LEARNING STYLES OF SMPN 1 DAGANGAN STUDENTS AND THEIR IMPLICATION TO ENGLISH TEACHING

Learning Styles Of SMPN 1 Students Of Dagangan Madiun And Their Implication To English Teaching

(A Thesis Summary submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to complete the degree of Post-graduate Program in Language Studies)

Zainal Arifin S.200.120.056

Post-graduate Program in Language Studies Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

Abstract

A language is probably the most difficult set of skills a person could ever struggle to learn. There is no easy way to master a language, particularly a language which is not our first language. In the process of learning a language particularly a second language, there are many variables that determine the success of a language learner which include language learning styles. In a class made up of various learning styles, it is always necessary for the teachers, particularly the language teachers to identify, respect and work on the diversity of the learners’ differences. The study investigated the diverse learning styles employed by ESL students in SMPN 1 Dagangan, Madiun Regency, East Java. The students were classified into three levels of competence; high, middle, and low level competence. They were also classified based on gender; males and females. A set of questionnaire was distributed to fifteen students. To get deeper interpretation on their learning styles, the students were also interviewed. The students’ learning style preferences were identified besed on their levels of competence and gender in order to investigate their differences. The data was analysed using the case study method and the findings revealed that the students’ learning styles can be categorised as visual, auditory, kinesthethic, tactile, individual and group learners. The results of the study indicated that there were some differences in using learning styles by the students of high, middle and low levels of competence. A little difference was also found in male and female students in using learning styles. Thus, it is important for teachers to be aware of their students learning styles. It is clear then that one factor which can lead to the success of a language teaching-learning process is the match between students` learning styles and the teaching methods used by the teachers.

Keywords: Learning styles, levels of competence; high – middle – low, gender, PLSPQ, ESL, case study.

1

1. Introduction

This study aimed to identify learning style preferences of the students at

SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun and their implication to English teaching. SMPN 1

Dagangan is one of the state secondary schools in Madiun Regency. It is located

in Banjarsari Kulon Village, about 15 km from Madiun City, East Java. The

school has 632 students and most of their parents are farmers. Living in a village

makes the students tend to be ashamed and low motivated, especially in learning

English. Thus they have many kinds of learning styles. The ways how to learn are

influenced by their backgrounds; where they live, what their parents are and how

they do their lives.

In the process of learning the language, there are many variables that

determine the success of a language learner. Language learning success is

associated with a range of factors including age, gender, motivation, intelligence,

anxiety level, learning strategies and language learning styles (Sharp, 2004). In a

class made up of various learning styles, it is always necessary for the teachers,

particularly the language teachers to identify, respect and work on the diversity of

the learners’ differences.

Some researches in the field of language teaching have been trying to find

out teaching methods, classroom techniques, and instructional materials that will

promote better language instruction. However, in spite of these efforts there has

been a growing concern that the students have not progressed as much as it was

hoped. Because there are considerable individual differences in language learning

such as gender, age, social status, motivation, attitude, aptitude and culture. As

2

results what work for one student might not work for another. Grenfell and Harris

(1999:10) stated that “Methodology alone can never be a solution to language

learning. Rather it is an aid and suggestion”.

Today's teachers are well trained and they know that they have not

succeeded as long as some students have not reached the objectives of their

teaching. A knowledge and understanding of the learning process, the importance

of sensorial stimuli and activity, and recognition of the significance of learning

styles, will enable today's teachers to succeed in teaching English.

2. Background

It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that any individual student

relies on a single style of learning. What the teacher must realize is that some

students require more sensorial or motor engagement than others in order to learn

effectively. It has always been recognized, of course, that sensorial experience and

activity are the fundamentals of anyone's learning process, whether the students

and effective teachers have always provided the opportunity for these in their

lesson plans. If some students do not succeed well by one approach, then perhaps

they will do better by another.

The success of teaching-learning process is not only determined by how

the teachers teach but also, most importantly and principally is determined by how

the students learn. Language learning styles is one of the main factors that help

determine how the students learn a second or foreign language. However, the

students have different personalities so they learn in many ways or styles.

