An investigation into learning and teaching style preferemces at quang ninh teacher training college

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI UNIVERSITY

VU THI HUONG GIANG

AN INVESTIGATION INTO
LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLE PREFERENCES
AT QUANG NINH TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN TESOL

SUPERVISOR’ S NAME: MA. HOANG VAN HO AT

(է

w

^

째

ք
T4TV

Hanoi, October 2008

՜՜ᅳ ^
. ĩrungĩ
Am

1
ĨHỒN8TINTHƯVIẾN
!NN-VHNũữc HGOẢI

■ ■ 琴
■

±

քէձձՕ յ


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the minor thesis entitled nAn investigation into learning and teaching style

preferences at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College” and submitted in partial
fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree of Master o f Arts in TESOL is the result of
my work, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this minor thesis or any part of
the same has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution.
The research reported in this thesis was approved by Hanoi University.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my academic supervisors, Mr. Hoang
Van Hoat, M.A (TESOL), a senior lecturer at Hanoi University, from whom I received
constant encouragements, guidance, and valuable critical feedback in the preparation and
completion o f this thesis.
I also wish to acknowledge all the MA lecturers and the whole staff of the Post-Graduate

Department at Hanoi University for their professional teaching and kind help throughout
the course.
I wish to express my deep gratitude to Ms Nguyen Thai Ha, M.A (TESOL), the Vice Dean
o f the Post-Graduate Department, who have provided me with an invaluable source of
knowledge during my M A course at Hanoi University.
My special thanks go to my colleagues and all my students in the experimental groups who
have offered me strong supports and encouragement during my study.
Last, but not least, I wish to say thank you to my family for their love, care, and tolerance
that encourage me a lot in completing this study.


ABSTRACT

This study is an investigation into the learning and teaching style preferences at Quang
Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC). The Perceptual Learning Styles Preference
Survey (PLSPS) by Reid (1998) was used to determine the preferred learning styles and
Peacock’s (2001) modified version o f PLSPS was used to determine teaching styles at
QNTTC. Statistical analysis o f variance was done to determine the percentage of match
between the preferred learning and teaching styles. The study purposes included
determining i f a match existed between students’ learning styles o f non-English majors and
teaching styles o f language teachers at QNTTC.
The participants were eight language teachers and 160 non-English major students aged
18-19 on average at QNTTC. The ages o f the teacher participants ranged from 29 to 48
with the average age being 38. The teachers favored tactile and group as their major
teaching styles. Their least preferred instructional styles were individual. On PLSPS by
Reid (1998)，the student participants favored kinesthetic and auditory. Their least preferred
scales were for tactile. In this study, the worst mismatches between the teaching styles o f
language teachers and the learning styles o f non-English majors at QNTTC were tactile
and group learning. Besides, there are some differences in learning styles between the
students o f natural sciences and social sciences. The students o f natural sciences most

preferred kinesthetic and individual as their major learning styles, while the students o f
social sciences chose kinesthetic and group as their major leaning style preferences.
Another difference between the natural science students and the social science students is
the former chose group to be another negligible learning style, while the latter showed
their negative preference for individual learning. In addition, there were differences
between learning styles o f the sub-groups o f students at the different academic school
years, such as, there was a mismatch between the preferences for individual learning style
o f the first-year natural students and the second-year natural science students, while a
mismatch existed between group learning style o f the first-year social science students and
the second-year social science students. Based on the findings o f the study, some
suggestions are recommended for using strategies to the students at QNTTC and
implications for learning and teaching in language classrooms at QNTTC.
iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFL

: English as a foreign language

NS-I

: First-year natural science

NS-II

: Second-year natural science

PLSPS

: Perceptual Learning Styles Preference Survey

QNTTC

: Quang Ninh Teacher Training College

SS-I

: First-year social science

SS-II

: Second-year social science

TESOL

: Teaching o f English to Speakers o f Other Languages

UG

: Undergraduate students


LIST OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND TABLES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for students (English version)......................................

pages
69

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for students (Vietnamese version)...............................

72

Appendix 3: Questionnaire for the teachers............................................................

75

Figure 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year
natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ................................................................

34

Figure 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear natural science students at QNTTC，2007 ........................................................

35

Figure 4.3: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year
social science students at QNTTC，2007 ..................................................................

37

Figure 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear social science students at QNTTC, 2007 ..........................................................

39

Figure 4.5: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors at
QNTTC，2007 ...........................................................................................................
Figure 4.6: Major, minor and negligible language teaching stylesat QNTTC, 2007

42
44

Table 2.1: Overview o f six learning styles according to Richardsand Lockhart
(1994)，Reid (1998) and W iling (1988)....................................................................

14

Table 3.1: Profile o f student subjects at QNTTC, 2007 ..........................................

