Students' language learning style preferences at Pham Hong Thai High School, Hanoi a case study = Sở thích học ngoại ngữ của sinh viên trường THPT Phạm Hồng Thá

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES



THÁI THỊ PHƯƠNG NGA



STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE
PREFERENCES
AT PHAM HONG THAI HIGH SCHOOL, HANOI:
A CASE STUDY

(SỞ THÍCH HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ CỦA HỌC SINH
TRƯỜNG THPT PHẠM HỒNG THÁI, HÀ NỘI: ĐIỂN CỨU)



Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Course: 15
MA. Minor Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. NGUYỄN HUY KỶ

Hanoi, August 2009


iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Table of contents iii
Lists of graphs and table vi
List of Abbreviations vii

PART A. INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Research questions 2
4. Significance of the study 3
5. Scope of the study 4
6. Organization of the study 4

PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Definitions of terms - Categorization of learning styles 6
1.1.1. Cognitive learning styles 6
1.1.2. Sensory learning styles ……………………………………… …… 7
1.1.3. Personality learning styles 7
1.2. Students’ learning preferences ……………… ……… ………… … 8
1.3. Contrastive analysis between students’ and teachers’ opinions …… 11

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Methods of the study ……… ……………………………… ………… 13
2.2. Methodology and procedures …………………………… … ……… 14
2.2.1. Participants … ……………………………………………… … 14
2.2.1.1. Students ……………….……………………………… … 14

iv
2.2.1.2. Teachers ……………………………… ……………….… 15
2.2.2 Instrument ……………………… ……………………… …… … 16
2.2.3. Data collection procedure ………………………………………… 17
2.2.4. Data analysis procedure ………………………………… … 18

CHAPTER 3. DATA ANALYSIS
3.1. Learning mode ……… ……………………………………… ……… … 19
3.2. Homework ……………………… …………………………… …. 21
3.3. Learning time and place ………………………………………… ………. 22
3.4. Perceiving and processing information ………………… … ……… … 23
3.4.1. Copying from the board ………………………………………… … 23
3.4.2. Listening and taking notes …………………… ……………… … 24
3.4.3. Reading and taking notes ………………………………………… 25
3.5. New words ……………………………………………………… ………… 26
3.5.1. Using new words in a sentence ………….……………………….… 26
3.5.2. Saying or writing a word several times …………………….……… 27
3.5.3. Guessing the unknown ………………………………… ………… 27
3.6. Error correction …………………………………………….…………… 28
3.7. Teaching aids ……………………… …………………….…………… … 29
3.7.1. Cassettes / tapes ………………………………….……… … 30
3.7.2. Written materials …………………… ………….…………… 31
3.7.3. Pictures / posters ………………………………………………….… 31
3.8. Class activities ……………… ……………………… …………… …… 32

3.8.1. Role-play ……………………………… ……… …………….… 32
3.8.2. Language games …………………… ……………………….…… 33
3.8.3. Talking with and listening to other students ……………………… 34
3.9. Improvement ………………… ……………………………………… … 35
3.9.1. Written tasks set by the teacher ………………………….….….…… 35
3.9.2. Using language in real-life situations …………………… …… …. 36
3.10. Sense of satisfaction ………………… ………………….…… …… 37


v
PART C. CONCLUSIONS
1. Major findings ………………… …………………….…… ………… ……… 39
2. Contributions of the study ………………… …………………….……… … 40
3. Limitations ………………… …………………….…… ……………… …… 41
4. Suggestions for further studies ………………… ………………….……… … 42

REFERENCES ………………… ………………….……… … I

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Students’ version questionnaire (in English) …………………… … IV
Appendix 2: Students’ version questionnaire (in Vietnamese) ……………… ……. VII
Appendix 3: Teacher’s version questionnaire (in English) ………………………… X





vi
LISTS OF GRAPHS AND TABLE
GRAPHS:

Graph 1: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning individually
Graph 2: Students’ and teachers’ view on doing homework
Graph 3: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning time and place
Graph 4: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning by copying from the board
Graph 5: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning by listening and taking notes
Graph 6: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning by reading and taking notes
Graph 7: Students’ and teachers’ view on using new words in a sentence
Graph 8: Students’ and teachers’ view on saying or writing a word several times
Graph 9: Students’ and teachers’ view on guessing the unknown
Graph 10: Students’ and teachers’ view on being corrected immediately in front of
everyone
Graph 11: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning from cassettes / tapes
Graph 12: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning from written materials
Graph 13: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning from pictures and posters
Graph 14: Students’ and teachers’ view on role-play
Graph 15: Students’ and teachers’ view on language games
Graph 16: Students’ and teachers’ view on talking with and listening to other students
Graph 17: Students’ and teachers’ view on improvement through written tasks set by
the teacher
Graph 18: Students’ view on using English in real-life situations
Graph 19: Students’ and teachers’ view on feeling more confident in previous
situations
TABLE:
Table 1: The English results in the first term of the school – year 2008-2009

vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ESL: English as a Second Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language

L2: The target language
N: Number
TOEFL: Test of English as a Foreign Language
%: Percentage








1
PART A
INTRODUCTION

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

1. Rationale:
There have been significant educational changes in Vietnam for the last few
years, especially since the new textbook set was officially used at high schools in the
school - year 2006 – 2007. According to Van (2006), the English program follows two
current approaches: the learner-centered approach and communicative language
teaching. Also, it aims at helping students consolidate, expand and improve their
communicative competence: the linguistic knowledge and the communicative functions
in different topics as well as help them foster their conducts and intellectual qualities
needed to enter life or to study further. Understanding students’ learning style
preferences, therefore, is fundamentally important and is the key to educational

improvement and success.
The ways in which an individual characteristically acquires, retains, and retrieves
information are collectively termed the individual’s learning style (Reid, 1987; Celce
Murcia, 2001). Students learn in many ways - by seeing and hearing; reflecting and
acting; reasoning logically and intuitively; memorizing and visualizing; some students
learn a lot from group work, others prefer working individually. Some students never
mind being immediately corrected both written and spoken errors, others, whereas, are
easy to lose face when being corrected. While some students can learn much through
games and activities, other students like formal presentations.
Also, teaching methods vary. Some teachers lecture, others demonstrate or
discuss; some teachers focus on rules and others on examples; some teachers
emphasize memory and others understanding. Serious mismatches may occur between
the learning styles of students in a class and the teaching style of the instructor (Felder

2
& Silverman 1988; Lawrence 1993; Oxford et al., 1991; Schmeck, 1988), with
unfortunate effects on the quality of the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward
the class and the subject. Many teachers, moreover, are unaware of their students’
learning style preferences, hence cannot meet the learning needs of individual students.

2. Aims of the study
The case study on students’ language learning style preferences at Pham Hong
Thai High School, Hanoi aims at certain points. Firstly, the case study aims at
investigating students’ language learning style preferences at Pham Hong Thai High
School, Hanoi. Students’ language learning style preferences can be defined basing on
some criteria such as learning mode (individually, in pairs, in groups, etc), learning
time and place, perceiving and processing information, error correction (immediate and
delayed error correction), homework, new words, class activities (listening and taking
notes, copying from the board, reading and taking notes, talking with and listening to
other students, etc), teaching aids (tapes, cassettes, etc), improvement, sense of

satisfaction. Secondly, the study intends to discover teachers’ awareness of their
students’ preferences. The extent to which teachers know about their students’
language learning style preferences in terms of learning mode, error correction,
homework, class activities, feeling of achievement, etc can be gained from their
answers in the questionnaires. Thirdly, the study examines the relation between some
variables such as age and gender with learning style preferences. Finally, the results of
the study can help categorize students at Pham Hong Thai High in terms of language
learning styles typologies.

3. Research questions
The study intends to investigate the language learning style preferences of the
students at Pham Hong Thai High School and the extent of teachers’ awareness of
them. Specifically, the study seeks answers to the following questions:
1. What are the language learning style preferences of Pham Hong Thai High School
students?

3
2. To what extent, if any, are teachers aware of their students’ language learning
preferences?
3. What is the association between language learning styles and age and gender
variables?
4. How can these students be categorized in terms of language learning styles
typologies?

