Luận văn a survey on the first year students’ english language learning style preferences at hanoi university of business and technology

inlarost in lesming Bngtish Students’ and teachers’ perceiving style preferences in real lite Students’ perceiving information style preferences by age Sindents’ and teachers’ view on Pe

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, IIANOT

UNIVERSITY QE LANGUAGKS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIKS

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRÀN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG

A SURVEY ON TILE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISIT

LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES

AT ITANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECIINOLOGY

(Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viễn

năm thứ nhất trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội)

MA MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60.14.10

Hanoi, 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, IIANOT

UNIVERSITY QE LANGUAGKS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIKS

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRÀN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG

A SURVEY ON TILE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISIT

LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES

AT ITANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECIINOLOGY

(Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viễn

năm thứ nhất trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội)

MA MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60.14.10

Supervisor: NGUYEN THUY PHUONG LAN, MA

Hanoi, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration

5 Scope of the study

6 Organization of the study

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

LL Definition of learning style

1.2 The origins of human's learning style preference

1.3 Background history — Categorization of learning styles

2.1 Methods of the study

2.2 Methodology and procedures

2.2.1 Participants

2.2.1.1, Students .,

2.2.1.2 Teachers 2.2.2 Tistrunnor

2.2.3 Data colloclion proGeđtG cuc ceoeooserooor 18 2.2.4, Data analysis procediHe uc uccoeeeereronoeossreee 18

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS

3.2 Pereciving and processinyy information in real Hf and in classroom 20

3.6.1 Students’ preferred classroom activities 28

CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING DIFFERENT LEARNING STYLES

LIST OF GRAPTIS AND TABLES

Students? inlarost in lesming Bngtish Students’ and teachers’ perceiving style preferences in real lite Students’ perceiving information style preferences by age

Sindents’ and teachers’ view on Perceiving style preferences in classroom Students’ perceiving style preferences by age and geuder

Students’ and teachers’ view on learning mode Sindents’ view on Isaming mode by age and yonder Students and teachers’ view on new words leaming Students’ view on new words learning by age and gender Students and lcachers’ view ou learning aids

Students’ view on leaming aids by age and gender

Students and teachers’ view on classroom activities

Stndents’ vicw on classroom avlivitios by age and gender

Students and teachers’ view on getting feedback

Students and teachers’ view on error correction

Table 1: Stufenis’ characleristic of age and gender

vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION

In this first part, the author states the rationale for the study, Afterward, the aims,

research questions, significance, scope af the study arz discussed The chapler ends wilh an

overview of the thesis structure

1 Rationale

Today's employers expect employees to have varied skills to be able to adapt to different situations and to communicate with different people from different cultural backgrounds Therefore, teaching students how to communicate cffcetively, cooperate with others and leam independently has become the basics of education That is the reason for the appearance of the new textbook set since 2006 in Vietnam, which mainly based on the leamer- centered approach and communicative language teaching These approaches require educators

to pay more attention to individual leamers to help them expand and improve their communicative competence Lence, understanding students ineluding understanding leaming styles preferenecs plays an important role to educational improvement and success

According to Reid (1987), the ways in which an individual charaeteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves information are collectively lermed the individual's leaming styles Learning styles refleel our proferred marmer of acquiring, using and thinking aboul knowledge

We do not have just one leaming styles, but a profile of styles Even though, our ability may be identical to someone slse's, onr leaming styles might be quite different The students, for instance, leam in many ways — by sccing and hearing; reflecting and acting, memorizing and visualizing; some students prefer working individually, others leam a lot from group work, While some students Tike learning through games and aclivities, others can gel much fram presentations, Some students never mind being immediately comected in front of the class, other students easy to lose face being corrected

Furthermore, teachers do not apply the same method of teaching, elder and Llenriques (1995; 21) noted that “teaching methods also vary, Some instructors lecture, others demonstate or discuss, some teachers focus on rules and others on examples; some teachers emphasize memory and other understanding” Serious mismatches will occur when teachers ignore or are not aware of their students’ learning style preferences, It is the teachers’ unawareness of students’ learning style preferences that negatively affects the quality of

1

students’ learning, their allilules toward the cla ubjcel, the almosphere and the

outcome

2 Aims of the study

The survey on the first-year students’ English language learning style preferences at

Aanoi University of Business and ‘Technology aims at certain points Virstly, the study aims at

investigaling the firsi-ycar students” learning slyle preferences al Hanoi University of Business and Technology These prefarences are going to be defined basing on two major criteria: the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and information in real life; and the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and information in classroom in tems of learning mode, perceiving and processing information, vocabulary, class activities, teaching aids, emor conection aud feedback Secondly, the survey intends to discover the teachers” learning style preferences and

their awareness of their sludents” learting style yreferences through their answers in the questionnaires, Consequently, the author wants to check out whether teachers” awareness of students’ learning style preferences can be influenced by their own preferences Finally, the study examines the cfffect of some clements such as age and gender to the students’ foaming style preferences

3 Research questians

The survey intends to investigate the English language learning style preferences of the first-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology and the extent of teachers’ awareness of them, Particularly, the study socks answers to the following questions

2 What are the students’ Jeaming style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and ischnelogy?

3 Whatis the pap between teachers’ awareness of students’ leaning style preferences and the

teal one?

