issn: 2383-0514 (online) © 2016 khate sefid press the ... · learning (hatch & farhady, 1981)....
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 59
The Relationship between Learning Styles and
Willingness to Communicate among EFL Learners
Regarding Gender
Mehrdad Nazarieh (M.A) Kerman Institute of Higher Education, Kerman, Iran
Email: [email protected]
Mohammad Hassan Razmi (M.A) Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Not just one research would answer all the questions aroused in the realm of teaching and
learning (Hatch & Farhady, 1981). This research seeks to extend our current knowledge by
exploring the relationship between a certain set of learning styles (visual, auditory, and
kinesthetic) and willingness to communicate (WTC) among Iranian EFL learners. Responding
to the call for more replication of learning style research and for research in different cultural
context, this research was undertaken in Shahid Bahonar university of Kerman. For this
purpose, Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995), and WTC scale adapted from MacIntyre,
Baker, Clement and Conrod (2001) were used to gather the data. Forty eight EFL learners
participated in this study. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was conducted to assess the
result of the questionnaires. The correlation showed that there was not a significant correlation
between learning styles and WTC. However, this study showed females to be more visual-
oriented than males. Conversely, males were found to be more auditory-oriented than females.
Concerning the kinesthetic style, no significant differences were found between males and
females. Considering WTC and its relationship with males and females there appeared to be
no significant difference among Iranian EFL learners with different genders.
Keywords: Willingness to Communicate (WTC), Learning Style, English as a Foreign
Language (EFL)
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 60
Introduction
Different directions lead to different destinations. Having the desire to reach a certain
destination necessitates a host of factors to be considered. People have different approaches when
they have a specific direction to take (Riding & Rayner, 1998). Entering the realm of teaching
and learning, one would approve of learning styles as a factor among the leading approaches of
the kind. People have different learning styles, and having different styles would make the people
choose different routes to reach an apparently the same goal. Besides, students use different
learning approaches in different contexts (Ramsden, 1988). The common ground for all
situations would be a place where communication is taken place. Communication, as a
sophisticated objective of language, can be regarded as a goal by itself not necessarily as a
means. Willingness to communicate as an affective factor would hold the key and answer
whether people with different learning styles desire different ways of communicating. People
learn in order that they could communicate to reach their goals. The process of learning happens
in different ways based on the styles the learners prefer in different situations. Yet the question is
how the learners use what they have learned in communicating with others. The answer is not
easy to determine. There seem to be many factors influencing the relationship between learning
styles and willingness to communicate. Such a relationship has not been fully investigated. The
present study is in search of a justifiable way to investigate the relationship between learning
styles and willingness to communicate. Furthermore, in this study, the gender of the participants
has been used as a moderator variable both in determining the learning styles preferences and in
the relationship between the two variables, namely learning styles and willingness to
communicate.
Review of Literature
Learning Style
Definition of Learning Style
Different scholars have different definitions and classifications of learning styles. Claxton and
Ralston (1978) defined the term as a learner’s “consistent way of responding and using stimuli in
the context of learning” (p.7). According to Dunn and Dunn (1993), learners are different in
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 61
using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience; these variations can be
described as the learning styles. Keefe (1979) defined learning styles as “ cognitive, affective,
and physiological traits that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact
with, and respond to the learning environment” (p.4). Dun, Beaudry, and Klavas (1989) stated
that “learning style is a biological and developmental set of personal characteristics that make the
same teaching method effective for one and ineffective for others” (p.50). Felder (1996) also
defined learning styles as “the characteristic strengths and preferences in the way individuals take
in and process information” (p.18).
Learning Style Models
According to Keefe (1987), there are three dimensions of learning styles: cognitive (as
information-processing habits), affective (as motivationally-based processes), and physiological
(as biologically-based responses) .
