The Relationship between High School Learners’ Learning Styles and Their Reading Comprehension Performance
الموضوعات : نشریه مطالعات آموزش زبان انگلیسی
1 - دانشگاه دریانوردی و علوم دریایی چابهار
الکلمات المفتاحية: Learner’s cognitive style, Teacher’s awareness, Reading Comprehension, Learning Style ,
ملخص المقالة :
The study involved a total of 70 participants who were selected from Besharat High School in Chabahar. To determine their English proficiency level, the participants were administered a Longman placement test at the beginning of the study. The Brindley Questionnaire (1984), version 1, was utilized to identify how the students preferred to receive information. Additionally, version 2 of the questionnaire, which was designed for teachers, was used to assess their awareness of their students' preferred learning styles. Reading tests were also conducted to establish a connection between students' learning styles and their reading performance. The statistical analysis revealed that learners' learning styles could be categorized into three sections: ways of learning, working styles, and vocabulary learning. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that teachers were indeed aware of their students' preferred learning styles. The results of the study demonstrated a positive medium level of correlation (0.402) between students' learning styles in ways of learning and their reading performance, as well as a high level of correlation (0.916) between students' learning styles in vocabulary learning and their reading performance. In summary, the findings suggest that teachers' awareness of students' learning preferences can significantly impact their learning and reading skills. These findings hold great potential for EFL teachers, EFL learners, syllabus designers, and supervisors.
Arthurs, J. B. (2007). A juggling act in the classroom: Managing different learning styles. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2, 2-7.
Bell, J. (2007). Evaluation of learning styles and instructional methods in the NROTC Naval Operations and Seamanship Course. Institute for Learning Style Journal, 1, 52-61
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant and education program. Sydney, N SW: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Brumfit, C. (1995). Language education in the National Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Damrongpanit, S., & Reungtragu, A. (2013). Matching of learning styles and teaching styles: Advantages and disadvantages on ninth-grade students’ academic achievement
Fayombo, G.A. (2015). Teaching Strategies, Learning Styles and Academic Achievement among some Undergraduate Psychology Students in Barbados. Caribbean Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 46-65.
Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers, (800) 718-4287.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1995). Learning styles questionnaire: Facilitator guide. King of Prussia, PA: Organizational Design and Development.
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). Correction and self-correction of written assignments at the tertiary level. Journal of Language and Learning.1/2.
Liu, J. F., & He, Q. S. (2014). The match of teaching and learning styles in SLA. Creative Education, 5,728-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510085
Oxford, R. (1993). Second Language Research on Individual Differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 67-79.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Allen&Unwin.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students. TESOL Quarterly,21(1).
Riazi, A., & Riassati,M. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A students' case study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Asian EFL Journal,9(1), 6-12.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Svinicki Marilla D. (2008). A guidebook on conceptual frameworks for research in engineering education
Tanhaie, R. (2015). The Relationship between High School Learners’ Learning Styles and Their Reading Comprehension Performance] Master’s thesis, Chabahar Maritime University [
Thompson, G., & Rubin, J. (1993). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics.
Tulbure, C. (2012). Learning styles, teaching strategies and academic achievement in higher education: A cross-sectional investigation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 398 – 402. Retrieved: Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.151
Wintergerst, A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style modalities for ESL/EFL students. Systems,31(1).