3

A previous study was conducted by Stapa (2003) concerning teachers’

awareness of ESP students’ learning preferences. In this study, it was discovered

that students’ tendency towards working in pairs or small groups was well

perceived by teachers. In a more recent study, Felder and Silverman (2005)

formulated a learning style model that comprises of four dimensions including

sensing and intuitive learners, visual and verbal learners, active and reflective

learners as well as sequential and global learners. Later, another study was

conducted by Hoque (2008) who investigated the learners’ strategies and

preferences in learning EFL. It was discovered that most of the students studied

English due to its curriculum requirement, and that they studied English just for

the sake of examinations. Only a few number of students realized the actual need

for English in practical life (Hoque, 2008)..

Based on the previous studies, it is necessary that this study be done using

a slightly different set of sample. Therefore, this study was carried out in SMP

Negeri 1 Dagangan Kab. Madiun which is located in the rural area where the

majority of the students find that English is not a major priority and learning it

would only add to their burden while studying for the examinations. Another

factor contributing to this condition is that very little effort is put in particularly by

the school management to motivate their students to be proficient in the language.

The knowledge of students’ learning styles may help teachers in handling

the diversity of learner differences and learning styles among them and thus set a

new guideline on how to better help them in achieving good performance in

teaching English.

4

Moreover, the match between the students’ learning styles and the

teachers’ teaching styles can enhance an effective teaching-learning process.

Thus, it is important for teachers to be aware of their students learning styles. Due

to the importance of knowing the students` learning style and limited number of

studies done on identifying the students` learning style difference, this study is

conducted.

2.1. Problem of the Study

Based on the research statement, the writer raised some questions research

questions as follows:

1. Do the three level competence Students have different learning styles?

2. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by the high level

competence Students?

3. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by the middle level

competence Students?

4. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by low level competence

students?

5. Are there any differences of using learning styles by the students based on

gender?

3. Literature Review

One of the most popular categorization of learning style models is sensory

or perceptual learning styles which are classified under cognitive styles.

5

Individuals rely on these different sensory modalities to experience the world

(Messick, 1976). To interact with the world and to organize information, three

sorts of these sensory styles are pinpointed: the visual leads to figural thinking;

the auditory leads to verbal thinking; and kinesthetic leads to physical or motoric

thinking (Willing, 1988). One of the popular researchers emphasizing sensory

modes is Reid (1987). She focuses on ‘perceptual’ and ‘sociological’ learning

style preferences. The perceptual learning style dimension measures the learner’s

preferences for one or using a combination of sensor modes of experiencing

learning such as auditory or verbal, visual or spatial, tactile or hands-on, and

kinesthetic or psychomotor. Reid identifies these two different preferences as

individual preferring and group preferring sociological learning styles. Further,

Reid (1987) developed her model and presented it in a questionnaire called

Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ). She divides her

learning style instrument into six categories to address visual, auditory,

kinesthetic, tactile, as well as group and individual learning (Reid, 1987:88).

Students learn in many different ways. In many cases, students’ learning

style preferences show how well they learn material in different situations. The

following explanations of major learning style preferences describe the

characteristics of those learners. The descriptions will give some information

about ways in which the students learn best.

1. Visual Major Learning Style Preference

They learn well from seeing words in books, on the chalkboard, and in

workbooks. They remember and understand information and

6

instructions better if they read them. They do not need as much oral

explanation as an auditory learner, and they can often learn alone with a

book. They should take notes of lectures and oral directions if they want

to remember the information.

2. Auditory Major Learning Style Preference

They learn from hearing words spoken and from oral explanation. They

may remember information by reading aloud or by moving your lips as

they read, especially when they are learning new material. They benefit

from hearing audiotapes, lectures, and class discussion. They benefit

from making tapes to listen to, by teaching other students, and by

conversing with their teacher.

3. Kinaesthetic Major Learning Style Preference

You learn best by experience, by being involved physically in

classroom experiences. You remember information well when you

actively participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the

classroom. A combination of stimuli – for example, an audiotape

combined with an activity – will help you understand new material.

4. Tactile Major Learning Style Preference

They learn best when they have the opportunity to do “hands-on”

experiences with new materials. That is, working on experiments in

laboratory, handling and building models, and touching and working

with new materials provide them with the most successful learning

situations. Writing notes or instructions can help them remember

7

information, and physical involvement in class-related activities may

help them understand new information.

