The impact of gender and learning environment on learning styles of undergradute students leraning english in ho chi minh city m a

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE IMPACT OF GENDER AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ON L

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

THE IMPACT OF GENDER AND LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT ON LEARNING STYLES OF

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ENGLISH

IN HO CHI MINH CITY

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial

fulfilment of the Master‟s degree in TESOL

By

LƯU HOÀNG ÂN

Supervised by Đặng Tấn Tín, Ph.D

HO CHI MINH CITY, SEPTEMBER 2015

I own my earnest thankfulness to students and teachers of Nguyen Tat Thanh University who have enthusiastically participated and created the supporting conditions to my study

Also I would like to express my thanks to all my classmates at the University of Social Science and Humanity for their constant support and motivation, especially Miss Phuong Nam, Mrs Quynh Chi and Miss Nhu Quynh for their supporting ideas in the final stage of this thesis completion

Notwithstanding all of the above support for this study, any errors or omissions are solely my own

Last but not least, this thesis is dedicated to my parents without whom this work was impossible

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I declare this thesis entitled “THE IMPACT OF GENDER AND LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT ON LEARNING STYLES OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS LEARNING ENGLISH IN HO CHI MINH CITY” is the result of

my own work except as cited in the reference I have used no other sources and aids other than those indicated All passages quoted from publications or paraphrased from these sources are indicated as such, i.e cited and/or attributed This thesis was not submitted in any form for another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary education

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2015

Luu Hoang An

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Luu Hoang An, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master‟s Theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for the care, loan or reproduction

of theses

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2015

Luu Hoang An

ABSTRACT

This thesis is the study of learning styles in the relation to learning environments

(in-class and out-of-(in-class) and gender of EFL students in the context of Vietnam The

study aims (1) to understand learning styles preferences among English-majored

students at NTT University namely Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic in class and out

of class learning environments; (2) to discover the effect of gender in the

identified learning styles preferences; and (3) to explore main reasons for shaping

students‟ learning styles

Using a mixed method design, the study ultetlized both qualitative and quantitative

methods To attain the aims of the study, one questionnaire with 27 pairs of

statements was adopted and developed from the Percaptual Learning Styles

Questionniare of Reid (1987) Vaild reponses was received from 398 EFL

undergraduate students majoring English at Nguyen Tat Thanh University The

analyses of questionnaire indicated that there was significant different between

between learning styles of EFL students when they are in class and when they are out

of class In the light of this analysis, the in-class learning styles were more visiable

and prefereable than the out-of-class one The patterns of learning styles in class was

identified, in which Visual is the most dominant, then Kinethetic and Auditory On

contrary to this, no pattern was dawn out from the out-of-class learning styles In the

search of impacts of gender to learning styles, the findings from collected data

showed that gender has no significant impact to students‟ learning styles

In order to support and make the in-depth look at factors that meadiate students‟

learning styles, a structured and paper-based interview with five questions was

conducted to seventeen students The findings revealed that VAK learning styles

(Visual, Auditory, and Kiensthetic) of EFL learners were mainly affected by learning

materials; nature of EFL learning elements; teachers and teaching methods; physical

and social environments

These findings call for teachers and learners to take more consideration to identify

and provide suitable strategies for EFL learning in the context of Vietnam

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

STAMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .ii

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS iii

ABSTRACT iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.1.1 General context of the study 1

1.1.2 Specific context of the study 5

1.1.2.1 Vietnamese education and its EFL teaching 5

1.1.2.2 Description of Nguyen Tat Thanh University 6

1.1.2.3 Description of Faculty of Foreign Languages 6

1.2 Rationale of the study 7

1.3 Aims of the study 7

1.4 Research questions 8

1.5 Significance of the study 8

1.6 Delimitation of the study 9

1.7 Organization of the study 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11

2.1 Definitions and basic characteristics of “styles” 11

2.1.1 Definitions 11

2.1.2 Styles - A mixed and controversial field 13

2.2 From styles to learning styles 14

2.2.1 Definitions 14

2.2.2 Some major models 17

2.2.2.1 Cognitive-centered approaches 19

2.2.2.2 Personality-centered approaches 35

2.2.2.3 Activity-centered approaches 36

2.2.3 Perceptual learning styles 37

2.2.3.1 Reid‟s learning styles preferences 38

2.2.3.2 VAK learning styles 42

2.2.3.2.1 Visual 45

2.2.3.2.2 Auditory 47

2.2.3.2.3 Kinesthetic 49

2.3 Gender and learning styles 51

2.4 Learning Environments 52

2.5 Conceptual framework of the study 56

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 58

3.1 Research questions 58

3.2 Research methods 58

3.3 Research design 59

3.3.1 Participants 59

3.3.2 Instruments 61

3.4 Research procedure 64

3.4.1 Data collection procedure 64

3.4.2 Data analysis procedure 65

3.5 Chapter summary 68

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS 69

4.1 Statistical results from questionnaires 69

4.1.1 Student‟s learning styles preference in different learning environments 69

4.1.1.1 Distribution of sample 69

4.1.1.2 The reliability of the questionnaire instrument 70

4.1.1.3 Learning styles in different learning environments 73

4.1.1.4 The learning styles trends within each learning environment 74

4.1.2 The impact of gender to students‟ learning styles preference 77

4.2 Results from interview questions 79

4.2.1 Mediating factors of students‟ learning styles preference 79

4.2.1.1 Mediating factors of Visual learning style 79

4.2.1.2 Mediating factors of Auditory learning style 81

4.2.1.3 Mediating factors of Kinesthetic learning style 82

4.2.2 Characteristics of students‟ ideal learning environments 84

4.3 Main findings 86

4.4 Chapter summary 87

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 88

5.1 Discussion 88

5.2.1 The first research question 88

5.2.2 The second research question 90

5.2.2 The third research question 90

5.2 Pedagogical suggestions 91

5.2.1 Suggestions for learners 91

5.2.2 Suggestions for teachers 92

5.3 Limitations 93

5.4 Recommendations for further research 94

5.5 Conclusion 95

REFERENCES 97

APPENDICES 106

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE SUTDY 106

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW SHEET OF THE SUTDY 116

APPENDIX 3: REID‟S PERCEPTUAL LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (1987) 120

APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTIC OF 54 ITEMS OF QUESTIONNAIRE 127 APPENDIX 5: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF EACH ITEM IN SIX GROUPS OF LEARNING STYLES 132

APPENDIX 6A: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF IN-CLASS VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL1) 135

APPENDIX 6B: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF IN-CLASS AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY1) 136

APPENDIX 6C: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF IN-CLASS KINESTHETIC GROUP (KINESTHETIC1) 137

APPENDIX 6D: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF OUT-OF-CLASS VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL2) 138

APPENDIX 6E: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF OUT-OF-CLASS AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY2) 139

APPENDIX 6F: THE RELIABILITY TESTS OF OUT-OF-CLASS KINESTHETIC

GROUP (KINESTHETIC2) 140

APPENDIX 7: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIBTION OF THE FIRST QUESTION 141 APPENDIX 8A: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN IN-

CLASS VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL1) 147

APPENDIX 8B: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN

IN-CLASS AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY1) 148

APPENDIX 8C: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN

IN-CLASS KINESTHETIC GROUP (KINESTHETIC1) 149

APPENDIX 8D: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN

OUT-OF-CLASS VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL2) 150

APPENDIX 8E: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN

OUT-OF-CLASS AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY2) 151

APPENDIX 8F: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM VALUE IN

OT-OF-CLASS KINESTHETIC GROUP (KINESTHETIC2) 152

APPENDIX 9A: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN IN-CLASS

VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL1) ACCORDING TO GENDER 153

APPENDIX 9B: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN IN-CLASS

AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY1) ACCORDING TO GENDER 154

APPENDIX 9C: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN IN-CLASS

KINESTHETIC GROUP (KINESTHETIC1) ACCORDING TO GENDER 155

APPENDIX 9D: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN

OUT-OF-CLASS VISUAL GROUP (VISUAL2) ACCORDING TO GENDER 156

APPENDIX 9E: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN

OUT-OF-CLASS AUDITORY GROUP (AUDITORY2) ACCORDING TO GENDER 157

APPENDIX 9F: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EACH ITEM IN

OUT-OF-CLASS KINESTHETIC (KINESTHETIC2) ACCORDING TO GENDER 158

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 2.1: Number of Articles with Titles Including Search Terms, Divided by

Decades 12

Table 2.2: Learning styles instrument in the cognitive structure family 21

Table 2.3: Principle characteristics of a field-dependent and field-independent cognitive style 22

Table 2.4: Elements of Learning Style from the Dunn and Dunn Model 33

Table 2.5: Summary of philosophical perspectives 53

Table 2.6: Summary of theoretical frameworks and models 54

Table 3.1: The distribution of males and females in the sample 60

Table 3.2: The distribution of participants according to age 60

Table 3.3: The distribution of participants according year of study in university 60

Table 3.4: Students‟ preferences of physical elements 61

Table 3.5: An extract of the designed questionnaire 63

Table 4.1: Internal consistency of the six groups of learning styles (1st time) 71

Table 4.2: Internal consistency of the six groups of learning styles (2nd time) 71

Table 4.3: Cronchbach‟ Alpha if item deleted in six groups of learning styles 72

Table 4.4: Reliability Statistics of all groups of learning styles 72

Table 4.5: Paired-Sample T-Test of learning styles groups in two learning environments (in-class and out-of-class environment) 73

Table 4.6: Descriptive data of six groups of learning styles 74

Table 4.7: Paired-Sample T-Tests of in-class learning styles 75

Table 4.8: Paired-Sample T-Tests of out-of-class learning styles 75

Table 4.9: Descriptive data of six groups of learning styles according to gender 77

Table 4.10: Independent Samples T-Tests of learning styles and gender 78

Table 4.11: The results of the first interview question 80

Table 4.12: The results of the second interview question 81

Table 4.13: The results of the third interview question 83

Table 4.14: The results of the fourth interview question 84

Table 4.15: The results of the fifth interview question 84

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1: An illustration of Curry‟s “Onion” model 17

Figure 2.2: Families of Learning Styles 18

Figure 2.3: An illustration of Field and field in dependence test 23

Figure 2.4: Model of Multiple Intelligences 25

Figure 2.5: Kolb‟s Four Learning Styles 29

Figure 2.6: The Experiential Learning Theory of Growth and Development 30

Figure 2.7: The conceptual framework of the study 57

Figure 3.1: Analytical framework of the study 67

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information on the role of learning styles to teachers, researchers and learners; research on learning styles in contexts of Vietnam and the context of the current study The focus of this research is discussed and justified Together with that, the overall research rationale, research aims, research questions, significance of the study, delamination of the study are identified Finally, the organization of the study is provided

1.1 Background of the study

1.1.1 General context of the study

Veronica Rothin in her 2011 novel Divergent has introduced the idea of a

post-apocalyptic Chicago in which the world is divided into five factions: Abnegation, for the selfless; Amity, for the peaceful; Candor, for the honest; Dauntless, for the brave; and Erudite, for the intellectual In this world, a person has to choose which faction he or she will belong to, based on the result of a personality test For many people, the idea that we belong to a particular type of person has been captured for long Each individual is different and they have something that is considered unique and unchangeable To Confucius, a junzi ("gentleman" or "superior person"; Vietnamese: Quant tu) holds the functions of government and social stratification through his ethical values (Vietnamese:

Tu than, te gia, binh quoc, tri thien ha) (“Junzi”, n.d.) Self-consciousness, thus, is not only something constant but also an urgent need in each human being Not dissimilar beliefs were held by the scholars who have been searching for the nature of this uniqueness As the result, the study of „styles‟ was established in order to help each individual can “know thyself” (Socrates) better