4, Significance of the study

Leaming style is a personal factor, which means that each has preferred ways of learning, approaches thal work best for us In addition, our success is nol jusl independent on whether we can leam, but on how we leam, However, in the same way that each of us has preferred learning styles; instructors have their own styles of teaching ‘Teachers may not even

2

be aware of thom, bul their learning siyfss have ng inporlent impsot on the way they tach,

Instructors who assign frequent activities involving oral presentations and demonstrations

might be indicating that their Jeaming style is somewhat auditory, On the other hand, imdruclors whose assignments consist of frequent written work may have a more visual style

So, what if students’ leaming styles are mismatched with leaning and teaching styles of their

instructors? According to Oxford (2003) cited in Le Sa’s (2010), if there is a harmony between

‘The resulis gained from thi

urvey vant derive an overview of students? fcarning slyle preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, as well as the extent to which teachers are aware of their students’ learning styte preferences The teachers can also find out their own Icarning stylcs and chook out whether they impose their own one on their students,

‘The awareness of students’ real language learning styles preferences is the basic for teachers to nol only find out leaching methods thal suil the best to thern, but also make their lessons more

allractive, effective and practical As a result, the almospherc in the class, Ihe outcomes, anh

the teacher-student interactions can be improved significantly, The stady’s results can certainly improvs the language learning and teaching at llanoi University of Business and Technology Such information is also significant to other teachers fiom other universitics in similar teaching

context

5 Scope of the stusly

‘The study examines students’ Knelish language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and ‘Technology About 227 students from 10 classes randomly selected and 10 teachers teaching in these classes are invited to participate in the study This nuniber of students is hoped to be sufficient to provide valid and reliable information, the contribution of which is vilal to the success of this roodest research Sludenis’ and teachers’ answers in the 20- item questionnaires on two major criteria: the prefered style of acquiring knowledge and informatron in real life; and the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and information in

3

6 Organization of the study

‘The survey is divided into three mein parts

In the first part-Introduction- the rationale, aims, research questions, significance, scope and the organization of the study are presented

The sccond part-Devclopmcnt- consists of three chapters, Chapter 1, Litcrature review, deals with definitions of tens, the origin, background history and categorization of Jeaming styles, students’ learning preferences, mismatches between students” leaning styles and lenclicrs" awarcncss of hem, The methods of the study adopied as well as justifivalions for the chosen instruments, participations, data collection and analysis procedure are discussed in chapter 2-Methodology In the third chapter, the data on two major criteria: the preferred style

of acquiring knowledge and information in real life, and the prefered style of acquiring knowledge and information in classroom in terms of learning mode, perceiving and processing

information, vocabulary, class activities, teaching aids, error correction and feedback are presented This chapicr pois oot the results combined wilh critical interpretation and analysis, from which major findings are revealed and discussed,

In the last part namely Conclusion, the author focuses on some major finding and contributions of the study Limitations and suggestions for futher rescarch are also mentioned

‘To sum up, this chapter has presented the rationale, aims, research questions, significance, scope of the study The chapler ends with an overview of study’s design Such information acts as the guideline or orientation for the development of the later parts of the

thesis.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Part 8 — Development — consists of three chapters: Literature Review, Methodology,

and Dala Analysis, Specifically, this parl gives a brief review of the lilerature, including the key concepts and related studies in the field; the methodology applied in the study, the data analysis as well as the study's results and discussion

CHAPTER t

LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter | Literature Review presents definitions of terms, the origin, background history and categorization of learning styles, students” learning style preferences, mismatches bolwoon students’ and tcachers’ perceptions of learning styles

LL Definition of learning style

In literary studies, first personal difftronecs of individuals and then the cffects of applying these differences in the envizonment have been investigated One of these personal differences is the individual’s tearing style, When individnals lear with the same method, in the same learning environment and arc assessed by the same evaination loots, it should not be expected that all of them gain the same amount of success, because individuals have different learning styles

Style, according to Brown (2007; 119), is a term referring to consistent and rather enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual Styles are those general characteristics

of intellectual, and thal differentiate you from someone else

“Learning, style refers to any individual preferred ways of going about learning, It1s generally considered that one’s learning style wall result from personality variables, including psychological and cognitive make-up, socio-cultural background, and educational experience”

Nanan (1991: 168)

1.2 The origins af human’ s learning style preferences

According to Feldman (2003: 63), “For many of us, leaming style preferences result from the kind of processing our brain ‘specializes’ in” Left-brain processing concentrates

5

more on tasks requiting verbal commpelsnce, such as speaking, reading, thinking, and reasoning, Information is processed sequentially, one bit a time For instance, people who are naturally inclined to use left-brain processing might be more likely to prefer analytic leaming styles, because they firs! tike to look at individual bits of information and put them together On the other hand, right-brain processing tends to concentrate more on the processing, of information

in nonverbal domains, such as understanding of spatial relationships, recognition of patterns and drawing, musie and cmotional expression Morcover, the right hemisphere inclines lo process information globally, considering it as a whole Consequently, people whe tend toward tight-brain processing might prefer relational learning styles