26

Table 4.1: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year
natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ................................................................

34

Table 4.2: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear natural science students at QNTTC, 2007 ........................................................

35

Table 4.3: Comparison o f the First-year Natural Science and the Second-year
Natural Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC，2007 .................

36

Table 4.4: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the first-year
social science students at QNTTC, 2007 ..................................................................

38

Table 4.5: Major, minor, and negligible leaning style preferences o f the secondyear social science students at QNTTC，2007 ..........................................................

39


Table 4.6: Comparison o f the First-year Social Science and the Second-year
Social Science Students’ Learning Style Preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ..................
Table 4.7: Comparison o f the natural science and the social science students’
learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ...........................................................
Table 4.8: Summary o f learning style preferences o f the non-English majors at
QNTTC, 2007 ........................................................................................................
Table 4.9: Major, minor and negligible language teaching styles at QNTTC, 2007
Table 4.10: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the first-year natural
science з и кіе г^ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................
Table 4.11: Comparison o f language teaching styles and the second-year natural
science students9perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................
Table 4.12: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the first-year social
science students9perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ................
Table 4.13: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and second-year social
science students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC，2007................
Table 4.14: Comparison o f the language teaching styles and the non-English
major students’ perceptual learning style preferences at QNTTC, 2007 ..................


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF A U TH O R S H IP ........................................................................
AC KN O W LED G EM EN TS...................................................................................
A B S TR A C T............................................................................................................

LIST OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S .................................................................................
LIST OF APPENDIXES, FIGURES AND T A B L E S ............................................
TABLE OF C O NTEN TS.......................................................................................

•
»
'»
'V
V
vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
լ. 1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY....................................................................

1

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS...........................................................................................

3

...................

4

1.3. OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH OF THE STUDY....................................................................
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................

4

1.5. SCOPE OF THE STUDY................................................................................................................

5

1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS.............................................................................................

5

CHAPTER 2: LITE R A TU R E REVIEW
2.1. DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES...................................................

6

2.1.1. DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING STYLES.................................................................................

6

2.1.2. DEFINITIONS OF TEACHING STYLES...............................................................................

8

2.2. DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING STY LES.....................................................................................

9

2.2.1. ANALYTIC VERSUS GLOBAL PROCESSING AND ITS UKELY CORRELATES.................

10

2.2.1.1. FIELD-DEPENDENCE VERSUS FIELD-INDEPENDENCE....................................................

10

2.2.1.2. REFLECTION VERSUS IMPULSIVITY...............................................................................

11

2.2.1.3. INTUITION VERSUS SENSING.........................................................................................

12

2.2.2. SENSORY PREFERENCES....................................................................................................

12

2.2.2.1. VISUAL LEARNERS..........................................................................................................

12

2.2.22. AUDITORY LEARNERS....................................................................................................

12

2.2.2.3. KINESTHETIC LEARNERS.................................................................................................

13

vii


2.2.2A. TACTILE LEARNERS........................................................................................................

13

2.2.3. GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL LEARNERS...............................................................................

13

2.2.4. SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................

14

2.3. LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES......................................................................

15

2.4. LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING STRATEGIES.............................................................

18

2.5. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLES......................

20

2.6. LEARNING STYLES AND TEACHING STYLE INSTRUMENTS.............................................

22

2.7. SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................

23

CHAPTER 3: M ETHODOLOGY
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY...............................................................................

25

3.2. SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................

25

3. 3. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS..................................................................................

27

3.4. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES........................................................................................

30

3.5. DATA ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................

32

3.6. SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................

32

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS..........................................................

33

4.1.1. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC ...........

33

4.1.1.1. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS
AT QNTTC.................................................................................................................................

33

4.1.1.2. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE
STUDENTS AT QNTTC.............................................................................................................

35

4.1.1.3. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE FIRST-YEAR SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT
QNTTC....................................................................................................................................

37

4.1.1.4. PREFERRED LEARNING STYLES OF THE SECOND-YEAR NATURAL SCIENCE
STUDENTS AT QNTTC............................................................................................................
4.1.1.5. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES OF NATURAL

38


SCIENCE STUDENTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC........................................
4.1.1.6. OVERVIEW OF LEARNING STYLES OF THE STUDENTS ACROSS CLASSES OF THE
NON-ENGLISH MAJORS AT QNTTC...........................................................................................

ぬ

4.1.2. PREFERRED LANGUAGE TEACHING STYLES AT QNTTC..............................................

43

4.1.3. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS

44

CLASSES OF THE NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC..............................................................
4.1.3.1. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS

45

CLASSES OF NATURAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC...........................................................
4.1.3.2. MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING STYLES ACROSS

45

CLASSES OF SOCIAL SCIENCE STUDENTS AT QNTTC...................................................................
4.1.3.3. OVERVIEW OF MATCH AND MISMATCH BETWEEN LEARNING AND TEACHING

48

STYLES ACROSS CLASSES OF NON-ENGLISH MAJORS SCIENCE AT QNTTC.............................