The Myers-briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCalley, 1985) states four dimensions of
learning styles:
1. Sensing vs. intuition
2. Thinking vs. feeling
3. Extroversion vs. introversion
4. Judging vs. perceiving
Kolb (1976, 1984) proposed a learning style model which is based on perceived
information and also processing the perceived information. However, Gregorc’s Mind-style
Model (1979) is based on perceiving the information and ordering the perceived information. By
combining the two ideas, Gregorc (1979) creates four learning style classifications: concrete
sequential, abstract sequential, abstract random, and concrete random.
By integrating Kolb’s model with recent research on right/left brain processing,
McCarthy (1987, 1996) produced the 4MAT System. According to her model, there are four
types of learners: innovative learners, analytic learners, common sense learners, and dynamic
learners.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 62
The focus of this study is on the classification of learning styles proposed by Reid
(1987). According to Reid (1987), perceptual learning style preferences are the perceptual
channels through which the students prefer to learn, so there are five such channels: auditory,
visual, kinesthetic, tactile and interactive (group or individual learning). Visual students prefer
reading and studying charts, because they can learn better by their eyes. Auditory learners prefer
to learn with ears, so listening to lectures or audiotapes can be good for them. Tactile learners
learn better when they can handle, touch, feel, or manipulate objects. Kinesthetic learners learn
better through whole-body activities, such as taking a trip or interacting with others.
Previous Findings
Reid (1987) conducted a research with respect to the learning style preferences of ESL
learners. The overall results of the research indicated that ESL learners strongly preferred
kinesthetic and tactile learning styles when compared to audio and visual. In addition, most
groups showed a negative preference for group learning. Stebbins (1995) replicated Reid’s study
in order to obtain more information about the similarities and differences in learning styles
between ESL learners and Native English Speakers (NESs). He found that kinesthetic and tactile
styles were strongly preferred by ESL students when compared to NESs.
Willing (1988) conducted a research with respect to the learning styles in adult migrant
education. Regarding the analysis of the results, Willing stated that it was impossible to make
“statistically valid cross-comparisons relating a question to more than biographical variable at a
time” (p. 122).
Riazi and Riasati (2005) conducted a research to investigate the language learning style
preferences of Iranian EFL learners, and the degree of teachers’ awareness of them. The results of
the study showed the learning preferences of the students in different areas. The learners
preferred the visual, auditory, global, and extrovert styles. With respect to the degree of teachers’
awareness of their learners’ style preferences, it was revealed that teachers were aware of their
students’ preferences in some cases, but unaware in some others. They concluded that there
needs to be a closer cooperation between teachers and students in some instances.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 63
Willingness to Communicate
Definition of Willingness to Communicate
The term willingness to communicate (WTC), which came from Burgoon’s (1976)
concept of “unwillingness to communicate”, was first used to explain individual differences in
first language communication and it was assumed to be a trait like predisposition, which is stable
over time and across different situations. As Peng (2006) suggested, individuals are found to be
different in their communication tendencies. Some like to speak only when spoken to, while
others are active talkers. Some individuals like to speak with some special interlocutors but may
remain silent with others.
By considering WTC as a trait-like predisposition, we can have various definitions for
it. It was first conceptualized as the probability of engaging in communication when free to do so
(McCroskey & Baer, 1985). It was also defined as the tendency of an individual to begin a
communication when free to do so (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991).
L2 willingness to communicate was defined as a “readiness to enter into discourse at a
particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547).
Thus MacIntyre et al. (1998) suggested that L2 WTC should be considered as the primary
purpose of language instruction and as a conceptual frame work for describing, explaining and
predicting communication behavior in L2. As Dorneyi (2003) suggested, L2 competence is not
considered to be enough. In other words, it is not enough for the learners to be just able to
communicate in L2, but they should also be willing to communicate in L2. Research has
shown that learners’ frequent active engagement in L2 communication is influenced by the
learners’ WTC (Clement et al., 2003; Yashima et al., 2004)
Researchers also make a distinction between WTC inside the classroom, that is when
the teacher asks questions and students are required to answer them, and outside the classroom,
that is when they communicate with their friends (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, &Conrod, 2001;
Yashima et al., 2004).
