learning style preferences of students in learning

8/14/2019 Learning Style Preferences of Students in Learning

1/5

Learning style preferences of students in learning EnglishBelinda HoAbstractThere are increasing research studies on learning style applications thatshow positive results in elementary, secondary and higher education.Educators begin to feel the importance of identifying the learning stylepreferences of students. In this study, an attempt was made to identifythe learning style preferences of 237 students in learning English through

the use of Willings questionnaire on How do you learn best. Thesubjects included two groups of university year I and four groups ofyear 2 Computer Studies students across five academic years. Resultsshow that most students in each of the six groups were communicativelearners. The fact that the results seem to be generally consistent acrossdifferent years is an interesting phenomenon. This may be a significantindicator for future direction in the design of tasks for the computerstudents in this study or in similar learning contexts as those in thisstudy. Suggestions are given as regards how the students learning stylepreferences can help task design. Pedagogical implications are alsodiscussed.

IntroductionThere are increasing research studies on learning style applications thatshow positive results in elementary, secondary and higher education(Smith 1985:72). Some studies show that identifying a students style andthen giving instructions that match that style contributes to more

effective learning (Claxon and Murrell 1987:iii). For example, Pask'sextensive research on matching and mismatching of material and types oflearners shows that students learn more quickly and effectively where amatch occurs (Ford 1985 120). According to Willing (I 988: I), research53

shows that an effort to accommodate learning styles by choosing suitableteaching styles, methodologies and course organization can result inimproved learner satisfaction and attainment. It has also been shownthat learning style applications lead to significant academic gains (NASSP1979:54). For example, a study of students at Miami-Dade CommunityCollege found that students who were taught in ways that matched withtheir learning style obtained higher reading scores and viewed theireducational experience more positively (Claxon and Murrell 198752).Thus, though there may be many other factors that affect learnerperformance, learning style preference is one factor that needs to beexamined.Many educational institutions are moving towards more emphasis

on learning style preferences. Instruments for diagnosing learning stylesare now available for use and training. The purpose of identifyingstudents learning style preferences is to help the teachers design tasksthat can facilitate students learning. This study aims at identifying thelearning style preferences of students at the beginning of twocommunication skill courses on Computer Studies. The learning stylepreferences of the students in the two different communication skillcourses on Computer Studies at two different levels (i.e. year one andyear two) and in different academic years (1994- 1999) will be compared54to see if a general trend can be identified, which may serve as asignificant indicator for the general direction to take in task design. Thispaper will then suggest and illustrate how the findings can help taskdesign. Pedagogical implications will also be discussed.

Research methodSubjectsThe subjects of this study are two groups of year 1 (n = 33 & 58) and

four groups of year 2 (n = 56, 38, 37 & 15) Computer Studies studentsacross five years.InstrumentIn this study, an adapted1 version of Willings (1988: 106) questionnaireon How do you learn best (See Appendix) was given out to thesubjects to identify the learner types that the students preferred at the

beginning of the Communication Skills courses. The purpose is toidentify the general learning style preferences of each group of studentsand illustrate how the findings can help to design the learning tasks ofthe course. Willings (1988: 106) questionnaire was chosen as theinstrument because it was a rather updated one among the very fewquestionnaires (Kolb 1976) that examined learner types, which were ofgreat practical usefulness to teachers (Willing 1988:67). Compared55

with other learning style constructs such as being field dependent andfield independent (Witkin 1976) reflective versus impulsive (Kagan

1965), or deep-elaborative and shallow-reiterative (Schmeck 1983),which are more general and educationally oriented, the learner typesidentified by Willing and the learning methods mentioned in thequestionnaire are more comprehensive, applicable and relevant tolanguage learning contexts.The four types of learners identified by Willing (I 988) throughthis questionnaire were concrete learners, analytical learners,communicative learners and teacher-oriented learners. Nunan (1991:170) succinctly sums up the definition of these four types of learnerswith reference to the kind of tasks they prefer:Type I: Concrete learners


2/5

These learners tend to l ike games, pictures, films, video, usingcassettes, talking in pairs and practising English outside class.Type 2: Analytical learnersThese learners like studying grammar, studying English books andreading newspapers, studying alone, finding their own mistakesand working on problems set by the teacher.Type 3: Communicative learners56