4.2. DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................................

49

4.2.1. DISCUSSION ON THE LEARNING STYLES PREFERENCES OF NON-ENGUSH
MAJORS ATQNTTC.........................................................................................................................

49

4.2.2. DISCUSSION ON THE TEACHING STYLES PREFERENCES OF LANGUAGE
TEACHERS AT QNTTC.............................................................................................
4.3. SUM M ARY..................................................................................................................................

51
52

CHAPTER 5: IM P LIC A T IO N S AND CONCLUSION
5.1. MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY.......................................................................................

54

5.2. IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS........................................................................................

55

5.2.1. IMPUCATIONS FOR NON-ENGUSH MAJORS AT QNTTC ................................................

55

5.2.2. IMPUCATIONS FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS AT QNTTC ...............................................

57

5.2.3. SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING AID IMPROVEMENT.....................................................

60

5.3. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH...........

61

5.4. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................

62

REFERENCES............................................................................................................

64

APP E N D IX ES ...........................................................................................................

69

ix


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This thesis reports the results o f a study conducted to make an investigation into the
learning and teaching styles and the match between the two at Quang Ninh Teacher
Training College. The introductory chapter presents the theoretical background to the
study, provides a detailed description o f the problem the thesis attempts to solve, states

the objectives o f the study and presents an overview o f the thesis.

1.1. Theoretical background
Learners have certain characteristics, such as intelligence, personality, learning styles,
aptitude, attitude, beliefs and so on, which lead to more or less successful language
learning (Lightbrown & Spada, 1999). Among the different factors that affect learner
performance, learning style has now been considered as a major factor in
psycholinguistic research (W illing, 1987). Thus, there has been an increase in interest in
how people learn and how people prefer to learn.
In a class, students should be aware o f their own learning styles because o f the
following considerable advantages including their abilities to develop additional
learning styles and to modify their existing learning patterns w ill be increased (Henson
& Borthwick, 1984). Besides, students who understand and then are provided
opportunities to make use o f their learning styles tend to feel valued, respected, and
empowered (Carbo & Hodges, 1988). Furthermore, knowing what their learning style is
helps students respond to the presented material in the most effective way. Even when
the material is not presented in the way they prefer or the instructor has different styles
with them or the topic is not familiar, they can use their knowledge o f learning styles to
adjust the difference and be flexible in their learning.
It is also very helpful and necessary for teachers to have some basic knowledge o f their
students’ learning styles in expectations that teachers and learners alike w ill be very
helpful to meet learners’ needs, to narrow the perceived mismatch between teaching and
learning styles and to achieve the aim o f desired teaching and learning outcomes.
Moreover, as teachers develop professionally in this area, their students w ill also benefit
through knowledge about styles and strategies involve in optimizing their individual
learning styles (Reid, 1995).

1

Many educational institutions are now moving towards more emphasis on learning style
preferences. The purpose o f identifying students' learning style preferences is also to
help the teacher design tasks that can facilitate students' learning. In doing so, teachers
can help their students become more effective learners and help them make their study
not only more successful but also more enjoyable. H armer (2001) declared that:
Faced with the different descriptions o f learner types and styles, it may
seem that the teacher's task is overwhelmingly complex. We want to
satisfy the many different students in front o f us, teaching to their
individual strengths with activities designed to produce the best results for
each o f them, yet we also want to address our teaching to the group as a
whole (p.l 12).
A point has been made that each class is unique and as a result, each class w ill need to
be treated differently (Harmer，
2001) and i f students do not learn the way we teach
them, then we must teach them the way they learn (Marshal, 1991). Thus, teachers need
to know a lot about them and consequently, they still have much to learn about how to
reach all students to do the teaching job effectively.
Cheng (1995) says that teachers have styles that they use as they plan and present
material to their students, and that teacher behavior in the classroom can significantly
affect learner achievement. Some authors claim that teachers can and should know their
preferred styles (W illing, 1988; Reid, 1995) so that teachers can teach in balanced
teaching styles in order to accommodate different learning styles. Teaching styles vary
and all teachers have their own individual teaching styles, which can be identified
(Reid, 1995; W illing, 1988).
Identifying a teaching style is useless unless an attempt is made to match it with the
appropriate learning styles (Henson & Borthwick, 1984). That means it is not enough to
identify teaching styles, but the teacher should try to match his/ her teaching style(s)
with an appropriate learning style. In other words, teachers need to consider the
importance o f matching their teaching with their students’ learning styles.
However, within the classroom the teacher's role may change from one activity to

another or from one stage o f an activity to another，because rarely any one instructor is
adequately represented by a single teaching style, just as no student is characterized by
a single learning style (Tanner, Chatman & Allen, 2003). It is also suggested that i f
teachers are fluent and flexible at making changes with different activities in the
classroom, their effectiveness as teachers is considerably enhanced (Harmer, 2001).