4. Significance of the study
It is important to emphasize that learning styles and strategies of individual
students can work together with – or conflict with – a given instructional methodology.
If there is harmony between the student (in terms of style and strategy preferences) and
the combination of instructional methodology and materials, then the student is likely
to perform well, feel confident, and experience low anxiety. If clashes occur between

the student and the combination of instructional methodology and materials, the student
often performs poorly, feels unconfident, and experiences significant anxiety.
Sometimes such clashes lead to serious breakdowns in teacher-student interaction.
These conflicts may also lead to the dispirited student’s outright rejection of the
teaching methodology, the teacher, and the subject matter.
The results gained from the study are intended to provide an overview of
students’ language learning style preferences at Pham Hong Thai High School, Hanoi
as well as the extent to which teachers are aware of their preferences. The awareness of
students’ ‘real’ language learning style preferences is the basis for teachers to find out
teaching ways that work the best for them. In addition, teachers’ awareness of students’
learning preference helps make their lessons more attractive, effective and practical.
The desired learning outcome of individual task, activity in each lesson as well as the
whole syllabus can be easily achieved. As a result, the atmosphere in the class, the
attitude of students towards the teacher and the subject can be improved significantly.
This can certainly help improve the language learning and teaching at Pham Hong Thai
High School. Such information is also significant to other teachers from other high
schools in similar teaching context.


4
5. Scope of the study
The study examines student’s language learning style preferences at Pham Hong
Thai High School. Among about 2,000 students, 532 students from 12 classes were
randomly selected: 2 classes from group A and 2 classes from group D of each grade
10, 11 and 12. 12 teachers teaching these 12 classes were invited to take part in the
study. This number of participants is 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 13-item questionnaires on such criteria as
learning mode, perceiving and processing information, new words, error correction,
teaching aids, class activities, improvement, etc help answer the questions on students’

language learning style preferences at Pham Hong Thai High School as well as
teachers’ awareness of them. Moreover, the results of the study can help figure out the
relationship between age, gender and language learning style preferences and
categorize students at Pham Hong Thai High in terms of language learning styles
typologies.

6. Organization of the study
The study is divided into three main parts.
In the first part _ Introduction _ the rationale, aims, significance, scope of the
study, the research questions and the organization of the study are presented.
The second part_ Development_ is divided into three chapters. Chapter 1,
Literature Review, deals with definitions of terms – categorization of learning styles,
students’ learning preferences and a contrastive analysis between students’ and
teachers’ opinions. The methods of the study adopted as well as justifications for the
chosen instrument, participants and procedures for data collection and analysis are
discussed in chapter 2 _ Methodology. In the third chapter, the data on such criteria as
learning mode, homework, learning time and place, perceiving and processing
information, new words, error correction, teaching aids, class activities, improvement,
sense of satisfaction are discussed. This chapter presents the results combined with
critical interpretation and analysis, from which major findings are revealed and
discussed.

5
In the last part _ Conclusions _ we focus on some major findings and
contributions of the study. Limitations and suggestions for further studies are also
mentioned.
To sum up, the chapter has discussed the rationale, aims, research questions,
significance and as well as the scope of the study. Ending the chapter is an overview of
the thesis organization. With such contents, it acts as the guideline or orientation for the
development of the later parts of the thesis.

6
PART B
DEVELOPMENT

In part B _ Development, there are three chapters: Literature Review,
Methodology and Data Analysis. Specifically, this part gives an overview of the
literature, including the key concepts and related studies in the field; the main points
regarding the methodology applied in the study and the results of the study and
discussion.

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 1 _ Literature Review _ presents definitions of terms – categorization of
learning styles, related studies on students’ learning preferences and a contrastive
analysis between students’ and teachers’ opinions. Furthermore, research gaps will be
disclosed in line with justification for fitness of the present study.

1.1. Definition of terms - Categorization of learning styles
Reid (1995) classifies learning styles into three major categories: cognitive
learning styles, sensory learning styles, and personality learning styles.

1.1.1. Cognitive learning styles
In the first category, there are different sub-categories.
Field-independent versus Field-dependent: Field-independent learners learn
more effectively step by step, beginning with analyzing facts and proceeding to ideas.
Field-dependent learners, in contrast, prefer to learn in context and holistically.
Analytic versus Global: Analytic learners learn individually, and prefer setting
goals. Global learners, on the other hand, learn more effectively through concrete

7
experience, and by interaction with other people.
Reflective versus Impulsive: Reflective learners learn more effectively when they
have time to consider options before responding, in contrast, impulsive learners are
able to respond immediately and take risks.

