An investigation into learning and teaching style preferemces at quang ninh teacher training college

The students o f natural sciences most preferred kinesthetic and individual as their major learning styles, while the students o f social sciences chose kinesthetic and group as their m

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANO I UNIVERSITY

VU THI HUONG GIANG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLE PREFERENCES

AT QUANG NINH TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT

OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN TESOL

SUPERVISOR’ S NAME: MA HOANG V AN HO AT

Hanoi, October 2008

ĩrungĩ A m ĨHỒN8 TINTHƯVIẾN NN-VH Nũữc HGOẢI

T4TV ք է ձ ձ Օ յ

w ■ ■ 琴 ■

째^ 1

ք !

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the minor thesis entitled nAn investigation into learning and teaching style

fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree o f Master o f Arts in TESOL is the result of

my work, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this minor thesis or any part o f the same has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution.The research reported in this thesis was approved by Hanoi University

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my academic supervisors, Mr Hoang Van Hoat, M.A (TESOL), a senior lecturer at Hanoi University, from whom I received constant encouragements, guidance, and valuable critical feedback in the preparation and completion o f this thesis

I also wish to acknowledge all the MA lecturers and the whole staff o f the Post-Graduate Department at Hanoi University for their professional teaching and kind help throughout the course

I wish to express my deep gratitude to Ms Nguyen Thai Ha, M.A (TESOL), the Vice Dean

o f the Post-Graduate Department, who have provided me with an invaluable source o f knowledge during my M A course at Hanoi University

My special thanks go to my colleagues and all my students in the experimental groups who have offered me strong supports and encouragement during my study

Last, but not least, I wish to say thank you to my family for their love, care, and tolerance that encourage me a lot in completing this study

This study is an investigation into the learning and teaching style preferences at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC) The Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey (PLSPS) by Reid (1998) was used to determine the preferred learning styles and Peacock’s (2001) modified version o f PLSPS was used to determine teaching styles at QNTTC Statistical analysis o f variance was done to determine the percentage o f match between the preferred learning and teaching styles The study purposes included determining i f a match existed between students’ learning styles o f non-English majors and teaching styles o f language teachers at QNTTC

The participants were eight language teachers and 160 non-English major students aged 18-19 on average at QNTTC The ages o f the teacher participants ranged from 29 to 48 with the average age being 38 The teachers favored tactile and group as their major

teaching styles Their least preferred instructional styles were individual On PLSPS by

Reid (1998)，the student participants favored kinesthetic and auditory Their least preferred

scales were for tactile In this study, the worst mismatches between the teaching styles o f

language teachers and the learning styles o f non-English majors at QNTTC were tactile

and group learning Besides, there are some differences in learning styles between the

students o f natural sciences and social sciences The students o f natural sciences most preferred kinesthetic and individual as their major learning styles, while the students o f

social sciences chose kinesthetic and group as their major leaning style preferences

Another difference between the natural science students and the social science students is the former chose group to be another negligible learning style, while the latter showed

their negative preference for individual learning In addition, there were differences

between learning styles o f the sub-groups o f students at the different academic school years, such as, there was a mismatch between the preferences for individual learning style

o f the first-year natural students and the second-year natural science students, while a mismatch existed between group learning style o f the first-year social science students and

the second-year social science students Based on the findings o f the study, some suggestions are recommended for using strategies to the students at QNTTC and implications for learning and teaching in language classrooms at QNTTC

iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFL : English as a foreign language

NS-I : First-year natural science

NS-II : Second-year natural science

PLSPS : Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey

QNTTC : Quang Ninh Teacher Training College

SS-I : First-year social science

SS-II : Second-year social science

TESOL : Teaching o f English to Speakers o f Other Languages

UG : Undergraduate students

LIST OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND TABLES

pagesAppendix 1: Questionnaire for students (English version) 69Appendix 2: Questionnaire for students (Vietnamese version) 72Appendix 3: Questionnaire for the teachers 75

Figure 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year

natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 34Figure 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the second-

year natural science students at QNTTC，2007 35Figure 4.3: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year

social science students at QNTTC，2007 37Figure 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the second-

year social science students at QNTTC, 2007 39Figure 4.5: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors at

QNTTC，2007 42Figure 4.6: Major, minor and negligible language teaching styles at QNTTC, 2007 44

Table 2.1: Overview o f six learning styles according to Richards and Lockhart

(1994)，Reid (1998) and W iling (1988) 14Table 3.1: Profile o f student subjects at QNTTC, 2007 26Table 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year

natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 34Table 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the second-

year natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 35Table 4.3: Comparison o f the First-year Natural Science and the Second-year

Natural Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC，2007 36Table 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year

social science students at QNTTC, 2007 38Table 4.5: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the second-

year social science students at QNTTC，2007 39

Table 4.6: Comparison o f the First-year Social Science and the Second-yearSocial Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .Table 4.7: Comparison o f the natural science and the social science students’learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .Table 4.8: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors atQNTTC, 2007 .Table 4.9: Major, minor and negligible language teaching styles at QNTTC, 2007 Table 4.10: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the first-year naturalscience з и к іе г^ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .Table 4.11: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the second-year naturalscience students9 perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 Table 4.12: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the first-year socialscience students9 perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .Table 4.13: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and second-year socialscience students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC，2007 Table 4.14: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the non-English major students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF A U T H O R S H IP •

A C KN O W LE D G E M E N TS »

A B S T R A C T '»

LIS T OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S 'V LIS T OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND T A B L E S V TA B LE OF C O N TEN TS vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRO DUCTIO N լ 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS 3

4

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH OF THE STUDY

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 4

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 5

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS 5

CHAPTER 2: LIT E R A TU R E REVIEW 2.1 DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES 6

2.1.1 DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING STYLES 6

2.1.2 DEFINITIONS OF TEACHING STYLES 8

2.2 DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING STY LES 9

2.2.1 ANALYTIC VERSUS GLOBAL PROCESSING AND ITS UKELY CORRELATES 10

2.2.1.1 FIELD-DEPENDENCE VERSUS FIELD-INDEPENDENCE 10

2.2.1.2 REFLECTION VERSUS IMPULSIVITY 11

2.2.1.3 INTUITION VERSUS SENSING 12

2.2.2 SENSORY PREFERENCES 12

2.2.2.1 VISUAL LEARNERS 12

2.2.22. AUDITORY LEARNERS 12

2.2.2.3 KINESTHETIC LEARNERS 13

vii

2.2.2A. TACTILE LEARNERS 13

2.2.3 GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS 13

2.2.4 SUMMARY 14

2.3 LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES 15

2.4 LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING STRATEGIES 18

2.5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES 20

2.6 LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLE INSTRUMENTS 22

2.7 SUMMARY 23

CHAPTER 3: M ETHO DO LO G Y 3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY 25

3.2 SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY 25

3 3 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 27

3.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 30

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 32

3.6 SUMMARY 32

CHAPTER 4: D ATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS 33

4.1.1 PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC 33

4.1.1.1 PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS 33 AT QNTTC

4.1.1.2 PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC 35

4.1.1.3 PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT 37 QNTTC

4.1.1.4 PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC 38 4.1.1.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF NATURAL