5. Group Major Learning Style Preference

They learn more easily when they study with at least one other student,

and they will be more successful completing work well when they work

with others. They value group interaction and class work with other

students, and they remember information better when they work with

two or three classmates. The stimulation they receive from group work

helps them learn and understand new information.

6. Individual Major Learning Style Preference

They learn best when they work alone. They think better when they

study alone, and they remember information they learn by themrselves.

They understand material best when they learn it alone, and they make

better progress in learning when they work by themselves.

(Reid, 1995, pp. 162-167)

4. Method

In this research method, the writer presents the point of research method,

namely: (a) type of research, (b) subject of the study, (c) data and data source, (d)

technique of data collection, (e) technique of data analyses and (f) checking the

reliability and validity of the data.

4.1. Type of Research

8

The writer analyzes the data using qualitative case study method that does

not include any calculating and enumerating. Besides that, there is no data

manipulation because all analyzes based on real condition.

4.2. Subject of the Study

The subject of this study was 15 Students of the third year from Class 9A

and 9H of SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun in the 2013/2014 academic year. They are

divided into 3 groups of competence. Each group has 5 Students. They are:

1. High level competence Students (5 Students);

2. Middle level competence Students (5 Students);

3. Low level competence Students (5 Students).

4.3. Data and Data Source

The data used in this study were:

1. Documentation (The Students’ test scores)

2. The results of questionnaire

3. The results of interview

The data source in this study was fifteen Students taken from class 9A and 9H of

SMP Negeri 1 Dagangan Kab. Madiun, East Java. The Students of the third year

were divided into eight classes based on their achievement levels. They were class

9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F and 9H. Class 9A had the highest competence level,

whereas class 9H had the lowest one.

9

4.3. Technique of Data Collection

4.3.1. Documentation

Documentation is a supporting method of collecting data by using the

documents or archival records of the Students to support other sources of data.

The documents were the list of Students’ marks or study reports, the result of a

test, and any items that support the research. The researcher used the study reports

of the Students to identify the three levels of competence; high level competence,

middle level competence, and low level competence. The achievement test was

used to ensure result of the identification of the level competence.

4.3.2. Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a written or printed form used in gathering information

on some subject or subjects consisting of a list of questions to be submitted to one

or more persons. The researcher used Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference

Questionnaire (PLSPQ).

4.3.3. Interview

Interview is one of the most important sources of case study information.

The interview could take one of several forms: open-ended, focused, or structured.

The researcher used a focused interview. The students were interviewed for only a

short time, and the questions asked came from the case study protocol which were

adopted from the questions in PLSPQ.

10

4.4. Technique of Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using the case study method as described by

Merriam (1998). The reason for choosing a case study for this research was that

the case study allows for in depth analysis of a particular group who occupy a

similar background. In depth analysis is useful for building an understanding of

issues related to a theory such as learning style in this research.

"Data analysis consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, or

otherwise recombining the evidence to address the initial propositions of a study"

(Yin, 1994). The analysis of case study is one of the least developed aspects of the

case study methodology. The researcher needs to rely on experience and the

literature to present the evidence in various ways, using various interpretations.

This becomes necessary because statistical analysis is not necessarily used in all

case studies. This case study employs a series of statistical tests to help in the

presentation of the data to the reader.

Explanation-building is considered a form of pattern-matching, in which

the analysis of the case study is carried out by building an explanation of the case.

This implies that it is most useful in explanatory case studies, but it is possible to

use it for exploratory cases as well as part of a hypothesis-generating process.

There are some things that the researcher must be careful to review to

ensure that the analysis will be of high quality, including: showing that all

relevant evidence was used, that all rival explanations were used, that the analysis

addressed the most significant aspect of the case study, and that the researchers

knowledge and experience are used to maximum advantage in the study.

11

4.5. Checking the reliability and validity of the data

Reliability is concerned with the replicability of a research study, over

time, instruments, and respondents, and the extent to which it produces similar or

identical results (Ary et al., 2006; Bryman, 2008; Bush, 2007; Cohen et al., 2007;

Davidson & Tolich, 2003). Cohen et al. (2007) point out that in qualitative

research, reliability “can be regarded as a fit between what researchers record as

data and what actually occurs in the natural setting that is being researched”.

