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

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE GRADUATE STUDY PROGRAM LE THI THANH TU HOW A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNING STYLES ENHANCES MY TEACHING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF TESOL SUPERVISOR: CHU THI LE HOANG, M.A HO CHI MINH CITY, SPRING 2010 i ABSTRACT This research was conducted to investigate EFL students’ preferred learning styles at Banking University, and to compare any differences between learning style preferences and individual background factors (here means major fields of study, course years, genders, ages, learning language experience, and English proficiency levels) A total of 196 respondents from different departments participated in this study The research was based on an analysis of data derived from a several sources The self-assessment instrument designed specially for EFL students, was used – Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (1987), including six categories: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual In addition, interviews with EFL students to get further opinions on learning and teaching were performed The findings showed that perceptual learning style preferences were influenced by some background factors, particularly major fields of study and course years Overall, the dominant learning style preferences for the sample were kinesthetic and tactile The higher levels of English EFL students got the more kinesthetic and tactile they appeared Furthermore, the students with the shortest length of studying English tended to be those with a variety of preferred learning styles, except individual As far as genders were concerned, females showed a stronger tendency toward kinesthetic while males gave more preference to tactile learning i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that the thesis entitled “HOW A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF LEARNING STYLES ENHANCES MY TEACHING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY” is my own work Any help received in this research work and the preparation of the thesis itself, and all information resources and literature used in the thesis have been acknowledged I also certify that this thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other institution Ho Chi Minh City, April 27, 2010 LE THI THANH TU ii RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Le Thi Thanh Tu, being candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Thesis deposited in the Library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the library for care, loan, and reproduction of theses Ho Chi Minh City, April, 2010 LE THI THANH TU iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge people who made this study achievable First, I truthfully thank Ms Chu Thi Le Hoang, M.A., my thesis advisor, for her continued thorough support throughout this study Also, my gratitude is expressed to my instructor, Mr Nguyen Hoang Tuan, Ph.D., for his comments, suggestions, valuable time, and input for this study Without their support and patience, this thesis could not have been completed Second, I would like to acknowledge all the lecturers of my MA course at University of Social Sciences and Humanities who gave me invaluable, enormous insights and thoughts Third, I would like to thank all the ESL teachers and students at Banking University in the development of the survey for this study I really appreciate their understanding and cooperation for my data collection Moreover, I really appreciate for warm support from my family, especially my beloved husband and my younger sister, and my friends during this period of study Thank you very much for your smile and positive words! iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS, and TABLES Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 The ESL teaching and learning circumstance in Vietnam 1.3 Aims of the Study 1.4 Significance of the study 1.5 Definitions and description of key terms 1.6 Limitations of the Study 1.7 Organization of the study Chapter - LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Definitions of Learning Styles 10 2.3 Differences between learning styles and learning strategies 12 2.4 Framework for Categorization 13 2.4.1 Cognitive Learning Styles 13 2.4.2 Sensory Learning Styles 15 2.4.3 Personality Learning Styles .17 2.4.4 Tolerance of Ambiguity Styles 19 2.5 An overview of relevant research 19 2.6 Summary 26 v Chapter - METHODOLOGY 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Research Questions of the Study 27 3.3 Research design 28 3.4 Setting 29 3.5 Subjects 30 3.6 Procedures 32 3.6.1 Interviews 32 3.6.2 Questionnaire 33 3.6.3 Pilot Testing .34 3.6.4 Data Collection Procedures 35 3.6.5 Data Analysis Procedures 35 3.7 Summary 37 Chapter - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38 4.1 Introduction 38 4.2 The overall learning style preferences of EFL students 38 4.3 Learning style preferences and major fields of study 45 4.4 Learning style preferences and course years 46 4.5 Learning style preferences and genders 48 4.6 Learning style preferences and ages 51 4.7 Learning style preferences and learning language experience 52 4.8 Learning style preferences and English proficiency levels 54 4.9 Students’ opinions of their study of English and their teachers’ teaching styles 56 4.10 Summary 61 Chapter - IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION 62 5.1 Introduction 62 5.2 Pedagogical Implications 62 vi 5.3 Recommendations for further research 67 5.4 Conclusion 68 APPENDICES REFERENCES Appendix A – Questionnaire (English version) Appendix B – Questionnaire (Vietnamese version) Appendix C – Interview Questions Appendix D – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Major Fields of Study Appendix E – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Course Years Appendix F – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Genders Appendix G – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Ages Appendix H – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Learning Language Experience Appendix I – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to English Proficiency Levels vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ESL English as Second Language EFL English as Foreign Language BU Banking University LS Learning Style L2 Second Language PLSPQ Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire viii LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS, and TABLES Table 3.1 Distribution of EFL students due to genders Table 3.2 Distribution of EFL students due to major fields of study Chart 3.1 EFL students’ ages Table 3.3 Distribution of EFL students due to learning language experience Chart 3.2 EFL students’ English proficiency levels Table 4.1.1 Overall Percentages of Learning Style Preference of EFL Students Chart 4.1.1 Distribution of Overall Learning Style Preference of EFL Students by Percentage Table 4.1.2 Overall Learning Style Preference Scores of EFL Students Chart 4.1.2 Distribution of Visual Learning Style by Percentages Chart 4.1.3 Distribution of Auditory Learning Style by Percentages Chart 4.1.4 Distribution of Kinesthetic Learning Style by Percentages Chart 4.1.5 Distribution of Tactile Learning Style by Percentages Chart 4.1.6 Distribution of Group Learning Style by Percentages Chart 4.1.7 Distribution of Individual Learning Style by Percentages Table 4.2.1 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Major Fields Table 4.3 Learning Style Preference Scores According to Course Years Chart 4.3 Distribution of Visual, Kinesthetic, and Individual Learning Style Preference Scores for the Course Years ix Tôi hiểu tốt giáo viên đưa hướng dẫn Tơi thích học cách tham gia vào hoạt động lớp Tôi học hiệu học bạn Tơi học nhiều học nhóm Tơi học tốt làm việc với bạn lớp Tôi học tốt đọc giảng giảng viên bảng Tôi học tốt hướng dẫn nên làm lớp Tôi học tốt thực hành lớp Tôi ghi nhớ tơi vừa học lớp tốt tơi đọc 10 Tơi ghi nhớ tốt đọc hướng dẫn 11 Tôi học thêm nhiều tơi làm mơ hình vừa học 12 Tơi hiểu tốt đọc hướng dẫn 13 Tôi nhớ học tốt tơi tự học 14 Tôi học nhiều tham gia vào cơng trình nghiên cứu lớp 15 Trong lớp, tơi thích học cách làm thí nghiệm 16 Tơi học tốt vẽ sơ đồ tơi vừa học 17 Trong lớp, tơi học tốt giáo viên trình bày giảng theo phương pháp thuyết trình 18 Tơi học tốt tơi học 19 Tơi hiểu tốt tơi tham gia cá trị chơi đóng vai 20 Việc nghe phát biểu bạn giúp học tốt 21 Tơi thích hồn thành tập nhóm bạn lớp 22 Tơi ghi nhớ nội dung vừa học tốt xây dựng mơ hình học 75 Rất khơng đồn ý Khơng đồng ý Khơng có ý kiến Đồng ý Rất đồng ý Câu hỏi khảo sát cách học ưa thích 23 Tơi thích học với bạn khác 24 Việc đọc giúp học tốt lắng nghe người khác 25 Tơi thích đóng góp vào dự án lớp 26 Tơi học tốt tham gia vào hoạt động lớp 27 Trên lớp học tốt làm việc 28 Tơi thích tự tiến hành nghiên cứu 29 Việc đọc giáo trình giúp tơi học tốt việc nghe giảng 30 Tơi thích tự làm việc Tơi muốn giảng viên tiếp tục phát huy vai trị chủ đạo q trình dạy học theo phong cách truyền thống lâu Tôi muốn giảng viên sửa lỗi cho Tơi muốn giảng viên đưa ví dụ minh họa cho giảng Tôi muốn giảng viên tổ chức nhiều hoạt động thảo luận lớp cho sinh viên Tôi muốn giảng viên khuyến khích sinh viên trở thành người học độc lập Cảm ơn bạn! 76 Không đồng ý Khơng có ý kiến Đống ý III Ý kiến bạn trình dạy học tiếng Anh trường Đại học Appendix C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS What type of learner you think you are? How you learn best? What activities have been or are currently being conducted during your English classes? What you think of this approach? Is it effective? Does it cater to your needs? What type of activities you think should be conducted during your English classes? If the activities conducted for English classes cater to your needs, you think your English proficiency will improve? Your opinions of your teacher’s teaching styles Bạn nghĩ thuộc nhóm phong cách học nào? Phương pháp học tiếng Anh giúp bạn đạt kết tốt nhất? Những hoạt động thường diễn học tiếng Anh bạn? Bạn nghĩ hoạt động có hiệu đáp ứng nhu cầu phong cách học bạn khơng? Vì sao? Theo bạn, hoạt động nên tiến hành học tiếng Anh? Ý kiến nhận xét bạn phong cách dạy tiếng Anh giảng viên 77 Appendix D - One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Major Fields of Study Sum of Squares VISUAL * Major Between Groups AUDITORY * Major 163.732 Within Groups 4736.535 161 Total 4900.267 164 251.158 Within Groups 3096.747 165 Total 3347.905 168 348.549 4715.972 165 5064.521 168 1044.776 348.259 Within Groups 95716.052 165 580.097 Total 96760.828 168 256.376 Within Groups 8705.233 165 Total 8961.609 168 283.777 Within Groups 9285.690 165 Total 9569.467 168 Between Groups KINESTHETIC * Between Groups Major Within Groups (Combined) (Combined) (Combined) Total TACTILE * Major Between Groups GROUP * Major Between Groups INDIVIDUAL * Major Mean Square df Between Groups (Combined) (Combined) (Combined) 78 F 54.577 1.855 Sig .139 29.419 83.719 4.461 005 18.768 116.183 4.065 008 28.582 600 616 85.459 1.620 187 52.759 94.592 1.681 56.277 173 Appendix E – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Course Year Sum of Squares VISUAL * Course Between Groups (Combined) AUDITORY * Course 123.908 Within Groups 4776.359 163 29.303 Total 4900.267 164 26.150 Within Groups 3321.755 167 19.891 Total 3347.905 168 KINESTHETIC * Between Groups (Combined) Course Within Groups Total TACTILE * Course GROUP * Course INDIVIDUAL * Course df Between Groups (Combined) 123.908 Mean Square 26.150 147.883 147.883 4916.638 167 29.441 F Sig 4.229 041 1.315 253 5.023 026 135 713 716 399 4.615 033 5064.521 168 Between Groups (Combined) 78.335 Within Groups 96682.494 167 578.937 Total 96760.828 168 Between Groups (Combined) 78.335 38.232 Within Groups 8923.377 167 53.433 Total 8961.609 168 Between Groups (Combined) 38.232 257.328 Within Groups 9312.140 167 55.761 Total 9569.467 168 79 257.328 Appendix F – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Genders Sum of Squares VISUAL * Gender Between Groups AUDITORY * Gender 32.501 Within Groups 4867.766 163 29.864 Total 4900.267 164 007 007 Within Groups 3347.899 167 20.047 Total 3347.905 168 67.499 67.499 4997.022 167 29.922 5064.521 168 621.584 621.584 Within Groups 96139.245 167 575.684 Total 96760.828 168 97.317 97.317 Within Groups 8864.292 167 53.080 Total 8961.609 168 41.092 41.092 Within Groups 9516.825 167 56.987 Total 9557.917 168 Between Groups Total GROUP * Gender INDIVIDUAL * Gender Mean Square 32.501 KINESTHETIC * Between Groups Gender Within Groups TACTILE * Gender df Between Groups Between Groups Between Groups 80 F Sig 1.088 298 000 986 2.256 135 1.080 300 1.833 178 721 397 Appendix G – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Ages Sum of Squares VISUAL * Ages AUDITORY * Ages Between Groups (Combined) 26.268 Within Groups 4696.782 157 29.916 Total 4828.123 162 119.233 23.847 Within Groups 3098.168 161 19.243 Total 3217.401 166 121.992 24.398 4795.002 161 29.783 4916.994 166 58.639 11.728 Within Groups 96561.517 161 599.761 Total 96620.156 166 134.100 26.820 Within Groups 8638.702 161 53.657 Total 8772.802 166 348.228 69.646 Within Groups 9175.891 161 56.993 Total 9524.120 166 Between Groups (Combined) Total GROUP * Ages INDIVIDUAL * Ages df 131.341 KINESTHETIC * Between Groups (Combined) Ages Within Groups TACTILE * Ages Mean Square Between Groups (Combined) Between Groups (Combined) Between Groups (Combined) 81 F Sig .878 497 1.239 293 819 538 020 1.000 500 776 1.222 301 Appendix H – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to Learning Language Experience Sum of Squares VISUAL * E.Experience AUDITORY * E.Experience KINESTHETIC * E.Experience TACTILE * E.Experience GROUP * E.Experience INDIVIDUAL * E.Experience Between Groups (Combined) Mean Square df 67.653 16.913 Within Groups 4832.614 160 30.204 Total 4900.267 164 11.583 2.896 Within Groups 3336.322 164 20.343 Total 3347.905 168 161.363 40.341 Within Groups 4903.157 164 29.897 Total 5064.521 168 Between Groups (Combined) 1523.349 380.837 Within Groups 95237.480 164 580.716 Total 96760.828 168 138.315 34.579 Within Groups 8823.294 164 53.801 Total 8961.609 168 33.228 8.307 Within Groups 9536.239 164 58.148 Total 9569.467 168 Between Groups (Combined) Between Groups (Combined) Between Groups (Combined) Between Groups (Combined) 82 F Sig .560 692 142 966 1.349 254 656 624 643 633 143 966 Appendix I – One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Learning Style Preferences According to English Levels Sum of Squares VISUAL * English Between Groups (Combined) levels Mean df Square 161.211 26.869 Within Groups 4370.763 149 29.334 Total 4531.974 155 123.864 20.644 19.513 AUDITORY * Between Groups (Combined) English levels Within Groups 2965.910 152 Total 3089.774 158 177.153 29.525 30.612 KINESTHETIC * Between Groups (Combined) English levels Within Groups 4653.074 152 Total 4830.226 158 3621.757 603.626 Within Groups 92881.299 152 611.061 Total 96503.057 158 162.102 27.017 54.715 TACTILE * English Between Groups (Combined) levels GROUP * Between Groups (Combined) English levels Within Groups 8316.628 152 Total 8478.730 158 651.860 108.643 55.958 INDIVIDUAL * Between Groups (Combined) English levels Within Groups 8505.624 152 Total 9157.484 158 83 F Sig .916 485 1.058 390 964 451 988 436 494 812 1.942 007 REFERENCES Almasa, M (2009) Perceptual learning styles of ESL students European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 7, Number (2009) Bialystok, E (1979) A theoretical model of second language learning Language Learning, 69-83 Brown, H D (1989) Beyond communicative competence: Teaching learners how to learn The Language Teacher Carbo, M (1983) Research in reading and learning styles: Implications for exceptional children Exceptional Children 49, 486-494 Celce-Murcia, M (1991) Language teaching approaches: An Overview New York: Newbury House Chapelle, C & Roberts, C (1986) Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language, Language Learning, 27-45 Cheng, M.H., & Banya, K (1998) Bridging the gap between teaching and learning styles In Reid, J M (Eds.), Understanding learning styles in the second language acquisition 80-84 Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice-Hall, Inc Chu, L., T Kitchen & M L Chew 1997 How we learn best? Preferences and strategies in learning and teaching styles at the National University of Singapore Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 84 Claxton, D S., & Murrell, P (1987) Learning styles: Implications for improving educational practices (Report No 4) Washington DC: American Association of Higher Education Curry, L (1983) An Organization of learning style theory and constructs Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 235 185) Curry, L (1987) Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with attention to psychometric standards Ottawa, ON: Canadian College of Health Service Executives Dao Van Tien (1982) Rationalize the ways of thinking, working, and learning Hanoi: Youth Press Do Huy Thinh (1994) English teaching boom in Vietnam: A Vietnamese perspective Paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD Do Huy Thinh (2006) Foreign language education policy in Vietnam: the emergence of English and its impact on higher education From http//www.proceedings.com Dunn, R., & Dunn, K (1978) Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach Reston, VA Reston Publishing Ehrman, M, & Oxford, R (1990) Adualt language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting The Modern Language Journal Vol 74, 311-327 Ehrman, M., Leaver, B.L and Oxford, R.L., (2003) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning System, 31 (3), 313-330 Ellis, R (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press 85 Felder, R & Silverman, L K (1988) Learning and teaching styles in engineering education Engineering Education 78 (7): 674-681 Felder, R.M (1995) Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education Foreign Language Annals 28 (1): 21 -31 Griggs, S A (1991) Learning Styles Counseling Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC Counseling and Personal Services Clearinghouse Harmer, J (1991) The Practice of English Language Teaching Longman Group UK Limited Harmer, J (1998) How To Teach English – An Introduction to the Practice of English Language Teaching Addison Wesley Longman Limited Hyland, K (1993) Culture and learning: a study of the learning style preferences of Japanese students RELC Journal 24 (2): 69-91 Jones, N.B (1997) Applying learning styles research to improve writing instruction Paper presented at RELC Seminar on Learners and Language Learning, Singapore, April 1997 Keefe, J W (1987) Learning style theory and practice Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals Keefe, J W 1979 Developing a defensible learning style paradigm Educational Leadership 48(2): 57-61 Kinsella, K., & Sherak, K (1998) Designing ESL classroom collaboration to accommodate diverse work styles In Reid, J M (Eds.), Understanding learning styles in the second language acquisition (pp.85-99) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents Prentice-Hall, Inc Kirby, P (1979) Cognitive style, learning style, and transfer skill acquisition Information Series No 195 Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, National Center for Research in Vocational Education 86 Kolb, D A (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Laxton, D.S., & Ralston, Y (1978) Learning styles: The impact on teaching and administration (Research Report No.10) Washington DC: American Association of Higher Education Le Hai Chau (1982) Teaching and learning Methods in Mathematics High School In Proceedings of the First National Conference of Pedagogy: Some Results and Research into Pedagogy Hanoi, Institute of Educational Sciences Le Thanh Hoang (1999) Research into language learning strategies of different groups of learners in Hue City Website of Proceedings Le Van Canh (1999) Language and Vietnamese Pedagogical Context (Ngoại ngữ điều kiện dạy ngoại ngữ Việt Nam) Teacher’s Edition, Volume 7, 11/ 2001 Martyn Brogan and Nguyen Thai Ha (2005) The R’s of teacher training in Vietnam: revising, reviving and researching From http//www.proceedings.com Melton, C.D 1990 Bridging the cultural gap: a study of Chinese students’ learning style preferences RELC Journal 27(1): 70-88 Nguyen Ngoc Quang (1989) General Teaching Theories Volume Central Education Management School Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao (2005) Reading Style Preferences of the ESP Students at Ton Duc Thang University ERC of HCM University of Social Sciences & Humanities Nunan, D., (1996) What’s my style? In: Gardner, D and Miller, L., eds Tasks for independent language learning Alexandria: TESOL 87 Oxford, R L (1995) Gender differences in learning styles: What they mean? In J M Reid (ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom, 34-46 Boston: Heinle & Heinle Oxford, R.L., (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know New York: Heinle and Heinle Peacock, M (2001) Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL.International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(1): 38-58 Pham Phu Quynh Na (2000) An Investigative Study into Teacher-Student Exchanges in English Classes in Vietnamese Universities National University of Singapore Ramirez, M (1982) Cognitive styles and cultural diversity Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A (1974) Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and education New York: Academic Press Reid (ed) M J (1995) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom Boston: Heinle & Heinle Reid, M J (1987) The learning style preferences of ESL students TESOL Quarterly 21(1): 87-111 Riechmann, S W., & Grasha, A F (1974) A rational approach to developing and assessing the validity of a student learning styles instrument Journal of Psychology 87: 213-223 Rossi-Le, L (1989) Perceptual learning style preferences and their relationship to language learning strategies in adult students of English as a second language, Ph.D thesis Drake University, Iowa Rubin, J (1975) What the "good language learner" can teach us TESOL Quarterly, 41-51 88 Scarcella, R, C & Oxford, R (1992) The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers Scarpaci, J.L., & Fradds, S H (1985) Latin- Americans at the university level: Implcations for Instruction Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 13, 183-189 Swanson, Linda J (1995) Learning styles: A Review of the literature The Claremont Graduate School ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 387 067) Willing, K (1988) Learning styles in adult migrant education Adelaide, Australia: NCRC/AMEP Wintergerst, A.C., DeCapua, A and Verna, M.A., (2003) Conceptualizing learning style modalities for ESL/EFL students System, 31 (1), 85-106 Witkin, H A (1976) Cognitive style in academic performance and in teacherstudent relations In S Messick and Associates (Eds.), Individuality in learning San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass Publishers 89 ... the perceptual learning styles of auditory, tactile, and individual learning Cheng and Banya also provide further information revealed as a result of the statistical analysis of the perceptual... preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning Males preferred visual and tactile learning significantly more often than females  The data obtained from the study also indicated that as ESL learners adapt... different language learning strategies according to their learning styles Whereas learning styles represent unintentional, or automatic individual characteristic, learning strategies are actions