SCIENCE STUDENTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC

4.1.1.6 OVERVIEW OF LEARNING STYLES OF THE STUDENTS ACROSS CLASSES OF THE NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT QNTTC ぬ 4.1.2 PREFERRED LANGUAGE TEACHING STYLES AT QNTTC 43

4.1.3 MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 44 CLASSES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC

4.1.3.1 MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 45 CLASSES OF NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC

4.1.3.2 MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS 45 CLASSES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC

4.1.3.3 OVERVIEW OF MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING 48 STYLES ACROSS CLASSES OF NON-ENGLISH MAJORS SCIENCE AT QNTTC

49 4.2 DISCUSSION

4.2.1 DISCUSSION ON THE LEARNING STYLES PREFERENCES OF NON-ENGUSH MAJORS ATQNTTC 49

4.2.2 DISCUSSION ON THE TEACHING STYLES PREFERENCES OF LANGUAGE TEACHERS AT QNTTC 51

4.3 SUM M AR Y 52

CHAPTER 5: IM P L IC A T IO N S AND CONCLUSION 5.1 MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY 54

5.2 IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 55

5.2.1 IMPUCATIONS FOR NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC 55

5.2.2 IMPUCATIONS FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS AT QNTTC 57

5.2.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING AID IMPROVEMENT 60

5.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 61

5.4 CONCLUSION 62

REFERENCES 64

APP E N D IX E S 69

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This thesis reports the results o f a study conducted to make an investigation into the learning and teaching styles and the match between the two at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College The introductory chapter presents the theoretical background to the study, provides a detailed description o f the problem the thesis attempts to solve, states the objectives o f the study and presents an overview o f the thesis

1.1 Theoretical background

Learners have certain characteristics, such as intelligence, personality, learning styles, aptitude, attitude, beliefs and so on, which lead to more or less successful language learning (Lightbrown & Spada, 1999) Among the different factors that affect learner performance, learning style has now been considered as a major factor in psycholinguistic research (W illing, 1987) Thus, there has been an increase in interest in how people learn and how people prefer to learn

In a class, students should be aware o f their own learning styles because o f the following considerable advantages including their abilities to develop additional learning styles and to modify their existing learning patterns w ill be increased (Henson

& Borthwick, 1984) Besides, students who understand and then are provided opportunities to make use o f their learning styles tend to feel valued, respected, and empowered (Carbo & Hodges, 1988) Furthermore, knowing what their learning style is helps students respond to the presented material in the most effective way Even when the material is not presented in the way they prefer or the instructor has different styles with them or the topic is not familiar, they can use their knowledge o f learning styles to adjust the difference and be flexible in their learning

It is also very helpful and necessary for teachers to have some basic knowledge o f their students’ learning styles in expectations that teachers and learners alike w ill be very helpful to meet learners’ needs, to narrow the perceived mismatch between teaching and learning styles and to achieve the aim o f desired teaching and learning outcomes Moreover, as teachers develop professionally in this area, their students w ill also benefit through knowledge about styles and strategies involve in optimizing their individual learning styles (Reid, 1995)

Many educational institutions are now moving towards more emphasis on learning stylepreferences The purpose o f identifying students' learning style preferences is also tohelp the teacher design tasks that can facilitate students' learning In doing so, teacherscan help their students become more effective learners and help them make their studynot only more successful but also more enjoyable H armer (2001) declared that:

Faced with the different descriptions o f learner types and styles, it may seem that the teacher's task is overwhelmingly complex We want to satisfy the many different students in front o f us, teaching to their individual strengths with activities designed to produce the best results for each o f them, yet we also want to address our teaching to the group as a whole (p.l 12)

A point has been made that each class is unique and as a result, each class w ill need to

be treated differently (Harmer，2001) and i f students do not learn the way we teach them, then we must teach them the way they learn (Marshal, 1991) Thus, teachers need

to know a lot about them and consequently, they still have much to learn about how to reach all students to do the teaching job effectively

Cheng (1995) says that teachers have styles that they use as they plan and present material to their students, and that teacher behavior in the classroom can significantly affect learner achievement Some authors claim that teachers can and should know their preferred styles (W illing, 1988; Reid, 1995) so that teachers can teach in balanced teaching styles in order to accommodate different learning styles Teaching styles vary and all teachers have their own individual teaching styles, which can be identified (Reid, 1995; W illing, 1988)

Identifying a teaching style is useless unless an attempt is made to match it with the appropriate learning styles (Henson & Borthwick, 1984) That means it is not enough to identify teaching styles, but the teacher should try to match his/ her teaching style(s) with an appropriate learning style In other words, teachers need to consider the importance o f matching their teaching with their students’ learning styles

However, within the classroom the teacher's role may change from one activity to another or from one stage o f an activity to another，because rarely any one instructor is adequately represented by a single teaching style, just as no student is characterized by

a single learning style (Tanner, Chatman & Allen, 2003) It is also suggested that i f teachers are fluent and flexible at making changes with different activities in the classroom, their effectiveness as teachers is considerably enhanced (Harmer, 2001)

Thus, the matter o f matching learning and teaching styles w ill still be considered as animportant issue among educators (Henson & Borthwick, 1984).

Ỉ.2 Statement o f the problem

Attention to teaching and learning styles has been described as part o f the desirable trend towards learner-centered and needs-based instruction (W illing, 1988; Kinsella, 1995; Tudor, 1996) W illing (1988) also indicates that awareness o f teaching styles and

o f learning styles w ill help teachers and learners decide how to accommodate different styles in the classroom Thus, learning styles and teaching styles, and particularly the match between them, are an important under-researched aspect o f EFL classroom

Unfortunately, there is a great deal o f theoretical support for the idea that mismatches are common and that they negatively affect learning and learner’ s motivation and attitude And a number o f authors propose that mismatches between teaching and learning styles often occur and have bad effects on students’ learning and attitudes to the class and to English (Reid, 1987; Felder, 1995) To reduce teacher-student style conflicts, some researchers advocate that teaching and learning styles should be matched (Smith & Renzulli，1984; Oxford, 1991) Despite all this, not enough studies have researched that idea or even investigate teaching styles o f teachers And the same contexts exist in Vietnam in general, and at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC) in particular

Quang Ninh Teacher Training College is located in Uong Bi town, Quang Ninh province Students at QNTTC come from different parts o f Quang Ninh province so the difference between their individual characteristics is considerable As a result, language teachers at QNTTC always get difficulties with their teaching job because they have to work with different categories o f students One main reason for that is the variety and nature o f learning styles o f students differ from each other Secondly, not only do learners differ from each other, but also teachers differ in their teaching styles A variety o f perspectives is, therefore, required for teachers to consider

Based on the researcher's personal experience in teaching English as a foreign language

at QNTTC，and based on the information collected from the colleagues and the students, the researcher found that mismatches often occur between the learning styles

o f non-English major students in a language class and the teaching styles o f the language teachers o f the English Department with unfortunate effects on the quality o f the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward the class and the English subject

Thus, it is really useful and necessary for teachers to identify the learning styles o f their students, their own teaching styles, and then vary their teaching methods to meet the wide range o f different learner preferences.

