Understanding learning styles among students of english at banking university a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of master of tesol

i ABSTRACT This research was conducted to investigate EFL students’ preferred learning styles at Banking University, and to compare any differences between learning style preferences an

i

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

GRADUATE STUDY PROGRAM

LE THI THANH TU

HOW A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNING STYLES ENHANCES MY TEACHING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF TESOL

SUPERVISOR: CHU THI LE HOANG, M.A

HO CHI MINH CITY, SPRING 2010

i

ABSTRACT

This research was conducted to investigate EFL students’ preferred learning styles at Banking University, and to compare any differences between learning style preferences and individual background factors (here means major fields of study, course years, genders, ages, learning language experience, and English proficiency levels) A total of 196 respondents from different departments participated in this study

The research was based on an analysis of data derived from a several sources The self-assessment instrument designed specially for EFL students, was used – Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (1987), including six categories: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual In addition, interviews with EFL students to get further opinions on learning and teaching were performed The findings showed that perceptual learning style preferences were influenced by some background factors, particularly major fields of study and course years Overall, the dominant learning style preferences for the sample were kinesthetic and tactile The higher levels of English EFL students got the more kinesthetic and tactile they appeared Furthermore, the students with the shortest length of studying English tended to be those with a variety of preferred learning styles, except individual As far as genders were concerned, females showed a stronger tendency toward kinesthetic while males gave more preference to tactile learning

ii

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis entitled “HOW A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF

LEARNING STYLES ENHANCES MY TEACHING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY” is my own work

Any help received in this research work and the preparation of the thesis itself, and all information resources and literature used in the thesis have been acknowledged

I also certify that this thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution

Ho Chi Minh City, April 27, 2010

LE THI THANH TU

iii

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Le Thi Thanh Tu, being candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use

of Master’s Thesis 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 purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for care, loan, and reproduction of theses

Ho Chi Minh City, April, 2010

LE THI THANH TU

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge people who made this study achievable First, I truthfully thank Ms Chu Thi Le Hoang, M.A., my thesis advisor, for her continued thorough support throughout this study Also, my gratitude is expressed to

my instructor, Mr Nguyen Hoang Tuan, Ph.D., for his comments, suggestions, valuable time, and input for this study Without their support and patience, this thesis could not have been completed

Second, I would like to acknowledge all the lecturers of my MA course at University of Social Sciences and Humanities who gave me invaluable, enormous insights and thoughts

Third, I would like to thank all the ESL teachers and students at Banking University in the development of the survey for this study I really appreciate their understanding and cooperation for my data collection

Moreover, I really appreciate for warm support from my family, especially

my beloved husband and my younger sister, and my friends during this period of study Thank you very much for your smile and positive words!

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS, and TABLES

Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 The ESL teaching and learning circumstance in Vietnam 2

1.3 Aims of the Study 4

1.4 Significance of the study 5

1.5 Definitions and description of key terms 6

1.6 Limitations of the Study 8

1.7 Organization of the study 8

Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Definitions of Learning Styles 10

2.3 Differences between learning styles and learning strategies 12

2.4 Framework for Categorization 13

2.4.1 Cognitive Learning Styles 13

2.4.2 Sensory Learning Styles 15

2.4.3 Personality Learning Styles 17

2.4.4 Tolerance of Ambiguity Styles 19

2.5 An overview of relevant research 19

2.6 Summary 26

vi

Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY 27

3.1 Introduction 27

3.2 Research Questions of the Study 27

3.3 Research design 28

3.4 Setting 29

3.5 Subjects 30

3.6 Procedures 32

3.6.1 Interviews 32

3.6.2 Questionnaire 33

3.6.3 Pilot Testing 34

3.6.4 Data Collection Procedures 35

3.6.5 Data Analysis Procedures 35

3.7 Summary 37

Chapter 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38

4.1 Introduction 38

4.2 The overall learning style preferences of EFL students 38

4.3 Learning style preferences and major fields of study 45

4.4 Learning style preferences and course years 46

4.5 Learning style preferences and genders 48

4.6 Learning style preferences and ages 51

4.7 Learning style preferences and learning language experience 52

4.8 Learning style preferences and English proficiency levels 54

4.9 Students’ opinions of their study of English and their teachers’ teaching styles 56

4.10 Summary 61

Chapter 5 - IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION 62

5.1 Introduction 62

5.2 Pedagogical Implications 62

Appendix A – Questionnaire (English version)

Appendix B – Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)

Appendix C – Interview Questions

Appendix D – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to Major Fields of Study Appendix E – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to Course Years Appendix F – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to Genders Appendix G – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to Ages Appendix H – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to Learning Language Experience Appendix I – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style

Preferences According to English Proficiency Levels

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESL English as Second Language

EFL English as Foreign Language

ix

LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS, and TABLES

Table 3.1 Distribution of EFL students due to genders

Table 3.2 Distribution of EFL students due to major fields of study

Chart 3.1 EFL students’ ages

Table 3.3 Distribution of EFL students due to learning language experience Chart 3.2 EFL students’ English proficiency levels

