Ảnh hưởng của việc đa dạng hóa phương pháp giảng dạy dựa trên phong cách học cá nhân đối với động lực học của sinh viên

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Le Van Canh
for his expert guidance and priceless encouragement during my completion of this MA
thesis. Reviewing the first manuscript in spite of his hectic schedule, he made some
important suggestions which greatly contributed to the final improvements.
Special thanks should also be sent to my students at University of Languages and
International Studies, without whom the data procedures could not have ever been
completed.
Finally, I take this opportunity to record my sincere gratitude to my family, for
their patience, support and encouragement. I am also profoundly indebted to my fiancé,
Dang Tuan Thanh, for his remarkable tolerance and unshakeable faith which motivated
me enough to accomplish this paper on schedule.
i
ABSTRACT
Motivation which has a profound impact on students’ academic achievement at
university is determined by a lot of factors. Among them, students’ learning style is one
of the most important one. The correlation between motivation and learning styles has
been documented in a lot of research.
This paper reports an action research undertaken in a reading course for second-
year English majors in a university in Hanoi, Vietnam. Involving a group of twenty-six
sophomores from the same class, this study aims to 1) identify the given class’s learning
styles and current level of academic motivation; 2) project and implement some
instructional differentiations upon the students’ different learning modalities aiming to
improve their academic motivation; and 3) evaluate the impact of the psycho-pedagogical
intervention on the students’ motivation level. Using two questionnaires, interviews with
students, and researcher’s self-observation and reflection as the main research
instruments, the study shows that these students had low current level of motivation
which was probably caused by different learning preferences. Basing on the insight into
the students’ learning styles, differentiated instructions were employed in hope to raise
their motivation.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents Page
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… iii
List of tables, figures and abbreviations ………………………………………… vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement of the problem …………………………………………………… 1
2. Aims, objectives and research questions of the research ……………………. 3
3. Significance of the research ………………………………………………… 4
4. Scope of the research ………………………………………………………… 5
5. Organization of the research …………………………………………………. 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Key concepts …………………………………………………………………. 8
1.1. Learning styles ……………………………………………………… 8
1.2. Differentiated instruction …………………………………………… 19
1.3. Learning motivation in ESL/EFL context ………………………… 28
2. Related studies ……………………………………………………………… 32
2.1. Evidence of effectiveness of differentiated instruction …………… 32
2.2. Differentiated instruction and learning style ……………………… 36
2.3. Differentiated instruction and ESL/EFL motivation ………………… 39
iii
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
1. Participants ……………………………………………………………………. 41
2. Class problem from the teacher’s perspective ……………………………… 44
3. Action research ………………………………………………………………. 45
4. Research instruments ………………………………………………………… 47
5. Procedure of data collection …………………………………………………. 54
6. Procedure of data analysis …………………………………………………… 56
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Research question 1 …………………………………………………………. 57

2. Research question 2 …………………………………………………………. 62
3. Research question 3 …………………………………………………………. 68
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
1. Summary of the major findings of the research ……………………………. 76
2. The teacher-researcher’s reflection on the project, limitations and suggestions for next
cycle ……………………………………………………………………………. 78
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS
iv
List of tables
Table 1. Kolb’s model of learning styles
Table 2. Dunn and Dunn’s learning style theory (VAKT)
Table 3. Two out of six learning styles in Reid’s model
Table 4. Three classroom elements for differentiation
List of figures
Figure 1. Kolb’s model of learning styles
Figure 2. Learning cycle and decision factors used in planning and implementing
differentiated instruction
Figure 3. The flow of instruction in a differentiated classroom
Figure 4. Low prep vs. high prep differentiation
Figure 5. Components of foreign language learning motivation
Figure 6. The rationale behind differentiated classes
Figure 7. Range of activities in a differentiated classroom
Figure 8. The proportions of the students by their study record in the first year
Figure 9. Equivalent scales of 12 mini-AMTB items
Figure 10. AMTB questionnaire keys
Figure 11. The research first cycle
Figure 12. Students’ perceptual learning style preferences
Figure 13. The participants’ level of motivation before the intervention

