A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for Professional Development

A STUDY OF LEARNING STYLES OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN

ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSES

AT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

SUBMITTED TO

ASST. PROF. DR. ML. JIRAPA ABHAKORN

BY

PRAPHAT SIRIVONGRANGSAN

A RESEARCH PAPER FOR EPD 9000 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

(ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT)

SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

2014

ii

ABSTRACT

Title of Dissertation A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for

Professional Development (EPD) Classes at National Institute of

Development Administration (NIDA)

Author Praphat Sirivongrangsan

Degree Master of Arts Program in English for Professional Development

Year 2014

Learning Styles are closely related to students’ academic achievement and several

environmental factors such as gender, age, field of study, and occupation. By realizing their

own learning styles, students can choose strategies to improve academic outcomes. Second

or foreign language acquisition is one of the most difficult learning environment one can

experience in a classroom setting. This study looked into the relationship between learning

styles and academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation of students

studying at NIDA for the Master’s Degree in EPD Program. This study employed a mixed

methodological approach including both quantitative and qualitative methods centered

around the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) including questionnaires and interviews.

The results showed that the majority of the students preferred Accommodating style

(59.09%) and Diverging style (34.09%). Only three persons out of 44 samples preferred

Assimilating or Converging. Findings from chi-square tests indicated that there were

significant correlations of learning styles and academic performance, gender, age, field of

study, and occupation. Most students preferred classroom activities such as open-ended

problems, student presentations, design projects, subjective exams, and simulations. They

also like to solve homework problems, conduct computer simulations, enjoy field trips,

making individuals’ reports, and demonstrating what they knew. Students and educators

would benefit from this study through a better understanding of factors affecting academic

performance and the adaptation of learning and teaching strategies.

Key Words: Learning Styles, Second Language Acquisition, Academic Achievements, Kolb

Learning Style Inventory, Chi-Square Test

iii

บทคั�ดย่�อ

ชื่��อวิ�ทยานิ�พธ์ การศึ�กษาร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ของนิ�กศึ�กษา หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการพ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พ คณะภาษาแลัะการสู��อสูาร สูถาบ�นิบ�ณฑิ�ตพ�ฒนิบร�หารศึาสูตร

ชื่��อผู้��เข�ยนิ นิายประพ�ชื่ร ศึ�ร�วิงศึ ร�งสูรรชื่��อปร�ญญาศึ�ลัปศึาสูตร มหาบ�ณฑิ�ต หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการ

พ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พป-การศึ�กษาภาคเร�ยนิท�� 2/2556

การวิ�จั�ยนิ�/ศึ�กษาร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ท��ม�ต0อควิามสู1าเร2จัในิการเร�ยนิแลัะควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ระหวิ0างร�ปแบบของการเร�ยนิร� �ก�บ เพศึ อาย4 สูาขาวิ�ชื่า แลัะอาชื่�พ กลั40มต�วิอย0างจั1านิวินิ 44 คนิ เป5นินิ�กศึ�กษาระดั�บปร�ญญาโท หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการพ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พ สูถาบ�นิบ�ณฑิ�ตพ�ฒนิบร�หารศึาสูตร เคร��องม�อท��ใชื่�เป5นิแบบวิ�ดัร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ตามแนิวิค�ดัของเดัวิ�ดั คอลั บ (David Kolb) ซึ�งแยกร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ออกเป5นิ 4

แบบ ค�อ แบบอเนิกนิ�ย (Diverger) แบบดั�ดัซึ�ม (Assimilator) แบบเอกนิ�ย(Converger) แลัะแบบปร�บปร4ง(Accommodator) แลัะใชื่�การสู�มภาษณ แลัะเข�ยนิบ�นิท�กจัากต�วิอย0าง 4 คนิท��เลั�อกจัากกลั40มต�วิอย0างข�างต�นิ ผู้ลัการศึ�กษาพบวิ0านิ�กศึ�กษาม�ร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ท��กระจั4กต�วิอย�0สูองร�ปแบบค�อ ร�ปแบบปร�บปร4งมากท��สู4ดัค�อร�อยลัะ 59.09% แลัะรองลังมาเป5นิร�ปแบบอเนิกนิ�ยค�อร�อยลัะ 34.09% สู0วินิควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ของร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ต0อผู้ลัการเร�ยนิ เพศึ อาย4 สูาขาวิ�ชื่า แลัะอาชื่�พ เคร��องม�อท��ใชื่�ค�อไคสูแควิร (Chi-

square) การทดัสูอบม�ควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ก�นิอย0างม�นิ�ยสู1าค�ญ ท�� .05 ผู้��วิ�จั�ยเชื่��อวิ0า

iv

ผู้ลัการศึ�กษาคร�/งนิ�/ไดั�ให�แนิวิค�ดัดั�านิการออกแบบหลั�กสู�ตรการเร�ยนิการสูอนิภาษาอ�งกฤษไดั�ดั� โดัยเนิ�นิควิามค�ดัเชื่�งร�ปธ์รรม การทดัลัองท��ให�ประสูบการณ จัร�ง แลัะควิามหลัากหลัายในิการใชื่�ควิามค�ดัของนิ�กเร�ยนิเป5นิสู1าค�ญ

ค1าสู1าค�ญ: ร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �, เดัวิ�ดั คอลั บ, ไคสูแควิร , การเร�ยนิการสูอนิภาษาอ�งกฤษ, ควิามสู1าเร2จัในิการเร�ยนิ

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research paper is the sign of the end of my journey in fulfilling a major part of

requirement for my Master’s Degree at NIDA. I own a debt of gratitude to many persons

during my struggle for knowledge, and I need to mention them here. First and foremost, I

would like to express my gratitude to Assistant Professor Jirapa Abhakorn for her kind and

persistent advice in her role as my supervisor and helping me throughout this research task.

Her constructive comments and encouragement have been invaluable and inspired me to do

the best I can.

Additionally, I wish to mention the following faculty members of Graduate Language

and Communication for their great effort in teaching me: Assist. Professor Saksit

Saengboon for World Englishes and Research Methods, Assist. Professor Kasma

Suwanarak for Integrated Reading and Writing and English for Business Communication,

Assist. Professor Ketkanda Jaturongkachoke for Grammar for Professional Context,

Associate Professor Varasiri Sagaravasi for English for Human and Social Services, Assist.

Professor Compol Sawanboonsatic for Professional Writing, Assist. Professor Yu-Hsiu

(Hugo) Lee for English for Media and Technology, Assist. Professor Ora-Ong Chakorn for

Theory and Practice in Translation, and, again, Assist. Professor Jirapa Abhakorn for

Listening and Speaking in Workplaces, and English for Academic Professions. I am

eternally grateful and proud to be their students.

I also would like to thank Dr. Narathip Thumwongsa for teaching me a practical 3-

hour course in information retrieval technique of searching the internet, which proved

helpful in doing this research.

Indeed, I would not have been able to complete this paper without the help of students

who filled in the questionnaires and did the interviews. I am in their debts.

Furthermore, I would like to thank Ajarn Andrew James West for proofreading this

paper, providing the clear language of a native English speaker.

Finally, my special thanks go to my family for their support and understanding so that

I could concentrate on my study.

Praphat Sirivongrangsan

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

LIST OF TABLES VII

LIST OF FIGURES VIII

LIST OF ACRONYMS IX

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research Background 1

1.2 Rationale of Research 2

1.3 Research Objective 2

1.4 Significance of the Research 3

1.5 Scope of the Study 3

1.6 Research Hypothesis 4

1.7 Organization of the Research 4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Background of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Learning

Styles 5

2.3 Definition of Learning Styles 6

2.4 Classifications of Learning Styles 6

2.5 Review of Previous Research 9

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 11

3.1 Introduction 11

3.2 Research Questions 11

3.3 Research Method 11

3.4 Participants 12

3.5 Procedure for Developing Instruments 12

vii

3.6 Procedures for Scoring and Analyzing 13

3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research 14

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 16

4.1 Introduction 16

4.2 Quantitative Results 16

4.3 Qualitative Results 23

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 25

5.1 Introduction 25

5.2 Discussion of Research Question 1 25

5.3 Discussion on Research Question 2 26

5.4 Discussion on the Third Research Question 27

5.5 Discussion of the Hypothesis 27

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY 31

APPENDICES 34

Appendix A: Questionnaire 35

Appendix B: Interview Questions 37

Appendix C: Data from the Questionnaire 38

Appendix D: Data Analysis 53

Appendix E: Interview Transcript 55

Appendix F: Table of Chi-Square Probabilities 59

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1 Mean of Four Dimensions 16

2 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles 17

3 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Academic Achievement 18

4 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Gender 19

5 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Age 20

6 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Fields of Study 21

7 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Occupation 22

8 Ranking the Chi-Square Values among the Findings 23

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1 A Four-Stage Hypothetical Learning Cycle 8

2 The Learning Style Grid on Fields of Study 10

3 Learning Style Type Grid by Kolb (1976) 17

x

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AC Abstract Conceptualization

ACC Accommodating

AE Active Experimentation

AEC Asean Economic Community

ASS Assimilating

C Converging

CE Concrete Experience

D Diverging

df Degree of Freedom in Chi-Square

ELM Experiential Learning Model

EPD English for Professional Development

GPA Grade Point Average

KLSI Kolb Learning Style Inventory

L2 Second Language

LSI Learning Style Inventory

NIDA National Institute of Development Administration

p Possibility in Chi-Square

RO Reflective Observation

SLA Second Language Acquisition

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

It is commonly known that only a comparatively few adult second language

(L2) learners can attain a native speaker level, and that not all child L2 beginners will

be equally successful in the long term (Hulstijin, 2007). For several decades,

researchers have tried to explain these learning phenomena by investigating a wide

range of factors including mental and physical mechanisms in the brain/mind. One of

the major questions raised by researchers concerns how learning styles affect

outcomes in second language acquisition (SLA). Learning styles closely relates to

SLA due to the fact they are phenomena of mind. Learning styles are an individual’s

natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new

information and skills (Reid, 1995). In the early 70s, scholars began to explore

influential factors from different academic backgrounds in order to explain the

fundamental issues in SLA. During the past three decades, linguists, psychologists,

and educationalists have identified 21 models of learning styles in relation to L2

learning (Reid, 1995). The conclusion, thus far, have led to further questions with

respect to the relative weight of various socio-psychological factors (e.g. learning

context, quantity and quality of input; and leaner attributes, e.g., attitudes, motivation,

aptitude) (Hulstijn, 2007). Researchers have explored this vast area of study, raising

the importance of this field of study. However, only few publications are available in

the literatures that discuss learning styles with reference to academic achievement of

L2 learners in Master’s Degree programs in Thailand. In this paper, the researcher

studies the learning styles of students enrolled in the Master of Arts Degree in English

for Professional Development (EPD) courses at National Institute of Development

Administration (NIDA). The study focusses on Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory

(KLSI) as a research instrument, and the relationships of learning styles and students’

academic performances. Also, the researcher studies the relationship between learning

styles and the environmental factors such as age, gender, field of study, and

occupation of the subjects.