Table 4.1.1 Overall Percentages of Learning Style Preference of EFL Students

Chart 4.1.1 Distribution of Overall Learning Style Preference of EFL Students

by Percentage

Table 4.1.2 Overall Learning Style Preference Scores of EFL Students

Chart 4.1.2 Distribution of Visual Learning Style by Percentages

Chart 4.1.3 Distribution of Auditory Learning Style by Percentages

Chart 4.1.4 Distribution of Kinesthetic Learning Style by Percentages

Chart 4.1.5 Distribution of Tactile Learning Style by Percentages

Chart 4.1.6 Distribution of Group Learning Style by Percentages

Chart 4.1.7 Distribution of Individual Learning Style by Percentages

Table 4.2.1 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Major Fields

Table 4.3 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Course Years

Chart 4.3 Distribution of Visual, Kinesthetic, and Individual Learning Style

Preference Scores for the Course Years

x

Chart 4.4 Distribution of Major Learning Style Preference for Genders by

Percentage

Table 4.5 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Ages

Table 4.6 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Learning Language

Experience Table 4.7 Learning Style Preference Scores According to English Proficiency

Levels Table 4.8 Students’ Further Opinions on Learning and Teaching Styles

(Percentages)

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

In recent years, the most crucial key to research efforts and educational improvement is the shift from an emphasis on the language teaching methodology to language learners and variables that affect language learning Mainstream language teaching no longer regards teaching methods as the key factor in determining the success or failure of language teaching and learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) Learners shape their own learning process tremendously The rise of individual difference research has brought forth new perceptions of the nature of learner differences More and more studies have been carried out to deal with individual differences in the learning process such as Bialystok, 1979; Chapelle & Roberts, 1986; Naiman, Frohlich, & Todesco, 1975; Rubin, 1975 These studies have focused much on such basic questions as what makes a good language learner and why some students develop proficiency more quickly and easily than others do One of the causes is because there are considerable individual differences in language learning such as gender, age, social status, motivation, attitude, aptitude, culture, etc.; what works for one learner might not work for another There is the fact that students take

in and comprehend information in different manners Some like to learn individually while others prefer to interact with their partners Some enjoy listening to lectures and others like to do more experiments It is widely believed by many researchers (Kolb, 1984; Reid, 1987; Celcc-Murcia, 2001) that the different ways of how a learner takes in and processes information are collectively referred to as learning styles or learning preferences

While researchers and ESL teachers in foreign countries have discussed a great deal

on the topics of learners’ characteristic differences in learning English, and language learning styles have been one of the most popular aspects researchers have focused

2

on; little attention has paid to this field in Vietnam Up to now, only few studies have been found Some researchers such as Nguyen Ngoc Quang (1989), Dao Van Tien (1982), Le Hai Chau (1982) in their journals tried to mention about learning strategies in general Recently, Le Thanh Hoang (1999) has studied the differences

in language learning strategies of learners of English in Hue City and Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao (2005) through her study investigated the different reading style preferences of the ESP students at Ton Duc Thang University In other words, in Vietnam, the field of perceptual learning style preferences in language learning has been ignored and considered as an insignificant component in the learning process When we look deeply into the teaching practices of the lecturers, it is explicit that the majority of the lecturers are not aware of their students’ learning styles They are unaware of the importance to establish and identify learning styles, which leads to unanticipated consequences Therefore, there is a need to assess the learning styles

of the students as well as other variables related such as genders, ages, language experience, or English proficiency, etc to accommodate different learners

This study, as a result, explores students’ perceptual learning style preferences at Banking University in the ways they learn English and investigates whether any differences between language learning styles and other variables (major fields of study, course years, genders, ages, learning language experience, and English proficiency levels) exist Hopefully, this study partially contributes to the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning EFL at Banking University

1.2 The ESL teaching and learning circumstance in Vietnam

Since Vietnam “adopted an open-door, or doi moi, policy in 1987, English has

reemerged as the main foreign language widely used, this time, in the whole society.” (Do Huy Thinh, 2006) The role of English in Vietnam is quite important

as it is in many other developing countries New technology and the adoption of the internet have resulted in a major transition in terms of business, education, science, and technological progress, all of which demand high proficiency in English

3

Mergers, associations, and takeovers are common and English is used as the means

to communicate, negotiate and execute transactions by participants Social demands have forged the reemergence of English as the language for broader communication and cooperation English has thus regained its role as the main foreign language taught and used in Vietnam (Alter, & Moreau, 1995; Mydans, 1995; Shapiro, 1995; Wilson, 1993, cited from Do Huy Thinh, 2006) In the last few years, English has undergone explosive growth; hundreds of language centers have been established all over the country, with an overwhelming majority of learners studying English (Ministry of Education and Training, 1993c; Nguyen Ngoc Quang, 1993) It is widely seen that there have been great changes in English language teaching in Vietnam However, according to Le Van Canh (1999), despite the importance of English in the new social context, English language teaching in Vietnam, due to its low quality, has yet to match the demand for competent English-speaking people During the training courses, teachers of English in Vietnam show great interest in new methodologies, and have accepted that the Communicative Approach is effective and communication in language teaching and learning is the expected outcome (Martyn Brogan and Nguyen Thi Thai Ha, 2005); but after they return from those courses, they continue teaching in their own way, using traditional methods, especially the Grammar Translation Method Le Van Canh (1999) describes the English learning environment in Vietnam as a cultural island where the teacher is expected to be the sole provider of experience in the target language Vietnamese teachers focus more on language knowledge than language use, and more on receptive skills than productive skills Thus, “there is much less communicativeness

in English classes.” (Pham Phu Quynh Na, 2000)