Research Paper | Volume 8, Issue 3 Summer, 2023 |
| |
Accepted: April 2023 Published: August 203 |
Research Article |
The Relationship between High School Learners’ Learning Styles and Their Reading Comprehension Performance
Hamed Badpa MA Student in TEFL, English department, Faculty of Management and Humanities, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran Hamedbadpa1377@gmail.com
|
ABSTRACT Research on learning styles is crucial as it provides teachers with valuable insights for implementing changes in their classrooms. The objective of this particular study was to examine the correlation between students' learning styles and their reading performance in English. The study involved a total of 70 participants who were selected from Besharat High School in Chabahar. To determine their English proficiency level, the participants were administered a Longman placement test at the beginning of the study. The Brindley Questionnaire (1984), version 1, was utilized to identify how the students preferred to receive information. Additionally, version 2 of the questionnaire, which was designed for teachers, was used to assess their awareness of their students' preferred learning styles. Reading tests were also conducted to establish a connection between students' learning styles and their reading performance. The statistical analysis revealed that learners' learning styles could be categorized into three sections: ways of learning, working styles, and vocabulary learning. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that teachers were indeed aware of their students' preferred learning styles. The results of the study demonstrated a positive medium level of correlation (0.402) between students' learning styles in ways of learning and their reading performance, as well as a high level of correlation (0.916) between students' learning styles in vocabulary learning and their reading performance. In summary, the findings suggest that teachers' awareness of students' learning preferences can significantly impact their learning and reading skills. These findings hold great potential for EFL teachers, EFL learners, syllabus designers, supervisors, material producers, textbook writers, and researchers. Keywords: Learner’s Cognitive Style, Teacher’s Awareness, Reading Comprehension, Learning Style
|
1. INTRODUCTION
In a large classroom with more than twenty students, teachers often face the challenge of selecting the most effective teaching method, considering that students have different ways of learning. Each student in the classroom has their own unique way of receiving and processing information, which sets them apart from one another. It has been proven that people learn in different ways, and psychologists have made efforts over the years to identify the characteristics of different types of learners and categorize them into various "learning styles." Learning styles refer to common approaches to learning. The theory of learning styles is based on the understanding that individuals' distinct processing abilities result in varying learning needs.
A style is defined as "habitual patterns or preferred ways of doing something (e.g., thinking, learning, teaching, etc.) that are consistent over long periods and across many areas of activity" (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001, p. 2). Specifically, learning styles, which remain relatively constant in an individual, pertaining to "the attitudes and behaviors that determine an individual's preferred way of learning" (Honey & Mumford, 1995, p.1).
Learning styles are influenced by various factors, including those acquired by students. Based on their differences, students employ different learning styles in their educational journey. Today, all experts in the field agree that individuals comprehend, organize, analyze, and process information and experiences in diverse ways. Despite the existence of numerous theories and models on learning styles, it is evident that learning styles differ between genders. Research indicates that women's learning styles are more inclined towards empathy, collaboration, and attentive listening (Grasha, 1996). The theory of learning styles suggests adapting traditional instructional methods to accommodate individuals' unique learning styles.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
English language teachers can benefit from identifying their students' learning styles as it can help them choose appropriate methods and strategies to cater to all learning styles and improve students' achievement (Fayombo, 2015). The alignment of teaching strategies and learning styles has been found to have a positive impact on academic achievement (Tulbure, 2012). In a study conducted by Damrongpanit and Reungtragu (2013), significant differences were observed in the academic achievement of ninth-grade students based on the matching conditions of their learning styles and teachers' teaching styles. This further supports the notion that matching teaching strategies and learning styles can effectively improve students' achievement, motivation, and attitudes toward learning (Arthurs, 2007; Liu & He, 2014; Bell, 2007; Felder, 1996). Tanhaie (2015) conducted a study on the relationship between students' learning styles and their reading performance, highlighting the importance of understanding learning styles at the high school level. This research aims to investigate the research questions from both theoretical and pedagogical perspectives.
Q1. Is there a significant relationship between the Iranian high school students’ language learning style preferences and their reading performance in English?
Q2. What are the language learning style preferences of Iranian high school students in terms of working styles, ways of learning and vocabulary learning?
Q3. To what extent are Iranian high school teachers aware of their students’ language learning style preferences?
