Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LEARNING STYLES IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS:
PREDOMINANT PREFERENCES OF GENDERS
WANICHANAN SAWETSUNTHORNPAN
AN INDEPENDENT STUDY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION
IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL GRADUATE STUDIES
IN HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
BURAPHA UNIVERSITY
MAY 2017
COPYRIGHT OF BURAPHA UNIVERSITY
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my school’s
directors for providing me a scholarship to study at Burapha University, and for the
complete support during the two-year academic period.
I would like to express my deep gratitude to my independent study principal
advisor, Dr. Denchai Prabjandee, for his constant patience, valuable input and
precious suggestions. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Assoc. Prof.
Dr. Chalong Tubsree and Dr. Punwalai Kewara for their invaluable support and help.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to my lecturers for
two years of instruction, assistance and guidance. They supported me a lot about my
independent study writing. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Punwalai Kewara, for her
valuable comments. I also would like to say thank you to all teachers who inspired me
to do the best. I would like to thank Ms. Rattanasiri Khemraj for her coordination and
assistance during this process.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my parents, my brother, and
my sisters for their continuous support, constant encouragement, patience and
understanding. I also would like to express thanks to all my friends in TEGL.
We shared our ideas about our studies and daily lives, and they were always there to
help whenever I needed assistance.
Finally, my sincere gratitude to the learners in Grade six because their input
in the research was crucial and would not have happened without them.
Wanichanan Sawetsunthornpan
iv
57921123: MAJOR: TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE;
M.Ed. (TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE)
KEYWORDS: LEARNING STYLES, ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
WANICHANAN SAWETSUNTHORNPAN: LEARNING STYLES IN
ENGLISH CLASSROOMS: PREDOMINANT PREFERENCES OF GENDERS.
INDEPENDENT STUDY ADVISOR: DENCHAI PRABJANDEE, Ed.D. 68 P. 2017.
Learning styles are important for learners in English classrooms.
The purpose of this research was to identify the predominant learning style
preferences of English language learners studying at a Catholic school in Grade Six
and to compare the learning style preferences of English language learners by gender.
The research questions of this study particularly address the learning styles in terms of
the sensory modalities model of Dunn (VAK; Visual (V), Auditory (A), Kinesthetic
(K)). This study used a survey approach to collect the quantitative data. The
population of this study was 432 learners in Grade Six at a Catholic school in
Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand. The participants of this study were chosen by
using a purposeful sampling technique. The study found that the participants in this
study preferred the auditory learning style the most, followed by the visual learning
style, and the least preferred was the kinesthetic learning style. There were significant
differences across all learning styles of English language learners between male and
female learners.
v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...…..……………………………………………………….…….…. i
CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….….......
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………..…....
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………....
Background of the Study …………………………………………….
Statement of the Problem …………………………………………….
Significance of the Study ………………………………………….…
Research Questions …………………………………………………..
Objectives of the Study ………………………………………………
Scope of the Study ……………………………………………………
Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………....
Definition of Terms ……………………………………………….....
Limitations of the Study ……………………………………………..
Chapter Summary …………………………………………………....
2 LITERATURE REVIEW...…………………………………………….....
Definition of Learning Styles ………………………………………..
Approaches of Learning Styles ………………………………............
Types of Learning Styles …………………………………………..…
Models and Dimensions of Learning Styles …………………………
Benefits of Learning Styles in Language Classrooms …………..……
EFL Learning and Teaching ……………………………………….…
Learners’ Learning Styles …………………………………………….
Related Studies on Language Learning Styles ………………………
Chapter Summary ……………………………………………………
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…….……………………………………
Research Design …………………………………………………......
Context of the Study …………………………………………………
Page
iv
v
vii
1
1
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
12
14
15
17
18
27
28
28
28
vi
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
CHAPTER
Population ……………………………………………………………
Participants ……………………………………………………………
Questionnaire as the Research Instrument ……………………………
Validity of the Questionnaire …………………………………………
Reliability …………………………………………………….............
Data Collection ………………………………………………………
Data Analysis …………………………………………………………
Ethical Considerations ……………………………………………….
Chapter Summary ……………………………………………………
4 FINDINGS…………………………………………………………….......
Findings of Research Question 1……………………………………..
Findings of Research Question 2……………………………………..
Chapter Summary…………………………………………………….
5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.…........
Summary of the Study ……………………………………………….
Summary of the Findings …………………………………………….
Discussion ……………………………………………………………
Recommendations for Implications ………………………………….
Recommendations for Future Studies …………………………….….
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………
APPENDIX A ……………..………………………………….………………
APPENDIX B …………………..……………………………………………
APPENDIX C ……………………..…………………………………………
APPENDIX D ……………………..…………………………………………
BIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………..
Page
29
30
31
32
32
34
34
35
36
37
37
40
41
42
42
42
43
44
46
47
53
54
56
60
66
68
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
2.1 Summary from the Related Studies on Language Learning Styles ……...
3.1 Statistics of Grade Six English Language Learners by Gender ……………
4.1 Learning Styles …………..………………………………………………..
4.2 Descriptive Analysis of learners’ Auditory Learning Style ……………….
4.3 Descriptive Analysis of learners’ Visual Learning Style ………………….
4.4 Descriptive Analysis of learners’ Kinesthetic Learning Style …………….
4.5 Comparisons of Learning Styles by Genders ……………………………..
Page
24
30
37
38
39
40
41
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem,
significance of the study, research questions, objectives of the research, scope of the
study, theoretical framework, definition of terms, limitations of the study, and chapter
summary.
Background of the Study
In the 21st century, English is important for individuals worldwide.
Currently, there are more non-native speakers than native speakers who regularly
communicate in English. English has become an international language of
communication and technology (Kachru, 1992). Since Thailand is a part of the
ASEAN community, the government encourages teaching English in schools and
focuses on communication. As a result, English is an important tool to communicate
with other people in the world and search for knowledge.
In the early 1970s, researchers in the field of Teaching English to Speakers
of Other Languages (TESOL) were trying to find teaching methods, classroom
techniques, and instructional materials that would promote better language
instruction. However, in spite of all this effort, there has been a growing concern that
learners have not progressed as much as it was anticipated. It might be because there
are considerable individual differences in language learning such as gender, age,
social status, motivation, attitude, or culture; what works for one learner might not
work for another. Therefore, none of the methods and techniques have provided
convincing evidence that they can work all the time, in all classes, with all learners.
Teachers, who have their own preferred learning and teaching styles, can
assume that their learners use a variety of learning patterns. However, teachers
frequently teach with the same methods in which they learn most effectively. This can
result in conflicts between the learners’ styles and the teachers’ styles (Oxford &
Crookall, 1989). A teaching style consists of a teacher’s personal behavior and the
media, methods, and materials used to transmit data to or receive it from the learner.
2
Instruction must challenge the learner’s complex and delicate mind-qualities and
his/her ability and willingness to adapt.
Learners learn best by seeing the importance of the information presented in
the classrooms (Gilakjini, 2012). If learners are not interested in the material
presented, it is likely that they will not learn. Individual learners have different
backgrounds, strengths, weaknesses, needs, attitudes, motivations, and approaches to
studying. They adopt approaches to learn which they are most comfortable with and
leave behind the ones with which they are less comfortable. They also differ in how
successfully they respond to and profit from instruction practices. The more teachers
take differences into consideration, the better chance they have of improving the
academic performance of all of their learners (Al-Hebaishi, 2012).
In learning how to improve learners learning, teachers need to understand
the way in which an individual learns. Also, language teachers have to help learners
identify learning style preferences; they also should increase the number of learning
styles that their learners are familiar with. Furthermore, teachers need to be attentive
to the multi-modal learning needs of learners, and employ methods that are suitable
for all of the various learning style preferences. Thus, it is much more important for
the teachers to study the learners’ learning preferences and make elaborate
preparations for classroom instruction and activities.
Learners learn in many different ways. Some learners learn best visually,
while others learn best audibly or kinesthetically (Gilakjini, 2012). Visual learners
learn best visually by means of charts, graphs, and pictures. Auditory learners learn
best by listening to lectures and reading. Kinesthetic learners learn best by doing.
One learner has one to three learning preferences. Because of these different learning
styles, it is important for the teachers to incorporate them in their curriculum activities
related to each of these learning styles so that all learners are able to succeed and
improve learning achievement (Cuaresma, 2008).
Previous studies (e.g., Dunn & Dunn, 1978) on learning styles of young
learners found that children like a visual learning style the most and second are
tactile/kinesthetic learning styles or visual/tactile learning styles and the least is
auditory learning style. Additionally, Price, Dunn, and Sanders (1980) found that very
young children have the most tactile/kinesthetic learning styles and that only in Grade
3
Five or Six can most learn audibly. Further, Barbe and Milone (1981) stated that
children preferred a visual learning style the most, followed by auditory and
kinesthetic learning styles.
Previous researchers found there are advantages of learning styles for
effective English language learners’ improvement. For instance, Fazzaro and Martin
(2004), the development of learning styles of most learners resulted from their past
life experiences and the needs of their present environment. Their study revealed that
the more experiences the learner has in EFL education, the more learners would be
able to use various strategies that suit their own learning styles. Gilakjani (2012)
found that learning style has an important place in the lives of learners. When the
learners know their learning styles, they will integrate it in the process of learning so
they will learn more easily and fast and will be successful. The more successful they
are at solving problems, the more control they will take over their own life (Biggs,
2001). It is important that individuals receive education in areas suitable for their
learning styles.
In the field of learning styles, Kassaian (2007), indicated that the
participants with a visual style of learning retained vocabulary items they had learned
visually better than the items they had learned aurally, but the participants with an
aural style of learning did not show better retention for items they had learned aurally.
All the participants retained visually presented items better than aurally presented
items in the immediate and delayed tests. The type of test, that is, recognition or
recall, did not have any significant effect on the retention of visually/aurally presented
items. The participants performed better in recognition tests than in recall tests for
both aurally and visually presented items. Memory loss was greater for visually
learned items compared to aurally learned items after one week.
Another variable is gender that affects language use and acquisition.
The review of the literature suggests that males and females were seen having
a significant relationship in the success of learning styles. For example, Novotná,
(2008) suggested that engineering learners are predominantly global, deductive and
visual learners. In terms of gender differences the results revealed that male
participants are more impulsive and inductive in comparison with female learners
4
who tend to be more visual and deductive learners. Both groups showed a very similar
and low preference for kinesthetic modality.
Statement of the Problem
Research on learning styles was found in many countries, such as the USA
(Chau, 2006; Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Price et al., 1980; Slater, Lujan, & DiCarlo, 2007),
UK (Cassidy, 2004), Slovenia (Penger & Tekavčič, 2009; Penger, Tekavčič, &
Dimovski, 2008), Sweden (Boström & Hallin, 2013), Czech (Novotná, 2008), Iran
(Kassaian, 2007; Moayyeri, 2015; Riazi & Riasati, 2007), China (Melton, 1990;
Ming-Lei, 2011), Turkey (Kara, 2009), Brazil (Felder & Henriques, 1995), Taiwan
(Tai, 2013), Saudi Arabia (Al-Hebaishi, 2012), Myanmar (San & Ye, 2014), and
Thailand (Khmakhien, 2012; Phantharakphong, 2012). Most of the research on
learning styles were conducted with the learners in the upper secondary level or at the
university level, there was little research about the learning styles of young learners.