Reliability however, does not automatically imply that research findings

are valid. Validity is concerned with the “integrity of the conclusions that are

generated from a piece of research” (Bryman, 2008:32) and whether the methods

and tools “devised to gauge a concept really measures that concept” (Bryman,

2008:51). The issue of internal validity was considered in this research study.

Internal validity is concerned with the credibility and authenticity of research

findings and whether these conclusions or explanations can be sustained by the

data (Bryman, 2008; Cohen et al., 2007; Keeves, 1997). Internal validity can be

ensured through triangulation and respondent validation.

Triangulation is the use of two or more methods of data collection or

sources of data in the study of some aspect of human behaviour (Bryman, 2008;

Cohen et al., 2007; Denzin, 1997; Sturman, 1997).

6. Results and Discussion

6.1. Learning Styles of the Three Level-Competences of the Students.

12

Due to the research problems and the limitation of this study, the

researcher identified 15 Students as the object of the research. They are divided

into three groups based on the ranking. The groups are high level, middle level,

and low level.

The data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed to establish

frequency distribution in the form of descriptive statistics. The results showed that

there were differences in the use of language learning style all of the six

categories by the three-level competence of the Students.

In order to discover the types of perceptual learning styles of SMPN 1

Dagangan Students in general, the descriptive statistic of the six kinds of learning

styles were computed. The general tendency of the distribution showed that of 15

Students, in general, Group learning style preference ranked first, followed by

Visual learning style, Individual learning style, Kinesthetik learning style,

Auditory learning style, while responses to Tactile learning style had the lowest

rank.

After identifying the Students’learning styles via the questionnaire, the

researcher planned to interview the participants to get deeper interpretation on

their learning styles. The results of the interview showed that the Students of

SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun were the most Group in their learning style

preferences. This result is in line with the questionaire result that Group learning

style got the most responses from the Students. Most Students enjoy working in

group so they learned best when working with others. They preferred group

interaction and class work rather than working alone to exchange ideas,

13

understand them better and quite probably accept others ideas. This style helped

them to learn and understand new material better.

Based on the data from the questionnaire and interview results, the

participants in this study, indicated that the most preferred style was group

learning style, visual learning style ranked the second. The third place in the

ranking order was taken by the individual, and the fourth was kinesthetic learning

style. But there were two differences in rank five and six. Auditory learning style

ranked the fifth in questionnaire but it ranked the sixth in interview. Tactile

learning style ranked the sixth in questionnaire but it ranked the fifth in interview.

6.2. Learning Styles of High Level Competence Students

The finding result of questionnaire showed that Individual learning style

ranked the first (80% of questionnaire and 100% of interview), then followed by

Visual one (72% of questionnaire and 96% of interview). The third rank was

Group learning style (60% of questionnaire and 80% of interview). The next rank

was Tactile learning style (50% of questionnaire and 60% of interview).

Kinesthetic learning style ranked the fifth (26,6% of questionnaire and 60% of

interview), and Auditory ranked the last (35% of questionnaire and 30% of

interview).

Moreover the results of interview showed that almost all Students of high

level competence used individual learning style. They learned best when they

worked alone. They could think well when they studied alone, and they could

remember information they learned by themselves. They would like studying

alone such as self-directed study or independent reading and study.

14

6.3. Learning Styles of Middle Level Competence Students

The second group of the students that the researcher interviewed was the

middle level competence students. The results showed that there were any

differences in using learning styles between the high level and middle level

competence students. The middle level competence students like Group learning

style most. This finding was different from the high level competence students

who preferred Individual learning style as their first choice. The students enjoyed

working in the group style so they learnt best when working with other, this style

helped them to learn and understand new material better.

Based on the results of the questionnaire, none of the middle level

competence used Tactile learning style when they were studying. This finding was

6.4. Learning Styles of Low Level Competence Students

The finding showed that the low level competence students preferred

Group learning style than others. The results of questionnaire were in line with the

results of interview that Group learning style got the most response from them. So

there was no doubt that they could learn best when working with others. This style

helped them to study and understand new material better.