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Design
The ongoing investigation is a correlational study. Its purpose is to determine the connection between individuals' learning style preferences and their performance in reading comprehension. The research design is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Summarization of Research Design
Participants | Proficiency test | Questionnaire | Test |
70 students
Three teacher | Longman proficiency test | Brindley (1984) Learning Style Questionnaire version 1
Brindley (1984) Learning Style Questionnaire version 2 | Reading test |
The data illustrates that both teachers and students were given two different versions of the learning styles questionnaire. The participants were specifically 3rd-grade students in high school. Initially, the students took a placement test to assess their knowledge of English. The researcher conducted this test, which consisted of 100 questions covering vocabulary and grammar. The questions ranged from basic syntactic rules to more complex rules of the English language. By analyzing the results of this examination, the researchers were able to determine the proficiency level of the participants. Following the administration of the reading test, the research group proceeded with the distribution of the questionnaire. This process spanned two weeks. The questionnaire consists of two versions, one tailored for students and the other for teachers. Separate questionnaires were administered to the student and teacher groups to identify the learning styles of students and the awareness of teachers. These two versions will be compared. The questionnaire encompasses 7 learning styles, specifically focusing on working style, ways of learning, and vocabulary learning. A total of 19 questions are included in the questionnaire. The analysis will involve examining percentages, ranks, and means for each question in the learning style questionnaire. Additionally, a final reading test was conducted to assess the student's proficiency in reading. The reading test comprised 15 questions, and the mean value will be analyzed. The objective of this study is to establish a correlation between learners' learning styles and their reading comprehension levels, thus necessitating the use of correlation coefficient analysis. This research is quantitative as it requires numerical analysis. The data collected through various instruments and procedures will enable the exploration of the relationship between learners' learning styles and their reading comprehension performance.
3.2. Participants
The study included 70 third-grade students from Besharat High School in Chabahar, Sistan and Baluchistan province, Iran. The researcher, who was also a teacher at the high school, chose these participants for convenience. All participants were female students aged between 16 and 17 years old. They were divided into three separate classes and had an elementary level of English according to the Longman Placement test. Additionally, all participants had similar educational backgrounds and their native language was Balouchi. Apart from the researcher, two other teachers with experience in teaching English as a foreign language participated in the study. One teacher had 11 years of experience and a BA degree, while the other had 5 years of experience and an MA degree. The data for the study were collected over four sessions spanning four consecutive weeks.
Table 1 (Participants’ Age)
| N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean |
Participants | 70 | 16.00 | 18.00 | 17.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
Valid N (listwise) | 70 |
|
|
|
The students arrived from various parts of Sistan and Baluchestan province. All of the students have an elementary proficiency level and have scored below 33 on the Longman Placement Test, as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2 Longman Placement Test Scores
Assignment guidelines | Obtained mark | Number of participants |
0-45 elementary 46-85 intermediate 86-100 advanced | 8-33 - | 70 0 0 |
The research groups shared similar characteristics in terms of age, L1, cultural background, learning environment, material, number of terms, ethnicity, and gender. As a result, the conclusions drawn from this study can be applied to high school students who have basic proficiency levels.
3.3. Instruments and Materials
The reading test materials in this study were selected from Gaj publication. The English workbook for 3rd grade consists of 6 lessons. Each lesson in the book includes several multiple-choice questions in the accompanying workbook.
Longman placement test
At the start of the course, the instructors conducted the Longman Placement Test to assess the students' linguistic competence. This test consisted of 100 multiple-choice items that measured their language skills. Based on the interpretation of the test results, students were categorized as elementary (0-45), intermediate (46-80), or advanced (86-100) in terms of their proficiency level. The test evaluated the four macro-skills of language learning to demonstrate the student's abilities. However, since the subjects expressed their inability to speak and comprehend listening issues, the researcher decided not to administer a speaking and listening exam.
Reading Comprehension Test
The reading comprehension assessment included two passages, each accompanied by a set of multiple-choice questions. The passages used in this study were sourced from Gaj publications' Workbook, specifically focusing on English Book 3. The first passage centered around computer and technology, while the second passage explored the topic of TV or not TV. Students were allocated 30 minutes to answer a total of 15 multiple-choice reading comprehension questions.
Learning Styles Questionnaire
The language learning preference questionnaire used in this study was derived from Brindley (1984, as cited in Riazi, 2007). It comprised two variations: version 1 tailored for students and version 2 for teachers. In version 1, students were required to indicate their preferred methods of language learning. On the other hand, version 2 was designed for teachers to express their perspectives on their students' preferences in language learning. The questionnaire was employed in this study to assess the extent of teachers' awareness regarding their students' language learning preferences. Its utilization was deemed appropriate due to its dual versions, which considered both teachers' and students' responses.