In Thailand, the Thai context where English has been an important subject in schools,
little research has been conducted in the field of learning styles.
Thailand is an EFL country, and has increasingly placed importance on
English in many ways such as politics, telecommunication, education, business,
travel, etc. English is required for learners because their parents know how important
the subject is. Many schools arrange a variety of English learning activities to meet
the different interests of learners. The Thai curriculum encourages English language
skills and learner-centered instruction, many teachers still base their teaching on
grammar rules and textbooks that are not related to learners’ lives and interests.
In many schools, the teachers have their own learning and teaching styles
but cannot match the various learners’ learning styles. The teachers support various
learners’ learning styles because they do not know the learners’ learning styles.
When the learners learn in the teachers’ styles, they do not pay attention to the
learning activities and cannot get more knowledge. The learners cannot succeed and
improve learning achievement.
Furthermore, previous studies focusing on the relationship between genders
and learning styles revealed that gender differences in learning style preferences
partially exist among learners. For instance, Slater et al. (2007) pointed out that both
5
male (56.1%) and female (56.7%) students preferred multiple modes of information
presentation, and the numbers and types of modality combinations were not
significantly different between genders. Although not significantly different,
the female student population tended to be more diverse than the male population,
encompassing a broader range of sensory modality combinations within their
preference profiles. However, Choudhary, Dullo, and Tandon (2011) found that there
was a significant gender difference in the percentages of males and females learners
who preferred multimodal or unimodal styles of information presentation (p < 0.05).
Based on previous studies, it is evident that males and females preferred multimodal
learning but in different degrees.
Therefore, it is important to identify the predominant learning style
preferences of English language learners to enhance their learning achievement.
Moreover, it is necessary to understand more about the differences in the learning
styles preferences of English language learners by their gender, which previous
researchers have rarely focused on.
Significance of the Study
The findings of this study enhance our understanding of the learning styles
of Thai learners. It is important for the teachers to know learning styles of English
language learners, so that the teachers can incorporate learning styles in the
curriculum and provide the most appropriate activities to suit every group.
The teachers can encourage different learning styles for both male and female learners
to improve learning achievement. Moreover, learning styles make the learners eager
to learn. Learners learning styles affect their learning achievement. Additionally, the
field of English language teaching will know what learning styles the young learners
prefer.
Finally, the knowledge from this study could add to the database for
practice, research and theory. The findings of this study may provide useful guidelines
for the researchers with other research studies in English education.
6
Research Questions
This study has attempted to answer the following research questions.
1. What are the predominant learning style preferences of English language
learners?
2. Is there any difference in the learning style preference of English
language learners by gender?
Objectives of the Study
The purposes of this study were.
1. To identify the predominant learning style preferences of English
language learners studying at a Catholic school in Grade Six.
2. To compare the learning style preference of English language learners by
gender.
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study was as follows:
1. The context of this study was at a Catholic School in Sriracha, Chonburi
Province, Thailand. This school was chosen to be the context of the current study
because it was a good example among other schools in the area. This school provides
all levels of education from nursery to upper secondary and has an Intensive English
Program.
2. The population of this study was 432 learners in Grade Six at a Catholic
school. There were eight classes in Grade Six with about fifty-two to fifty-five
learners in a class and their ages were 11-12 years old.
3. The participants of this study were chosen by using a purposeful sampling
technique. Survey participants in this study used the whole population in Grade Six at
a Catholic school.
4. Variable of Interest: English language learning styles (visual, auditory,
and kinesthetic) and gender.
7
Theoretical Framework
This study tried to identify the predominant learning styles preferences of
English language learners studying at a Catholic school in Grade Six. This study used
the VAK learning styles model (Dunn, 1990) because it is appropriate with young
English language learners. These learning styles are from sensory modalities,
consisting of Visual (V), Auditory (A), and Kinesthetic (K). Here are descriptions of
VAK learning styles.
1. Visual Learning Style
Visual refers to the characteristics of learners who prefer to learn by using
pictures, graphs, charts, diagrams, etc. Visual learners learn best through seeing and
prefer information to be presented visually. They usually tend to sit in the front of the
classroom, take notes, use lists to organize their thoughts and observe the teacher’s
body language and facial expressions to fully understand.
2. Auditory Learning Style
Auditory refers to the characteristics of learners, who prefer to learn through
seeing, hearing, and speaking. For example, lectures and discussion that describe what
learners see and the use of recorded material. Auditory learners learn best through
listening and interpreting information. They learn when the teacher explains orally.
The classroom activities they like to participate in are discussion, debate, role-play
and presentation. They read and talk to themselves out loud.
3. Kinesthetic Learning Style
Kinesthetic refers to the characteristics of learners who prefer to learn
through a hands-on approach such as muscle memory, trial and error, and use of real
world examples. Kinesthetic learners learn best by doing or practicing. They enjoy
physical activities and hands-on experiences. They need to interact with learning
materials and resources. They like to think out issues, ideas and problems while they
exercise.
Definition of Terms
1. Learning styles are the learning styles in language classrooms. Learning
styles in general refer to the ways in which people prefer information to come to them
8
and the ways in which they prefer to deliver their communication by using visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic (Dunn, 1990). Learning styles in language classrooms refer
to learners absorbing the language information best in the classroom (Dunn, 1990).
Visual learners think in pictures and learn best in visual images, auditory learners
discover information through listening, and kinesthetic learners learn best with an
active hands-on approach (LdPride, 2009). In this study, the learning styles were
assessed by using a questionnaire.
2. English language learners mean learners who study in Grade Six at a
Catholic school in Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand. They were 11-12 years old
and studied in an Intensive English Program.
Limitations of the Study
In this study, the questionnaire was only able to identify the predominant
learning styles preferences of English language learners studying at a Catholic School
in Grade Six about their use of the three learning styles; visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic. The survey research was only self-reported data, so it might not reflect the
real learning behavior of the participants.
Chapter Summary
English is a worldwide language and used in communication with others all
around the world through social networks. English is everywhere in daily life so
parents and learners see the importance of English in schools. The school focuses on
English and the teachers should know how the learners learn English best. The
teachers should know learners learning styles in English class because it will help the
teachers plan for teaching and the learners can improve significantly in the class. The
researcher tried to identify the predominant learning style preferences of English
language learners studying at a Catholic school in Grade Six. This study was limited
in the VAK (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic) learning styles from sensory modalities
model of Dunn’s model (Dunn, 1990).
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the definition of learning styles, approaches of learning
styles, types of learning styles, models and dimensions of learning styles, the
contemporary studies on EFL learning and teaching, learners’ learning styles, and
finally discusses the related studies on language learning styles.
Definition of Learning Styles
This part presents the definition of learning styles in general. Learning styles
are characterized as the way people acquire and understand new knowledge and skills.
These are typical approaches or patterns; for example, visual, auditory and kinesthetic
that gives direction to learning behavior (Cornett, 1983). Visual learning style prefers
to learn by seeing and reading, auditory learning style prefers to learn by listening and
hearing, and kinesthetic learning style prefers to learn by doing or practicing. Brown
(2000) defined learning styles as the manner in which individuals perceive and
process information in learning situations. He argued that learning styles refer to the
choice of one learning situation or condition over another. Therefore, learning style
refers to ‘an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way of absorbing, processing
and retaining new information and skills (Reid, 1998).
Kolb (1984) found that learners appear to learn best when the teaching
methods used fit their preferred learning styles. Understanding and addressing
learning styles can be a significant help in carrying out the purpose of education.
Dunn, Griggs, Olson, Beasley, and Gorman’s (1995) findings indicated that matching
learners’ learning styles with educational interventions compatible with those learning
styles are still beneficial to their academic achievement. Among the learners, many of
them have preferences for more than one learning style, depending on the contexts.
Some learners learn best through visual and auditory, some learners learn best through
kinesthetic and visual and some learners learn best through visual, auditory and
kinesthetic learning styles.
10
Approaches of Learning Styles
Learning styles refer to the ways in which learners prefer information to
come to them and the ways in which they prefer to deliver their communication
(Fleming, 1992).
An approach to learning styles can be grouped and examined under one of
four categories (Conner & Hodgins, 2000).
1. Personality: assesses the influence of one’s personality on their preferred
approaches to acquiring and integrating information (e.g., Myers-Briggs type
indicator).
2. Information-processing: a learner’s preferred cognitive approach to
understanding and assimilating information (e.g., Schmeck, 1988) construct of
cognitive complexity and Kolb’s (1984) model of information processing).
3. Social interaction: looks at how learners engage with their peers in the
classroom (e.g., Reichmann & Grasha, 1974) types of learners: independent,
dependent, collaborative, competitive, participant and avoidant).
4. Multidimensional and instructional: looks at the learner’s preferred
environment/approach for learning such as the human information processing model
of Keefe (1989) and the learning style model of Dunn and Dunn (1978).
Types of Learning Styles
Prior research has categorized types of learning styles similarly. The most
common pioneers in the field are Reid (1987) and Dunn (1990). Reid (1987)
categorized learning styles into eight types, while Dunn (1990) categorized it into
three types. In this section, I combine the two categories as follows:
1. Visual Learning Style
Learners learn well from seeing words in books, on the chalkboard, and in
workbooks. They remember and understand information and instructions better if they
read them. They do not need as much oral explanation as an auditory learner, and they
can often learn alone, with a book. They should take notes of lectures and oral
directions if they want to remember the information (Dunn, 1990; Reid, 1987).
11
2. Auditory Learning Style
Learners learn from hearing words spoken and from oral explanations.
They may remember information by reading aloud or moving their lips as they read,
especially when they are learning new material. Learners benefit from hearing audio
tapes, lectures, and class discussions. They benefit from making tapes to listen to, by
teaching other learners, and by conversing with their teacher (Dunn, 1990; Reid,
1987).
3. Kinesthetic Learning Style
Learners learn best by experience, by being involved physically in
classroom experiences. They remember information well when they actively
participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the classroom. A combination
of stimulus, for example, an audiotape combined with an activity will help learners
understand new material (Dunn, 1990; Reid, 1987).
4. Tactile Learning Style
Learners learn best when they have the opportunity to do “hands-on”
experiences with materials. That is, working on experiments in a laboratory, handling
and building models, and touching and working with materials provide them with the
most successful learning situation. Writing notes or instructions can help learners
remember information, and physical involvement in class related activities may help
them understand new information (Reid, 1987).
5. Group Learning Style
Learners learn more easily when they study with at least one other learner,
and they will be more successful completing work activities well when they work
with others. Learners value group interaction and class work with other learners,
and they remember information better when they work with two or three classmates.
The stimulation they receive from group work helps them learn and understand new
information (Reid, 1987).
6. Individual Learning Style
Learners learn best when they work alone. They think better when they
study alone, and they remember information they learn by themselves. Learners
understand new material best when they learn it alone, and they make better progress
in learning when they work by themselves (Reid, 1987).