2

1.2 Rationale of Research

The Graduate School of Language and Communication at NIDA offers a

Master’s Degree in EPD to develop the English communication proficiency of the

Thai community in preparation to meet the challenges resulted from Thailand’s

imminent integration as part of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in 2015. This

program consists of many intermediate to advanced courses in listening, speaking,

reading, and writing to develop students’ English proficiency. These comprehensive

courses are useful for career development and, as a result, attract people in large

numbers from the Thai community. Students with different backgrounds apply for the

courses. The students are differed in their English proficiency level, gender, age, field

of study, and occupation and despite the school administering an admission exam,

there remains a high level of withdraws , with ten out of every forty-four students

leaving the school after only the first term. Therefore, it is a challenge for both

educators and students to find an effective means to improve the situation other than

simply screening out the lower-achieving students. One-way to approach the problem

is to rely on teaching methods and classroom activities that build optimal teaching and

learning performance. To implement an effective approach, the learning styles of

students need to be determined so that educational and research tools and strategies

can be designed.

Among the numerous theories of learning, David A. Kolb (1971) developed a

theory of experimental learning that proved useful in many areas including

educational strategies and career development. In this theory, Kolb created the

learning style inventory (LSI) as a tool to classify students’ learning styles. From that

time, Kolb’s LSI (KLSI) emerged as the essential instrument in many academic fields

as it helped determine the uniqueness, complexity, and variability of individual

approaches to learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005: 8).

1.3 Research Objective

3

This study aims to understand the relationship between learning styles and SLA

by looking at academic achievement. It also investigates the influence of gender, age,

field of study, and occupation on learning styles. To be more specific, this research

adopts the following objectives:

1.3.1 To determine the characteristics of learning styles among the students in

two EPD classes.

1.3.2 To examine if there were the correlations between learning styles and

their academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation among the

students in two EPD classes.

1.3.3 To understand the perceptions of a few selected students from the two

EPD classes concerning their learning styles.

1.4 Significance of the Research

The literature concerning learning styles indicates that some individuals

demonstrate a quick learning absorption of subject matter when the pedagogical

approach utilized in instruction caters to the students’ learning style inclination

(Felder & Silverman, 1988; Garcia, Schiaffino & Amandi, 2008; Honey & Mumford,

1992; Kolb, 1984; Litzinger & Osif, 1993). This current research may be useful in

that it could achieve the following outcomes:

1. The finding of this research would improve the understanding of

experimental learning theory, linked to practice in the classroom, resulting in

an improved overall academic performance among EPD students.

2. Entrance examiners may select EPD students due to a better understanding

of individuals through looking into the backgrounds, saving resources and

disappointments of those who had been admitted inappropriately.

3. This paper highlights areas for future research on SLA in particular in the

area of dynamic interactions between teachers and students.

1.5 Scope of the Study

4

This research uses KLSI to determine learning styles of 50 students from two

NIDA EPD classes. The study uses a statistical quantitative approach to determine the

relationships of students’ learning styles and academic performance. In addition, it

investigates the correlation of students’ learning styles compared to gender, age, field

of study, and occupation. This paper classifies subjects by gender; classifies subjects

into four categories of age 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60; classifies subjects by field

of study into language, education, service, and others; and classifies subjects by

occupation into language, education, science, and others.

1.6 Research Hypothesis

The hypotheses formulated for the study are as follows:

1. The students in the two EPD classes have the characteristics of learning

styles fairly distributed among all learning types.

2. The learning styles of the students in these classes correspond to the fields of

study as suggested by Kolb’s learning style grid on Fields of Study.

3. There are correlations between the EPD students’ learning styles and their

academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation.

1.7 Organization of the Research

This paper is organized into six chapters. After this introduction, Chapter 2

examines the extent literature addressing the research questions of this thesis. It also

provides the theoretical concepts of the fields required to support the arguments

presented in this paper. This paper, then, reviews the work of previous researchers in

order to identify a gap in the research raises and justifies the research questions in the

next chapter.

Chapter 3 portrays the research methodology adopted in the study. Following

introductory statements giving an overview of the chapter, research questions are

established based on the research objective. In turn, the reasoning for the adoption of

a mixed method, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches, is discussed.

5

Subsequently, details of participants, procedure for developing instruments, and

procedure for scoring and analyzing the data are discussed to corroborate the designed

process. Significantly, issues of reliability and validity are provided at the end of this

chapter.

Chapter 4 concludes the findings from an analysis of the research data based on

the use of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.

Chapter 5 includes a detailed interpretation of the findings in relation to both

research questions and previous relevant research findings.

In the final chapter, Chapter 6, a summarization of the study with a focus on key

findings draws the conclusion of this study. This chapter ends with an outline of this

study’s limitations and suggestions for further research.

6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This literature review contained five sections. After the introduction, section 2.2

provides background of SLA related to learning styles. The third section defines

learning styles as related to SLA. Next, in section four learning styles are divided into

four types according to KLSI. The fifth and final section focuses on previous studies

on SLA, KLSI, and factors affecting them.

2.2 Background of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and

Learning Styles

SLA represents all languages that learners learn after their first or native

language. In general, it refers to the scientific discipline devoted to studying the

process of acquiring a second language. In the past two decades, with the

collaboration of many researchers in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and

education, researchers in SLA have shifted the view of transferring knowledge from

the traditional way of “How to Teach” to a new way of “How to Learn”. This “How

to Learn” method focused on factors related to learners themselves. Learning styles

became the emphasis for researchers in SLA. Students and educators in SLA needed

to know the learning styles of students in order to implement effective learning and

teaching strategies. This study explores the learning styles of students from different

backgrounds so that strategies were implemented with a proper awareness of factors

affecting the learning outcomes. Moreover, Saengboon (2013) concluded that the

success of learning among L2 students was not based on the teachers themselves;

rather it was based on the learners and the learning process. This conclusion

strengthened the view that learning strategies and styles were important factors in

students’ academic success. Similarly, students were more inclined to use social and

practical learning strategies. The learners and the learning process, then, became the

central issue among L2 learners as it would benefit them and to add practical learning

7

environment and their learning process (Suwanarak, 2012).

Many studies on L2 learning have found out that social and practical classroom

activities were important to students’ learning process. For instant, Abhakorn (2004)

concluded that the students in a MBA program at NIDA preferred Extraversion,

Sensing, Thinking, and Judging to Introversion, Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving.

She also urged that language learners were diverse in learning styles and that the

social and practical types of learning activities contributed to the learning success.

2.3 Definition of Learning Styles

Learning styles are characteristics of individuals related to how they perceive

and process information, and represent unintentional or automatic responses. Learning

styles are related to all types of learning including the acquisition of English as a

second language. Learning styles promote learning strategies in the achievement of

L2 learning in the classroom (Suwanarak, 2012: 3). Learning strategies are actions

chosen by students to facilitate learning to achieve the best possible learning outcome.

Students need to know their own learning styles in order to choose effectively their

learning strategies. In fact, the difference between learning styles and learning

strategies was the level of intentionality and awareness (Spolsky quoted in Bailey,

2000:116-117). Furthermore, Bailey (2000:115) stated that recent research in the field

of L2 acquisition have increasingly examined a multitude of variables affecting

foreign language achievement. Moreover, the study of learning styles and the SLA

had become an increasingly interesting subject as many students appeared to have

difficulty adapting their cognitive set to study foreign languages, and understanding of

their learning styles appeared to play an important role in finding a solution to this

problem.

2.4 Classifications of Learning Styles

Many scholars have simplified and categorized individual approaches to

8

learning over the last five decades, from Field-dependence / independence by Witkin

(1962) to SPQ by Biggs, Kember, & Leung (2001). In total, scholars offered as many

as 23 models with eight different disciplinary aspects (Cassidy, 2004). For example,

Keefe proposed that learning styles were cognitive, affective, and physiological traits

that were relatively stable indications of how learners perceived, interacted with, and

responded to the learning environment (Keefe, 1979: 4, quoted in Eliason, 1989). In

addition, Reid (1995: 14) classified learning styles into Sensory, Cognitive, and

Temperament. Each classification consisted of two to four different types of learning

styles. The three most prominent styles were Kolb Experiential Learning Model

(ELM) in Cognitive, Perceptual Learning Styles in Sensory, and Myers-Briggs

Temperament Styles in Temperament. Due to a limitation of time, this paper uses

Kolb ELM as a method of classification.