Although “there has been a strong tendency, not only from institutions but also from professionals, to apply new technologies, methodologies and techniques in language teaching.”, and “several institutions have begun to look out and learn from other countries what they have been doing concerning the contents, teaching methods and school/program evaluation and teacher/learner assessment.” (Do Huy Thinh, 2006);

1.3 Aims of the Study

This study is anticipated to provide comparative results in preferred learning styles

of EFL students in language-based setting It aims:

3 To analyze any relationship between major fields of study, course years, genders, ages, learning language experience and English proficiency level; and learning style preferences

4 To offer some implications and suggestions for teaching and learning on the basis of the results

1.4 Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this study is that EFL students from different backgrounds (major fields of study, course years, genders, ages, language experience, and English levels) may sometimes differ from one another in their preferred learning styles

1.5 Significance of the study

It is known that most teachers tend to teach in the way they preferred to learn or in the way they were taught This leads to conflicts due to a mismatch between the teacher’s learning style and learner’s learning styles, which might have negative consequences both on the part of the learner and the teacher This study will, partially, be useful for both teachers and students as it might raise teachers’ awareness of their own learning and teaching styles In addition, as Stebbins (1995) says, teachers should know the general learning style profiles of the whole class, which will enable them to organize and employ instructional materials accordingly and design tasks that can facilitate students’ learning

6

Reid (1995) asserts that developing and understanding of learning environments and

styles “will enable students to take control of their learning and to maximise their

potential for learning.” (p xiv) Therefore, through this study, EFL students at

Banking University might recognize more deeply their preferred learning styles

Since then, they will be able to be not only more prepared for learning but also more

analytic about the learning styles they make use of Analyzing one’s own particular

learning style can be very helpful and beneficial to the student by aiding them in

becoming more focused and an attentive learner, which ultimately will increase

educational success Discovering students’ learning style will allow them to

determine their own personal strengths and weaknesses and learn from them

In the first chapter of learning and teaching circumstances in Vietnam, the

researcher mentioned that in spite of many different English course curricula

developed, the outcome has not been improved One of the causes is due to the fact

that the materials don’t match students’ learning styles This study, hopefully, might

also useful to the course designers and curriculum developers By knowing students’

general learning style preferences, they may produce the materials that help the

students manipulate beneficial learning strategies

1.6 Definitions and description of key terms

English as a Foreign Language (EFL) – An instructional program to help

individuals who have limited English-speaking ability improve their competence in

the language In this study, the term “EFL” is used for learning English as a foreign

language in non-English-spoken learning environment

Perceptual learning style preference (PLSP) refers to the perceptual channels

through which students prefer to learn Dunn and Dunn (1979 as cited in Reid 1987)

define learning styles as “a term that describes the variations among learners in

using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience” (p 89)

7

These can be classified as auditory, visual, kinesthetic, tactile and interactive (group

or individual learning) (Reid, 1987)

Group Learners

A group learner is the one who “learns more effectively through working with others” (Reid, 1995, p x)

Individual Learners

8

An individual learner is someone who “learns more effectively through working alone” (Reid, 1995, p x)

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The first limitation of this study is that it is restricted to EFL students learning English at Banking University As a result, the findings cannot be generalized to the larger population of second language learners However, the same study can also be conducted in all other EFL courses across a variety of disciplines in different institutions in Ho Chi Minh or even in other places with similar learning contexts Another limitation of the study is that individual characteristics of students, except major fields of study, genders, ages, learning language experience and English proficiency levels, are not taken into account while identifying and analysing their learning styles

Reid’s perceptual learning styles preference questionnaire (1995) was the complete and only basis for determining and describing subjects’ preferred learning styles Other learning style inventories may yield different results Thus, other researchers can employ other research instruments to carry out the future studies

1.8 Organization of the study

Chapter Two is the review of the relevant literature The chapter includes discussions of learning style definitions, differences between learning styles and learning strategies, framework for categorization, and previous studies concerning learning styles in general and perceptual learning style in particular

Methodology is discussed in Chapter Three The research design is presented, and the characteristics of the subjects are described The instruments used in the study and their use are explained The chapter concludes with a data collection procedures and data analysis

9

Chapter Four discusses the results obtained on the Reid’s perceptual learning style preference questionnaire, class observations, and students’ interviews Each of the research questions is examined

Chapter Five presents some pedagogy implications, recommendations for future research and conclusion