12
7. Minor Learning Style
In most cases, minor learning styles indicate areas where learners can
function well as a learner. Usually a very successful learner can learn in several
different ways (Reid, 1987).
8. Negligible Learning Style
Often, a negligible score indicates that learners may have difficulty learning
in that way. One solution may be to direct their learning to learners stronger styles.
Another solution might be to try to work on some of the skills to strengthen their
learning styles in the negligible area (Reid, 1987).
Models and Dimensions of Learning Styles
A number of models and dimensions have been proposed to describe
differences in how individuals take in and process information. The concept has been
approached by Fleming (1992), with coordination of learning styles or sensory
modalities. In this review of the literature and historical bases, the model is described
with Dunn’s model/dimension (Modalities) used in this research. The researcher also
presents the models of Myers-Briggs’ model/dimension (Personality Types), Kolb’s
model/dimension (Perception and Process), Hemispheric Dominance
model/dimension, and Agreements and Similarities Across model/dimension.
1. Modalities
The descriptions in Dunn’s model (VAK) are as follows:
1.1 Visual learning (prefer to learn by seeing)
1.2 Auditory learning (prefer to learn by hearing)
1.3 Kinesthetic learning (prefer to learn by doing)
2. Personality Types
Katherine Myers and Isabel Myers-Briggs have developed Jung’s work in
psychological type into an instrument of 126 questions. Scoring the responses to the
126 questions determines whether an individual is introverted or extroverted, sensing
or intuitive, thinking or feeling, or judging or perceiving (Briggs, 1987).
The descriptions in Myers-Briggs’ model are as follows:
2.1 Extraversion (E) versus Introversion (I)
2.2 Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N)
13
2.3 Thinking (T) versus Feeling (F)
2.4 Judging (J) versus perception (P)
3. Perception and Process
Knowing a person’s (and your own) learning style enables learning to be
orientated according to their preferred method. That said, everyone responds to and
needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another, it is a matter
of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person’s learning styles.
Here are descriptions of the four Kolb learning styles:
3.1 Diverging (feeling and watching – CE/RO)
3.2 Assimilating (watching and thinking – AC/RO)
3.3 Converging (doing and thinking – AC/AE)
3.4 Accommodating (doing and feeling – CE/AE)
4. Hemispheric Dominance
Many researchers have studied brain hemispheric dominance (Willians,
1983). Although arguably one of the more controversial issues, as far as actual
physical connection between certain information processing learning styles and
strengths and left or right brain hemispheres, the groupings of patterns of behavior
and cognitive activities is helpful to the teacher. To connect hemispheric with Jung it
would seem that the left hemisphere mode is associated with the sensor, and the right
hemisphere mode is associated with the intuitive, with some overlap and some
discrepancies.
5. Agreements and Similarities
Most of the models reported in the literature can be fitted to each other,
which is only logical since all are attempting to describe the same widely diverse
population. It is the very diversity of the learner population that raises controversy.
Certainly, the age group and environment of residence of the learner study population
causes wide shifts in data and conclusions. Most researchers agree that there are
differences in how people learn, and a variety by some descriptor of teaching
strategies would be preferable and more effective.
As proposed in the limitation of the study that this study is limited in VAK
learning styles. These learning styles are from sensory modalities model of Dunn’s
14
model (VAK; Visual (V), Auditory (A), Kinesthetic (K)). Here are descriptions of the
VAK learning styles from Dunn’s model (1990).
5.1 Visual learning (prefer to learn by seeing)
5.2 Auditory learning (prefer to learn by hearing)
5.3 Kinesthetic learning (prefer to learn by doing)
Furthermore, in this model, the term multimodal describes people who have
more than one learning style.
Benefits of Learning Styles in Language Classrooms
Learners’ learning styles describe how learners process information.
Learners have different learning styles depending on how their brains work while
learning. Three different learning styles have been identified among learners, which
are visual, auditory and kinesthetic. Each of these styles has advantages, which
teachers should know so that they can recognize the most suitable styles for specific
language classrooms or situations. Some language classrooms or situations require
teachers to adopt a style different from the teachers’ natural learning style (Evans,
2011).
Visual Learning Style: learners who learn best through visual aids have a
visual learning style. Visual aids include facial expressions and body languages of
teachers, pictures, texts with illustrations, etc. Visual learners think and learn in
pictures. This style of learning has an important advantage. It makes recollection
easier in a different environment from where learners had learned the information,
learners see pictures similar to those through which learners learned the information
(Evans, 2011).
Auditory Learning Style: learners prefer to learn by hearing what they
want to learn. Learners would prefer listening to discussions and reading texts aloud.
One special advantage of this style is that learners assimilate and retain information
without having to see it in texts or pictures (Evans, 2011).
Kinesthetic Learning Style: learners prefer to learn by moving and doing.
They prefer interactive learning, learning through practical challenges, hands-on
experience and taking in information as they move from one place to another.
Kinesthetic learners are therefore not comfortable sitting in a place for long.
15
The kinesthetic learning style has the advantage of exposing learners faster to practice
and evidence, as learners learn as they practice and practice what they learn (Evans,
2011).
EFL Learning and Teaching
The need for instruction in other languages has led to a variety of
educational approaches and methods of fostering L2 learning. More recent approaches
designed to promote L2 learning have tended to reflect different theoretical views on
how L2 might best be learned.
The most traditional approach is to treat L2 learning in the same way as any
other academic subject. Vocabulary lists and sets of grammar rules are used to define
the target of learning, memorization is encouraged, and written language rather than
spoken language is emphasized. This method has its roots in the traditional teaching
of Latin and is described as the grammar-translation method (Yule, 2006). In this
case, the focus is on the language itself, rather than on the information which is
carried by the language. Therefore, the goal for the teacher is to see to it that learners
learn the vocabulary and grammatical rules of the target language. The learners’ goal
in such a course is often to pass an examination rather than to use the language for
daily communication interaction.
Traditionally, the teaching of EFL in most East Asian countries is dominated
by a teacher-centered, book-centered, grammar-translation method and an emphasis
on rote memory (Liu & Littlewood, 1997). These traditional language teaching
approaches have resulted in a number of typical learning styles in East Asian
countries, with introverted learning being one of them. Introverted learners enjoy
generating energy and ideas from internal sources, such as brainstorming, personal
reflection and theoretical exploration. These learners prefer to think about things
before attempting to try a new skill.
In East Asia, most learners see knowledge as something to be transmitted by
the teacher rather than discovered by the learners. They, therefore, find it normal to
engage in modes of learning which are teacher-centered and in which they receive
knowledge rather than interpret it. Therefore, the learners are often quiet, shy and
reticent in language classroom. They dislike public touch and overt displays of
16
opinions or emotions, indicating a reserve that is the hallmark of introverts. Chinese
learners likewise name “listening to teacher” as their most frequent activity in senior
high school English classes (Liu & Littlewood, 1997). This teacher-centered
classroom teaching also leads to a closure-oriented style focusing carefully on all
learning tasks and seek clarity for most East Asian learners.
A very different approach, emphasizing the spoken language, became
popular in the middle of the twentieth century. It involved a systematic presentation of
the structures of the L2, moving from the simple to the more complex, in the form of
drills that the learner had to repeat. This approach is called the audio-lingual method
(Yule, 2006). It was influenced by a belief that the fluent use of a language was
essentially a set of “habits” that could be developed with much practice, which
involved hours spent in a language laboratory repeating oral drills.
More recent revisions of the L2 learning experience can best be described as
communicative approaches. Although there are many different versions of how to
create communicative experiences for L2 learners, they are all based on a belief that
the functions of language (what it is used for) should be emphasized rather than the
forms of the language (correct grammatical or phonological structures) (Yule, 2006)
Communicative instructional environments involve learners whose goal is learning
the language itself, but the style of instruction places the emphasis on interaction,
conversation, and language use, rather than on learning about the language.
The communicative approach is based on innatist and interactionist theories
of language learning and emphasizes the communication of meaning both between
teacher and learners and among the learners themselves in group or pair work.
Grammatical forms are focused on only in order to clarify meaning (Lightbown &
Spada, 2006). In these classes, the focus may occasionally be on the language itself,
but the emphasis is on using the language rather than talking about it. The teacher
tries to lead learners to use the language in a variety of contexts. Learners’ success in
these courses is often measured in terms of their ability to “get things done” in the
second language, rather than on their accuracy in using certain grammatical features.
Through communication-based approach, learners will be able to gain knowledge by
challenging its meaning. The emphasis in this activity is on communicating messages
where meaning is the clear priority in the interaction (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
17
With this kind of communication between teacher and learners, learners are able to
understand the meaning of a subject by analyzing, critical thinking and freely
expressing their knowledge.
Learners’ Learning Styles
Learning styles in language classrooms are learners’ learning strengths and
weaknesses, and different approaches or ways of learning. Many teachers believe that
learners have clear learning styles for how they go about learning new material and
that teaching to these preferred styles will increase educational success. Since all
these learners are in class at the same time, a teacher you will be called on to use
a variety of instructional approaches to reach all of them. Research has shown that
learners have three basic perceptual learning channels:
1. Visual learning – reading, studying charts
2. Auditory learning – listening to lectures, audiotapes
3. Kinesthetic learning - experiential learning, that is, total physical
involvement with a learning situation (Reid, 1987).
At the same time, in accordance with Lightbown and Spada (2006), learners
who absorb content best by listening are auditory learners. Those who learn best by
seeing are visual learners, while a need to add a physical action to the learning process
are kinesthetic learners. Therefore, visual learners learn by seeing (Reid, 1987;
Lightbown & Spada, 2006). They do best with textbooks that have graphs,
photographs, and charts. Auditory learners learn by being read to, and by discussing
what has been read. They will also be more likely to be distracted by sounds.
The kinesthetic learner will enjoy being able to move while learning. They have
a hard time sitting still for long periods of time and may become disturbed if they are
not allowed to get up quite often during the day. The kinesthetic learner needs hands-
on experience to, as it were, “get it”.
The visual learner may think in pictures and learns best from visual displays
including diagrams, illustrated text books, overhead transparencies, videos, flipcharts
and hand-outs. During a lecture or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer
to take detailed notes to absorb the information. Videos can be good for a visual
learner, as he can see what is going on and specific examples of the subject he is
18
trying to learn. These learners need to see the teacher’s body language and facial
expression to fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at
the front of the classroom to avoid visual obstructions (e.g., people’s heads). Auditory
learners might learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through
and listening to what others have to say. They interpret the underlying meanings of
speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other nuances. Written
information may have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit
from reading texts aloud and using a tape recorder. Kinesthetic persons learn best
through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them.
When learners express a preference for seeing something written or for
memorizing material which we feel should be learned in a less formal way, we should
not assume that their ways of working are wrong. Instead, we should encourage them
to use all means available to them as they work to learn another language (Lightbown
& Spada, 2006). Learners preferentially take in and process information in different
ways, and teaching methods also should vary accordingly. How much a learner can
learn is also determined by the compatibility of the learner’s learning styles and the
teachers’ teaching styles. It is important for teachers to know their learners’ preferred
learning styles because this knowledge will help teachers to plan their lessons to
match or adapt their teaching and to provide the most appropriate activities to suit
a particular learner group. Therefore, EFL teachers need to recognize the conflicts and
differences between teaching and learning to enhance the learning process. Matching
the language instruction methods to learner learning styles can enhance academic
achievement.
