Tìm hiểu khoảng trống trong phong cách giảng dậy của giảng viên và phong cách học tập của sinh viên tại khoa ngoại ngữ đại học thái nguyên

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

TRẦN THI ̣NGÂN
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GAP BETWEEN TEACHERS’
TEACHING STYLES AND LEARNERS’
LEARNING STYLES AT SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES,
THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

TÌM HIỂU KHOẢNG TRỐNG TRONG PHONG CÁCH GIẢNG DẠY
CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ PHONG CÁCH HỌC TẬP CỦA SINH VIÊN
TẠI KHOA NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2017


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

TRẦN THI ̣NGÂN
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE GAP BETWEEN TEACHERS’
TEACHING STYLES AND LEARNERS’
LEARNING STYLES AT SCHOOL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES,
THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY

TÌM HIỂU KHOẢNG TRỐNG TRONG PHONG CÁCH GIẢNG DẠY
CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ PHONG CÁCH HỌC TẬP CỦA SINH VIÊN
TẠI KHOA NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC THÁI NGUYÊN

M.A COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field : English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Assoc. Professor Dr. Le Van Canh

Hanoi, 2017


AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and it contains no material
previously written by other people or published in both online and printed version.
This is true copy of the thesis, including any required final versions, as approved by
my instructor.
I understand that my thesis may be made electrically available to the public.

Hanoi, 2017

Trầ n Thi Ngân
̣

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my

supervisors Associate Professor Le Van Canh for his excellent supervision and
careful guidance in the completion of this thesis. He provided me with valuable
experience and comments, and I always greatly appreciate it.
I am grateful to teacher, Dr. Tran Thi Nhi for her inspiration and endless
encouragement throughout my academic life. Without her tremendous support in
the past four years, my dream of becoming a tertiary teacher would not become
true.
I would also acknowledge the principals and the heads of departments of
School of Foreign Languages, Thai Nguyen University who permitted the research.
I thank all of my research participants who have contributed to this study.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents and my husband for their
unconditional love and support throughout my life.

ii


ABSTRACT
English language teaching and learning styles play a crucial role in the
success of both teachers and learners. Research has shown that a match between
learning styles and teaching styles will improve students learning experience and
achievements (Cornett 1983). According to Willing (1988 p.1) “An effort to
accommodate learning styles by choosing suitable teaching styles, methodologies
and course organization can result in improved learner satisfaction and attainment”.
Whereas, the mismatch between teachers‟ teaching styles and learners‟ learning
styles is very likely to happen and it not only leads to students‟ frustration and
demotivation in learning but also greatly affects their performances. Instructors,
confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile classes, poor attendance and
dropouts, may become overly critical of the students or begin to question their own
competence as teachers. Despite its extreme importance, the matter of match or
mismatch between these two factors received very little attention in our teaching

and learning context. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the major teaching
and learning style preferences of teachers and students at School of Foreign
Languages, Thai Nguyen University. Also, it is going to point out the intertwine
relationship between teachers‟ teaching styles and learners‟ learning styles as well
as the importance of matching them in Vietnamese context. It also investigates into
the perceptions of teachers and students on this matter, together with their major
teaching and learning style preferences. Moreover, recommendations and
suggestions on how to understand teachers and learners‟ preferences and bridge the
gap between them will be discussed.

iii


LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1 Definitions of learning styles ......................................................................8
Table 2.2.Grasha’s identification of teaching styles ................................................25
Table 3.1.The Likert Scale of the Learning Style Questionnaire and the Teaching
Style Questionnaire ...................................................................................................38
Table 3.2. The Major, Minor and Negative Learning/Teaching Styles ....................39
Table 4.1.Demographic Information: Gender and Year at University ....................43
Table 4.2:Demographic Information: Years of studying English ............................43
Table 4.3: Demographic Information: Studying Major............................................44
Table 4.4.Students’ Learning Styles Preferences .....................................................45
Table 4.5. Teachers’ Demographic Information ......................................................47
Table 4.6.Teachers’ Teaching Styles Preferences ....................................................48

iv


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework of the Study .........................................................29
Figure 3.2. Qualitative data analysis procedure ......................................................40
Figure 4.1. Students’ major, minor and negative learning styles ............................45