Originated in the field of psychology in 1940s, the studies of „styles‟ focus on „people‟s preferred ways of processing information and dealing with tasks‟ (Zhang & Stenberg,

2012, p 1) With different demands and different fields of application, scholars provides various terms of „styles‟ such as: in psychology (cognitive style, thinking style, intellectual styles, mode of thinking, multiple intelligences), in business (thinking style, mind style, mode of thinking) or in education (learning style and teaching style) Among these derived terms, learning style is one of the most popular styles (second only to cognitive style) with a growing body of research since 1960s In 2006, there are about

650 books of learning styles which are published in the United States and Canada, 4500 journals of this topic and over 2600 websites which provides instruments for the measurement and classification of learning styles The number, itself, has proved the role

of learning styles in classroom as the discovery and insight of learning styles can solve many problems to teachers, learners and researchers (Coffield et al., 2004)

Coffield et al in their work 2004 mentioned the followings as some crucial questions in learning-teaching process

“How can we teach students if we do not know how they learn? How can we improve the performance of our employees if we do not know how we ourselves learn or how to enhance their learning? Are the learning difficulties of

so many students/employees better understood as the teaching problems of tutors/workplace training managers?”

(Coffield et al., 2004, p.1)

In fact, these are also questions that each and every single day teachers have to face and wonder in their classes There is likely a universal agreement that different learners will prefer different ways of learning due to their diverse cultures and social contexts (Nguyen, 2009) A classroom, thus, is not a homogeneous picture in which the teacher can apply one single method for the whole, but in fact, a mosaic one where each individual needs to be taught according to their learning styles If this issue is neglected, students are not able to express their learning competence completely and teachers always find their teaching problematic With different learning styles and one method for the whole, each student also has his/her own matters worse Metaphorically, if a doctor has to treat one patient at a time, a teacher is much more troublesome situation with many

“patients” to treat at a time

As for leaners, the realization of their own learning styles can be of great benefit to their learning in many ways Firstly, learners with this realization can be more confident in their learning as they are of no fear of their confusion, or troubles in their learning As a result, they can make clear of which learning conditions, methods and environments are appropriate for themselves Being more and more motivated in this way, learners can gain their self-esteem and furthermore their motivation for their own learning or autonomy in other words Moreover, this motivation and autonomy, if happened, can provide teachers with fewer burdens in their teaching and they will gain more effort for their teaching, which subsequently prosper to learners and their learning Understanding learning styles, hence, provides mutual benefit for both teachers and students

The role of this inner “mechanism” in learning-teaching process, then, is obvious and it, for a long time, received more and more attention from the researchers Nevertheless, studies of learning styles are not totally under the same direction and as Coffield et al (2004) pointed out, there were three main linked areas of learning style research namely: theoretical, pedagogical and commercial

Firstly, in the theoretical area, studies of learning styles in Britain, U.S and West Europe have begun since the beginning of XX century and they have been proposing ideas and producing a huge amount of instruments In his work 2004, Coffield et al listed 71 models of learning styles which are the most prominent ones in the world recently and he has assessed 13 of these which are considered major ones in this field The remaining 58 models are not adapted widely and thus, cannot be strongly influent to the whole field Various new contributions of this field are the development of the existing models while others has been used or conducted in a very small or particular popular On the whole, the field of learning styles researches are dominated by a huge amount of small applications

of specific models to small samples of students in particular context This evidently proves the impact of learning styles to on teaching and learning in practical way (Coffield et al., 2004)

Secondly, in the teaching and learning area, there are diverse studies into teaching and learning, mainly from different branches of psychology, and also from sociology, business studies, management and education This fact leads to contrasting results of the researches as they can be valued differently by different perspectives Moreover, working

in the field of learning styles, researchers aim to clarify their evidences and theories of themselves As the result, they will establish their own terms in order to develop their own reputations, which complicate more the field of learning style This consequently results a fragmental field where little contributions are recognized and researches are mainly cooperative works

Thirdly, in the commercial area, there are large number of commercial industry – oriented inventories and instruments Some specific models are very popular and influential: In the U.S, for example, the Dunn, Dunn and Price Learning Styles Inventory (LSI) is used by many primary school; while in the U.K, Kolb‟s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and Honey and Mumford‟s Learning Styles Questionnaire (LSQ) are also prominent and widely used (Coffield et al., 2004)

1.1.2 Specific context of the study

1.1.2.1 Vietnamese education and its EFL teaching

Popularly known as a warlike country during its history, Vietnam in recent years has made progress in political, economic, cultural and social aspects It has applied and acquired membership of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1995, Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) in 1998, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007 With such high degree of global integration, the demand of education especially learning English as foreign language (EFL) is growing stronger and stronger in Vietnam The expenditure in this sector, for example, received approximately 20 percent

of the total public expenditure in every year (Manh, 2013) Together with the national development, education sector has been undergoing several changes and reformation from its traditional academy Similar to other countries in Eastern cultures, Vietnamese philosophy are rooted in Confucian ideology Students, thus, are guided to their value of morality They are required to be punctual, obedient and take teachers‟ words seriously Listening and memorization by heart are the main methods of their learning (Dang, 2012) In other words, the teacher-centeredness are still dominant in the practice of classroom teaching and learning Nguyen (2009) in his survey of 448 students in the University of Science and the University of Social Science and Humanity, pointed out that there were 36.1 per cent of participants were passive in their learning, nearly 70 per cent of them did not acquire research skills and 55 per cent said that they were not interested in their learning From this reality, it is topical for the teacher to reconsider and improve their teaching as well as approach better the nature their students