Related Studies on Language Learning Styles
Related studies show that individuals differ in their learning especially in
language learning. According to Dunn and Dunn (1978), only 20-30% of school age
children appear to be auditory learners, 40% are visual learners, and 30-40% are
tactile/ kinesthetic or visual/ tactile learners. A questionnaire was employed to
identify their preferred learning styles. The details of prior research studies are below.
Price et al. (1980) found that very young children are the most tactile/
kinesthetic, that there is a gradual development of visual strengths through the
19
elementary grades, and that only in Grade Five or Grade Six can most youngsters
learn and retain information through the auditory sense. A questionnaire was
employed to identify their preferred learning styles. Barbe and Milone (1981) stated
that for grade school children the most frequent modality strengths are visual (30%)
or mixed (30%), followed by auditory (25%), and then by kinesthetic (15%).
A questionnaire was employed to identify their preferred learning styles.
Carbo (1983) investigated the perceptual style of readers, found that good readers
prefer to learn through their visual and auditory sense, while poor readers have
a stronger preference for tactile and kinesthetic learning. A questionnaire was
employed to identify their preferred learning styles.
Reid (1987) has demonstrated that English as a Second Language (ESL)
students varied significantly in their sensory preferences. This research used the
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. Students from Asian cultures
were often highly visual, Koreans being the most visual, Hispanic learners were
frequently auditory and Japanese were very non-auditory. Stebbins (1995) found that
Chinese and Vietnamese speakers preferred visual learning while Spanish speakers
preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles. A questionnaire was employed to
identify their preferred learning styles. Willing (1987) found that the Spanish
speakers preferred visual and auditory styles. A questionnaire was employed to
identify their preferred learning styles.
Melton (1990) found that Chinese university students favored the
kinesthetic, tactile and individual styles, and disfavored a group style. A questionnaire
was employed to identify their preferred learning styles. Jones (1997) stated that his
Chinese (Taiwan) university students favored kinesthetic and tactile styles, and
disfavored individual styles. A questionnaire was employed to identify their preferred
learning styles. Peacock (2001) has examined the learning style preferences of EFL
and ESL students. A questionnaire was employed to identify their preferred learning
styles. The results of these studies show that students prefer kinesthetic learning styles
above others, whereas the teaching methods mostly suit auditory learners.
Ong, Rajendram, and Yusof (2006) conducted a study on a total of 75
students to investigate the relationship between the learning style preferences and
written English proficiency of Cohort three students of the B. Ed. (TESL) Foundation
20
course in IPBA. A questionnaire was employed to identify their preferred learning
styles. The findings of their study on the investigation of the effect of learning style
preferences on the students’ written English proficiency levels indicated that the
students’ major learning style preference was kinesthetic through which many
students learned best through involvement in classroom experiences. They liked to
learn by carrying out physical activities. Their written English proficiency levels had
been affected by their learning style preferences. Studies have also been done on
Iranian EFL students’ learning styles.
Riazi and Riasati (2007) conducted research on the learning style
preferences of Iranian EFL learners. This research used the Perceptual Learning Style
Preference Questionnaire. They found that these students preferred to be actively
engaged in class activities. They tended to have interactions with other students in the
class.
Kassaian (2007) investigated the effect of two types of teaching methods on
the retention of unfamiliar words. The VAK (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) test of
learning styles was used. Sixty-six university students having either auditory or
visual learning styles participated in teaching method environments which were either
visual or aural. Data analyses indicated that: 1) the subjects with a visual style of
learning retained vocabulary items they had learned visually better than the items they
had learned aurally, but the subjects with an aural style of learning did not show better
retention for items they had learned aurally, and 2) all the subjects retained visually
presented items better than aurally presented items in the immediate and delayed tests.
In another study, Liu (2008) asserted that learners from different listening
proficiency levels have various characteristics while learning a second language.
A questionnaire was given to the learners. Therefore, it was concluded that the
learners’ learning style preferences affected their English proficiency levels in general
and English listening proficiency levels in particular.
Kara (2009) investigated the hypothesis that a mismatch between the
teaching style of the teacher and the learning styles of the learners results in failure,
frustration and demotivation. A questionnaire was given to the learners, both teachers
and learners were interviewed to investigate whether they were concerned when there
is a mismatch. The results revealed that second year learners at the ELT Department
21
in Anadolu University favored visual and auditory styles. The teachers also preferred
visual and auditory styles. The results showed that learning styles and teaching styles
match at the ELT Department. Learners said that they feel unhappy and frustrated
when their teachers do not teach in their favored style. Teachers said that when they
become aware of a mismatch, they change the presentation or type of activity.
However, at the beginning of the semester, the teachers do not take learning styles
into consideration.
Mulalic, Shah, and Ahmad (2009) determined the Perceptual Learning Style
(PLS) of ESL learners and analyzed the differences in learning styles regarding the
learner’s demographic factors such as gender and race. This research used Perceptual
Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. The results revealed that the dominant
learning styles of ESL learners yielded the following results. In general, learners
preferred the Kinesthetic learning style and expressed minor preference for visual,
auditory, and group learning. The results of the research suggested that it was
important to determine learners learning styles and make learners aware of the
different approaches to learning.
Abu Sharbain, Tan, and Jahaish (2010) carried out a study to investigate the
relationship between the LS preferences and academic performance of third year
English majors at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza. A questionnaire was given to the
learners. The results indicated that there was a significant correlation between
performance and auditory style, but there was no significant correlation between
performance and visual and kinesthetic styles.
Al- Khatani (2011) investigated the relationship of learning styles and
learning strategies to academic performance in the Methodology One Course.
The instruments used in this study were: (a) The Language Style Preferences
Questionnaire; (b) The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL); and
(3) An EFL Methodology One Course achievement test. This study revealed no clear
correlation between the students’ preferred styles and their choice of instructional
mode. However, students’ satisfaction and success, as well as their positive and
negative learning experiences, did correlate with their learning style preferences.
Khmakhien (2012) determined the impact of three variables: gender, field of
study, and learning experiences on preferred learning styles. The Perceptual Learning
22
Style Preference Questionnaire was administered to elicit information for the study.
The results indicated that Thai EFL learners preferred auditory learning most,
followed by kinesthetic, group, tactile, visual and individual learning, respectively.
Among these three variables, field of study is the most significant factor affecting the
choice of learning styles. However, no statistically significant difference was found in
learning experience, or between the mean scores of male and female learners in all of
the six learning styles.
Phantharakphong (2012) investigated the English learning styles of learners.
VARK questionnaires by Fleming and Mills were administered to undergraduate
learners and interviews were conducted. The findings showed that the majority of
undergraduate learners preferred Kinesthetic and Multimodal styles of learning to
read/ write, Auditory and Visual styles of learning.
Al-Hebaishi (2012) identified the learning style and strategies preferences of
female EFL majors at Taibah University and investigated the relationship of learning
styles and learning strategies to academic performance in the Methodology One
Course. The instruments used in this study were the Language Style Preferences
Questionnaire, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), and an EFL
Methodology One Course achievement test. The results showed that the visual
learning style was the most preferred by the majority of participants. The strategies
most frequently employed were cognitive strategies followed by metacognitive
strategies. The results also revealed a significant relationship between the visual
learning style and memory strategies. Another significant relationship was found
between the visual learning style and affective strategies. However, the findings
demonstrated the lack of a significant relationship between learning styles and
academic performance. In contrast, a significant positive relationship was found
between participants’ use of learning strategies and their academic performance.
Su (2012) explored the relationship between the learning styles preferences
of learners at a Taiwanese hospitality college, and their characteristics and academic
performance. The instrument used in this study was the Solomon-Felder Index of
Learning Style Questionnaire which has four dimensions comprising 44 discrete-
choice questions. The results indicated that hospitality college learners were more
likely to be reflective, sensate, visual and global and that female learners were
23
significantly more sensate than were their male counterparts, whereas both male and
female learners were more sensate than intuitive. Male learners were significantly
more visual than were their female counterparts, whereas both male and female
learners were more visual than verbal. The results revealed significant differences in
two of the four learning styles between learners who were enrolled by examination
and learners who were enrolled by application.
Boström and Hallin (2013) examined the learning style preferences for two
learner groups, teachers and nurses, and analyzed their differences in light of
international research on learning styles. The Productivity Environmental Preference
Survey (PEPS) was used to identify the participants’ learning style preferences.
The results showed statistically significant differences between the two learner
groups. In comparison to teaching learners, more nursing learners were highly
motivated, kinesthetic, and preferred authorities. More teaching learners were highly
persistent. The findings suggested the need for widely diverse teaching approaches
and conscious didactic action skills in higher education, as well as implementation of
learning strategies for learners.
San and Ye (2014) investigated the perceptual learning style of ethic
learners learning the Burmese language in selected schools and compared the
learner’s achievement of learning the Burmese language according to their most
preferred learning styles. The instruments were the Reid’s Perceptual Learning Styles
Questionnaire and learners’ demographic profiles. The findings revealed that the most
preference learning style among the learners was tactile learning, followed by
auditory, kinesthetic and then individual and group learning style. However, none
preferred the visual learning style. Regarding the difference of their most preferred
learning styles, there was no significant difference among grade 11 ethnic learners’
achievement of learning Burmese language according to their most preferred learning
styles.
Moayyeri (2015) investigated the impact of undergraduate learners learning
preferences (VARK model) on language achievement. The instrument used in this
study was the VARK questionnaire which provides users with a profile of their
learning preferences. The results indicated that reading style is the dominant learning
style among Iranian EFL learners and there was a significant relationship between the
24
learners’ fields of study and their learning styles. Also, learners with reading style
have the highest language achievement and the learners with a visual personality type
have the lowest performance.
Almigbal (2015) investigated the relationship between the learning style
preferences of Saudi medical learners and their academic achievements. The Visual,
Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic questionnaire (VARK) questionnaire was used to
categorize learning style preferences. The results indicated that learning style
preferences were not related to a learner's academic achievements, marital status,
residency, or study resources (for example, teachers' PowerPoint slides, textbooks,
and journals). Also, after being adjusted to other study variables, the learning style
preferences were not related to GPA. The findings can be used to improve the quality
of teaching in Saudi Arabia; learners would be advantaged if teachers understood the
factors that can be related to learners' learning styles.
In summary, Table 2.1 presents a summary of the related studies on
language learning styles.