Students’ questionnaire
The survey is divided into seven main sections: working styles, learning methods, vocabulary acquisition, error correction preference, media preference, learning and assessment, and evaluation. For this study, only the first three categories were included. The working style section consisted of 4 questions, the learning methods section had 7 questions, and the vocabulary acquisition section had 8 questions. In the first section, students were asked to indicate their preference for working individually or in other ways, as well as whether their teachers were aware of this preference.
Students are required to select the number that most accurately represents their characteristics. The questionnaire responses for each subject were transformed into a score ranging from 1 to 5, corresponding to different learning styles. For every question, students have five choices to choose from. These choices include option 1: never, option 2: not often, option 3: sometimes, option 4: usually, and option 5: always.
Teachers’ questionnaire
The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from Brindley (1984) and consisted of 19 Likert-type closed-ended items. Its purpose was to assess teachers' understanding and perception of students' preferred styles of learning. The questionnaire was divided into two main parts. The first part collected teachers' personal information, while the second part included two sections with a total of 19 items. In section one, four items were used to determine teachers' understanding of students' working styles, and these items were scored numerically on a scale of 1 to 5. Similarly, section two contained items (5-11) that aimed to identify teachers' awareness of students' learning styles, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. In section three, eight items were used to assess teachers' understanding of students' vocabulary learning styles, also scored numerically on a scale of 1 to 5.
Before collecting the actual data, the questionnaire was carefully examined to ensure it aligned with the study's objectives. The items were adapted from Brindley (1984) and reviewed by two TEFL instructors at Chabahar Maritime University for content validity, face validity, comprehensibility, and alignment with the study's objectives. Additionally, a pilot study was conducted with five MA students who had 4 to 5 years of teaching experience to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The individuals who took part in the pilot study were excluded from the sample when the final version of the questionnaire was administered.
3.4. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
Procedures
Once the researcher has determined the appropriate design for each research question that aligns with the research objectives, the next step involves collecting the research data. It is crucial to employ procedures that yield valuable and high-quality data during the data collection process, as the overall quality of the study heavily relies on the collected data and the data collection procedure. In the current study, various intriguing procedures were utilized to address the three research questions outlined in the introduction section.
A total of seventy female subjects, aged 16-17, who were enrolled at Besharat High School, participated in this study. To assess the students' proficiency level in English, they were administered the Longman placement test. The results of the placement test revealed that the majority of students were at an elementary level. The researcher, being a teacher, possessed some prior knowledge regarding the students' proficiency levels. In the subsequent two sessions, the students completed a learning styles questionnaire. To investigate whether the teachers were aware of the student's learning styles, the researcher administered version 2 of the questionnaire specifically designed for teachers. During the third session, the students were given 30 minutes to complete a reading test consisting of 15 questions. All three classes participated in this reading test. The instructions mentioned above can be found in Table 5.
Table 5 Course Schedule
Session | Research Group | Module | Theme |
1st | 10/2/2022 | Proficiency test | Longman Placement test |
2nd | 17/2/2022 | Students learning style | Learning styles questionnaire Version 1 |
3rd | 24/2/2022 | Teachers learning style | Learning style questionnaire Version 2 |
4rd | 3/3/2022 | Test | Reading test |
Proficiency test procedure
In the second week of instruction, the instructors conducted a standardized Longman placement test to assess the proficiency level of the students. This test consisted of 100 items and the instructors instructed both the control and experimental group students to answer the questions within a time limit of 50 minutes. The test aimed to evaluate various aspects of the student's knowledge of the English language. The teacher clarified to the students that this examination was designed to assess their understanding. However, when the instructor proposed a listening and writing test, the students expressed their inability to comprehend and write in English. The results indicated that there was uniformity among all the students in both the control and experimental groups.
Learning Styles Questionnaire procedure
The Brindley (1984) questionnaire was utilized to assess the learning preferences of the students. They were instructed to provide their genuine responses and were also informed that they could seek clarification if needed. After completing the questionnaire, the students were asked to review their answers for any incompleteness or missing information.
Within 15 minutes, all the students completed and returned the questionnaire. To address the issue of teacher awareness regarding students' learning styles, a second version of the questionnaire was administered to the teachers. The researcher and two teachers then proceeded to fill out the questionnaire.