Kolb (1976) defined ELM based on his theory of experiential learning to assess

individual learning style. This concept was based upon three previous works: the

developmental studies by Piaget, experiential learning by Dewey, dialectical tension

by Lewin, and ideas of types and nonpreferred modes of learning by Jung (Koob &

Funk 2002:294). Later, Kolb (1984) described learning as the process of transforming

experience into knowledge, having four dimensions: (1) affective (sensing, feeling),

(2) perceptual (skills of observation), (3) symbolic (cognitive, thinking skills), and (4)

behavioral (doing).

Based on these four dimensions, Kolb developed four learning abilities: (1)

affective into Concrete Experience (CE) (feeling), (2) perceptual into Reflective

Observation (RO) (reflection, watching), (3) symbolic into Abstract

Conceptualization (AC) (abstractness, thinking), (4) behavioral into Active

Experimentation (AE) (action, doing). Learners choose between two polar opposites:

(1) AC to CE, and (2) AE to RO, as shown in figure 1. The first polar opposite AC to

CE represented prehension or perceiving (the vertical axis) – the grasping of

information from experience. The second polar opposite AE to RO represented

transformation or processing (the horizontal axis) – the process of grasped

information.

The two polar opposites formed a four quadrant of learning models:

accommodating, diverging, converging, and assimilating, with each representing a

9

prevalent learning style. Moreover, they formed a four-stage learning circle, starting

from the top and moving in clockwise direction. From the top, people started the four-

stage circle by having a concrete experience. Then they observed and reflected upon it

from different perspectives. After the reflection, they formed concepts,

generalizations, and theories in their mind. Finally, they tested their understanding of

abstracts in a tangible way of doing through complex situations. Again, if the tested

theory failed, they began the first stage of the circle by learning from failure,

experiencing a new problem at hand.

Figure 1 A Four-Stage Hypothetical Learning Cycle

(Adapted from Litzinger & Osif, 1992: 79)

10

Kolb (1984) characterizes learning styles into the following four basic types

based on both research and clinical observation of the patterns on LSI scores.

Divergers, the imaginative learner, carefully considered observations and

experiences, sought information and pondered all things thoroughly, postponed

judgement until all data was collected, watched, and listened to before yielding an

opinion. In the classroom situation, Divergers preferred working in groups, listening

with an open mind, and receiving personal feedback (Francis, Mulder & Stark, 1995).

Assimilator, the analytic learner, moves gradually toward problems, pulls

together raw facts into coherent theories, seeks perfection, and is bored by flippancy

and uninformed decision-making. Concerning classroom activities, Assimilators rely

on readings, lectures followed by a demonstration, exploring a subject in a lab with

analytical models, and thinking things through (Litzinger & Osif, 1992).

Converger, the precision learner, acts fast with confidence, implements practical

problem-solving and decision-making ideas, and considers problems as a way to

success. For learning in the class, Converger prefers experiencing with new ideas,

running simulations, laboratory testing, and practical application. (Kolb, 1993)

Accommodator, the dynamic learner, acts first, considers the consequences later,

focuses on the present, tries anything once, tackles problems by brainstorming, thrives

on challenges, and dislikes implementation. In formal learning situations,

Accommodator prefers working with others to complete assignments, setting goals,

performing fieldwork, and testing different approaches to completing a project. They

also tend to solve problem in an intuitive trial and error method relying on other

people for information (Kolb, 1993).

2.5 Review of Previous Research

This study aims to study the relationship between learning styles and academic

achievement and investigate the effects of gender, age, field of study, and occupation

on the academic achievement of EPD students at NIDA. To begin with, the author

used key words such as “Learning Theory” to search for research and this approach

yielded a large number of previous studies. The author next used the key words

“Learning Style” to narrow down the topic, and produced large volumes of articles

11

and research papers. Moreover, Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory was well

represented in this genre of Learning Styles since the mid-1970s as a test instrument.

Therefore, numerous articles discussed in detail the validity and reliability of this test

instruments. During the past decade, the trend of study had shifted from Learning

Styles to Learning Strategies particularly in EFL or ESL. Nevertheless, learning style

remained necessary for teaching in a balanced way according to students’ learning

style (Xu, 2011:415).

A large volume of research papers addressed how learning styles is associated

with other factors related to transactions between people and their environment. It was

the prime interest to researchers as they could make use of the learning styles by

relating it to help in difficult situations such as learning a L2. People in the

educational specialization tended to instill a positive attitude sets of learning styles as

suggested in figure 2 (Kolb, 1976). For example, people specializing in the arts,

history, political science, English, and psychology tended to prefer the Diverging

learning style, while those concentrating on more abstract and applied sciences such

as engineering and medicine employed the Converging learning style. Furthermore,

people with academic background in education, communications, and nursing adhered

to the Accommodating learning style, and those with a major in mathematics and

physical science adhered to the Assimilating style (Kolb and Kolb, 2005: 6).

12

Figure 2 The Learning Style Grid on Fields of Study

(Adapted from Kolb, 1976)

In the like manner, people with professional careers developed a preference for

a particular learning style. People in social services and art careers preferred

Diverging learning style; those in the sciences and information, or research had

people with an Assimilating learning style; the Converging learning style tends to be

dominant among professionals in technology and applied science such as medicine

and engineering; and finally, people with careers in sales, social service, and

education learnt most using the Accommodating learning style (Kolb & Kolb, 2005:

36-43).

13

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Due to the limitation associated with most research methods and complexity of

classroom learning, a mixed method approach was adopted to data collection to

strengthen the quality of this research. The mixed methods technique represented the

most appropriate approach for this project because the qualitative approach would

complement the quantitative approach, adding to the elaboration, enhancement,

illustration, and clarification of the results. This study employed a quantitative

questionnaire and a qualitative interview to collect data.

3.2 Research Questions

Based on the designed research objective, this study will answer the following

questions:

3.2.1 What are the characteristics of learning styles according to David Kolb’s

learning styles model (1984) among EPD students at NIDA?

3.2.2 How the learning styles of the samples corresponded with the findings in

the KLSI (1984) model?

3.2.3 Are there correlations between the students’ learning styles and their

academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation?

3.3 Research Method

The mixed method approach consisted of both the quantitative and qualitative

parts. Both parts attempted to answer the same research questions. While the

quantitative approach aimed to gather data for the findings, the qualitative approach

was intended to understand the opinions of selected samples. No generalizations were

made based on the qualitative data. The mixed methodology has been used in this

research, as it is the most suitable technique to examine the learning styles and factors

14

affecting academic performance. The key issue in using mixed methods is to cover

both the characteristics of the research purpose and to understand the point of view of

the students studied.

Quantitative Method

A quantitative approach is used as it is convenient and time saving to answer the

research question in general, describing characteristics of students in relation to the

research purpose. After knowing the scores of the questionnaire, students are divided

into four groups according to each learning style. The author used basic statistics such

as mean and percentage to determine the characteristics of students’ learning styles. In

the findings (Chapter 4), the author selected chi-square to determine the correlations

between learning styles and others factors as it showed the degrees of significant

differences between observed and expected frequencies. Educators could pay

attention to the items with relatively larger degrees of chi-square.

Qualitative Method

Selected students have been interviewed in order to gain an insight into the

attitudes and awareness of their learning styles in relation to factors affecting

academic performance.

3.4 Participants

The respondents consisted of 50 students from the entire EPD2 and EPD3

classes. The samples from the population and the numbers of samples gave adequate

statistical reliability to find modest or strong relationships among the variables in this

study. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured and informal manner. The

researcher selected two samples from the top GPA students and another two samples

at random. They were asked the open-ended questions provided in Appendix B. The

purpose of the interview is to discover whether the answers from the interview were

consistent with the answers obtained from the questionnaire.

15

3.5 Procedure for Developing Instruments

Questionnaires consisted of nine multiple-choice questions adapted from Kolb

(1976, 1984) to determine the learning style of the individual samples as shown in

Appendix A. Each question had four options. Students were requested to assign a

score from 4 to 1 to each expression, starting from the most likely to the least likely.

For instance, the expression in one of the questions was “I am open to new

experiences.” and the respondent was asked to rank the four learning styles from 4 to

1, to the extent that each learning style applied to him or her. The scoring system was

based on ranking in which no score could be repeated twice on the same row. In other

words, each expression on the same row was dependent on the others in terms of

ranking. Next, the fill-in the blanks section was provided for other information: name,

phone number, age, GPA, gender, field of study, and occupation. Each of the other

information was divided into four categories, except gender, for analysis as shown in

the tables in the next chapter. These tables are ordered in four categories following the

pattern provided by EPD grading system of academic performance. In addition, by

using the same pattern the calculation in the Excel of the value of the chi-square of the

tables is facilitated.

For the interview, the author used the semi-structured form, providing

opportunities to interact with the participants and to collect informative data. Since

the author was a classmate and friend of the respondents, the author was aware of

possible bias during the interview. The interviews questions were limited to 10 items

in order to concentrate on important issues. Some items of the same nature had two

questions to cover all aspects. The multiple questions, leading questions, and yes-or-

no questions were avoided to eliminate confession and bias. Four types of questions

suggested by Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and Sabshin (1981) were used in the

interview such as: Devil’s advocate question in item no. 1, hypothetical question in

item no.10, ideal position question in item no. 2, and interpretive question in item no.

4. Other types of questions suggested by Patton (2002) were also used in the

interview, such as the feeling question in item no. 6, sensory question in item no. 9,

and opinion and value question in item no. 8.

16

3.6 Procedures for Scoring and Analyzing

The questionnaires were distributed on May 17, 2014. The author explained the

purpose, the definition, the methods for answering the questionnaire, and the ethical

aspect of maintaining the privacy of the respondents. This questionnaire was designed

to explore the way students preferred to learn English. There were no right or wrong

answers. The purpose of the inventory was to describe the style in which students

preferred to learn English most often, not the style students were permanently locked

into, and not how effectively students learn. Students read the four statements in

column A, B, C, and D in each row and decide to give scores to them according to

his/her preferences. The score ran from 1-4 according to the following meaning: 4 =

Best describes you, 3 = Second Best, 2 = The Third best, and 1=Least describes you.

