For many y e a r s i t has been known t h a t t h e l e f t hemisphere o f th e

b r a i n c o n t r o l s th e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e body. Likewise, the r i g h t

hemisphere c o n t r o l s t h e l e f t . This knowledge was gained through many

PR

s t u d i e s with s t r o k e p a t i e n t s and persons involved in a c c i d e n t s r e ­

s u l t i n g in b r a i n damage. The e a r l y s t u d i e s re v e a le d t h a t i f a person

ex perienced a s t r o k e in t h e l e f t hemisphere, not only was th e r i g h t

s id e o f t h e body a f f e c t e d but a l s o t h e p e r s o n ' s verbal a b i l i t y .

Much o f t h e under st and ing o f l e f t / r i g h t b r a in fu n c ti o n s has

evolved from r e s e a r c h led by Dr. Roger Sperry o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a

I n s t i t u t e o f Technology. The o r i g i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s led t o the

s u r g i c a l c u t t i n g o f t h e corpus callosum in seve re e p i l e p t i c p a t i e n t s

who were in a s t a t e o f n e ar c o n s t a n t s e i z u r e s . The brain hemispheres,

now s e p a r a t e , were s t u d i e d as independent h a lv e s . The knowledge

 2

gained from t h e s e e a r l y s t u d i e s gave i n s i g h t as to " s e p a r a t e " b r a i n

functions. However, in th e normal person, th e b r a in is no t s e p a r a t e ,

but merely a s i n g l e organ t h a t uses v a ri ou s p o r t i o n s f o r s p e c i a l i z e d

functions.

Behavioral p s y c h o l o g i s t s base many o f t h e i r l e a r n i n g t h e o r i e s

from experiments done with r a t s . F i v e - s i x t h s o f th e human b r a i n i s

comprised o f t h e cerebrum o r "new b r a i n . " This type o f b ra in t i s s u e

b a r e l y e x i s t s in r a t s . The conventional wisdom f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e

i s t h a t lower animals a re equipped with " s p e c ie s wisdom" ( H a r t, 1983,

W
p. 14) t h a t i s t r a n s m i t t e d g e n e t i c a l l y from p a r e n t t o o f f s p r i n g . In

c o n t r a s t , humans l e a r n v a s t amounts o f in fo rm at io n a f t e r b i r t h .
IE
Robert O rns te in o f th e U n iv e r s it y o f C a l i f o r n i a Medical School

in San Francisco claimed t h a t we educate p e op le s ' minds, n o t t h e i r

EV
b r a i n s , and t h e only way t o e v a l u a t e t h e mind i s by e v a l u a t i n g i t s

pr o du c ts . This t h e o ry would imply t h a t a p e r s o n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e cannot

be measured by language a lo n e . "When we want to a s s e s s a p e r s o n ' s

PR

knowledge o r i n t e l l e c t , we can t h i n k o f no way t o do so e xce pt by

asking q u e s t i o n s . When we say someone has a g r e a t mind, we mean t h a t

he o r she has a g r e a t mouth, is good a t i n f e r e n c e , verbal r e t e n t i o n

and reasoning" ( O r n s te in , 1978, p. 76). I f a person i s a note d au th o r

or dynamic p ub lic spea ke r, s o c i e t y i s quick t o p r a i s e t h e i r g i f t e d

mind. In c o n t r a s t , people acknowledge t h e "eye" o f an a r t i s t , o r

the "touch" o f a c ra ft s m a n , t h e " f e e l i n g " o f a m u s ic ia n, o r t h e

"prowess" o f an a t h l e t e . These, t o o , a re accomplishments o f t h e mind,

but a re no t commonly regarded as mental achievements.

 3

Since th e time o f S o c r a t e s , reason has been c onsi de re d th e

h i g h e s t q u a l i t y o f th e human mind. Reason and i n t u i t i o n a re a t

op p o s it e ends o f a continuum. "Reason o p e r a t e s in l o g i c a l sequence,

a r r i v i n g a t a t r u t h i n f e r e n t i a l l y and proceeding from one element t o

a not her . I n t u i t i o n o p e r a t e s s im u lt a n e o u s ly , a r r i v i n g a t c o nc lu s io ns

w ith out proceeding through s t e p s ; i t i s concerned with r e l a t i o n s h i p s

among i n d iv id u a l elements" ( O r n s t e i n , 1978, p. 78). Language i s

r e a s o n ' s g r e a t accomplishment, f o r i t depends on sequence. Intuition

involves simultaneous pe rc ep ti o n o f a whole system and can give i n ­

W
s i g h t to a problem.

