MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
W
LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES
OF NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
ˆ TRƯỜNG DAL HOC MO TP.HCM
THU VIEN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)
Submitted by NGUYEN THI THUY TRINH
Supervisor
Dr NGUYEN DINH THU
Trang 2ABSTRACT
Learning styles are student's “natural, habitual and preferred ways” of absorbing and processing a second language (Reid, 1995) In this study the learning styles of students at Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMCOU) are investigated, and relationship between students’ learning style preferences (LSPs) and the faculty students studied in, gender, proficiency level of English and achievement scores in the English Course are examined The data were gathered using the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) distributed to 420 randomly selected students, and then analysed via SPSS for descriptive statistics to calculate frequencies, percentages,
means and standard deviations Besides, the / test was conducted to determine if
Trang 3TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP 0 1 \0.9119).40519/6/5) 15 011 li 50:7 iil IV.0:59)1699)69261115 5 iv IBR209)00.9:05 1 vì 9:23:47 00/9)-12755 vil “TTAPTER 1: INNTRODUCTION 2Á G1 2311 ng 1 1.1 Rationale cceecceneeeeeeereeneeereeteessesesseeeneess 1 TH Yo Toà na ae 5
1.3 Significance ofthe SfUdy Ă Ăn HH Hà Hà net 5 TW) ao on 6
1.5 VA'( to con hố ae an 6
9057 04021:000069:):6.0000:4:8.0:04I2 21 8
SI N00 0a 2 a §
2.2 Models ofLearning sfyÏe - - Ăn HH HH Hệ, 9 2.2.1 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MB T]) . 5+ << <<+2 9 2.2.2 Kolb's Learning Style Model (1975) -Ă che 10 2.2.3 Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBD]) 11
2.2.4 Gregorc's Mind Styles Model <5 555kg 12 2.2.5 McCarthy’s Learning Styles Model (1990) .ccsecceeằc 13 2.2.6 Gardner's Learning Style Model «ch re 13 2.2.7 Reid“s Learning Style Model (199Š5) .- 2c Sen 14 2.2.8 Felder — Stlverman Learning Style Model - cà cce sec 15 2.3 Research on learning styÌes - 5 SH hưệt 19 2.3.1 Nho cá ao na e 19
Trang 42.3.2 Studies in Vietnam .ccccccceccssseseccesecseecceccccececccecceeeasaustesesssvesecsveess 23
".Ẳ an 25
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD 0 Ăn HH rkt 26 cổ -.óo i9 ion .ằ - 26
3.2 Research Design Là HH HH TH HH HH He 27 3.3, Subjects 28
3.4 Description of Variables - Ăn HH HH He ưưệc 31 3.5 Data Collection Ïnstrumer[ . s + Hư 31 3.6 Data Collection Proce€dUres <1 HH Hư nha 35 EY/A TL) i0 e 36
Ea 36
057.1405610: 1001 115 37
4.1 Characteristics ofthe PartICIDATẨS - cnScnnehnHrrrrerreree 37 4.2 Learning Style PrefÍerenCes ccn th v1 tre 37 4.2.1 Achievement and Learning Style Preferences . - c5: 39 42.2 Faculty and Learning Style Preferences coi 41 4.2.3 Gender and Learning Style Preferences : c+ccccsrvercee 44 4.2.4 — Level and Learning Style Preferences . + eeeeerei 47 4.3 Summary -. -c <5 ¬ 49 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53
hoc o8 e 53
5.2 Go 53
0® on 55
Trang 5LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 3.1: Distribution of Participants According to Level - cs-ccccss«ss<2 30 Table 3.2: Distribution of Participants According to FacuÌty -ccccccccesei 30 Table 3.3: Distribution of ILS Items According to Dimenslion 34 Table 4.2: Achievement scores and learning style preferences of students 40 Table 4.3: Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Process Dimension 42 Table 4.4: Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Perception Dimension 43 Table 4.5: Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Input Dimension 43 Table 4.6: Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Understanding
Min oi 500017 - 4 44 Table 4.7: Process DIimension and ienr . c1 vn srê, 45 Table 4.8: Perception Dimension and Gender -ó- 55c rerikc 45 Table 4.9: Input Dimension and enieT c5 9v HH ng têc 46 Table 4.10: Understanding Dimension and ender c5 5< scc<+<ccess 46 Table 4.11: Process Dimension and level - óc tt * +11 12311511511 xe, 47 Table 4.12: Perception Dimension and Í,evel -. sex + ghe 48 Table 4.13: Input Dimension and eV€Ï - Gà k2 1219 TH HT ng re 49 Table 4.14: Ủnderstanding Dimension and LeveÌ - + sc<sssxserssreexrs 49 Table 4.15: Result of Learning style Preferences of the Students 50 Table 4.16: Result of Achievement scores and learning style preferences of students Table 4.17: Result of Learning Style Preferences of the Students and faculty 51 Table 4.18: Result of Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Gender 51 Table 4.19: Result of Learning Style Preferences of the Students and Level 52
Trang 6HCMCOU HCMC OU LSPs ILS GE ESP ABBREVIATIONS
: Ho Chi Minh City Open University : Ho Chi Minh City
: Open University
: Learning Style Preferences : Index of Learning Styles : General English
Trang 7CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the rationale for the study on learning preferences is presented It then mentions the aim, the significance of the study, and the definition of terms The thesis organization is also included
1.1 Rationale
English has proven itself one of the most popular international language nowadays As a foreign language in Viet Nam, it has recently become one of the basic and necessary subjects of different levels of schooling Possibly speaking, the English teaching at Universities has contributed to the national manpower training and development However, the reality of teaching and learning English at Universities at present does not result in much effectiveness as it is expected Some obstacles related to teaching and learning English need to be overcome in order to meet the demands of the social development and international integration
Trang 8Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMCOU) was founded in 1990, in Ho i Minh City, the largest city of Vietnam It is considered to be a 'semi-public'
panization and the country's first Open University, offering a range of ‘ ogrammes from certificates, diplomas and degrees to undergraduate and h 0stpraduate students Options Include pure distance learning, on-site classes, and * tellite academic centers E-Learning does not seem to figure prominently It seeks tc meet learning needs of Vietnamese society and improve the 'human resources’ of ithe country Through its twenty years of existence, it has been training a large
umber of students in different disciplines There are currently eight faculties in CMCOU: Faculty of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Business Administration, aculty of Southeast Asian Studies, Faculty of Women’s Studies, Faculty of omputer Science, Faculty of Bio-Technology, Faculty of Rural Development, and
| Faculty of General Education, and four centers: Center of Applied Computer
Science, Center of Foreign Languages, Center of Distance Education, and Center of ‘Assessment The students take the program of General English (GE) for non-majors
and the program of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) GE courses at HCMCOU
provide the students with 280 periods of class time aiming at consolidating
fundamental English grammar and improving students’ performance, especially listening and speaking skills, which enable them to study ESP following the GE
courses The course materials include the main books AMERICAN ENGLISH
FILE ONE by Clive Oxenden, Christina Latham, Koenig, Paul Seligson (2008),
HESMISPHERE ONE, TWO, THREE by Cameron, S.,Vargo, M & Jannuzzi S