The students were reminded to apply a different ranking number to each choice in a

row. Finally, the questionnaires were collected for data analysis.

For the analysis, Excel was the only software used because it was capable of

performing most of the common forms of statistical analysis for a quantitative

research project (Arthur, Waring, Coe, & Hedges, 2012: 261). First, simple statistical

functions such as mean and percentage were used to determine characteristics of

learning styles. To determine the complicated parts, chi-square was used, to discover

if there was a correlation between any sets of categories. For example, one category

was the four types of learning styles and another category was the students’ academic

achievement. Chi-square was selected because it was easy to access, being readily

available as a function in Excel, and could be shown explicitly step-by-step in tables,

and was known to find correlation between two sets of categories, fitting the

analytical patterns (Introduction to SAS, 2006). The calculation of chi-square

involved the concept of probability represented by the “p” values as provided

throughout Chapter 4, and a test of independence describing the likelihood of the

results being the product of chance (Sealey, 2010: 39).

In the chi-square process, the data was organized into sets of categories, each set

displayed as frequencies and not in percentages, more than 20% of the cells being

17

larger than five cases, and the data at random representing the population of interests

(Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008: 313). Calculation of chi-

square using excel are shown in tables throughout Chapter 4.

3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research

The researcher carefully selected the 44 out of 52 questionnaires distributed to

two EPD classes and used a p-value of p = 0.05 with the degrees of freedom of df =

16 in chi-square test. The questionnaire adopted from Kolb (1981) and McCarthy

(1987) was LSI 3.1, a modified LSI 3 that included new normative data that had new

norms relying on a larger, more diverse and representative sample of 6,977 LSI users.

Results from seven different studies of the LSI 3.1 suggest that the scales show good

internal consistency reliability across a number of different populations. In several

studies, test-retest correlation coefficients range from moderate to excellent

(McCarthy, 2010: 134).

The interview questions were adopted from the questionnaire that was to be

conducted in an informal, semi-structure manner. A recording device was used

throughout the interview. The interviews were used to strengthen the validity of this

research. Three experts, each one with 10-30 years of teaching experience in the fields

of English language, accounting, and marketing, reviewed the interview questions and

approved for the validity. The recording device recorded all interviews for

transcription. Finally, the interviewees approved all transcripts for accuracy.

18

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

The findings were divided into two parts – quantitative and qualitative results.

These two parts are treated separately in this chapter and related to each other in the

next chapter.

4.2 Quantitative Results

The quantitative results were divided into five parts to answer the research

questions given in chapter 3.2.

4.2.1 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles

First, table 1 and figure 3 show that the mean value of the dimension perception

in the vertical axis for AC-CE was -2.75 and the mean value of the dimension

processing in the horizontal axis for AE-RO was 3.61. The mean of the perceiving

vertical axis was nearer to the top, and it was nearer to the left side of the processing

horizontal axis. As the result, the learning style of most students was

Accommodating. The calculation of mean is provided in Appendix D.

Table 1 Mean of Four Dimensions

19

Score of all

students

No. of students Mean

CE 728 44 16.54545455

RO 581 44 13.20454545

AC 607 44 13.79545455

AE 740 44 16.81818182

AC-CE -2.75

AE-RO 3.613636364

Figure 3 Learning Style Type Grid by Kolb (1976)

Distribution of students’ English learning styles preferences is given in Table 2.

The result shows that the majority of EPD students at NIDA preferred the

AE-RO = 3.61,

AC-CE = -2.75

20

Accommodating style (59.09).

Table 2 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles

Learning Styles Frequency Percentage

Diverging (D) 15 34.09** Expression is

faulty **** Expression is

faulty **

Assimilating (ASS) 1 2.27

Converging (C) 2 4.55

Accommodating (ACC) 26 59.09

Total 44 100

21

4.2.2 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Academic

Achievement

Student achievement had been divided into four groups according to their GPA

namely excellent (3.80-4.00), very good (3.40-3.79), fairly good (3.00-3.39), and

others (2.99 or below). Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) =

3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9. Table 3 below shows the chi-square value = 14.37884.

Because the chi-square value was much higher than the chi-square critical value, it

can be concluded that there were correlations between the learning styles and the

academic achievement among the EPD students.

Table 3 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Academic Achievement

OBSERVEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Excellent 1 1 0 0 2

V. Good 3 1 0 7 11

F. Good 8 0 2 12 22

Others 2 0 1 6 9

TOTAL 14 2 3 25 44

EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Excellent 0.636364 0.090909 0.136364 1.136364 2

V. Good 3.5 0.5 0.75 6.25 11

F. Good 7 1 1.5 12.5 22

Others 2.863636 0.409091 0.613636 5.113636 9

TOTAL 14 2 3 25 44

OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Excellent 0.363636 0.909091 -0.13636 -1.13636

V. Good -0.5 0.5 -0.75 0.75

F. Good 1 -1 0.5 -0.5

Others -0.86364 -0.40909 0.386364 0.886364

TOTAL

(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Excellent 0.207792 9.090909 0.136364 1.136364 10.57143V. Good 0.071429 0.5 0.75 0.09 1.411429F. Good 0.142857 1 0.166667 0.02 1.329524

22

Others 0.260462 0.409091 0.243266 0.153636 1.066455TOTAL 0.68254 11 1.296296 1.4 14.37884

23

4.2.3 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Gender

Students had been divided into four groups according to their gender – male and

female. Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,3) = 0.351846318, p = .05, df =

3. From table 4 below, the chi-square value = 0.883223. Because the chi-square value

was higher than the chi-square critical value, it can be concluded that there were

correlations between the learning styles and gender among the EPD students.

EXPECTEDDiverging (D)

Assimilating (ASS)

Converging (C)

Accommodating (ACC)

TOTAL

Male 3.068182 0.204545 0.409091 5.318182 9Female

11.93182 0.795455 1.590909 20.68182 35

TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44

OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging (D)

Assimilating (ASS)

Converging (C)

Accommodating (ACC)

TOTAL

Male -0.06818 -0.20455 -0.40909 0.681818Female

0.068182 0.204545 0.409091 -0.68182

TOTAL

(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging (D)

Assimilating (ASS)

Converging (C)

Accommodating (ACC) TOTAL

Male 0.001515 0.204545 0.409091 0.0874130.70256

4Femal 0.00039 0.052597 0.105195 0.022478 0.18065

Table 4 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Gender

OBSERVEDDiverging (D)

Assimilating (ASS)

Converging (C)

Accommodating (ACC) TOTAL

Male 3 0 0 6 9Female

12 1 2 20 35

TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44

24

e 9

TOTAL0.001905 0.257143 0.514286 0.10989 0.88322

3

25

4.2.4 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Age

Table 5 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Age


Senior 1 0 0 1 2

Up-Mid 1 0 0 5 6

Low-Mid 6 0 2 9 17

Junior 7 1 0 10 18

TOTAL 15 1 2 25 43

EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Senior 0.697674 0.046512 0.093023 1.162791 2

Up-Mid 2.093023 0.139535 0.27907 3.488372 6

Low-Mid 5.930233 0.395349 0.790698 9.883721 17

Junior 6.27907 0.418605 0.837209 10.46512 18

TOTAL 15 1 2 25 43

OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Senior 0.302326 0.953488 -0.09302 -1.16279

Up-Mid 0.906977 0.860465 -0.27907 3.511628

Low-Mid 2.069767 -0.39535 1.209302 2.116279

Junior -4.27907 -0.4186 0.162791 -4.46512

TOTAL

(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Senior 0.131008 19.54651 0.093023 1.162791 20.93333Up-Mid 0.393023 5.306202 0.27907 3.535039 9.513333Low-Mid 0.722389 0.395349 1.849521 0.453133 3.420392Junior 2.916107 0.418605 0.031654 1.905116 5.271481

TOTAL 4.162527 25.66667 2.253268 7.056078 39.13854Students had been divided into four groups according to their age namely senior

(51 or above), upper-middle (40-50), lower-middle (30-39), and junior (29 or below).

Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9. From

table 5 below, chi-square value = 39.13854. Because the chi-square value was much

higher than the chi-square critical value, it can be concluded that there were

correlations between the learning styles and ages among the EPD students.

27

4.2.5 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Fields of

Study

Table 6 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Fields of Study


Language 9 1 2 9 21

Education 0 0 0 2 2

Science 3 0 0 3 6

Others 1 0 0 7 8

TOTAL 13 1 2 21 37

EXPECTED

Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Language 7.378378 0.567568 1.135135 11.91892 21

Education

0.702703 0.054054 0.108108 1.135135 2

Science 2.108108 0.162162 0.324324 3.405405 6

Others 2.810811 0.216216 0.432432 4.540541 8

TOTAL 13 1 2 21 37

OBSERVED - EXPECTED


Language 1.621622 0.432432 0.864865 -2.91892

Education

-0.7027 -0.05405 -0.10811 0.864865

Science 0.891892 -0.16216 -0.32432 -0.40541

Others -1.81081 -0.21622 -0.43243 2.459459

TOTAL

(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTED


Language 0.3564 0.329472 0.658945 0.714837 2.059655

Education 0.702703 0.054054 0.108108 0.658945 1.52381

Science 0.377339 0.162162 0.324324 0.048263 0.912088

Others 1.16658 0.216216 0.432432 1.332207 3.147436

TOTAL 2.603022 0.761905 1.52381 2.754252 7.642988

28

Students had been divided into four groups according to their fields of study –

language, education, science, and others. Chi-square critical value =

CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9 From table 6 below, chi-square

value = 7.642987964. Because the chi-square value was much higher than the chi-

square critical value, it can be concluded that there were correlations between the

learning styles and fields of study among the EPD students.