This study attempted to investigate learning styles o f the non-English majored students and the teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC through a concrete picture

o f the learning and teaching styles preferences at QNTTC The mismatches between teaching and learning styles and some suggestions to reduce them w ill be concerned in the research with some hope that the match and mismatch between teaching and learning styles w ill be more considered in the teaching context in Quang Ninh in particular, and in Vietnam in general

1.3 Objectives and research questions o f the study

Fully aware o f the problems that confront the English teaching and learning at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC), the researcher would like to build up this minor thesis to find out what learning styles are mostly preferred by the non-English major students at QNTTC; what are the different learning styles preferred among the students according to their different majors and academic school-year; what teaching styles are mostly preferred by the language teachers at QNTTC and the match/ mismatch between the teaching styles o f the language teachers and the learning style preferences o f the non-English major students at QNTTC

1.4 Significance o f the study

Firstly, the study expanded the limited research into learning and teaching styles and gave more insights o f the fields for Vietnamese learners and teachers, particularly for students and teachers at QNTTC

Secondly, the identification o f learning and teaching styles and significant results contributed to an understanding o f some problems with language learning and teaching

we often deal with As a result, we may reduce the perceived mismatch and improve the match between learning and teaching styles, which w ill be very helpful to achieve the desired teaching and learning outcomes

In addition, teachers at QNTTC would also benefit from this study by determining the learning styles o f their students As a result, teachers can find it useful in planning their appropriate teaching in the classroom Besides, the study has some important

implications for training students with different learning styles in using languagelearning strategies.

1.5 Scope o f the study

This study was carried out at QNTTC located in Quang Ninh, a northeast province in Vietnam The subjects o f the study were limited to non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC, which is a limitation o f the research as a result This non- experimental study aims at discovering preferred learning and teaching styles at QNNTC, focusing on the match and/ or mismatch between those o f non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC From the study relevant recommendations were made for the students9 use o f learning strategies to promote the effectiveness and quality o f their learning

1.6 O rganization o f the thesis

The thesis consists o f five chapters as follows:

the problems, the objectives o f the study, the significance o f the study, the scope o f the study, and the organization o f the study

teaching styles, dimensions o f learning styles, relationship between learning styles and teaching styles, relationship between learning styles and strategies, overview o f related literature that represented the major pillars o f the study concerning learning styles and teaching styles theory and the summary

questions, the subject selection, instrumentation, data collection procedures and data analysis procedures o f the study, and the summary

research including statistical analysis and discussion

implications for non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC，recommendations, and final conclusion

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter includes definitions o f learning and teaching styles, dimensions o f learning styles, relationship between learning and teaching styles, relationship between learning styles and learning strategies, brief descriptions o f previous research on learning and teaching styles in EFL classroom with the discussions about match/ mismatch between those measured by various instruments, and the summary

2.1 D efinitions o f learning and teaching styles

2.1.1 Definitions o f learning style

Language learning styles have been paid a great deal o f attention and have also beenthe focus o f language studies since Reid’ s influential work on the topic was public in

1987 (Peacock, 2001) However, it is not an easy task to identify and define differentlearning styles because learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o fnumerous elements as Corbett and Smith (1984，p 212) state that:

Learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o f

numerous elements; thus, at the outset, the experimenter is faced

with the difficult task o f having to decide which dimensions o f

learning style to elucidate and which interactions might be

meaningful, in a practical sense, in understanding their contribution

to achievement

There are many definitions o f learning styles in the literature, thus, identifying and defining the vast number o f learning styles can be an enormous task For example, according to Cross (1976)，learning styles are defined as the characteristic ways that individuals collect, organize, and transform information into useful knowledge Learning style is consistent across a wide variety o f tasks Learning style has a considerable influence on getting information and solving problems Comet (1983，p 9) declares that “ learning styles is consistent pattern o f behavior but with a certain range o f individual variability Styles then are overall patterns that give a general direction to learning behavior” That means an individual’ s learning style is stable, but to some extent it has the tendency to vary according to him or her Besides, leaning style o f a student is indicated to be a significant role in guiding his/ her own learning

From a psychological viewpoint, learning style is defined as “ a consistent way o f functioning that reflects underlying causes o f behavior” (Keefe, 1979， p 499) However, from a phenomenological viewpoint, Gregore and Ward (1977，p 19) state that learning style “ consists o f distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues about the mediation abilities o f individuals In operational terms, people through their characteristic sets o f behavior cte ir us how their minds relate to the world and therefore, how they learn，， There is a similarity in Hunt’ s definition (1979，p 27) in which he thinks a learning style “ describes a student in terms o f those educational conditions under which he is most likely to learn Learning style describes how a student learns, not what he has learned，，.

According to Keefe and Languis (1983，p 3) learning styles are considered as “ the composite o f characteristic, cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators o f how a learner perceives, interacts with，and responds to the learning environment” It means an individual’ s style remains unchangeable Besides, learning style o f a student refers to his/ her own attitudes and manner, and his/ her own awareness o f his/ her own learning situation This is also mentioned in the definition by O’Neil (1990)，which implies that learning styles are considered as patterns o f cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators o f how learners perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environment

There is no double that the complexity o f learning process exists and learning styles used by learners without their own awareness in responding to different learning conditions And according to Reid (1995，p 34-35)，“ each person’ s learning styles (including or her language learning style) contains a variety o f dimensions about which research exists: sensory preference; fieid-independence or field-dependence (or field- sensitivity); reflection or impulsivity; and objective/ impersonal or subjective/ emphatic orientation”

In summary, an individual’s learning style can be defined in many ways, including, “ the complex manner in which, and conditions under which, learners most efficiently and most effectively perceive, process, store, and recall what they are attempting to learn” (James and Galbraith, 1985，p 127) Therefore, an individual’ s learning style should be flexible in order to be actively adapted to various learning situations as Ellis (1994，p 499) asserted that “ learner training is aimed to help learners explore their learning styles

to cope with different learning tasks, rather than to stimulate them to change them.”

According to Reid (1987)，learning styles are considered as variations among learnersusing one or more senses to understand, organize and retain experience, which means leaning styles differ according to various composite o f learners’ abilities in their learning process Learning style is a consistent way o f functioning that reflects cultural behavior patterns and, like other behaviors influenced by cultural experiences, may be revised as a result o f training or changes in learning experiences Learning styles are thus ’’moderately strong habits rather than intractable biological attributesM (Reid, 1987，

p 100) Also, learning style is defined as “ an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way o f absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1987: iix), or the term “ learning style” refers to a person’ s general approach to learning and problem-solving (Reid, 1995) Reid (1998, p ix) asserts that “ learning styles are internally based characteristics, often not perceived or consciously used by learners, for the intake and comprehension o f new information” Among the various definitions o f learning styles, the definition by Reid (1998) is now the most widely accepted (Peacock, 2001) The definition by Reid (1998) seems the most comprehensive, thus, it is chosen for the current study

2.1.2 Definitions o f teaching style

It is difficult to define what a teaching style is, as there is as yet no definitive definition

o f teaching styles widely agreed upon by researchers Besides, it seems that few studies have investigated the teaching styles o f language teachers, in a consequence; there are not as many definitions o f teaching styles as the ones o f learning styles

However, there have been many attempts to define teaching styles that reflect the development in thinking in language teaching and learning For example, Gregore (1979) implies that teaching style consists o f an instructor’ s personal behavior and the media used to transmit or receive data to or from the learner In addition to that, an instructor’ s teaching style in the classroom describes his/ her philosophical beliefs Brookfield (1988) However, teaching style is defined by Fisher and Fisher (1979，p 246) as ua pervasive way o f approaching the learners that might be consistent with several methods o f teaching，， This definition emphasizes the importance o f teaching methods and the ability o f the teacher to select the right approach for the class Teaching styles tend to be equated with teaching approaches, as that was the mainstay

o f language teacher training

According to Kaplan and Kies (1993), teaching style consists o f a teacher’ s personal behaviors and the media used to transmit data or receive it from the learner, which means teaching style stresses the teacher’s behavior and media use which affect the delivery o f the instruction Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the progress o f a learner is somewhat dependent on the teaching style o f his or her teacher.