EFL learning and teaching, with the recent dominance in the system of education, also shared partly the above situation With the later beginning after Chinese, French and Russia, teaching English is currently nationwide and English is one compulsory subject at every grade schools, high schools and universities As Vietnam has been involving deeper and deeper in the integration, Vietnamese people will encounter many situations

in which English communication will take place between them and their partners from

others countries The relationship, furthermore, can develop as working together or cooperating in business (Hoang, 2012) English, therefore, is important in both the advancement of academy and job opportunities Despite its crucial roles, under the influence of the former traditions, teaching and learning English trends still heavily stress

on the grammar-translation methods, in which students do not get appropriate chance to expose themselves to communicative English learning Consequently, according to the Department of University Education‟s statistic in 2011, there are 51.7 percent fresh graduate students in Vietnam cannot meet the requirement of recruiters in terms of English proficiency This reality imposes a challenging task for English teachers in Vietnam

1.1.2.2 Description of Nguyen Tat Thanh University

Established in 2005 as collage and upgraded later in 2011 as university, Nguyen Tat Thanh University is under the government of The Vietnam National Textile and Garment Group (Vintex) with multiple-disciplines, multiple-level and various branches It consists

of fifteen faculties in which there are thirty-nine majors The staff members are nearly

2000 with 60 per cent having attained the degree of M.A and Ph.D., serving more than

26000 students from diverse backgrounds The university provides students locations for learning from different places of Ho Chi Minh City because of their new development This fact, consequently, creates a fairly contrasting reality of the all classrooms, in terms

of facility Some classrooms are well-equipped, but some are not Some are too large, while some are too small Students, therefore, perceive differently due to this matter

1.1.2.3 Description of the Faculty of Foreign Languages

The Faculty of Foreign Languages together with the Foreign Language Center is one of the major faculties of Nguyen Tat Thanh University, which is specialized in training and educating students at college, inter-college and university levels The faculty is divided into four majors: English, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Serving more than 1000 students is the staff with more than forty teachers who are proficient in English and

experience in teaching methodology, foreign cultures, and translation In the EFL program, students are provided with various subjects encountering different aspects of English learning from business, catering, tourism, teaching, or translation At third year, sub-major programs, namely teaching methodology, business English, and translation are provided to equip them the in-depth learning English-majored students come from different backgrounds There are always the imbalances in gender among students in which female students always outnumber their counterparts For many of them, matriculating and entering university is the new and difficult experience for the reason that the new learning and living environments is so different from their previous ones high school As a result, there are variations in students‟ learning perceptions and behaviors in class

1.2 Rationale of the study

Under the above-mentioned circumstances, there is an obvious need of investigating learning styles firstly for students at universities, especially ones in the major of English

At Nguyen Tat Thanh University, students of English major are from different backgrounds but teaching methods are likely constant and cannot adapt to such variety of classroom‟s practice In the autonomy-oriented environment as universities, there is an urgent demand of self-awareness among English-majored students In term of teachers, if conducted successfully, the drawn findings from this study can provide teachers several practical suggestions for enhancement of teaching and material development to suit the variety of students learning styles in heteronomous classes Most of all, if proved to be valid, a gap filling between teacher and student can be made to restore the rapport in the classroom

1.3 Aims of the study

From the above, this aims of this study is:

1 To understand learning styles preferences among English-majored students at NTT University namely Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic in class and out of class learning environments

2 To discover the effect of gender in the identified learning styles preferences

3 To explore main reasons for shaping students‟ learning styles

From the aims of study, the hypothesis of the study is that gender and learning environment can make the difference on learning style preferences of English-majored students at NTT University

1.4 Research questions

Provided with the aims of the study, three research questions are considered in this study:

1 What are the patterns of learning styles of students majoring English at NTT University in different learning environments?

2 To what extent is students‟ gender related to their learning styles preferences?

3 What are crucial factors that mediate students‟ adoption of learning styles?

1.5 Significance of the study

This study will help teachers, researchers and students in Vietnam develop a better insight of language teaching-learning process For Vietnamese teachers, understanding learning styles could avoid the mismatch between teaching methods and students‟ need as well as teaching styles and learning styles They can choose more appropriate teaching materials and methods, based on students‟ learning styles From that, material development can be conducted more properly in the future For researchers, this study is one of the earliest studies to fields of both learning styles and language teaching methodology in the context of Vietnam For Vietnamese students, being fully aware of their own learning styles is the encouragement to their learning process because they can make clear of what is available for their potential With such insight, they can develop

more suitable learning methods, have more sustainable motivation and gain their own autonomy for their potential of learning

1.6 Delimitation of the study

With the restriction of English-majored students at NTT University, there are other opportunities for the conducting of the same study in different majors (economics, engineering, social, etc.), in different institutions of Ho Chi Minh City (colleges, high schools, foreign language centers, etc.), in different regions

The thesis has just focused in details the impact of gender and learning environment to students learning while other factors of learner‟s backgrounds such as age, academic proficiency, personality, etc should be taken into account too

Besides VAK which is the main model of learning styles in this thesis, there are still numerous models, inventories or questionnaires of this field need to be conducted in the Vietnamese context Moreover, there are huge chance of employing other fields of styles study namely teaching styles, cognitive styles and intellectual styles in Vietnamese context

1.7 Organization of the study

This thesis is organized in five chapters

Chapter 1 provides (1) the background of the study, (2) the rationale of the study, (3) the aims of the study, (4) research questions, (5) the significance of the study, (6) delimitation of the study, and (7) organization of the study

Chapter 2 presents the literature review of this study, which includes related studies in the field of learning styles, gender, learning environment and teaching approaches

Chapter 3 describes research design which includes setting, participants and instruments, and research methodology including collection procedure and analytical procedure

Chapter 4 analyses and interprets collected data from English-majored students at NTT University

Chapter 5 draws some conclusions from the findings and offers some recommendations for teaching and further research

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter defines the term styles and learning styles as well as clarifies some main issues in the field learning styles It also explores and introduces some prominent models

of learning styles, especially VAK learning styles model Besides VAK and its relevant models, discussions are made on the relation of between gender, learning environments and learning styles At the end of this chapter, a conceptual framework is provided