1.1.2. Sensory learning styles
In the category of sensory learning styles, there are two main types of learning
styles: perceptual learning styles and environmental learning styles.
Perceptual learning styles
Auditory learner (learns more effectively through the ear – hearing), Visual
learner (through the eyes - seeing), Tactile learner (through touch - hands-on),
Kinesthetic learner (through body experience - movement), Haptic learner (through
touch and body involvement)
Environmental learning styles
Physical versus Sociological: Physical learners learn more effectively when
variables such as temperature, sound, light, food, time, and classroom arrangement are
considered. Sociological learners, in contrast, learn more effectively when variables
such as group, individual, pair, and level of teacher authority are regarded.

1.1.3. Personality learning styles

Extroversion versus Introversion: Extroverted learners are interested in concrete
experience, contact with outside, and relationship with others. Introverted learners, on
the other hand, are more interested in individual and independent situations.
Thinking versus Feeling: Thinking learners learn best from impersonal
circumstances and logical consequences. Feeling learners prefer personalized
circumstances and social values.
Ambiguity-tolerant versus Ambiguity-intolerant: Ambiguity-tolerant learners
learn best when opportunities for experience and risk, as well as interaction, are
present. Ambiguity-intolerant learners, however, learn most effectively when in less

8
flexible, less risky, and more structured situations.
Sensing versus Perception: Sensing learners learn best from reports of
observable facts and happenings, and rely on their five senses, while perception
learners learn more effectively from meaningful experiences and relations with others.
Left-brained versus Right-brained: Left-brained learners tend toward visual,
analytic, reflective, and self-reliant learning. Right-brained learners, on the contrary,
are more interested in auditory, global, impulsive, and interactive learning.
Judging versus Perceiving: Judging learners learn by reflection, analysis, and
processes that involve closure. Perceiving learners, in contrast, learn through
negotiation, feeling, and inductive processes that postpone closure.

1.2. Students’ learning preferences
According to Felder and Henriques (1995), learning styles have been extensively
discussed in the educational psychology literature (Claxton and Murrell, 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
Ehrman, 1993), and over 30 learning style assessment instruments have been developed
in the past three decades (Guild and Garger, 1985; Jensen, 1987). However, research
that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles relies primarily on self-reporting

questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning styles.
Reid (1987) distinguished four perceptual learning modalities, basing on the
results of a survey: Visual learning (e.g. reading and studying charts); Auditory
learning (e.g. listening to lectures or audiotapes); Kinesthetic learning (e.g. physical
responses) and Tactile learning (e.g. hands-on learning).
Reid’s (1987, 1995) two major hypotheses about learning styles form the
background to current work in the area: (1) “All students have their own learning styles
and learning strength and weaknesses”; (2) “A mismatch between teaching and
learning styles causes learning failure, frustration and demotivation”. Reid also
hypothesized that learning styles (if unchecked) persist regardless of teaching methods
and materials; that they can be adapted because they are partly habit rather than

9
biological attributes; and that learning will be improved if students become aware of a
wider range of styles and stretch their own styles.
Previous studies into the learning styles of EFL students and Reid’s first
hypothesis have generally reported (though with some differences) that they favored
Kinesthetic and Tactile styles and disfavored Group styles. For example, Reid’s 1987
study with Chinese university students (N=90), Melton’s 1990 study with Chinese
university students (N=331) (favor Individual styles), John’s 1997 research with
Chinese students (Taiwan), Kitchen and Chew’s 1997 study (N=318) with the
Singapore university students in Chu (did not disfavor any styles); Rossi-Le’s 1995
study with adult L2 immigrants in the United States (did not disfavor any styles) and
Hyland’s 1993 research with Japanese learners (favored Auditory and Tactile style and
disfavored Visual styles).
Moreover, the results of Reid's study also showed that the learning style
preferences of nonnative speakers often differ significantly from those of native
speakers. In addition, ESL students from different language backgrounds sometimes
differ from one another in their learning style preferences; and that variables such as
sex, length of time staying and studying English in the U. S., field of study, level of

