A survey on the first – year students’ English language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES GRAPHS: Graph 1: Students‟ interest in learning English Graph 2: Students' and teachers' perceiving style preferences in real life Graph 3: Students' perceivin

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG

A SURVEY ON THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES

AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

( Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viên 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, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG

A SURVEY ON THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES

AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

( Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viên 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: NGUYỄN THỤY PHƯƠNG LAN, MA

Hanoi, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ……… i

Acknowledgements ……… ii

Abstract ……… iii

Table of contents ……… iv

List of graphs and table ……… vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale ……… 1

2 Aims of the study ……… …… 2

3 Research question ……… …… 2

4 Significance of the study ……… 2

5 Scope of the study ……… …… 3

6 Organization of the study ……… …… 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Definition of learning style ……… 5

1.2 The origins of human‟s learning style preference ……… … 5

1.3 Background history – Categorization of learning styles ……… …… 6

1.3.1 Background ……… 6

1.3.2 Categorization of learning styles ……… 7

1.4 Students‟ learning style preferences ……… …… 9

1.5 Mismatch between students‟ and teachers‟ perception of learning style … 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Methods of the study ……… …… 14

2.2 Methodology and procedures ……… 14

2.2.1 Participants ……… 14

2.2.1.1 Students ……… 14

2.2.1.2 Teachers ……… 15

2.2.2 Instrument ……… 16

2.2.3 Data collection procedure ……… 18

2.2.4 Data analysis procedure ……… 18

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS 3.1 Students‟ interest in learning English ……… 19

3.2 Perceiving and processing information in real life and in classroom ……… 20

3.2.1 Perceiving and processing information in real life ……… 20

3.2.2 Perceiving and processing information in classroom ……… 21

3.3 Learning mode ……… 23

3.4 New words ……… …… 24

3.5 Teaching aids ……… …… 26

3.6 Classroom activities ……….……… 27

3.6.1 Students‟ preferred classroom activities ……….……… 28

3.6.2 Classroom activity frequency ……… 29

3.7 Feedback and error correction ……… 30

3.7.1 Feedback ……… 30

3.7.2 Error correction ……… 31

3.8 The importance of learning style ……… 32

CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING DIFFERENT LEARNING STYLES 4.1 Suggestions for teaching visual style learners ……… 33

4.2 Suggestions for teaching kinesthetic style learners ……… 34

4.3 Suggestions for teaching read/write style learners ……… 35

4.4 Suggestions for teaching auditory style learners ……… 35

PART C: CONCLUSION 1 Major findings ……… …… 37

2 Contribution of the study ……….…… 38

3 Limitations ……….…… 39

4 Suggestions for further studies ……….……… 39

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

GRAPHS:

Graph 1: Students‟ interest in learning English

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

Graph 3: Students' perceiving information style preferences by age

Graph 4: Students‟ and teachers‟ view on Perceiving style preferences in classroom Graph 5: Students‟ perceiving style preferences by age and gender

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

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

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

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

Graph 10: Students and teachers‟ view on learning aids

Graph 11: Students‟ view on learning aids by age and gender

Graph 12: Students and teachers‟ view on classroom activities

Graph 13: Students‟ view on classroom activities by age and gender

Graph 14: Students and teachers‟ view on getting feedback

Graph 15: Students and teachers‟ view on error correction

TABLE:

Table 1: Students‟ characteristic of age and gender

PART A: INTRODUCTION

In this first part, the author states the rationale for the study Afterward, the aims, research questions, significance, scope of the study are discussed The chapter ends with 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 effectively, cooperate with others and learn 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 learner-centered approach and communicative language teaching These approaches require educators

to pay more attention to individual learners to help them expand and improve their communicative competence Hence, understanding students including understanding learning styles preferences plays an important role to educational improvement and success

According to Reid (1987), the ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual‟s learning styles Learning styles reflect our preferred manner of acquiring, using and thinking about knowledge

We do not have just one learning styles, but a profile of styles Even though, our ability may be identical to someone else‟s, our learning styles might be quite different The students, for instance, learn in many ways – by seeing and hearing; reflecting and acting; memorizing and visualizing; some students prefer working individually, others learn a lot from group work While some students like learning through games and activities, others can get much from presentations Some students never mind being immediately corrected in front of the class, other students easy to lose face being corrected