2.2 Definitions of Learning Styles

A number of definitions for the term “learning style” can be found in the literature

In the earlier days of this type of research, the term “cognitive style” was used rather than learning style (Swanson, 1995) Cognitive style has been defined in several ways: (1) cognitive characteristic 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, perceptual, and personality variables; and (3) intrinsic information processing patterns that represent a person’s typical modes of perceiving, remembering, thinking, and problem solving (Claxton and Murrell, 1987; Griggs, 1991)

According to Kirby (1979) the term “learning style” came into use when researchers began looking for ways to combine course presentation and materials to match the needs of each learner From this perspective, learning style is considered a broader term that includes the construct of cognitive style Dunn and Dunn (1979, as cited in Reid, 1987) define learning styles as “a term that describes the variations among learners in using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience” (p 89)

“cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment” (p.4) Dun et al (1989 as cited in Clenton, 2002) assert that learning styles include variables such as “individual responses to sound, light, temperature, design, perception, intake, chronobiological highs and lows, mobility needs, and persistence,

…motivation, responsibility (conformity) and need for structure…” (p 56) Ehrman

& Oxford (1990, p.311) define that learning styles are preferred or habitual patterns

of mental functioning, and dealing with new information Gregorc (1979, cited in Erhman & Oxford, 1993) states that learning styles are distinctive behaviors which serve as indicators of how a person learns from and adapts to his environments Reid (1995, p xiii) asserts that learning styles have some fundamental characteristics on which they are based The first is that every person, student and teacher alike, has a learning style, learning strengths and weaknesses Learning styles exist on wide continuums although they are described as opposites- weaknesses Furthermore, learning styles are value-neutral; that is, no one style is better than others Thus, students must be encouraged to stretch their learning styles

so that they will be more empowered in a variety of learning situations Often students’ strategies are linked to their learning styles Therefore, teachers should allow their students to become aware of their learning strengths and weaknesses

As it can be seen, the definitions provided above vary in terms of scope and depth Currently, the involvement of several dimensions while defining learning styles leads to confusion because it is difficult to control and focus on all of them at the

12

same time Therefore, in this study, the definition provided by Dunn and Dunn

(1979, p.89, as cited in Reid, 1987) “learning style is a term that describes the

variations among learners in using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience” will be taken as a basis

2.3 Differences between learning styles and learning strategies

In spite of the fact that a wide range of definitions of language learning styles is proposed by researchers and scholars, the problem of understanding what learning styles truly are hasn’t been thoroughly solved This is due to learning styles have usually been confused with learning strategies Some language experts bring forth some basic ways to distinguish them Oxford at al., (1992) emphasizes that language learners use different language learning strategies according to their learning styles Whereas learning styles represent unintentional, or automatic individual characteristic, learning strategies are actions chosen consciously by students to enhance their learning process (Bailey at al, 2000) If styles refer to “consistent and enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual”, strategies are “specific methods of approaching a problem or task.” (Brown, 2000)

Reid (1998) draws a clear distinction between learning styles and learning strategies

by focusing in what way they are distinct from each other She refers to learning

styles as “internally based characteristics, often not perceived or consciously used

by learners, for the intake and comprehension of new information” (p ix), whereas

learning strategies are defined as “external skills often used consciously by students

to improve their learning” (p ix)

What we can infer from these two definitions is that since learning styles are

‘internally based characteristics,’ they explain a learner’s preference to a learning situation In addition, it can be said that they are relatively stable and not likely to change over time This view is also supported by Oxford (1990) who states that some learner characteristics such as “learning styles and personality traits are

13

difficult to change” (p 12) Yet, some studies such as Ellis (1989) revealed that learners abandoned their own learning styles and they adjusted themselves according

to the teaching style they were exposed to

The learning strategies, on the other hand, are said to be ‘external skills’, which indicates they are more problem oriented and conscious This also implies that they are more liable to change over time and depending on the task and materials used in the learning environment Oxford (1990) claims that “learning strategies are easier

to teach and modify” (p 12) through strategy training.

2.4 Framework for Categorization

Reid (1995) divides learning styles into three major categories: cognitive learning styles; sensory learning styles, and personality learning styles

2.4.1 Cognitive Learning Styles

According to Swanson (1995), one model that has greatly influenced the field of learning style is Herman Witkins’s (1976) construct of field dependence and filed independence, which measures the extent to which a person is influenced by a

surrounding field Field independent individuals, those who are able to perceive the

figures in the midst of the surrounding filed, function more autonomously because their reliance on internal referents allows them to structure situations on their own

On the other hand, field dependent or field sensitive people, those who are unable to

pick out the figures, are more influenced by and sensitive to their environment, including other people They use their entire surroundings to process information In class, for example, field sensitive students are as concerned about human relational interaction and communication style of the instructor as they are about the delivery

of the content (Anderson and Adams, 1992; Griggs, 1991; Hvitfeldt, 1986)

Ramizer and Casraneda (1974) state that:

14

In a field dependent mode of perception, the organization of the field as a

whole dominates perception of its parts; an item within a field is experienced

as fused with the organized ground In a field independent mode of perception, the person is able to perceive items as discrete from the organized

plan what they have to say or write; and they like abstract, impersonal, factual

material On the other hand, field-dependent learners tend to be synthetic people; in language learning they tend to focus on meaning and fluency; they collect examples

of language use rather than form rules; they like to produce an oral or written text in

a straightforward way, and later correct it if necessary; and they like material which

is of a more concrete, human, social or artistic nature

15

Global learners, on the other hand, learn more effectively through concrete experience, and by interaction with other people Global learners are spontaneous and intuitive They do not like to be bored Information needs to be presented in an interesting manner using attractive materials Cooperative learning strategies and holistic reading methods work well with these learners Global learners learn best through choral reading, recorded books, story writing, games, or group activities

2.4.1.3 Reflective vs Impulsive

In language learning you can draw a basic distinction between students who are

reflective and cautious, and so tend to remain within the task you set for them, and

students who are impulsive and more prepared to take risks, to experiment with language, and so are more likely to go beyond the task; you can identify people who are, or tend to be, rather anxious, and thus are less tolerant of ambiguity, and people who tend to be relaxed, which allows them to tolerate ambiguity better On one side, you may find people who tend to be inhibited, introverted, and perhaps a bit rigid;

on the other side, people who tend to be uninhibited, extroverted, and maybe a bit more flexible

Reflective learners learn more effectively when they have time to consider options before responding This is while, impulsive learners are able to respond immediately and take risks

2.4.2 Sensory Learning Styles

Oxford (2003) supposes that sensory preferences can be broken down into four main areas: visual, auditory, kinesthetic (movement-oriented), and tactile (touch-oriented) Sensory preferences refer to the physical, perceptual learning channels with which the student is the most comfortable

Scarcella (1990) describes that visual students like to read and obtain a great deal from visual stimulation For them, lectures, conversations, and oral directions

16

without any visual backup can be very confusing Visual learners will be able to

recall what they see and will prefer written instructions These students are sight

readers who enjoy reading silently They will learn by observing and enjoy working

with computer graphic, maps, graphs, charts, diagrams, or text with a lot of pictures

(p.320)

In contrast, auditory students are comfortable without visual input and therefore

enjoy and profit from unembellished lectures, conversations, and oral directions

They are excited by classroom interactions in role-plays and similar activities

Students with this style will be able to recall what they hear and will prefer oral

instructions They can recreate what they hear by concentrating on previous lessons

These students should be introduced to new information by hearing it (Carbo, Dunn,

and Dunn, 1981) They learn by listening and speaking These students enjoy talking

and interviewing They are phonetic readers who enjoy oral reading, choral reading,

and listening to recorded books They learn best by interviewing, debating, giving

oral reports, or participating in oral discussions of written material They sometimes,

however, have difficulty with written work

Kinesthetic and tactile students like lots of movement and enjoy working with

tangible objects, collages, and flashcards Sitting at a desk for very long is not for

them; they prefer to have frequent breaks and move around the room Kinesthetic

learners also learn by manipulating objects They need to involve their whole body

in learning (Scarcella, 1990, p.320)

Reid (1987) demonstrated that ESL students varied significantly in their sensory

preferences, with people from certain cultures differentially favoring the three

different modalities for learning Students from Asian cultures, for instance, were

often highly visual, with Koreans being the most visual Many studies, including

Reid’s, found that Hispanic learners were frequently auditory Reid discovered that

Japanese are very non-auditory ESL students from a variety of cultures were tactile

and kinesthetic in their sensory preferences

17

2.4.3 Personality Learning Styles

Another style aspect that is important for L2 education is that of personality type,

which consists of four strands: extraverted vs introverted; intuitive-random vs

sensing-sequential; thinking vs feeling; and closure-oriented/judging vs open/perceiving Personality type (often called psychological type) is a construct

based on the work of psychologist Carl Jung (Oxford, 2003, p.4) Some claim that

an individual learning type can be made out of sixteen possible combinations of these preferences (Felder, Felder, and Dietz, 2002) A preference for one or the other category of a dimension may be mild or strong Students with different type preferences tend to respond differently to different teaching styles Ehrman and Oxford (1989, 1990) found a number of significant relationships between personality type and L2 proficiency in native-English-speaking learners of foreign languages

Oxford (2003) also distinguishes intuitive-random and sensing-sequential styles Intuitive-random students think in abstract, futuristic, large-scale, and non-sequential ways They like to create theories and new possibilities, often have sudden insights, and prefer to guide their own learning In contrast, sensing-

18

sequential learners are grounded in the here and now They like facts rather than theories, want guidance and specific instruction from the teacher, and look for consistency The key to teaching both intuitive-random and sensing-sequential learners is to offer variety and choice: sometimes a highly organized structure for sensing-sequential learners and at other times multiple options and enrichment activities for intuitive-random students