S p r in g e r and Deutsch (1981) i n d i c a t e d t h a t each hemisphere

IE
e x c e ls in t h e proc ess ing o f d i f f e r e n t ty p e s of in f o r m a t io n . In

s t u d i e s o f " w e l l - l a t e r a l i z e d " r i g h t - s i d e d p e rs o n s, t h e l e f t hemisphere

EV
is thought to proce ss i n fo r m a t io n , e s p e c i a l l y la nguage, in terms o f

time, sequence, d e t a i l s , and f e a t u r e s ; whereas t h e r i g h t hemisphere

i s s p e c i a l i z e d f o r pro c e ssi ng v i s u a l , s p a t i a l , and movement s ti m u l i

PR

according t o simultaneous and h o l i s t i c p a t t e r n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

The concept o f hemispheric dominance has posed a po pul ar dichotomy

in which everyone has been c on si de re d to be l e f t b r a i n o r r i g h t b r a i n .

Orn st ei n (1978) s a i d t h a t a b i o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e does not have to be

a b s o l u t e f o r i t t o dominate. I f t h e l e f t hemisphere i s more s u c c e s s ­

ful in language than the r i g h t , th e l e f t w i l l dominate.

I t i s widely accepted t h a t language pla ys an im po rt an t f u n c t i o n

in d a i l y l i v i n g , and those p e rs o n s, in ou r s o c i e t y , who excel in

language a re held in high re g a r d . The school system promotes t h i s

 4

idea by p la ci ng a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e amount o f time and e f f o r t i n t o

verbal and se q u e n ti a l l e a r n i n g . "All knowledge cannot be ex pre ssed

in words; y e t our educa tio n i s based almo st e x c l u s i v e l y on i t s

w r i t t e n o r spoken forms. We seem unable to expand our ideas o f

ed ucation and i n t e l l i g e n c e , perhaps because we have no way t o

measure such progr ess " ( O r n s t e i n , 1978, p. 83).

Sonnier and Kemp (1980) t i t l e d t h e i r j o u r n a l a r t i c l e "Teach the

L e f t Brain and Only t h e L e f t Brain Learns—Teach th e Right Brain

and Both Brains Learn." This concept seems to be shared by r e c e n t

W
re s e a r c h f i n d i n g s in which t h e idea o f te a c h i n g t h e "whole" l e a r n e r

and no t merely p r e s e n t i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n a l 3 R's o f t e n appears

IE
(Stahl-Gemake, 1982). The l i t e r a t u r e g i v e s new hope to t h o s e s t u d e n t s

la b e l e d as "slow l e a r n e r s " o r " l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d . " I t is hoped t h a t

EV
ed uca tio n a l re s e a r c h can expand t h e u nd e rs tan di n g o f t h e b r a i n ' s

r o l e and f u n c t i o n in l e a r n i n g t o b e t t e r s e r v e a l l s t u d e n t s . There

w il l always be d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f achievement, but i t i s t h e d e s i r e

PR

o f every e du ca to r to have each l e a r n e r a t t a i n t h e h i g h e s t degree of

succ ess.

A l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g y known as Information Mapping was developed by

Horn, N ic ol , and Kleinman (1969). The purpose o f t h i s te ch n i q u e is to

pr e s e n t information in a blocked o r "mapped" for mat which u t i l i z e s

vis ual o r g a n i z a t i o n . The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of

infor mation i s to improve communication f o r l e a r n i n g and r e f e r e n c e ,

w hi le reducing le a r n i n g m a t e r i a l complexity and l e a r n i n g time

(Whitlock, 1972). Jonassen and Falk (1980) s t a t e d ,

 5

The bloc king o f in for ma ti on produces t h e e f f e c t o f a s s o c i a t ­

ing l i n g u i s t i c elements t o g e t h e r in a h o l i s t i c fa s h i o n .
Information enclosed in a block becomes a u n i t , p e r m i t t i n g
comparison o f w it h in block semantic s i m i l a r i t i e s to d i f f e r ­
ences in elements pre se nte d in o t h e r blocks, (p. 22)