2


Thus, the matter o f matching learning and teaching styles w ill still be considered as an
important issue among educators (Henson & Borthwick, 1984).

Ỉ.2. Statement o f the problem
Attention to teaching and learning styles has been described as part o f the desirable
trend towards learner-centered and needs-based instruction (W illing, 1988; Kinsella,
1995; Tudor, 1996). W illing (1988) also indicates that awareness o f teaching styles and
o f learning styles w ill help teachers and learners decide how to accommodate different
styles in the classroom. Thus, learning styles and teaching styles, and particularly the
match between them, are an important under-researched aspect o f EFL classroom.
Unfortunately, there is a great deal o f theoretical support for the idea that mismatches
are common and that they negatively affect learning and learner’s motivation and
attitude. And a number o f authors propose that mismatches between teaching and
learning styles often occur and have bad effects on students’ learning and attitudes to
the class and to English (Reid, 1987; Felder, 1995). To reduce teacher-student style
conflicts, some researchers advocate that teaching and learning styles should be
matched (Smith & Renzulli，
1984; Oxford, 1991). Despite all this, not enough studies
have researched that idea or even investigate teaching styles o f teachers. And the same
contexts exist in Vietnam in general, and at Quang Ninh Teacher Training College
(QNTTC) in particular.

Quang Ninh Teacher Training College is located in Uong Bi town, Quang Ninh
province. Students at QNTTC come from different parts o f Quang Ninh province so the
difference between their individual characteristics is considerable. As a result, language
teachers at QNTTC always get difficulties with their teaching job because they have to
work with different categories o f students. One main reason for that is the variety and
nature o f learning styles o f students differ from each other. Secondly, not only do
learners differ from each other, but also teachers differ in their teaching styles. A
variety o f perspectives is, therefore, required for teachers to consider.
Based on the researcher's personal experience in teaching English as a foreign language
at QNTTC，and based on the information collected from the colleagues and the
students, the researcher found that mismatches often occur between the learning styles
of non-English major students in a language class and the teaching styles o f the
language teachers o f the English Department with unfortunate effects on the quality o f
the students’ learning and on their attitudes toward the class and the English subject.

3


Thus, it is really useful and necessary for teachers to identify the learning styles o f their
students, their own teaching styles, and then vary their teaching methods to meet the
wide range o f different learner preferences.
This study attempted to investigate learning styles o f the non-English majored students
and the teaching styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC through a concrete picture
o f the learning and teaching styles preferences at QNTTC. The mismatches between
teaching and learning styles and some suggestions to reduce them w ill be concerned in
the research with some hope that the match and mismatch between teaching and
learning styles w ill be more considered in the teaching context in Quang Ninh in
particular, and in Vietnam in general.

1.3. Objectives and research questions o f the study

Fully aware o f the problems that confront the English teaching and learning at Quang
Ninh Teacher Training College (QNTTC), the researcher would like to build up this
minor thesis to find out what learning styles are mostly preferred by the non-English
major students at QNTTC; what are the different learning styles preferred among the
students according to their different majors and academic school-year; what teaching
styles are mostly preferred by the language teachers at QNTTC and the match/
mismatch between the teaching styles o f the language teachers and the learning style
preferences o f the non-English major students at QNTTC.

1.4. Significance o f the study
Firstly, the study expanded the limited research into learning and teaching styles and
gave more insights o f the fields for Vietnamese learners and teachers, particularly for
students and teachers at QNTTC.
Secondly, the identification o f learning and teaching styles and significant results
contributed to an understanding o f some problems with language learning and teaching
we often deal with. As a result, we may reduce the perceived mismatch and improve the
match between learning and teaching styles, which w ill be very helpful to achieve the
desired teaching and learning outcomes.
In addition, teachers at QNTTC would also benefit from this study by determining the
learning styles o f their students. As a result, teachers can find it useful in planning their
appropriate teaching in the classroom. Besides, the study has some important

4


implications for training students with different learning styles in using language
learning strategies.

1.5. Scope o f the study
This study was carried out at QNTTC located in Quang Ninh, a northeast province in

Vietnam. The subjects o f the study were limited to non-English major students and
language teachers at QNTTC, which is a limitation o f the research as a result. This nonexperimental study aims at discovering preferred learning and teaching styles at
QNNTC, focusing on the match and/ or mismatch between those o f non-English major
students and language teachers at QNTTC. From the study relevant recommendations
were made for the students9 use o f learning strategies to promote the effectiveness
and quality o f their learning.