Thinking learners are oriented toward the stark truth, even if it hurts some people’s feelings They want to be viewed as competent and do not tend to offer praise easily –even though they might secretly desire to be praised themselves Sometimes they seem detached In comparison, feeling learners value other people in very personal ways They show empathy and compassion through words, not just behaviors, and say whatever is needed to smooth over difficult situations Though they often wear their hearts on their sleeves, they want to be respected for personal contributions and hard work L2 teachers can help thinking learners show greater overt compassion to their feeling classmates and can suggest that feeling learners might tone down their emotional expression while working with thinking learners

Closure-oriented students want to reach judgments or completion quickly and want clarity as soon as possible These students are serious, hardworking learners who like to be given written information and enjoy specific tasks with deadlines Sometimes their desire for closure hampers the development of fluency (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989) In contrast, open learners want to stay available for continuously new perceptions and are therefore sometimes called “perceiving.” They take L2 learning less seriously, treating it like a game to be enjoyed rather than a set of tasks

to be completed Open learners dislike deadlines; they want to have a good time and seem to soak up L2 information by osmosis rather than hard effort Open learners

19

sometimes do better than closure-oriented learners in developing fluency (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989), but they are at a disadvantage in a traditional classroom setting Closure-oriented and open learners provide a good balance for each other in the L2 classroom The former are the task-driven learners and the latter know how to have fun Skilled L2 teachers sometimes consciously create cooperative groups that include both types of learners, since these learners can benefit from collaboration with each other (Oxford, 2003, p.6)

2.4.4 Tolerance of Ambiguity Styles

Brown (2000) considers ambiguity tolerance as a style that concerns the degree to which learners are cognitively willing to tolerate ideas and propositions that run counter to their own belief system or structure of knowledge Some learners are, for example, relatively open-minded in accepting ideologies and facts that contradict their own views Others, more close-minded, tend to reject items that are contradictory or slightly incongruent with their existing system

Ambiguity-tolerant learners learn best when opportunities for experience and risk, as well as interaction, are present Ambiguity-intolerant learners, however, learn most effectively when in less flexible, less risky, and more structured situations

2.5 An overview of relevant research

A significant study done on learning style preferences was done by Reid (1987) By using Perceptual learning style preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), she asked 1388 students to identify their perceptual learning style preferences The overall results of the research indicated that ESL learners strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles when compared to audio and visual In addition, most groups showed

a negative preference for group learning

The general findings offered by Reid (1987) are as follows:

20

 The perceptual learning style preferences of ESL learners differed in several ways from native speakers of English For instance, native speakers of English were less tactile in their learning style preferences than all non-native speakers and were significantly less kinesthetic than Arabic, Chinese, Korean and Spanish speakers

 The learning style preferences of ESL learners from different language, different educational and cultural backgrounds sometimes differed significantly from each other For instance, the Korean students were found

to be the most visual in their learning style preferences They were significantly more visual than the US and Japanese learners Japanese learners, on the other hand, appeared to be the least auditory of all learners and were significantly less auditory than Arabic and Chinese learners

 When some other factors such as sex, length of time spent in the United States, major field, and level of education were analysed, the results indicated that there were significant differences in their relationships to various learning style preferences In the analysis of results with respect to level of education and gender, it was found that graduate students showed a significantly greater preference for visual and tactile learning than the undergraduates The undergraduates were significantly more auditory oriented than graduates Both groups strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning Males preferred visual and tactile learning significantly more often than females

 The data obtained from the study also indicated that as ESL learners adapt to the US academic environment, some changes and extensions of learning styles might take place To illustrate, the longer the students had lived in the United States, the more auditory their preference became Learners who had been in the US more than three years were significantly more auditory in their learning style preference than those who had been in the US for shorter periods of time This finding indicates that learners adapt their learning style preferences to the learning environment they are involved

21

After Reid’s study, Willing (1988) conducted a research with respect to the learning styles in adult migrant education To serve the purposes of the survey, a new questionnaire was developed because the already existing ones had some deficiencies such as having a too narrow focus or being complex in their format and wording The questionnaire consisted of thirty items on the first page, the second page included fifteen learning strategies, and the third page included items regarding individual biographical results 517 learners, from over thirty ethnic groups participated the study, but only five of the ethnic groups (Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic speakers, South Americans, and Polish/Czech speakers) were large enough for statistical analysis

Regarding the analysis of the results, Willing (1988) stated that it was impossible to make “statistically valid cross-comparisons relating a question to more than one biographical variable at a time” (p 122) For this reason, the individual characteristics of the participants were considered separately The results indicated that there were cultural differences with respect to the learning style preferences of the learners Though the mean of the item “I like to study grammar” was lower than expected, all learners from the distinct cultures reflected that they liked studying grammar However, the Arabic learners were the ones who preferred grammar the most because 65 % of them ranked this item as the “best”

The item related to the use of cassettes at home revealed that the Vietnamese were the only learners who preferred this method Chinese, in contrast, seemed to “have little confidence in it” (Willing, 1988, p 130) When the same question was considered with respect to the length of residence in Australia it was revealed that the variation was not big enough to be statistically meaningful The results with regard to sex indicated that males tend to write everything in their notebooks more than females In addition, though moderately both visual and kinesthetic modalities were female preferences