Need f o r t h e Study

"The United S t a t e s has a commitment to e du cat ion al e q u i t y in

l i t e r a c y a c q u i s i t i o n f o r a l l members o f i t s s o c i e t y ; ' t h e government

has made enormous a l l o c a t i o n s in f i n a n c i a l a i d t o m i n o r i t i e s " (Roueche,

1979, p. 17). One m in o r it y t h a t seems t o be overlooked i s t h e r i g h t

W
b ra in l e a r n e r . Persons in t h i s group do not e x h i b i t physical d i f f e r ­

en ces , but th e y e xp er ie nc e unique l e a r n i n g problems.

IE S tu d i e s of

l a t e r a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f t h e c e r e b r a l hemispheres su g g es t t h a t th e

l e f t hemisphere p ro c e ss es language t h a t i s r a t i o n a l and a n a l y t i c a l

EV
and dominates in verbal t a s k s such as speaking and decoding p r i n t .

The r i g h t hemisphere e x c e l s in nonverbal t a s k s t h a t a re more i n t u i ­

t i v e , s p a t i a l , and h o l i s t i c ( O r n s t e i n , 1978). Wheatley ( c i t e d in

PR

Roueche, 1979) s t a t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t hemisphere " i s more capab le of

s y n t h e t i c and o r i g i n a l thought than th e l e f t hemisphere" (p. 19).

A l a r g e body o f c o g n i t i v e - s t y l e r e s e a rc h l i n k s c o g n i t i v e s t y l e

to school s u c c e s s ( O r n s t e i n , 1978; Roueche, 1979; H a r t, 1983; Webb,

1983). The l i t e r a t u r e implied t h a t education, as i t i s p r a c t i c e d ,

i s predominantly a l e f t br a in a c t i v i t y . Ac cordingly, s t u d e n t s who are

a b le to l e a r n usi ng t h i s s t y l e a r e a t a d e f i n i t e academic advantage.

There i s evidenc e t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t p o rt i o n o f th e po p u la ti o n e x i s t s

t h a t would be served by a d i f f e r e n t l e a r n i n g s t y l e o r s t r a t e g y .
 6

"Educators should study th e emerging, and sometimes c o n f l i c t i n g

f i n d i n g s o f th e r e l a t i v e r o l e t h a t t h e c e r e b r a l hemispheres play in

c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g and b a s i c s k i l l development" (Roueche, 1979,

p. 23). Hart (1983) commented, "The b ra in i s not going to change

t o f i t t h e s c h o o ls ; t h e scho ols must change to f i t t h e br a in as we

now know i t to be" (p. 15).

Statement o f t h e Problem

Our e duca tio n a l system p l a c e s g r e a t emphasis on verbal compre­

W
hension, r e t e n t i o n , and r e c i t a t i o n . The d i c t a t e s o f our modern

t e c h n i c a l s o c i e t y have l e f t few a l t e r n a t i v e s .
IE S tu d e n ts a r e s u b je c te d

to v a s t amounts o f i n c r e a s i n g l y complex infor mat ion which i s n ece ssa ry

f o r su rv iv a l in our r a p i d l y changing s o c i e t y . T o f f l e r (1970) r e ­

EV
f e r r e d to t h i s as t h e premature a r r i v a l o f th e f u t u r e . In a l l t h i s

change and inf ormation r e v o l u t i o n , th e human bra in has co nt in ue d to

evolve, but not a t t h e same r a t e as te c h n o l o g i c a l change.

PR

Research in th e area o f in for ma ti on pro c e ss in g has given i n s i g h t

t o th e complex proc ess o f l e a r n i n g . I t has a l s o i d e n t i f i e d a popula­

t i o n which has d i f f i c u l t y coping with ou r p r e s e n t e du c a ti o n a l system.

This po pu la tio n has always e x i s t e d , but with th e a i d o f technology

(EEG s t u d i e s by O r n s t e i n , 1978), t h e o r i e s a r e being p r e s e n te d to

e x pl ai n why some people le a r n d i f f e r e n t l y . These people have

r e c e n t l y been termed " r i g h t b r a i n l e a r n e r s " and have o f t e n been

labeled "learning disabled."