v
Figure 14. Motivational intensity over a six-week period (Sept to Oct 2012)
Figure 15. English teacher evaluation over a six-week period (Sept to Oct 2012)
Figure 16. Desire to learning English over a six-week period (Sept to Oct 2012)
List of abbreviations
AMTB: Attitude motivation battery test
PLSPQ: Perceptual learning style preference questionnaire
LS: Learning style(s)
LSI: Learning style inventory
ESL: English as a second language
EFL: English as a foreign language
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter containing the rationale, general objectives (guided by research questions)
and organization of the study is expected to provide readers background materials and a
map of the research paper.
1. Statement of the problem
As a lecturer in an English-major university, the researcher of this study has been
teaching several courses of English skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing) so far.
Therefore, she has had to deal with different teaching situations as well as various kinds
of English major students. Through her continuous classroom self-observation, informal
interviews with students and evaluation of students’ lesson journals (a learning dairy
which students were personally asked to keep writing from the beginning of each course
to reflect their perspectives and feelings of the lessons and teachers), the researcher has
recently identified some questionable problems in her reading class: 1) the students were
not motivated enough to actively join in class activities; 2) some students were somehow
more involved in certain activities while sometimes the others even showed no interest in
these ones at all. Different activities may evoke different reactions and feelings from
different students. These concerned the researcher so seriously that she decided to
investigate the situation to look for the answers in a structured manner, rather than in an

informal one like before.
Reviewing the body of knowledge which is expected to probably result in the
current problem, the researcher has found some factors having a considerable influence
on students’ motivation such as their beliefs, affective state, aptitude, personality, age,
and learning styles (To and Nguyen, 2009). Although these elements all affect students,
and thereby worth studying, the researcher intend to keep focus only on learning style
factor in relation to motivation due to her interest and the obvious disadvantages of
researching many conditions at the same time.
1
Owing to the development of brain and psychology research into individual
differences, the field of learning style theory has drawn much attention from educational
researchers since the 1970s. However, it was not until the 1980s with the decline of
behaviorism (stimulus/ response model), the concept of individual learning preferences
was taken into serious consideration in some studies as a basic influential factor to
students’ learning. Some studies at that time could be mentioned, for example, Cafferty’s
study of the match in teacher’s and student’s cognitive style (1980), Dunn’s work on
students’ identifying their own learning style (1983), or learning strategies developed
from learning styles differences (Willing, 1984, 1985, 1989, 1988). These studies have
come to some important findings 1) learners have different preferred learning styles
which determine their reactions and attitudes towards particular types of in-class
activities and 2) teachers’ accommodation to different learning styles can have impact on
students’ motivation (Hunt, 1979, quoted in Willing, 1988, 1988, p.57).
Because learning style is an influential factor on motivation, teacher’s
accommodation to students’ different learning mode appears to probably raise the level of
motivation. Many researchers have been arguing about matching/mismatching theories
which suggest teachers should either try to match their teaching styles to students’
learning styles or try to expand their comfort zone by forcing them to study with different
learning styles. Acknowledging almost all the existing theories, differentiated instruction
approach recently has gained much attention in educational settings. According to
Tomlinson (2001), the goal of the approach is to encourage teachers to proactively