education, TOEFL score, and age are related to differences in learning styles. However,
few studies appear to have checked the links between learning styles and discipline
(e.g. science versus humanities).
Three conclusions were drawn from Kavaliauskiene’s study (2003) on learners’
language learning styles preferences. Firstly, more than half of the learners preferred a
communicative approach to perfecting their language skills by working in pairs or
small groups, taking part in projects and practicing English by talking to their peers.
Secondly, students paid more attention to short-term approach instead of long-term
one. They were not concerned with improving language skills and competence for the
future usage. Instead, passing the exams and getting good marks were the things they
sought for. Thirdly, 7 % of the learners rejected being given home assignments.
Wintergerst, DeCapua, and Marilyn (2003) examined the learning style
preferences of three different populations (Russian EFL students, Russian ESL
students, and Asian ESL students). Findings showed that these learners clearly

10
preferred group activity to individual work. Moreover, the Russian EFL and Asian ESL
students liked group work and project work. The researchers further suggested that at
least some cultural influences were at play. Furthermore, according to Anderson
(1993), the important role of ethnicity, class and gender in shaping the learning
preferences as well as learning styles of students have been supported by both
quantitative and qualitative studies in cross-cultural settings.
In the study on EFL students’ preferences for error correction and teacher’s
feedback on writing, Rula L.D (2005) used two questionnaires: a 12-item and a 27-item
to examine 156 EFL students (53% male and 47% female). The results showed that
35% of the students thought crossing out and correcting an error were the best teacher’s
feedback. They showed a great concern with accuracy and error-free writing.
According to them, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, organization, style and content
were important features in writing.
Although methodology in language teaching is one of the major concerns, there

are not many studies on Vietnamese students’ language learning style preferences. Hue
(2004)’s investigation into Vietnamese upper secondary school students’ attitude
towards grammar teaching and learning (100 Thai Phien High School students)
revealed that students were positive about grammar and grammar learning. However,
they were not satisfied with teachers’ explanation because teaching techniques and
activities as well as teachers’ explanation were not varied enough. With interviews and
class observation (6 classes and 6 teachers at Viet Ba High School, Hanoi), Nga (2007)
concluded about teachers’ beliefs about teaching reading strategies and their classroom
practice that the teachers were aware of the importance of teaching reading strategies to
students but they did not really teach reading strategies to their students in the class.
To conclude, it is very important to understand and explore each individual’s
learning style. Analyzing one’s own particular learning style can be very helpful and
beneficial to the student by aiding them in becoming more focused and an attentive
learner, which ultimately will increase educational success. Discovering this learning
style will allow the student to determine his or her own personal strengths and
weaknesses and learn from them and allow the teacher to adjust the best teaching way.


11
1.3. Contrastive analysis between students’ and teachers’ opinions
According to Riazi and Riasati (2007), various studies have shown that there can
be considerable disagreement of opinions between learners and their teachers or
syllabus experts, which can cause learning failure, frustration and demotivation (Reid’s
second hypothesis). A divergence of opinions between these two groups has been noted
regard to what learners need and prefer as well as the nature of language and language
learning (Brindley, 1984).
The teachers in Barkhuisen’s (1998) survey were frequently surprised to learn
about the thoughts and feelings of their students. In other words, the students’
perceptions mismatched those of teachers.
Spratt’s (1999) study also showed a mismatch between the learners’ preferences

and teachers' awareness of them. Teachers’ awareness of learners’ preferences
corresponded in only 50% of cases with learners’ actual preferences. Also, there was
no obvious patter to the correspondences or lack of them. It, therefore, was difficult to
recognize the reasons why they happened and to predict where they might happen.
Stapa (2003) concluded that students' preferences were in a relation with those of
teachers in many cases. The findings of his study reveal significant results suggesting
that it is necessary to have a closer cooperation between students and teachers as well
as the way learning activities should be arranged and implemented in the class.
Riazi and Riasati (2007)’s results of the case study on students’ language learning
style preferences at Shiraz EFL Institutes showed that students’ preferences did not
correlate with teachers’ perceptions in some aspects. Regarding studying style, students
did not like working individually, but teachers did not know this. Students wanted the
teachers to focus on receptive and productive skills equally instead of emphasizing on
receptive skills only. Moreover, teachers were wrong to think that their students liked
to learn the new words through translation. In contrast, their most preferred vocabulary
teaching strategies were guessing unknown words, using words in a sentence and not
looking them up in dictionary. Language games did not catch the attention of the
students. On contrary, most of the students liked talking with and listening to other
students and having interaction with each other. So, teachers should exert their utmost
effort to encourage students to form groups and share ideas, organize the lesson content