29

4.2.6 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Occupation

Table 7 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Occupation

OBSERVED

DivergingAssimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL

Language 1 0 0 2 3

Education 1 0 1 6 8

Science 3 0 0 5 8

Others 6 1 1 10 18

TOTAL 11 1 2 23 37

EXPECTED


Language 0.891892 0.081081 0.162162 1.864865 3

Education 2.378378 0.216216 0.432432 4.972973 8

Science 2.378378 0.216216 0.432432 4.972973 8

Others 5.351351 0.486486 0.972973 11.18919 18

TOTAL 11 1 2 23 37

OBSERVED - EXPECTED


Language 0.108108 -0.08108 -0.16216 0.135135

Education -1.37838 -0.21622 0.567568 1.027027

Science 0.621622 -0.21622 -0.43243 0.027027

Others 0.648649 0.513514 0.027027 -1.18919

TOTAL

(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTED


Language 0.013104 0.081081 0.162162 0.009792 0.26614

Education 0.798833 0.216216 0.744932 0.212103 1.972085

Science 0.162469 0.216216 0.432432 0.000147 0.811265

Others 0.078624 0.542042 0.000751 0.126387 0.747804TOTAL 1.05303 1.055556 1.340278 0.34843 3.797294Students had been divided into four groups according to their occupation –

30

language, education, science, and other. Chi-square critical value =

CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9 From table 7 below, chi-square

value = 3.797293588. Because the chi-square value was a little higher than the chi-

square critical value, it can be concluded that there were correlations between the

learning styles and occupation among EPD students.

31

4.2.7 Comparing the Degrees of Correlation among the Findings

Table 8 Ranking the chi-square Values among the Findings

Chi-square Statistical Value Ranking

Academic Achievement 14.37884 2

Gender 0.883223 n/a (Different df)

Age 39.13854 1

Fields of Study 7.642987964 3

Occupation 3.797293588 4

While the chi-square critical value was equal to 3.325112843 for every finding

except gender, table 8 shows the levels of likelihood that there were statistically

significant differences between observed and expected frequencies. The results

suggested the ranking of the findings in relative degrees of correlation with the

learning styles shown in column 3 of table 8.

The findings of chi-square statistics from table 3-7 also suggested the balance

between observed frequencies – numbers of times students fell into specific category

(how many females and males preferred each of the learning styles), and expected

frequencies – (numbers of times one would expect students to fall into a specific

learning style). Further research could use the chi-square table provided in Appendix

F to predict the level of confidence in correlations of the findings in this study.

4.3 Qualitative Results

The interviews with four students in EPD class gave results consistent with

those results from the questionnaires. One student preferred the Diverging learning

styles while the other three learned mostly by the Accommodating learning style.

Students No.1 was a female aged between 30-39 years old. She earned a GPA of

nearly 4.0 and preferred the Diverging learning style. She preferred concrete

experience and reflective learning that were the characteristic of the Diverging style.

32

She also thought that group discussion and role play were useful and fun. However,

she would prefer more time to reflect on the experience. She did not think that

learning style affected the learning outcome.

Students No.2 was a female in between 30-39 years old. She earned a GPA of

3.9 and preferred the Accommodating learning style. She stated in the interview that

she liked a group discussion most, above play role. She believed that the learning

outcome was affected by the learning style.

Student no. 3 was a female aged below 30. She earned a GPA between 3.40-

3.79 and preferred the Accommodating learning style. She was a concrete and active

learner. She learned by practicing. She liked a systematic way of learning. In addition,

she thought that lecturing alone was boring.

Student no. 4 was a female aged below 30. She earned a GPA of 3.00-3.39 and

preferred Accommodating style. Her interview indicated the same result as the

questionnaire. She liked group discussion more than role-play and was in the

Accommodating quadrant of the matrix. She disliked a long lecture and actively asked

questions in the class.

The interviews indicated that the first student had a learning style different from

the other three students who showed a distinguished preference in classroom activities

– the ability to reflect the information. Student no.1 adapted well to all types of

classroom activities including a long lecture. She welcomed information from

listening and, then, reflected on it to gain knowledge.

The other three students with the Accommodating learning style distanced

themselves from the long lecture of type that characterized the traditional teaching

style. They preferred learning by experience in diverse situations.

The qualitative results were congruent with the quantitative results because as

all the students fell into two only types of learning types – Diverging and

Accommodating. In addition, the majority of students preferred the Accommodating

learning style.

33

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter takes the findings of previous chapter and answers the research

questions with reference to previous research studies. Section 5.2 discusses the

characteristics of learning styles. The learning styles of the samples corresponded

with the findings of the previous study by Kolb’s LSI model are discussed in section

5.3. Next, section 5.4 presents the level of the correlations between the students’

learning styles and their academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and

occupation. The last section is the discussion on the hypothesis of this research that

may have been unanswered by previous sections.

5.2 Discussion of Research Question 1

The first research question examined the characteristics of learning styles

according to David Kolb’s learning styles model (1984) among EPD students at

NIDA. Although the subject was large and covered many theoretical concepts

including education, psychology, and language, the data collection was limited in this

study to two EPD classes at NIDA. With this narrow scope in mind, it was difficult to

compare the results of this study to previous research in this field. The author was

well aware of this limitation; however, the study may be significant and prove useful

in its application. The findings of this study may have revealed a phenomenon: that

almost entire population of EPD students preferred only two types of learning styles,

that is Accommodating and Diverging. Only three persons out of 44 samples

preferred Assimilating and Converging. In fact, this finding was no surprise in terms

of identification of preference as the results agreed with the previous studies as

described in section 2.5. Should the results point in another direction, the discussion

part would be complicated and probably provide no immediate usefulness. Although

the overwhelming nature of preferences looked doubtful, it did not hinder the

usefulness concerning the finding’s application. To this end, scholars and students

34

could use this finding to help plan for strategic implementation of learning and

studying.

5.3 Discussion on Research Question 2

The second research question compared the findings with the previous research

by Kolb (1971, 1984). First, Kolb did not intent to reveal how people fall into the

categories because the classifications did not exist at that time. When Kolb started his

project, it was much more problematic than other academic projects due to the fact

that he was trying to formulate a theoretical concept. He surveyed thousands of

samples from a diversity of populations across vast areas to determine patterns of

similarity. The outcome of the research was the theoretical concepts based on

cognition and experience in psychological and educational fields. In 1971, he

published a text on individual learning styles and learning process that became one of

the most popular reference books across many fields.

When comparing this study to Kolb’s work, any inconsistent findings deserve an

explanation focusing on the inconsistency of the findings. Primarily, while Kolb’s

database covered the general population, this study used a small database that

concentrated on L2 learners at NIDA. The results showed a large discrepancy in that

characteristics of learning styles in this study were extremely concentrated. The

author used original English version of standard questionnaires adapted from Kolb’s

to identify the learning styles in the subject group that were familiar with the English

language. The whole process of data collection and analysis was conducted following

standard practices under supervisions of experts in the field. As the result, deviation

caused by the application of non-standard survey technique can be ruled out. The

samples in the survey share the similarities in terms of society, culture, native

language, L2 learner status, classroom environment, and living in the same area. The

combinations of these factors may affect the samples and cause them to adopt similar

learning styles. Moreover, Kolb developed his questionnaire on a ranking system that

it reflected the internal comparison of preference in the scoring system. In other

35

words, the questionnaire was valid within the comparison of each question itself and

limited the independence of assigning the score according to level that the participants

would prefer to give them.

Finally, Kolb’s LSI was based from the beginning on the learning process on

concrete experience that the learners would learn from the sensory cortex of the brain,

observing the environment around them (Zull 2002: 18-19). In case of the EPD

students, they had a short span of time to process the learning that they experienced,

which was the same learning environment in the same classroom. They did not have

enough time to reflect on the way they learned and move to the next level of learning

process. Many students tried to grasp the knowledge as best they could to pass the

intensive learning while concurrently working for a living. The subjects all fit into the

same competitive mold of learning which may result in them also falling into the

same category of learning styles.

5.4 Discussion on the Third Research Question

The third research question investigated the correlations of the factors affecting

the learning styles. Primarily, the results showed that all individual factors have chi-

square values higher than the chi-square critical values. As the result, there are

correlations between these factors and the learning styles.

5.5 Discussion of the Hypothesis

The three hypotheses are the reflections of the research questions that aim to

answer the research objective of this study. This section discusses the hypothesis

itself, avoiding a repetitive discussion of subjects covered above. To begin with, the

hypotheses in this paper utilize the advantage of One-Tail Hypotheses in that they

predict the specific nature of the relationship or difference by making positively

predictive statements. However, many scholars argue that researchers should observe

the Two-Tailed Hypotheses that does not predict the specific nature of the difference

or relationship. According to the consensus of scientific community, researchers

should assume that the null hypothesis is true until the results show support to the

36

contrary (Wrench et al., 2008: 91). Fisher (1935) urges that researchers can never

really prove anything as true using statistics; however, researchers can use statistics to

prove that something is false. Imagine a researcher observed 10,000 swans that were

white and then made the statement, “every swan was white”. In the null hypothesis,

all the researcher had to do was to find a swan that was not white to disprove the

statement “every swan was white.” Based on this argument, it has been accepted as a

common practice to make a null hypothesis so that the researchers can prove that the

null hypothesis is false. Yet, this paper uses One-Tailed Hypotheses, which is an

opposing view held by much of the scientific community, for two reasons. First, this

research narrows down its scope to include only two EPD classes, avoiding the

necessity to prove the hypotheses in general. In addition, the research takes the whole

population of the two EPD classes as the samples, leaving little room for uncertainty.

Second, many scholars in the field of language and communication find it easier to

comprehend the positive statement of the One-Tailed Hypotheses. To this end, the

purpose of this study is to provide the educational tool that works and the one-tailed

hypothesis provides a satisfactory proving principle in this research.

37

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

This study was to investigate the characteristics of learning styles among the

EPD students and to study the correlation between learning styles and background

factors. This study employed a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative interview.