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
AUTHORSHIP DECLARATION ............................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLE...................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1. Overview ..........................................................................................................1
1.2.Rationale of the study ......................................................................................1
1.3. English Languages Teaching and Learning at School of Foreign
Languages - TNU (SFL-TNU) ..............................................................................3
1.4. Objectives of the study: ..................................................................................4
1.5. Research questions..........................................................................................5
1.6. Structure of the study .....................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................6
2.1. Overview ..........................................................................................................6
2.2. Theoretical background.....................................................................................6
2.2.1. Learning styles .............................................................................................6
2.2.1.1. Introduction to Learning styles ..............................................................6
2.2.1.1 Definition of learning styles ....................................................................7
Table 2.1 Definitions of learning styles ......................................................................8
2.2.2. Different theories and models of learning styles. ......................................9

2.2.3. Elements of Learning Styles .....................................................................13
2.2.4. Teaching styles ...........................................................................................14
2.3. Literature review of related studies ...............................................................18
2.3.1. The relationship between teaching and learning styles ..........................18
2.3.1.1. Matches between teachers’ teaching styles and learners’ learning styles
............................................................................................................................18

vi


2.3.1.2. Mismatches between teachers’ teaching styles and learners’ learning
styles ...................................................................................................................20
2.3.2. Previous studies on the match and mismatch between teaching styles
and learning styles ...............................................................................................23
2.3.2.1. Studies in learning styles .......................................................................23
2.3.1.5. Studies in teaching styles .......................................................................25
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .........................................................................29
3.1. Overview ........................................................................................................29
3.2. Conceptual Framework................................................................................29
3.4. Research method ...........................................................................................30
3.4.1. Quantitative research method .................................................................30
3.4.2. Qualitative research approach ................................................................31
3.5. Participants....................................................................................................31
3.6. Research Procedure ......................................................................................32
3.6.1. Research design .......................................................................................32
3.6.2. Research Instruments ............................................................................33
3.7. Data analysis ..................................................................................................38
3.7.1. Quantitative data analysis ........................................................................38
3.7.2. Qualitative data analysis ..........................................................................39
3.8. Chapter summary .........................................................................................40

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS ................................................................42
4.1. Chapter Overview .........................................................................................42
4.2. Qualitative results .........................................................................................42
4.2.1. Results from questionnaire survey with student participants ................42
4.3. Qualitative Results ........................................................................................48
4.3.1. Students’ learning styles..........................................................................48
4.3.2. SFL-TNU teachers’ teaching styles ......................................................57
4.4. Chapter summary .........................................................................................63
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .................................................................................64

vii


5.1. Overview:.......................................................................................................64
5.2. Summary of the research’s finding .............................................................64
5.2.1 Learning style preferences of students at SFL-TNU ..............................64
5.2.2. Teachers’ teaching styles at School of Foreign Language, TNU .........65
5.2.3. Matching or mismatching between teaching and learning styles: ........67
5.3. Chapter summary .........................................................................................67
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...............................................................................69
6.1. Overview ........................................................................................................69
6.2. Educational implication ...............................................................................69
6.2.1. Understanding students’ ability to accept unfamiliar styles of teachers .69
6.2.2. Understanding the existence of differences in the classroom ..................69
6.2.3. Implementing small class size ..................................................................70
6.3. Limitation of the research ............................................................................70
6.4. Suggestions for further research .................................................................71
6.5. Chapter summary .........................................................................................72
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................73
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

APPENDIX A: LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
WITH STUDENTS ............................................................................................... II
SELF-SCORING SHEET .................................................................................... V
EXPLANATION OF LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES ...................... VII
APPENDIX B: TEACHING STYLE PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
WITH TEACHERS ............................................................................................ IX
APPENDIX C: PROMPT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH STUDENTS
............................................................................................................................ XIII
APPENDIX D: PROMPT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH TEACHERS
........................................................................................................................... XIV

viii


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the rationale as well as the
objectives of the research. Firstly, an introduction to the existing research with
regard to the match and mismatch between teaching and learning styles is presented.
Then, the rationale followed by the background information of teaching and
learning status at School of Foreign Languages - Thai Nguyen University (SFLTNU) is mentioned. Finally, the objectives together with structure of this research
are going to be included.
1.2. Rationale of the study
For many teachers, the crucial concern is to try to motivate students, involve
them into the lessons and activities implemented, and inspire them to learn more
effectively. One of the challenges to achieve that goal is there is no one-size-fits
all- solution. This is because students learn in so many different ways, from seeing
to hearing, playing to acting or reflecting to visualizing. Similarly, different teachers
prefer different teaching styles. Some prefer lecturing, some like demonstrating,
discussing, or others focus on rules or emphasize memorization. How much and