22

Cheng and Banya (1998) conducted a research in which 140 male freshman learners

at the Taiwanese Military academy completed seven questionnaires including PLSP The questionnaire was also completed by Taiwanese teachers teaching at Taiwanese universities The results obtained from the self-reported surveys revealed that the Taiwanese military students did not have significantly different preferences for any single learning style

Based on the data obtained from the perceptual learning style self-reports, it was uncovered that the learners preferred the perceptual learning styles of auditory, tactile, and individual learning Cheng and Banya also provide further information revealed as a result of the statistical analysis of the perceptual learning style questionnaire Their findings include the following:

 Students who preferred kinesthetic learning have more confidence as well as more positive attitudes and beliefs about foreign language learning than students with other perceptual learning style preferences

 Students with the individual preference style use more language learning strategies, and they are less tolerant of ambiguity

 Students who identified themselves as tactile learners seemed to be more anxious about learning English

 Students with an auditory preference like to make friends with and speak with foreign language speakers (in this case, English speakers)

(Cheng and Banya, 1998, p 82)

In another study, Rausch (1996) examined 365 Japanese college students to investigate whether they are good language learners by using a survey questionnaire

He also explained learning styles based on Gregore’s Gregore Style Delineator, but used simplified labels for the learning types: heart, head, hands, and free learning styles Some of the qualities of a ‘Good Language Learner’, described by Stern (1975), are “opportunistic”, “highly motivated”, and “highly adaptable”, among

23

others Rausch (1996) also asked students to assess their own learning styles before using Gregore’s Gregore Style Delineator In brief, most of the 365 Japanese college students did not have the habits of ‘Good Language Learner’, and also they did not generally understand Rausch (1996)’s explanation of learning styles, including heart, head, hands, and free learning styles Additionally, they did not know their own learning styles because their self-assessment about learning styles before the test and the results from their learning styles survey were often different (Rausch, 1996) Peacock (2001) experimented on 206 EFL students and 46 EFL teachers at a Hong Kong university to prove Reid’s two major hypotheses that “all students have their own learning styles and learning strengths and weaknesses”, and “a mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning failure and frustration.” Peacock used interviews and Reid’s PLSPQ PLSPQ includes thirty items to help identify students’ learning preferences, using five point scales: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), undecided (U), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD) The results of the study confirm Reid’s first hypothesis – all students have their own learning styles and learning strengths and weakness – is proven generally true in this study Also, Reid’s second hypothesis – A mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning failure, frustration, and demotivation – is also shown to be generally true in this study (Peacock, 2001)

In Dunn & Dunn’s (1993) article, they examined multicultural diversity of learning styles among “Afro-American”, “Chinese American”, “Mexican American”, and

“Greek American” students, who were all fourth through sixth graders, by using their Learning style Inventory (LSI) and Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) Each group was compared to the other three groups (Dunn, 1993) The groups which had the most significant differences were “Afro-American/Chinese American”, which means fifteen of the twenty-two LSI variables showed significantly different results On the other hand, Greek American and Mexican American students were different on only six of the twenty-two LSI scales Her conclusions are that “groups

24

do learn differently from each other” and “apparently all children can learn but they need to be taught using their individual learning style strengths if they are to master new and difficult academic materials” (Dunn, 1993, p 15)

Hyland (1993) replicated the study done by Reid (1987) on the learning style preferences of ESL learners in the United States Reid’s questionnaire asking students

to identify their perceptual learning preferences was administered in either Japanese or English to 440 students at 8 universities in Japan His study confirmed Reid’s findings that Japanese learners appear to have no strong learning style preferences, a fact which might help explain the language learning difficulties experienced by many Japanese students Moreover, because the visual modality is a negative style for many Japanese, many students are unable to take full advantage of an education system which emphasizes the importance of reading texts, composition and written grammar exercises On the other hand, students with mixed modality strengths are able to process information in a number of ways and often have a better chance of success than those with single modality strength The research suggests that while Japanese learners have no major learning preferences, they appear to have three modalities (auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic) and individual learning as their minor styles

Wintergerst and DeCapua (1998) attempted to identify the learning styles of ESL students through an analysis and comparison of participants’ responses to three elicitation instruments: Reid’s (1987) PLSPQ, a background questionnaire, and data from oral interviews The participants of the study were undergraduate Russian speaking students enrolled in credit-bearing intermediate or advanced ESL courses There were 32 participants at two private institutions In a second follow-up study, the authors expanded upon the first study by examining the difficulties of conceptualizing learning style modalities and of developing assessment instruments for ESL students that actually measure what they claim to do The authors expanded the focus of their study to include university-level ESL students representing four language groups at two institutions of higher learning in the metropolitan New York area The sample