Reading test procedures
During the fourth session, the students were allocated a total of 20 minutes to complete the entire reading test. This test included passage one, which consisted of 7 questions, and was taken by members of all three classes. In the subsequent session, the students were given the second part of the reading test, which was passage two. This section contained 8 questions, all of which were in multiple-choice format. Overall, the reading test comprised of two passages, with one passage having 7 multiple-choice questions and the other passage having 8 questions. It is worth noting that all the students successfully finished the test.
Test specification
The determination of test specification features such as test setting, test procedure, and test construction was carried out in order to provide a comprehensive assessment. The test aimed to evaluate the speaking skills of adult students before and after receiving instruction. These students had studied English for a duration of six years in an academic setting. Based on their proficiency level, the students were considered to be at an elementary level. It is worth noting that the students were bilingual, with Balochi being their mother tongue, Persian being their second language, and English being their foreign language.
Data analysis
The process of analyzing data involves examining, purifying, and transferring data in order to uncover valuable insights, draw conclusions, and facilitate decision-making. In this study, the researcher utilized various statistical calculations such as t-tests and correlational coefficients to determine the relationship between students' learning styles and their reading performance. Specifically, a Pearson-product correlation was employed to establish the connection between learners' learning styles and their reading comprehension abilities. Each section of the questionnaire was examined for its correlation with the reading test. Section 1 focused on the correlation between working styles and reading comprehension scores using Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC). Section 2 explored the correlation between ways of learning styles and reading comprehension scores, while section 3 examined the correlation between vocabulary learning styles and reading comprehension scores.
The findings indicate a correlation between the learning styles of learners and their reading comprehension performance. The study involved 70 elementary high school students from Iran. The research focused on identifying the learning styles of the students, as well as the teachers' awareness of these styles, and the relationship between the students' learning styles and their reading performance.
The first research question aimed to identify the student's learning styles in three areas: working style, ways of learning, and vocabulary learning style. To address this question, the researcher utilized Brinley's (1984) learning style questionnaire. The data collected from the questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS software version 26. Mean and percentage values were calculated for each question.
The second research question explored whether teachers were aware of the students' learning styles. To answer this question, Brindley's learning style questionnaire version 2 was administered. The data collected from the questionnaire were then analyzed using SPSS software version 26. The researcher compared the responses of the students and the teachers to determine the teachers' awareness of the student's learning styles. Additionally, the researcher calculated the mean reading scores using a paired sample t-test. Furthermore, the researcher examined the correlation between the students' learning style scores and their reading comprehension scores. This analysis aimed to demonstrate the existing relationship between the students' learning styles and their reading performance.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The proficiency level of all participants was determined using the Longman Placement test. To investigate the Longman placement test, a sample T-test was conducted. Additionally, the items of questionnaire version 1 and version 2 were analyzed, with the mean calculated for each item. Furthermore, a reading test was administered, and descriptive statistics, tables, and correlation coefficient techniques were employed to identify any correlations between reading performance and students' learning styles.
Group | N | Mean | SD | SE Mean |
Placement test | 70 | 30.44 | 12.31 | 1.47 |
Table 6. Learners’ Performance on the Longman Test
The Longman Placement test was conducted to assess the English language proficiency of the students. The Table above presents the average value and standard deviation of the group in the Longman placement test. The average value for this group is 30.44. Based on the Longman placement test, these individuals are classified as being at the elementary and pre-elementary levels of English.
Descriptive analysis of students’ learning styles and the teachers’ awareness
Table 7 presents a comprehensive overview of the various working styles of students and the teacher's understanding of their preferred methods of accomplishing tasks and assuming responsibility across a diverse range of classroom structures. In terms of their learning styles, certain students exhibit a preference for working independently, while others prefer collaborating in pairs. Additionally, the data indicates that certain subjects fostered a positive learning experience for students when they were engaged in group activities.