Table 2.1 Summary of the Related Studies on Language Learning Styles
Researcher Year Research Title Instrument
1. Dunn and Dunn 1978 Teaching Students through their
Individual Learning Styles
questionnaire
2. Price et al. 1980 Reading achievement and learning
style characteristics
questionnaire
3. Barbe and
Milone
1981 What we know about modality
strengths
questionnaire
4. Carbo 1983 Research in reading and learning style:
Implications for exceptional children
questionnaire
5. Reid 1987 The learning style preference of ESL
students
questionnaire
6. Willing 1987 Learning styles in adult migrant
education
questionnaire
25
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Researcher Year Research Title Instrument
7. Melton 1990 Bridging the cultural gap: a study of
Chinese students’ learning style
preferences
questionnaire
8. Stebbins 1995 Culture-specific perceptual-learning
style preferences of postsecondary
students of English as a second
language
questionnaire
9. Jones 1997 Applying learning styles research to
improve writing instruction
questionnaire
10. Peacock 2001 Match or mismatch? Learning styles
and teaching styles in EFL
questionnaire
11. Ong et al. 2006 Learning style preferences and
English proficiency among cohort 3
students in IPBA
questionnaire
12. Riazi and
Riasati
2007 Language learning style preferences:
A case study of Shiraz EFL institutes
questionnaire
13. Kassaian 2007 Learning styles and lexical
presentation modes
questionnaire
14. Liu 2008 A study of the interrelationship
between listening strategy use,
listening proficiency levels, and
learning style
questionnaire
15. Kara 2009 Learning styles and teaching styles:
A case study in foreign language
Classroom
questionnaire
and interview
16. Mulalic et al. 2009 Learning-style preference of ESL
Students
questionnaire
26
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Researcher Year Research Title Instrument
17. Abu Sharbain
et al.
2010 The relationship between learning
style preferences and academic
achievement of English majors at Al-
Aqsa university in Gaza
questionnaire
18. Al- Khatani 2011 Learning styles of EFL Saudi college-
level in on-line and traditional
educational environment
questionnaire
and test
19. Khmakhien 2012 Demystifying Thai EFL learners’
perceptual learning style preferences
questionnaire
20. Phantharak-
phong
2012 English learning styles of high and
low performance students of the
faculty of education, Khon Kaen
university
questionnaire
and interview
21. Al-Hebaishi 2012 Investigating the relationships
between learning styles, strategies and
the academic performance of Saudi
English majors
questionnaire
and test
22. Su 2012 Relationships between the learning-
style preferences and the
characteristics and academic
performance of Taiwanese college
hospitality students
questionnaire
23. Boström and
Hallin
2013 Learning style differences between
nursing and teaching students in
Sweden: A comparative study
questionnaire
27
Table 2.1 (Continued)
Researcher Year Research Title Instrument
24. San and Ye 2014 A comparative study of ethnic
students’ learning styles in learning
Burmese language and their
achievement in selected schools in
Pyin oo lwin, Mandalay region,
Myanmar
questionnaire
25. Moayyeri 2015 The impact of undergraduate
students’ learning preferences
(VARK Model) on their language
achievement
questionnaire
26. Almigbal 2015 Relationship between the learning
style preferences of medical students
and academic achievement
questionnaire
Chapter Summary
This chapter presents a literature review concerning the definitions of
Learning Styles, approaches of Learning Styles, types of Learning Styles, models and
dimensions of Learning Styles were explained. Thereafter, the contemporary studies
on EFL learning and teaching, Learners’ learning styles are presented. Finally, the
related studies on Language learning styles are discussed. The summary from the
related studies on Language Learning Styles uses a questionnaire to collect the data
and most of the research studies were conducted with learners in the upper secondary
level or in the university. The related studies showed the young learners in Grade Five
or Grade Six preferred the auditory learning style and the learners in the upper
secondary level or in the university preferred visual and kinesthetic learning styles.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research methodology which consists of 10
sections as follows: research design, context of the study, population, participants,
questionnaire as the research instrument, validity, reliability, data collection, data
analysis, and ethical considerations.
Research Design
The research used a quantitative research approach to identify the
predominant learning style preference and to compare the learning styles across
genders. Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining
the relationship among variables. These variables, in turn, are measured by
instruments, so that numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures
(Creswell, 2008).
Through the quantitative design, the present study used a survey to collect
the data. The survey provides a quantitative description of trends, attitudes, or
opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population (Creswell, 2009).
The trends in this study were learning styles. This design was suitable to find the
answers to the purposes of the study, which were to identify the predominant learning
style preference of English language learners and to compare the learning style
preferences of English language learners by gender.
Context of the Study
The setting of this research took place at a Catholic School in Sriracha,
Chonburi Province, Thailand. It was chosen to be the context of the current study
because it was a good example among other schools. This school provides all levels
of education from nursery to upper secondary and has an Intensive English Program.
It is a large school in eastern Thailand with more than 5,700 students and over 400
Thai and foreign teachers. This year is its eightieth anniversary.
29
The Catholic School is located on Sukhumvit Road. Its atmosphere is very
pleasant and the environment is very clean and attractive. It consists of five main
buildings. The first building has three floors, used for the nursery level. The second
one is a four-floor building and is used for kindergarten one up to grade one. The third
one is a seven-floor building and is used for grade two to grade six. The next one is
a five-floor building and is used for lower secondary level. The last one is an eight-
floor building and is used for the upper secondary level with many facilities to support
all the learning. The facilities in this school are computer labs, science labs, language
centers, one math center, music rooms, art rooms, nurse rooms, three big libraries,
three big cafeterias, three big playgrounds, two football fields, two swimming pools,
two mini-marts and one stationary shop.
Additionally, the school cooperates and signs MOU contracts with the
universities in other countries, such as New Zealand, Japan, China, and others.
The learners can take the opportunity to study aboard and get scholarships from those
countries. Exchange teachers from the universities join in teaching and the learners
can practice English skills while they are studying or doing activities together in
school.
Grades One to Six have eight classes per level, with fifty to fifty-five
learners in each class. They study many subjects in a week, for example, English,
math, Thai, science, social studies, history, Chinese, computer, Physical Education,
art, music, health education, and so on. The learners study seven periods a day, thirty-
five periods a week. One period is fifty minutes. They study in an Intensive English
Program. They study English six periods a week, separated into two periods for
listening and speaking with two foreign teachers, two periods for writing with a Thai
teacher and two periods for reading with a Thai teacher. In other subjects, they study
math in English two periods a week, science in English one period a week and social
studies in English one period a week.
Population
The population of the study was learners in Grade Six at a Catholic school in
Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand. There were eight classes in Grade Six with
30
about fifty-two to fifty-five learners in a class. The learners were 11-12 years old. All
of them learned in the Intensive English Program. According to current school
statistics, there were 432 learners who studied English Language in Grade Six (see
Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Statistics of Grade Six English Language Learners by Gender
Gender Population Percentage
Male
Female
216
216
50%
50%
Total 432 100%
Source: Darasamutr School (2016, p. 13)
Table 3.1 presents the percentages of Grade Six English language learners
by gender. There are 432 English language learners, consisting of 216 male learners
(50%) and 216 female learners (50%) in a Catholic school in 2016.
Participants
The participants in this study were chosen by using a purposeful sampling
technique. Purposeful sampling represents a group of different non-probability
sampling techniques. Also known as judgmental, selective or subjective sampling,
purposeful sampling relies on the judgment of the researcher when it comes to
selecting the units (e.g., people, cases, events) that are to be studied (Patton, 1990;
Kuzel, 1999).
This study used the whole population in Grade Six at a Catholic school in
Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand because the learners continue studying in the
lower and upper secondary levels in this school. Teachers should know learners’
learning styles in order to plan and provide the teaching methods for the learners and
help the learners in learning achievement. The expectations of the learners’ parents
are that their children will be good in English. The participants were 11-12 year olds
from eight classes in Grade Six who learned in the Intensive English Program.
31
They studied English six periods a week, separated in two periods for listening and
speaking with two foreign teachers, two periods for writing with a Thai teacher and
two periods for reading with a Thai teacher. In other subjects, they studied math in
English two periods a week, science in English one period a week and social studies
in English one period a week. The survey participants are shown in Table 3.1.
Questionnaire as the Research Instrument
This study was designed to identify the predominant learning styles
preferences of English language learners studying in Grade Six at a Catholic school.
A survey method was used to collect the data in this study. The researcher adapted the
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) (Reid, 1995) because it
is appropriate to use with young learners. The questionnaire was divided into two
parts: background information and learning styles.
Part 1: the participants answered about their demographic data, such as
gender, levels, and the number of applicable boxes checked.
Part 2: the list of statements was created to identify the predominant
learning style preferences of English language learners studying at a Catholic school
in Grade Six. This section consists of 15 items, focusing on three learning styles:
visual learning style, auditory learning style, and kinesthetic learning style.
The participants were expected to indicate how much they agreed with each item on
a scale from 1 to 5 when they learned English. Each number noted certain
measurements as shown below.
1 means Strongly disagree
2 means Disagree
3 means Neutral
4 means Agree
5 means Strongly agree
The participants were Thai learners, so all statements were translated into
Thai to avoid language problems and confusion, as well as to offer participants clarity
about the questionnaire items.
32
Validity of the Questionnaire
In the present study, three experts in the field of English language teaching
from Thailand were invited to assess the validity of the questionnaire. They checked
the questionnaire for consistency, appropriation, and language use, as well as rating
each item as to whether or not it responded to the research objectives and research
questions to reduce the possibility of choosing the wrong answer. The evaluation form
of the Indexes of Objective Congruence (IOC) was used to check this process.
The evaluation on the IOC was a score ranging from -1 to 1 (Rovinelli & Hambleton,
1977). Each number represents the following measurements:
Congruent = 1
Questionable = 0
Incongruent = -1
The results from three experts were calculated to find the IOC.
The comments of the experts and IOC were calculated as shown below.
IOC = ∑R
N
Where
IOC = Index of Item Objective Congruence
R = Score of comments from the experts
N = Number of experts
If the items are 0.05 ≤ IOC ≤ 1.00, it means that the index of the item
objective congruence is acceptable. On the other hand, if the IOC < 0.05, the index of
item objective congruence is not acceptable and should be revised or withdrawn.
The total result of the IOC from the three experts in the present study was 0.87,
that was higher than 0.50. The comments of the three experts were some mistakes in
structures, meanings in the sentences and word usage. The suggestions from the
experts were incorporated and the questionnaire was updated (see Appendix C).
Reliability
To enhance the reliability of the questionnaire, a pilot test was carried out
after the IOC was checked. The updated questionnaire had to check the reliability of
33
the questionnaire and to ask the participants about confusing meanings of the
questionnaire items before they were used to conduct the main study. The updated
questionnaire was pilot tested with 30 participants in grade six at a Catholic school.
The pilot study used 7% as the representative size to the study sample.
1. Prior to the Field Study
I asked permission from the director of a Catholic school if my research
could take place in the school with the learners in Grade Six. After that, I asked for
a formal letter for granting permission to conduct data collection from the Faculty of
Education, Burapha University. After getting the official approval letter from the
dean, the letter was sent to the director of a Catholic school to gain access and support
data collection.
2. During the Field Study
Upon receiving the permission letter to collect the data for pilot study,
I planned a schedule to work with the participants. Then, I came to the classroom of
the new learners from another school to take a summer course in grade six to
introduce myself, and ask for their cooperation. I selected 30 participants from the
new learners from the other school who were taking a summer course in grade six.
I introduced myself, explained the purposes of my research study to them, and
distributed the survey questionnaire. To ensure completion of the questionnaire, I told
them to read all parts of the questionnaire and note any points that were confusing.
For help and ease, every point was read and explained by the researcher, while the
participants were completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed and
collected from the participants, and then thanked for their cooperation.