According to Conti (1989)，teaching style can be described as the overall traits and qualities that a teacher displays in the classroom and they are consistent for various situations Whereas, according to Peacock (2001，p 7)，second language teaching styles are defined as "natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) o f teaching new information and skills in the classroom”

There has now been better understanding o f the complexities that influence the way a teacher teaches in class, a teacher’ s teaching style is considered as a result o f his/ her past learning and teaching experience, present frame o f mind and body, and future plans and actions (Connelly & Clandinin, 1998) It is implied that teaching style is high individualistic However, Peacock (2001) asserts that teaching styles can be identified, and this is an assumption that this study adheres to

It has been proposed that teachers often teach their students the same way they were taught or they learned (Oxford ,1990; Cheng, 1995) or emulate teachers they admired (Kinsella, 1995; Jordan, 1997) That means teacher’s teaching style often reflects their learning style (Oxford, 1990a)

For this study, teaching style is defined as a language teaching and learning theories and practice that the teachers believe in and subscribe to in their teaching performance

In the current study, the researcher was interested in finding out what the teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC are This is important because teachers’ awareness o f their own teaching style helps them to be more effective and then they would be flexible and adjust their teaching styles so as to accommodate the diverse learning styles o f the students in their class

2.2 Dimensions o f learning styles

Besides a great number o f different definitions o f learning styles, various classifications

o f learning styles have also been conducted Many researchers suggest that most people have only six to fourteen strongly preferred learning styles, though over twenty have been categorized (Reid, 1998; Shipman & Shipman, 1985) In addition, below

mentioned a brief description o f the dimensions that seem to be the most significant ones for ESL/ EFL.

2.2.1 Analytic versus global processing and its likely correlates

2.2.1.1 Field-dependence versus field-independence

Chapelle (1995) indicates the meaning o f fie ld dependence and fie ld independence

expanded to refer to “ the degree o f ability to cognitively reconstruct a situation or stimulus, with field-independence related to analytic/ visual reconstruction and fie ld - dependence related to interpersonal reconstruction” (quoted in Oxford and Anderson,

1995，p 205)

According to Skehan (1989，p I l l ) , “field-dependent individuals are thought to be

person-oriented, interested in other people and sensitive to them” They are also thought

to be outgoing and gregarious, while field-independent learners tend to be “ more

impersonal and detached, less sensitive and more aloof; they are cerebral and object- oriented，， According to W itkin and More (1975), field-independent learners perceive

analytically and they enjoy subjects involving abstract and impersonal work Field- independent learners tend to have more task orientations with dispassionate analyses

than social and interpersonal orientations and field-dependent learners are likely to

depend on immediate contexts for solving problems and to comply with dominant properties o f the field

The autonomous ftinctioning o f field-independent learners enables them to rely on

symbolic representations in their cognition They favor abstract activities that they are able to pursue on their own, develop cognitive restructuring skills, and are likely to have an impersonal orientation Field-independent learners tend to have more task

orientations with dispassionate analyses than social and interpersonal orientations Whereas, the less autonomous functioning o f field-dependent people facilitates them to

possess social and interpersonal orientations with great emotional openness in communication with others (Abraham, 1985)

The occupational choice o f field-dependent people is oriented typically to the social in

content and with interpersonal relations in which they develop interpersonal competencies In contrast, field-independent people have psychologically defined

boundaries between their inner self and their outer self (W itkin, 1979) Segregation o f the self from the field results in a greater determination o f behavior from the internal self and a diminished reliance on external sources o f guidance

Abraham notes that ^field-dependent students have been happier in classrooms where

rules are not emphasized, while field-independent students like classrooms where

deductive, rule-oriented learning has been the dominant approach” (1985，quoted in Oxford and Anderson, 1995，p 205) Field-independent learners learn more effectively

step by step, or sequentially, beginning with analyzing facts and proceeding to ideas, while field-dependent learners learn effectively in context, holistically, intuitively, and

is especially sensitive to human relationships and interactions

However, Skehan (1989) indicates that field-independence has demonstrated a weak

relationship in regard to language learning success And according to Chapelle (1995)，neither field-independence nor field-dependence can guarantee success in L2 learning 2.2.1.2 Reflection versus impulsivity

This dimension o f learning styles is related to both speed and accuracy o f output Oxford and Anderson (1995， p 206) state that impulsive students are “ fast and

inaccurate They are more global as they show quick and uncritical acceptance o f

initially accepted hypotheses” In turn, reflective students tend to be “ slow and accurate

They are more analytic as they prefer systematic, analytic investigation o f hypotheses and are usually accurate in their performance in all skills”

Impulsive processing involves doing something in the external world with the

information discussing it or explaining it or testing it in some way Reflective

processing involves examining and manipulating the information introspectively Thus,

an impulsive learner is someone with more o f a natural tendency toward active

experimentation than toward reflective observation, and conversely for a reflective learner Thus, Reflective learners learn more effectively when he or she has time to

consider options before responding (often more accurate language learners), while

impulsive learners learn more effectively when he or she is able to respond immediately

and to take risks (often more fluent language learners) Reflective learners “ tend to be

low and accurate They are more analytic as they prefer systematic, analytic investigation o f hypotheses and are usually accurate in their performance in all s k ills ，’ (Oxford & Anderson, 1995, p 206)

Impulsive learners study well in situations that enable them to do something physically,

whereas reflective learners learn well in situations that provide them with opportunities

to think about the information being presented The more opportunities students have to both participate and reflect in class, the better they w ill learn new material and the longer they are likely to retain it (Kolb 1984)

2.2.1.3 Intuition versus sensing

Sensing involves observing, gathering data through the senses; intuition involves

indirect perception by way o f the subconscious—— accessing memory, speculating and

imagining Sensation and intuition are introduced as the two ways in which people tend

to perceive the world Sensing learners tend to be concrete and methodical, while intuitive learners tent to be abstract and imaginative Sensing learners like facts, data,

and experimentation; intuitive learners like variety, dislike repetition and seem to deal

better with principles, concepts, and theories Sensing learners do not like

complications, but they seem to be comfortable with detail, whereas, intuitive learners

are bored by detail and welcome complications Sensing learners are more comfortable

learning and following rules and standard procedures, and they are careful but may be slow, whereas, intuitive learners are quick but may be careless In addition, Intuitive learners tend to be better equipped than sensing learners to accommodate new concepts

and exceptions to rules (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990)

2.2.2 Sensory preferences

2.2.2.1 Visual learners

time lines, films, and demonstrations—— rather than in spoken or written words Visual learners respond to new information in a visual fashion and they prefer visual, pictorial

and graphic representations o f experiences The learners o f this type benefit most from reading and they can learn well by seeing words Visual learners prefer seeing what

they are learning, thus, they can learn best by learning on their own and taking notes (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998)

Visual learners tend to be neat and organized and their learning style preference tends

to most closely match educational environments, and the old adage, "one picture is worth a thousand words" is true for visual learners.