 The l e a r n i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n , as i t i s p re sen ted in th e schools

i s in t h e format t h a t would normally give an advantage to th e l e f t

brain le arn er. A l e a r n i n g te chn iq ue known as Information Mapping

(Horn, 1971) was designed to a i d t h e l e a r n i n g process by p r e s e n ti n g

inf ormation in a v i s u a l l y org a ni z ed format. This v i s u a l techni qu e

i s in c o n t r a s t t o th e format o f a paragraph w r i t t e n in pro se . The

o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t y l e o f w r i t i n g was t o p r e s e n t in for mati on in an

org a ni z ed and uniform a r r a y ( F i e l d s , 1981).

W
The purpose o f t h i s stu dy was t o deter mine i f Information

Mapping was a v i a b l e l e a r n i n g tech ni qu e f o r t h e r i g h t b r a in l e a r n e r

helping r i g h t b r a i n l e a r n e r s t o achiev e t h e same le v el o f s u b j e c t

IE
mastery as t h e i r l e f t b r a i n c o u n t e r p a r t s . Other f a c t o r s t h a t were

a nalyz ed , in a d d i t i o n to hemispheric dominance, were read ing l e v e l ,

EV
grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , and gender.

Research Questions
PR

This experimental stu dy addressed t h e following r e s e a r c h ques­

t i o n s and n u ll hypotheses.

Question #1

When Inf or ma tio n Mapping i s used, w ill t h e r e be a s i g n i f i ­

c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between achievement t e s t sc or es o f l e f t and

r i g h t brain learners?

H .l : There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between l a t e r a l dominance and

achievement t e s t s c o r e s when us in g th e Information

Mapping format o f p r e s e n t a t i o n .
 8

H.2: There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between l a t e r a l dominance and

rea din g le v el t e s t s c o r e s .

Question #2

Will a s t u d e n t ' s reading le v el be a p r e d i c t o r o f succ ess f o r

t h e Information Mapping l e a r n i n g packet?

H.3: There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between an Information Mapped

u n i t t e s t score and t h e reading le v e l o f i n d iv id u a l

W
students.

Question #3 IE
Will t h e gender of t h e s t u d e n t have a r e l a t i o n s h i p to
EV
hemisphere dominance?

H.4: There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between hemisphere dominance

and gender.
PR

Question #4

Will th e gender of t h e s t u d e n t , t h e hemispheric dominance, the

re a d in g l e v e l , and t h e grade p o i n t average have any s i g n i f i ­

c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p when compared t o th e achievement t e s t

sc o r e o f an Information Mapped i n s t r u c t i o n a l le a r n in g

packet?
 9

H.5: There i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between gender, hemispheric

dominance, reading l e v e l , grade p o in t av er ag e , and

achievement t e s t s c o r e s .

S i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e Study

A s ea rc h o f ERIC re v e a le d th e l e f t / r i g h t b ra in dominance to p i c

had become q u i t e popu lar in th e p a s t 10 y e a r s . Educators a re being

encouraged t o u t i l i z e more r i g h t b ra in a c t i v i t i e s in t h e i r te a c h i n g ,

W
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t an i n t e g r a t e d approach to l e a r n i n g is much more

b e n e f i c i a l than a s i n g l e - s i d e d approach (Edwards, 1979; S i n a t r a ,

1979; Herr, 1981; Matthews, 1982; Stahl-Gemake, 1982; Yell i n , 1982).

IE
Information Mapping has been demonstrated to a id t h e l e a r n i n g

pro ce ss ( S o y s t e r , 1980; Jonassen & Falk, 1980; S k e l l y , 1982). The

EV
format o f Information Mapped m a t e r i a l pro v id e s t h e l e a r n e r not only

with vi s ual o r g a n i z a t i o n but a l s o may fu n c ti o n as an "advance

or g a n iz e r " as d e fi n e d by Ausubel (Jonassen & Falk, 1980). The

PR

"advance o r g a n i z e r " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a c t s as a l i n k between Information

Mapping and r i g h t hemispheric l e a r n i n g . The most r e c e n t searc h of

th e l i t e r a t u r e has f a i l e d to produce any s t u d i e s t h a t r e l a t e the

t o p i c s o f r i g h t b r a i n l e a r n e r s and Info rmatio n Mapping.