how well a student learns in a class is governed partially by his innate ability and
prior background knowledge, but we cannot deny the interference of the matching
between his learning preference and the teacher‟s methodological styles. According
to Reid “ In order for teaching and learning to become more effective the teacher
should take the students‟ needs, interests and learning styles into account”(1998,
p.10).
It is undeniable people cannot perform well and produce good result if that is
not his area of interest, and there is no exception in education. The best outcome
cannot be produced if students, who are recently considered as the center of
teaching and learning process, do not enjoy and feel satisfied with activities that

1


their teachers provide. In other words, they cannot learn well if what provided in the
classroom are out of their styles. Learning style theories have been cited as an
effective means for helping teachers recognize the incredibly diverse needs students
bring into the classroom (Felder & Brent, 2005; Hall &Mosely, 2005; Sternberg,
Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008; Williamson & Watson, 2007). According to Zapalska
and Dabb (2002), an understanding of the way students learn improves the selection
of teaching strategies best suited to students‟ learning. In addition, these theories
provide a framework that enables teachers to knowledgably develop a variety of
instructional methodologies to benefit all students (Williamson & Watson).
Research has shown that a match between learning styles and teaching styles will
improve students learning experience and achievements (Cornett, 1983).
Conversely when a mismatch between teaching and learning styles exists ,
learning can be impeded (Willing, 1985, cited in Nunan ,1998). Serous mismatch
may occur between the learning styles of students in a class and the teaching styles
of the instructor (Felder & Silverman (1988); Lawrence (1993); Oxford et al.
(1991);Schmeck(1988)) with unfortunate potential consequences. The students tend

to be bored and inattentive in class, perform poorly on tests, get discouraged about
the course and may conclude that they are not good at the subject of the course and
give up (Felder & Silverman (1988); Godleski(1984); Oxford et al. (1991); Smith
&Renzulli(1984). Instructors, confronted by low test grades, unresponsive or hostile
classes, poor attendance and dropouts, may become overly critical of the students or
begin to question their own competence as teachers.
According to Willing(1988) “Research shows that an effort to accommodate
learning styles by choosing suitable teaching styles, methodologies and course
organization can result in improved learner satisfaction and attainment.” However,
the issue has not been adequately research in the SFL-TNU. This is the reason why
this study was conducted.
As stated above, styles in teaching and learning play a crucial role in the
success of both teachers and learners. Previous research in this field has shown that

2


the mismatch between teachers‟ teaching styles and learners‟ learning styles is very
likely to happen and it not only leads to students‟ frustration and demotivation in
learning but also greatly affects their performances. Moreover, with the current
teaching and learning status at SFL-TNU, the researcher decided to carry out this
study in order to investigate the teachers‟ style preferences and students‟ learning
style preferences to see whether they are matched or not. The results of this study
will be analyzed and discussed in order to help to bridge the gap between teaching
and learning process. Recommendation for teachers and students at School of
Foreign Languages – Thai Nguyen University will be suggested with the objective
of enhancing both teaching and learning quality and experience.
1.3. English Languages Teaching and Learning at School of Foreign Languages
- TNU (SFL-TNU)
SFL-TNU is one of the important language training faculties/universities in

the North of Vietnam. There are five languages being taught here including English,
French, Chinese, Russian and Korean, in which English language is predominant.
As for English language, SFL is training students with two main majors: English
Education and English Language. Those who belong to the former are supposed to
serve as English teachers at secondary and high schools and students of the latter
type have more free choices of work in such places as non-government
organizations, foreign companies, and so on. The majority of students share quite
similar background since they mostly come from rural areas in the North of
Vietnam.
Under the 2020 Foreign Language Project, SFL-TNU has declared the
English language standard for graduation. According to that, students are required
to achieve C1 level as described in the Common European framework of reference
for languages. This is really a big challenge to English language teaching and
learning at this school.