1.3 Background History — Categorization of learning styles

1.3.1 Background

Accounting for individual tcarning styles is not a now idea, rescarch on learning styles have been taken many years ago As early as 334 BC, Aristotle said that “each child possessed specific talents and skills” and he noticed individual differences in young children In the beginning, rescarch focused on the relationship between memory and oral or visual methods, Joe Chandle has given a very clear background history of leaming styles in his study According io him, in 1904, Alfred Binel - a French psychologist - developed the firs! intelligence lest, which spawned interest in individuat differences The study of learning stytes was the next step In 1907, Dr Maria Montessori, who invented the Montessori Method of education, began using materials to enhance the leaming styles of her students, Dr Montessori belicved that students did not demonstrate mastery of subjects through a multiple-choice answer sheet, but through their actions, ‘The study of leaming styles declined for approximately

50 years before re-emerging in the 1950s The dectine was due to the rise in emphasis on 1Q and academic achievement, In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a system known as Bloom's

‘Taxonomy, which took another step toward defining leamning-style differences Isabel Myers-

Briggs and Katherine Briggs developed the Myers-Iriggs Type Imdicator (MIEIT) in 1962

Further advancement was made when the Dunn and Dunn Leaming Style Model was

introduced in 1976, generating diagnostic instruments for evaluation Krom the 1980s to the

present day, lots of different research and learning-style models have been developed building

on previous discoveries In 1984, David Kolb published his learing-style model, where he determined that leaning styles are closely related to cognitive skills Then, in 1987, Reid had

6

conducted a great sludy with the help of participan

his hypothesis that all students had their own leaming strengths and weaknesses In 1992, Neil

s from 98 cauniries aver the world to prove

Fleming and Mills launched one of the most popular leaming style research and assessment

throughout the world Up to now, the emphasis is placed on having leachers address Iearning styles in the classroom through adjustments in curriculum that incorporate each style, giving an equal chance for students to Learn

1.3.2 Categorization of learning styles — Definition of terms

Learning styles have been classified into nine different models The Kolb Model is based on expericntial leaming theory Using the Kolb model, Peter Honey and Allon Mumford developed the Honey and Mumford model The other models include Anthony Gregorc's model, Sudbury Model of Democratic Education, ‘Thinking Styles, Myers-Briggs ‘Type

Indicator, the DISC Assessment, Fleming's Vark, and the most recent, Chris J Jackson's Neuropsychological Hybrid model

David Kolb's model in 1984 is based on his Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)

There arc two forms of cxpericuce in the model: Conercte Experience and Abstract

Conceptualization, and two related approaches to transform experience into leaming Reflective Observation and Active Fxperimeniation The combinalion of these approaches resulis in four Teaming slyles: converger (characlctived by absiracl conecpiulivation and

active experimentation), diverger (tending toward conorete experience and reflective

observation), assinilator (characterized by abstract conceptualization and reflective

observation) and accommodator (using concrete cxpericnee and active cxperimentation)

Among the nine models, Fleming's VARK model is considered one of the most

widely-used models of leaming styles which derived from Neuro-linguistic programming

According to Fleming's model, which is relatively simple, learners can be categorized as

follows:

© Visual (¥):

This prefercnec includes the depiction of information in maps, spider diagrams, charts,

graphs, flow charts, labeled diagrams, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and

olher devices that, people use 1o represent what could have been presented in words,

© Aurat / Auditory (A):

This perceptual mode describes a preference for information that is "heard or spoken."

Leamers who have this as their main preference lear best from lectures, group discussion, radio, email, using mobile phones, speaking, web-chal and talking things through

+ Readinrite (R):

‘This preference is for information displayed as words ‘This preference emphasizes text- based inpul and ontpul - reading and writing in all its forms bul especially manuals, r2ports, essays and assignments

& Äinesthetic (K):

This modality refers to the “perceptual preference related to the usc of zxpcricncc and

practice (simulated or real).” The key is that people who prefer this mode are connected to

reality, “either through concrete personal experiences, examples practice or simulation’

(Fleming & Mills, 1992: 140-141) TLinelndes demonstrations, simulations, videos and movies

of "real" things, as well as case studies, practice and applications,

Despite the fact that Ficming's VARK theory is relatively shuple compared to other learning style models, it is not adequate and very difficult to implement in a functional classroom Moreaver, it has nol deall with the problem of mixture, usually defined as multimodality Recently, Feldman (2003) has presented one calegorivation of learning slyles that seems to be more adequate which can combine the above models and neatly solve the question of mixture According to Feldman (2003: 64-65), there are four main categories of learning style

¢ Receptive learning styles Viswal/verbul: a style (hat involves 4 preference for material in the written format, favoring reading over hearing and touching

Visual/nonverbal: a style that favors material presented visually in diagram or picture Auditory-verbal- a style in which the leamers favors listening as the best approach

Tactile/kinesthetic: a style that involves loaning by touching, manipulating objects, and deing things

¢ Infarmation Processing Styles Analytic: a style which the leamer starts with small pieces of infonnation and uses them to build the big picture

2 in which the Isamer starts with the big picture and breaks il down inlo

its individual components

Thinker versus feeler thinkers prefer logic to emotion, coming to decisions through

rational analysis On the alher hand, feclers rely on their cmotions and are influcneed by their personal values and attachments to others