1.6. O rganization o f the thesis
The thesis consists o f five chapters as follows:

Chapter one, Introduction, includes theoretical background to the study, statements o f
the problems, the objectives o f the study, the significance o f the study, the scope o f the
study, and the organization o f the study.

Chapter two, Review of Related Literature, includes definitions o f learning styles and
teaching styles, dimensions o f learning styles, relationship between learning styles and
teaching styles, relationship between learning styles and strategies, overview o f related
literature that represented the major pillars o f the study concerning learning styles and
teaching styles theory and the summary.

Chapter three, Methodology, is the methodological approach that includes research
questions, the subject selection, instrumentation, data collection procedures and data
analysis procedures o f the study, and the summary.

Chapter four ，Results and Analysis, presents the report o f the major findings o f the
research including statistical analysis and discussion.

Chapter five, Conclusion, summarizes the main issues o f the whole thesis including
implications for non-English major students and language teachers at QNTTC ，
recommendations, and final conclusion.

5


CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter includes definitions o f learning and teaching styles, dimensions o f learning
styles, relationship between learning and teaching styles, relationship between learning
styles and learning strategies, brief descriptions o f previous research on learning and
teaching styles in EFL classroom with the discussions about match/ mismatch between
those measured by various instruments, and the summary.

2.1. D efinitions o f learning and teaching styles

2.1.1. Definitions o f learning style
Language learning styles have been paid a great deal o f attention and have also been
the focus o f language studies since Reid’ s influential work on the topic was public in
1987 (Peacock, 2001). However, it is not an easy task to identify and define different
learning styles because learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o f
numerous elements as Corbett and Smith (1984，
p. 212) state that:
Learning style is a complex construct involving the interaction o f
numerous elements; thus, at the outset, the experimenter is faced
with the difficult task o f having to decide which dimensions of
learning style to elucidate and which interactions might be
meaningful, in a practical sense, in understanding their contribution
to achievement.
There are many definitions o f learning styles in the literature, thus, identifying and
defining the vast number o f learning styles can be an enormous task. For example,
according to Cross (1976)，learning styles are defined as the characteristic ways that

individuals collect, organize, and transform information into useful knowledge.
Learning style is consistent across a wide variety o f tasks. Learning style has a
considerable influence on getting information and solving problems. Comet (1983，
p. 9)
declares that “ learning styles is consistent pattern o f behavior but with a certain range o f
individual variability. Styles then are overall patterns that give a general direction to
learning behavior” . That means an individual’ s learning style is stable, but to some
extent it has the tendency to vary according to him or her. Besides, leaning style o f a
student is indicated to be a significant role in guiding his/ her own learning.

6


From a psychological viewpoint, learning style is defined as “ a consistent way o f
functioning that reflects underlying causes o f behavior” (Keefe, 1979，p. 499).
However, from a phenomenological viewpoint, Gregore and Ward (1977，
p. 19) state
that learning style “ consists o f distinctive and observable behaviors that provide clues
about the mediation abilities o f individuals. In operational terms, people through their
characteristic sets o f behavior cte ir us how their minds relate to the world and
therefore, how they le arn，
，
. There is a similarity in Hunt’ s definition (1979，
p. 27) in
which he thinks a learning style “ describes a student in terms o f those educational
conditions under which he is most likely to learn. Learning style describes how a
student learns, not what he has learned，
，
.
According to Keefe and Languis (1983，

p. 3) learning styles are considered as “ the
composite o f characteristic, cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as
relatively stable indicators o f how a learner perceives, interacts with，and responds to
the learning environment” . It means an individual’ s style remains unchangeable.
Besides, learning style o f a student refers to his/ her own attitudes and manner, and his/
her own awareness o f his/ her own learning situation. This is also mentioned in the
definition by O’Neil (1990)，which implies that learning styles are considered as
patterns o f cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively
stable indicators o f how learners perceive, interact, and respond to their learning
environment.
There is no double that the complexity o f learning process exists and learning styles
used by learners without their own awareness in responding to different learning
conditions. And according to Reid (1995，
p. 34-35)，“ each person’ s learning styles
(including or her language learning style) contains a variety o f dimensions about which
research exists: sensory preference; fieid-independence or field-dependence (or fieldsensitivity); reflection or impulsivity; and objective/ impersonal or subjective/ emphatic
orientation” .
In summary, an individual’s learning style can be defined in many ways, including, “ the
complex manner in which, and conditions under which, learners most efficiently and
most effectively perceive, process, store, and recall what they are attempting to learn”
(James and Galbraith, 1985，
p. 127). Therefore, an individual’ s learning style should be
flexible in order to be actively adapted to various learning situations as Ellis (1994，
p.
499) asserted that “ learner training is aimed to help learners explore their learning styles
to cope with different learning tasks, rather than to stimulate them to change them.”