These students like to learn by watching, listening to nativespeakers, talking to friends in English and watching television inEnglish, using English out of class in shops, trains, etc., learningnew words by hearing them, and learning by conversations.Type 4: Teacher-oriented learnersThese learners prefer the teacher to explain everything, like tohave their own textbooks, to write everything in a notebook, tostudy grammar, learn by reading, and learn new words by seeingthem.For reasons of the availability and usefulness of the above learner types,Willings (I 988) framework was chosen as a reference for learning styledifferences in this study.The questionnaire consists of 30 questions asking the studentshow they preferred to learn English. Students were asked to indicatetheir preferences on a 4-point scale.Data analysisThe questions on the questionnaire were grouped into four categories

based on the learning style preferences of the four learner typesidentified by Willing (I 988). The data was analyzed by adding up thescores of the subjects obtained under each category of questions. Thus,each subject had four scores. The score that was the highest among thefour scores obtained indicated what type of learner a subject belongedto. In cases where the subjects obtained two or more tied scores, theywere not assigned to any learner type. They were called the mixedtype.

ResultsThe learner types preferred by each group of students are presented inthe Table below:

Table Total number of each type of learner in each ComputerStudies course in each yearTypes oflearnersNo. in Year I No. in Year 2 course/ courseI1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99Concrete I 8 16 I II 6 3 0Learner 1 (24.2%) (27.6%) j (I 9.6%) / (I 5.8%) 1 (8. I%) (0.0%) 1Analytical j 2 3 16 12 12 2 /learner / (6. I%) (5.2%) / (10.7%) / (5.3%) (5.4%) (I 3.3%) jCommunic- I4ative (42.2%) (:k.2%) (ilO%) (::.2%) (::.9%) (:O.O%)LearnerAuthorityoriented(42.1%) (;3.8%) (76. I%) (:8.4%) (:.2%) (426.7%)learnerMixed type 5 IO I I IO 5 3(I 5.2%) (I 7.2%) (19.6%) (26.3%) (I 3.5%) (20.0%)Total Number 33 58 56 38 37 I558

It can be seen from the above table that in each group of each course ineach year, most students are communicative learners. This result isconsistent across year I and year 2 students in five academic years.

DiscussionThe reason for students preferences may be traced back to the Englishlearning experiences of the students in secondary school. In secondaryschools in Hong Kong, because the education system is examinationoriented,most students, especially those in higher forms (Form 6 and 7),learn English through intensive drills on past or sample examinationpapers. Such an experience is vividly described by a first year universitystudent in an interview in Nunan's (1997:71) study on strategy training inthe language classroom. The student stated:In my experience, my secondary teacher only sent out thepapers to us, to only do the exercise without teachinganything. They are just following the textbook and just readout again and again without teaching grammar or the styleof composition or the normal conversation in English so I

think my secondary school English lesson is very boring.As observed by Littlewood and Liu (1996:7) in their investigation intothe students English learning experience in Forms 6 and 7, studentswho enter universities in Hong Kong have had limited experience ofusing spoken English in active, questioning roles both in and outsideclass. When they were in Forms 6 and 7, they spent most of their59

English class time listening to the teacher. Thus, students passivespeech role in secondary school contrasts sharply with their preferencefor an active speech role; they liked group discussion most in Forms 6and 7 English classes. By the time these students become university


3/5

students, they exhibit an orientation to active and communicativemodes of learning English and their desire for an active speech role inclass does not diminish after gaining entry to university; they adopt avery positive attitude towards fluency development, e.g. throughlistening, speaking, group and pair work (Littlewood and Liu 1996:8).Another reason may be that in the writers personal contacts withthese students, most of them expressed that they felt uncomfortableabout their non-native-like pronunciation and inaccurate English and they

wished to be able to speak like native speakers. Thus, they liked to learnby talking and listening to foreigners to improve the quality of theirspeech.

ImplicationsThe implications of the findings will be discussed in terms of task design,teaching and learning.60

lmplications for task designAs the learning style preferences identified by a majority of the

computer studies students across two year levels (i.e. year I and year 2)and 5 academic years are consistent it seems that the result is areasonably safe indicator for the general direction to take in designingthe tasks for the computer studies students. As many research findings(Smith 1985, Claxon and Murrell 1987, Ford 1985, Willing 1988, Nassp1979) suggest that learning methods that match with learning stylepreferences of students lead to academic gains, more communicativetasks may need to be included in the course as most learners prefer to

learn in a communicative way. How communicative tasks can bedesigned for the course is explained below.The learning methods preferred by the communicative learners aslisted in Willings, (I 988) questionnaire are as follows:to learn by watching and listening to foreignersto learn by speaking in English with foreigners when there is achanceto learn by talking to friends in Englishto learn by conversationsto learn by watching TV in Englishto learn English by hearing these words61

Thus, when designing communicative tasks for the classroom, the coursedesigner may base on the principles underlining the above methods(such as learning through interactions and media aids) listed in Willings(I 988) questionnaire and take into consideration inclusion of groupdiscussions and teacher student conferences as students prefer to talkwith classmates and their teachers. English films and video programmesare also effective means to help students listen to foreigners speakEnglish.It is, however, important to note that by focusing oncommunicative tasks, it does not mean that tasks that other learnertypes prefer should be excluded from the course. Tasks that suit otherlearner types also need to be included in the course to meet their needs.In fact, there seems to be a general consensus in the literature that it isbetter to include learning tasks that suit all types of learners in a course.Kinsella (1996:30) suggests that curricula should be designed with anequitable range of activities so that all learners can feel comfortable aslearners and be trained to become confident to perform new tasks andbe in new groupings. Similarly, some educators think that it is desirableto expose learners for short periods of time to instructions, approaches,environments and teaching methods which do not match the learnerslearning style preferences. This helps learners to develop their

62adaptability to environments beyond their control and may also fostertheir creativity in learning and problem-solving (Smith 198:51). Claxtonand Murrell (1987:73) think that experiences that are inconsistent withstudents styles can stretch students and help them develop newlearning skills and aspects of the self necessary for healthy adultfunctioning..What is most important is to keep the proportion of the tasksthat fit different learner types right in the course. The proportion of thetasks can be adjusted according to the learning style preferences of thestudents as identified through the questionnaire.An example on how to adjust the amount and kinds of tasks in acourse to match the learning style preferences of the students is givenbelow. For example, in a communication skills course in which the

students learn to conduct a systems interview and write a proposal usingintegrated language skills, the teacher could basically include in thecourse at least one task that suits each learning style so that the learners

of each learner type could at least have one task that matches theirlearning style. For example, to suit the learning style preference of theconcrete learners, the teacher could show a video programme on howto write a proposal to the students. To meet the needs of the analyticallearners, the students could be asked to analyze a sample proposal for63

its structure and language. To facilitate the learning of thecommunicative learners, the students could be paired up into a team ofconsultants and a team of clients to conduct a systems interview. Tohelp the authority-oriented learners, the teacher could give lectures onhow to conduct a systems interview and how to write a proposal.


4/5

Then, the proportion of the task types could be adjustedaccording to the learning style preferences of the students as identifiedthrough the questionnaire. In this particular study, as a majority oflearners in the course chose to be communicative learners, the teachercould deliberately add more communicative tasks to the course by, forexample, asking the consultant team and the client team to give oralfeedback on each others performance first, before the teacher gavefeedback to each team on their performance in the systems interview. If

the greatest number of students chose to learn through thecommunicative method, the greatest number of tasks designed for thecourse should be communicative tasks. If the second type of learningstyle preferred by the students in this study was the concrete style, thesecond greatest number of tasks designed for the course should beconcrete tasks. In similar ways, the proportion of the tasks that matchedeach learning style could thus be adjusted according to the learning stylepreferences of the students as identified through the questionnaire.64As Nunan (1991 : 170) commented, though, it is not possible inmany contexts to constitute a language class based on learner types, it isworthwhile using questionnaires or surveys to find out the strategypreferences of ones learners. It is important to identify the learner typesof the class at the beginning of every course so that the proportion ofthe tasks designed for the course can be adjusted. In other words, theresults may also help the course designer to decide on the amount andkind of specific types of tasks to be developed for a particular year.

It is also important to compare the learning style preferences ofthe students across different years, as the result, if consistent acrossyears, will become a helpful indicator for the general direction to take intask design for communication skills courses in this discipline.lmolications for teachingGathering data on students learning style can strengthen a teachersability to identify students who learn comfortably through the types oftasks designed for the course. When the teacher has identified thestudents who deserve special attention and effort from him or her, he orshe can make needed changes in instruction to help the students.To help learners learn better when being assigned activities thatdo not match their learner type, the teacher needs to make clear theobjective of each learning task, especially those with which learners of65some learner types are unfamiliar. Detailed instructions as regards howthe task should be performed should also be given so as to reducelearner misunderstanding, dissatisfaction and opposition. (Peacock

1998:245).lmplications for learningInventories of learning style and other processes can also be used tohelp make students aware of their own preferences and strengths(Claxton and Murrell 1987:vi). It is a promising strategy to help studentsunderstand more about their own preferences for learning and tosuggest ways for them to cope more effectively in courses taught in waysconsistent or inconsistent with their style. By doing so, students canlearn to take increasing charge of their own learning and be more activein the process (Claxton and Murrell 1987:iv).

Suggestions for further researchIn order to facilitate students learning further, it is better for theteacher tocollect more information from the students throughinterviews or focus group discussions to identify the reasons for theirpreferences and the kinds of tasks that they preferred. Though it isbeyond the scope of this study to carry out this research procedure, it is

hoped that by doing so in future studies, more light will be thrown onwhy most students preferred to be communicative learners and what66

kind of tasks they would like to perform in the course. It may also beinteresting to conduct further research studies to investigate theeffectiveness of implementation of the task-proportion adjustmentmethod as suggested in this paper on students learning.This same study can also be conducted in other English forSpecific (ESP) courses in other disciplines in the university. For example,an attempt has been made to identify the learning style preferences ofone group of year one students (n=35) in Social and PublicAdministration in the same university using Willings (I 988)questionnaire. Results indicate that a majority of the students alsopreferred to be communicative learners. This sample, however, is toosmall to be able to show the general learning style preferences of thestudents in this discipline. It is hoped that further research studies will be

conducted with larger samples of students in Public and SocialAdministration to see if the results will also be consistent acrossdifferent year levels and different academic years, and thus, if an indicatorfor the general direction to take can be identified.The fact that a majority of both the Computer Studies studentsand the Public and Social Administration students preferred to becommunicative learners is in fact an interesting phenomenon that isworth further investigation. Thus, the same study can also be conducted67

in all other ESP courses across a variety of disciplines in the university orin different institutions in Hong Kong or even in other places with similarlearning contexts. If a majority of students in other ESP courses also


5/5

prefer to be communicative learners, then, the implications will be great,for such a finding may be a very significant indicator for the generaldirection to take in terms of ESP task design in the university or even inHong Kong or other similar learning contexts. The implication may be tofocus more on oral and speaking tasks in ESP at the tertiary level notonly to help to meet the expectations of the students but also to helpthem benefit pedagogically from the tasks.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of using of an instrument foridentifying learning style preferences to help task design. It also suggestsidentifying the students learning style preferences at the beginning ofeach course to help the teacher to make adjustments in the proportionof task types to facilitate the learning of the students. It is also advisableto compare the learning style preferences of the students studying thesame subject across academic years to see if an indicator for the generaldirection to take can be identified. If the students learning stylepreferences are consistent across years, as those in the computerstudies courses in this study, a clear direction and fairly reliable basis for68task design can be identified. The teachers can comfortably build theircourse materials on this basis, only making minor adjustments whenevernecessary. This facilitates task design. With the help of further studies, itis hoped that more light will be thrown into the areas underinvestigation and greater success will be brought to the teachersteaching and the students learning.

NoteThe questionnaire was originally designed for adult migrants inAustralia. The wordings of some questions in the originalquestionnaire were changed to suit the Hong Kong context butthe meaning of the questions remained the same. For example,Question 25 in the original questionnaire is: At home, I like tolearn by watching TV in English. In the adapted version, thequestion was changed into At home, if I have choice, I would liketo learn by watching TV in English because in most Chinesefamilies, usually the parents choose to watch the Chinese channelson the TV and they usually have the power of choice in the family.

ReferencesClaxon, C.S. and Murrell, P.H. (1987). Learning Styles: lmplications forimproving Educational Practices. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education ReportNo. 4. Washington D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.Ford, N. June (I 985). Styles and strategies of processing information:

Implications for professional education, Education for Information 3:115-32.Ho, B. (1998). How they think they learn English best Paper presentedat the RELC Seminar 1999 in Singapore.Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection, lmpulsivity and reading ability in primarygrade children. Child Development 36: 609-28.69

Kinsella, K. (1996). Designing group work that supports and enhancesdiverse classroom work styles, TESO Journal Autumn, 30.

learning style preferences of students in learning

Documents