The results of interview to the students with low level competence

indicated that all of them like to study in groups. It was very common among the

students to look for help from other classmates in order to complete tasks and

share ideas about the development of some activities. The main purpose of

15

collaboration was to let the students know other styles for learning and to share

their own styles with classmates.Working with classmates, in groups or in pairs,

gave students the opportunity to explore their styles. As the students were given a

specific task, they showed how they could develop it by using their styles and, at

the same time, they could observe the styles used by their partners.This way of

working let the students develop a specific task in a complementary way; that is to

say, every student contributed with his own learning styles to carry out the task.

6.5. The Students’ Learning Styles Preferences based on gender

To devide the students based on gender, the researcher classified the

fifteen students of the three level groups into males and females. There were 5

males and 10 females. The results of questionnaire were analysed to identify their

learning style preferences into six catagories to address visual, auditory,

kinesthetic, tactile, as well as group and individual learning style.

Based on the results of questionnaire, we can observe that males had

preference for the groupl style as well as females. Male and female enjoyed

working in the group style so they learned best when working with other, this

style helped them to learn and understand new material better.

There was a little difference between the results of questionnaire and the

results of interview. The results of interview showed that all male students used

individual as their learning style (100%) but female students used group learning

style (90%), which was suitable with the results of questionnaire.

16

We can observe that males have preference for the individual style while

females prefer the group learning style. Males enjoy studying alone. They

preferred working on their own and they learned new information by themselves

and they remembered the materials better if they learned it alone. But females

enjoyed working in the group style so they learned best when working with

others. However the average results of the questionnaire and interview showed

that both males and females chose group learning style as their preference.

7. Conclusion

Based on the perceptual learning styles’ classification which is categorized

by Reid (1995), the dominant learning style preferences of SMPN 1 Dagangan

students indicated that the majority of SMPN 1 Dagangan students considered

themselves as Group learners. They preferred learning English as a foreign

language by working on some activities in pairs and small groups; they relied on

others' ideas when solving problems and were good at interpersonal relationships

because they felt that this approach would be useful for their needs, facilitating

them to improve their English skills.

The followings are the perceptual learning style preferences of SMPN 1

Dagangan students based on their competence levels and gender:

1. The students with high level competence preferred Individual learning

style. They learned best when they work alone. They could think well

when they studied alone, and they could remember information they

learned by themselves. The students with middle level competence

17

preferred Group learning style. They enjoyed working in the group style so

they learnt best when working with other.

2. The students with low level competence preferred Group learning style.

Even all of them like to study in groups. It was very common among them

to look for help from other classmates in order to complete tasks and share

ideas about the development of some activities.

3. The male students preferred Group learning style. But they also

preferred Individual learning style. However the difference of average results of

questionnaire and interview was small; 80% group and 60% individual. It means

that male students sometimes like to learn alone and sometimes in groups. They

liked the teacher to make variation in their teaching straregy that enabled them to

study English individually at one time and in group at another time. Whereas the

female students preferred Group learning style to Individual one. They enjoy

working in the group style so they learned best when working with others.

Not only students learn in different ways but also teachers teach with

various methods. Some of them explain, others demonstrate or discus; some focus

on principles and others on applications; some emphasize memory and others

understanding.Therefore, teaching and learning style dimensions parallel one

another.

The differences of using learning styles by the students influence

classroom dynamics and student success. It also has provided implications for

future to match teaching and learning styles so as to develop students’ potentials

in learning English.

18

The results of this study indicated that there was difference of learning

styles used by the high level competence students, middle level competence

students and low level competence students of SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun. But

there wasn’t difference of learning styles used by male and female students.

Further research may study the reasons why the results did not indicate

significant differences on the gender variables because various studies claim that

learning style preferences have a great effect on academic achievement, student

attitudes, and student behavior.