Perceiver versus judger: before perceivers draw a conclusion, they attempt to gather as much information as they can and arc open to umultiple perspectives, Judgers, in comparison, are quick and decisive, they enjoy setting goals and accomplishing them

@ Brain Processing Styles Left-brain processing: information processing that focuses on tasks requiring verbal competence, such as speaking, reading, thinking, and reasoning: information is processed sequentially, onc bit at a time

Right-brain processing: information processing focuses on information in nonverbal domains, such as the understanding of spatial relationships, recognition of patterns and drawings, music, and emotional expression

1.4, Students’ learning style preferences

One of the carlicst dimensions to be studied is field independence, was initially identified by Herman A Witkin in the late 1940s, Although several tests of field independence existed, all of them measured the extent to which people are “able to deal with as part of a field separately trom the field as a whole, or the extent to which they are able to dissemubled items

from organized context” (Witkin, 1976: 41-42 see in Erickson et al., 2006) According to

9

Felder and Henriques (1995), lesming styles have bzen cxtensively discussed in the educational psychology literature (Claxton and Murell, 1987; Schmeck, 1988) and specifically

in the context of language leaming by Oxford and her colleagues (Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al, 1991; Wallace and Oxford, 1992, Oxford and Bhraman, 1993) Although over 30 learning style assessment instruments have been developed in the past three decades (Guild and Garger, 1985; Jensen, 1987), research that identifies and measures perceptual leaming styles relies

primarily on self

styles

sporting questionnaires by which students sziceL their profsrred Ieaming

Reid (1987) stated a major hypothesis about learning style that “All students have their own Icaming strengths and weaknesses” To prove that hypothesis, Reid did a survey by mailing instructions tor administration to 43 university-aililiated intensive English language programs across the United States, the faculties of which had volunteered to participate in the sludy A total of 1,234 questionnaires were returned from 39 of the 43 participating intensive English language programs Respondents representing 98 countries, 29 major fields ot study, and 52 language backgrounds completed the questionnaire Reid’s study results presented that students strongly preferred kinesthetic and taetile Icaming stylcs Almost all groups showed a negative preférence for group leaming By separating students in groups of different languages, backgrounds, cultures, age, sex, level elc., Reid concluded that the learning style preferences of nonnative speakers oflen differ significantly from those af native speakers; thal EST students from different language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their leaming style preferences, She also found that variables such as sex, length of time in the United States, length of time studying English in the U S., ficld of study, level of education, TOEFL score, and age are related to differences in leaming styles,

‘The result that students prefer kinesthetic and tactile learning styles is favored with Melton’s 1999 study with Chinese students (N 331), John’s 1997 research with Taiwan

students (N=312), Hyland’s 1993 research with Japanese learners in the study of Chu and

Chew (1999), stndents favored Kinesthetic and ‘Tactile style, and they did not disfavor any style Ted Brown (2008), onc more time, affirmed this conclusion by 81 Australian students above 218 ones preferred kinesthetic learning style

Tn fact, there are many other investigations on learning style preferences, which showed different prefarenee on Visual style John L Dobson (2010) classified students’ leaming style preferences according to their Visual, Aural, Read-write, and Kinesthetic Students from the

10

fall 2009 APK 3110 and APK 6116 Excreise Physiology course were asked to mdicale their

perceived sensory modality preferences and complete their standard VARK sensory modality

preferences assessment Among 64 students respondents; thete are 36% preferred Visual,

Among 38 participants, 31 students

eyes, they also tent to work individually rather than to work in group

‘Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Marilyn (2003) investigated the leaming style preferences

of three different populations (Russian EFL students, Russian ESL students, and Asian ESL students) Results showed that these three students groups absolutely preferred group activity

to individual work, the Russian EFL and Asian BSL students favored group work and project

f= 81,6%) prosontad their preferences ta learning through

work, Morcover, the restarchers suggested that sore cultural influences were al play Both

quantitative and qualitative studies into cross-cultural settings support a relationship between,

culture and leaming and assume that culture, ethnicity, class, and gender play important roles

in shaping the students’ Ioaming style preferences

Although learning style preferences have been concemed all in many countries for a long time, it does not yet gel much concern fom Vietnamese researchers, There are only few studies on this subjecl, Nya (2009)’s sludy on 532 students’ tangaage Teaming style preferences at Pham Hong Thai high school revealed that they are more auditory and visual learners They are also extroverted learners for they are interested in relationships with others such as pair or group work, they like practicing English both inside and outside classroom Nga also stated that although teachers at Pham Hong Thai high school were aware of some students’ language learning style preferenc

information, teaching, aids, and class activities; they did not fully understand their students’ liking and disliking such as leaming mode, error correction, homework, assessment, sense of

11

they did not; teacher mentioned students proferred copying fram the board bul they expressed

the preférences of learning by pictures, videos, games; teachers thought students prefered translating into Viemamese, in contrast they really did not like to There was a big mismatch between whal teachers thought of students’ preferences and what il really was