In summary, t h i s study was designed to determine i f r i g h t bra in

l e a r n e r s could a ch ie ve th e same degree o f s u b j e c t mastery as l e f t

b r a in l e a r n e r s when t h e l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l was p re s e n te d in an

Information Mapped format.

 10

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms

The f o ll o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n s a r e provided f o r terms used throughout

t h i s study:

Cerebral Dominance. The v o l u n t a r y o r i n v o l u n t a r y choice o f

hemisphere t h a t i s dominant d ur in g problem s o lv in g ( O r n s te in , 1978).

Info-Map. A c o l l e c t i o n o f a l l r e l e v a n t infor mat ion blocks about

any p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t m a t t e r t o p i c (Horn, 1974).

Information Bloc k. The s m a l l e s t p a r t o f any format t y p i c a l to

W
th e Information Mapping method; i t c o n s i s t s o f one o r more sen te nc es

a n d / o r diagrams about a segment o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r and a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

IE
l a b el (Horn, N ic o l, Razar, & Kleinman, 1971).

Inf orm at ion Mapping. "A system o f p r i n c i p l e s and procedures

EV
f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g , w r i t i n g , i n t e r r e l a t i n g and sequencing, and p r e ­

s e n t i n g g r a p h i c a l l y in fo rm at io n r e q u i r e d f o r l e a r n i n g and re fe re n c e "

(Horn, 1974, p. 5 ) .
PR

L e a rn in g . "A r e l a t i v e l y permanent change in behavior t h a t is

th e r e s u l t o f p a s t e x p e r i e n c e , e i t h e r produced i n c i d e n t a l l y o r through

i n s t i t u t i o n a l te a c h in g " (Page, Thomas, & M ar sh a ll, 1977, p. 202).

L e ft Brain Dominance. The p re f e r e n c e to perform c o g n i t i v e

o p e r a t i o n s in t h e l e f t c e r e b r a l hemisphere which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

l i n e a r , s e q u e n t i a l , a n a l y t i c a l , and verbal t h i n k in g ( O r n s t e i n , 1976).

Right Brain Dominance. The p r e f e r e n c e t o perform c o g n i t i v e

o p e r a t i o n s in t h e r i g h t c e r e b r a l hemisphere which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

l a t e r a l , h o l i s t i c , i n t u i t i v e , and s p a t i a l th i n k i n g ( O rn s te in , 1976).
 CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The review o f l i t e r a t u r e included th e p a s t and p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h

f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to information p r o c e s s in g , hemispheric dominance,

and Information Mapping. The l i t e r a t u r e was r i c h with recommendations

encouraging e d u c a to rs and o t h e r s to become more involved in a h o l i s t i c

W
approach t o t e a c h i n g . T y p i c a l l y , t h i s h o l i s t i c approach invol ve s

l e a r n i n g m a te r ia l in a format t h a t will s t i m u l a t e both o f t h e b r a i n ' s

hemispheres.
IE
I t was suggested t h a t t h i s e xper ie nc e w i l l improve

l e a r n i n g and r e t e n t i o n , as compared to a s i n g l e mode o f in for ma ti on

EV
in p u t. Information Mapping i s a method o f prov idin g w r i t t e n informa­

t i o n in a format t h a t should s t i m u l a t e both hemispheres and, t h e r e ­

f o r e , may r e s u l t in improved l e a r n in g and r e t e n t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y f o r

PR

r i g h t b r a in l e a r n e r s .

Brain Basics

Ronald Rubenzer (1982) provided some p h y s i o l o g i c a l inf ormation

regar din g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e human b r a i n . He s t a t e d t h a t i t is

. . . composed o f about 10 b i l l i o n c e l l s , and i s d i v id e d

n e a r l y e q u a l l y between t h e l e f t and r i g h t he mispheres, which
a r e in te r c o n n e c te d by a neural b r i d g e , th e corpus callosum.
Gen erally most o f th e infor mat ion pro cessed by t h e l e f t
hemisphere i s rec eiv e d from t h e r i g h t sensory f i e l d and,
r e s p e c t i v e l y , inf ormation processed by t h e r i g h t hemisphere
i s r e c eive d from th e l e f t sensory f i e l d . I t grows a t a
phenomenal r a t e o f a q u a r t e r m i l l i o n c e l l s per minute