Willingness to Communicate Models
In early models of WTC (MacIntyre, 1994), two variables could predict WTC; that
is, perceived communication competence and communicative anxiety. In other words, the model
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 64
suggested that a combination of high levels of perceived communication competence with low
levels of anxiety could lead to greater WTC and then more frequent communication in L2 would
take place.
In 1998, MacIntyre et al. proposed a multi layered pyramid model of WTC. This model
made a distinction between stable enduring differences (such as personality traits) and situation
specific influences (such as the desire to communicate with a special person). It suggested that
as the learners move up the pyramid, the learners can have more control over the act of
communicating in L2. The model with six layers has a total of 12 constructs.
The layers from top to bottom are:
Communication behavior (a)
Behavioral intention (b)
Situated antecedents (c)
Motivational propensities (d)
Affective-Cognitive context (e)
Social and individual context (f)
The twelve constructs from top to bottom are:
Use (a)
Willingness to communicate (b)
Desire to communicate with a specific person (c)
State of communicating self-confidence (c)
Interpersonal motivation (d)
Intergroup motivation (d)
Self-confidence (d)
Intergroup attitudes (e)
Social situation (e)
Competence (e)
Intergroup climate (f)
Personality (f)
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 65
Previous Findings
Researchers have examined the effect of two kinds of variables on WTC: that is the
individual variables and situational variables.
Among individual variables, two factors have been found to be important predictors of
WTC, which are perceived communicative competence and communication anxiety (Baker &
MacIntyre, 2000; MacIntyre et al., 2001; McCroskey & Richmond, 1991). Some researchers have
examined the effect of other individual variables such as gender and age (MacIntyre et al., 2002),
attitudes toward the international community (Yashima, 2002) and prior immersion experience
(MacIntyre et al., 2003). All these factors have been found to affect WTC.
Among situational variables, the effect of social contextual variables has been
investigated. Social support, especially from friends, has been found to influence WTC outside
the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 2001). In another study, while comparing French immersion
versus non-immersion programs, WTC has been found to be influenced by learning context
(Baker & MacIntyre, 2000). L2 WTC has been found to be influenced by the quality and
frequency of L2 contact, interacting with each other through the mediation of L2 confidence
(Clement et al., 2003).
In house’s (2004) study, which is about L2 learners’ own perceptions of factors
contributing to WTC, other factors have been found that, might influence WTC in different
contexts. He found out that only when an opportunity appeared which is perceived as suitable for
communication, the learners could actually take part in communication. Some minor factors were
also found to affect WTC, such as perceived politeness, the role of physical locality, the presence
of opposite sex and the topic under discussion.
Cultural factors have also been found to affect learners’ willingness to use the
opportunities to take part in communication (Feris & Tagg, 1996). Asian L2 learners are
considered to be reticent and passive learners (Cheng, 2000), who are unwilling to speak up in
class (Tsui, 1996) and reluctant to work in groups (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996).
Authors Wen and Clement in their article “A Chinese conceptualization of willingness
to communicate in ESL”, attempted something of a cultural anthropology of WTC in Chinese
students (as cited in Peng, 2006). They found that the reason for Chinese students’ reticence was
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 66
rooted in two aspects which control the interpersonal relations: that is another directed self and a
submissive way of learning.
International posture, along with L2 confidence in communication, was found to affect
WTC directly (Yashima, 2002). His study also showed that proficiency could influence
confidence in L2 communication, but the path was not significant.
In Japanese context, it has been found out that students do have the abilities to
communicate in L2, but they lack confidence in L2 communication. Yashima (2002) concluded
that EFL lessons should be designed in a way that they increase the learners’ interest in different
cultures and international activities, to decrease the learners’ anxiety and build confidence in L2
communication
Method
Participants
Since this study’s objective was finding the relationship between EFL students’
learning styles and their willingness to communicate in L2, it was done in an academic setting.
The 48 students participating in this study, including 20 males and 28 females, were EFL
students of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, majoring in English literature and translation
at BA and MA levels.