3. After the Field Study
The pilot test from the participants was used to validate the reliability with
the use of Cronbach’s Alpha in order to ensure whether there was internal consistency
within the items. According to George and Mallery (2003), the values of the
Coefficient Cronbach Alpha are as follows:
Values of Coefficient Cronbach Alpha Meaning
≥ .90 Excellent
≥ .80 Good
≥ .70 Acceptable
34
≥ .60 Questionable
≥ .50 Poor
≤ .50 Unacceptable
The acceptable values of the Coefficient Cronbach Alpha are between 0.7
and 0.9. The questionnaire was pilot tested and the reliability was 0.78 (see Appendix
D).
Data Collection
After the pilot study was completed and the questionnaire was updated, the
data collection was conducted at a Catholic school in 2016.
The approval letter from Burapha University and the permission letter from
a Catholic school for the main study had been signed by the director. I started to
collect the data with the cooperation of the director of a Catholic school. The research
design to collect the data for the participants is set out as below.
The questionnaire was distributed and collected by the researcher in eight
classes. When the participants were all in the classroom, the purpose of the study and
the significance of the study were explained. The researcher distributed
a questionnaire to each participant to ensure that every participant could answer
the questionnaire, and then reviewed how to answer the questionnaire again.
The participants had 20 minutes to complete it. The researcher waited until all
participants had answered the questionnaire, and then collected the completed
questionnaires from the participants.
Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted utilizing a computer software program.
The descriptive statistics, mean scores, standard deviations and t-test were used to
rank the order of the learning styles. They were used to calculate the data to respond
to the two research questions.
Research Question 1: What are the predominant learning style preferences
of English language learners?
35
To answer this question, descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard
deviations) were used. The mean scores and standard deviations were used to identify
the predominant learning styles preferences of English language learners. Best (1981)
and Degang (2010) were employed to interpret the mean scores for learners’ learning
styles preferences and levels of frequency.
4.50-5.00 = Very high
3.50-4.49 = High
2.50-3.49 = Average
1.50-2.49 = Low
1.00-1.49 = Very low
The mean scores for each item indicate the level of learners’ learning style.
The highest score indicates the learners most preferred learning style while the lowest
score indicates the learners least preferred learning style.
Research Question 2: Is there any difference in the learning style preference
of English language learners by gender?
In order to answer this question, descriptive statistics and an independent-
sample t-test were used to compare the learning style preferences of English language
learners by their gender.
Ethical Considerations
To meet the ethical considerations in this study, all data were kept
confidential and coded in order to protect the participants. First and foremost,
the researcher has an obligation to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires of
the participants (Creswell, 2009). The purpose and the procedures of this research
were carefully explained to the school administration, related teachers and
participants. Furthermore, the participants’ detailed information was protected and
kept confidential. The participants’ numbers were not shared with anybody, and only
used in this study.
36
Chapter Summary
This chapter presents the methodology used in this research to identify the
English language learners styles. There were 432 participants in Grade Six at the
Catholic school in Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand. This study used a survey
research approach to collect the data. The questionnaire was adapted from the
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), consisting of two parts:
demographic information and 15-item learning styles statements. The data analysis
was conducted by utilizing descriptive statistics, mean scores, standard deviations,
and a t-test.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings collected from the survey on learning
styles at a Catholic school in Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand. This study
attempted to find the predominant learning style preferences of English language
learners, and the difference in the learning style preference of English language
learners by gender. In this chapter, the findings are presented based on the order of
research questions as follows.
1. What are the predominant learning style preferences of English language
learners?
2. Is there any difference in the learning style preference of English
language learners by their gender?
Findings of Research Question 1
What are the predominant learning style preferences of English
language learners?
This section reports the answer to the first research question. The data were
obtained from the questionnaire, by using descriptive statistics, mean scores and
standard deviations. It also reports the predominant learning styles preference of
English language learners. Table 4.1 presents the results of the first research question.
Table 4.1 Learning Styles
Learning style Mean SD Level Rank
Auditory 3.75 0.93 High 1
Visual 3.63 0.90 High 2
Kinesthetic 3.57 1.03 High 3
Total 3.65 0.95 High
38
As shown in Table 4.1, the participants reported having all aspects of
learning styles at the high level (M = 3.65, SD = 0.95). Auditory learning style is at
the high level (M = 3.75, SD = 0.93). Followed by visual learning style, which is at
the high level (M = 3.63, SD = 0.90). And kinesthetic learning style is at the high level
(M = 3.57, SD = 1.03). Auditory learning style is the highest mean value among the
three learning styles and kinesthetic learning style is the lowest mean value among the
three learning styles. To examine each aspect in detail, Table 4.2 presents the mean
scores and standard deviations of learners’ auditory learning style.
Table 4.2 Descriptive Analysis of Learners’ Auditory Learning Style
Item/ Statement Mean SD Level Rank
1. When I hear myself reading aloud,
I understand better.
3.51 0.93 High 4
2. I prefer listening to lectures to reading
textbooks.
4.31 0.84 High 1
3. I remember what I heard in class better than
what I read.
3.86 0.87 High 3
4. I learn better in the class when the teacher
gives a lecture.
4.05 0.94 High 2
5. I learn better when I listen to others in class. 3.01 1.05 Average 5
Total 3.75 0.93 High
Table 4.2 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of learners’
auditory learning style. Based on the questionnaire statement, the participants reported
that they liked listening to lectures at the high level (M = 4.31, SD = 0.84). Followed
by, they learned better in the class when teacher gave a lecture at the high level (M =
4.05, SD = 0.94). The least preference was that they learned better when they listened
to others in class at the average level (M = 3.01, SD = 1.05). It could be interpreted
that in the auditory learning style, learners preferred listening to lectures more than
listening to their friends in the classroom.
39
Table 4.3 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of learners’
visual learning style.
Table 4.3 Descriptive Analysis of Learners’ Visual Learning Style
Item/ Statement Mean SD Level Rank
1.
I learn better by reading what the
teacher writes on the blackboard.
3.75 0.82 High 2
2. When I read a textbook, I remember
it better.
3.50 0.89 High 3
3. When I read content, I understand
better.
3.41 0.95 Average 4
4. When learning a new skill, I prefer
watching someone’s demonstration to
listening.
4.34 0.82 High
1
5. I learn better by reading a book rather
than by listening to others.
3.16 1.01 Average 5
Total 3.63 0.90 High
Table 4.3 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of learners’
visual learning style at the high level (M = 3.63, SD = 0.90). Based on the
questionnaire statement, the participants reported that when learning a new skill, they
preferred watching someone’s demonstration to listening at the high level (M = 4.34,
SD = 0.82). Followed by, they learned better by reading what the teacher wrote on the
blackboard at the high level (M = 3.75, SD = 0.82). And the least preferred, they
learned better by reading a book rather than by listening to others at the average level
(M = 3.16, SD = 1.01). In the visual learning style, leaners preferred watching
demonstrations and reading on the board more than reading content and books.
Table 4.4 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of learners’
kinesthetic learning style.
40
Table 4.4 Descriptive Analysis of Learners’ Kinesthetic Learning Style
Item/ Statement Mean SD Level Rank
1.
I prefer learning by doing exercises and
quizzing in class.
3.32 1.09 Average 5
2. When I do things in class, I learn
better.
3.67 0.99 High 2
3. I hands-on activities more than
listening lectures.
3.37 1.08 Average 4
4. I learn better in class when
I participate in role-playing.
3.63 1.01 High 3
5. I learn best in class when I can
participate in related activities.
3.87 0.97 High 1
Total 3.57 1.03 High
Table 4.4 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of learners’
kinesthetic learning style at the high level (M = 3.57, SD = 1.03). Based on the
questionnaire statement, the participants reported that they learned best in class when
they can participate in related activities at the high level (M = 3.87, SD = 0.97).
Followed by, when they did things in class, they learned better at the high level
(M = 3.67, SD = 0.99). And the least preferred was learning by doing exercises and
quizzing in the class at the average level (M = 3.32, SD = 1.09). In the kinesthetic
learning style, learners preferred participation in related activities more than doing
exercises, quizzing in the class and hands-on activities.
Findings of Research Question 2:
Is there any difference in the learning style preference of English
language learners by gender?
This section reports the answer to the second research question by using
descriptive statistics and an independent-sample t-test. It also reports the difference in
the learning style preference of English language learners by gender.
41
Table 4.5 Comparisons of Learning Styles by Gender
Learning Style Gender N Mean SD t p
Visual Male
Female
216
216
3.56
3.71
0.57
0.50
-2.93
0.004
Auditory Male
Female
216
216
3.66
3.84
0.54
0.48
-3.57
0.000
Kinesthetic Male
Female
216
216
3.41
3.73
0.70
0.67
-4.79
0.000
(*p < .05)
Table 4.5 presents the independent-sample t-test between the learning style
preference of English language learners for males and females (p < .05). In general,
there are significant differences among visual learning style uses (t = -2.93,
p = 0.004). In detail, there are significant differences among Auditory learning style
uses (t = -3.57, p= 0.000). And there are significant differences among kinesthetic
learning style uses (t = -4.79, p = 0.000). In conclusion, for the learning style
preference of English language learners between males and females, there are
differences in three categories: visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provides the findings resulting from the analysis of the
quantitative data, which was using the questionnaire to survey the learning styles of
English language learners at a Catholic school in Sriracha, Chonburi Province,
Thailand. The findings presented in the first part are the demographic data, and then
based on the order of research questions. The participants in this study preferred the
auditory learning style the most, followed by the visual learning style and least
preferred the kinesthetic learning style. There were significant differences in all
learning styles of English language learners between males and females.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of the study, research findings,
discussion of the research findings, and recommendations for teachers, schools,
families, learners, and future studies.
Summary of the Study
This study aims to identify the predominant learning styles preferences of
English language learners study at a Catholic school in Grade Six and to compare the
learning style preferences of English language learners by their gender. Therefore,
this study has attempted to answer the following research questions.
1. What are the predominant learning styles preferences of English language
learners?
2. Is there any difference in the learning style preference of English
language learners by their gender?
The design of this study was a quantitative method that used a survey
design. The researcher adapted the Perceptual Learning Style Preference
Questionnaire (PLSPQ) developed by Reid (1987). The framework consists of the
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles. The population of the study was 432
learners in Grade Six at a Catholic school in Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand.
They were 11-12 years old. All of them learned in an Intensive English Program.
The participants of this study were survey participants, and this study used the whole
population in Grade Six at a Catholic school.
Summary of the Findings
The research findings of the current study are divided into two parts based
on the research questions.
The participants in this study reported among the three learning styles
(auditory, visual and kinesthetic learning styles) that they preferred auditory learning
style the most and they preferred kinesthetic learning style the least. However, for the
43
learners’ auditory learning style, they preferred listening lecture the most. This means
that the learners trusted the teachers and textbooks because they learned English as
a foreign language. The teachers should prepare suitable lesson plans, learning
activities and textbooks for the learners. Auditory learners were not passive learners,
but in the Thai context children are taught to be good listeners and should not argue
with adults. The present social network is worldwide, therefore, they only read and
chat on smartphones and lack participation in learning activities. The teachers should
provide react activities to encourage auditory learners to participate in learning.