Since being considered, learning style preferences studies have shown us a misumderstanding or even unawareness of teachers about their students” learning styles According io Reid (1987), “A mismatch betw:

failure, frustration and demotivation”; then teachers’ unawareness make a big gap in teaching

teaching and tearning styles causes foaming

modality To conclude, it is relevant to explore leaming styles due to the fhet that they affect not only the way individuals acquire and process information but also the teaching process, By understanding students’ individual learning style, both teachers and students can beneticially join the teaching and learning process in a more active and successftl way

1.5 Mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of Icarning style

Investigation on learning and teaching styles has provided teachers and students with a different vicw of learning and teaching in classrooms Both the two Victnamese studies of learning style preferences mentioned above come to the same conclusion that there exists a mismatch hetween students? earning styles and leachers” awareness of thơm Nga (2009) and

Sa (2010) agree with cach other that teachers were not fully aware of or even unaware af most

of their students’ liking and disliking for some criteria: leaming mode, class activities, error correction, and homework

‘Over the world, many rescarch come to the same conclusion

Rita and Kenneth Dunn (1993) studied how people leam and they noticed that some students achieved knowledge only through selective methods They also mentioned many elements influencing leaming styles, namely environmental, economical, and physical factors,

‘They added nine elements that influence teaching styles: attitudes towards instructional programs among others

Felder (1995) said that “the ways in which an individual charactcristically acquires, retains, and retrieved information are collectively termed the individual leaming styles” He also mentioned that mismatches usually occur between students’ learning stytes in a language class and the teaching styles of teachers with negative effects on the quality of students”

outcome and on their attitudes toward the class and the subjects

12

The teachers in Barkhuis ss (1998) study were sury sod Lo learn aboul the (ecting and

thought of their students In other words, the students’ perceptions mismatched those of

teachers

‘The Sprat’s research in 1999 presented a mismalch between students” preferences and teachers’ awareness of them, Teachers were aware of leamers’ preferences on just 50% of cases; also, there was no obvious pattern to the correspondences or lack of them, ‘Therefore, it was difficull lo explain why they happened und to prediel where they might have happened

Mathew Penoook (2001) studied the correlation between leaming and teaching styles based on the Reid’s hypotheses of “A mismatch between teaching and leaming styles causes leaming failure, frustration and demotivation” He found that lcamers favored kinesthetic and auditory styles, disfavored individual, group styles, while teachers favored kinesthetic, group, and auditory styles

Dao Zhenbui (2001) analyzed how lo 1natch teaching styles with loaning styles irr Fast Asia contexts He explored leaming styles and developed self-aware EFL leamers, He mentioned that an effective matching between teaching and leaming styles could only be achicved when teachers arc aware of their fcarncrs” needs, capacitics, potentials and loarning style preferences He also added that it is necessary to adapt the teaching styles to create a

leacher-shident style malching,

‘There is no doubl thai narrowing the gap belwscn tcachers’ and learnzrs” perecplion plays “an umportant role in enabling students to maximize their classroom experience.”

(Zhenhui: 2001)

As can be secon, being aware of students’ learning styic proferenecs and understanding the relationship between factors (environment, age, gender, etc.) play an important part in leaching process The implication of the sindy is that teachers find oul their students’ preferred learning stytes, theix feeling and thinking, their needs and their experiences, 2tc., so that the teachers can not only adapt teaching methods to suit the best to students, make the lessons more attractive, effective and practical but also facilitate the desired learning outcome in the class, To this ond, the present study with the above-mentioned goals and objectives arc designed

13

CHAPTER 2: METIIDDOLOGV

“The following chapter embraces the main points regarding the methodology applied in the study rtamely the methods of the study, the participanls, research instruments as well as data collection and data analysis procedures Simultaneously, it provides for the selection of research methods and clarifies specific steps carried out to gain valid and reliable data

2.1 Methods of the study

Doing a research is similar to undertaking a journey in which answers for research questions arc destination The path to finding answers to rescarch questions constitutes research methodology According t Leedy (2001), the methods used are one geared toward research question in an attempt to understand the particular phenomenon that is being studied The following part in this chaplar will describe the rationale for selecting the methods of sludy

as well as the specifics about the methods that are employed

Survey research, which is the most popular form of quantitative research, is used to

“gather information from groups of subjects and permits the researcher to summarize the characteristics of different groups ot to measure their attitudes and opinions toward some

issue” (Ary, Jacobs, & Ravavich, 2002) Whereas, im

study Brown (2001: £5) staled the strong point of questionnaires is that “The researchers can

collect a large amount of information in less than an hour”, This advantage was fully exploited when the researcher used survey questionnaires with two different versions for teachers and

students among the 227 students and 10 teachers participating in the study to collect data

2.2 Methodology and procedures

2.2.1 Participants

2.2.1.1 Students

14

Among abou! 2000 first-year students al Hanoi University of Business

227 students: 76 males (33.5%) and 151 females (66.5%) from 10 classes of 10 teachers were randomly invited to take part in the study

‘These sludents arg all fresh-year students in the school year 2011 — 2012, who come

and Technology,

from 47 provinces all over Vietnam, which means that they have diversifying educational background ‘They are studying in different major departments namely Accountancy, Banking, Finance, Business Management, Information Techmology (IT), cle Morcover, because students were taking either full-time courses or in-service courses for incumbent, they vary in age, from