Furthermore, teachers do not apply the same method of teaching Felder and Henriques (1995: 21) noted that “teaching methods also vary Some instructors lecture, others demonstrate 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

students‟ learning, their attitudes toward the class and the subject, the atmosphere and the outcome

2 Aims of the study

The survey on the first-year students‟ English language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology aims at certain points Firstly, the study aims at investigating the first-year students‟ learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology These preferences 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 terms of learning mode, perceiving and processing information, vocabulary, class activities, teaching aids, error correction and feedback Secondly, the survey intends to discover the teachers‟ learning style preferences and their awareness of their students‟ learning style preferences 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 effect of some elements such as age and gender to the students‟ learning style preferences

3 Research questions

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 seeks answers to the following questions:

2 What are the students‟ learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and technology?

3 What is the gap between teachers‟ awareness of students‟ leaning style preferences and the real one?

4 Significance of the study

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

be aware of them, but their learning styles have an important impact on the way they teach Instructors who assign frequent activities involving oral presentations and demonstrations might be indicating that their learning style is somewhat auditory On the other hand, instructors whose assignments consist of frequent written work may have a more visual style

So, what if students‟ learning styles are mismatched with learning and teaching styles of their instructors? According to Oxford (2003) cited in Le Sa‟s (2010), if there is a harmony between students‟ learning styles and given instructional methodology, the students are likely to perform well, fell confident and experience low anxiety If clashes happen, serious breakdowns

in teacher-student interaction will occur These conflicts even result in the dispirited students‟ rejection of the teaching methodology, the teacher and the subject matter Consequently, finding out the students‟ learning style preferences is an important step to create the harmony between teachers and students

The results gained from this survey can derive an overview of students‟ learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, as well as the extent to which teachers are aware of their students‟ learning style preferences The teachers can also find out their own learning styles and check 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 not only find out teaching methods that suit the best to them, but also make their lessons more attractive, effective and practical As a result, the atmosphere in the class, the outcomes, and the teacher-student interactions can be improved significantly The study‟s results can certainly improve the language learning and teaching at Hanoi University of Business and Technology Such information is also significant to other teachers from other universities in similar teaching context

5 Scope of the study

The study examines students‟ English 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 number of students is hoped to be sufficient to provide valid and reliable information, the contribution of which is vital to the success of this modest research Students‟ and teachers‟ answers in the 20-item questionnaires 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 help find out the answer to the question on students‟ English language learning styles preferences Moreover, the study can help to check out whether teacher are aware of students‟ learning style preferences; and figure out the relationship between age and gender to the students‟ learning style preferences

6 Organization of the study

The survey is divided into three main parts

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

The second part-Development- consists of three chapters Chapter 1, Literature review, deals with definitions of terms, the origin, background history and categorization of learning styles, students‟ learning preferences, mismatches between students‟ learning styles and teachers‟ awareness of them The methods of the study adopted as well as justifications 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 preferred 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 chapter points out the results combined with 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 further research are also mentioned

To sum up, this chapter has presented the rationale, aims, research questions, significance, scope of the study The chapter 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 B – Development – consists of three chapters: Literature Review, Methodology, and Data Analysis Specifically, this part gives a brief review of the literature, 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 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 1 – Literature Review – presents definitions of terms, the origin, background history and categorization of learning styles, students‟ learning style preferences, mismatches between students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions of learning styles

1.1 Definition of learning style

In literary studies, first personal differences of individuals and then the effects of applying these differences in the environment have been investigated One of these personal differences is the individual‟s learning style When individuals learn with the same method, in the same learning environment and are assessed by the same evaluation tools, 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 that differentiate you from someone else

“Learning style refers to any individual preferred ways of going about learning It is

generally considered that one‟s learning style will result from personality variables, including psychological and cognitive make-up, socio-cultural background, and educational experience”

Nunan (1991: 168)