For the learners’ visual learning style, they preferred watching demonstrations
the most. This means that the learners wanted a role model to make sure. The teachers
should make them confident in the classroom such as giving admiration. For the
learners’ kinesthetic learning style, they preferred participation in related activities
the most. This means that the learners wanted to join activities to practice English
because they didn’t have enough chances to practice English in their daily lives.
The teacher should provide more activities for them in English learning.
There were significant differences among the auditory, visual, and
kinesthetic learning styles. They were all different between male and female English
language learners. Female learners liked to learn more in auditory, visual and
kinesthetic learning styles than male learners. Therefore, the teachers should
encourage the male learners to practice more in auditory, visual and kinesthetic
learning styles in English learning.
Discussion
This section provides a discussion of the research findings in the current
study. The discussion focuses on the interpretation of the predominant learning style
and the differences in the learning style of English language learners by their gender.
Predominant Learning Style
This study reveals that among the three learning styles learners preferred the
auditory learning style primarily which is the predominant learning style of English
language learners followed by the visual learning style and the least is the kinesthetic
learning style. There is little research about young learners in learning styles.
This was consistent with the studies of Price et al. (1980), Barbe and Milone (1981),
44
Carbo (1983), Willing (1987), and Kara (2009) that found Grade Five or Grade Six
can learn most in auditory. Related studies (Lee, 1976; Reid, 1987) have supported
the results of the present investigation that English as Second Language (ESL)
learners varied significantly in their sensory preferences. Learners from Asian
cultures were often highly visual, with Koreans being the most visual. Similarly,
this study found the same as related studies, that learners in Grade Six preferred the
auditory style. This finding could be explained as learning styles were suitable for
learners in Grade Six, and learning activities in the classroom depended on the
teachers who had their own preferred learning and teaching styles. Some learners got
their learning styles from their teachers when they were young. Research in the field
of English language shows that the predominant learning style of English language
learners is the auditory learning style. This means that the participants in Grade Six
preferred the auditory learning style, teachers should encourage them to learn in other
learning styles to get more knowledge and success in language.
Gender
There were overall statistically significant differences among the auditory,
visual, and kinesthetic learning styles by male and female English language learners.
Female learners liked to learn more in all learning styles than male learners. There is
little research about the differences in the learning style preference of English
language learners by gender. This is consistent with the studies of Novotná, (2008),
and Choudhary et al. (2011) that found significant differences in learning styles.
Similarly, this study found the same finding as related studies, that female learners in
Grade Six liked to learn more in all learning styles than male learners. This finding
could be explained that different genders preferred different learning styles, subjects,
and expectations in the advantages of English language.
Recommendations for Implications
This section presents some recommendations for teachers, schools, families
and learners. Learning styles always change with age and experience (Matthews &
Hamby, 1995) and teachers are recommended to constantly monitor learners’
45
perceptions of classroom life and to not ignore learners’ needs or preferences. Based
on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are explained below.
Teachers
Teachers should recognize learners’ different learning styles, which can
assist the teachers in organizing the classroom setting, developing suitable educational
programs and adopting suitable teaching strategies. Matching the teachers learning
styles and strategies with learners’ varied learning styles will surely increase the
learners’ academic performance. Knowing the learning style can also be very
supportive to individualized instruction. Teachers should make concentrated efforts to
teach in a multi-style fashion that both reaches the greatest extent of learners in a
given class and challenges all learners to grow. Discovering learner learning styles
will allow the learner to determine his or her own personal strengths and weaknesses
and learn from them. Teachers can incorporate learning styles into their classroom by
identifying the learning styles of each of their learners, matching teaching style to
learning style for difficult tasks, strengthening weaker learning styles through easier
tasks and drills, and teaching learning-style selection strategies. Accommodation
teaching to learning styles improves learners’ overall learning results, increases both
motivation and efficiency, and enables a positive attitude towards the language being
learned. The purpose of using learning styles is to find the best ways for both learners
to learn effectively and teach efficiently. Finally, the teachers can deliver the
information about learners learning styles to the upper class. If the teachers know the
learners before teaching they can plan the activities and the lesson plans for the right
person.
School
The school should encourage the teachers in teaching and provide new
teaching seminars for development of teaching styles. The school should provide
more appropriate materials which are helpful in English teaching and learning such as
projectors, television monitors, textbooks, notebooks and so on. The school should
organize English activities such as English competitions (impromptu speech, spelling
bees, storytelling, singing contests, etc.), English shows, and English camps that will
provide authentic situations for the learners to use and learn English.
46
Recommendations for Future Studies
This study was conducted in only one school by using a quantitative
research method and short period of time. This study suggests that future researchers
should identify the predominant learning style preferences of English language
learners studying at other schools in Grade Six and compare the learning styles
preference of English language learners by their gender but not limited to the
variables identified in the current study. Specifically, there should be further studies
on language learning styles at all levels using greater sample sizes to verify the results
of this study. The continuing research on this theme is to collect more empirical data.
It is also to broaden the study to include other learner groups that are relevant. Further
researchers should use mixed methods, such as surveys, observations, interviews, and
other forms that can be combined in many ways to collect more data to relate to the
field of learning styles.
REFERENCES
Abu Sharbain, I., Tan, K., & Jahaish, M. (2010). The relationship between learning
style preferences and academic achievement of English majors at Al-Aqsa
University in Gaza. In Lifelong Learning International Conference 2010, 10-
12 November, Seri Pacific Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://repo.uum.edu.my/1990/
Al-Hebaishi, S. M. (2012). Investigating the relationships between learning styles,
strategies and the academic performance of Saudi English majors.
International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 1(8), 510-520.
Al- Khatani, M. (2011). Learning styles of EFL Saudi college-level in on-line and
traditional educational environment. Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Almigbal, T. H. (2015). Relationship between the learning style preferences of
medical students and academic achievement. Saudi Medical Journal, 36(3),
349-355.
Barbe, W. B., & Milone, M. N. (1981). What we know about modality strengths.
Educational Leadership, 38(5), 378-380.
Best, J. W. (1981). Research in education (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J.
Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and
cognitive styles (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Boström, L. & Hallin, K. (2013). Learning style differences between nursing and
teaching students in Sweden: A comparative study. International Journal of
Higher Education, 2(1), 22-34.
Briggs, M. I. (1987). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-
Briggs’ type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning (4th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Carbo, M. (1983). Research in reading and learning style: Implications for exceptional
children. Exceptional Children, 49, 486-494.
48
Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of the theories, models and
measure. Educational Psychology, 24(4), 219-244.
Chau, M. Y. (2006). Connecting learning styles and multiple intelligences theories
through learning strategies: An online tutorial for library instruction.
Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 16(1), 1-14.
Choudhary, R., Dullo, P. & Tandon, R. V. (2011). Gender differences in learning
style preferences of first year medical students. Pakistan Journal
Physiology, 7(2), 42-45.
Cornett, C., (1983). What you should know about teaching and learning styles.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Conner, R., & Hodgins, N. (2000). Learning styles. Retrieved from http://
www.learnativity.com/learningstyles.html
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuaresma, J. (2008). Learning style preferences and academic performance of PHEM
majors at the university of the Cordilleras. Undergraduate’s thesis,
University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City.
Darasamutr School. (2016). Self-assessment report: SAR 2016. Chonburi: Darasamutr
School.
Degang, M. (2010). Motivation toward English language learning of the second year
undergraduate Thai students majoring in business English at an English-
medium university. Master’s project, Business English for International
Communication, Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning
styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA.: Prentice Hall.
Dunn, R., Griggs, A. S., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, S. B. (1995). A meta-
analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style
preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88, 353-362.
49
Dunn, R. (1990). Learning and teaching styles: Potent forces behind them.
Educational Leadership, 48(2), 15-18.
Evans, R. H. (2011). Mind performance hacks. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.
Fazzaro, D. & Martin, B. (2004). Comparison of learning style preferences of
agriculture, human sciences and industrial technology students at a
historically black university. The Workforce Education Forum. Retrieved
from http: //www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv29409
Felder, R. M. & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and
second language education. Foreign Language Annals-Spring, 28(1), 21-31.
Fleming, N. D. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection.
To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). Visual, auditory, kinesthetic learning styles and their impacts
on English language teaching. Journal of Studies in Education, 2(1), 104-
113.
George, M. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for window step by step: A sample guide and
reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Jones, N. B. (1997). Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction.
Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language Learning.
Singapore: RELC.
Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Kara, S. (2009). Learning styles and teaching styles: A case study in foreign language
classroom. Conference of the International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1
(20), 77-82.
Kassaian, Z. (2007). Learning styles and lexical presentation modes. Estudios de
linguistica inglesa aplicada (elia), 7, 53-78.
Keefe, F. J. (1989). Behavioral measurement of pain. In C. R. Chapman, & J. D.
Loeser (Eds.), Advances in pain measurement (pp. 405-424). New York,
NY: Raven Press.
Khmakhien, A. (2012). Demystifying Thai EFL learners’ perceptual learning style
preferences. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies,
18(1), 61-74.
50
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree, & W. L. Miller
(Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 33-45). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
LdPride, N. D. (2009). What are learning styles? Retrieved from
http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm
Lee, M. (1976). Some common grammatical errors made in written English by
Chinese students. CATE-SOL Occasional Papers, 3, 115-120.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Liu, N. F. & Littlewood, W. (1997). Why do many students appear reluctant to
participate in classroom learning discourse? System, 25(3), 371-384.
Liu, H. J. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use,
listening proficiency levels, and learning style. Annual Review of Education,
Communication and Language Science, 5, 84-104.
Matthews, D. B., & Hamby, J. V. (1995). A comparison of the learning styles of high
school and college/ university students. Clearing House, 68(4), 257-261.
Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: a study of Chinese students’ learning
style preferences. RELC Journal, 21(1), 29-54.
Ming-Lei, S. (2011). Experimental study of Chinese non-English students’ overall
learning style preferences. US-China Education Review A, 3, 346-354.
Moayyeri, H. (2015). The impact of undergraduate students’ learning preferences
(VARK Model) on their language achievement. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 6(1), 132-139.
Mulalic, A., Shah, P. M., & Ahmad, F. (2009). Learning-style preference of ESL
students. AJTLHE, 1 (2), 9-17.
Novotná, B. L. (2008). Distribution of learning styles at the faculty of civil
engineering and their accommodation in English language instruction.
51
Ong, W. A., Rajendram, S., & Yusof, M. (2006). Learning style preferences and
English proficiency among cohort 3 students in IPBA. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255641314_Learning_Style_Prefer
ences_and_English_Proficiency_among_Cohort_3_Students_in_IPBA
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies:
methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal,
73, 404-419.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Penger, S., Tekavčič, M., & Dimovski, V. (2008). Comparison, validation and
implications of learning style theories in higher education in Slovenia:
An experiential and theoretical case. International Business & Economics
Research Journal, 7(12), 25-44.
Penger, S., & Tekavčič, M. (2009). Testing Dunn & Dunn’s and Honey & Mumford’s
learning style theories: The case of the Slovenian higher education system.
Management, 14(2), 1-20.