18 to 26

Table 1: Students’ characteristic of age and gender

of sindy results

2.2.1.2 Teachers

10 teachers teaching 10 above-mentioned classes were invited to participate in the study The teachers are from 26 to 37 years old, The teachers graduated from English Department of different universities live fiom College of Foreign Language, Llanoi National

y, one from Thai Nguyen

teaching cxperiznee, however, most of the teachers arc rathor young, well-trainzd and have

15

approximalcly 7 years of caching English Moreover, al of thom have used Ihe Markel Leader textbook and have taught English for first-year students for at least 2 years

2.2.2 Instrument

As mentioned in Literature Review, although over 30 leaming style assessment instruments have been developed in the past three decades, research that identifies and measures percepluat Icarning styles relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning styles Style questionnaires vary in reliebility and validity, but over the last few decades, they have provided usefiil data for teachers and students

to understand learning style proferences

The instrument used in the study was questionnaire of language leaming style

preference adopted from Brindley (1984) and Fleming’s VARK (2011 version) It consisted of

lwo versions: version [for studonis and version 2 for Izachers Bath two versions were divieed into three main parts; the first part expressed the participants’ backeround information as well

as attitude toward English, the second part presented participants” perceiving information style preferences in real life, and the last onc mentioned the preferred camming styles in classroom,

‘The questionnaire consists of two main types close-ended questions - multiple-choice questions and scaled questions With scaled questions, participants were required to measure their level

of tike or distike loward leaming modes, learning methods, learning activities, learning aids, vocabulary leaming, etc on the scale from | to 5, with strongly dislike, 2-distike, 3-neutral, 4=like, and S-strongly like With multiple-choice questions, there were four optians for respondents to choose In some questions, participants were provided space and were encouraged to give their own answers if they were dufferent from the limited provided ones, Participanis, therefore, had more chances lo more accurate about their actual preferred Janguage learning styles

In the students’ version (20-item questionnaire), the students were supposed to state

how they prefer to learn English language in terms of perceiving and processing information, leaming modes, Icarning methods, tcaching aids, teaching activitics, now words, fecdback,

error correction In the 20-item questionnaire, teachers were required to express their opinions

as to how they felt their students prefer to learn the langage on the same criteria in students? version The content of the 20-item related to eight following main issues:

16

1.- Stulenls interest in learning English ilem 1

2 Perceiving and processing information in real life: from atem 4 to 11; in classroom:

item 13

Leaming mode: iter 12

New words: item 14

‘Teaching aids: item 15

6 Classroom activities: item L6 and 17

7 Feedback and error correction: item 18 and 19

8 The importance of learning style: item 20

However, there were some adaptations in the questionnans

Fustly, the fizst three questions in part I were added to get the background information and participants’ attitude and achievement toward English

Sccondly, although thers were 16 multiple questions in Fleming's VARK version over all, the author decided to use only 8 most interesting questions to put in the second part to get information about preferred perceiving style preferences in real life, Researcher, herself felt that some questions were similar to others, whorcas if there had been too many questions, some participants would have taken the questionnaire less seriously and some might have become bored with or provided spurions answars bacause of survey faligne

Thirdly, the items about towing time and place, improvement assessment methods, and sense of satisfaction in Brindley (1984)’s version were omitted because they were not much related to the sample as well as the aims of the study,

Fourthly, in order to facilitate students’ understanding of the questionnaire, the

students’ version was translated into Vietnamese with much of carefulness and cautions to not

only ensure the preciseness of ils cortent but also avoid misunderstanding and lime consunting,

Lasily, the purpose of the study (investigating the first-year students’ language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and T'eobnalogy) as well as the appreciations for the teachers* and students’ co-operation were added to the beginning in both versions

Thanks to such a choice of questionnaire, suitable adaptation, and carcful tvanslation, there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the questionnaire, which assists ensure the reliability and validity of dala

1

2.2.3 Iata collertlon procednre

‘The data collecting process was carried out in two main steps

At first, the required data were collected in the last week of May 2012 The

sion in (hat week At (he sane lime and

questionnaire was delivered to students dicing clas

during the same session, the teachers were provided with questionnaire (teachers’ version),

‘Thanks to the establishment of a good rapport and participants’ enthusiasm, all the given

as students’ interest in learning English, age and gender

2.2.4 Lala unalysis procedure

The author applied the statistic procedure, ftom coding data to classifying, analyzing, summarizing, and reporting data in a reader-friendly way Besides, participants’ other opinions were analyzed and summarized to provide a decper view into the rescarch matter, All the results gained from these sources will be comprehensively analyzed and discussed in the following Data Analysis chapler

‘The data oblained from the questionnaire were presenled in graphs and tables, basing

on different criferia and items such as students’ interest in learning English, perceiving, and processing information, learning mode, new words, teaching aids, class activities, feedback and curr correction, the importance of understanding Icaming styic, otc In cach item, both teachers’ and students’ view were discussed to determine the similarities as well as the differences between teachers’ and students’ outlook

To conclude, the second chapter has presented the methodology applied in the study by clarifying some aspects, namely methods of study, participants, instrament, data collection and data analysis procedures ‘hs presentation along with the interpretation of findings will be claborated on in the up-coming chapter —Data Analysis