Table 7. Students’ Working Style Preferences
| Students Response | Teachers Response | ||||||||
Indicators | Mean | Percent | Rank | Description | Mean | Percent | Rank | Description | ||
In class do student like learning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
1)individually | 3.58 | 38.6 | 1 | Usually | 3.00 | 4.3 | 2 | Sometimes | ||
2)in pair | 3.42 | 32.9 | 2 | Sometimes | 4.00 | 1.4 | 1 | Usually | ||
3)in small groups | 3.20 | 34.3 | 4 | Usually | 3.00 | 1.4 | 2 | Sometimes | ||
4)in one large group | 2.28 | 45.7 | 3 | Not often | 2.33 | 2.4 | 3 | Not often | ||
The findings indicated that students have a preference for either working independently (3.58) or in pairs (3.42). Similarly, the average score of 4.00 for teachers' responses regarding pair work suggests that teachers are aware of students' preferred working methods. Two teachers were conscious of students' inclination towards individual learning. Working in pairs or small groups provides an opportunity for feedback and practice. The results demonstrated that students not only excel in individual learning but also enjoy collaborating with their peers. These findings support the learner-centered approach, which is widely endorsed by English practitioners who consider pair work or small groups as essential. This serves as a clear message to teachers that students feel more at ease, creative, and relaxed when working in pairs or individually. Students who prefer working independently are confident in their knowledge and are aware of areas where they need to invest more time. They can utilize their preferred learning styles and strategies.
Table 8.Students’ Ways of Learning Preferences
| Students’ responses | Teachers’ responses | ||||||
Indicators | Mean | Percent | Rank | Description | Mean | Percent | Rank | Description |
Do students like learning by |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1)listening | 3.44 | 44.3 | 5 | Usually | 3.33 | 2.9 | 3 | Usually |
2)reading | 3.88 | 37.1 | 1 | Always | 4.33 | 2.9 | 1 | Usually |
3)copying from the board | 3.80 | 40 | 3 | Usually | 3.00 | 4.3 | 4 | Always |
4)listening and taking notes | 3.00 | 34.3 | 6 | Not often | 3.33 | 2.9 | 3 | Usually |
5)reading and making notes | 3.81 | 40.0 | 2 | Usually | 4.33 | 2.9 | 1 | Usually |
6)repeating what you hear | 3.71 | 38.9 | 4 | Usually
| 4.00 | 4.3 | 2 | Always |
7)making summaries | 2.84 | 34.3 | 7 | Sometimes | 2.66 | 2.9 | 5 | Usually |
Range: 4.51_5.00 always 3.51_4.50 usually
2.51_3.50 sometimes 1.51_2.50 not often
1.00_1.50 never
Table 8 presents the findings regarding students' preferences for different reading activities. The mean score of 3.88 indicates that students highly prioritize reading closely. Following closely behind is the activity of reading and making notes, which obtained a mean score of 3.81. Similarly, teachers perceive students' preference for reading with a mean score of 4.33. These scores highlight the active nature of reading for students, as they engage in receiving, constructing meaning, and responding to written and verbal messages. It is crucial to note that weak reading comprehension skills can significantly impact a student's academic success. The ability to understand, analyze, and apply information gathered through reading is essential for academic progress.
Taking notes can greatly assist students in focusing on the subject matter and retaining what they have read or heard. By paraphrasing the lecture or reading material in their own words and organizing it in a format that suits their understanding, students enhance their comprehension when reviewing their notes. Students need to pay attention to clues that indicate the significance of certain information. Lecturers and authors often organize their material logically, and students can benefit from utilizing these organizational skills during note-taking. Overall, the results suggest that learners are not inclined to adopt a passive role in the learning process. On the other hand, making summaries received the lowest rating of 2.84 as a preferred learning method.
Table 9 showcases the preferences of students when it comes to vocabulary learning, along with the teachers' reactions regarding how students’ progress in acquiring a new set of words in the target language. This approach offers students ample opportunities to understand, retain, and utilize the target language.
Table 9. Students’ Vocabulary Learning Preferences
Students’ responses | Teachers’ responses | |||||||
Indicators | Mean | percent | Rank | Description | Mean | Percent | Rank | Description |
When using a new vocabulary do students like learning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1)by using a word in a sentence | 3.31 | 34.3 | 3 | Sometimes
| 3.33 | 2.9 | 2 | Sometimes |
2)by thinking of relationships between known and new | 2.44 | 42.9 | 7 | Usually
| 2.33 | 2.9 | 4 | Usually |
3)by saying or writing words several times | 3.91 | 52.9 | 1 | Usually | 4.66 | 4.3 | 1 | Always |
4)by avoiding verbatim translation | 2.71 | 34.3 | 5 | Not often | 2.00 | 1.4 | 5 | Never |
5) translating from English | 3.35 | 37.1 | 2 | Sometimes | 2.33 | 2.9 | 4 | Sometimes |
6)by translating into English | 2.11 | 34.3 | 8 | Not often | 2.66 | 2.9 | 3 | Sometimes |
7)by guessing the unknown | 2.94 | 31.4 | 4 |
Usually | 2.33 | 2.9 | 4 | Not often |
8) by reading without looking up words | 2.71 | 37.1 | 6 | Sometimes | 3.00 | 4.3 | 3 | Sometimes |
Range: 4.51_5.00 always 3.51_4.50 usually
2.51_3.50 sometimes 1.51_2.50 not often
1.00_1.50 never
The data presented in the Table indicates that students have expressed a strong preference for repeating words (3.91) and translating from English (3.35). Likewise, teachers' understanding of students' vocabulary acquisition aligns with the choices made by the students.
Students who are in the process of translating from their native language to a second language encounter various challenge. They are simultaneously acquiring translation skills and learning the second language. In numerous cases, translators of a second language face difficulties in different aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, style, phonology, or culture. These challenges arise from their limited linguistic abilities in the target language.
Correlation analysis of students’ learning styles and their reading ability
The present study discusses and examines the connections between students' language learning style preferences and their proficiency in reading English. The significant correlations between the initial section of the language learning style preferences questionnaire and the student's reading performance in English are presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Correlation Analysis between Students’ Learning Preferences in Working Style and Reading Ability
|
| Reading | working |
|---|---|---|---|
reading | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .258* |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| .031 | |
N | 70 | 70 | |
working | Pearson Correlation | .258* | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .031 |
| |
N | 70 | 70 |
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Based on Table 10, the correlation coefficient index between reading comprehension and the working style of the students is approximately 0.258. This index can be considered moderately low when examining the relationship between these two variables. Consequently, it indicates the absence of a connection between students' reading comprehension and their working style.
Table 11. Correlation Analysis between Students’ Learning Preferences in Ways of Learning and Reading Ability
|
| Reading | Ways |
|---|---|---|---|
reading | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .402** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| .001 | |
N | 70 | 70 | |
Ways | Pearson Correlation | .402** | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
| |
N | 70 | 70 |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 11 presents findings on the correlation between students' reading comprehension and their learning methods. The results indicate a moderate relationship between the two variables, specifically the ways of learning and reading performance. With a correlation coefficient index of 0.402, there exists a positive moderate level of correlation (0.30 < 0.40 < 0.49, Pallant, 2005) between these aforementioned variables.
Table 12. Correlation Analysis between Students’ Language Learning Preferences in Vocabulary Learning and Reading Ability
|
| reading | vocabulary |
|---|---|---|---|
reading | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .916** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
| .000 | |
N | 70 | 70 | |
vocabulary | Pearson Correlation | .916** | 1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
| |
N | 70 | 70 |
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 12 provides the answer to the inquiry regarding the connection between students' language learning preferences in vocabulary acquisition and their reading proficiency. The correlation coefficient index for reading comprehension and vocabulary learning in this table is 0.916, indicating a substantial relationship as defined by Pallant (2005) (0.50 < 0.916). This implies that there exists a strong and positive association between the students' reading performance and their preferred styles of vocabulary learning.
Teachers’ responses also indicate that they are aware of students' preferences for pair work. According to Kavaliaukienne (2003), pair work and small groups are considered the most effective methods for developing communicative skills in the target language. Additionally, cooperative learning in pairs or small groups has been found to have several benefits, such as positive interdependence, individual accountability, and the development of teamwork and interpersonal skills. This approach has also shown positive results in both language skills and altruism. Svinicki (2008) highlights the advantages of students working in pairs and small groups, including increased participation, enhanced learning from peers, clearer instructions, and the promotion of student responsibility for their learning.
Reid (1987) acknowledged that ESL students displayed a negative inclination towards group learning, which was further supported by Reid's 1995 study involving students from diverse ethnic backgrounds. In this study, it was found that every background expressed a minor or negative preference for group work, with English speakers rating it the lowest. However, Wintergerst's (2003) findings among Russian and Asian ESL students contradicted these results, as these groups favored group activities over individual work.