Chi-square was selected as an instrument to determine the correlations of the

quantitative data. For the interview, the author used a semi-structured format,

providing opportunities to interact with the participants and to collect informative

data.

The results showed that the majority of the students preferred Accommodating

style (59.09%) and Diverging style (34.09%). Only three persons out of 44 samples

preferred Assimilating or Converging. Most students preferred to learn from concrete

experience and they are active learners. They preferred classroom activities such as

open-ended problems, student presentations, design projects, subjective exams, and

simulations. They also like to solve homework problems, conduct computer

simulations, enjoy field trips, making individuals’ reports, and demonstrating what

they knew. The finding indicated that learning styles of EPD students correlated with

academic performance, gender, age, field of study, and occupation. However, the

characteristics of the sample indicated a strong preference to learn from experience

regardless of their processing continuum, having scores distributed primarily above

the x-axis.

Although the research was performed in a strict disciplinary fashion;

nevertheless, there are limitations that need mentioning. However, other researchers

could develop a board research plan to address the gap and limitations that occurred in

this study. While small studies can be completed over a short time-frame, there needs

to be a balance between those that can be performed in few months and those that

should investigate issues extensively and hence may take many years to complete.

Notably, this research provides a narrow scope of the large theory to fit the available

resources. In fact, it is not a bad practice to conduct well-designed small-scale studies;

they only need to be defined to justify the content carefully. While small studies can

provide results quickly, they do not typically yield reliable or precise estimates to

represent the large picture. Therefore, this research will not make strong conclusions

38

in its findings, or judge whether the results are accurate or not. Instead, data from this

study should be used to design larger confirmatory studies. If the aim is to provide

reliable evidence to make an important decision, the future study should be large

enough to do so.

In particular, learning style research seems outdated due to the lack of the

development of theory for a specific purpose. For the most part, people in the field of

L2 learning are adhering to learning theories that have been utilized since many

decades ago. It is clear that learning styles in foreign language learning remains a new

topic in Thai society. Therefore, it will take time to discern the implications for SLA

and claim its full usefulness in the learning of foreign languages. It will require the

understanding of and efforts by scholars, students, and teachers alike. With

commitment from all parties, language learners can learn about learning styles and

benefit from teaching that focuses on the process of learning; teachers can center their

teaching on the students and drive forward the development of the entire field of L2

teaching and learning in Thailand.

39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arthur, James; Waring, Michael; Coe, Robert and Hedges, Larry V. 2012. Ressearch

Methods & Methodologies in Education. 1st ed. London: Sage.

Abhakorn, J. 2004. Matching of Learning and Teaching Styles, and Its Effects on

Students’ Language Learning Achievement. Master’s Thesis, National

Institute of Development Administration.

Bailey, P.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Daley, C. E. 2000. Using Learning Style to Predict

Foreign Language Achievement at the College Level. System. Vol. 28, Issue 1

(March):115-133.

Biggs, J.; Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. 2001. The revised two-factor study process

questionnaire; R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 71:

133-149.

Cassidy, S. 2004. Learning Styles: An Overview of Theories, Models, and Measures,

Educational Psychology. Vol. 24, No. 4 (August): 421-422.

Eliason, P. 1989. Perceptual Learning Style Preferences of Second Language

Students: A Literature Survey and Research Report. Master’s thesis,

University of Minnesota.

Felder, R. M. & Silverman L. K. 1988. Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in

Engineering Education, The 1988 Annual Meeting of the American

Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, Nov. 1988.

Fisher, Ronald Aylmer. 1935. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver &

Boyd.

Francis, M. C., Mulder, T. C. & Stark, J. S. 1995. International Learning: A

Process for Learning to Learn in the Accounting Curriculum. American

Accounting Association: Sarasota, FL.

Garcia, P.; Schiaffino, S. & Amandi, A. 2008. eTeacher: Providing personalized

assistance to e-learning students. Computers & Education 51 (4), 1744-1754.

Honey, P. & Mumford, A. 1992. The Manual of Learning Styles 3rd Ed.

Maidenhead, Peter Honey.

Howell, D. C. 2011. Chi-square Test: Analysis of Contingency Tables. International

Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Pp. 250-

40

252.

Hulstijn, J. H. 2007. Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition,

EUROSLA Yearbook, 7 (2007), 191-203. Retrieved from

http://dare.uva.nl/document/176436

Introduction to SAS. 2006. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. from

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/notes2/ (accessed June 16, 2014).

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.

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. 2005. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1

Technical Specifications. USA: Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct.

Kolb, D. A. 1981. Learning Style Inventory: Self-Scoring Inventory and

Interpretation Booklet. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.

Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. 1971. Individual Learning Styles and the Learning Process. Working

Paper #535-71, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.

Kolb, D. A. 1976. The Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring test and

interpretation. Boston: McBer & Company.

Kolb, D. A. 1993. LSI-IIa: Self Scoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet.

Boston: McBer & Company.

Koob, Jeffrey J. & Funk, Joanie. 2002. Kolb's Learning Style Inventory: Issues of

Reliability and Validity. Research on Social Work Practice. 12: 293.

Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. 1992. “Accomodating Diverse Learning Styles: Designing

Instruction for Electronic Information Sources.” What Is Good Library

Instruction Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Ed. Linda Sharito. MI:

Pierian Press, 1992: 79.

Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. 1993. Accommodating Diverse Learning Styles: Designing

Instruction for Electronic Information Sources. What is Good Instruction

Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

McCarthy, B. 1987. Teaching Around the 4MAT Cycle. Illinois: About Learning

http://dare.uva.nl/document/176436

41

Ltd.

McCarthy, M. 2010. Experienntial Learning Theory: From Theory to Practice.

Journal of Business & economics Research. Vol.8, No. 5 (May): 131-139.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed.

Thousand Oaks. CA.: Sage.

Reid, J. M. 1995. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. USA: Boston: Heinle

& Heinle.

Saengboon, S. 2013. Thai English Teachers’ Understanding of “Postmethod

Pedagogy”: Case Studies of University Lecturers. English Language

Teaching; Vol.6, No. 12; 2013: 156-166.

Sealey A. 2010. Researching English Language. 1st ed. London: Routledge: 39.

Strauss, A.; Schatzman, L.; Bucher, R. & Sabshin, M. 1981. Psychiatric ideologies

and institutions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Suwanarak, K. 2012. English Language Learning Beliefs, Learning Strategies and

Achievement of Masters Students in Thailand. TESOL in Context, Special

Edition S3: November 2012.

Witkin, H. A. 1962. Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Development. New

York: Wiley.

Wrench, J. S.; Thomas-Maddox, C.; Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. 2008.

Quantitative research methods for communication: A hands-on

approach. Oxford University Press, Inc.: 313-314.

Xu, Wu. 2011. Learning Styles and Their Implications in Learning and Teaching.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol.1, No. 12 (December): 1780-

1788.

Zull, J. E. 2002. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by

Exploring the Biology of Learning. Stering, VA.: Stylus.

42

APPENDICES

43

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1981 & McCarthy, 1987)This survey is designed to explore the way you prefer to learn English. There is no right or wrong answer. The purpose of the inventory is to describe the style in which you prefer to learn English most often, not the style you are permanently locked into, and not how effectively you learn.Read the four statements on column A, B, C, and D in each row and decide to give scores to them according to your preferences.

44

4=Best describes you

3 = Second Best

2 = The Third

1=Least describes you

45

Be sure to apply different above ranking number to each choice in a row. Do not put the same number in the same row.

46

A B C D1)When I learn English,

I like to get involved.

I like to take my time before acting.

I am particular about what I like.

I like things to be useful.

Scores2)When I am learning English,

I like to try things out.

I like to analyze things and break them into parts.

I am open to new experiences.

I like to look at all sides of issues.


I like to watch.

I like to analyze things and break them into parts.

I am open to new experiences.

I like to think about things.


I accept people and situations the way they are.

I like to be aware of what is around me.

I like to evaluate.

I like to take risks.


I have gut feelings and hunches.

I have a lot of questions.

I am logical.

I am hard working and get things done.

Scores

47

6)When I learn English,

I like concrete things, things I can see, feel touch or smell.

I like to be active.

I like to observe.

I like ideas and theories.

Scores7)When I learn English,

I prefer learning in the here and now.

I like to consider and reflect about them.

I tend to think about the future.

I like to see the results of my work.

Scores8)When I learn English,

I have to try things out by myself.

I rely on my own ideas.

I rely on my own observations.

I rely on my feelings.


I am quiet and reserved.

I am energetic and enthusiastic.

I tend to reason things out.

I am responsible about things.

Scores

Fill-into the blank or circle the appropriate answers below

48

Name / Telephone No.Age 29 or

Below30-39 40-50 >50

GPAEPD Program

2.99 or Below

3.00-3.39 3.40-3.79

3.80-4.00

Gender Male Female xxxField of Study

(I got my B.S. degree in …)

Occupation

49

Appendix B: Interview Questions

1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD

class, what would you response to them?

2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities.

4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help

you in your career development?

5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete

your homework exercises before coming to the class?

6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?

7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find

an answer to the question in your mind?

8. What do you think about a group work on discussion and presentation?

9. What would you do if you do not understand something from the lecture in the

class?

10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD

class, what do your suggest?