7

According to Reid (1987)，learning styles are considered as variations among learners
using one or more senses to understand, organize and retain experience, which means
leaning styles differ according to various composite o f learners’ abilities in their
learning process. Learning style is a consistent way o f functioning that reflects cultural
behavior patterns and, like other behaviors influenced by cultural experiences, may be
revised as a result o f training or changes in learning experiences. Learning styles are
thus ’’moderately strong habits rather than intractable biological attributesM(Reid, 1987，
p. 100). Also, learning style is defined as “ an individual’s natural, habitual and
preferred way o f absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills”
(Reid, 1987: iix), or the term “ learning style” refers to a person’ s general approach to
learning and problem-solving (Reid, 1995). Reid (1998, p. ix) asserts that “ learning
styles are internally based characteristics, often not perceived or consciously used by
learners, for the intake and comprehension o f new information” . Among the various
definitions o f learning styles, the definition by Reid (1998) is now the most widely
accepted (Peacock,

2001).

The definition

by

Reid

(1998)

seems the most

comprehensive, thus, it is chosen for the current study.

2.1.2 Definitions o f teaching style
It is difficult to define what a teaching style is, as there is as yet no definitive definition
o f teaching styles widely agreed upon by researchers. Besides, it seems that few studies
have investigated the teaching styles o f language teachers, in a consequence; there are
not as many definitions o f teaching styles as the ones o f learning styles.
However, there have been many attempts to define teaching styles that reflect the
development in thinking in language teaching and learning. For example, Gregore
(1979) implies that teaching style consists o f an instructor’ s personal behavior and the
media used to transmit or receive data to or from the learner. In addition to that, an
instructor’ s teaching style in the classroom describes his/ her philosophical beliefs
Brookfield (1988). However, teaching style is defined by Fisher and Fisher (1979，
p.
246) as ua pervasive way o f approaching the learners that might be consistent with
several methods o f teachin g，
，
. This definition emphasizes the importance o f teaching
methods and the ability o f the teacher to select the right approach for the class.
Teaching styles tend to be equated with teaching approaches, as that was the mainstay
o f language teacher training.

8


According to Kaplan and Kies (1993), teaching style consists o f a teacher’ s personal
behaviors and the media used to transmit data or receive it from the learner, which
means teaching style stresses the teacher’s behavior and media use which affect the
delivery o f the instruction. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the progress o f a
learner is somewhat dependent on the teaching style o f his or her teacher.
According to Conti (1989)，teaching style can be described as the overall traits and
qualities that a teacher displays in the classroom and they are consistent for various

situations. Whereas, according to Peacock (2001，
p. 7)，second language teaching styles
are defined as "natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) o f teaching new information and
skills in the classroom” .
There has now been better understanding o f the complexities that influence the way a
teacher teaches in class, a teacher’ s teaching style is considered as a result o f his/ her
past learning and teaching experience, present frame o f mind and body, and future plans
and actions (Connelly & Clandinin, 1998). It is implied that teaching style is high
individualistic. However, Peacock (2001) asserts that teaching styles can be identified,
and this is an assumption that this study adheres to.
It has been proposed that teachers often teach their students the same way they were
taught or they learned (Oxford ,1990; Cheng, 1995) or emulate teachers they admired
(Kinsella, 1995; Jordan, 1997). That means teacher’s teaching style often reflects their
learning style (Oxford, 1990a).
For this study, teaching style is defined as a language teaching and learning theories and
practice that the teachers believe in and subscribe to in their teaching performance.
In the current study, the researcher was interested in finding out what the teaching
styles o f the language teachers at QNTTC are. This is important because teachers’
awareness o f their own teaching style helps them to be more effective and then they
would be flexible and adjust their teaching styles so as to accommodate the diverse
learning styles o f the students in their class.

2.2. Dimensions o f learning styles
Besides a great number o f different definitions o f learning styles, various classifications
o f learning styles have also been conducted. Many researchers suggest that most people
have only six to fourteen strongly preferred learning styles, though over twenty have
been categorized (Reid, 1998; Shipman & Shipman, 1985). In addition, below

9

mentioned a brief description o f the dimensions that seem to be the most significant
ones for ESL/ EFL.
2.2.1. Analytic versus global processing and its likely correlates