(2008) and HESMISPHERE ONE, TWO, THREE WORKBOOK by Johannen, K
(2008) Beside that, all students have to take the placement test right in the first term of the course The results collected are used to group students in the right course in order to assure that students’ English proficiency is approximately equal in the same
Trang 9
As a matter of fact, all non-English major students at Ho Chi Minh City Open niversity (HCMCOU) have to study English for at least five semesters mplementing this scheme, OU expects that the students are provided with basic Fknowledge of English for survival in the future Some students are successful in hearning English However, there are still many students who do not study English { ffectively Most of these students reported that they had difficulties in studying ị nglish or they thought they did not have the ability to learn a language They also ound it is very difficult to keep up with their teachers’ teaching and did not ire ognize the reasons why other classmates could understand and follow the in tructions well whereas they could not As the result, these students become bored
fand inattentive in class, do poorly on tests, and in some cases drop out of school
(Felder, 1996, p.18) To solve this problem, a lot of seminars and workshops have
Hen held to support teachers in teaching methods, classroom techniques, and
fnstructional materials However, there has been a growing concern that learners
shave not progressed in the HCMCOU due to differences in gender, faculty, age, evel, achievement scores, motivation, etc There are considerable individual k ifferences in language learning: what works for one learner might not work for
lanother Therefore, none of the methods and techniques can work all the time, in all
classes It might be appropriate to comply with Grenfell and Harris’ (1999) statement that “Methodology alone can never be a solution to language learning
Rather it is an aid and suggestion” (p 10)
Trang 102008) It is clear that students take in and comprehend information in different ways Some prefer visual styles and others, auditory Some prefer to learn individually while others enjoy group interaction with their peers It is widely believed (e.g Reid, 1987; CelceMurcia, 2001), that the different ways in which a learner takes in and processes information are collectively referred to as learning style preferences
However, most teachers are not aware of the way their students prefer to learn, or even if they are, they pay little, if any, attention to them Although most teachers believe that their students come to the language classroom with different preferences, interests and expectation, they do not take consideration of these differences seriously before conducting language-learning activities, hence being unable to meet the learning needs of individual students Teachers need to know their students’ preferred way of learning so that they can tailor their teaching methods to appeal to the greatest number of students They could then expand their teaching strategies to accommodate various learning preferences with a view that all learners can be included in the learning process (Mohammad, 2007)
Information about learning styles would serve as a guide to the students in their learning proccess As they would know about the strengths and weaknesses of their own way of learning Students who learn about their own style become better learners; they have more positive attitudes about their studies, and exhibit greater self-confidence They learn better when they understand the conditions that promote their learning, and broaden their preferences (Connor, 1997:3)
Trang 11become more aware of the importance of understanding learning style preferences in order to be more effective in teaching and learning English
1.2 Aims of the study
The aims of the study are:
e to determine the learning styles of non-English major students at HCMCOU
e to find out whether there is any relationship between students’ learning style preferences and the faculty they study, gender, proficiency level of English and achievement scores in the English course
1.3 Significance of the Study
This study might be useful for both language teachers and learners because it should raise teachers’ awareness concerning the learning style preferences of students It is known that most teachers tend to teach in the way they were taught or in the way they preferred to learn Knowing learners’ general learning style preferences would enable teachers to prepare lesson plans and design activities that meet the diversity of learners They would then be capable of integrating appropriate materials and activities that give all students equal opportunities to take
in and process their lessons For this reason, as Stebbins (1995) suggests, teachers
should know the general learning style profiles of the whole class, enabling them to organize and employ instructional materials, which would accordingly encourage all students in the learning process
Trang 12» “will enable students to take control of their learning and to maximize their "potential for learning” (p xiv) On this issue, Hand (1990) stated that knowledge of learning styles is not only a powerful tool for teachers, but equally valuable to students By examining their own and their classmates’ learning styles, students can learn new strategies for accomplishing tasks Afterwards, they gain confidence in their strengths and develop diverse strategies for coping with the challenging
situations
1.4 Definition of Terms:
Learning Style: The ways with which a learner characteristically acquires, retains,
and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual’s learning style
(Felder and Henriques, 1995)
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire: A tool employed to assess one’s learning style preferences based upon Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model (Felder,
1996)
Faculty: A group of related departments in a university (Crowther, 1995) In this study, there are three cohorts of students from Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of finance-Banking, and Faculty of Sociology
Level: In this study, level means the proficiency value of the students There are
three levels at HCMCOU, level A which is intermediate, level B elementary, and
level C beginner
1.5 Thesis organization
The thesis consists of five chapters, including (1) Introduction, (2) Literature Review, (3) Research Methodology, (4) Results, and (5) Discussions and Conclu-
Trang 13Chapter One presents a rationale for the study on learning style preferences, the aim, the significance of the study, the definition of terms, and then concluded with the thesis organization
Chapter Two introduces the definitions of learning style, different learning models, research abroad in general and in Vietnam in particular
Chapter Three decribes the research questions, research design, the subjects,
the description of variables, the data collection instruments, the procedures of data
collection, the procedures of data analysis, and the summary of the study are also presented
Chapter Four presents the characteristics of the participants, the results of the study regarding the main research questions, and the summary of the results of the ‘study
Trang 14CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, Chapter Two, definitions and different learning models are
b oduced Besides, research relevant to this study conducted abroad and in
Retnam will be highlighted
What is Learning style?