1.2 The origins of human’s learning style preferences

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

more on tasks requiring verbal competence, 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 learning styles, because they first like 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, music and emotional expression Moreover, the right hemisphere inclines to process information globally, considering it as a whole Consequently, people who tend toward right-brain processing might prefer relational learning styles

1.3 Background History – Categorization of learning styles

1.3.1 Background

Accounting for individual learning styles is not a new idea, research 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, research focused on the relationship between memory and oral or visual methods Joe Chandle has given a very clear background history of learning styles in his study According to him, in 1904, Alfred Binet - a French psychologist - developed the first intelligence test, which spawned interest in individual differences The study of learning styles was the next step In 1907, Dr Maria Montessori, who invented the Montessori Method of education, began using materials to enhance the learning styles of her students Dr Montessori believed that students did not demonstrate mastery of subjects through a multiple-choice answer sheet, but through their actions The study of learning styles declined for approximately

50 years before re-emerging in the 1950s The decline was due to the rise in emphasis on IQ and academic achievement In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a system known as Bloom's Taxonomy, which took another step toward defining learning-style differences Isabel Myers-Briggs and Katherine Briggs developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1962 Further advancement was made when the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model was introduced in 1976, generating diagnostic instruments for evaluation From 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 learning-style model, where he determined that learning styles are closely related to cognitive skills Then, in 1987, Reid had

conducted a great study with the help of participants from 98 countries over the world to prove his hypothesis that all students had their own learning strengths and weaknesses In 1992, Neil Fleming and Mills launched one of the most popular learning style research and assessment throughout the world Up to now, the emphasis is placed on having teachers address learning 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 experiential learning theory Using the Kolb model, Peter Honey and Allen 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, Flemming'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 are two forms of experience in the model: Concrete Experience and Abstract Conceptualization, and two related approaches to transform experience into learning: Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation The combination of these approaches

results in four learning styles: converger (characterized by abstract conceptualization and active experimentation), diverger (tending toward concrete experience and reflective observation), assimilator (characterized by abstract conceptualization and reflective observation) and accommodator (using concrete experience and active experimentation)

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

widely-used models of learning styles which derived from Neuro-linguistic programming According to Fleming's model, which is relatively simple, learners can be categorized as follows:

● Visual (V):

This preference includes the depiction of information in maps, spider diagrams, charts, graphs, flow charts, labeled diagrams, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and other devices that people use to represent what could have been presented in words

● Aural / Auditory (A):

This perceptual mode describes a preference for information that is "heard or spoken." Learners who have this as their main preference learn best from lectures, group discussion, radio, email, using mobile phones, speaking, web-chat and talking things through

● Read/write (R):

This preference is for information displayed as words This preference emphasizes based input and output - reading and writing in all its forms but especially manuals, reports, essays and assignments

text-● Kinesthetic (K):

This modality refers to the "perceptual preference related to the use of experience 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) It includes demonstrations, simulations, videos and movies

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

Despite the fact that Fleming's VARK theory is relatively simple compared to other learning style models, it is not adequate and very difficult to implement in a functional classroom Moreover, it has not dealt with the problem of mixture, usually defined as

multimodality Recently, Feldman (2003) has presented one categorization of learning styles

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

Visual/verbal: a style that involves a 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 learners favors listening as the best approach Tactile/kinesthetic: a style that involves learning by touching, manipulating objects,

and doing things

● Information Processing Styles

Analytic: a style which the learner starts with small pieces of information and uses

them to build the big picture

Relation: a style in which the learner starts with the big picture and breaks it down into

its individual components

● Personality styles

Introvert versus extrovert: independence is a key characteristic of introverted learners,

who enjoy working alone and are less affected by how others think and behave Whereas, extroverts are outgoing and more affected by the behavior and thinking of others They enjoy working with others

Intuitors versus sensors: intuitive people enjoy solving problems and being creative,

often taking a big-picture approach Sensors, in contrast, prefer a concrete, logical approach in which they can carefully analyze the facts of the situation

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

rational analysis On the other hand, feelers rely on their emotions and are influenced 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 are open to multiple 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, one 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 earliest 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 from the field as a whole, or the extent to which they are able to dissembled items from organized context” (Witkin, 1976: 41-42 see in Erickson et al., 2006) According to