2.1 Definitions and basic characteristics of “styles”

2.1.1 Definitions

According to Zhang, Stenberg & Rayner (2012) the first use of the term „styles‟ is attributed to Allport in 1937 in his book on personality Since then, „styles‟ has become a broad notion which is widely adopted in different fields of science With such different approaches, the understanding of „styles‟ varies In Oxford online dictionary ("Empiricism", 2014), „styles‟ is defined „a particular procedure by which something is done; a manner or way‟ as its primary meaning In Tu Dien Tieng Viet (Phe, 1992),

„styles‟ is defined as ways of living, working, activities, behavior which make someone

or groups of people become distinctive In more variety of contexts, Riding & Rayner (1998) gave other examples of styles: in high street fashion, in the sport arena, the arts, the media, and in many academic disciplines including psychology „Styles‟, thus, is mainly studied in the scope of psychology and it is not only defined as “set of individual qualities, activities or behavior sustained over a period of time” but also can be applied without individual awareness (Riding & Rayner, 1998) Schmeck (as cited in Zhang

2012, p 110) described „styles‟ as typical ways in which a person deals with particular task In spite of the above-mentioned differences in defining the term, „styles‟ can be defined, based on three crucial characteristics: (1) they are sets of methods and perceptual strategies, which reflect relatively-stable and sustainable actions of each individual, (2) they are sets of methods and strategies which play a decisive role in making differences

among individuals, (3) they are sets of instruments which can help an individual adopt to his or her surroundings more efficiently

As a root word, the term „styles‟, later, has a number of its variation according to the preferences of different scholars in different fields including “cognitive styles”, “learning styles”, “thinking styles”, “mind style”, “mode of thinking”, “intellectual styles” or

“teaching styles” (Zhang, Stenberg & Rayner, 2012) Nielsen in an attempt of presenting

a global view of “styles” literature has investigated the frequency of the use of “styles” and its variations within multitude of styles theories, single contributions in the text collections, textbooks, journals and conference articles From the search that he made (See Table 1), cognitive styles, learning styles, teaching styles, thinking styles and intellectual styles are the five most popular term in this field and cognitive styles are ranked as the most popular term in this field The search also indicated the first use of each of the following term respectively, Allport (1937) for cognitive styles, Riessman (1962) for learning styles, Thelen (1954) for teaching styles (or “style of teaching”), Babarik (1966) for thinking styles and Drews‟s (1964) for intellectual styles This study, furthermore, takes a deeper look at each model‟s frequency in each term and the relationship between styles and ability as well as styles and personality

Table 2.1: Number of Articles with Titles Including Search Terms, Divided by

Decades (Nielsen, 2012)

2.1.2 Styles – A mixed and controversial field

Due to its cross-discipline nature, the identification and investigation of “styles” (also applied to its varied terms) are always challenging, which results in controversial issues

In fact, Zhang, Stenberg & Rayner (2012) has pointed out that there are three main challenges in the search of “styles” identity: “(1) the difficulty of distinguishing styles from abilities and personality; (2) the lack of a common language and a common conceptual framework, and (3) the lack of contact between the styles literature and other more general bodies of literature” Together with this, there are also three more controversial issues concerning the nature of “styles” As style labels and models are massively produced, there is inevitably the overlapping in the use of this term It is, in fact, that there is a demand of applying this term in deeper approach such as in context of business, education, or psychology Then, “what are the major differences among, say, cognitive styles, learning styles, and thinking styles? Are styles different constructs, or they merely similar constructs that have been given different labels?” (Coan, 1974; Fowler, 1980; Miller, 1987; Riding, 1997; as cited in Zhang, Stenberg & Rayner, 2012, p 4) With the diversity of views and practical ways of applying, it is not surprising that there are certain attempts to give the clarification for this field and between 1983 and

2009 six major attempts has been made Being difficultly distinguished from abilities and personality has led to the malleability of “styles” The confusion occurs because there are many common points that these two terms share with “styles” Abilities are believed can

be changed in some certain conditions of “maturation, or deliberate exposure and training” while personality has been “regarded as a set of inner traits that hard to change” (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Helson, Kwan, John & Jones, 2002; as cited in as cited

in Zhang, Stenberg & Rayner, 2012, p 5) Therefore, the position of “styles” regarding to its malleability is questioned and continuous arguments for this issue are still made leading the efforts of finding more balanced ways In the issue of “styles” value, the central question is whether some styles better than others in a models because each models provides many styles inside which are evaluated differently from different

perspectives Although the progress of “styles” has been slowed by these challenges and issues, the field has acquired more and more advancements during the past thirty years of its history

2.2 From styles to learning styles

2.2.1 Definitions

Similar to the above-mentioned qualities of “styles”, Cassidy (2004) pointed out that giving the definition of learning styles was not a straightforward task due to its long-term development in multi-disciplines and the imprecise use of learning styles and other related terms

Before the current name, learning styles were often known as “cognitive styles” From time to time, researchers still consider cognitive styles or learning styles in the view of behaviorism where the cognitive style is the result of outside world stimulus to students Many researchers have shared this opinion (Claxton & Murrell, 1978; Dunn et al., 1989; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Keefe, 1979; Reichman, 1978; Scarpaci & Fradd, 1985) Therefore, in many studies of cognitive styles, metal process and perception under the influence of environmental elements (Dunn et al., 1989) such as noise, design, lighting,

or temperature, are two main targets of investigation The researches of cognitive styles biologically attempt to study the metal process of each individual with the focus on brain-based activities or specifically on cerebral hemispheres Along with that, cognitive styles also attempt to specify the role and mechanisms of perceptional channels or sensory modes (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic etc.)