2.2.1.1. Field-dependence versus field-independence
Chapelle (1995) indicates the meaning o f fie ld dependence and fie ld independence
expanded to refer to “ the degree o f ability to cognitively reconstruct a situation or
stimulus, with field-independence related to analytic/ visual reconstruction and fie ld -

dependence related to interpersonal reconstruction” (quoted in Oxford and Anderson,
1995，
p. 205).
According to Skehan (1989，
p. I l l ) , “field-dependent individuals are thought to be
person-oriented, interested in other people and sensitive to them” . They are also thought
to be outgoing and gregarious, while field-independent learners tend to be “ more
impersonal and detached, less sensitive and more aloof; they are cerebral and objectorie nted，
，
. According to W itkin and More (1975), field-independent learners perceive
analytically and they enjoy subjects involving abstract and impersonal work. Field-

independent learners tend to have more task orientations with dispassionate analyses
than social and interpersonal orientations and field-dependent learners are likely to
depend on immediate contexts for solving problems and to comply with dominant
properties o f the field.
The autonomous ftinctioning o f field-independent learners enables them to rely on
symbolic representations in their cognition. They favor abstract activities that they are
able to pursue on their own, develop cognitive restructuring skills, and are likely to
have an impersonal orientation. Field-independent learners tend to have more task

orientations with dispassionate analyses than social and interpersonal orientations.
Whereas, the less autonomous functioning o f field-dependent people facilitates them to
possess social and interpersonal orientations with great emotional openness in
communication with others (Abraham, 1985).
The occupational choice o f field-dependent people is oriented typically to the social in
content and with interpersonal relations in which they develop interpersonal
competencies. In contrast, field-independent people have psychologically defined
boundaries between their inner self and their outer self (W itkin, 1979). Segregation o f
the self from the field results in a greater determination o f behavior from the internal
self and a diminished reliance on external sources o f guidance.

10


Abraham notes that ^field-dependent students have been happier in classrooms where
rules are not emphasized, while field-independent students like classrooms where
deductive, rule-oriented learning has been the dominant approach” (1985，quoted in
Oxford and Anderson, 1995，
p. 205). Field-independent learners learn more effectively
step by step, or sequentially, beginning with analyzing facts and proceeding to ideas,
while field-dependent learners learn effectively in context, holistically, intuitively, and
is especially sensitive to human relationships and interactions.
However, Skehan (1989) indicates that field-independence has demonstrated a weak
relationship in regard to language learning success. And according to Chapelle (1995)，
neither field-independence nor field-dependence can guarantee success in L2 learning.

2.2.1.2. Reflection versus impulsivity
This dimension o f learning styles is related to both speed and accuracy o f output.
Oxford and Anderson (1995，
p. 206) state that impulsive students are “ fast and

inaccurate. They are more global as they show quick and uncritical acceptance o f
initially accepted hypotheses” . In turn, reflective students tend to be “ slow and accurate.
They are more analytic as they prefer systematic, analytic investigation o f hypotheses
and are usually accurate in their performance in all skills” .

Impulsive processing involves doing something in the external world with the

information discussing it or explaining it or testing it in some way. Reflective
processing involves examining and manipulating the information introspectively. Thus,
an impulsive learner is someone with more o f a natural tendency toward active
experimentation than toward reflective observation, and conversely for a reflective

learner. Thus, Reflective learners learn more effectively when he or she has time to
consider options before responding (often more accurate language learners), while

impulsive learners learn more effectively when he or she is able to respond immediately
and to take risks (often more fluent language learners). Reflective learners “ tend to be
low and accurate. They are more analytic as they prefer systematic, analytic
investigation o f hypotheses and are usually accurate in their performance in all s k ils ，
’
(Oxford & Anderson, 1995, p. 206).

Impulsive learners study well in situations that enable them to do something physically,
whereas reflective learners learn well in situations that provide them with opportunities
to think about the information being presented. The more opportunities students have to
both participate and reflect in class, the better they w ill learn new material and the
longer they are likely to retain it (Kolb 1984).

11

2.2.1.3. Intuition versus sensing
Sensing involves observing, gathering data through the senses; intuition involves
indirect perception by way o f the subconscious—
— accessing memory, speculating and
imagining. Sensation and intuition are introduced as the two ways in which people tend
to perceive the world. Sensing learners tend to be concrete and methodical, while

intuitive learners tent to be abstract and imaginative. Sensing learners like facts, data,
and experimentation; intuitive learners like variety, dislike repetition and seem to deal
better with

principles, concepts, and theories. Sensing learners do not like

complications, but they seem to be comfortable with detail, whereas, intuitive learners
are bored by detail and welcome complications. Sensing learners are more comfortable
learning and following rules and standard procedures, and they are careful but may be
slow, whereas, intuitive learners are quick but may be careless. In addition, Intuitive

learners tend to be better equipped than sensing learners to accommodate new concepts
and exceptions to rules (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990).