18

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS

In the third chapter, the data collected from the study will be presented and interpreted

on such criteria as interest in learning English, perceiving and processing information, learning

mode, new words, learning aids, class activities, feedback and error correction, and the

importance of understanding learning style

3.1 Students’ interest in learning English

The answers for the first and the second question show that all of the students have

been learning English for at least 7 years; and they have paid much attention to English

Although they are not specialized in English, their major are accountancy, banking, finance,

business management, information technology, 183 (~ 81%) students asked expressed their interest in learning English

Graph 1: Students's interest in learning English

In contrast to what teachers usually believe, the number of males interested in learning

English is higher than the number of females While, there are 89% male students enjoy

studying English, just 73% female students do, Although, the performance of males in

classroom is not as good as females’ (they are often lazy and do not focus much on the

lessons), males learners do satisfy with their achievement in English When asked, 51 (~ 67%)

males answered that they were pleased with their marks and performance in English, whereas,

only 47 (= 31%) said that they were contented with their achievement In fact, the marks of

females students in every university paper examination are usually higher than the marks of

males’ ones In summary, there are 81% students interested in learning English and only a small number of students do not enjoying learning English (19%) Moreover, in spite of lower

marks in examination, boy students satisfy with their achievement more than girls do

19

3.2 Perceiving and processing information in real life and classroom

All the eight questions, adopted from Fleming’s VARK 2011 version, in the second

part and question number 13 of the questionnaire aimed at finding out the students’ preferred

style or the preferred ways of perceiving and processing information in real life and in

classroom

3.2.1 Perceiving and processing information in real life

In terms of perceiving knowledge, both teachers and students were asked about their

preferred ways of processing information according to the classification of Fleming: perceiving

by listening (Aural), seeing (Visual), reading (Read) or touching/experiencing (Kinesthetic)

Among 227 students participating in the study, 35.5% students preferred Read/write, 31.1%

students preferred Kinesthetic, 26.7% students preferred Aural, and only 6.7% students

preferred Visual styles In other words, based on the terms of Feldman (2003), students were

more Visual/verbal, Tactile/kinesthetic, Auditory/verbal and Visual/nonverbal correlatively

However, there are some different choices between males and females’

Graph 2: Students’ and teachers’ perceiving style preferences in real life

As can be seen from the graph, male students showed a very clear difference of their

favored style They were favored of Read/Write (Visual/verbal) - a style that involves a

preference for material in the written format, favoring reading over hearing and touching

Whereas, females did not express any big disparity between the three styles of Aural,

Kinesthetic and Read/Write although they seemed to be more Aural (Auditory/verbal) - a style

in which the leamers favors listening as the best approach Moreover, about teachers, their

perceiving style preferences did not vary much There appeared an equal percentage between

20

Aural Style and Read/Wrie style that both accounted for 42.8% 14.4% teachers preferred

Kinesthetic style and nobody were favored of Visual style

There was no significant difference between male and female students in the same

range of age However, there was difference between perceiving style preferences by age

Because there was no big divergence between each single age, the author divided 227 students

into 4 groups which differed by two years old

‘As can be seen from the third graph, at younger age (18-19), students were more

favored Read/Write style (56.8%), but when they became older (20-23), the preferred styles

changed into Kinesthetic (40-42%) In addition, the oldest of all students (24-26) expressed

equal trend in styles favored It seems that when people become more mature, all of the senses will become stronger and human being tends to use all of these perceptions into processing

information However, the Kinesthetie, Aural and Read/Write charge much bigger percentage than Visual styles at all age

3.2.2 Perceiving and processing information in classroom

As we can see from the below graph, the style students preferred using in classroom was seeing (Visual style) In real life, if there were only 6.7% of students enjoying using their eyes in perceiving information, seeing was the first preferred style in classroom They valued it 4.16 point for its effect Games and conversations were also valued with high score, just 0.01 point lower than seeing accounting for 4.15 point Reading and writing would have been highly appreciated in real life, but in classroom, students thought that it was a neutral way of learning,

On the other hand, teacher seemed to be aware of the two first preferred styles of their

21

students, however, the order of the two styles was not correct Teachers thought that students

preferred learning by games and conversation most, then by seeing but students gave the

Graph 4: Students’ and teachers’ view on Perceiving style preferences in classroom

In terms of perceiving style preferences in classroom, there was a small difference

between male and female’s opinion

As presented in graph 5, there was no big difference between males and females’

opinion except for the fact that male students preferred leaming by game and conversation to

learning by seeing, while female students showed opposite view Moreover, female at earlier

age seemed to be more interested in learning by game than female at older age When female

students aged 18-19 valued games and conversation at 4.72 (quite strongly like), the one aged