12
in a way that equally emphasizes both receptive and productive skills, etc.
Finally, Hue (2004)’s study showed that both teachers and students were aware of
the importance of grammar and were positive about grammar as well as grammar
teaching and learning. However, teaching techniques, activities in grammar class and
teachers’ explanation were so monotonous and repetitive that students were dissatisfied
with the teachers as well as the lessons.
There is little doubt that bridging the gap between teachers’ and learners’
perception, narrowing the gap between teacher and learner play “an important role in

enabling students to maximize their classroom experience.” (Zhenhui: 2001)
As can be seen, it is vitally important to understand students’ learning style
preferences and teachers’ awareness of students’ learning styles preferences and the
relation between learning styles and age and gender. The implication of the study is
that teachers are aware of how their students approach language learning, how they feel
about their learning experiences and achievements, etc, so that they can facilitate the
desired learning outcomes in the class. Also, students must be encouraged to express
their language learning style preferences for both their and their teachers’ sakes.
A few researchers have done similar studies in some settings. However, in the
Vietnamese context, particularly at a high school in Hanoi, it has not been done. As a
result, a detailed and comprehensive study of the learning preferences of Vietnamese
EFL high school students seems to be of paramount necessity and importance. To this
end, the present study with the above-mentioned goals and objectives will be designed.
This chapter has provided an overview of the relevant literature in the field of the
study, namely the definitions of key terms, the categorization of learning styles, a
review of related studies on students’ learning preferences and a contrastive analysis
between students’ and teachers’ opinions to expose the research gap.
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

13
instruments as well as data collection and data analysis procedures. Simultaneously, it
provides for the selection of research methods and clarifies specific steps that were
cautiously carried out to gain reliable and valid data.

2.1. Methods of the study
The methods used are one geared toward the research questions in an attempt to

understand the particular phenomenon that is being studied (Leedy, 2001). The
following part will describe the rationale for choosing the methods of the study as well
as the specifics about the methods that are employed.
Leedy, et al (2001: 149) states that case study is “especially suitable for learning
more about a little known or poorly understood situation”. Additionally, “a case study
is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident;
and in which multiple sources of evidence are use” (Yin 1984: 23 cited in Nunan,
2001). Moreover, Nunan (1992) submits that the case study method is especially
suitable for clarifying teachers’ understandings of their work, and responding to the
problems encountered in their professional lives. As students’ language learning style
preferences as well as the relationship between students’ preferences and teachers’
beliefs in the context of this study have been poorly understood, the case study is the
dynamic medium to the research questions.
Apparently, compared with other methods, survey questionnaires were likely to
be more time saving and fruitful in the large scope, especially with 532 students
involved in the study. “The researcher can collect a large amount of information in less
than an hour.” (Brown, 2001: 15). This advantage was fully exploited when the
researcher used survey questionnaires with two different versions for teachers and
students among the participants, including 532 students and 12 teachers teaching these
students to collect data.

2.2. Methodology and procedures
2.2.1. Participants

14
2.2.1.1. Students
Among about 2,000 students at Pham Hong Thai High School, 532 students (330
females and 202 males) from 12 classes of 12 teachers were randomly selected: 2
classes from group A and 2 classes from group D of each grade 10, 11 and 12, aged 16

(grade 10), 17 (grade 11) and 18 (grade 12). Such a large number represents more than
a quarter of the whole population being studied, which can ensure the reliability of
collected data.
All of the students have learnt English for at least 4 years (students at Grade 10),
5 years and 6 years (students at Grade 11 and 12 respectively). In classes belonging to
group A, there are usually more boys than girls whereas there are more girls in classes
in group D. Therefore, for each grade, 2 classes from group A and 2 classes from group
D are randomly selected to ensure a comparatively equal number of students of the two
sexes from each grade.
As can be seen from the English results in the first term of 2008-2009 school-
year, participants proved to be of different proficiency, ranged from poor (< 5.0) to
average (5.0 – 6.4), good (6.5 – 7.9) and excellent (≥ 8.0). This characteristic
diversifies the information collected.