50

Appendix C: Data from the QuestionnaireSample No. 01

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 4 2A 1

2C 3 2D 2 3D 1 3C 4

3B 3 3A 2 4C 3 6B 1

4A 2 6C 3 6D 4 7D 4

8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4

9B 2 9A 4 9C 1 9D 3

TOTAL 14 15 15 17

AC-CE 1 AE-RO 2 Style Diverger

Age R 2 GPA R 4 Gender F

FS Accounting Occup Auditor/Tutor

Sample No. 02

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 4 2A 2

2C 3 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 1

4A 3 6C 4 6D 3 7D 3

8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4

9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4

TOTAL 18 11 14 18

AC-CE -4 AE-RO 7 Style Accommodato

r


FS Library Science Occup Librarian at NGO

Sample No. 03

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 3 2A 2

2C 1 2D 4 3D 4 3C 1

3B 2 3A 3 4C 4 6B 3

4A 2 6C 4 6D 2 7D 2

8D 3 8C 2 8B 1 8A 4

9B 4 9A 3 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 13 19 15 14

AC-CE 2 AE-RO -5 Style Diverger

51


FS English Occup English Instructor

52

Sample No. 04

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 2 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 1 3C 4

3B 3 3A 2 4C 3 6B 2

4A 1 6C 1 6D 4 7D 3

8D 4 8C 2 8B 1 8A 3

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 17 9 15 16


r


FS Occup Human Resource

Sample No. 05

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 3 2D 4 3D 4 3C 3

3B 2 3A 1 4C 1 6B 2

4A 2 6C 1 6D 3 7D 4

8D 1 8C 4 8B 2 8A 3

9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 12 14 14 18

AC-CE 2 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato

r


FS Political Science Occup Secretary

Sample No. 06

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 4 2A 1

2C 3 2D 2 3D 3 3C 2

3B 4 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3

4A 3 6C 1 6D 2 7D 3

8D 1 8C 2 8B 4 8A 3

9B 3 9A 4 9C 2 9D 1

TOTAL 15 13 17 13


Age R 4 GPA R 3 Gender M

FS Engineering Occup Production Manager

54

Sample No. 07

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 1 2A 4

2C 3 2D 2 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4

4A 3 6C 2 6D 1 7D 2

8D 3 8C 4 8B 2 8A 1

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 16 13 12 17


r


FS Human Resource Occup Manager

Sample No. 08

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 1 3C 4

3B 2 3A 3 4C 2 6B 1

4A 4 6C 2 6D 3 7D 2

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 1 9A 4 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 15 14 14 15

AC-CE -1 AE-RO 1 Style Diverger


FS English Occup

Sample No. 09

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 4 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 3

8D 2 8C 4 8B 1 8A 3

9B 4 9A 1 9C 2 9D 3

TOTAL 18 15 11 18


55

r


FS English Occup Instructor

56

Sample No. 10

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 1

2C 4 2D 2 3D 1 3C 3

3B 2 3A 4 4C 2 6B 4

4A 3 6C 2 6D 1 7D 3

8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4

9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3

TOTAL 17 11 13 18


r


FS Marketing Occup Sales Marketing

Sample No. 11

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 4 2D 3 3D 2 3C 4

3B 1 3A 3 4C 2 6B 1

4A 3 6C 3 6D 2 7D 3

8D 4 8C 3 8B 2 8A 1

9B 2 9A 3 9C 1 9D 4

TOTAL 15 17 10 15

AC-CE -5 AE-RO -2 Style Diverger


FS English Occup Teacher

Sample No. 12

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 4 2B 3 2A 1

2C 4 2D 2 3D 3 3C 4

3B 1 3A 2 4C 3 6B 1

4A 4 6C 4 6D 3 7D 3

8D 2 8C 1 8B 3 8A 4

9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4

TOTAL 15 14 17 17


r


57

FS Food Science Occup Research and Development Supervisor

58

Sample No. 13

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 4 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 4 3C 3

3B 1 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 3

8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4

9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 14 15 12 21


r


FS International Biz Management Occup Secretary

Sample No. 14

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 1 3C 4

3B 3 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 3 6D 1 7D 1

8D 1 8C 2 8B 3 8A 4

9B 4 9A 3 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 20 12 11 17


r

Age R n/a GPA R 1 Gender M

FS n/a Occup Teacher

Sample No. 15

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 4 2B 3 2A 1

2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3

4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 4

8D 4 8C 2 8B 3 8A 1

9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3

TOTAL 19 12 15 16


r

59


FS n/a Occup n/a

60

Sample No. 16

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3

4A 4 6C 1 6D 2 7D 3

8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4

9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4

TOTAL 19 8 12 20


r


FS Communication Arts Occup Ground Airline Service

Sample No. 17

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 1 2A 4

2C 3 2D 2 3D 3 3C 2

3B 1 3A 4 4C 2 6B 3

4A 3 6C 2 6D 1 7D 2

8D 4 8C 2 8B 3 8A 1

9B 3 9A 2 9C 4 9D 1

TOTAL 18 13 14 13



FS Linguistics Occup Flight Attendant

Sample No. 18

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 3 6B 4

4A 4 6C 1 6D 2 7D 3

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 2 9D 3

TOTAL 17 10 14 19


r


61

FS physical education Occup physical therapy

62

Sample No. 19

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 3

3B 1 3A 4 4C 2 6B 2

4A 3 6C 3 6D 1 7D 4

8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4

9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 13 15 11 20


r


FS Social Development Management Occup Secretary

Sample No. 20

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 4 2B 4 2A 3

2C 1 2D 2 3D 4 3C 2

3B 3 3A 1 4C 3 6B 2

4A 1 6C 3 6D 1 7D 3

8D 1 8C 4 8B 3 8A 2

9B 2 9A 4 9C 3 9D 1

TOTAL 11 18 18 13

AC-CE 7 AE-RO -5 Style Assimilator


FS Communication Arts Occup Wedding Organizer

Sample No. 21

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 2

4A 4 6C 3 6D 4 7D 3

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 3 9A 4 9C 2 9D 1

TOTAL 16 15 15 15



FS Science Occup Medical Assistant

64

Sample No. 22

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 4 3C 2

3B 3 3A 1 4C 4 6B 1

4A 3 6C 2 6D 3 7D 2

8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 20 10 16 14


r


FS English Occup Auto Trader

Sample No. 23

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 2 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 1 3C 3

3B 4 3A 3 4C 1 6B 3

4A 2 6C 2 6D 1 7D 4

8D 1 8C 2 8B 4 8A 3

9B 3 9A 2 9C 1 9D 4

TOTAL 18 13 9 20


r


FS Nursing Occup Nurse

Sample No. 24

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 2 2B 2 2A 3

2C 4 2D 1 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4

4A 3 6C 3 6D 1 7D 4

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 17 11 13 21


r

65


FS Journalism and Mass Communication Occup Communicator

66

Sample No. 25

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 4

3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 3 6D 2 7D 2

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 2 9D 3

TOTAL 19 13 12 19


r


FS Education Occup Teacher

Sample No. 26

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 3 2B 2 2A 1

2C 3 2D 4 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 2

4A 3 6C 4 6D 3 7D 3

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 4 9A 3 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 18 18 12 16



FS English Occup Secretary

Sample No. 27

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 3 2B 2 2A 3

2C 4 2D 1 3D 2 3C 3

3B 4 3A 1 4C 4 6B 1

4A 1 6C 2 6D 3 7D 1

8D 4 8C 2 8B 1 8A 3

9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3

TOTAL 16 10 16 14


r


67

FS English Occup Meeting Coordinator

68

Sample No. 28

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 3 2D 4 3D 3 3C 2

3B 4 3A 1 4C 4 6B 4

4A 2 6C 2 6D 3 7D 1

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4

TOTAL 15 12 16 16


r


FS n/a Occup Student

Sample No. 29

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 1 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 4 3C 3

3B 1 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 2 6D 3 7D 4

8D 1 8C 2 8B 3 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 17 10 16 20


r


FS n/a Occup n/a

Sample No. 30

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 2 3C 1

3B 4 3A 3 4C 1 6B 4

4A 2 6C 3 6D 2 7D 1

8D 3 8C 2 8B 1 8A 4

9B 2 9A 4 9C 3 9D 1

TOTAL 19 16 11 12



69

FS n/a Occup Student

70

Sample No. 31

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 4 2D 3 3D 4 3C 3

3B 2 3A 1 4C 1 6B 4

4A 3 6C 3 6D 2 7D 2

8D 1 8C 4 8B 2 8A 3

9B 3 9A 4 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 16 17 11 16



FS English Occup Officer

Sample No. 32

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 1 3C 4

3B 2 3A 3 4C 2 6B 3

4A 4 6C 4 6D 1 7D 2

8D 1 8C 4 8B 2 8A 3

9B 3 9A 4 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 18 18 8 17



FS English Occup Officer

Sample No. 33

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 4 2D 3 3D 4 3C 3

3B 2 3A 1 4C 1 6B 4

4A 3 6C 3 6D 2 7D 4

8D 3 8C 4 8B 1 8A 2

9B 3 9A 4 9C 1 9D 2

TOTAL 18 17 10 17



FS English Occup Administrator

72

Sample No. 34

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 3 2B 3 2A 4

2C 2 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 1

4A 1 6C 4 6D 2 7D 3

8D 1 8C 3 8B 4 8A 2

9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3

TOTAL 13 13 17 17

AC-CE 4 AE-RO 4 Style Converger


FS Linguistics Occup Educator

Sample No. 35

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 3 2D 4 3D 4 3C 2

3B 1 3A 3 4C 2 6B 3

4A 4 6C 2 6D 4 7D 3

8D 1 8C 2 8B 4 8A 3

9B 2 9A 1 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 15 13 19 16

AC-CE 4 AE-RO 3 Style Converger


FS English Occup Administrator

Sample No. 36

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 2 2B 3 2A 1

2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 2

4A 3 6C 1 6D 3 7D 4

8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4

9B 4 9A 1 9C 2 9D 3

TOTAL 20 8 14 18


r


FS English Occup Sales Coordinator

74

Sample No. 37

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 3 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 1 3C 4

3B 3 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4

4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 2

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 1 9A 4 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 17 17 11 17



FS Journalism Occup Self-Employed

Sample No. 38

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 1

2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4

4A 3 6C 3 6D 2 7D 3

8D 2 8C 1 8B 3 8A 4

9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4

TOTAL 18 9 14 20


r


FS Business in Japanese Occup Interpreter

Sample No. 39

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 1 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4