24-26 valued only 2.58 for this style

9 yen yen Hayes 2021 yen 2024 yen 2021 yrs 22.23 ym 22.2348 2222968 ELEY 343637 24383 Male

fle tol ale femmle HA ml ferme ‘mule ferme Teme

Graph 5: Students’ perceiving style preferences by age and gender

22

Individual Pair ‘Small group Large group

Graph 6: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning mode

As shown, 4.05 point for learning in small groups meant that students highly appreciated this style Moreover, students also quite liked learning in pairs and large group -

the point for pairs was higher than the point for larger group by 0.12 (3.29 for pair and 3.07 for

large group) Luckily, most of the teachers were aware of the fact Teachers believed that their

students were more favored of learning in small group (3.29 points), then in pair (3.01 points) However, in terms of leaming in a large group, there was a small disagreement when teachers

believed that students quite disliked this method (2.14 points), in fact their students showed the

trend of neutral to this mode (3.07 points) Regarding individual working, both teachers and

students believed that they disliked learning individually In fact, according to collected statistics, approximately 30.9% students mentioned that they strongly disliked leaming

individually

In addition, as students’ view on learning mode by gender, all males and females

valued the similar point for learning in small groups (4.10 vs 4,02) and in pairs (3.14 vs 3,43);

the difference was not worth considering, In terms of leaming in large group, there was a

difference; when males quite liked this mode (valued 3.43 points), females disliked it (valued

2.7 points)

Moreover, there was a little bit difference between people varying in age

As we can see from the seventh graph, 18-19 year-old students thought that learning in

paits was not interesting, they expressed neutral feeling However, the older they were, the

more they liked it, Students at bigger age (24-26) valued the point 3.71 for leaning in pairs,

23

equally for both males and females Learning in small groups was preferred by students at all

age, they marked this mode at 3.86 for lowest and 4.14 for highest

ĐỢC HƠI 20.21 20.21 20.21 22.23 2223 2223 24.26 24.26 24-26 Male Female

yis yrs yrs ovis yrs yis ys ys ys yrs yrs

male female total mate female total male female total male female total

Graph 7: Students’ view on learning mode by age and gender

To sum up, the most preferred mode of students was leaning in small groups and then learning in pairs, which was mostly consistent with teachers’ view It seemed that students felt more comfortable and relaxed working in pairs or in small groups, where they could express their voices and their views could be listened and valued

3.4 New words

‘The 14" item in the questionnaire aimed at finding out the way by which students liked

to learn vocabulary, The options mentioned were: (a) by listening to and repeating them, (b) by seeing them, (¢) by writing words several times, (d) by using new words in sentences, and (e)

by thinking of the relationships between known and new

D Student ITeacher

Bylistening& By seeing By writing By using words By thinking of

Graph 8: Students and teachers’ view on new words learning

24

As presented in the graph, the style by which students preferred using to leam new

words was learning by writing words several times The average score for this style was 3.6

point The runner-up method was thinking of the relationship between known and new words, which regarded as 3.5 point The next was by using words in sentences and then by listening

and repeating Although learning new words by seeing them was scored the least with 2.82

point by students, teachers gave a high score for this style with 3.42 point Moreover, despite

the fact that teachers were aware of the two first methods students preferred, they did not rank

them in the same order as students did Teachers thought that their students adored learning by

thinking of known and new, they gave 4.02 for this style, however, their students did think that

learning by thinking of relationship between known and new was only the second way they preferred, This was a small mismatch between students and teachers’ belief

‘The next graph of students’ view on new words learning showed the different opinion

between two genders While male students preferred the style of learning new words by

thinking of relationship between known and new (3.62 point) then writing (3.5 point), female

students thought that leaning by writing words several times (3.7 point) was the most effective

way, after that here came the method of using words in sentences (3.58 point) However, both

of the two sexes agreed that learning new words by seeing them would be the last way they

4W'19yrS 1É 9yps F19 2024s 20.24 8 2021 yes 223% 223v 2223 2L26ynx 2426y0 22805 Male Female

‘malo fomsle LƠ mide femle total malo fomae totale female tout

Graph 9: Students’ view on new words learning by age and gender

We can also see that students aged 18-19 highly appreciated the style of leaming by writing words down several times, especially females with 4.14 point However, the older they became, the less they preferred the method in spite of the fact that it is always their first choice

to learn new words In addition, while both 18-19 year-old students and 20-21 year-old

25

students expressed their real preferences to learning by writing, students aged 22-23 preferred

learning by seeing and students aged 24-26 enjoyed using words in sentences It seems that becoming older; students have a trend of using more analysis skill

In conclusion, in terms of new words learning, although there were some different between males and females at age, most of the students highly appreciated the style of writing

words several times with 3.6 point Unfortunately, teachers were unaware of this fact They

thought that their students enjoyed learning by thinking of the relationship between known and

new By this, teachers should consider their methods of teaching new words to make teaching

process more effective

3.5.Teaching aids

Item 15 required students to give information about how much they liked leaning from

(a) Television/video/films, (b) Tapes/tadio, (c) Written materials, (d) Blackboard, and (e)

Tifilm TapelRadio Written material Blackboard Picture

Graph 10: Students and teachers’ view on learning aids

In the process of finding out which style students preferred most to perceive

information in classroom, the collected statistic pointed out that students preferred receiving by

seeing to any other styles This time, once again, the score revealed the fact that students loved learning from televisions/videos/films (4.16 point), and from pictures (4.29 point) The point

for the two styles was much higher than the points for others Moreover, students hated

learning from blackboard (2.92 point) and had a neutral attitude toward written material and

tapes/radio

As can be seen from the graph, teachers once again were aware of the two most

teaching aids which students preferred to have in classroom However, once again, they had a

26