Materials
Learning Styles Scale
Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995) was used to measure the learning styles of the
learners. It was developed by Andrew D. Cohen, Rebecca L. Oxford, and Julie C. Chi (see
Appendix 2). It consists of 110 items measuring different learning styles. This study aimed to
measure a certain set of learning styles, namely visual, auditory, and kinesthetic ones. For this
purpose the first three parts of the scale including 30 items was used. The participants were asked
to choose their answers from among five choices ranging from 0 for 'never' to 4 for 'always'.
Willingness to Communicate Scale
EFL learners’ willingness to communicate was measured through using the WTC
scale adapted from MacIntyre, Baker, Clement and Conrod (2001) (see Appendix 2). The scale
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 67
consists of 27 items assessing the frequency of times that students will choose to communicate in
their English classrooms. Responses to the items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, at one
end by “almost always willing” and at the other end by “almost never willing”. Higher scores
indicated higher levels of WTC in L2.
Procedure
The two questionnaires, one to measure learning styles and the other to measure
WTC, were given to 48 EFL students of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, and they were
asked to fill in the scales. Having collected the questionnaires, the researchers calculated the
scores of every participant based on the scoring method provided for every scale. Every
individual had two scores, one for learning style, and the other for WTC. It is worth mentioning
that each learning style score included three sub-scores measuring different kinds of learning
styles, namely visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the EFL learners according to gender is shown in Table 1.
Table1. Descriptive information about the gender of the participants.
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 20 41.6
Female 28 58.4
Total 48 100
The relationship between learning styles and WTC
In order to test the relationship between learning styles and WTC, three pairs of
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4) were run using SPSS to
investigate the relationship between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles and WTC
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 68
respectively. The results indicate that there are not positive significant correlations between the
above-mentioned learning styles and WTC.
Table 2. Correlation between visual style and WTC.
Visual style WTC
visual style
Pearson correlation 1 0.228**
Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.120
N 48 48
WTC
Pearson correlation 0.228** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.120 -
N 48 48
** Correlation is not significant.
Table 3. Correlation between auditory style and WTC.
Auditory style WTC
Auditory style
Pearson correlation 1 0.190**
Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.196
N 48 48
WTC
Pearson correlation 0.190** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.196 -
N 48 48
** Correlation is not significant.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 69
Table 4. Correlation between kinesthetic style and WTC.
Kinesthetic style WTC
Kinesthetic style
Pearson correlation 1 0.248**
Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.089
N 48 48
WTC
Pearson correlation 0.248** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.089 -
N 48 48
** Correlation is not significant.
Differences in learning styles and WTC according to gender
To explore whether there were significant gender differences in EFL learners with
different style preferences, three pairs of Independent T-Test analyses were conducted. The
results revealed that there were significant differences between male and female EFL learners
concerning their learning styles preferences. Females showed to be more visual-oriented than
males were (Table 5). This study also showed males to be more auditory-oriented than females
(Table 6). Concerning the kinesthetic style, no significant differences were found between males
and females (see Appendix 1). To explore whether there were significant gender differences in
EFL learners with different WTC scores, an Independent T-test was conducted. The results did
not show significant differences between female and male participants concerning their WTC
(see Appendix 1).
Table 5. T-Test analysis – visual style and gender
Groups N M SD T df F Sig P
Male 20 24.3000 5.81378 -2.253 46 3.909 .029
Female 28 27.5357 4.14981
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 70
Significant (2-tailed)
Table 6. T-Test analysis – auditory style and gender
Groups N M SD T df F Sig P
Male 20 22.8500 5.81378 1.996 46 0.16 .52
Female 28 20.7500 4.14981
Significant (2-tailed)
Discussion
The present study examined the relations between the EFL learners' learning styles and
their degree of WTC. The further analyses also included the gender of the learners. In order to
analyze the first objective of the study, three pairs of Pearson Product-Moment Correlation were
done and it was found out that the correlation coefficients between learning styles, namely,
visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles, and WTC were not positively significant which is an
indicator of the fact that there is not a positive relationship between these two variables (Table 2,
Table3, and Table 4). These findings are in line with those reported by Armstrong (1987), Carbo
and Hodges (1988), and Dunn (1983) While in conflict with the findings of McCroskey and
Richmond (1991) which indicated that there were some weak but significant correlations
between learners' learning styles and their WTC, with the learners with visual and kinesthetic
styles reporting higher degrees of WTC.