3


At SFL-TNU, Communicative Language Teaching, an approach to second or
foreign language teaching which aims at developing communicative competence in
language learning (Richards, Platt & Platt, 1992) is mainly adopted. The emphasis
of the training program is placed on improving students‟ communicative
competence, vocational skills and 21st century skills.Six semesters focusing on
practicing English skills including: speaking, listening, reading and writing are
mandatory to all students. Together with that, the number of theoretical periods is
cut down on. One interesting point in the training program at SFL-TNU is that there
are several project-based courses. That is, students work in small group to carry out
a real project such as making a complete magazine, acting a complete drama or
making movies throughout their semester.
The academic staff at SFL-TNU is highly qualified and well-trained. Most of

them have completed their Master degree in English Language and English
Language Teaching Methodology. They are very open-minded, supportive to
students and innovative in applying new methods or trends into their teaching.
Though the academic staff and school managers are making all effort to
improve students‟ capacity and performances, the results appear to not very
satisfying. According to the result of the most recent certification test, out of 250
final year students taking the test, only 15 reached C1 level which is the
requirement to graduate from university. Many of them performed badly and just
stood at B1 and B2 which are pre-intermediate and intermediate levels. The
emphasis then turned to question the causes of such frustrating performances of
students.
1.4. Objectives of the study:
The objectives of this study are as the following:
1. To identify teaching and learning style preferences of teachers and
students at School of Foreign Languages - Thai Nguyen University
2. To examine the degree of match and mismatch between their styles

4


3. To provide correct insights to English language teaching and learning
at SFL-TNU
1.5. Research questions
The research questions of this study are as follow:
1. What are students’ preferred learning styles?
2. What are teachers’ preferred teaching styles?
3. To what extend do teachers’ teaching styles match or mismatch with
students’ learning styles.
These questions play a crucial role in the data collection and analysis process of this
study.

1.6. Structure of the study
There are totally six chapters in this thesis. This chapter has provided an
introduction into the theories of match or mismatch between teaching and learning
styles, the teaching and learning context at School of Foreign Languages, TNU, the
rationale, objectives and structure of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant
literature on this matter, and it includes four main parts, namely learning styles,
teachings styles, the relationship between these two factors, and previous researches
on this field. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology of the study which
includes the conceptual framework, research questions, research methods and
procedures. In chapter 4, the quantitative and qualitative data collected from both
teacher and student participants will be presented. Chapter 5 discusses and
interprets the research result. The last one, chapter 6 provides implications for
language teachers and students at School of Foreign Languages, TNU, as well as the
limitation of this study and suggestions for further research on this field.

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Overview
Chapter one has provided readers with the background, rationale as well as
the objectives of this research. In this chapter, the literature related to learning
styles, teaching styles, and their intertwine relationship is going to be reviewed.
The first section deals with learning styles with regard to its definition, some
theoretical models of learning styles. It also spends a small part to discuss about
learning styles in relation to Vietnamese culture. The second part of this chapter
focuses on teaching styles. It also provides knowledge related to teaching styles‟
definition, and factors shaping teachers‟ teaching styles. In the next section, the
relationship between teaching and learning styles will be analyzed in depth. Last but
not least, some typical research in this field will be included in the final part.

2.2. Theoretical background
2.2.1. Learning styles
2.2.1.1. Introduction to Learning styles
In recent year, the study of learning styles has addressed much more
attention and concern from researchers and educators than ever before, and in a time
when academic achievement undergoes scrutiny, it is of special importance for
educators to know and practice the best possible methods for helping students learn
successfully. Rita Dunn, a re-owned learning styles expert, when being questioned,
stated that increased testing has no point in leading to increased achievement.
Despite acknowledging that testing is by no means an essential aspect, she declared
that higher levels of achievement would only be produced if changes in instruction
happened. Fortunately, in nowadays education, emphasis has been changed to the
understanding of various ways that students learn, and the role this knowledge plays
in attaining academic success also receives recognition (Collinson, 2000). The

6


recent studies in this area indicated that teachers are those who benefit from
developing an understanding of how students learn and the effect of this on their
teaching (Evan and Waring, 2006).
The field of learning styles is extremely complex and this is compounded by
the fact that there is an ever-increasing number of theories and models developed to
address this issue. In fact, these models share the same theoretical base and
components while they maintain quite significant variations. Concerning this issue,
Collison (2000) stated that the common view among these theories is that learning
styles are the combination of cognitive, affective and physiological factors that
contribute to determine unique approaches of each student to effective learning.
Although the existence of the difference in ways students learn has been
confirmed, the practice of teachers in real-life classroom is still done by their own

belief that is they typically maintain a single approach to teaching. Furthermore,
those who has limited understanding of different learning styles existing in their
classroom are likely to seek for and utilize on paramount approach in teaching. In
their study in 2006, Evan and Waring found out that the majority of teachers
involved in the study tended to apply an approach based much on transmitting
information instead of the one which focused on the development of students‟
understanding of the lessons. However, evidence in a great number of research has
proven that no single approach can ensure success in learning for all students.
Therefore, there is no wonder in that teachers should realize the essential necessity
of developing a true understanding of differences among students and strive to
provide various types of instructions that suit the differences in the classroom.
2.2.1.1 Definition of learning styles
Generally, the term learning styles refer to learners‟ preferred approach to
learning. In other words, it is their favorite ways of receiving, absorbing, processing
and retaining information. In regard to language acquisition, learning styles are