2.2.2. Sensory preferences
2.2.2.1. Visual learners
Visual learners prefer the information which is presented visually֊ ֊ in pictures, diagrams, flo w charts,

time lines, films, and demonstrations—
— rather than in spoken or written words. Visual

learners respond to new information in a visual fashion and they prefer visual, pictorial

and graphic representations o f experiences. The learners o f this type benefit most from
reading and they can learn well by seeing words. Visual learners prefer seeing what
they are learning, thus, they can learn best by learning on their own and taking notes
(Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998).

Visual learners tend to be neat and organized and their learning style preference tends
to most closely match educational environments, and the old adage, "one picture is
worth a thousand words" is true for visual learners.
Oxford and Anderson (1995) point out that visually oriented students like to read and
obtain a great deal o f visual simulation. For them, lectures, conversations, and oral
directions without any visual backup are very confusing and can be anxiety-producing.

2.2.2.2. A uditory learners
Auditory learners learn best from hearing words and from oral explanation. They may
remember information by reading aloud while learning new material. This type o f
learners benefit from hearing audiotapes, lectures, and class discussion. They benefit
from making tapes to listen to, by teaching other students, and by conversing with the

12


teachers. Auditory students, therefore, are comfortable with oral directions and
interactions unsupported by visual means (Oxford & Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998).

2.2.2.3. Kinesthetic learners
Kinesthetic learners have the wisdom o f the body and the ability to control physical
motion. Kinesthetic learners learn best by experience, by involved physically in
classroom experiences. Kinesthetic learners prefer moving round, touching and talking
and using body language. They, therefore, remember information well when they
actively participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the classroom (Oxford &

Anderson, 1995; Reid, 1998).

2.2.2.4. Tactile learners
Tactile learners learn best when they have opportunity to do ""hands-on" experiences
with the materials. That is, working on experiments in a laboratory, handling and
building models, and touching and working with materials provide them with the most
successful learning situations. Writing notes or instructions, and class activities with
physical involvement can help tactile learners understand and remember information
better. According to Oxford and Anderson (1995，
p. 209)，tactile and kinesthetic styles
are referred to "hands-on sensory preference，and they suggest that hands-on students
like a lot o f movements, and enjoy working with tangible objects, collages and other

media. For them, sitting at a desk for very long is uncomfortable. They need frequent
breaks and physical action in games and dramatic activities” .

2.2.3. Group and individual learners
Group

learners

have the capacity

for person-to-person communications and

relationships. They like talking to people and joining into groups. They learn and
remember information more easily when they study with at least one other learner, and
they w ill be more successftil completing work well when they work with others. Group

learners are good at communicating with other people, leading others, and organizing

activities in the classroom. They welcome sharing and comparing their ideas with other
learners and they seem to be best at cooperating with other learners. Group interaction
or the stimulation received from group work helps these types o f learners understand
new material easier and learn better.

Individual learners prefer working on their own and feel comfortable being self-paced
instructions. Individual learners are capable o f spiritual, inner states o f being, selfreflection, and awareness. Learners o f this type learn and remember new material better
and they can make better progress in learning when working by themselves.
1 1

3


Among the number o f leaning styles mentioned above, the researcher preferred to use
the six-part system in the investigation o f learning and teaching styles, which can be
said the most popular and associated with language learning in classes where English is
taught as a foreign language (Cheng, 1995; Hoang Van Hoat, 1998; Park, 1997). And
table 1 gives brief descriptions o f each o f the learning styles.
Learning styles

Definitions

Visual

learns more effectively through the eyes (seeing)

Auditory

learns more effectively through the ears (hearing)

Kinesthetic

learns more effectively through complete body experience

Tactile

learns more effectively through touch (hands-on)

Group

learns through concrete experience, contacts and relationship with others

Individual

learns in individual, independent learning situations

Table 2.1: Overview of six learning styles according to Richards and Lockhart (1994)，
Reid (1998) and Willing (1988)

2.2.4. Summary
A number o f definitions o f learning styles mentioned above are defined by different
researchers in a variety ways. Among those, the researcher prefers the six-part system
called six categories o f learners (Richards & Lockhart, 1994) for the current research.
However, it does not mean that a learner's learning styles are always stable，but they
can be influenced by such different factors as subject matter, learning context, age,
gender, motivation, prior knowledge, cultural background and so on. Besides, Ellis
(1994) implies that it is impossible to say which learning style works best. However, it
is still good for students to know what their learning styles are so that they can respond
most effectively to the material being presented. Besides，a broad understanding o f
learning environments and learning styles w ill enable students to take control o f their

learning and to maximize their potential for learning (Reid, 1998).
In addition, it would be advantageous for each language teacher to take one o f the
learning style assessments to gain insight into his or her students’ learning styles and
his or her own teaching styles. As a result, the teacher can benefit from a comparison
between those to find the best ways o f teaching in the classroom to offer opportunities
for success to all students (Guild, 1994).

14