Oxford and Anderson (1995) point out that visually oriented students like to read and obtain a great deal o f visual simulation For them, lectures, conversations, and oral directions without any visual backup are very confusing and can be anxiety-producing

2.2.2.2 A uditory learners

Auditory learners learn best from hearing words and from oral explanation They may

remember information by reading aloud while learning new material This type o f learners benefit from hearing audiotapes, lectures, and class discussion They benefit from making tapes to listen to, by teaching other students, and by conversing with the

teachers Auditory students, therefore, are comfortable with oral directions and

interactions unsupported by visual means (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998)

2.2.2.3 Kinesthetic learners

Kinesthetic learners have the wisdom o f the body and the ability to control physical

motion Kinesthetic learners learn best by experience, by involved physically in

classroom experiences Kinesthetic learners prefer moving round, touching and talking

and using body language They, therefore, remember information well when they actively participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the classroom (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998)

2.2.2.4 Tactile learners

Tactile learners learn best when they have opportunity to do ""hands-on" experiences

with the materials That is, working on experiments in a laboratory, handling and building models, and touching and working with materials provide them with the most successful learning situations Writing notes or instructions, and class activities with physical involvement can help tactile learners understand and remember information

better According to Oxford and Anderson (1995，p 209)，tactile and kinesthetic styles

are referred to "hands-on sensory preference，and they suggest that hands-on students

like a lot o f movements, and enjoy working with tangible objects, collages and other

media For them, sitting at a desk for very long is uncomfortable They need frequent

breaks and physical action in games and dramatic activities”

2.2.3 Group and individual learners

Group learners have the capacity for person-to-person communications and

relationships They like talking to people and joining into groups They learn and remember information more easily when they study with at least one other learner, and they w ill be more successftil completing work well when they work with others Group learners are good at communicating with other people, leading others, and organizing

activities in the classroom They welcome sharing and comparing their ideas with other learners and they seem to be best at cooperating with other learners Group interaction

or the stimulation received from group work helps these types o f learners understand new material easier and learn better

Individual learners prefer working on their own and feel comfortable being self-paced

instructions Individual learners are capable o f spiritual, inner states o f being, self-

reflection, and awareness Learners o f this type learn and remember new material better and they can make better progress in learning when working by themselves

Among the number o f leaning styles mentioned above, the researcher preferred to use the six-part system in the investigation o f learning and teaching styles, which can be said the most popular and associated with language learning in classes where English is taught as a foreign language (Cheng, 1995; Hoang Van Hoat, 1998; Park, 1997) And table 1 gives brief descriptions o f each o f the learning styles.

A uditory learns more effectively through the ears (hearing)

Kinesthetic learns more effectively through complete body experience

Group learns through concrete experience, contacts and relationship with others

Ind ividua l learns in individual, independent learning situations

Table 2.1: Overview of six learning styles according to Richards and Lockhart (1994)，

Reid (1998) and Willing (1988)

2.2.4 Summary

A number o f definitions o f learning styles mentioned above are defined by different researchers in a variety ways Among those, the researcher prefers the six-part system called six categories o f learners (Richards & Lockhart, 1994) for the current research However, it does not mean that a learner's learning styles are always stable，but they can be influenced by such different factors as subject matter, learning context, age, gender, motivation, prior knowledge, cultural background and so on Besides, Ellis (1994) implies that it is impossible to say which learning style works best However, it

is still good for students to know what their learning styles are so that they can respond most effectively to the material being presented Besides，a broad understanding o f learning environments and learning styles w ill enable students to take control o f their learning and to maximize their potential for learning (Reid, 1998)

In addition, it would be advantageous for each language teacher to take one o f the learning style assessments to gain insight into his or her students’ learning styles and his or her own teaching styles As a result, the teacher can benefit from a comparison between those to find the best ways o f teaching in the classroom to offer opportunities for success to all students (Guild, 1994)

2.3 Learning and teaching styles

A teacher’ s style can have great impact on students’ learning styles preferences(Cornett, 1983; Marshall, 1991) although learning styles are probably influenced by anumber o f factors such as subject matters, context, age, prior knowledge, gender,motivation, ethnicity (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Reid, 1987)，and the culturalbackground (Rossi-Lee, 1995) McKeachie (1995，p.247) expresses the link betweenlearning style and teaching in the following excerpt:

A [teaching] method appropriate for most students may be ineffective for other students Methods o f teaching, ways o f representing information, and personality characteristic all affect learning and affect different learners differently Thinking about learning styles can lead a teacher to consider different ways o f teaching, and that is good An effective teacher needs to vary techniques and to have an armamentarium

o f teaching methods and learning activities that can be drawn upon to facilitate maximum learning for as many students as possible

Also, there is an implication that behavior o f the teacher probably influences the character o f the learning climate more than any one other single factor, and the teacher’s behavior in the classroom can have a significant effect on his/ her students’ achievement (Cheng, 1995)

There are probably as many ways to teach as there are to learn Perhaps the most important thing is to be aware that people do not all see the world in the same way, thus they may have very different preferences for how, when, where and how often to learn However, while many teachers are aware o f the existence o f different learning styles, the application o f this knowledge is often inconsequential, many teachers think that the same teaching methods that are effective in this class w ill also work in a different teaching setting (Comet, 1983)

However, one instructor/ teacher is rarely adequately represented by a single teaching style, just as no student is characterized by a single learning style A teacher should be flexible in addressing the needs o f multiple divergent learning styles in the classroom Thus, the teaching style o f an effective teacher need not always match a student’s preferred learning style, but an additional goal for students is to help them in expanding their own repertoire o f learning skills (Tanner & Alien，2004)

Unfortunately, numerous teaching styles are used among teachers, and in some cases, some o f the teaching styles are not the ones preferred by most students in the classroom though the teachers have great ambition to get all o f their students to learn Thus, it

would be useless to identify a teaching style without any attempts made to match it with the appropriate learning styles (Henson & Borthwick, 1984).

Matching is defined in terms o f compatibility, the interactive effects o f person and

environment (Hunt, 1979) Anderson and Bruce (1979) declare that "matching students with selected learning environments is an efficacious means o f increasing student achievement, particularly when the matching is conducted on the basis o f a student’ s learning style” (p 88) Matching teaching style with learning style produces an environment wherein students learn best (Gregore & Butler, 1984)

In contrast, when serious mismatches between the teaching styles and learning styles in

a class occur, the students may have a tendency to get bored，and inattentive in the classroom, do poorly on tests, get discouraged about the course, and may conclude that they are no good at the subject o f the course and even give up the course (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Felder, 1995; Oxford et all., 1991) Otherwise, teachers who get frustrated by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance, and even dropouts may become overly critical o f their students, which may make the case even worse, or begin to question their own competence as teachers (Felder, 1995)

Mismatch in teaching and learning styles or “ style wars" (Oxford et all, 1992) have

been cited as a major reason for poor performance by students Thus, teachers should become aware o f how their students learn best Then the “ style wars" between teacher

and learner can be considerably reduced i f the teacher "analyze and modify his/ her own teaching styles, introduce students to learning strategies that w ill work toward their preferences and give students tools to stretch their styles” (Reid, 1995: p 85)