Class
Students
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
N
%
N
%
N
%

N
%
10A1
45
4.0
8.9
29
64.4
11
24.4
1
2.2
10A6
40
0
0.0
14
35.0
24
60.0
2
5.0
10D1
43
17
39.5
19
44.2
7
16.3

0
0.0
10D3
45
4
8.9
17
37.8
18
40.0
6
13.3
11A1
45
1
2.2
27
60.0
17
37.8
0
0.0
11A4
48
0
0.0
8
16.7
27
56.3

13
27.1
11D3
44
4
9.1
26
59.1
13
29.5
1
2.3
11D1
43
22
51.2
18
41.9
1
2.3
2
4.7
12D1
45
13
28.9
30
66.7
2
4.4

0
0.0
12D5
44
5
11.4
28
63.6
9
20.5
2
4.5

15
12A1
41
8
19.5
25
61.0
0
0.0
8
19.5
12A2
49
0
0.0
16
32.7

30
61.2
3
6.1
GRADE 10
173
25
14.5
79
45.7
60
34.7
9
5.2
GRADE 11
180
27
15.0
79
43.9
58
32.2
16
8.9
GRADE 12
179
26
14.5
99
55.3

41
22.9
13
7.3
TOTAL
532
78
14.7
257
48.3
159
29.9
38
7.1
Table 1: The English results in the first term of the school – year 2008-2009

In brief, such a choice of students can guarantee the diversity of samples as well
as the objectivity of study results.

2.2.1.2. Teachers
12 teachers teaching 12 above-mentioned classes were invited to take part in the
study. The teachers are from 26 to 54 years old. The teachers graduated from the
English Department, College of Foreign Languages, Hanoi National University or
Hanoi University. 2 out of 12 teachers were previously trained as teachers of Russian
and French. Two teachers have M.A degrees and three others are doing M.A courses.
As can be seen, the teachers are varied in terms of age and teaching experience,
however, most of the teachers are rather young, well - trained and have approximately
8 years of teaching English. Moreover, all of them have used the new English textbook
set (Tiếng Anh 10, Tiếng Anh 11 and Tiếng Anh 12) for at least 2 years.

2.2.2. Instrument
As mentioned above, the most popular type of assessment tool for L2 learning
styles is the written survey. In surveys, students answer questions that reveal their
particular style preferences. Style surveys vary in reliability and validity, but in the last
few decades they have provided useful data from which teachers and students have
begun to understand L2 styles.
The instrument used in this study was a language learning preference
questionnaire adopted from Brindley (1984). It consisted of two versions: version 1 for
students and version 2 for teachers. Teachers and students answered the questions by

16
circling Yes / No or writing down their answers if they were different from the given
ones. (See Appendices). Brindley’s questionnaire proved to be not only time-saving
and fruitful but also effective because it made good the shortcomings of other
questionnaires. For each question, participants were provided space and were
encouraged to give their own answers if they were different from the given ones. As
can be seen, responses from the questionnaire did not only reflect generalized
statements about the style use (Cohen, 1998). Participants could give their own ideas
instead of choosing among the limited provided options. Participants, therefore, had
more chances to be more accurate about their actual preferred language learning styles.
In the students’ version (13-item questionnaire), the students were supposed to
state how they preferred to learn the language in terms of learning mode, homework,
learning time and place, perceiving and possessing information, new words, error
correction, teaching aids, activities, improvement and sense of satisfaction. In the 13-
item questionnaire, the teachers were asked to express their opinions as to how they felt
their students from a certain class prefer to learn the language on the same criteria in
students’ version. The content of the 13-item questionnaire relates to ten following
main issues:
1. Learning mode (Individual / pair / group work): item 2

2. Homework: item 3 and 4
3. Learning time and place: item 5
4. Perceiving and processing information: item 6
5. New words: item 7
6. Error correction: item 8 and 9
7. Teaching aids: item 10
8. Class activities: item 11
9. Improvement: item 12
10. Sense of satisfaction: item 13
There were some adaptations in the questionnaires. Firstly, the questions in the
student version questionnaire were translated into Vietnamese so that misunderstanding