Escaping from the notion of “cognitive style”, the term learning styles is formed and defined during 1980‟s by focusing on learning process Keefe (1979) is considered the one of the first researcher defined the new term learning styles as “characteristic cognitive, affective and psychological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators

of how learners perceive and interact with, and respond to the learning environments”

This view is more flexible than cognitive styles as it has looked outside the “physical” manner that the cognitive styles have held As Hartley (1998, as cited in Cassidy 2004) in his distinction between these terms, pointed out that “cognitive styles are the ways in which different individuals characteristically approach different cognitive tasks; learning styles are the ways in which individuals characteristically approach different learning tasks” In a broader scope, Mariani (1996) added that learning can also include affective, social and even physiological behaviours” Reid (1995) went further when she said that learning style exists in wide continuums (people usually think that learning styles are totally good) Thus, students have the ability of changing their styles to fix various situations and teachers should encourage them do this by aiding them to explore their strengths and weaknesses

This conceptual expansion, however, led to more confusion in the use of learning styles Firstly, the previous term, cognitive styles, shares many common points to learning styles and as the result, these two terms are often used interchangeably Secondly, as learning styles expand its sense to several aspects of learning, there is inevitable misuse between learning styles and other terms, especially learning strategies

According to Harley (1998, as cited in Cassidy 2004), learners can select various strategies to deal with different tasks while learning styles might be more automatic This one is caused from the stable nature of learning styles In an attempt to provide a more detailed system, Mariani (1996) introduced a hierarchy in which personality, learning styles, learning strategies and tactics (techniques) are listed in the respond to their generality of contexts In a classroom, a learner, for example, will maintain his or her learning styles constantly but his or her strategies will be applied variously in different contexts Likewise, Oxford (2003) made comparison between learning styles and learning strategies in which he describes learning styles as “general approaches” and learning strategies as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques”

In short, learning styles can be identified with four basic characteristics:

 It is expanded from the concept of cognitive style

 It relates to how learners absorb, process and retain new information under the environmental influences

 It expresses a learner‟s reasonably stable general preferences when learning

 Each style has its own strengths and weaknesses

Although many distinctions and definitions have been made, there is nearly no general agreement on the definition of the term learning styles However, this fact does not hinder researchers around the world from continuously investigating in this field In fact, there are an ever-increasing number of theories and models being developed to address this issue (Wilson, 2012) In an effort to provide the radical understanding of learning styles, the wed site of the International Learning Styles (www.learningstyles.net) has synthesized and proved the following definition which rather sufficiently covers the meaning of learning styles:

“Learning style is the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information (Dunn and Dunn, 1992; 1993; 1999) The interaction of these elements occurs differently in everyone Therefore, it

is necessary to determine what is most likely to trigger each student‟s concentration, how to maintain it, and how to respond to his or her natural processing style to produce long term memory and retention To reveal these natural tendencies and styles, it is important to use a comprehensive model of learning style that identifies each individual‟s strength and preferences across full spectrum of physiological, sociological, psychological, emotional, and environmental elements.”

(International Learning Styles Network, 2008)

2.2.2 Some major models

The field of learning is typically featured by multitude of models which are produced, reproduced, and revised annually In order to cope with this radical issue, efforts were made by different researchers to provide an “umbrella” model or framework for the entire models of learning styles

Pioneering in the field of systematization of learning styles‟ labels, Curry (1983, as cited

in Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2012) is famous for his “onion” model The model is organized in three layers In the innermost layer, Curry points out that this is the layer of personality traits The middle one is comprised by styles of each individual in processing information and in the outermost layer, it is the instructional preferences of individuals Curry proved that the modifiability of these three layers vary from the outermost layer to the innermost layer In that way, the innermost layer of styles is believed not easy for being modified while the outermost layer can change in such easier ways The model is useful in terms of distinguishing learning styles at different contexts It also provides a clear cut between, personality, learning styles, and strategies

Figure 2.1: An illustration of Curry‟s “Onion” model (American Physiological Society,

2014)

In the similar attempt to Curry, Coffield and his colleagues (2004) provided a continuum

of learning styles This model was drawn from a variety of learning styles models and

disciplines within the traditional field of learning styles – cognition, to the educational

field Theorists who hold a strong belief in the field of genetics and cognition are located

at the left end of the continuum At the right end of this continuum, theorists who are

more interested in the field of classroom instructions, motivation, environmental factors,

and culture in classroom, are ranked At the central of this model, it is the theorists who

have great attention to personality types With such classification, the model has

proposed the five large families of learning styles (See Figure 2.2)

Figure 2.2: Families of Learning Styles (Coffield et al., 2004, p 10)

Dunn and Dunn

Gardner et al

Guilford Holzman and Klein Hudson

Hunt Kagan Kogan Messick Pettigrew Witkin

Learning styles and

Move on from learning

styles to learning

approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning

Apter Jackson Myer-Biggs

Epstein and Meier Harrison-Branson Miller

Allison and Hayes Herrmann Honey and Mumford Kolb

Felder and Silverman Hermanussen, Wierstra, de Jong and Thijssen Kirton McCarthy

Entwistle Sternberg Vermunt

Biggs Conti and Kolody Grasha-Riechmann Hill

Marton and Saljo McKenney and Keen Pask

Pintrich, Smith, Garica and McCeachie Schmeck Weintein Zimmerman and Palmer Whetton and Cameron

The continuum is convenient in such a way that it provides a general view for theorists to locate their studies Moreover, with its flexibility, the model can include some mixed models which cannot be easily classified In this continuum, it is clear to notice the three mainstreams of learning styles, which also represent the developmental stages of this field Cognitive-centered models reflect the traditional view of learning styles, which deal with the cognition or brain-based activities Personality-centered models follow this with the expansion to investigations related to psychological issues Finally, activity-centered models echo the practicality of learning styles in the reality of pedagogical process

2.2.2.1 Cognitive-centered approach

Riding, & Rayner (1998, p.8) defined cognitive styles as “an individual‟s preferred and habitual approach to organizing and representing information” The term was initially rooted in the field of psychology in the attempt of discovering the mechanism by which individual perceived and process information