prepare and offer a wide range of activities which can cater for students’ differences
(including learning styles). Despite a lack of numerous empirical studies over the
effectiveness of differentiated instructions, positive feedbacks from teachers during the
application of the approach in a variety of school settings have been reported worldwide.
For the aforementioned reasons, the researcher decided to start an action research
project named “The effects of teacher’s differentiated instructions based on students’
learning styles on their motivation: An action research” to find the solutions to the
2
classroom problem. Though solutions suggested by other researchers’ studies may have
been proved to be effective, they may never work for her generally unique circumstance.
Action research has been employed for its practical goal of solving problem, rather than
other kind of research for theory construction or testing. This study, after finished, is
supposed to contribute to a relatively neglected area of research in Vietnam or may be
implemented by other practitioners for their shared classroom problem.
2. Aims, objectives and research questions of the research
a. Aims and objectives of the research
This study is supposed to examine the relationship among three concepts learning
styles, differentiated instructions and academic motivation in higher education classroom
setting. This action research project was conducted to aim at solving the problem of low
motivation level which possibly caused students’ low achievement at university.
In the light of that general aim, some specific objectives are drawn up to outline the
actual directions of the study as follows:
1) To identify the given class’s learning styles and current level of academic
motivation;
2) To project and implement some instructional differentiations upon the students’
different learning modalities aiming to improve their academic motivation;
3) To evaluate the impact of the psycho-pedagogical intervention on the students’
motivation level.
b. Research questions
In brief, the objectives of the research could be specified into these research

questions:
3
1) What are the students’ learning styles and their current level of motivation?
(Identifying the problem)
2) To what extent does the new intervention cater for the students’ learning styles?
3) How does differentiated instruction approach affect the students’ motivation level
in terms of their motivational intensity, lecturer evaluation and English learning
desire?
3. Significance of the research
Once having been finished, this action research is expected to find the solutions to
the problem of the researcher’s own class; otherwise, its findings would shed light on
necessary further studies in order to solve the issue of students’ lack of motivation in
learning English as a foreign language. In case the intervention of differentiated
instructions works for this class, it may suggest a good potential treatment to the problem
of students’ low motivation. It does not only help the researcher herself to overcome the
difficulty in teaching but it can also be regarded as a possible suggestion to other teachers
who encounter classes of demotivated students. In addition, this research with its
thorough literature review and reliable research instruments could function as a basic
reference on the subject matter. Therefore, it may benefit other researchers or teacher
practitioners on their way to gain a deep insight into the issue of learning styles,
differentiated instructions and motivation.
Besides, another simultaneous consequence of this action research is to raise
students’ awareness of their learning style differences. Many students hardly understand
their learning styles. In fact, students are likely to admire advanced classmates, so they
tend to imitate their learning styles or methods in the hope that they can improve their
study results. This impulsive thought might then result in the students’ failure because of
the incompatibility of applied learning styles and their major ones. Consequently, this
unsuccessful attempt usually leads to their lack of confidence and motivation. In this
4
study, after learning style and motivation surveys were administered and analyzed, the

results would be delivered to the students for their own sake. Furthermore, if the
researcher’s hypothesis about differentiated instructions by learning styles was right,
students’ motivation would be increased significantly.
Last but not least, due to the limitation of a single action research of the
generalization to the whole population, this paper might not add much value to the body
of the existing literature as well as not persuasive enough for policy makers and school
administrators to change the methodology or syllabus. However, if more action research
like this one was conducted and the findings were confirmed, everything would change
for good.
4. Scope of the research
Action research can be done by a teacher trying to solve a single problem in his/her
classroom. Individual action research may search for solutions to the problems of
“classroom management, instructional strategies, use of materials, or student learning”
(Ferrance, 2000, p. 3). Besides, as few as two or a group of teachers can work
collaboratively on the same subject matter that is shared among classrooms, without or
with the support from principals or educational authorities. In addition, to increase the
scope of possible impacts, the other two are school-wide and district-wide action
research. All four types are likely to be differentiated in terms of focus, possible support,
potential impact and side effects.
According to Elliott (1991, cited in Water-Adams, 2006), the “best” (the most
emancipatory) action research is collaborative in the nature of practice, involving a few
practitioners “exploring and challenging the constraints of their professional lives”.
Meanwhile, individual one is usually criticized for lacking validity, generalization and
replication.
5
However, Ferrance in her booklet of the Brown university series “Themes in
Education” claimed that each type of action research has its own possible impacts and
side effects. In order to avoid disagreements on process which may cause the delay or
even failure of the research and due to the piloting nature of this study, the researcher of
this study decided to carry out an individual action research to deal with the problems

of her own classroom before suggesting it to other teachers who share the same problem
(collaborative) and then proposing it to the faculty administrators (school-wide).
In addition, because this is an individual action research and the researcher also would
like to undertake a rigorous and thorough study, she only invited her own reading class of
second-year students to participate in the study. As a result, the data collection and
analysis could be done, and considered more carefully and thereby producing more
accurate findings.
5. Organization of the research
The study and findings are intended to be shown and discussed in the following
chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction, which provides a broad view of the whole research by
presenting the current problem, mentioning aims and objectives of the paper,
and indicating the significance as well as the scope of the study
Chapter 2: Literature Review, which is supposed to provide theoretical background on
the issue of foreign language learning styles and motivation, discuss the key
concepts, identify the research gap and review the related studies in the
history both in Vietnam and in the world.
Chapter 3: Methodology, which informs readers of the participants, the chosen
instruments, procedures of data collection and analysis.
6
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion, which presents the description an interpretation of
the collected data in light of research questions.
Chapter 5: Conclusion which summarizes the major findings discovered by the research
and written up in the previous chapter (chap. 4). Moreover, it suggests some
pedagogical implication for teachers who share the same problem as the
researcher. The limitations and suggestions for future studies are also
discussed in this last chapter.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
7
This chapter was the review of the existing literature relevant to the subject matter which

was under the researcher’s investigation. In this chapter, some key concepts would be
explained clearly and thoroughly. In addition, related research works in both international
and Vietnam context would be analyzed and synthesized to supply readers with a broad
view of the topic in the scholarly world.
1. Key Concepts
1.1. Learning styles
a. Definition of learning styles
Individual difference is not a new field of study. Before the 1970s, this term was
considered somehow synonymous with ability difference measured by standard
intelligence tests. However, owing to the achievements in psychology in the 1970s,
researchers soon realized the narrowness of this assumption. Therefore, the concept of
individual difference henceforth was changed into the differences in many aspects such
as learning styles, interests, motivations, genders or ages. Among them, “learning styles”
may have been one of the most popular parts which have been studied since it was first
used in the 1970s. The studies on learning styles have been continuing for roughly five
decades.
Although it would be not conclusive enough to prove the emergence, recent years
witnessed the dramatically increasing records of the researcher numbers working in this
area. Apart from psychological field, research into learning styles has also been
conducted in a vast variety of domains, including management, vocational training and
especially education in different settings and levels.
Since a vast quantity of research and practitioner-based studies have deliberately
targeted at learning style, there are now a wide range of definitions, theoretical positions,
models, interpretations and measures of the construct in the area (Cassidy, 2004). On the
one hand, this can be convincing proof of the prevalence of this theory in education and it
8
provides the interested investigators with useful extensive literature for gaining thorough
understanding of the issue. On the other hand, this fact also causes the researchers such a
lot of trouble when it comes to the matter of ambiguity, conflicting outcomes or
measuring instrument selection.

For those who are novices at the subject matter, it is quite confusing when they
encounter the terms “learning styles”, “cognitive styles” and “learning strategies”. To
some extent, these concepts are usually used interchangeably in the learning style-related
research with little difference in meaning. However, in some cases (for some special
purposes), these terms need to be clearly distinguished. According to Allport (1937, in
Cassidy, 2004) and Riding & Cheema (1991, in Cassidy, 2004), an individual’s learning
style is the application of his cognitive style into learning situation. In other words, in
education cognitive style is an important component of learning style. Meanwhile,
“learning strategy” and “learning style” share a lot in common, except that the latter is
adapted more automatically to handle different learning tasks.
When it comes to the idea of learning styles, people must bear in mind a simple
but reasonable assumption put forward by Dunn and Dunn (1983) “everyone has
strengths, but different people have very different strengths”.
Since the term “learning style” was first in use in the 1970s, there have been
tireless efforts among scholars and researchers to define it. Therefore, it is not a great
surprise to find numerous definitions of learning styles.
Among these countless trees, there is one oak which should not and cannot be
ignored. The definition by Keefe (1979) has been mentioned in lots of learning style
research (Reid, 1987; Willing, 1988; Coffield, 2004).
Learning styles are characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors
that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and
9
respond to the learning environment … learning style is a consistent way of
functioning, that reflects the underlying causes of learning behaviors. (p. 40)
Three components of learning styles referred to in the definition could be
presented as follows:
Perceptual
The sensory channels (one or more senses) individuals rely on
to perceive, understand, organize and retain knowledge (Dunn
and Dunn, 1979; R. Dunn, 1983; Reid, 1987)

Physiology
Primary importance in shaping the way information is sought,
and the way it is processed (Swassing, 1979)
Determine the state of the entire organism, the senses and the
nervous system (Dunn and Dunn, 1979a)
Affective
Affective factors (i.e. anxiety) influencing the person’s level of
achievement (Naiman et al. 1975)
(Willing, 1988, pp. 52-55)
The Keefe’s idea of these components were shared by Dunn, Dunn and Price
(1978, acknowledged in Willing, 1988, p. 56) and even specified more into 18 identified
learning style elements.
For the consistency of the study, whenever the term learning style is mentioned, it
refers to the notion by Keefe (1979). Moreover, it is worth noting clearly at this point that
this study just focus on sensory channels or perceptual learning preferences as a primary
part of learning style differences.
b. Learning style theories, models and measures
10
As mentioned earlier, this study field of learning style has drawn much attention
from plenty of researchers around the world. Consequently, this following review of
learning style models and instruments would be impossible to be all-inclusive. Rather, it
is going to refer to the most reviewed constructs in significant review papers and
excludes the minor models that are only the adaptation of the critical models to small-
scale samples or just the new labels of the existing constructs.
In the review entitled “Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 learning” by
Coffield et al. (2004), 71 learning models which had been developed for the last 40-50
years were listed. Among them, the reviewers identified 13 major models mostly basing
on their popularity.
Therefore, in this paper the researcher would not mention these minor ones. Out of
the 13 leading models, David Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and Dunn, Dunn

and Price’s LSI are the most well-known and widely used in the UK and US respectively.
Moreover, Joy Reid’s (1987) model was also reviewed on this part because of the
researcher’s later use of his self-report questionnaire.
David Kolb’s learning styles model
David Kolb (1984) defined learning style as “individual orientations that gave
differential emphasis to the four basic learning theory: Concrete Experience (CE),
Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active
Experimentation (AE)”. These four were grouped into two categories: experience-
grasping approach with CE and AC; and experience-transforming approach with RO and
AE. Depending on the dominance of one experience-grasping and one experience-
transforming among four factors inside an individual, there were four basic types of
learning styles as follows:
11
Learning style Dominant factors Characteristic features
Converger
AC (thinking) and AE
(doing)
Practical applications of ideas
and deductive reasoning
Diverger
CE (feeling) and RO
(watching)
Imaginative and good at coming
up with ideas
Seeing things from different
perspectives
Assimilator
AC (thinking) and RO
(watching)
Capable of creating theoretical

model with inductive reasoning
Accommodator CE (feeling) and AE (doing)
Actively engaging with the
world and actually doing things
instead of merely reading about
or studying them
Table 1. Kolb’s model of learning styles
12
Figure 1. Kolb’s model of learning styles
Dunn and Dunn’s VAK/ VAKT models
Rita Dunn and Kenneth Dunn have spent more than 35 years devoting on the
studies concerning the learning styles (identification, instruments and assessment of
learning styles, etc.).
As mentioned before, Dunn, Dunn and Price (1978, cited in Willing, 1988)
included perceptual strengths in the 18 distinguishable learning style elements. The
perceptual strength element consisted of three types of learning preferences in receiving
the knowledge inputs: visual (prefer viewing pictures, maps, diagrams, etc.), auditory
(favor listening to tapes, lectures or music), and kinesthetic (involve more in doing,
touching and moving). Thus, the Dunns’ learning style model is frequently used in
American school system known as VAK or sometimes VAKT with tactile (prefer hands-
on involvement, note taking, model building, etc.) included (Coffield et al., 2004).
13
According to the Dunns’ theory, each individual have one or two dominant styles
(among those basics) which will role as the filter to favorably receive the information
delivered in the individual’s best way of learning.
Dominant
learning style
Description/ characteristics
V: visual
- Mind sometimes strays during verbal activities

- Observes, rather than talks or acts; may be quiet by nature
- Organized in approach to tasks
- Likes to read
- Usually a good speller
- Memorizes by creating mental images
- Thinks in pictures
- Easily put off by visual distractions
- May focus on the ‘big picture’ and use advanced planning
- Finds verbal instructions difficult
- Remember faces
- Strong on first impressions
- May have good handwriting
- Enjoys using color
- Notices details
- Often a quick thinker
A: auditory - Talks to self aloud
- Outgoing by nature
- Whispers to self while reading, may hum or sing while working
- Likes to be read to
- May be particular about the exact choice of words
- Memorizes by steps in a sequence
- Very aware of rhythm
- Easily distracted by noises
14
- May have difficulty with written instructions
- Remember names
- May assess people by the sound of their voice
- Enjoys music and the sounds of words
- Enjoys talking and listening
- Can remember – and often mimic – speech by picking up rhythm

of the sentence
- May need time to think (i.e. discuss it with myself)
- May assess a situation on ‘how it sounds’ to them
K:
kinesthetic
- In motion most of the time/ fidgety
- Outgoing by nature; expresses emotions by physical means
- Reading is not a priority
- May find spelling difficult
- Likes to solve problems by physically working through them
- Very good body control, good timing and reflexes
- May need time to think (i.e. process the actions involved)
- Will try new things – likes to get involved
- Like physical rewards
- Remembers what they have done rather than seen/ heard
- May assess people and situation by what “feels right”
- Enjoys doing activities
- Plays games, simulations and role-playing
- Prefers experiments
- Favors dance-related activities such as folk dances, singing,
rhythmic movements, creative dance
T: tactile
- Uses their hands, likes to use gestures and touch people while
talking to them
- Underlines
- Takes note
- Constructs models
- Loves art-related activities such as drawing, painting, and sculpting
- Makes diagrams, mind maps, webs
- Taps pencil or foot/ fiddles with objects while studying

Table 2. Dunn and Dunn’s learning style theory (VAKT)
(Source: Authors; Adapted from Coffield et al., 2004; Dunn & Griggs, 2003; Dunn,
2001; Dunn, 2003, cited in Penger & Tekavcic, 2009, p. 6)
15
Joy Reid’s VAKT model
Joy Reid was one of the well-known researchers who had spent quite a lot of time
and effort studying learning styles, especially perceptual strengths.
Once realizing that no research had been published on the perceptual learning
styles of non-native speakers (NNSs) of English before and then claiming that failure
may rest not only on material but teachers’ unawareness of learning styles as well, Reid
(1987) on TESOL Quarterly reported his study which provided the insights into NNSs’
perceptual modalities in their classroom.
Like Dunn and Dunn, Reid also followed VAK/VAKT model which was added
two more components named group and individual learning styles. Hence, Reid’s
consisted of 6 learning styles instead of 3 or 4 constructs as usual.
Referring back to Dunn and Dunn’s definition of learning style, these two
constructs could somehow be found in the sociological element (working alone, in pair,
with peers, in team, with adults, or varied). Meanwhile, they were included in perceptual
channels by Reid (1987). This was the different point between Dunn and Dunn’s and
Reid’s VAKT model.
The typical characteristics of 4 learning styles (visual, auditory, kinesthetic and
tactile) coincided with those detailed in Dunn and Dunn’s. For the two added learning
styles, the author had also given the explanation for those who had these preferences.
16
Group
learning
style
- Learn more easily with at least one another student
- Be more successful completing work well when working
with others.

- Value group interaction and class work with other students
- Remember information better when studying with two or
three classmates.
- Learn and understand new information better with the
stimulation from group work.
Individual
learning
style
- Learn best when working alone.
- Think better alone
- Remember information one learns by oneself.
- Understand new material best when learning it alone
- Make better progress in learning by oneself.
Table 3. Two out of six learning styles in Reid’s model
Six learning preferences were grouped into three ranges: major, minor and
negative learning style preferences. It was advisable that students learnt in their major
learning styles in which they could function well and learn best. Minor preferences
contained those learning styles in which students could still function well whereas
students’ negative one showed the difficulty learning in these ways.
David Kolb’s and Dunn and Dunn’s learning style inventory were thought to be
one of the leading models in the field from which many other models have been
developed or adapted (Coffield, 2004). However, Smith (2001) has figured out 6
weaknesses of David Kolb’s LSI: 1) the process of reflection is mostly ignored (Boud et
al., 1983) 2) four constructs in the model do not apply to every situation (Jarvis, 1987;
Tennant, 1997) 3) it shows the lack of attention to cultural differences (Anderson, 1988)
17
4) the idea of stages or steps does not reflect the reality of thinking 5) the empirical
weakness cannot back the theory and 6) the problematic relationship of knowledge and
learning (Jarvis, 1987). As a result of these problems, the application of Kolb’s model
needs a great caution though this model is appreciated to provide “an excellent

framework” to plan teaching and learning.
Dunn and Dunn’s model also had to cope with many critiques which strongly
criticized the model as invalidate, unreliable and lacking an underlying theory. The
reality and validity of Dunn and Dunn’s LSI have been criticized by some other
reviewers. However, the Dunn and Dunn’s LSI was one of the most widely used in the
American schools owing to its advantages such as positively claiming the potential
learning ability of all students, respecting individual differences and showing its good
effects in many practitioners’ adaptation to their samples of students.
In this research, the Dunns’ learning style inventory would be used thoroughly and
consistently as the reference of learning style models. However, criticized to be difficult
for students and faculties to assimilate all, the instruments with too many principles (18)
would be narrowed the focus on perceptual strengths/ preferences only, namely VAK or
VAKT model.
Turning to this point, Reid’s VAKT model with 6 components was taken into
consideration of the researcher because of the convenient use of Perceptual Learning-
style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) by Reid (1987) as the style-identifying
instrument (see Chapter 3_Methodology). Moreover, Reid’s VAKT was basically similar
to that of Dunn and Dunn with more than two styles. These two, group and individual
were also very important in student’s process of gaining and retaining knowledge. Hence,
from the researcher’s viewpoint, Reid’s model was more complete to some extent. As a
result, in the scope of this research, Reid’s model will be used thoroughly.
1.2. Differentiated instruction (Teaching style/ teaching approach)
18
a. Definition of differentiated instruction approach
Instruction differentiation theory was established on the basis of student
differences which require a variety of suitably-adapted instructional approaches. Students
with diverse needs should be provided not just one but multiple options to learn materials
and ultimately achieve success equally in the classroom. The necessity of differentiated
instructions was confirmed by the significant findings in brain research which many
experienced teachers have always assumed:

• No two children are alike.
• No two children learn in the identical way.
• An enriched environment for one student is not necessarily enriched for another.
• In the classroom we should teach children to think for themselves.

According to an expert in this field Tomlinson (2000), there is not just one way to
define instruction differentiation. In the most fundamental way, differentiation can be
understood as a teacher’s act of “tailoring” his/ her instruction to meet individual needs.
If a teacher tries to differentiate her instruction in the classroom, she varies her teaching
in content, process, products, or the learning environment to proactively respond to
individual variance to create the best learning experience possible and therefore, keep all
students engaged. The model of differentiated instruction was aimed at maximizing
learning-teaching flexibility, material access and possibilities of success for all students
in diverse classroom. Basically, it offers students multiple options to absorb information,
make sense of ideas and express what they learn (Tomlinson, 2001).
Differentiating instruction means teachers’ “adjusting the curriculum and
presentation of information to learners rather than expecting students to modify
themselves for the curriculum” (Hall, Strangman & Meyer, 2003)
19