An individual's learning style is the way that person begins to process, ' ernalize and concentrate on new material (Gremli 1996, p 24) We each person ams in a unique way and there are similarities of course, but "every person has a k ning style it is as individual as a fingerprint" (p 24) No one person learns in he exact manner as another person What suits one learner may be inadequate for jpother Reid (1987) defined learning styles or learning preferences as different ‘ ays of how one takes in and processes information For example, how one learns
he name of a person he meets, easier if it is written down, hence he may be a visual
earner who can learn best by seeing or reading If the sound of name facilitates his
memory, then he may be auditory learner (Slavin, 2000, cited in Giines, 2004) In fact, many people prefer to learn in ways that are different from how other
people of the same class, grade, age, nationality, race, culture, or religion prefer to
leam How people prefer to learn is their learning style preference While certain gifted students can demonstrate their proficient learning without resorting to their learning style preference, low achievers perform better if they use their learning ityle preferences This complies with the results from a decade of research that higher scores are reported in both standardized achievement tests and attitude tests dy low and average achievers once they are taught learning style preferences (Dunn,
Trang 15| Students are said to possess certain strengths and preferences in terms of learning style — that is to say how they absorb and process information Their learning styles are in fact conditioned by not only their genetic make-up but also previous learning experiences, the culture and society in which they socialize For
this reason, some students are inclined to focus on facts and data, whereas others
prefer working with abstractness and mathematical models Some students favour
visual channels of information — pictures, diagrams, or schematas while others can
get along well with spoken or writte forms Still, some like to learn through working actively and interactively with peers; others with others perform introspectively and
individually (Felder, 1996, cited in Giines, 2004)
2.2 Models of Learning style
There are also various learning style models which attempt to identify the learning styles of people through the use of learning style instruments Some learning style models have been developed and used effectively in education Mentioned here are some popular learning style models
2.2.1 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
In Myers and Briggs model, students are classified according to their preferences based on Jung’s (1921) theory of psychological types Students may be:
e extroverts (try things out, theory on the outer world of people) or introverts (think things through, focus on the inner world of ideas);
Trang 16e thinkers (skeptical, tend to make decisions based on logic and rules) or feelers (appreciative, tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations);
e Judgers (set and follow agendas, seek closure even with incomplete data)
or perceivers (adapt to changing circumstances, resist closure to obtain more data) (fp.arizona.edu/geog695c/PDFs/Matters of Style.pdf)
The combination of these MBTI type preferences can form 16 different learning style types It is to say, for example, one student may be an ESTP
(extrovert, sensor, thinker, and perceiver) and another may be an INFJ (introvert,
intuitor, feeler, and judger)
2.2.2 Kolb's Learning Style Model (1975)
Kolb classifies students based on the way they absorb information in and how they internalize it, thus there are four types of learners:
e Type 1 (concrete, reflective): A characteristic question of this learning type is "Why?"
Learners of this type are able to respond well to how course material relates
to their experience, their interests, and their future careers For these
students, the instructor will work effectively in the role of a motivator e Type 2 (abstract, reflective): A characteristic question of this learning
type is "What?"
Type 2 learners can work well with information presented in an organized, logical manner and benefit if they have time for reflection To work effectively with type 2 learners, the instructor should function as an expert e Type 3 (abstract, active): A characteristic question of this learning type is
Trang 17
For type 3 learners, opportunities to actively involve in well-defined tasks and to learn by trial-and-error in an environment which allows them to fail safely are preferred As a coach, the instructor will function effectively with them, providing guided practice and feedback
e Type 4 (concrete, active): A characteristic question of this learning type
is "What if?”
Type 4 learners like to make connection by applying course material in new situations to solve real problems Maximizing opportunities for the students to discover things for themselves is the effective way the instructor should do (fp.arizona.edu/geog695c/PDFs/Matters of Style.pdf)
22.3 Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI)
Based upon the specialized functions of brain hemispheres, this method
classifies students into four different modes in terms of their relative preferences for thinking The four modes or quadrants in this classification scheme are:
Quadrant A (left brain, cerebral): Logical, analytical, quantitative, factual, critical;
Quadrant B (left brain, limbic): Sequential, organized, planned, detailed,
structured;
Quadrant C (right brain, limbic): Emotional, interpersonal, sensory, kinesthetic, symbolic;
Quadrant D (right brain, cerebral): Visual, holistic, innovative
Trang 182.2.4 Gregorc's Mind Styles Model
Gregorc (1985) builds his model upon four major learning types
* Concrete Sequential (CS): this type of learners prefer order, logical
sequence, like to get directions and facts Therefore, a_ structured
environment help them to learn best, relying on others and applying ideas in pragmatic ways However, they find difficult when working in an unorganized environment, or groups with pointless discussions, incomplete
or unclear directions, unpredictable people, abstract ideas, demands to "use
your imagination", questions with no right or wrong answers
¢ Abstract Random (AR): learners of this type like listening to others in order to establish group harmony, healthy relationships with others, focusing on the issues at hand They are best learners in a personalized environment, given broad or general guidelines, able to maintain friendly relationships, and able to participate in group activities Yet, they will experience difficulty when they have to make explanations of justifications about feelings, competition They do not feel comfortable working with dictatorial/ authoritarian minds, unfriendly people or in a confined setting
¢ Abstract Sequential (AS): AS learners would like their ideas to be heard They prefer analyzing situations prior making a decision or acting, and applying logic They can learn best when getting access to experts or references, or when they are placed in stimulating environments These
learners are able to work alone Otherwise, they find it hard to work with
people of differing viewpoints, or those who have too little time to deal with a subject thoroughly, repeating the same tasks over and over, lots of specific rules and regulations, "sentimental" thinking, expressing their emotions, being diplomatic when convincing others, and not monopolizing a
Trang 19* Concrete Random (CR): these learners use experiments as ways to find answers, and taking risks, using their intuition, and solving problems independently They can learn best employing trial-and-error approaches, or
competing with others, or when they are given the opportunity to work through problems independently These learners find it hard working with
restrictions and limitations, or formal reports, routines, keeping detailed
records, showing how they got an answer, choosing only one answer, having no options
2.2.5 McCarthy’s Learning Styles Model (1990) McCarthy (1990) identified four learning styles:
e Innovative learners seek personal meaning and draw on their values while learning They also like to socialize, cooperate with others and want to make the world a better place
e Analytic learners are patient and reflective learners who want to develop intellectually and draw on facts while learning in order to understand “important things" and to add to the world's knowledge
e Commonsense learners, being dynamic and active, want to make things happen to find solutions, values if they are useful
e Dynamic \earners are enthusiastic and adventurous to look for hidden possibilities, judge things by reactions, synthesize information from
different sources
2.2.6 Gardner's Learning Style Model
Multiple intelligences, introduced by Gardner (1985), commonly viewed as a model of learning styles In his view, 4 learning styles are identified as follows:
Trang 20e Visual learner: for these learners, the teacher's body language and facial expression are important for them to fully understand the content of a lesson They like sitting in front rows in order to avoid visual obstructions Pictures and visual displays facilitate their thinking and they prefer taking detailed notes to absorb the information
e Auditory learners: verbal lectures, discussions and talking to and listening to other people are their preferred modes of learning They decode the underlying meanings of speech through variation in tone of
voice, pitch, speed and other nuances For these learners, written
information is of little meaning and they learn best from reading the text aloud and using a tape recorder
e Tactile/Kinesthetic learners: lessons are best learnt through a hands—on approach, actively exploring the physical world around them Learners of this type want to move around, therefore it is hard for them to sit still for long periods
2.2.7 Reid‘s Learning Style Model (1995)
This model consists of six learning preferences: * Visual Learning Style Preference
Learners learn well from seeing words in a book or on the chalkboard Learners remember and understand information and instructions better if they read them Learners don’t need as much oral explanation as an auditory learner, and they can often learn alone Learners should take notes of lectures and oral directions if they want to remember information
* Auditory Learning Style Preference
Trang 21when they are learning new materials They benefit from hearing audiotapes,
lectures, and class discussions They benefit from making tapes to listen to,
by teaching other students, and by conversing with their teacher * Kinesthetic Learning Style Preference
Learners learn best by experience, by being involved physically in classroom experiences Learners remember information well when they actively participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the classroom A combination of stimuli, for example, an audiotape combined with an activity, will help them understand new material
* Tactile Learning Style Preference
Learners learn best when they have the opportunity to do “hands—on” experience with materials Working on experiments in a laboratory, handling and building models, and touching and working with materials provide learners with the most successful learning situation Writing notes or instructions can help them remember information, and physical involvement in class related activities help learners understand new information
2.2.8 Felder — Silverman Learning Style Model (1988)
Richard Felder and Linda Silverman (Felder, 1993; Felder and Silverman,
1988) developed the learning styles model which incorporates five dimensions, two
of which replicate aspects of the Myers-Briggs and Kolb models Specifically, while
the Perception dimension (sensing/intuitive) resembles the Perception of both Myers-Briggs and Kolb; the Processing dimension (active/reflective) is also traced in Kolb's model Besides, Felder-Silverman suggest three additional dimensions, namely Input (visual/verbal), Organization (inductive/deductive), and Understanding (sequential/global)
Trang 22e Process dimension (active and reflective): Active learners absorb new information by doing something with it, prefer trying out and experimenting with the new information They like to work in group because this enables them to be more active For them, sitting through lectures is boring as they have nothing to actually get involved, which may present difficulty for them Reflective learners like to speculate about new information prior to acting on it, and prefer thinking carefully over the problems first on their own to discussing it with others Sitting through lectures can also be uncomfortable for reflective learners because they often like to take some time out pondering over new information In fact, everybody is sometimes active and sometimes reflective Your preference for one category or the other may be strong, moderate, or mild (Felder, 1988,
1993, 1996; Felder & Soloman, 1998)
e Sensing/Intuitive dimension: Sensing learners like learning through facts and problem solving by established methods These learners ar particulary careful, practical and patient and like to relate new knowledge to the real world Intuitive learners prefer making connection, discovering new relationships and innovating
in their approach to problem solving Learners of this type tend to work faster
and dislike repetitive, monotonous work that involves much memorization and
routine calculations (Felder, 1988, 1993, 1996; Felder & Soloman, 1998)
e Input dimension (visual and verbal): For Visual learners, visual modes like
pictures, demonstrations, diagrams, charts, films and so on facilitate their
learning while Verbal learners best understand new information through written
and spoken words Felder (1993, 1998) claims that most students are visual learners however, students mainly listen to lectures and read material written on
boards and in textbooks rather than being presented visual material Anyway,
good learners are capable of processing information presented either visually or
Trang 23Understanding dimension (sequential/global): Sequential learners understand new information in linear steps, logically organized from the previous one, whereas Global learners tend to learn in large jumps, absorbing information in a random order without necessarily seeing any connections until they have grasped the whole concept Therefore, Global learners sometimes do better by jumping directly to more complex and difficult material, Sequential learners learn best when material is presented in a steady progression of complexity and difficulty,
global School is often a difficult experience for global learners Since they do not learn in a steady or predictable manner they tend to feel out-of-step with their fellow students and incapable of meeting the expectations of their teachers They
may feel stupid when they are struggling to master material with which most of their contemporaries seem to have little trouble Some eventually become discouraged with education and drop out However, global learners are the last
students who should be lost to higher education and society They are the
synthesizers, the multidisciplinary researchers, the systems thinkers, the ones who see the connections no one else sees They can be truly outstanding engineers-if they survive the educational process In the schooling system, most courses are taught in a sequential manner, textbooks are sequential, and most teachers teach sequentially It is difficult to understand global learners; thus, the teachers should provide the big picture of the subject before presenting the steps and detail The
students should be given the freedom to plan their own methods of solving
problems rather than being forced to adopt the teacher’s strategy The teachers
should provide students with creative activities and encourage students in solving
them (Felder, 1988, 1993, 1996; Felder & Soloman, 1998)
e Inductive and Deductive Organization was the last dimension in Felder- Silverman Learning Style Model, but it was omitted Induction is a reasoning that
proceeds from specific (observations, measurements, and data) to general
(governing rules, laws, and theories) Induction is the natural learning style
TRUONG OAL HOC MO TP.HCM
THU VIEN
Trang 24
Inductive learners prefer to learn a body of material by seeing specific cases first (observations, experimental results, numerical examples) and working up to
governing principles and theories by inference Deduction, on the other hand,
proceeds in the opposite direction Deduction is the natural teaching style, at least at university level Deductive learners prefer to begin with general principles and to deduce consequences and applications Felder (1988) claims that one problem with deductive presentation is that it gives a seriously misleading impression This kind of presentation is perfectly ordered and concise and many students prefer deductive presentation Inductive presentation isn’t concise and prescriptive However, Felder (2002) is against deductive presentation that is traditional but less effective in his point of view Therefore, he omitted this dimension from the model and the Index of Learning Styles (Felder, 1988, 1993,
2002)
Trang 252.3 Research on learning styles
There are many studies conducted on learning styles in the world and in Vietnam
2.3.1 Studies in the world
Numerous Researches Carried Out on Learning Style Preferences For example, Reid (1987) conducted a study with 90 Chinese university students studying in the USA to investigate which learning type was the most favored The
results showed that the students preferred Kinesthetic and Tactile styles, and
disfavored Group styles Similarly, Melton (1990) reported that Chinese university students (N = 331) strongly favored Kinesthetic, Tactile and Individual styles They, however, did not prefer Group styles Jones (1997) conducted a study with 81 Chinese (Taiwan) university students The results indicated that the students favored Kinesthetic and Tactile styles, but disfavored Individual styles Rossi-Le (1995) carried out a survey with adult L2 immigrants in the US Results showed that Kinesthetic and Tactile styles were the most favored Another study was conducted by Hyland (1993) He found that his Japanese learners favored Auditory and Tactile styles, and disfavored Visual and Group styles These examples showed that all learners regardless of their cultural backgrounds have their own learning styles
In an attempt to investigate the issue of learners' preferences in learning a foreign language, Kavaliauskiene (2003) drew three main conclusions from this research First, communicative approach is favoured by a slightly more than half of the learners to improve their language skills through pair or groupwork, or participate in projects and practice English by talking to their classmates Second, an overwhelming participants in a given assignments (93 percent of learners) are for the idea of doing homework, whereas only 7 percent of them reject it Third, a short-term prevailing attitude toward studying a foreign language appears that
Trang 26learners are not interested in improving language skills and competence for the future goal, but seek passing their exams and getting good marks
£
Another study conducted by Ong et al (2006) to determine the learning style preferences and English proficiency of students from a B.Ed (TESL) Foundation ‘course at Institut Perguruan Bahasa-Bahasa Antarabangsa (IPBA) The study aimed at determining the effect of learning style preferences on the students’ written English proficiency, employing Reid’s Learning Style Preference questionnaire as
the main instrument The findings reported that the major LSPs of the students is
kinesthetic, showing that most of the students learn best through involvement in classroom experiences It was interesting that, on the contrary, none of the subjects ‘were verbal learners In addition, it was found that the students’ LSPs do affect their ‘written English proficiency
From a different angle, Akgiin (2002) investigated the learning styles of
English learners at private English courses in Ankara, participated by 350 randomly
‘selected English students and 47 teachers The results revealed that these students’ “most preferred learning style was concrete learning style, and then communicative, ,authority-oriented and analytical learning styles respectively The same order of ‘learning styles was found among teachers Interestingly, no evidence was found ‘about the effect of age and gender on learning styles However, there was a
‘significant difference between university graduates and M.A students and other
leamers in terms of level of education, because university graduates and M.A
‘students preferred analytical learning style more than the other learners
Trang 27
learners rather than intuitive In terms of input dimension, all engineering students
fisplayed a preference toward visual learning Another finding drawn from the last imension showed no significant difference between sex, department, Cumulative
rade point average (CGPA) and four learning style dimension In summary, this Btudy indicated that engineering students’learning style preferences were not
Wifferent from those of others in terms of department variable Male and female
students’ learning style preferences and CGPA scores were not significantly k ifferent from each other either
| Besides that, some researches on LSPs in Thailand, HongKong
: In Thai land, Kannika Vitsupakorn (2004) examined the learning style of lpre-clinical students in medical school at Chiang Mai University The Index of
i earning Styles (ILS) questionnaire was administered to a group of second and
hird-year medical students ILS assesses preferences on a four dimensional (active
lvs reflective, sensing vs intuitive, visual vs verbal, and sequential vs global) learning style model A total of 198 (51%) second and third-year medical students Hn the 2002 academic year participated in the study Most of the students showed a preference for information being put in the form of pictures, graphs or diagrams (visual learners) The type of information next preferred was sights, sounds or
iphysical sensation (sensing learners), which tended to process them through their
engagement in physical activity or discussion (active learners) They progressed lholistic approach toward understanding (global learners) There were fifteen types lof learning styles, which were ascertained from combining individual preferences to lone particular type Learning style models that categorize preferred and less preferred modes of learning in medical students can provide a good framework for idesigning instruction Helping students to build necessary skills will enhance
Fifectiveness of the curriculum
Trang 28McCall, Klein, Piterman, and Lam (2005), in Hong Kong examined the learning style preferences of general practitioners in Hong Kong enrolled in a
Diploma of Family Medicine course Participants were invited to fill in the 40-item
Honey and Mumford Learning Style Questionnaire Data on_ instructional preference were gathered using a 47-item structured questionnaire developed for ‘this study Their assessment scores were also recorded for analysis Students based in Hong Kong and enrolled in the distance learning Postgraduate Diploma of Family Medicine conducted by Monash University Main outcome measures:
Students' attitudes and behaviours determining their preferences in learning Forty
two percent (n=41) of 98 students took part in the study and completed the pre- and
post- course subject questionnaires The pre-course subject preferred learning style was ‘reflective’ (32%) and the majority of students had only one preferred style (71%) The preferences did not show significant changes over the period of study of the 18-week semester The predominant learning style of general practitioners in Hong Kong in this postgraduate course was ‘reflective’ These life long learners may
wish to consider their learning style preference when selecting future continuing
medical education activities Learning styles should be considered by course teams when revising instruction and teaching methods and assessments
However, Giines (2004) determined the learning styles of preparatory school
students from Gazi University and examined the relationship between students’
learning style preferences (LSPs) and faculty students will study in, gender, proficiency level of English and achievement scores on listening, reading, grammar, and writing in the English Course The results indicated that there was no significant difference between students’ LSPs and faculty, gender, level and
achievement scores
Trang 29This study worked on this issue of Giines (2004) because researcher believed that studies that were conducted in the Turkey on learning style preferences, were not applicable in the Vietnam Educational system Taking into account the increasing interest rate our country in general, and HCMC in particular, researcher thought that similar studies done in Vietnam would be beneficial to practicing teachers of English language
2.3.2 Studies in Vietnam
Considering the studies conducted abroad, the number of the studies related to learning styles in Vietnam is very few, some researchers are interested in teaching styles, the others investigate reading style preferences and only one research determine learning style preferences that is nearly same with this study The following part aims at summarizing some researches on them done in Vietnamese
context
Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao (2005) carried out a research aiming to shed light on the differences in preferred learning styles for reading among the ESP students at Ton Duc Thang University in terms of age, gender, major field of study, length of learning English, and ESP results of the previous semester, using self-reporting questionnaires Data gathered from 692 participants, were statistically analyzed on the preference means (p <.05) based on Carbo (1983)’s learning style preference instruments and Reid (1983)’s measurement of learning style preferences, including visual, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, global, and analytic, showed significant
telationships and differences indeed In addition, several interesting trends about
reading style preferences were also revealed
Le Mai Thanh Nga (2008) investigated the relationship between learning styles of students and teaching styles of teachers at the Vietnamese American
Trang 30I
|
pLanguage Center (VALC) and the teachers’ awareness of their students learning preferences Aiming to find out whether there was a mismatch between learning and ‘teaching styles in the VALC teaching context, the author collected data through the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) developed by Reid (1987) and interviews Participated in the study were 170 EFL students and 28 EFL teachers at the VALC The results indicated that while students favored
Kunesthetic, Auditory and Group styles, their teachers favored Kinesthetic, Group
and Tactile styles, therefore, a mismatch regarding Auditory was identified The difference regarding Tactile between the students and the teachers was not significant The following interviews showed that most teachers were aware of ‘their students learning styles through observations, and that 40% of the students
reported they felt uncomfortable when a mismatch between teaching and learning styles occurred; and 72% of the student interviewees said the mismatch affected their learning
Regarding learning style preferences of non-major English students at Hai Duong vocational training college, Dang Thu Trang (2010) conducted a study with the participation of 200 students, age between18-20, from different faculties, employing a 10-item questionnaire to find out information for the study The results showed that students at Hai Duong vocational training college preferred communicative activities, involving in groups, role play, inductive grammar learning
Trang 31gender, proficiency level of English and achievement scores in the English Course
in particular
2.4 Summary
This part of the study provides a review on the relevant literatures which are necessary for setting theoretical basis of the thesis, including: definitions and classifications of learning style models, different learning models and summary of
some researches conducted abroad and in Vietnam on learning style preferences Moreover, the given information in this Chapter also highlight the important role of
learning styles in language learning and the necessity of doing a research on learning style preferences in Vietnamese learning context in general, and HCMC in particular The research method will be discussed in the next chapter
Trang 32CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter first introduces the research questions to be investigated in the study Then the research design of the study is presented The subjects, the
‘Description of variables, the data collection instrument, the procedures of data
‘collection, the procedures of data analysis, and the summary of the study are also
included
3.1 Research Questions
This research aims at identifying the learning styles of non-English major students who are studying at certain faculties of the Open University of Ho Chi
Minh City It also aims to find out if there exists the relationship between
Students’ learning style preferences and the faculty they are studying, gender, proficiency level of English and achievement in the English Course Within the aims, this research will try to answer the following questions:
1 What are the learning style preferences (LSPs) of the students at Open University in terms of four dimensions suggested by Felder (1988)? 2 Do students’ English language achievement scores differ according to their
LSPs?
3 What are the LSPs of HCMOU students in terms of faculty they are studying in? namely, Faculties of Engineering, Finance-Banking, and Sociology?
4, What are the LSPs of HCMCOU students in terms of gender?
5 What are the LSPs of HCMCOU students in terms of level (beginner-
Trang 33
3.2 Research Design
To reach the purposes of the study, the researcher enrolled over 420 students at HCMCOU ina survey research in which questionnaire, Index of Learning Styles : LS) developed by Felder and Soloman (1998) are used as instruments Surveys are eful for collecting data from large groups of subjects (Seliger and Shohamy,
1990) According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2003), survey possesses the following
three characteristics Firstly, the major purpose of surveys is to identify and describe
certain features, such as abilities, opinions, attitudes, beliefs and/or knowledge
about a population Further information regarding respondents’ age, gender, lethnicity, and so on are also targeted Secondly, answers to the questions elicited in ithe survey constitute the data of the study And thirdly, respondents involved in the study form from a sample rather from every member of the population (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2003)
Two major types of surveys: Cross-sectional and a longitudinal survey can be conducted In a longitudinal survey, information is collected at different points in time in order to study changes over time However, this research study is a cross- isectional survey in which information is collected at one point in time (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2003)
Language surveys are any survey research studies that gather data on the characteristics and views of informants about the nature of language or language learning through the use of oral interviews or written questionnaires (Brown,
2001:2) In this research, the questionnaires were directly delivered to the chosen respondents who are 420 non-English major students at HCMCOU In other words, randomly selected students were given a questionnaire, Index of Learning Styles (15) developed by Felder and Soloman (1998), to complete in their classrooms at the same time and in the same place which aimed at determining the students’
learning style preferences
Trang 34Compared to the other forms of interview, questionnaires are easier to administer In addition, the main advantage of administering such a questionnaire to such a group was the high rate of return and the questionnaire’s low expense (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003) Then, the researcher wrote down achievement scores of participants The purpose was to find out whether there was any relationship between students’ LSPs in relation to faculty they study in, gender, and level of English and achievement scores in the English course This study made use of SPSS
for Windows for the data analysis — ILS, students’ learning styles, means, percentages, and Crosstabs (Green, Salkind & Akey, 2000)
3.3 Subjects
The subjects completing the questionnaires are 420 students or 27.8% of the total population out of 1510 students at Open University in Ho Chi Minh from different English proficiency levels (EPL) — beginner (A), elementary (B), intermediate (C) and from 2008-2009 course of three faculties: Engineering, Finance-Banking, and Sociology
As a result, the process of choosing subjects is as follows:
Trang 35However, before they are introduced on the selection round, they are required to satisfy a number of criteria
e Firstly, they need to be at the same age group, which 1s limited from 18- 22 from among the classes of those instructors
e Secondly, 2008-2009 course- students from three faculties: Engineering, Finance-Banking, and Sociology were chosen because:
(1) 2008-2009 -course-students have been the first and the only ones
who took part in the placement test at HCMCOU The result of this
test is a source to learn about the students’ English level before studying at HCMCOU
(2) this study was carried out in July, 2010 when the 2008-2009- course- students have just finished their first year at university and also completed their Basic English program Therefore, their English
result can be evaluated
After identifying the Faculties and the classes, 420 were chosen However, on the day of administering the questionnaire, 59 male students and 31 female students
did not show up Moreover, when the result of the student’s questionnaire were
analyzed, some of them were found invalid because some students did not answer all the questions and some of them chose the same alternative for all questions (18 from the males’ and 2 from females’) Therefore, the official number of the subjects
was 310 students, 200 girls and 110 boys
Trang 36Table 3.1: Distribution of Participants According to Level
Male IL Female Total
I Populati Partici t —
Leve opulation | articipants ~~ % | n % %
— Beginner 801 | 155 105, 68 | 50 | 32 50 F— — — Elementary | 485 | 96 62 65 4 35 31 | | Intermediate 224 59 33 56 E 44 19 — | Total 1510 310 200 | 65 | 110 35 100
Table 3.1 shows the distribution of participants in terms of levels of English and gender Of 310 participants, beginner level students account for 50%, forming the largest group of participants, next comes the elementary level students with 31%, and finally were intermediate level students indicating 19% Regarding gender, male students overwhelmed the population with 65% against 35% female
students
A, B, C Level students were from three different faculties — Engineering, Finance-
banking, and Sociology (Table 3.2)
Table 3.2: Distribution of Participants According to Faculty
Trang 373.4 Description of Variables
For the first question, the learning styles were independent variables For the 2nd research question and its sub-questions the independent variables were the four
learning style dimensions (active/reflective; sensing/intuitive; visual/verbal;
sequential/global) and the dependent and continuous variables were the achievement scores For the 3rd, 4th and 5" questions the faculty, gender and level were the independent variables and the learning styles were dependent
variables
3.5 Data Collection Instrument
In this study, as mentioned above, a cross-sectional survey is used to
determine students’ learning style preferences as well as to find out whether there was any relationship between students’ LSPs in relation to faculty they studied in, gender, and level of English and achievement scores in the English course The instruments used in the survey are the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) developed by Felder and Soloman (1998) is an instrument used to assess preferences on four (process, perception, imput, and understanding) of the five Felder-Silverman dimensions of a learning style model formulated by Felder and Silverman in 1988
ILS classifies students as active (extravert, learn in groups, discuss and do it first,
experimentalists) or reflective (introvert, learn by working alone, think it first, theoreticians); sensing (concrete, practical, oriented toward facts and procedures) or
intuitive (conceptual, innovative, oriented toward theories and meanings); visual
(the ones that prefer pictures, diagrams, flow charts) or verbal (prefer written and spoken explanations); sequential ( linear, orderly, step by step) or g/obal (holistic, learn in large leaps, system thinkers) (Felder, 1988, 1996, 2002; Felder and Henriques, 1995)
Trang 38The ILS’s a preliminary version which included 28 items was tested, the responses were subjected to factor analysis, and some of the items that were not providing noticeable discrimination were replaced After that, Felder and Soloman developed 44-item version of the instrument (Felder, 2002) Felder (2002) stated that he had to make two significant changes in the model: dropping the inductive/deductive dimension and changing the visual/auditory category into visual/verbal According to Felder (2002), inductive teaching is the best method for teaching because it is not traditional, monotonous and stereotyped like deductive teaching However, Felder and Soloman noticed that by means of this deductive/inductive dimension, students clearly express that they prefer exactly what they needed and teachers continue to teach with that proceeding deductive method Thus, they omitted this dimension from the instrument Felder and Soloman also modified visual/auditory category into visual/verbal because visual learning includes pictures, charts, diagrams, etc and auditory learning includes words and other sounds However, auditory learning does not include written words It perceived visually, but cannot be auditory Making the learning style pair visual/verbal solves the problem by permitting spoken and written words to be included in the verbal category (Felder, 2002, cited in Giines, 2004)
Questionnaire for students
The questionnaires are the main tool to get data serving for the study because they are typically efficient ways to gather information from many people (Brown and Rogers, 2002) Furthermore, “they enable the researcher to collect data in field settings, and the data themselves are more amendable than discursive data” (Nunan, 1994: p.143) There is only one questionnaire used in this study for 310 students
Trang 39complete the Vietnamese version due to their low level of English and also in the hope of getting all of the students understand the questionnaire in the same way It
99,099
follows in multiple-choice format with two,”a” or “b” options
The questionnaire consists of 44 questions grouped into 2 parts:
e Part I has 5 questions which ask about students’ background In this part, students are requested to give information about their personal data including: their name (not compulsory), age, gender, years of learning English and the result of English in the first year These pieces of information provide an overview of the students involving in the study and also serve as a premise for analyzing the data later
e Part II is the main part of the questionnaires Felder and Soloman’s ILS (1998) is adopted in this part to assess preferences on four (process, perception, input, and understanding) of the five Felder-Silverman dimensions of a learning style model formulated by Felder and Silverman in 1987 Firstly, ILS is employed in this research because it was used in other researches to investigate students’ learning style preferences from different departments although it was originally designed for students of engineering only as claimed by Felder and Soloman (1998) Secondly, ILS was easy to administer because it is available on the Internet, it is therefore convenient and time-saving, taking only 10-15 minutes to complete and easy to understand although Felder and Soloman (1998) suggest that the questionnaire takes 15-20 minutes to complete And lastly, it has been widely used around the world by
different researchers (Hashim and Sahil, 1994; Ok, 2003; Rao, 2005, etc)
There are two versions of ILS - web-based and pencil-and-paper versions However, the pencil-and-paper version of the instrument was chosen in this research study thanks to the facts that it was less expensive and easier to conduct
Trang 40The ILS questionnaire consists of 44 items and each comes with two possible
} responses, “a” or “b” “a” responses represent active, sensing, visual, and | sequential learners whereas “b” responses represent reflective, intuitive, verbal,
and global ones (Felder and Silverman, 1988) as appeared in Table 3.3 below Table 3.3: Distribution of ILS Items According to Dimension
| sub- |
Dimension Related items dimension
Active la 5a 9a 13a 17a 2la 25a 29a 33a 37a 41a Process
Reflective | lb 5b 9b 13b 17b 21b 25b 29b 33b 37b 41b
Sensing 2a 6a 10a 14a 18a 22a 26a 30a 34a 38a 42a Perception
Intuitive 2b 6b 10b 14b 18b 22b 2ób 30b 34b 38b 42b Visual 3a 7a lla l5a 19a 23a 27a 3la 35a 39a 43a
Input
Verbal 3b 7b I1b lấb 19b 23b 27b 31b 35b 39b 43b
Sequential | 4a 8a 12a lóa 20a 24a 28a 32a 36a 40a 44a Understanding
Global 4b 8b i2b 16b 20b 24b 28b 32b 36b 40b 44b
In order to find the dominant learning style of learners, the mean scores of
each dimension were found by summing total scale scores “a” Responses were coded asa | and “b” responses were coded as a 2 Then, for each of the four scales, the smaller total was subtracted from the larger one The mean scores range from 11 to 22, and 1-16 for active / sensing / visual / sequential and 17-22 for reflective / intuitive / verbal / global (Smalley, 2002)
Eleven questions form the basis for determining each learning dimension
For example, if under Active/Reflective, the learner had 2 a and 9 b responses, the dominant learning style is 7b (9b-2a = 7b) That means the learner
is a reflective learner (Felder & Soloman, 1998) For each dimension, if learner’s