In this study, in order to analyze the effect of gender on learning styles, three pairs of
independent T-Test analyses were done and they showed that there were significant differences
between male and female learners concerning their learning style preferences with females being
more of a visual style and males being more of an auditory type (Table 5 and Table 6). Yet, the
results showed no significant differences concerning the kinesthetic style (Table 8). These
findings were in conflict with the findings of Garger and Guild (1984) and Hunt (1981) which
indicated that there were also significant differences between males and females regarding the
kinesthetic style with males showing higher degree of this style. However, the reason for this
conflict may be due to such factors as culture and the kind of environment.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 71
The present study bears the limitations that it characterized by cross-sectional research based on
self-reported answers. Additionally, the subjects were from a single university in Iran, which may
limit the generalizability of this study to other areas and other learners. The small size of the
sample, also, adds to the mentioned problem. Another major limitation of this study lies in the
researchers' dependence upon just the three learning styles and ignoring the other ones which
may be due to limitations of time, measures, and participants.
With regard to the limitations mentioned above, the future studies could be done by
measuring learners' learning styles and their WTC through some qualitative tools such as
interviews, think-aloud protocols, and classroom observations which might provide further
insight into these variables. It would be also worthwhile to examine the research questions
among larger samples and various universities in Iran or elsewhere in order to shed light on the
larger groups of learners worldwide. Furthermore, studies could be done measuring the
relationship of other learning styles and WTC rather than the three styles being measured in this
study, so that their results may confirm or deny the findings of this research.
The findings of this study also have certain practical implications for EFL teachers.
According to findings of this study, since every learner with a different learning style may or may
not be more willing to communicate than other learners with some other learning styles, teachers
should not link a learner's unwillingness to communicate with his/her style, but they could try to
improve the learners' WTC regardless of the style he/she may have.
Conclusion
In addition to making current knowledge and initiatives available to a wider spectrum of
the educational community, future advancement requires that new questions be posed, existing
conceptualizations deepened, and dilemmas identified and addressed (Galbraith & Clatworthy,
1990). In order to reach such a sophisticated goal, teachers should be made aware of the
individual differences and different approaches the learners undertake within the confined walls
of a class. Learning must show itself in the outcome perspectives. Whatever the outcome is, the
communication is needed to epitomize the presence of a learned issue. To prove such an ongoing
case, one should step beyond picking the low hanging fruit and desire confrontation of challenges
to be resolved. Supporting this idea, the present study aimed to consider different learning styles
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 72
in different people and assess its relationship with WTC. This study did not show a significant
relationship between the two variables. Accordingly, if the replication of such studies would
prove it right, one’s lack of willingness to communicate is not due to possessing different
learning styles. Furthermore, other affective factors such as class anxiety, risk taking, shyness, to
name but a few may have a lot to do with learners’ WTC. Besides, this study showed that males
and females have different learning styles. Therefore, curriculum developers and material
designers should provide curriculums and materials that best suit different learners with different
degrees of learning styles preferences and with different genders.
References
Armstrong, C. (1987). On learning style. Clearing House, 61,(pp. 157-161).
Baker, S.C., MacIntyre, P.D. (2000).The role of gender and immersion in communication and
second language orientations. Language Learning, 50 (2), 311–341.
Burgoon, J.K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: development and validation.
Communication Monographs, 43, 60–69.
Carbo, M., & Hodges, H. (1988). Learning styles strategies can help students at risk. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 20(4), (pp. 55-58).
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435–446.
Claxton, C., & Ralston, Y. (1978). Learning styles: Their impact on teaching and
administration. AAHE-ERIC/ Higher Education Research Report Bo. 10 Washington
DC: American association for the study of higher education. pp. 1-74.