Cognitive styles was further defined in several ways:

1 Cognitive characteristics modes of functioning that are revealed through one‟s perceptual and intellectual activities in a highly consistent and pervasive way

2 A super-ordinate construct involved in many cognitive operations that accounts for individual differences in a variety of cognitive operations that accounts for individual differences in a variety of cognitive, perceptual, and personality variables

3 Intrinsic information processing patterns that represent a person‟s typical modes

of perceiving, remembering, thinking and problem solving

(Claxton & Murrell, 1987; Griggs, 1991; as cited in Le, 2010, p 10)

Under various influences, the contribution of cognitive styles emerged during the 1940s with Allport in 1937 as the first researcher who used the term „style‟ in cognition However, the primary tradition of cognition as Vernon in 1973 pointed out that can be

traced back to the works of personality description in classical Greek (Riding, & Rayner,

1998, p.15) The field, thus, developed over one hundred years, with various mainstreams, and labels from different perspectives Riding, & Rayner (1998) in their work of systemization of cognition labels classified these streams to four main streams: (1) perception, which emphasized on rules of information processing; (2) cognitive control and cognitive process which focused on the cognitive processes related to the adaptation of individual in environment; (3) metal imagery which looked at metal representation; and (4) Personality constructs which based on personality construct to develop learning styles models Based on these main streams, they, later, provided a categorization of cognitive models and labels, in which three groups of cognitive styles are identified They are groups which:

“relate principally to cognitive organization – the wholist-analytic style dimension relate principally to metal representation – the verbal-imagery style dimension

reflect a deliberate attempt to integrate both the wholist-analytic and imagery dimensions of cognitive style.”

verbal-(Riding, & Rayner, 1998, p 19) The first group with the focal point to the different functions of two brain hemispheres takes the dominant role in the researches of cognitive-centered approach (See Table 2.3) The second group target themselves to investigate the manner and mode of thinking and processing information through using images and words The final groups, with least attention, attempts to fix the problems and provide the unification for the two previous ones

Table 2.2: Learning styles instrument in the cognitive structure family (Coffield et al.,

field dependence - independence

Kagan (1963, 1966)

Kagan (1967)

Conceptual style test (CST) Matching Families Figure Test

analytic-descriptive/ relational/ inferential-categorical

impulsivity/ reflexivity focus/ scan (focus: facts and examples; scan: principles and concepts)

Gardner et al

(1953, 1962)

Free Sorting Test equivalent range

tolerance for unrealistic experiences Pettigrew (1958) Category Width Scale broad/ narrow

Holzman and Klein

(1954

Schematizing Test leveler/ sharpener

(constricted/ flexible control) Hunt (1978) Paragraph Completion

Method

need for structure:

conforming/ dependent

Broverman (1960) Stroop Wood Colour

Inference Test

limits of learning, atomization

Field dependence and field independence

As one of the original models of learning styles, Ellis (1985) pointed out that dependence and field-independent with the dichotomy design, has received the greatest attention from researchers These two terms, however, cannot be understood as being used alternatively, but they are two poles in which each one is an continuum and individuals can vary their learning on these According to this, learners who tend to belong to field-dependence will be personal-oriented Their perceived the world as a whole They also have a view of things as a whole and have social sensitivity which

field-involves them in social activities Opposite to that, field-independent learners are described as impersonal-oriented, analytic view and capable of separating things from its settings As result, these learners gain fewer skills in interpersonal activities, which explain their preference of working alone

Table 2.3: Principle characteristics of a field-dependent and field-independent cognitive

style (Hawkey, 1982 as cited in Ellis 1985)

i.e perceives a field as a whole; parts are

fused with background

2 Analytic

i.e perceives a field in terms of its component parts; parts are distinguished from background

4 Not so socially aware

i.e less skilled in interpersonal/social relationships

For measurement, a test such as Group Embedded Figures Test by Witkin et al (1971, as cited in Ellis, 1985, p 115) is used, in which a figures with several features will be provided The test takers will decide what he or she initially sees from this feature, whether just parts of it or just the whole figure Figure 1 is an example of this test In this figure, there are four main details in it namely, the angels with the scales, two angels with the horns and an old man who is down on his knees Looking within the picture as whole, there are, the, another picture which is combined by these four details – the face of a man Based on this, if an individual can quickly identify the overall picture first, he or she, then, belongs to field-dependence On contrary to that, if the details are identified first, he

or she, then, belongs to field-independence As a continuum, not everyone belong totally

to one of these poles In other words, they will vary their styles depending on the rapidity

of their recognition from this test

Figure 2.3: An illustration of Field and field in dependence test (Yan news, 2015)

The model has provided a comprehensive way to interpret personal learning styles However, due to its simplicity, this modal also received several criticisms In order to improve the model beyond this simplicity, Ehrman & Leaver (2003, as cited in Khoury, 2013) has developed “E&L Questionnaire” In this questionnaire, “8 juxtaposes its pairs

of opposite learning preferences on a line graded from 1 to 9 in each direction to mark the frequency or intensity of respondent preferences” (Ehrman & Leaver, p 395, as cited in Khoury, 2013) There are ten pairs of opposites as follows: field independent vs field dependent, field sensitive vs field insensitive, random (non-linear) vs sequential (linear), global vs particular, inductive vs deductive, synthetic vs analytic, analogue vs digital,

concrete vs abstract, leveling vs sharpening, and impulsive vs reflective

The role of this learning style in learning process is not conclusive to many researchers While some studies discovered the impact of field-dependence and field-independence to both literacy and communicative competence of learners (Froehlich, 1977, & Naima et al., 1978 as cited in Ellis, 1985 p 115), others reject this relationship (Stanfield, 1981 as cited in Ellis, 1985 p 115) Despite this fact, the dichotomy design, developed from left-right brain studies, this model is useful and have had influence to the later models of