Bade and Okan (2000) made a study on 230 ELT students ranged between 1 8 - 2 5 years o f age teachers were ranged between 1 8 - 2 5 years o f age and 23 instructors teaching English aged between 25 and 45 at the ELT Department o f the University o f Cukurova, Turkey The data for this study was collected through a 13-item questionnaire, adapted from Brindley (1984) From the study, it can be seen that students' preferences do indeed correlate with those o f teachers in many instances The results obtained here call for a step forward towards a teacher-student co-operation in designing syllabuses, doing weekly course planning, and classroom management The implication from the findings shows effective language teaching and learning can only

be achieved when teachers are aware o f their learners' needs，capabilities, potentials, and preferences in meeting these needs

Using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory, Heikkinen, Pettigrew, and Zakrajsek(1985) found that learning style preferences exist among education majors They suggested that i f there is a link between learning styles and program selection and/or teaching styles then it is appropriate to conduct an analysis o f learning styles among education majors The researchers found that there was a correlation between the nature

o f the subject matter and the preferred learning style o f students across majors They questioned whether or not students selected a major based on preferred learning styles

or whether students’ learning styles evolved as a result o f the subject matter Additionally, strong preferences for some learning variables were evident in each group

o f subject matter majors Their research report suggested “ the need for a broader understanding o f individual learning styles or preferred conditions for learning” (p 85) Matthews (1995)，using the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory, investigated the learning styles characteristics o f a population o f approximately 8,000 students at four- year colleges and universities in South Carolina during the 1989-1990 academic school year The students selected randomly were enrolled in English and biology classes Matthews found that first-year college and university students prefer individual style

Direct experience and visuals were the preferred modes o f learning as opposed to

listening and reading There was also a relationship between majors or college disciplines to learning style Students in the disciplines o f mathematics, science and education selected the applied or combination applied styles Students in humanities, business, and social science selected conceptual or combination conceptual styles A ll major areas had students who preferred the social or combination social categories as opposed to independent or independent combination categories

Peacock (2001) studied on 206 EFL students and 46 EFL teachers in the Department o f English at the City University o f Hong Kong A ll the students were Chinese and taking EFL classes as o f their degree courses O f the teachers, 53% were Westerners and 47% were ethnic Chinese Reid’ s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (1987) was used to collect the data for the study Data on language teaching styles was collected using a modified version o f PLSPS (Reid, 1987) The results from the research showed that the most popular learning styles were kinesthetic and auditory,

while the least popular were individual and group，though neither was negative The study also found that the teachers strongly favored kinesthetic and group styles and

strongly disfavored tactile and individual Auditory style was a major preference for

ethnic Chinese and a negative preference for Western teachers The findings indicated

that a mismatch between teaching and learning styles caused tailure and frustration, and this has implications for both learners and teachers The researcher suggested that EFL teachers try to identify their own teaching styles and their students’ learning styles and try to accommodate those learning styles.

Simon (1987) conducted research with the Canfield Learning Styles Inventory at Hocking Technical College to determine the relationship between the preferred learning styles o f students and preferred teaching styles o f instructors at the community college level Subject areas studied were business, engineering, general studies, health, natural resources, and public service The study revealed that students indicated a preference for less lecture and more direct experience; they preferred less authority from faculty and more student independence, goal setting, and planning; and, they preferred peer and instructor affiliation Implications for this study were that instructors should increase the direct experience method and decrease the lecture method, students should be involved more in course and program direction, and more instructor affiliation should

be provided to students

In short, teachers and students should be aware o f the fact that they both w ill not be comfortable i f there is a mismatch between the teaching and learning style(s) in the class Therefore, i f a teaching-learning style conflict occurs，both the teachers and students should be responsible for reducing it It is also suggested that within these domains teachers should identify learning styles o f their students and try to match them with an appropriate teaching style

Many researchers have indicated that learners have certain characteristics which lead to more or less successful language learning, and there is a mutual relationship between those (Ellis, 1995) The characteristics mentioned here are specific to individual learners, and include age and maturity，personality, aptitude for language, motivating influence, hemispheric processing orientation, learning and cognitive styles and strategies And learning styles and learning strategies and the relationship between the two were the focus in this sub-section

Learning style is defined as a sign o f “ preferred or habitual patterns o f metal functioning and dealing with new information，，(Erhman & Oxford, 1990, p 311)，while learning strategies are considered as “ the conscious step or behaviors used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, recall, and use o f

information” (Erhman & Oxford, 1990，p.312), or “ the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, and retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: p 1) That means learning strategies are always conscious and intentional actions (Oxford, 1990)，however, an individual’ s strategies, like any other skill or behavior, can become automatic after his/ her certain amount o f practice and use.

Some aspects o f the learner，makeup, like general learning style, or personal traits are very difficult to change In contrast to learning styles, learning strategies are much more specific They are malleable and teachable (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)，or “ they are

“ easier to teach and modified” Oxford, 1990: p 12).

Comet (1983，p 9) declares “ learning styles is consistent pattern o f behavior but with a certain range o f individual variability Styles then are overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior” That means an individual’ s learning style is unchangeable, but to some extent it has the tendency to vary according to him/ her However, learning strategy is considered as a plan o f action to attain a goal in learning Oxford，1990) Language learning strategies are the often-conscious steps or behaviors used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage, retention, recall, and use

o f new information (Oxford, 1990b)

A number o f language learning strategies cannot be seen, such as the act o f making mental associations, an important strategy (Oxford, 1990) Besides, language learning strategies are “ flexible，that is, they are not always found in predictable sequences or in precise patterns There is a great deal o f individuality in the way learners choose, combine, and sequence strategies，’ (Oxford, 1990: p 13)

According to Ehrman & Oxford (1990)，there is a strong relationship between learning styles and learning strategies, and students typically use learning strategies that reflect their basic learning styles Further more, it is declared that “ even in situations where students indicate similar learning styles, achievement gains can be affected when teaching strategies are modified to correspond to student learning preferences” (Zippert，1985，p 87-88) Besides, leaning style o f a student play a significant role in guiding his/ her own learning, thus, learning strategies choice are often related to preferred learning styles as it is claimed that there is existence o f ua tendency to use certain learning tools (learning strategies) and to avoid others, as one interpretation o f the term learning style” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1993，p 109)

Reid (1995) refers that successful language development for any student depends

partially on appropriate use o f learning strategies that fit the individual learning styles There is an implication that unsuccessful language learners did not necessarily used fewer learning strategies than their more successful peers; rather, they simply employed strategies in a haphazard fashion, inadequately relating the task at hand and their own learning styles preferences (Van & Abraham, 1990) According to Erhman and Oxford (1990)，research on strategy use o f individuals points out that “ successflil learners use a variety o f strategies to become more self-directed and improve their performance However, strategy choice and use are strongly affected by the learning style o f the learner For instance, a learner who has visual learning style may naturally use imaginary as a preferred strategy, whereas a field-independent or analytic learner may naturally gravitate toward strategies such as grouping and deduction (CTMaley & Chamot, 1990)