In terms of the second section of the questionnaire and its descriptive statistics, various types of research have demonstrated the effectiveness of utilizing second language learning styles. Successful language learners often employ styles and strategies in a coordinated manner, leading to improved overall proficiency or achievement in specific skill areas (Oxford 1993, Thompson and Rubin 1993). Regarding the third section of the questionnaire and its descriptive statistics, the results indicate that students expressed a strong preference for vocabulary learning through repetitive writing or speaking of words, as well as utilizing the second language (L2) as a reference to enrich their vocabulary in their first language (L1).
5. CONCLUSION
Learning vocabulary is a complex task, despite its perceived simplicity by many. When acquiring a new word, the learner must undertake various tasks such as spelling, pronunciation, stress, grammatical class, semantic category, and their combination with other grammatical elements in a sentence. Additionally, they must consider possible contextual occurrences in different situations (Bada, 2000).
Recent research on vocabulary learning style preferences has revealed differences in terms of how individuals prefer to learn vocabulary. Riazi (2007) conducted a case study on students' preferences and found that they showed a reluctance towards translation, which contradicted the teachers' beliefs about their students. One explanation for this finding is that students tended to gravitate towards using authentic materials to learn new vocabulary in the target language.
Language learning and learning styles are inherently intertwined as part of a broader process of acquiring communicative skills. Brumfit (1995) argues that significant progress in linguistic competence can only be achieved through a better understanding of the processes involved in language use and the choice of learning methods. These considerations highlight the need for reflection on how these language learning assets should be presented to students, taking into account their individual tendencies and optimal learning conditions.
Pedagogical Implications
The findings of the present study have pedagogical implications, indicating the significance of identifying students' learning styles. Moreover, it suggests that teachers should possess an awareness of learners' learning styles to effectively support students in becoming proficient language learners. In the Iranian community, language teachers often adopt a teacher-centered teaching approach, functioning as knowledge transmitters rather than facilitators in language teaching and learning.
REFERENCES
Arthurs, J. B. (2007). A juggling act in the classroom: Managing different learning styles. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 2, 2-7.
Bell, J. (2007). Evaluation of learning styles and instructional methods in the NROTC Naval Operations and Seamanship Course. Institute for Learning Style Journal, 1, 52-61
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant and education program. Sydney, N SW: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Brumfit, C. (1995). Language education in the National Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Damrongpanit, S., & Reungtragu, A. (2013). Matching of learning styles and teaching styles: Advantages and disadvantages on ninth-grade students’ academic achievement
Fayombo, G.A. (2015). Teaching Strategies, Learning Styles and Academic Achievement among some Undergraduate Psychology Students in Barbados. Caribbean Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 46-65.
Grasha, A.F. (1996). Teaching with style: A practical guide to enhancing learning by understanding teaching and learning styles. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers, (800) 718-4287.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1995). Learning styles questionnaire: Facilitator guide. King of Prussia, PA: Organizational Design and Development.
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). Correction and self-correction of written assignments at the tertiary level. Journal of Language and Learning.1/2.
Liu, J. F., & He, Q. S. (2014). The match of teaching and learning styles in SLA. Creative Education, 5,728-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510085
Oxford, R. (1993). Second Language Research on Individual Differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 67-79.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Allen &Unwin.
Reid, J. (1987). The learning style preferences of EFL students. TESOL Quarterly,21(1).
Riazi, A., & Riassati,M. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A students' case study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Asian EFL Journal,9(1), 6-12.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Svinicki Marilla D. (2008). A guidebook on conceptual frameworks for research in engineering education
Tanhaie, R. (2015). The Relationship between High School Learners’ Learning Styles and Their Reading Comprehension Performance] Master’s thesis, Chabahar Maritime University [
Thompson, G., & Rubin, J. (1993). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics.
Tulbure, C. (2012). Learning styles, teaching strategies and academic achievement in higher education: A cross-sectional investigation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 398 – 402. Retrieved: Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.151
Wintergerst, A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style modalities for ESL/EFL students. Systems,31(1).