25

consisted of 100 ESL students, 55 females and 45 males, enrolled in credit-bearing intermediate or advanced ESL courses The students ranged from 17 to 49 years old, with a mean age of 21.5 The four language groups included Chinese (51), Korean (23), Spanish (11), and Russian (15) Wintergerst et al examined the validity of the hypothesized factor structure of Reid’s PLSPQ through exploratory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis was used to explore the dimensionality of the PLSPQ Results showed that specific survey items did not necessarily group into factors conceptually compatible with Reid’s learning style model This, however, is not to say that unconfirmed hypothesized model resulting from factor analysis invalidates the model but only different populations may produce other results

Riazi and Riasati (2006) carried out a study in Shiraz EFL institutes The study aimed

at investigating the language learning style preferences of Iranian EFL learners, and the degree of teachers’ awareness of them To this end, 219 students (121 males and

98 females) from different levels of instruction and different ages (14-44), studying at two language institutes took part in the study As a further step, 14 teachers working with the same students were called for cooperation A 13-item language learning preference questionnaire adopted from Brindley (1984) was employed to elicit information for the study Results showed the learning preferences of students in different areas Results also indicated that teachers are aware of their students’ learning preferences in some cases, but unaware in some others Therefore, they concluded that there needs to be a closer cooperation between teachers and students in some instances

It was felt that because the Riazi and Riasati study was limited in scope and also a larger and more thorough study to depict Iranian student’s learning style preferences was needed, the presents study’s aim was to cover and expand the scope of the study To reach this aim, the authors of this study increased the sample size and the areas of the study

26

2.6 Summary

Chapter 2 covers an overview of learning style definitions and a clear distinction between learning styles and learning strategies Also included in this chapter are relevant researches on learning style preferences in general and perceptual learning style preference of ESL/ EFL students in particular To conclude, these researches emphasize that it is very important to understand and explore each individual’s learning style Analyzing one’s own particular learning style can be very helpful and beneficial to the student by aiding them in becoming more focused and an attentive learner, which ultimately will increase educational success Discovering this learning style will allow the student to determine his or her own personal strengths and weaknesses and learn from them

3.2 Research Questions of the Study

As mentioned in the Introduction, the study aims to investigate the perceptual learning style preferences of EFL students at BU; and the relationship between learning style preferences and other background factors including major fields of study, genders, ages, learning language experience , and English proficiency levels

In order to reach those aims of the study, the process of researching is guided by the following questions:

1 What are the perceptual learning style preferences – audio, visual, kinesthetic, tactile, group learning, and individual learning - of EFL students at Banking University?

2 Are there any differences in the perceptual learning style preferences of EFL students at Banking University based on

a) their major fields of study?

b) their course years?

c) their genders?

d) their ages?

e) their learning language experience?

f) their English proficiency levels?

28

3.3 Research design

The research was conducted at BU during the second semester of the school year 2008-2009 for 196 EFL students Its ultimate aims were to explore the overall learning style preferences of EFL students, to find out any differences of students’ learning styles existed with regards to other variables, and to give some implications and suggestions in teaching and learning EFL at BU

First, the researcher randomly chose some students for interviews from the target population.(3.5.1) These semi-structured interviews were done in order to help the researchers collect more information relating to the students’ opinions of their study and their instructors’ teaching

Second, based on the data collected from students’ interviews, Reid’s (1987) measurement of learning style preferences, and Jones, N.B (1997), a survey questionnaire was designed This questionnaire was developed with the aim to get information about students’ perceptual learning style preferences

Third, a pilot test that will be described later (3.5.2) was conducted among 20 students to check the draft questionnaire

Finally, the questionnaire reviewed and revised was distributed among 230 EFL students at BU

The quantitative method was used with SPSS software in coding and processing the data from the students’ questionnaires A descriptive analysis was then drawn out; variables were analyzed in the forms of frequencies, descriptions In contrast, the qualitative method was employed mainly in the process of research to analyze the data collected from class observations and the students’ interviews

To sum up, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data.

29

3.4 Setting

In the last few years, some changes have done in teaching and learning English at

BU Department of foreign languages organizes the English proficiency test for the freshman at the beginning of the first semester This English score is used to place students according to their level of proficiency Those who have average proficiency will take the first compulsory English course If they come with higher proficiency, they will be placed in the second or third compulsory course and can take other advanced English courses to make up the required credits A recommended score range to place student according to their level of proficiency was already made Every student will take an English Proficiency Test, here means TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) before leaving the university This is considered as an exit exam and students have to pass it with at least 550 points in order to graduate In the case that students are able to get TOEIC test with the satisfactory results before entering BU, they are not required to study General English any more

At BU, in the first and second semesters, students learn General English, which includes 12 lessons from International Express – Intermediate level, in 150 periods

In the next two semesters, they focus on studying for TOEIC in 120 periods In the last one, they have a chance to study English for banking and finance which lasts in

90 periods Students are free to register to study as English is a credited subject Additionally, English classes at BU have big sizes The smallest classes often located in Campus 1 also consist of at least 50 students per class In Campus 2, the size of English classes is much bigger, some of which have more than 70 students This learning condition strongly impacts on the effectiveness of learning and teaching English Therefore, the requirement to apply new teaching methods in order to provide learners with "the opportunity to take part in meaningful communication interaction with highly competent speakers of the language, i.e to