7


students‟ preferred approach to language learning. So far, there have been more
than 200 definitions of learning styles. Some of them are as the following:
Table 2.1 Definitions of learning styles
“Learning styles are internally based characteristics, often not perceived or
consciously used by learners, for the intake and comprehension of new
information.” (Reid, 1998, p. ix)
“The term learning style refers to the general approach preferred by the
student when learning a subject, acquiring a language, or dealing with a difficult
problem.” (Oxford, 2003, p. 273)
“Learning style is a composite of environmental and perceptual preferences,
which influence our physical and sensing needs; cognitive variables, which

determine how we approach, conceptualize, and structure our world; and social
preferences, which arise from cognitive, personality, affective factors and which
shape our behavioral tendencies in learning situations.”
(Galloway &Labarca, 1990, p. 113).

It can be concluded from the above-mentioned definitions that learning styles
consist of four main aspects: cognitive, affective, physiological/sensory, and
behavioral (Oxford, Hollaway, &Hortin-Murillo, 1992; Wallace & Oxford, 1992;
Willing, 1988). The cognitive learning styles can be stated as the learners‟ preferred
ways of mental functioning, while affective learning styles imply patterns of
attitudes influencing learners‟ attention. Physiological/sensory learning styles refer
to sensory and perceptual tendencies of learners. And finally, behavioral learning
styles involve the tendency of seeking situations compatible with one‟s own
learning patterns.

8


2.2.2. Different theories and models of learning styles.
Experienced teachers are aware of and understand the fact that students have
a sensory preference when processing new materials and through this sensory
preference, they will be motivated to reach their academic potential (O‟ Brien,
Oxford and Ehrman, R. Lavine, 1993). Hence, it is of important value for students
to become aware of their own learning styles. According to Reid (1998), each
student can have one or more learning styles and their learning style is the result of
the combination of both nature and nurture. His conclusion suggests that while
some learning styles are innate, others can be learnt.
Together with their innate learning style, each learner should be encouraged
to become aware of various learning styles that exist and experiment with them.
According to Kinsella “a learning style refers to an individual‟s natural, habitual,

and preferred way of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and
skills which persist regardless of teaching methods or content area.” (1995, p. 171)
Cornett defines learning style as “a consistent pattern of behavior but with a certain
range of individual variability. Styles then are overall patterns that give general
direction of learning behavior.” (1983, p.9).Learning styles can be seen as a general
description of how a learner prefers to absorb information.
Having said previously, there is an ever-increasing number of theories and
models regarding learning styles. Statistically, between 1902 and 2002, there were
no fewer than one hundred models concerning learning styles published. While
sharing the same theoretical foundation and components, these models maintain
their unique perspectives, focusing exclusively on students‟ preferences or abilities
(Hall &Moley).
Though it is impractical to address each learning model in this context since
there exists a wide variety of learning models, it is necessary to mention some most
significant models including Kolb‟s learning model, Gregorc Learning Style Model

9


Multiple Intelligences, the Myers - Briggs Type Indicator, and Dunn and Dunn
learning styles model.
Kolb’s Learning Model
It is first worth recalling Jung‟s theory psychological types which states that
all conscious mental activities occur in two perception processes (sensing and
intuition) and two judgment processes (thinking and feeling). Those who perceive
through sensing see the world through their senses - vision, hearing, touch, and
smell. They observe what is real, factual and actually happening. Meanwhile, others
perceive through intuition by reacting to or focusing on the image created by their
mind. They pay more attention to the abstract dimensions of the reality. As for two
judgments processes, thinking is identified as reaching decisions in a logical way

and feeling is approaching a decision through a subjective, perceptive, empathetic
and emotional perspective.
Kolb‟s learning style has it root in Jung‟s theory of psychological types,
however, it exhibits some differences according to Felder (1996). The difference is
that Kolb‟s learning model classifies learners into four types based on their
preferences for how to take information and how to internalize it. The former aspect
which focuses on how students take information divides them into those who prefer
concrete experience and those who prefer abstract conceptualization. The latter one,
emphasizing students‟ preferences of how to internalize information separates them
into those who utilize active experimentation and those who employ reflective
observation (Felder). The combination of the above mentioned preferences results
in the four following learning styles: accommodators, diversers, assimilators and
convergers (Loo, 2004). Kolb‟s learning model is an attempt to incorporate them
into a four stage circle that helps to guide students systematically from concrete
experience to the development of concepts.
Gregorc Learning Style Model
This is a model, based in phenomenological research as well as Kolb‟s
experiential learning cycle, that defines learning style as “distinctive and observable

10


behaviors that provide clues about the mediation abilities of individuals and how
their minds relate to the world and, therefore, how they learn” (Gregorc, 1979, p.
19). Gregorc claims that individuals have natural predispositions for learning along
four bipolar, continuous mind qualities that function as mediators as individuals
learn from and act upon their environments. Those mind qualities are abstract and
concrete perception, sequential and random ordering, deductive and inductive
processing, and separative and associative relationships. The Gregorc Style
Delineator (GSD) provides metrics on the first two qualities, perception and

ordering, giving an individual a score from 10 to 40 in each of four learning styles
of Concrete-Sequential (CS), Abstract-Sequential (AS), Abstract-Random (AR),
and Concrete-Random (CR), with a maximum of 100 points for all four. Gregorc
describes Concrete and Abstract as orthogonal to Sequential and Random. Although
the scores indicate the individual‟s innate dispositions for one, two, three, or all of
the styles, individuals can improve their use of the mind qualities that do not score
high.
Multiple Intelligences
According to Denig (2004), the theory of multiple intelligences was
developed by Howard Gardner due to his opposition to the idea that a single
construct could measure accurately a person‟s intelligence. Since being formed, the
theory has resonated a wide number of researchers and educators. This theory
support the thing that we all know to be true: A one-size-fits-all approach to
education will invariably leave some students behind. Gardner argued that there
exist at least eight types of intelligences including linguistic, logical-mathematical,
spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. The ninth
intelligence which is existential should also be potentially included. The distinctions
among these intelligences are supported by studies in child development, cognitive
skills under conditions of brain damage, psychometrics, change in cognition across
history and within different cultures, and psychological transfer and generalization.
A variety of these intelligences characterize most people, but at varying levels of

11


development and exhibited strength (Jacobs -Connell 2000). Despite being
criticized to lack of experimental research to support, the theory has somepractical
implication to education. According to Denig (2004), Multiple Intelligences theory
recognizes the importance of each type of intelligence and changes instructional
practices and teaching methodologies to employ and integrate students‟ interests

and abilities in an effort to maximize learning.
The Myers - Briggs Type Indicator
Myers - Briggs learning model is also inspired by Jung‟s theory of
psychological types. The author stated that variation in human behavior results from
basic differences in the perception and judgment processes. Though expanded from
Jung‟s theory, Myers and Briggs added another dimension. They argued that each
individual has a preference for either a judgment function or the perceptive
function. They are of the opinion that children have enough command of their
mental processes to be able to use their favorite process more, develop and trust it
more meanwhile they tend to ignore the processes that they are not in favor of.
(Briggs and Myers, 1980, p.2-3).
Nevertheless, they also argued that a single process is not enough for
individuals to be balanced. People need to adequately develop a second process
which is not equal as the primary one, just as an auxiliary process. To be more
specific, if one‟s preference is judgment, it is necessary for him or her to develop
the perceptive function process as an auxiliary one and vice versa.
Dunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model
Dunn (1990) defined learning styles as “the way in which individuals begin
to concentrate on, process, internalize, and retain new and difficult information”
(p.353). According to this model, learning styles is stated to consists of twenty
elements that affect students learning, encompass the learners‟ environment,
emotionality, sociological preferences, physiological characteristics. The following
specific elements are generated from the broad categories: sound, light, temperature,
seating design, motivation, task persistence, responsibility, structure, learning alone,

12


in pairs, in groups, perceptual strength, time of day, need for intake, mobility, and
global or analytic, impulsive or reflective (Dunn & Burke, 2006). The Dunn and

Dunn model stresses capitalization on individual learning styles by modifying the
instruction (Denig, 2004; Dunn et al., 2001). In addition, the focus of learning
styles relies squarely on the process of education and how things are taught as
compared to addressing what is taught and the product to be achieved, as is the case
with Gardner‟s approach (Denig; Dunn et al.).
2.2.3. Elements of Learning Styles
Each of the above-mentioned model identifies learning styles elements
within its scope of viewing learning styles, and this results in a wide range of
factors for consideration. It is appropriate and beneficial to include an overview of
some significant elements in this study. The following is a list of learning styles
used in language teaching and learning
Visual/ verbal style preference: Those who are in favor of this learning
styles preference like to observe and to see information in form of texts or pictures.
They are highly motivated when watching television or film documentaries where
both visual and verbal are information is presented. Rather than listen to lecture,
they are fond of reading what is written on a subject. Furthermore, this type of
learners may feel frustrated if only verbal instruction or explanations are given to
them.
Visual/ Non-verbal style preference: The outstanding difference between
this type to the previous one is that those who fall into this category learn best when
being provided information in form of pictures, graphs, charts, maps, and films.
They learn through observation and they like to have tasks demonstrated to them
rather than receive written instructions.
Auditory style preference: Students of this type learn at their best from
hearing and they are able to remember informationby reading aloud. Their favorite
methods include audio tapes, lectures, and group discussions.

13

Kinesthetic style preference: Those who prefer this style learn more
effectively by being physically involved in the teaching and learning process or
classroom activities. They always want to be active participants who are allowed to
use their body energy and move around the classroom.
Tactile style preference: Activities related to touching materials, building
and handing models are of special benefits for students of this style. In contrast,
hand-on experience may make them feel bored and frustrated.
Group preference: These students work very effectively in pairs and groups
and they learn very well in this way since they are stimulated by interaction with
those around them.
Individual preference: In contrast to group style preference, learners of this
category always prefer to work on their own. Learning will be more effective and
interesting when they study by themselves (Reid, 1995).
2.2.4. Teaching styles
As mention at the beginning of this chapter, “style” should not be confused
with method, for people tend to infuse different methods with their own styles
(Fischer and Fischer, 1979, p.245). For instance, lecturing is a method, however,
different teachers have their own unique styles when infusing this method.
Like anyone else in this world, teachers have their own preferred way of
perceiving and processing information. It is not false to believe that they will bring
and apply their own way of learning into class teaching. “Research supports the
concept that most teachers teach the way they learn” (Stitt-Gohdes 2001, p. 136).
Since a great many teachers have experienced academic success in learning
environments that were instructor centered and relied heavily on lecture, it is
understandable that their preferred style of teaching, at least initially, would be to
repeat what worked with them.
As stated in Dunn and Dunn (1979, p. 241), teachers teach the way they
learnt not necessarily the way they were taught. Their research into individual

14

teaching styles found out that teachers keep the belief that the way they learn is easy
and right, and as a result, they teach their students in the same manner. There is a
great deal of evidence from research supporting this. To be more specific, in his
research, Lawrence contended that the learning styles of teachers strongly affect
how they teach, what they prefer to teach and the level they want to teach
(Lawrence, 1984, p.78). Also, in a study conducted with education majors at
University of Idaho, Heikkinen, Pettigrew and Zakrajsek found that students
majoring in different subjects have strong preferences for some learning variables.
They also discovered a difference in learning styles between prospective elementary
and secondary teachers ( Heikkinen, Pettigrew and Zakrajsek, 1985, p.85)
Teachers‟ characteristics have also been paid much attention from
researchers. It is important to know their teaching styles as well as their
characteristics. In this study, the summarization of McCarthy (1987, p. 37-43) about
teachers‟ characteristics based on how they learn using four quadrant model and the
findings of learning styles researchers including Kolb, Lawrence, Jung, Gregor will
be presented.
Quadrant one: Imaginative Learners
As teachers, they:
-

Are interested in facilitating individual growth.

-

Try to help people become more self-aware

-

Believe curricula should enhance the ability to be authentic.

-

See knowledge as growth in personal insight and encourage authenticity in
their students.

-

Like discussions, group work and realistic feedback about feeling.

-

Care people who seek to engage their students in cooperative efforts.

-

Are aware of social forces that effect human development.

-

Are able to focus on meaningful goals

-

Tend to be fearful under pressure and sometimes lack daring.

-

Strength: imaginative ideas.

15