Clement, R., Baker, S.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second
language: the effect of context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 22 (2), 190–209.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: language classroom in China. In: Coleman,
H. (Ed.), Society and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 169–206.
Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: advances in
theory, research, and applications. Language Learning,53, 3–32.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 73
Dunn, R. (1983). Now that you know your learning style-How can you make the most of it?
Early Years, 13(6), (pp. 49-54).
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles.
Educational Leadership, 47, 50-58.
Dunn, R. & Dunn, K. (1993). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning
styles:practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Felder, R. M. (1996). Matters of style. ASEE Prism, 6 (4), 18-23
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: problems,
suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (2), 297–320.
Galbraith, P.L. & Clatworthy, N.J. (1990). Beyond Standard Models: Meeting the Challenge of
Modelling. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 21,2,137-163.
Garger, S., & Guild, P. (1984). Learning styles: The crucial differences. Curriculum Review,
23(1), pp. 9-12.
Gregorc, A. F. (1979). Learning styles: differences which the profwssion must address. In C.
Vacca and J. Maegher (Ed.), Reading through content. (pp. 232-235). Storrs, CT: The
University of Connecticut Press.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics.
Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
House, A. (2004). Learner perceptions of willingness to communicate. Master Thesis,
Auckland, New Zealand: The University of Auckland.
Hunt, D.E. (1981). Learning style and the interdependence of practice and theory. Phi Delta
Kappan, 62, p. 647.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), student learning
styles:Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA: National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). The learning style inventory: self-scoring test and interpretation. Boston,
MA: McBer & Company.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 74
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
MacIntyre, P.D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: a causal analysis.
Communication Research Reports, 11, 135–142.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,
social support, and language learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.
MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Donovan, L.A. (2003). Talking in order to learn:
willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 59 (4), 589–607.
MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern
Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
McCarthy, B. (1987). The 4MAT system: teaching to learning styles with right/left mode
techniques. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.
McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: EXCEL.
McCroskey, J.C., & Baer, J.E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: the construct and its
measurement. In: Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Speech
Communication Association, Denver, CO.
McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In: McCroskey, J.C.,
& Daly, J.A. (Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication. Sage, Beverly Hills,
CA, pp. 129–156.
McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: a cognitive view. In:
Booth-Butterfield, M. (Ed.), Communication, Cognition, and Anxiety. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 19–37.
Myers, I. & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: aguide to the development and use of the Myers-
Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.
Peng, J. (2006). Willingness to communicate in a L2 in the EFL classroom: Rich descriptions
from the Chinese university students. Review of Applied Linguistics in China, 3.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 75
Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: situational influences on learning. In R. R. Shmeck
(Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.159-184). New York: Plenum Press.
Reid, J.M (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-
111.
Riazi, A. & Riasati, M.J. (2005). Language learning style preferences: a students case study of
Shiraz EFL institutes. Asian EFL Journal, 9(1), 97-125.
Riding, R. & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton
Publishers .
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In: Bailey, K., Nunan, D.
(Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge:, Cambridge University Press,
pp. 145–167.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult immigrant education. Research Series (Ed. David
Nunan). Australia: National Curriculum Research Center: Adult Migrant Education
Programme.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: the Japanese EFL
context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning
,54, 119–152.
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 76
Appendix 1
Table 7. T-Test analysis – WTC and gender
Groups N M SD t df F Sig P
Male 20 87.8000 17.79592 .039 46 0.002 .965
Female 28 87.6071 16.12070
-Significant
Table 8. T-Test analysis – kinesthetic style and gender
Groups N M SD t df F Sig P
Male 20 24.4000 6.15074 1.843 46 2.297 .072
Female 28 21.3929 5.13044
-Significant
Appendix 2
Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995)
For each item, circle your response, PLEASE:
0 = Never 1 = Rarely 2 = Sometimes 3 = Often 4 = Always
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 77
International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics 2019; 3(2)
Published online March, 2019 (http://www.ijlal.ir)
ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online)
© 2016 Khate Sefid Press
Page | 78