Phantharakphong, P. (2012). English learning styles of high and low performance
students of the faculty of education, Khon Kaen University. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3390-3394.
Price, G. E., Dunn, R., & Sanders, W. (1980). Reading achievement and learning style
characteristics. The Clearing House, 5, 223-226.
Riazi, M., & Riasati, M. J. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A case study
of Shiraz EFL institutes. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 9(1), 97-125.
Reichmann, S., & Grasha, A. F. (1974). A rational approach to developing and
assessing the construct validity of a student learning scale instrument.
The Journal of Psychology, 78, 213-223.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preference of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,
21(1), 87-111.
Reid, J. M. (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the EFL/ESL
classroom (pp. 8-17). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
52
Reid, J. M. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1977). On the use of content specialists in the
assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity. Dutch Journal of
Educational Research, 2, 49-60.
San, L., & Ye, Y. (2014). A comparative study of ethnic students’ learning styles in
learning Burmese language and their achievement in selected schools in Pyin
oo lwin, Mandalay region, Myanmar. Assumption Journals, 6(2), 13-18.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. E.
Weinstein, E. T. Goete, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study
strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 171-191).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Slater, J. A., Lujan, H. L., & Di Carlo, S. E. (2007). Does gender influence learning
style preferences of first-year medical students? Advances Physiological
Education, 31, 336-342.
Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual-learning style preferences of
postsecondary students of English as a second language. In J. Reid (Ed.),
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 108-117). Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle.
Su, A. Y. L. (2012). Relationships between the learning-style preferences and the
characteristics and academic performance of Taiwanese college hospitality
students. The journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 8(2), 158-166.
Tai, F. M. (2013). Adult EFL students’ preferred learning styles and motivation.
The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 9(2), 161-171.
Willians, P. J. (1983). Brain hemispheric dominance. New York, NY: Chief.
Willing, K. (1987). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adult migrant
education programme. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Center.
Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
55
APPENDIX B
57
Questionnaire for Learning Styles in English Classrooms:
Predominant Preferences of Genders at a Catholic School in Sriracha, Chonburi
Province, Thailand
Learning Styles in English Classrooms:
Predominant Preferences of Genders
วิธีการเรียนรู้ที่ผู้เรียนชื่นชอบจากความแตกต่างระหว่างเพศในชั้นเรียนภาษาอังกฤษ
Directions: The statements below indicate visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning
styles. Do you agree with them? Please check √ according to the level that is most
appropriate to you.
ค าชี้แจง: จากข้อความในตารางด้านล่างนี้เกี่ยวข้องกับผู้ที่ชอบวิธีการเรียนรู้ด้วยการมองเห็น การฟังและการปฏิบัติ นักเรียนเห็นด้วยกับข้อความดังกล่าวหรือไม่ ให้ใส่เครื่องหมาย √ ในช่องที่เหมาะสมกับตนเองมากที่สุด Part 1 ตอนที่ 1
1. Gender เพศ Boy ชาย Girl หญิง 2. Grade (ชั้น ป.) 6/……………
Part 2 ตอนที่ 2 Item/ Statement
ข้อค าถาม Strongly agree
เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
Agree
เห็นด้วย
Neutral
เป็นกลาง
Disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วย
Strongly disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
Visual Learning Style วิธีการเรียนรู้ด้วยการมองเห็น 1. I learn better by reading what the teacher writes on the blackboard. ฉันเรียนรู้ได้ดีข้ึนโดยวิธีการอ่านสิ่งที่คุณครูเขียน
2. When I read a textbook, I remember it better. ฉันจ าได้ดีข้ึน เมื่อฉันอ่านบทเรียนด้วยตนเอง
58
Item/ Statement ข้อค าถาม
Strongly agree
เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
Agree
เห็นด้วย
Neutral
เป็นกลาง
Disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วย
Strongly disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
3. When I read content, I understand better. ฉันเข้าใจมากข้ึน เมื่อฉันอ่านเนื้อหาด้วยตนเอง
4. When learning a new skill, I prefer watching someone’s demonstration to listening.เมื่อมีการเรียนรู้เรื่องใหม่ๆ ฉันชอบดูการสาธิตมากกว่าการฟัง
5. I learn better by reading a book rather than by listening to others. ฉันเรียนรู้ได้ดีจากการอ่านแบบเรียนด้วยตนเองมากกว่าการฟังจากผู้อ่ืน
Auditory Learning Style วิธีการเรียนรู้ด้วยการฟัง 6. When I hear myself reading aloud, I understand better. ฉันเข้าใจได้ดีขึ้น เมื่อฉันได้ยินการอ่านออกเสียงของฉัน
7. I prefer listening to lectures to reading textbooks. ฉันชอบฟังบรรยายมากกว่าการอ่านหนังสือเรียน
8. I remember what I heard in class better than what I read. ฉันจ าสิ่งที่ฉันเรียนรู้โดยการฟังในห้องเรียนได้ดีกว่าการอ่านด้วยตนเอง
9. I learn better in the class when the teacher gives a lecture. ฉันเรียนรู้ได้ดีข้ึน เมื่อครูใช้วิธีการสอนแบบบรรยาย
59
Item/ Statement ข้อค าถาม
Strongly agree
เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
Agree
เห็นด้วย
Neutral
เป็นกลาง
Disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วย
Strongly disagree
ไม่เห็นด้วยอย่างยิ่ง
10. I learn better when I listen to others in class. ฉันเรียนรู้ได้ดีขึ้น เมื่อฉันฟังเพ่ือนๆในห้องเรียน
Kinesthetic Learning Style วิธีการเรียนรู้ด้วยวิธีการปฏิบตัิ 11. I prefer learning by doing exercises and quizzing in class. ฉันชอบเรียนรู้ด้วยวิธีการท าแบบฝึกหัดและแบบทดสอบในห้องเรียน
12. When I do things in class, I learn better. ฉันเรียนรู้ได้ดี เมื่อฉันได้ลงมือปฏิบัติในห้องเรียน
13. I hands-on activities more than listening lectures. ฉันชอบเรียนรู้ด้วยการลงมือปฏิบัติมากกว่าการฟังบรรยาย
14. I learn better in class when I participate in role-playing. ฉันจ าบทเรียนในห้องเรียนได้ดีขึ้น เมื่อฉันได้มีส่วนร่วมในการแสดงบทบาทสมมติ
15. I learn best in class when I can participate in related activities. ฉันเรียนรู้ในห้องเรียนได้ดีที่สุด เมื่อฉันได้มีส่วนร่วมในกิจกรรมการเรียนรู้ต่างๆ
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
APPENDIX C
61
QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSMENT BY EXPERTS
Instructions
1. This evaluation form aims at checking the validity of the questionnaire.
2. The experts evaluated the Item Objective Congruence (IOC) by using the
following rating:
+1 For the item that is in congruence with the objective.
0 For the item that is questionable to be in congruence with the objective.
-1 For the item that is not in congruence with the objective.
3. In this study, the questionnaire was developed based on Dunn’s model
framework of learning styles, consisting of visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning
styles. The questionnaire contains 15 five-point Likert Scale items (on the scale of 1-
5, 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Theoretical Framework
This study tried to identify the predominant learning style preferences of
English language learners studying at a Catholic school in Grade Six. This study used
the VAK learning styles model (Dunn, 1990) because it is appropriate with young
English language learners. These learning styles are from sensory modalities,
consisting of Visual (V), Auditory (A), Kinesthetic (K). Here are descriptions of VAK
learning styles.
1. Visual Learning Style
Visual refers to the characteristics of learners who prefer to learn by using
pictures, graphs, charts, diagrams, etc. Visual learners learn best through seeing and
prefer information to be presented visually. They usually tend to sit in the front of the
classroom, take notes, use lists to organize their thoughts and observe the teacher’s
body language and facial expressions to fully understand.
2. Auditory Learning Style
Auditory refers to the characteristics of learners, who prefer to learn through
seeing, hearing, and speaking. For example, lectures and discussion that describe what
learners see and the use of recorded material. Auditory learners learn best through
62
listening and interpreting information. They learn when the teacher explains orally.
The classroom activities they like to participate in are discussion, debate, role-play
and presentation. They read and talk to themselves out loud.
3. Kinesthetic Learning Style
Kinesthetic refers to the characteristics of learners who prefer to learn
through a hands-on approach such as muscle memory, trial and error, and use of real
world examples. Kinesthetic learners learn best by doing or practicing. They enjoy
physical activities and hands-on experiences. They need to interact with learning
materials and resources. They like to think out issues, ideas and problems while they
exercise.
63
Questionnaire for Learning Styles in English Classrooms:
Predominant Preferences of Genders at a Catholic School in
Sriracha, Chonburi Province, Thailand
Items IOC Scores Comments
+1 0 -1
Visual Learning Style: 1-5
1. I learn better by reading what the teacher writes
on the blackboard.
2. When I read a textbook, I remember it better.
3. When I read content, I understand better.
4. When learning a new skill, I prefer watching
someone’s demonstration to listening.
5. I learn better by reading a book rather than by
listening to others.
Auditory Learning Style: 6-10
6. When I hear myself reading aloud,
I understand better.
7. I prefer listening to lectures to reading
textbooks.
8. I remember what I heard in class better than
what I read.
9. I learn better in the class when the teacher gives
a lecture.
10. I learn better when I listen to others in class.
Kinesthetic Learning Style: 11-15
11. I prefer learning by doing exercises and
quizzing in class.
12. When I do things in class, I learn better.
13. I hands-on activities more than listening
lectures.
64
Items IOC Scores Comments
+1 0 -1
14. I learn better in class when I participate in
role-playing.
15. I learn best in class when I can participate in
related activities.
Please feel free to offer any suggestions you might have.
………………………………………………………………………………..…………
……………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………………….
Thank you very much for your suggestions.
65
Table A1 Evaluation of Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)
Items Opinions
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Total score IOC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
0
0
0
+1
+1
0
+1
+1
0
+1
0
+1
+1
+1
+1
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
0.67
0.67
0.67
1.0
1.0
0.67
1.0
1.0
0.67
1.0
0.67
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
IOC = (∑ R/N )/ N
Number of items (N) = 15
R = 15 + 15 + 9 = 39
N = 3 (Number of experts)
IOC = (39 / 3) / 15 = 0.87
Percentage: 0.87 x 100% = 87%
APPENDIX D
67
RELIABILITY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Table A2 Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid
Excluded
Total
30
0
30
100.0
.0
100.0
Table A3 Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based
On Standardized Items
N of Items
.78 .78 15
68
BIOGRAPHY
Name Miss Wanichanan Sawetsunthornpan
Date of birth October 22, 1972
Place of birth Chachoengsao, Thailand
Present address 118/80 Moo 1 Surasak, Sriracha District,
Chonburi 20110 Thailand
Position held
1996-Present English Teacher
Darasamutr School Sriracha,
Chonburi, Thailand
Education
1992-1995 Bachelor of Education in English
Rachabhut Institute Chachoengsao,
Thailand
2014-2017 Master of Education
In Teaching English as a Global Language
The Department of International Graduate
Studies in Human Resource Development
Faculty of Education, Burapha University,
Chonburi, Thailand