learning styles

Multiple Intelligences

As a general truth, each society with its particular cultures, particular customs and particular ideologies provides different ways to pay honor or respect to its ideal individuals The instances of this fact are people with „physical ability, rational judgment, and virtuous‟ in Geek culture; courageous men in Roman culture; „holy soldiers‟ in Islamic culture; men with skillful music, painting and archery in traditional Chinese (Gardner, 1999 as cited in Tran, 2010, p 9) In the context of class room, Gardner (2012) has pointed out that there many issues concerning the definition and the ways in which people consider the term intelligence As an example of this, he said that there too much focus of educators on the role of IQ or logical intelligence in the classroom teaching and assessing To put this differently, other abilities of learners will be neglected and they will be left the situation of imbalance In an attempt of re-define the current notions of many forms of intelligences and differentiates it from the model of sensory modalities, Gardner proposed the new concept of Multiple Intelligences through his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences This model consists of eight categories for the consideration of an intelligence, including, potential withdrawal from brain damage studies, existence of exceptional individuals, an identifiable set of core operations, developmental history within an individual, evolutionary history, psychometric findings, psychological facts and symbol system (Christison, 1998 as cited

in Tran, 2010, p 13-14) From these eight categories, seven intelligences, which later two more are added, are identified as following (See Figure 2.4):

Figure 2.4: Model of Multiple Intelligences (Smith, 2003, as cited in Tran, 2010, p 15)

A person with linguistic Intelligence is able to use to his or her vocabulary in communication effectively People of this Intelligence find themselves easily in the use

of vocabulary in a wider rank of choices They also enjoy reading, writing and speaking Therefore, such careers as poets, writers, journalists, politicians, teachers, reporters, interpreters, etc are most appropriate to them (Tran, 2010, p 15)

People with Mathematical or Logical Intelligence are qualified in using of number, making calculation or recognizing underlying logic Belonging to this, people are characterized as being good at number manipulation, identifying patterns and relationships, handling with symbols, enjoying making solutions for problematic situations, applying logic and valuing the precision and order Their typical jobs are listed

as mathematicians, scientists, engineers, accountants, economists, or doctors, etc (Tran,

2010, p 15)

For people with Visual or Spatial Intelligence, the typical ability they behold are described as understanding a person‟s or an object‟s positions They can strongly visualize things in images of three dimensions, enjoy work that is related with maps, pictures, or graphics They prefer to choose careers such as: architects, engineers, artists, chess players, etc (Tran, 2010, p 16)

Intelligences

Intrapersonal Interpersonal

Linguistic Musical

Kinesthetic Mathematical/ Logical Visual/ Spatial Naturalist

Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence is defined as the use of body to express oneself ideas, feeling, and also in making solutions People, specialized with this Intelligence, are able

to control their body well, and have sensitivity in touching Physical movement and object manipulation are of their favorite actions They often choose careers such as: athletes, gymnasts, dancers, surgeons, crafts people or actors, etc (Tran, 2010, p.x)

People who possess the Musical Intelligence are sensible to rhythm, pitch and melody They, hence, are skillful at recognizing songs, and varying speed, tempo, and rhythm in

to melody These kinds of people can be easily found in such careers as: musicians, conductors, composers, or recording technicians, etc (Tran, 2010, p 17)

Belonging to the personal-related set, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligences are, in fact, two opposite poles of the so-called “personal” Intelligence People with the Interpersonal Intelligence possess the ability of making influences to the others, anticipating their encounter-partner‟s reactions and giving empathy Unlike that, people with Intrapersonal Intelligence are ones with clear understanding of their own strengths, weaknesses, moods, desires, and intentions, in comparison to the others For people with Interpersonal Intelligence, such careers as counselors, sales people, mangers, personal workers, teachers, politicians, religious leaders, etc are highly suitable for them Meanwhile, people with Intrapersonal Intelligence find themselves most comfortable in

in the following careers: philosophers, theologians, counselors, novelists, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc (Tran, 2010, p 18)

Proposed and added to the original seven by Gardner in 1999, the Naturalistic Intelligence is recognized as the ability of classifying plants, minerals, and animals, including rock, glass, and variety of flora and fauna Farmers, botanists, environmentalists and biologists are the most pertinent works for them (Tran, 2010, p 19)

Existential Intelligence, also known as Spiritual Intelligence is the ability which one individual often use to question the existence of the world Such questions as “why are

we born”, “why do we die”, “what is consciousness”, or “how did we get here?” are of the main concerns of people who possess this Intelligence Though there is not a general agreement on the definition of this Intelligence, the term is useful in distinguishing a special sort of people It is, thus, discussed and alluded in many of Gardner‟s works (Source: http://thesecondprinciple.com/)

Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

In 1976, Kolb developed the 12-item self-report Learning Style Inventory (LSI) to assess learning styles, resulting the LSI in 1984 and a refined version in 1985 (Loo, 2008) Kolb‟s LSI is introduced with Experiential Learning Theory (KELT) as the theoretical background This theory is based on Dewey‟s philosophical pragmatism, Lewin‟s social psychology and Piaget‟s cognitive developmental genetic epistemology According to the KELT, learning is “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation

of experience, and knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p 41) It provides, thus, a model of the learning process and a multi-linear model of adult development, both of which are consistent with what people know about how people learn, grow and develop (Kolb et al., 2000)

In particular, Kolb‟s LSI consists of perpendicular axes which demonstrate two independent continuums:

(1) Perception continuum, which involves concrete experience - CE (feeling) and abstract conceptualization - AC (thinking)

(2) Procession continuum, which involves active experimentation - AE (doing) and reflective observation - RO (watching)

As the result of these two continuums when combined together will establish the four different stages in the learning cycle, which is the central principle of Kolb‟s experiential learning theory These stages can be interpreted as four different kinds of abilities that each learner needs for effective learning (See Figure 2.5) According to Kolb (1984,