3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3

4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 4

8D 3 8C 2 8B 4 8A 1

9B 3 9A 1 9C 4 9D 2

TOTAL 19 8 16 16


r


75

FS Engineering Occup Engineer

76

Sample No. 40

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 3 2B 3 2A 2

2C 4 2D 1 3D 3 3C 2

3B 4 3A 1 4C 3 6B 4

4A 1 6C 3 6D 2 7D 3

8D 4 8C 2 8B 1 8A 3

9B 3 9A 2 9C 4 9D 1

TOTAL 20 12 16 15


r


FS English Occup Secretary

Sample No. 41

CE RO AC AE

1A 4 1B 3 2B 1 2A 3

2C 4 2D 2 3D 3 3C 1

3B 2 3A 4 4C 4 6B 4

4A 3 6C 2 6D 3 7D 3

8D 1 8C 2 8B 4 8A 3

9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2

TOTAL 18 14 18 16



FS n/a Occup n/a

Sample No. 42

CE RO AC AE

1A 1 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2

2C 4 2D 3 3D 2 3C 4

3B 1 3A 3 4C 1 6B 2

4A 4 6C 3 6D 4 7D 3

8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4

9B 2 9A 1 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 15 13 13 19


r


77

FS English Language Occup Information Technology

78

Sample No. 43

CE RO AC AE

1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1

2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 2

3B 4 3A 1 4C 2 6B 2

4A 4 6C 1 6D 4 7D 3

8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4

9B 2 9A 1 9C 3 9D 4

TOTAL 17 10 16 16


r


FS Education Occup Teacher

Sample No. 44

CE RO AC AE

1A 3 1B 4 2B 2 2A 4

2C 1 2D 3 3D 1 3C 2

3B 3 3A 4 4C 1 6B 2

4A 4 6C 1 6D 3 7D 3

8D 1 8C 2 8B 3 8A 4

9B 1 9A 2 9C 4 9D 3

TOTAL 13 16 14 18



FS Nursing Science Occup Aviation physiology

79

Appendix D: Data Analysis

Student ID CE RO AC AE

1 14 15 15 17

2 18 11 14 18

3 13 19 15 14

4 17 9 15 16

5 12 14 14 18

6 15 13 17 13

7 16 13 12 17

8 15 14 14 15

9 18 15 11 18

10 17 11 13 18

11 15 17 10 15

12 15 14 17 17

13 14 15 12 21

14 20 12 11 17

15 19 12 15 16

16 19 8 12 20

17 18 13 14 13

18 17 10 14 19

19 13 15 11 20

20 11 18 18 13

21 16 15 15 15

22 20 10 16 14

23 18 13 9 20

24 17 11 13 21

25 19 13 12 19

26 18 18 12 16

27 16 10 16 14

28 15 12 16 16

29 17 10 16 20

30 19 16 11 12

31 16 17 11 16

32 18 18 8 17

33 18 17 10 17

34 13 13 17 17

35 15 13 19 16

36 20 8 14 18

80

37 17 17 11 17

38 18 9 14 20

39 19 8 16 16

40 20 12 16 15

41 18 14 18 16

42 15 13 13 19

43 17 10 16 16

44 13 16 14 18

Total 728 581 607 740

Mean 16.54545455 13.20454545 13.79545455 16.81818182

81

Appendix E: Interview Transcript

(Excerpted from the interview on May 17, 2014)

Sample 01 (Accuracy check confirmed by respondent on May 27, 2014)



Practical use of English and the love for learning English are favorable

background advantage.

2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities?

I love to write and the class that trains us to write is my favorite class.



All classes serve some purposes; however, I am a serious writer and I find

writing classes most useful to my interest.



I love writing exercises especially when the teacher takes time to look and

correct our works.


Role play is fun and useful. We need role plays to practice our English

conversation



I don’t mind some lecture. It is for my logical thinking and gives me time to

work on my own reflection.


We should have more group discussions so that we could share the ideas.


class?

I would wait to find out on my own. I am a quite type of girl.



The classes are useful; but, could be improve to accommodate serious learners.

82

Interview Transcript (Excerpted from the interview on May 17, 2014)




I have a habit of searching for knowledge, being self-reliance, at various

sources when I want to know something. This personal character gives me

advantage in learning this EPD course.


I love to discuss in group because it gives us a chance to share idea. In fact, I

love the combination of various activities that they would give us a chance for

learning adaptation.



I love to learn pragmatic in EPD7003 class.



I finish my work at last minute just before the deadline.


I don’t mind doing the role play.



I don’t think much of the lecture at master level.



class?

If it is about my personal feeling and opinion, I would express myself right

away. However, for facts and figures, I rather keep it for later finding on my

own accord.



I would recommend to a friend who likes to learn in different classroom

activities.

83





The love for English language is the key factor for success in taking this class.


I like to work in group and love to join the group discussion and do the role

plays. I also like the courses that are well planned and organized with known

criteria in course design.



I found writing class useful for future learning classes.



I manage to finish my homework every times coming to classes.


I love role play most among all activity.



I don’t think much about class lecture; you can always catch up the class lecture

by doing your own reading. In fact, a class lecture could put me to sleep.


I like group work with discussion and presentation.


class?

I will not ask the teacher in the class. I will ask my friend later outside the class.



I would recommend to common learners. The course is weak for serious

language learners.

84





I think that people graduate in linguistics or English Language background

have the advantages.


I like the combination of teaching environment except field trip and singing

contest.



The EPD course did not meet my expectation.



I don’t like to write.


I don’t mind doing the role play that everyone in the group have to participate;

however, the group discussion give you the opportunity to react quickly.



It depends on the things you have to learn. Some subjects could be learned

through lecture alone.


I like to work in group and don’t mind presentation


class?

I would raise my hand or find the opportunity to ask the question right away.



I find the translation class useful to my career development; however, I don’t

recommend this EPD course to friends.

86

Appendix F: Table of Chi-Square Probabilities

(from Howell, D. C. (2011: 250-252)

df 0.995 0.99 0.975 0.95 0.90 0.10 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005

1 --- --- 0.001 0.004 0.016 2.706 3.841 5.024 6.635 7.879

2 0.010 0.020 0.051 0.103 0.211 4.605 5.991 7.378 9.210 10.597

3 0.072 0.115 0.216 0.352 0.584 6.251 7.815 9.348 11.345 12.838

4 0.207 0.297 0.484 0.711 1.064 7.779 9.488 11.143 13.277 14.860

5 0.412 0.554 0.831 1.145 1.610 9.236 11.070 12.833 15.086 16.750

6 0.676 0.872 1.237 1.635 2.204 10.645 12.592 14.449 16.812 18.548

7 0.989 1.239 1.690 2.167 2.833 12.017 14.067 16.013 18.475 20.278

8 1.344 1.646 2.180 2.733 3.490 13.362 15.507 17.535 20.090 21.955

9 1.735 2.088 2.700 3.325 4.168 14.684 16.919 19.023 21.666 23.589

10 2.156 2.558 3.247 3.940 4.865 15.987 18.307 20.483 23.209 25.188

11 2.603 3.053 3.816 4.575 5.578 17.275 19.675 21.920 24.725 26.757

12 3.074 3.571 4.404 5.226 6.304 18.549 21.026 23.337 26.217 28.300

13 3.565 4.107 5.009 5.892 7.042 19.812 22.362 24.736 27.688 29.819

14 4.075 4.660 5.629 6.571 7.790 21.064 23.685 26.119 29.141 31.319

15 4.601 5.229 6.262 7.261 8.547 22.307 24.996 27.488 30.578 32.801

16 5.142 5.812 6.908 7.962 9.312 23.542 26.296 28.845 32.000 34.267

17 5.697 6.408 7.564 8.672 10.085 24.769 27.587 30.191 33.409 35.718

18 6.265 7.015 8.231 9.390 10.865 25.989 28.869 31.526 34.805 37.156

19 6.844 7.633 8.907 10.117 11.651 27.204 30.144 32.852 36.191 38.582

20 7.434 8.260 9.591 10.851 12.443 28.412 31.410 34.170 37.566 39.997

21 8.034 8.897 10.283 11.591 13.240 29.615 32.671 35.479 38.932 41.401

22 8.643 9.542 10.982 12.338 14.041 30.813 33.924 36.781 40.289 42.796

23 9.260 10.196 11.689 13.091 14.848 32.007 35.172 38.076 41.638 44.181

24 9.886 10.856 12.401 13.848 15.659 33.196 36.415 39.364 42.980 45.559

25 10.520 11.524 13.120 14.611 16.473 34.382 37.652 40.646 44.314 46.928

26 11.160 12.198 13.844 15.379 17.292 35.563 38.885 41.923 45.642 48.290

27 11.808 12.879 14.573 16.151 18.114 36.741 40.113 43.195 46.963 49.645

87

28 12.461 13.565 15.308 16.928 18.939 37.916 41.337 44.461 48.278 50.993

29 13.121 14.256 16.047 17.708 19.768 39.087 42.557 45.722 49.588 52.336

30 13.787 14.953 16.791 18.493 20.599 40.256 43.773 46.979 50.892 53.672

40 20.707 22.164 24.433 26.509 29.051 51.805 55.758 59.342 63.691 66.766

50 27.991 29.707 32.357 34.764 37.689 63.167 67.505 71.420 76.154 79.490

60 35.534 37.485 40.482 43.188 46.459 74.397 79.082 83.298 88.379 91.952

70 43.275 45.442 48.758 51.739 55.329 85.527 90.531 95.023 100.425 104.215

80 51.172 53.540 57.153 60.391 64.278 96.578 101.879 106.629 112.329 116.321

90 59.196 61.754 65.647 69.126 73.291 107.565 113.145 118.136 124.116 128.299

100 67.328 70.065 74.222 77.929 82.358 118.498 124.342 129.561 135.807 140.169

A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for Professional Development

Education

Transcript of A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for Professional Development