Felder and Henriques (1995), learning styles have been extensively discussed in the educational psychology literature (Claxton and Murell, 1987; Schmeck, 1988) and specifically

in the context of language learning by Oxford and her colleagues (Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al, 1991; Wallace and Oxford, 1992; Oxford and Ehraman, 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 learning styles relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning styles

Reid (1987) stated a major hypothesis about learning style that “All students have their own learning strengths and weaknesses” To prove that hypothesis, Reid did a survey by mailing instructions for administration to 43 university-affiliated intensive English language programs across the United States, the faculties of which had volunteered to participate in the study 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 of study, and 52 language backgrounds completed the questionnaire Reid‟s study results presented that students strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles Almost all groups showed a negative preference for group learning By separating students in groups of different languages, backgrounds, cultures, age, sex, level etc., Reid concluded that the learning style preferences of nonnative speakers often differ significantly from those of native speakers; that ESL students from different language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their learning 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., field of study, level of education, TOEFL score, and age are related to differences in learning styles

The result that students prefer kinesthetic and tactile learning styles is favored with Melton‟s 1990 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), students favored Kinesthetic and Tactile style, and they did not disfavor any style Ted Brown (2008), one more time, affirmed this conclusion by 81 Australian students above 218 ones preferred kinesthetic learning style

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

fall 2009 APK 3110 and APK 6116 Exercise Physiology course were asked to indicate their perceived sensory modality preferences and complete their standard VARK sensory modality preferences assessment Among 64 students respondents; there are 36% preferred Visual, followed by 28% in Read, 19% in Kinesthetic, and only 17% in Aural

An investigation into the learning style and self-regulated learning strategies for Computer Science students showed the result that the most preferred leaning style is Visual Among 38 participants, 31 students (≈ 81,6%) presented their preferences to learning through eyes, they also tent to work individually rather than to work in group

Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Marilyn (2003) investigated the learning 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 ESL students favored group work and project work Moreover, the researchers suggested that some cultural influences were at play Both quantitative and qualitative studies into cross-cultural settings support a relationship between culture and learning and assume that culture, ethnicity, class, and gender play important roles

in shaping the students‟ learning style preferences

Although learning style preferences have been concerned all in many countries for a long time, it does not yet get much concern from Vietnamese researchers There are only few studies on this subject Nga (2009)‟s study on 532 students‟ language learning 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 preferences in terms of perceiving and processing information, teaching aids, and class activities; they did not fully understand their students‟ liking and disliking such as learning mode, error correction, homework, assessment, sense of satisfaction, etc

Le Sa‟s explosion on students‟ language learning style preferences, carried out at Do Luong 2 high school revealed the similar result as Nga‟s one Although her students also expressed more various preferences than Nga‟s students (the kinesthetic and visual learning style and minor preferences for auditory style), the teachers were still not aware fully of students‟ language style preferences Teachers thought students preferred learning grammar but

they did not; teacher mentioned students preferred copying from the board but they expressed the preferences of learning by pictures, videos, games; teachers thought students preferred translating into Vietnamese, in contrast they really did not like to There was a big mismatch between what teachers thought of students‟ preferences and what it really was

Since being considered, learning style preferences studies have shown us a misunderstanding or even unawareness of teachers about their students‟ learning styles According to Reid (1987), “A mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning failure, frustration and demotivation”; then teachers‟ unawareness make a big gap in teaching modality To conclude, it is relevant to explore learning styles due to the fact 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 beneficially join the teaching and learning process in a more active and successful way

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

Investigation on learning and teaching styles has provided teachers and students with a different view of learning and teaching in classrooms Both the two Vietnamese studies of learning style preferences mentioned above come to the same conclusion that there exists a mismatch between students‟ learning styles and teachers‟ awareness of them Nga (2009) and

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

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

Over the world, many research come to the same conclusion

Rita and Kenneth Dunn (1993) studied how people learn and they noticed that some students achieved knowledge only through selective methods They also mentioned many elements influencing learning 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 characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieved information are collectively termed the individual learning styles” He also mentioned that mismatches usually occur between students‟ learning styles 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

The teachers in Barkhuisen‟s (1998) study were surprised to learn about the feeling and thought of their students In other words, the students‟ perceptions mismatched those of teachers

The Spratt‟s research in 1999 presented a mismatch between students‟ preferences and teachers‟ awareness of them Teachers were aware of learners‟ preferences on just 50% of cases; also, there was no obvious pattern to the correspondences or lack of them Therefore, it was difficult to explain why they happened and to predict where they might have happened

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

Dao Zhenhui (2001) analyzed how to match teaching styles with learning styles in East Asia contexts He explored learning styles and developed self-aware EFL learners He mentioned that an effective matching between teaching and learning styles could only be achieved when teachers are aware of their learners‟ needs, capacities, potentials and learning style preferences He also added that it is necessary to adapt the teaching styles to create a teacher-student style matching

There is no doubt that narrowing the gap between teachers‟ and learners‟ perception plays “an important role in enabling students to maximize their classroom experience.” (Zhenhui: 2001)

As can be seen, being aware of students‟ learning style preferences and understanding the relationship between factors (environment, age, gender, etc.) play an important part in teaching process The implication of the study is that teachers find out their students‟ preferred learning styles, their feeling and thinking, their needs and their experiences, etc., 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 end, the present study with the above-mentioned goals and objectives are designed

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

The following chapter embraces the main points regarding the methodology applied in the study namely the methods of the study, the participants, 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 are destination The path to finding answers to research questions constitutes research methodology According to 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 chapter will describe the rationale for selecting the methods of study

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 or to measure their attitudes and opinions toward some issue” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002) Whereas, investigating students‟ learning style preferences is also investigating their characteristics, their attitudes, their needs, their awareness and satisfactions, the survey research is the dynamic medium to the research questions

Moreover, compared with other methods, survey questionnaires were likely to be more time - saving and fruitful in the large scope, particularly with 227 students involved in the study Brown (2001: 15) stated 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

Among about 2000 first-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology,

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 students are all fresh-year students in the school year 2011 – 2012, who come 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 Technology (IT), etc Moreover, because students were taking either full-time courses or in-service courses for incumbent, they vary in age, from

17 (22.4%)

12 (15.8%)

3 (3.9%) 12

(15.8%) Female 29

(19.2%)

34 (22.5%)

34 (22.5%)

25 (16.6%)

13 (8.6%)

9 (6%) 7 (4.6%)

Furthermore, with a quite long time of learning English - at least 7 years (4 years in secondary school, 3 years in high school); all of the students have enough basic knowledge of this foreign language Such various characteristics of student participants diversify the information collected, which can guarantee the reliability of samples as well as the objectives

of study 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 Five from College of Foreign Language, Hanoi National University, two from Hanoi University, one from Vinh University, one from Thai Nguyen University and the last from Da Nang Unvisersity Five of 10 teachers have M.A degree and two others are doing M.A courses As we can see, the teachers are varied in terms of age and teaching experience, however, most of the teachers are rather young, well-trained and have

approximately 7 years of teaching English Moreover, all of them have used the Market 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 learning style assessment instruments have been developed in the past three decades, research that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning styles Style questionnaires vary in reliability and validity, but over the last few decades, they have provided useful data for teachers and students

to understand learning style preferences

The instrument used in the study was questionnaire of language learning style preference adopted from Brindley (1984) and Fleming‟s VARK (2011 version) It consisted of two versions: version 1 for students and version 2 for teachers Both two versions were divided into three main parts; the first part expressed the participants‟ background information as well

as attitude toward English, the second part presented participants‟ perceiving information style preferences in real life, and the last one mentioned the preferred learning 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 like or dislike toward learning modes, learning methods, learning activities, learning aids, vocabulary learning, etc on the scale from 1 to 5, with 1=strongly dislike, 2=dislike, 3=neutral, 4=like, and 5=strongly like With multiple-choice questions, there were four options for respondents to choose In some questions, participants were provided space and were encouraged to give their own answers if they were different from the limited provided ones Participants, therefore, had more chances to more accurate about their actual preferred language 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, learning modes, learning methods, teaching aids, teaching activities, new words, feedback, 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 language on the same criteria in students‟ version The content of the 20-item related to eight following main issues:

1 Students‟ interest in learning English: item 1

2 Perceiving and processing information in real life: from item 4 to 11; in classroom: item 13

3 Learning mode: item 12

4 New words: item 14

5 Teaching aids: item 15

6 Classroom activities: item 16 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 questionnaire

Firstly, the first three questions in part I were added to get the background information and participants‟ attitude and achievement toward English

Secondly, although there 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, whereas 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 spurious answers because of survey fatigue

Thirdly, the items about learning 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 its content but also avoid misunderstanding and time consuming

Lastly, the purpose of the study (investigating the first-year students‟ language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology) 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 careful translation, there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the questionnaire, which assists ensure the reliability and validity of data

2.2.3 Data collection procedure

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 questionnaire was delivered to students during class session in that week At the same time and 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 questionnaire sheets were filled in fully, which resulted in the collection of 227 completed student questionnaire sheets and 10 complete teacher questionnaire ones after all

After that, the collected data from the questionnaires were synthesized, classified and analyzed according to eight different issues (as mentioned in 2.2.2), and other sub-criteria such

as students‟ interest in learning English, age and gender

2.2.4 Data analysis procedure

The author applied the statistic procedure, from 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 deeper view into the research matter All the results gained from these sources will be comprehensively analyzed and discussed in the following Data Analysis chapter

The data obtained from the questionnaire were presented in graphs and tables, basing

on different criteria and items such as students‟ interest in learning English, perceiving and processing information, learning mode, new words, teaching aids, class activities, feedback and error correction, the importance of understanding learning style, etc In each 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, instrument, data collection and data analysis procedures The presentation along with the interpretation of findings will be elaborated on in the up-coming chapter – Data Analysis

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

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 learners favors listening as the best approach Moreover, about teachers, their perceiving style preferences did not vary much There appeared an equal percentage between

Aural Style and Read/Write 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

Graph 3: Students' perceiving information style preferences by age

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 Kinesthetic, 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

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 contrasting idea

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 learning 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

3.45 3.43 4.51

2.4 3.29 2.86 3.02 3.58 3.36 3.18 2.8 2.94 3.03 3.25

4.29 4.43

4.39 3.88 4.58 4.21 3.89 4.6 4.21 4.69

2.91 3.86 4.18

4.14 2.43 3.04

2.78 3.84 2.73 2.51 3.21

3.22 3.21 3.49

3.67 3.58

2.86 3.18 2.3 2.43

2.39 2.46 2.69 2.65 2.31

2.72 2.51 2.17

3.19 2.64 2.28 2.79 3.61

Game / conversation Writing Reading Seeing Listening

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

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 learning 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 learning 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 learning 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 pairs 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 learning in pairs,

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

Individual

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

To sum up, the most preferred mode of students was learning 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 14th 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, (c) by writing words several times, (d) by using new words in sentences, and (e)

by thinking of the relationships between known and new

Student Teacher

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

As presented in the graph, the style by which students preferred using to learn 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 chose

1.86 3.14 2.51 3.71 3.57 3.64 2.71

3.82 3.26 3.6 3.17 3.39 2.96 3.46 2.28

2.71

2.49

2.86 3.02 2.94

2.98 3.3 3.14 3.2 2.99 3.2

2.83 2.81 4.01

4.14

4.08 4.43 3.43 3.95

2.57

4.03 3.3 3.03 3.26 3.15

3.5 3.7 2.57

3.86

3.22

3.86 4.02 3.93

3.59

2.71 3.15 3.22 3.7 3.46 3.32 3.58 3.7

3.43

3.57

3.43 3.86 3.65

3.41

3.4 3.4 3.8 3.04 3.42 3.62 3.39

By thinking of known & new

By using words in sentences

By writing

By seeing

By listening & repeating

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 learning 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

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 learning from (a) Television/video/films, (b) Tapes/radio, (c) Written materials, (d) Blackboard, and (e) Pictures/posters

4.16

2.92

3.91 3.71

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