It is stressed that the important o f recognizing one’ s own learning style and finding the most style-comfortable strategies, but also note the need to stretch beyond one’s favored style occasionally (Oxford & Ehrman & Lavine, 1991) As a result, an individual is aware o f the best way in which he/ she processes information, he / she can expand the strategies used for learning so that the individual can spend less time, but

can learn things more efficiently

2,5 Previous research on learning and teaching styles

Following is a summary o f recent research that used various instruments to investigate the notion o f teaching styles and learning styles, and the match between the two and some implications for teaching methods and learning strategies for the learners to make their learning better

In an investigation o f sensory learning preferences o f Asian students, Reid (1987) found that Korean, Chinese and Japanese students are all visual learners, especially Korean

(Erhman & Oxford, 1995) According to Nelson (1995)，Asian students are in general more overtly thinking-oriented than feeling oriented and they typically base judgment

on logic and analysis rather than on feelings o f others, the emotional climate and interpersonal values

Cheng (1995) made a research on a total o f 140 male freshmen cadets at the Chinese

M ilitary Academy and 35 Taiwanese English teachers in Taiwan University, using PLSPS (Reid, 1987) as the major data source Based on the self-report o f their

perceptual learning styles, both teachers and students preferred the styles o f auditory, tactile, and individual learning The teachers were substantially more auditory than the

students (70 to 43 %) From the findings the researcher suggests effective teaching requires teachers’ awareness o f students’ individual differences and teachers’ willingness to vary their teaching styles to match with most students, styles In other words that means students can learn more from teachers who are interested in their subjects and their students, and who are more flexible and tolerant in their teaching.Park (1997) conducted a comparative study o f Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese and White students in secondary school and concluded that Korean, Chinese and Filipino students were more visual than White, and that was no gender difference in visual learning; and that Korean, Chinese, and White students showed negative

references for group leaning, whereas, Vietnamese showed major preference for group learning and Filipino students showed minor preference for group learning.

Park (2000) investigated the basic perceptual learning styles preferences o f Southeast Asian students (Cambodian, H ’ Mong，Lao and Vietnamese) compared them with those

o f White students This study found significant group differences in the learning style preferences o f Southeast Asian and White students as well as diverse Southeast Asian groups Southeast Asian students exhibited major or minor learning styles preferences for all basic perceptual learning styles except individual learning, for which

Cambodian students show a negative preference Southeast Asian students，especially

H ’Mong and Vietnamese, appeared to be visual learners A ll ethnic groups in the

current study indicate major preferences for kinesthetic learning The researcher

suggests that cooperative learning activities in small groups may match the learning style preferences o f Southeast Asian students, especially bTMong and Vietnamese

A research done by a Vietnamese Professor, Hoang Van Hoat (1998), on the learning styles preferences o f Vietnamese students o f English as a foreign language The researcher using the instrument conducted by PLSPS (Reid, 1987) showed that Vietnamese have multiple major learning style preferences He concluded that this was

a significant differences as other research has shown that Asian students, including Vietnamese students, usually prefer visual learning He implied that Vietnamese

students w ill learn more effectively when there is a combination o f haptic learning along with group learning in the classroom.

Doan Minh Huu (2004) made a preliminary survey on the learning style preferences o f

190 English majored students at Tay Nguyen University with using PLSPS conducted

by Reid (1998) and Styles Analysis Survey conducted by Oxford (1993) The study found that kinesthetic is the style that students o f all years chose as their major learning

style preference O f all the styles, individual is the most common negative learning

style, and visual is their minor learning styles preference However, there are

differences between learning preferences o f different groups The second-year students also showed strong major learning styles preferences for tactile, while the third-year

and first year students1 preferred auditory learning and the fourth-year students tended

to favour group the most In an interview with ten teachers at Tay Nguyen University

(Doan Minh Huu, 2004)，the result showed that only 20% o f those said they tended to

be concern with how students learn, while the rest said that they are not aware o f their student，learning styles, but they concerned with how much students learn and what students learn In fact, the teachers often used lectures in their classroom Only 30% o f those (3 out o f 10 teachers), who taught speaking skill and methodology often used

group style in their teaching, while the teachers who taught writing skill and grammar

always let their students work individually.

However, according to Liu and Littlewood (1997)，the teaching o f EFL in most East Asian countries is dominated by a teacher-centered, book-centered，grammar-translation method and an emphasis on rote memory These traditional language-teaching approaches have resulted in a number o f typical learning styles in East Asian countries, with introverted learning being one o f them

2.6 Learning and Teaching Style Instrum ents

It has been proclaimed that there is the significance o f identifying preferred teaching styles and preferred learning styles There is such a significant gap in the research i f knowledge about learning styles is to become a significant force in improving college and university teaching (Claxton and Ralston, 1978)

Various instruments have been used to study learning styles and teaching styles, and examples are those developed by Brindley, Canfield, Kolb, and Reid Warren (1978, p 7) stated that “ new means o f accommodating student diversity are clearly needed, and one approach is to assess the personal preferences or learning styles o f the student and adopt instructional procedures accordingly” Warren (1978) also contended that a complex method for assessing and analyzing student and instructor learning and

teaching styles is not necessary Thus, the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire for investigating learning styles (Reid, 1987) was the best choice for the study.

As mentioned in 2.2, a teacher’ s teaching style is considered to be a result o f his/ her past learning experience (Claxton & Ralston, 1978; Gregore, 1979), and a teacher often teaches his/ her students in the same way he/ she were taught or he/ she learned (Oxford, 1990; Cheng, 1995) In other words, it means that a teacher’ s teaching style often reflects his/ her learning style (Oxford, 1990a) Thus, it is necessary to investigate teachers，learning styles to get to know about their preferred ways o f teaching styles For the mentioned reasons, the modified version o f the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (Peacock, 2001) for investigating teaching styles was selected for the purposes o f the study

The both instruments chosen for the study are relatively easy to administer with administration time averaging approximately 45 minutes The detailed descriptions o f the instruments are presented in Section 3.3

Despite the fact that there is considerable research on learning and teaching styles in EFL classroom, especially learning styles in many countries in the world, there has been too little research on these areas conducted in Vietnam so far In other words, learning and teaching styles o f Vietnamese EFL students has not been much investigated and the match or mismatch between them has still remained unexplored This means further studies on the learning and teaching styles are quite necessary to be conducted as most researchers agree that further study is needed in the area o f identifying learning styles, teaching styles, and the match/ mismatch between those

In addition, the findings in the literature are important to my study I should be able to

identify existing learning style and teaching style preferences and learning style/ teaching style match as it pertains to the items within the instrumentation with using PLSPS conducted by Reid (1998) for identifying the learning styles and the modified version o f PLSPS by Peacock (2001) for identifying the teaching styles at QNTTC

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research questions o f the study, the population sampled, the instrumentation used in the study, the data collection procedures, the data analysis and the summary o f the chapter

3.1 Research questions o f the study

Identification o f teaching and learning styles is the first step in improving instruction and implementing variety in the classroom (Cornette, 1983; Gregore, 1984; Kinsella, 1995) The purposes，therefore, o f this study were to identify the teaching styles o f the non-English major students and teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC in a specific content area, and to determine whether a match between the two existed Thus, the research questions addressed in the study were:

1 What learning styles are mostly preferred by the non-English major students atQuang Ninh Teacher Training College?

2 What teaching styles are mostly preferred by the language teachers at QuangNinh Teacher Training College?

3.2 Subjects o f the study

The first target population o f this study were undergraduate college-level students studying at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College, a state-owned college The students were 160 non-English majors aged 18-19 on average These students were studying different majors, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, literature, history and geography Their majors were classified into two types named natural science

including mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, and social sciences including

literature, history and geography 80 students were in the first year, and the rest were in the second year The participants were randomly selected from different classes, sorted out by the odd or even numbers A ll o f the students speak Vietnamese as their mother tongue and they learn English as a foreign language The students entered the college after an entrance exam, but their scores were considerably different The students from the East o f Quang Ninh could enter the college with very low marks o f 12，13 on average, whereas the students from the West o f the province had to get very high marks

o f 21，22 on average This happened partly because o f the difference in the

prior-education between them That means the students had different years o f learning English at school Many o f them have started learning English from the sixth grade, but they are still supposed to be false-beginners and they learn English as one o f their compulsory subjects at the college The students have 150 periods for their English

course with the textbooks 1 Lifelines-Elementary by Tom Hutchinson (1995) and 2 A Selected Readings on the local area o f Quang Ninh written by the teachers o f the

English Department at QNTTC (2006) In general, the students have a great motivation

to improve their English language because they think it is not only useful for their study and their job in the ftiture, but also in their various real-life activities, such as watching movies, listening to English songs, searching information and chatting to friends on the Internet

Natural science students

80

UG- year 1 UG- year 2

40 40

Social science students

ou

Table 3.1: Profile of Student Subjects at QNTTC， 2007

* Notes: UG = Under-graduate students

The second group o f respondents was all o f the eight language teachers o f the English Department at QNTTC The teachers are all females and they have been working at QNTTC for at least nine years One o f the teachers has a degree o f master in TESOL One teacher is attending a master course o f TESOL in Ha Noi University Four out o f the eight teachers used to be teachers o f Russian and one o f them used to be literature teacher at QNTTC Those teachers have been teachers o f English since they got three years o f re-training in English The teachers are aged between 30 and 48 A ll o f the teachers have attended at least one minor workshop in language teaching in Ha Noi A ll

o f the respondents have had opportunities to teach different subjects in English and specialized in specific language skills they are the best at and the most interested in, such as listening, speaking, reading and writing Therefore, the teachers all have good experience in their teaching job Besides, the college has been improving the learning environment by bringing into practice the recent theories in teaching in general, and in language teaching in particular Thus, the information collected for the study was reliable and useful

The non-probability, incidental-sampling technique was utilized (Castetter & Heisier, 1988) The sample consisted o f an available population at QNTTC One language teacher and three student participants were asked to volunteer for the study.

3.3 Data collection instrum ents

There are different data instruments used to collect data for an investigating teaching and learning styles such as oral interviews, written questionnaires, observation, verbal reports’ diaries and dialog journals Among those, questionnaire is defined as “ a self-

report data collection instrument that each research participant fills out as part o f research study，，(Johnson & Christensen, 2000)

After concerning both o f strengths and weaknesses o f each approach mentioned, the researcher finds that questionnaire is the most preferably chosen for this study because

o f the advantages as follows:

First o f all, questionnaires are self-administered and can be given to large groups o f subjects at the same time, the data, therefore, are more uniform and standard Secondly, when anonymity is assured, subjects tend to share information o f a sensitive nature more easily Thirdly, since they are usually given to all subjects o f the research at exactly the same time，the data are more accurate Another good point o f the written questionnaire survey is that it allows the participants time to consider the questions and write down the replies thoughtftilly Besides, the researcher can control the questioning,

so that the respondents, as a result, do not have opportunity to elaborate on the answers Moreover, questionnaire can “ te ll，，you the information about the participant’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, personality, and so on In other words, using questionnaires，researchers can obtain information about different kinds o f characteristics o f research participants

There are numerous questionnaire inventories that are available to identify teaching and learning styles, such as the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Survey (PLSPS) by

Reid (1987)，Style Analysis Survey (SAS) by Oxford (1993), or Second language Tolerance o f Ambiguity Scale by Ely (1995) However, Warren (1976, in Raines, 1978)

states that “ a simple questionnaire survey o f student preferences throughout an institution, a program, or a department would indicate the proportion o f students strongly inclined toward one instructional approach or the other” (p7) Besides, many teacher-researchers have used The Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey (PLSPS) informally to help their students identify their individual learning styles, and

the teachers have also begun to administer the PLSPS in EFL programs in non-English speaking countries since 1984 when Reid developed and normed PLSPS (Reid, 1998) For the mentioned reasons, the researcher choose The PLSPS (Reid, 1998) as the inventory o f the study, which help to identify the р ш ііс ір а г^ preferred learning styles among six categories: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group and individual

learning

In the study, the researcher handed out two types o f questionnaires The first one was given to the 160 non-English major students as the first target participants o f the study The other questionnaire was handed to the language teachers o f the English Department

And the following are the brief description o f the two questionnaires used in the study: There are two parts in the questionnaire for the students The first part consists o f 2 questions The two multiple-choice questions are designed to obtain general information (major, year) so the students can tick into the box for their choice The second part o f the questionnaire consists o f 30 statements that are adopted from PLSPS designed by Professor Joy M Reid (1998) o f University o f Wyoming This questionnaire is conducted to help students identify the way(s) they prefer to learn

To answer the research question: What learning styles are mostly preferred by the non- English major students at QNTTC?, the PLSPS by Reid (1998) was completed by the

learners

There are five statements for each learning category in the questionnaire in which the questions are grouped according to each learning style Statements 6，10，12，24，29 are related to the way students prefer to learn with their eyes {Visual learners) Statements

1，7, 9，17，20 are relates to the way students prefer to learn with their ears {Auditory learners) Statements 2，8, 15，19，25 are concerned with Kinesthetic learners, while

statements 11，14，16，22, 15 deal with the way students prefer to learn by hands-on tasks (Tactile learners) Statements 3，4，5，21，23 are concerned with students who prefer to work alone {Individual learners), while statements 13，18，27，28，30 relate to the way students prefer to work in groups {Group learners).

The questionnaire for the students is translated into Vietnamese so it would be sure to help the participants understand the concept o f the statements more easily，thus, they would give their responses to those clearly

For each statement, 5 alternative choices are provided and the participants were asked

to select one from those without too much thought The learners had to respond to the

statements as they apply to their study o f English by using 5-point scale: strongly agree, agree, undecided，disagree and strongly disagree with the numerical value from five to

one o f each answer

5: for Strongly Agree

4: for Agree

3: for Undecided

2: for Disagree

1: for Strongly Disagree

The inventory scores were totalled to obtain raw scores for each scale Group means which mean the representative o f the raw scores for the group o f learners in the study were calculated for each scale The highest score presented the major learning style preference(s), the medium score represented the minor learning style preference(s), and the lowest score represented the negligible learning styles

To answer the research question: What teaching styles are mostly preferred by the language teachers at QNTTC?，the language teachers were given the version o f Reid’ s

PLSPS modified by Peacock (2001) using a different 5-point scale: always, often, sometimes, rarely, and never with the numerical value from five to one o f each answer

There was the modification to the PLSPS used for investigating teaching styles because

a frequency rather than an agree/ disagree scale was used since actions, not preferences, were being carried out by the teachers and were being researched in the study The teachers were asked to respond to each statement as it applied to their teaching o f English

learning/ teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC by using the sane scale as follow: