A survey on the first – year students’ English language learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology = Khảo sát phong cách học tiến

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


TRẦN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG



A SURVEY ON THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES
AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

(Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viên
năm thứ nhất trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội)


MA. MINOR THESIS


Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10



Hanoi, 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


TRẦN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG



A SURVEY ON THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES
AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

(Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viên
năm thứ nhất trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội)


MA. MINOR THESIS


Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor: NGUYỄN THỤY PHƯƠNG LAN, MA.


Hanoi, 2012

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration …………………………………………………………………. i
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………… iii
Table of contents …………………………………………………………… iv
List of graphs and table …………………………………………………… vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale ………………………………………………………………………. 1
2. Aims of the study ……………………………………………………… ……. 2
3. Research question ………………………………………………………. ……. 2
4. Significance of the study ……………………………………………………… 2
5. Scope of the study ………………………………………………………. ……. 3
6. Organization of the study ……………………………………………… ……. 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Definition of learning style …………………………………………………. 5
1.2. The origins of human‟s learning style preference ……………………. … 5
1.3. Background history – Categorization of learning styles ……………… …… 6
1.3.1. Background ………………………………………………………. 6
1.3.2. Categorization of learning styles …………………………………. 7
1.4. Students‟ learning style preferences …………………………………. …… 9
1.5. Mismatch between students‟ and teachers‟ perception of learning style … 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Methods of the study ………………………………………………… …… 14
2.2. Methodology and procedures ………………………………………………. 14
2.2.1. Participants ……………………………………………………… 14
2.2.1.1. Students ………………………………………………… 14
2.2.1.2. Teachers ………………………………………………… 15
2.2.2. Instrument ………………………………………………………… 16



v
2.2.3. Data collection procedure ………………………………………… 18
2.2.4. Data analysis procedure ………………………………………… 18

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS
3.1. Students‟ interest in learning English ………………………………………. 19
3.2. Perceiving and processing information in real life and in classroom ………. 20
3.2.1. Perceiving and processing information in real life ……………… 20
3.2.2. Perceiving and processing information in classroom …………… 21
3.3. Learning mode ……………………………………………………………… 23
3.4. New words ……………………………………………………………. …… 24
3.5. Teaching aids …………………………………………………………. …… 26
3.6. Classroom activities ……………………………………………….……… 27
3.6.1. Students‟ preferred classroom activities ………………….……… 28
3.6.2. Classroom activity frequency ……………………………………. 29
3.7. Feedback and error correction …………………………………………… 30
3.7.1. Feedback …………………………………………………………. 30
3.7.2. Error correction ………………………………………………… 31
3.8. The importance of learning style …………………………………………… 32

CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING DIFFERENT LEARNING
STYLES
4.1. Suggestions for teaching visual style learners ……………………………… 33
4.2. Suggestions for teaching kinesthetic style learners ………………………… 34
4.3. Suggestions for teaching read/write style learners …………………………. 35
4.4. Suggestions for teaching auditory style learners …………………………… 35

PART C: CONCLUSION
1. Major findings ………………………………………………………… …… 37
2. Contribution of the study ……………………………………………….…… 38
3. Limitations ……………………………………………………………….…… 39
4. Suggestions for further studies …………………….…………………………. 39




vi


LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

GRAPHS:
Graph 1: Students‟ interest in learning English
Graph 2: Students' and teachers' perceiving style preferences in real life
Graph 3: Students' perceiving information style preferences by age
Graph 4: Students‟ and teachers‟ view on Perceiving style preferences in classroom
Graph 5: Students‟ perceiving style preferences by age and gender
Graph 6: Students' and teachers' view on learning mode
Graph 7: Students‟ view on learning mode by age and gender
Graph 8: Students and teachers‟ view on new words learning

Graph 9: Students‟ view on new words learning by age and gender
Graph 10: Students and teachers‟ view on learning aids
Graph 11: Students‟ view on learning aids by age and gender
Graph 12: Students and teachers‟ view on classroom activities
Graph 13: Students‟ view on classroom activities by age and gender
Graph 14: Students and teachers‟ view on getting feedback
Graph 15: Students and teachers‟ view on error correction

TABLE:
Table 1: Students‟ characteristic of age and gender








1
PART A: INTRODUCTION

In this first part, the author states the rationale for the study. Afterward, the aims,
research questions, significance, scope of the study are discussed. The chapter ends with an
overview of the thesis structure.

1. Rationale
Today's employers expect employees to have varied skills to be able to adapt to
different situations and to communicate with different people from different cultural
backgrounds. Therefore, teaching students how to communicate effectively, cooperate with
others and learn independently has become the basics of education. That is the reason for the

appearance of the new textbook set since 2006 in Vietnam, which mainly based on the learner-
centered approach and communicative language teaching. These approaches require educators
to pay more attention to individual learners to help them expand and improve their
communicative competence. Hence, understanding students including understanding learning
styles preferences plays an important role to educational improvement and success.
According to Reid (1987), the ways in which an individual characteristically acquires,
retains, and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual‟s learning styles.
Learning styles reflect our preferred manner of acquiring, using and thinking about knowledge.
We do not have just one learning styles, but a profile of styles. Even though, our ability may be
identical to someone else‟s, our learning styles might be quite different. The students, for
instance, learn in many ways – by seeing and hearing; reflecting and acting; memorizing and
visualizing; some students prefer working individually, others learn a lot from group work.
While some students like learning through games and activities, others can get much from
presentations. Some students never mind being immediately corrected in front of the class,
other students easy to lose face being corrected.
Furthermore, teachers do not apply the same method of teaching. Felder and Henriques
(1995: 21) noted that “teaching methods also vary. Some instructors lecture, others
demonstrate or discuss; some teachers focus on rules and others on examples; some teachers
emphasize memory and other understanding”. Serious mismatches will occur when teachers
ignore or are not aware of their students‟ learning style preferences. It is the teachers‟
unawareness of students‟ learning style preferences that negatively affects the quality of


2
students‟ learning, their attitudes toward the class and the subject, the atmosphere and the
outcome.

2. Aims of the study
The survey on the first-year students‟ English language learning style preferences at
Hanoi University of Business and Technology aims at certain points. Firstly, the study aims at

investigating the first-year students‟ learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business
and Technology. These preferences are going to be defined basing on two major criteria: the
preferred style of acquiring knowledge and information in real life; and the preferred style of
acquiring knowledge and information in classroom in terms of learning mode, perceiving and
processing information, vocabulary, class activities, teaching aids, error correction and
feedback. Secondly, the survey intends to discover the teachers‟ learning style preferences and
their awareness of their students‟ learning style preferences through their answers in the
questionnaires. Consequently, the author wants to check out whether teachers‟ awareness of
students‟ learning style preferences can be influenced by their own preferences. Finally, the
study examines the effect of some elements such as age and gender to the students‟ learning
style preferences.

3. Research questions
The survey intends to investigate the English language learning style preferences of the
first-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology and the extent of teachers‟
awareness of them. Particularly, the study seeks answers to the following questions:
2 What are the students‟ learning style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and
technology?
3 What is the gap between teachers‟ awareness of students‟ leaning style preferences and the
real one?

4. Significance of the study
Learning style is a personal factor, which means that each has preferred ways of
learning, approaches that work best for us. In addition, our success is not just independent on
whether we can learn, but on how we learn. However, in the same way that each of us has
preferred learning styles; instructors have their own styles of teaching. Teachers may not even


3
be aware of them, but their learning styles have an important impact on the way they teach.

Instructors who assign frequent activities involving oral presentations and demonstrations
might be indicating that their learning style is somewhat auditory. On the other hand,
instructors whose assignments consist of frequent written work may have a more visual style.
So, what if students‟ learning styles are mismatched with learning and teaching styles of their
instructors? According to Oxford (2003) cited in Le Sa‟s (2010), if there is a harmony between
students‟ learning styles and given instructional methodology, the students are likely to
perform well, fell confident and experience low anxiety. If clashes happen, serious breakdowns
in teacher-student interaction will occur. These conflicts even result in the dispirited students‟
rejection of the teaching methodology, the teacher and the subject matter. Consequently,
finding out the students‟ learning style preferences is an important step to create the harmony
between teachers and students.
The results gained from this survey can derive an overview of students‟ learning style
preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, as well as the extent to which
teachers are aware of their students‟ learning style preferences. The teachers can also find out
their own learning styles and check out whether they impose their own one on their students.
The awareness of students‟ real language learning styles preferences is the basic for teachers to
not only find out teaching methods that suit the best to them, but also make their lessons more
attractive, effective and practical. As a result, the atmosphere in the class, the outcomes, and
the teacher-student interactions can be improved significantly. The study‟s results can certainly
improve the language learning and teaching at Hanoi University of Business and Technology.
Such information is also significant to other teachers from other universities in similar teaching
context.

5. Scope of the study
The study examines students‟ English language learning style preferences at Hanoi
University of Business and Technology. About 227 students from 10 classes randomly selected
and 10 teachers teaching in these classes are invited to participate in the study. This number of
students is hoped to be sufficient to provide valid and reliable information, the contribution of
which is vital to the success of this modest research. Students‟ and teachers‟ answers in the 20-
item questionnaires on two major criteria: the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and

information in real life; and the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and information in


4
classroom help find out the answer to the question on students‟ English language learning
styles preferences. Moreover, the study can help to check out whether teacher are aware of
students‟ learning style preferences; and figure out the relationship between age and gender to
the students‟ learning style preferences.

6. Organization of the study
The survey is divided into three main parts
In the first part-Introduction- the rationale, aims, research questions, significance, scope
and the organization of the study are presented.
The second part-Development- consists of three chapters. Chapter 1, Literature review,
deals with definitions of terms, the origin, background history and categorization of learning
styles, students‟ learning preferences, mismatches between students‟ learning styles and
teachers‟ awareness of them. The methods of the study adopted as well as justifications for the
chosen instruments, participations, data collection and analysis procedure are discussed in
chapter 2-Methodology. In the third chapter, the data on two major criteria: the preferred style
of acquiring knowledge and information in real life; and the preferred style of acquiring
knowledge and information in classroom in terms of learning mode, perceiving and processing
information, vocabulary, class activities, teaching aids, error correction and feedback are
presented. This chapter points out the results combined with critical interpretation and analysis,
from which major findings are revealed and discussed.
In the last part namely Conclusion, the author focuses on some major finding and
contributions of the study. Limitations and suggestions for further research are also mentioned.
To sum up, this chapter has presented the rationale, aims, research questions,
significance, scope of the study. The chapter ends with an overview of study‟s design. Such
information acts as the guideline or orientation for the development of the later parts of the
thesis.

5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Part B – Development – consists of three chapters: Literature Review, Methodology,
and Data Analysis. Specifically, this part gives a brief review of the literature, including the
key concepts and related studies in the field; the methodology applied in the study; the data
analysis as well as the study‟s results and discussion.

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 1 – Literature Review – presents definitions of terms, the origin, background
history and categorization of learning styles, students‟ learning style preferences, mismatches
between students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions of learning styles.

1.1. Definition of learning style
In literary studies, first personal differences of individuals and then the effects of
applying these differences in the environment have been investigated. One of these personal
differences is the individual‟s learning style. When individuals learn with the same method, in
the same learning environment and are assessed by the same evaluation tools, it should not be
expected that all of them gain the same amount of success, because individuals have different
learning styles.

Style, according to Brown (2007: 119), is a term referring to consistent and rather
enduring tendencies or preferences within an individual. Styles are those general characteristics
of intellectual, and that differentiate you from someone else.
“Learning style refers to any individual preferred ways of going about learning. It is
generally considered that one‟s learning style will result from personality variables, including
psychological and cognitive make-up, socio-cultural background, and educational experience”
Nunan (1991: 168)

1.2. The origins of human’s learning style preferences
According to Feldman (2003: 63), “For many of us, learning style preferences result
from the kind of processing our brain „specializes‟ in”. Left-brain processing concentrates


6
more on tasks requiring verbal competence, such as speaking, reading, thinking, and reasoning.
Information is processed sequentially, one bit a time. For instance, people who are naturally
inclined to use left-brain processing might be more likely to prefer analytic learning styles,
because they first like to look at individual bits of information and put them together. On the
other hand, right-brain processing tends to concentrate more on the processing of information
in nonverbal domains, such as understanding of spatial relationships, recognition of patterns
and drawing, music and emotional expression. Moreover, the right hemisphere inclines to
process information globally, considering it as a whole. Consequently, people who tend toward
right-brain processing might prefer relational learning styles.

1.3. Background History – Categorization of learning styles
1.3.1. Background
Accounting for individual learning styles is not a new idea, research on learning styles
have been taken many years ago. As early as 334 BC, Aristotle said that “each child possessed
specific talents and skills” and he noticed individual differences in young children. In the
beginning, research focused on the relationship between memory and oral or visual methods.

Joe Chandle has given a very clear background history of learning styles in his study.
According to him, in 1904, Alfred Binet - a French psychologist - developed the first
intelligence test, which spawned interest in individual differences. The study of learning styles
was the next step. In 1907, Dr. Maria Montessori, who invented the Montessori Method of
education, began using materials to enhance the learning styles of her students. Dr. Montessori
believed that students did not demonstrate mastery of subjects through a multiple-choice
answer sheet, but through their actions. The study of learning styles declined for approximately
50 years before re-emerging in the 1950s. The decline was due to the rise in emphasis on IQ
and academic achievement. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a system known as Bloom's
Taxonomy, which took another step toward defining learning-style differences. Isabel Myers-
Briggs and Katherine Briggs developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1962.
Further advancement was made when the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model was
introduced in 1976, generating diagnostic instruments for evaluation. From the 1980s to the
present day, lots of different research and learning-style models have been developed building
on previous discoveries. In 1984, David Kolb published his learning-style model, where he
determined that learning styles are closely related to cognitive skills. Then, in 1987, Reid had


7
conducted a great study with the help of participants from 98 countries over the world to prove
his hypothesis that all students had their own learning strengths and weaknesses. In 1992, Neil
Fleming and Mills launched one of the most popular learning style research and assessment
throughout the world. Up to now, the emphasis is placed on having teachers address learning
styles in the classroom through adjustments in curriculum that incorporate each style, giving an
equal chance for students to learn.

1.3.2. Categorization of learning styles – Definition of terms
Learning styles have been classified into nine different models. The Kolb Model is
based on experiential learning theory. Using the Kolb model, Peter Honey and Allen Mumford
developed the Honey and Mumford model. The other models include Anthony Gregorc's

model, Sudbury Model of Democratic Education, Thinking Styles, Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator, the DISC Assessment, Flemming's Vark, and the most recent, Chris J Jackson's
Neuropsychological Hybrid model.
David Kolb's model in 1984 is based on his Experiential Learning Theory (ELT).
There are two forms of experience in the model: Concrete Experience and Abstract
Conceptualization, and two related approaches to transform experience into learning:
Reflective Observation and Active Experimentation. The combination of these approaches
results in four learning styles: converger (characterized by abstract conceptualization and
active experimentation), diverger (tending toward concrete experience and reflective
observation), assimilator (characterized by abstract conceptualization and reflective
observation) and accommodator (using concrete experience and active experimentation).
Among the nine models, Fleming's VARK model is considered one of the most
widely-used models of learning styles which derived from Neuro-linguistic programming.
According to Fleming's model, which is relatively simple, learners can be categorized as
follows:
● Visual (V):
This preference includes the depiction of information in maps, spider diagrams, charts,
graphs, flow charts, labeled diagrams, and all the symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and
other devices that people use to represent what could have been presented in words.




8
● Aural / Auditory (A):
This perceptual mode describes a preference for information that is "heard or spoken."
Learners who have this as their main preference learn best from lectures, group discussion,
radio, email, using mobile phones, speaking, web-chat and talking things through.
● Read/write (R):
This preference is for information displayed as words. This preference emphasizes text-

based input and output - reading and writing in all its forms but especially manuals, reports,
essays and assignments
● Kinesthetic (K):
This modality refers to the "perceptual preference related to the use of experience and
practice (simulated or real)." The key is that people who prefer this mode are connected to
reality, "either through concrete personal experiences, examples, practice or simulation"
(Fleming & Mills, 1992: 140-141). It includes demonstrations, simulations, videos and movies
of "real" things, as well as case studies, practice and applications.

Despite the fact that Fleming's VARK theory is relatively simple compared to other
learning style models, it is not adequate and very difficult to implement in a functional
classroom. Moreover, it has not dealt with the problem of mixture, usually defined as
multimodality. Recently, Feldman (2003) has presented one categorization of learning styles
that seems to be more adequate which can combine the above models and neatly solve the
question of mixture. According to Feldman (2003: 64-65), there are four main categories of
learning style.
● Receptive learning styles
Visual/verbal: a style that involves a preference for material in the written format,
favoring reading over hearing and touching.
Visual/nonverbal: a style that favors material presented visually in diagram or picture.
Auditory/verbal: a style in which the learners favors listening as the best approach.
Tactile/kinesthetic: a style that involves learning by touching, manipulating objects,
and doing things.
● Information Processing Styles
Analytic: a style which the learner starts with small pieces of information and uses
them to build the big picture.


9
Relation: a style in which the learner starts with the big picture and breaks it down into

its individual components.

● Personality styles
Introvert versus extrovert: independence is a key characteristic of introverted learners,
who enjoy working alone and are less affected by how others think and behave. Whereas,
extroverts are outgoing and more affected by the behavior and thinking of others. They enjoy
working with others.
Intuitors versus sensors: intuitive people enjoy solving problems and being creative,
often taking a big-picture approach. Sensors, in contrast, prefer a concrete, logical approach in
which they can carefully analyze the facts of the situation.
Thinker versus feeler: thinkers prefer logic to emotion, coming to decisions through
rational analysis. On the other hand, feelers rely on their emotions and are influenced by their
personal values and attachments to others.
Perceiver versus judger: before perceivers draw a conclusion, they attempt to gather as
much information as they can and are open to multiple perspectives. Judgers, in comparison,
are quick and decisive; they enjoy setting goals and accomplishing them.

● Brain Processing Styles
Left-brain processing: information processing that focuses on tasks requiring verbal
competence, such as speaking, reading, thinking, and reasoning; information is processed
sequentially, one bit at a time.
Right-brain processing: information processing focuses on information in nonverbal
domains, such as the understanding of spatial relationships, recognition of patterns and
drawings, music, and emotional expression.

1.4. Students’ learning style preferences
One of the earliest dimensions to be studied is field independence, was initially
identified by Herman A. Witkin in the late 1940s. Although several tests of field independence
existed, all of them measured the extent to which people are “able to deal with as part of a field
separately from the field as a whole, or the extent to which they are able to dissembled items

from organized context” (Witkin, 1976: 41-42 see in Erickson et al., 2006). According to


10
Felder and Henriques (1995), learning styles have been extensively discussed in the
educational psychology literature (Claxton and Murell, 1987; Schmeck, 1988) and specifically
in the context of language learning by Oxford and her colleagues (Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al,.
1991; Wallace and Oxford, 1992; Oxford and Ehraman, 1993). Although over 30 learning style
assessment instruments have been developed in the past three decades (Guild and Garger,
1985; Jensen, 1987), research that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles relies
primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning
styles.
Reid (1987) stated a major hypothesis about learning style that “All students have their
own learning strengths and weaknesses”. To prove that hypothesis, Reid did a survey by
mailing instructions for administration to 43 university-affiliated intensive English language
programs across the United States, the faculties of which had volunteered to participate in the
study. A total of 1,234 questionnaires were returned from 39 of the 43 participating intensive
English language programs. Respondents representing 98 countries, 29 major fields of study,
and 52 language backgrounds completed the questionnaire. Reid‟s study results presented that
students strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles. Almost all groups showed a
negative preference for group learning. By separating students in groups of different languages,
backgrounds, cultures, age, sex, level etc., Reid concluded that the learning style preferences of
nonnative speakers often differ significantly from those of native speakers; that ESL students
from different language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their learning style
preferences. She also found that variables such as sex, length of time in the United States,
length of time studying English in the U. S., field of study, level of education, TOEFL score,
and age are related to differences in learning styles.
The result that students prefer kinesthetic and tactile learning styles is favored with
Melton‟s 1990 study with Chinese students (N=331), John‟s 1997 research with Taiwan
students (N=312), Hyland‟s 1993 research with Japanese learners. In the study of Chu and

Chew (1999), students favored Kinesthetic and Tactile style, and they did not disfavor any
style. Ted Brown (2008), one more time, affirmed this conclusion by 81 Australian students
above 218 ones preferred kinesthetic learning style.
In fact, there are many other investigations on learning style preferences, which showed
different preference on Visual style. John L. Dobson (2010) classified students‟ learning style
preferences according to their Visual, Aural, Read-write, and Kinesthetic. Students from the


11
fall 2009 APK 3110 and APK 6116 Exercise Physiology course were asked to indicate their
perceived sensory modality preferences and complete their standard VARK sensory modality
preferences assessment. Among 64 students respondents; there are 36% preferred Visual,
followed by 28% in Read, 19% in Kinesthetic, and only 17% in Aural.
An investigation into the learning style and self-regulated learning strategies for
Computer Science students showed the result that the most preferred leaning style is Visual.
Among 38 participants, 31 students (≈ 81,6%) presented their preferences to learning through
eyes, they also tent to work individually rather than to work in group.
Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Marilyn (2003) investigated the learning style preferences
of three different populations (Russian EFL students, Russian ESL students, and Asian ESL
students). Results showed that these three students groups absolutely preferred group activity
to individual work; the Russian EFL and Asian ESL students favored group work and project
work. Moreover, the researchers suggested that some cultural influences were at play. Both
quantitative and qualitative studies into cross-cultural settings support a relationship between
culture and learning and assume that culture, ethnicity, class, and gender play important roles
in shaping the students‟ learning style preferences.
Although learning style preferences have been concerned all in many countries for a
long time, it does not yet get much concern from Vietnamese researchers. There are only few
studies on this subject. Nga (2009)‟s study on 532 students‟ language learning style
preferences at Pham Hong Thai high school revealed that they are more auditory and visual
learners. They are also extroverted learners for they are interested in relationships with others

such as pair or group work, they like practicing English both inside and outside classroom. Nga
also stated that although teachers at Pham Hong Thai high school were aware of some
students‟ language learning style preferences in terms of perceiving and processing
information, teaching aids, and class activities; they did not fully understand their students‟
liking and disliking such as learning mode, error correction, homework, assessment, sense of
satisfaction, etc.
Le Sa‟s explosion on students‟ language learning style preferences, carried out at Do
Luong 2 high school revealed the similar result as Nga‟s one. Although her students also
expressed more various preferences than Nga‟s students (the kinesthetic and visual learning
style and minor preferences for auditory style), the teachers were still not aware fully of
students‟ language style preferences. Teachers thought students preferred learning grammar but


12
they did not; teacher mentioned students preferred copying from the board but they expressed
the preferences of learning by pictures, videos, games; teachers thought students preferred
translating into Vietnamese, in contrast they really did not like to. There was a big mismatch
between what teachers thought of students‟ preferences and what it really was.
Since being considered, learning style preferences studies have shown us a
misunderstanding or even unawareness of teachers about their students‟ learning styles.
According to Reid (1987), “A mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning
failure, frustration and demotivation”; then teachers‟ unawareness make a big gap in teaching
modality. To conclude, it is relevant to explore learning styles due to the fact that they affect
not only the way individuals acquire and process information but also the teaching process. By
understanding students‟ individual learning style, both teachers and students can beneficially
join the teaching and learning process in a more active and successful way.

1.5. Mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of learning style
Investigation on learning and teaching styles has provided teachers and students with a
different view of learning and teaching in classrooms. Both the two Vietnamese studies of

learning style preferences mentioned above come to the same conclusion that there exists a
mismatch between students‟ learning styles and teachers‟ awareness of them. Nga (2009) and
Sa (2010) agree with each other that teachers were not fully aware of or even unaware of most
of their students‟ liking and disliking for some criteria: learning mode, class activities, error
correction, and homework.
Over the world, many research come to the same conclusion.
Rita and Kenneth Dunn (1993) studied how people learn and they noticed that some
students achieved knowledge only through selective methods. They also mentioned many
elements influencing learning styles, namely environmental, economical, and physical factors.
They added nine elements that influence teaching styles: attitudes towards instructional
programs among others.
Felder (1995) said that “the ways in which an individual characteristically acquires,
retains, and retrieved information are collectively termed the individual learning styles”. He
also mentioned that mismatches usually occur between students‟ learning styles in a language
class and the teaching styles of teachers with negative effects on the quality of students‟
outcome and on their attitudes toward the class and the subjects.


13
The teachers in Barkhuisen‟s (1998) study were surprised to learn about the feeling and
thought of their students. In other words, the students‟ perceptions mismatched those of
teachers.
The Spratt‟s research in 1999 presented a mismatch between students‟ preferences and
teachers‟ awareness of them. Teachers were aware of learners‟ preferences on just 50% of
cases; also, there was no obvious pattern to the correspondences or lack of them. Therefore, it
was difficult to explain why they happened and to predict where they might have happened.
Mathew Peacook (2001) studied the correlation between learning and teaching styles
based on the Reid‟s hypotheses of “A mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes
learning failure, frustration and demotivation”. He found that learners favored kinesthetic and
auditory styles, disfavored individual, group styles, while teachers favored kinesthetic, group,

and auditory styles.
Dao Zhenhui (2001) analyzed how to match teaching styles with learning styles in East
Asia contexts. He explored learning styles and developed self-aware EFL learners. He
mentioned that an effective matching between teaching and learning styles could only be
achieved when teachers are aware of their learners‟ needs, capacities, potentials and learning
style preferences. He also added that it is necessary to adapt the teaching styles to create a
teacher-student style matching.
There is no doubt that narrowing the gap between teachers‟ and learners‟ perception
plays “an important role in enabling students to maximize their classroom experience.”
(Zhenhui: 2001).
As can be seen, being aware of students‟ learning style preferences and understanding
the relationship between factors (environment, age, gender, etc.) play an important part in
teaching process. The implication of the study is that teachers find out their students‟ preferred
learning styles, their feeling and thinking, their needs and their experiences, etc., so that the
teachers can not only adapt teaching methods to suit the best to students, make the lessons
more attractive, effective and practical but also facilitate the desired learning outcome in the
class. To this end, the present study with the above-mentioned goals and objectives are
designed.





14
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

The following chapter embraces the main points regarding the methodology applied in
the study namely the methods of the study, the participants, research instruments as well as
data collection and data analysis procedures. Simultaneously, it provides for the selection of
research methods and clarifies specific steps carried out to gain valid and reliable data.

2.1 Methods of the study
Doing a research is similar to undertaking a journey in which answers for research
questions are destination. The path to finding answers to research questions constitutes
research methodology. According to Leedy (2001), the methods used are one geared toward
research question in an attempt to understand the particular phenomenon that is being studied.
The following part in this chapter will describe the rationale for selecting the methods of study
as well as the specifics about the methods that are employed.
Survey research, which is the most popular form of quantitative research, is used to
“gather information from groups of subjects and permits the researcher to summarize the
characteristics of different groups or to measure their attitudes and opinions toward some
issue” (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2002). Whereas, investigating students‟ learning style
preferences is also investigating their characteristics, their attitudes, their needs, their
awareness and satisfactions, the survey research is the dynamic medium to the research
questions.
Moreover, compared with other methods, survey questionnaires were likely to be more
time - saving and fruitful in the large scope, particularly with 227 students involved in the
study. Brown (2001: 15) stated the strong point of questionnaires is that “The researchers can
collect a large amount of information in less than an hour”. This advantage was fully exploited
when the researcher used survey questionnaires with two different versions for teachers and
students among the 227 students and 10 teachers participating in the study to collect data.

2.2 Methodology and procedures
2.2.1 Participants
2.2.1.1 Students


15
Among about 2000 first-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology,
227 students: 76 males (33.5%) and 151 females (66.5%) from 10 classes of 10 teachers were

randomly invited to take part in the study.
These students are all fresh-year students in the school year 2011 – 2012, who come
from 47 provinces all over Vietnam, which means that they have diversifying educational
background. They are studying in different major departments namely Accountancy, Banking,
Finance, Business Management, Information Technology (IT), etc. Moreover, because students
were taking either full-time courses or in-service courses for incumbent, they vary in age, from
18 to 26.

Table 1: Students’ characteristic of age and gender
Age
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 -26
Male
5 (6.6%)
18
(23.7%)
9
(11.8%)
17
(22.4%)
12
(15.8%)
3 (3.9%)
12
(15.8%)

Female
29
(19.2%)
34
(22.5%)
34
(22.5%)
25
(16.6%)
13
(8.6%)
9 (6%)
7 (4.6%)

Furthermore, with a quite long time of learning English - at least 7 years (4 years in
secondary school, 3 years in high school); all of the students have enough basic knowledge of
this foreign language. Such various characteristics of student participants diversify the
information collected, which can guarantee the reliability of samples as well as the objectives
of study results.

2.2.1.2 Teachers
10 teachers teaching 10 above-mentioned classes were invited to participate in the
study. The teachers are from 26 to 37 years old. The teachers graduated from English
Department of different universities. Five from College of Foreign Language, Hanoi National
University, two from Hanoi University, one from Vinh University, one from Thai Nguyen
University and the last from Da Nang Unvisersity. Five of 10 teachers have M.A degree and
two others are doing M.A courses. As we can see, the teachers are varied in terms of age and
teaching experience, however, most of the teachers are rather young, well-trained and have

16
approximately 7 years of teaching English. Moreover, all of them have used the Market Leader
textbook and have taught English for first-year students for at least 2 years.

2.2.2 Instrument
As mentioned in Literature Review, although over 30 learning style assessment
instruments have been developed in the past three decades, research that identifies and
measures perceptual learning styles relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which
students select their preferred learning styles. Style questionnaires vary in reliability and
validity, but over the last few decades, they have provided useful data for teachers and students
to understand learning style preferences.
The instrument used in the study was questionnaire of language learning style
preference adopted from Brindley (1984) and Fleming‟s VARK (2011 version). It consisted of
two versions: version 1 for students and version 2 for teachers. Both two versions were divided
into three main parts; the first part expressed the participants‟ background information as well
as attitude toward English, the second part presented participants‟ perceiving information style
preferences in real life, and the last one mentioned the preferred learning styles in classroom.
The questionnaire consists of two main types close-ended questions - multiple-choice questions
and scaled questions. With scaled questions, participants were required to measure their level
of like or dislike toward learning modes, learning methods, learning activities, learning aids,
vocabulary learning, etc. on the scale from 1 to 5, with 1=strongly dislike, 2=dislike, 3=neutral,
4=like, and 5=strongly like. With multiple-choice questions, there were four options for
respondents to choose. In some questions, participants were provided space and were
encouraged to give their own answers if they were different from the limited provided ones.
Participants, therefore, had more chances to more accurate about their actual preferred
language learning styles.
In the students‟ version (20-item questionnaire), the students were supposed to state
how they prefer to learn English language in terms of perceiving and processing information,
learning modes, learning methods, teaching aids, teaching activities, new words, feedback,
error correction. In the 20-item questionnaire, teachers were required to express their opinions

as to how they felt their students prefer to learn the language on the same criteria in students‟
version. The content of the 20-item related to eight following main issues:



17
1. Students‟ interest in learning English: item 1
2. Perceiving and processing information in real life: from item 4 to 11; in classroom:
item 13
3. Learning mode: item 12
4. New words: item 14
5. Teaching aids: item 15
6. Classroom activities: item 16 and 17
7. Feedback and error correction: item 18 and 19
8. The importance of learning style: item 20
However, there were some adaptations in the questionnaire.
Firstly, the first three questions in part I were added to get the background information
and participants‟ attitude and achievement toward English.
Secondly, although there were 16 multiple questions in Fleming‟s VARK version over
all, the author decided to use only 8 most interesting questions to put in the second part to get
information about preferred perceiving style preferences in real life. Researcher, herself felt
that some questions were similar to others, whereas if there had been too many questions, some
participants would have taken the questionnaire less seriously and some might have become
bored with or provided spurious answers because of survey fatigue.
Thirdly, the items about learning time and place, improvement assessment methods,
and sense of satisfaction in Brindley (1984)‟s version were omitted because they were not
much related to the sample as well as the aims of the study.
Fourthly, in order to facilitate students‟ understanding of the questionnaire, the
students‟ version was translated into Vietnamese with much of carefulness and cautions to not
only ensure the preciseness of its content but also avoid misunderstanding and time consuming.

Lastly, the purpose of the study (investigating the first-year students‟ language learning
style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology) as well as the appreciations
for the teachers‟ and students‟ co-operation were added to the beginning in both versions.
Thanks to such a choice of questionnaire, suitable adaptation, and careful translation,
there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the questionnaire, which assists ensure
the reliability and validity of data.




18
2.2.3 Data collection procedure
The data collecting process was carried out in two main steps
At first, the required data were collected in the last week of May 2012. The
questionnaire was delivered to students during class session in that week. At the same time and
during the same session, the teachers were provided with questionnaire (teachers‟ version).
Thanks to the establishment of a good rapport and participants‟ enthusiasm, all the given
questionnaire sheets were filled in fully, which resulted in the collection of 227 completed
student questionnaire sheets and 10 complete teacher questionnaire ones after all.
After that, the collected data from the questionnaires were synthesized, classified and
analyzed according to eight different issues (as mentioned in 2.2.2), and other sub-criteria such
as students‟ interest in learning English, age and gender.

2.2.4 Data analysis procedure
The author applied the statistic procedure, from coding data to classifying, analyzing,
summarizing, and reporting data in a reader-friendly way. Besides, participants‟ other opinions
were analyzed and summarized to provide a deeper view into the research matter. All the
results gained from these sources will be comprehensively analyzed and discussed in the
following Data Analysis chapter.
The data obtained from the questionnaire were presented in graphs and tables, basing

on different criteria and items such as students‟ interest in learning English, perceiving and
processing information, learning mode, new words, teaching aids, class activities, feedback and
error correction, the importance of understanding learning style, etc. In each item, both
teachers‟ and students‟ view were discussed to determine the similarities as well as the
differences between teachers‟ and students‟ outlook.
To conclude, the second chapter has presented the methodology applied in the study by
clarifying some aspects, namely methods of study, participants, instrument, data collection and
data analysis procedures. The presentation along with the interpretation of findings will be
elaborated on in the up-coming chapter – Data Analysis.






19
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS

In the third chapter, the data collected from the study will be presented and interpreted
on such criteria as interest in learning English, perceiving and processing information, learning
mode, new words, learning aids, class activities, feedback and error correction, and the
importance of understanding learning style.

3.1. Students’ interest in learning English
The answers for the first and the second question show that all of the students have
been learning English for at least 7 years; and they have paid much attention to English.
Although they are not specialized in English, their major are accountancy, banking, finance,
business management, information technology, 183 (≈ 81%) students asked expressed their
interest in learning English.

Graph 1: Students's interest in learning English
89%
73%
11%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Male Female
Interested
Uninterested

In contrast to what teachers usually believe, the number of males interested in learning
English is higher than the number of females. While, there are 89% male students enjoy
studying English, just 73% female students do. Although, the performance of males in
classroom is not as good as females‟ (they are often lazy and do not focus much on the
lessons), males learners do satisfy with their achievement in English. When asked, 51 (≈ 67%)
males answered that they were pleased with their marks and performance in English, whereas,
only 47 (≈ 31%) said that they were contented with their achievement. In fact, the marks of
females students in every university paper examination are usually higher than the marks of
males‟ ones. In summary, there are 81% students interested in learning English and only a
small number of students do not enjoying learning English (19%). Moreover, in spite of lower
marks in examination, boy students satisfy with their achievement more than girls do.


20
3.2. Perceiving and processing information in real life and classroom

All the eight questions, adopted from Fleming‟s VARK 2011 version, in the second
part and question number 13 of the questionnaire aimed at finding out the students‟ preferred
style or the preferred ways of perceiving and processing information in real life and in
classroom.

3.2.1. Perceiving and processing information in real life
In terms of perceiving knowledge, both teachers and students were asked about their
preferred ways of processing information according to the classification of Fleming: perceiving
by listening (Aural), seeing (Visual), reading (Read) or touching/experiencing (Kinesthetic).
Among 227 students participating in the study, 35.5% students preferred Read/write, 31.1%
students preferred Kinesthetic, 26.7% students preferred Aural, and only 6.7% students
preferred Visual styles. In other words, based on the terms of Feldman (2003), students were
more Visual/verbal, Tactile/kinesthetic, Auditory/verbal and Visual/nonverbal correlatively.
However, there are some different choices between males and females‟.
Graph 2: Students' and teachers' perceiving style preferences in real life
14.3%
9.5%
47.6%
28.6%
37.5%
4.2%
25.0%
33.3%
42.8%
0%
42.8%
14.4%
0%
20%
40%

60%
80%
100%
Aural Visual Read/Write Kinesthetic
Male student
Female student
Teacher
As can be seen from the graph, male students showed a very clear difference of their
favored style. They were favored of Read/Write (Visual/verbal) - a style that involves a
preference for material in the written format, favoring reading over hearing and touching.
Whereas, females did not express any big disparity between the three styles of Aural,
Kinesthetic and Read/Write although they seemed to be more Aural (Auditory/verbal) - a style
in which the learners favors listening as the best approach. Moreover, about teachers, their
perceiving style preferences did not vary much. There appeared an equal percentage between