17
and time consuming could be avoided. In other words, in order to facilitate students’
understanding of the questions, the student version questionnaire was translated with
much of carefulness and caution to ensure the preciseness of its content. Secondly, in
Brindley (1984)’s original teachers’ version, there were only eleven items, where two
items asking about homework and learning time and place were omitted. However, it
can be seen that homework and learning time and place were two significant issues that
should be paid attention to as they reflect students’ language learning style preferences.
Therefore, in the teachers’ version, these two items were added to gain information
from the teacher to have a contrastive analysis with that obtained from students’
version. Lastly, the purposes of the study (investigating language learning style
preferences of students at Pham Hong Thai High School) as well as the thanks for the
teachers’ and students’ co-operation were added to the beginning and the end of the
questionnaires in both versions.
Thanks to such a choice of questionnaire, and careful translation in students’
version and adaptations, there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the
questions in the questionnaire, which helped ensure the reliability and validity of data.

2.2.3. Data collection procedure
The process of collecting data was carried out in two main phases.
First, the required data were collected in one session. The questionnaire was
given to students during their class session. At the same time and during the same
session, the teachers were provided with the questionnaire (teachers’ version) to
complete. Thanks to the establishment of a good rapport, participants from these 12
classes as well as 12 teachers were willing to cooperate enthusiastically with the
researcher, which resulted in the collection of 532 completed student questionnaires
and 12 completed teacher questionnaires after all.
The second phase was synthesizing and classifying the data collected from the
questionnaires. Answers to 13 multiple choice questions in students’ version and
teacher’s version were imported into Microsoft Excel and mathematically summed up
by the spreadsheet. Other answers were classified into 10 different main issues (as
mentioned in 2.2.2), into other sub-criteria such as age (grade) and sex.

18

2.2.4. Data analysis procedure
The researcher followed the statistical procedure, from coding questionnaire data
to classifying, summarizing, and reporting data in a reader-friendly way. Besides, other
answers of the participants were analyzed and synthesized in order to provide a deeper
insight into the research matter. All the results gathered from these sources will be
comprehensively analyzed and discussed in the following chapter _ Data Analysis.
The data obtained from the questionnaire were presented in graphs, basing on
different criteria and items such as learning mode, homework, teaching aids, class
activities, error correction, improvement, sense of satisfaction, etc. In each item, there
was a graph presenting students’ view and teachers’ view on it. The graph helps us
determine the similarities as well as the differences between teachers’ and students’
view on each criteria. In other words, they help identify teachers’ awareness and
unawareness of students’ preferred learning styles in different criteria.

To sum up, the chapter has presented and justified the methodology applied in the
present study by clarifying different aspects, namely methods of the 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.
CHAPTER 3
DATA ANALYSIS

In the third chapter, the data collected from the study are presented and analyzed.
Namely, the data on such criteria as learning mode, homework, learning time and
place, perceiving and processing information, new words, error correction, teaching
aids, class activities, improvement, sense of satisfaction are discussed. Because some of
the responses received rendered significant results, while some others did not. This
section, therefore, briefly presents those responses that were statistically significant.

3.1. Learning mode

19
In terms of learning mode (item 2), students were asked whether they liked to
learn individually, in pairs, in small groups or in one large group.
Most of grade 10 students disliked learning individually (73.3%). There was no
significant difference between two sexes: 25.8% of male students and 26.7% female
students liked learning individually. Most of grade 11 students disliked learning
individually (72.2%). There was a slight difference between two sexes: more male
students seemed to prefer learning individually (35.9%) in comparison with female
students (21.6%). For grade 12, more than half of the students disliked learning
individually (51.2%). Male and female students in grade 12 tended to have different
preference in learning mode. While most of male students (64%) liked learning
individually, only 40% of female students liked it.
As shown, in terms of learning individually, only 34.1% of students expressed
their preference for working individually while 65.9% of the students preferred other

modes of learning the language, such as learning in pairs or in groups. There was no
significant differences between grade 10 students and grade 11 ones. However, grade
12 students tended to prefer a different learning mode.


Graph 1: Students’ and teachers’ view on learning individually
As illustrated in the graph, 91.7% of the teachers believed that students liked
learning individually. Only one teacher (8.3%) did not hold such a belief. Teachers
generally believed that students did not like to have interaction with their classmates
and form groups.