Since this study was restricted to a small group of the students, i.e. 15

students, it is recommended that it can be replicated and the sample size be

increased by including a large number of students from the same school and/or

other schools to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

Further research should not only investigate the students’ learning style

preferences but also find out the teaching styles used by their teachers and see

whether they match the students’ learning styles. Being aware of the learning

styles of the students, knowing their likes, dislikes, easy ways of learning may

facilitate both teaching and learning and make this learning-teaching cycle much

19

REFERENCES

Sharp, A. (2004). Language learning and awareness of personality type in Chinese settings. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.asian-efl journal.com/Article_1_June_as_2004.pdf

Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies in theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Stapa, S.H. (2003). ESP students’ learning preferences: Are the teachers aware? Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_4/Stapa.htm

Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). English for specific purposes: Learners’ preferences and attitudes. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from http://www.shakespeare.uk.net/journal/jllearn/1_1/kavaliauskiene_learn1_1.html

Felder. R. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education 78 (7). pp. 674-681.

Felder, R.M. & Spurlin, J.E. (2005). "Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles." Intl.Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112

Hoque, M.E. (2008). Learners’ strategies, preferences and styles in learning English as a foreign language: A study on the preferences of higher secondary students in Bangladesh. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.languageinindia.com/march2008/bangladeshenglishlearning.pdf

Rahil, M., Habibah, E., Cheong, L.S., Muhamad, M.F., Nooreen, N. & Maria C.A. (2006). The relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their English language achievement. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.usm.my/education/publication/4%20Rahi%20(61-71).pdf

Marlyna, M., Hua, T.K., & Khazriyati S. (2007). Interference in learning English: Grammatical errors in English essay writing among rural Malay secondary school students in Malaysia. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~ebangi/makalah-j2-b2-jan-julai-07/Marlyna-baru.pdf

Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice andpsychological type on adult language learning strategies.  The   Modern Language   Journal,   73 , 1-13.

Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies in

20

theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Grenfell, M., Harris, V., (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: Intheory and practice. Routledge, London. In: Grifths, C. (Ed.), Lessons fromGood Language Learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.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.

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learningstrategies by university students.  The   Modern   Language   Journal,   73 , 291-300.Oxford, R. L. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 34-46). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students.  TESOL Quarterly,21 (1), 87-111.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.).  Learning   styles   in   the   ESL/ EFL classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. (pp. ix- xiv). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Perceptual learning style preference survey. In J. Reid(Ed.).  Understanding   learning   styles   in   the   second   language   classroom . (pp.162-167). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.

Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 118-125). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us.  TESOL   Quarterl y, 9 (1), 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history andtypology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.),  Learner   strategies   and   language learning. (pp. 15-29). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learningstrategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23,2003 from the following World Web Site : http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.

Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual – learning – style preferences ofPost secondary students of English as a second language. In J. M. Reid (Ed.)

21

Learning   styles   in   the   ESL/EFL   classroom . (pp. 108-117). New York: Heinleand Heinle Publishers.

Willing, K. (1988).  Learning   styles   in   adult   immigrant   education . Research Series(Ed. David Nunan). Australia: National Curriculum Research Center: AdultMigrant Education Programme.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL Students.  TESOL Quarterly,21 (1), 87-111.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.).  Learning   styles   in   the   ESL/ EFL classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learningstrategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23,2003fromthefollowingWorldWebSite:http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.

Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., Ehrman, M., (1988). Vive la diference? Reflections on sex diferences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign language Annals 21(4), 321 329.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Perceptual learning style preference survey. In J. Reid(Ed.). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. (pp.162-167). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.

Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. (pp. ix- xiv). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.

Reid, J., (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1), 87-111.

Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL Students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 118-125). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Rossi-Le, L., (1989). Perceptual Learning Style Preferences and their Relationshipto Language Learning Strategies in Adult Students of English as a Second Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Drake University, Des Moines, IA.

Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learning

22

strategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23, 2003 from the following World Web Site: http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.

Dunn, R.S., & K.J. Dunn. (1979). Learning styles/teaching Styles: Should they...can they...be matched?Educational Leadership,36, 238-244.

Dunn,R.(1984). Learning style: State of the scene. Theory Into Practice, 23, 10-19.

Dunn, R.S. and S.A. Griggs. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American schools. Reston, VA:National Association of Secondary School Principles.

Dunn, R.S. and s.A. Griggs. (1989). Learning styles: Quiet Revolution in American secondary schools.Clearing House, 65(1), 40-42.

Dunn, R.S., Honigsfeld, A., & Doolan, L. (2009). Impact of learning-style instructional strategies onstudents’ achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educators in deverse institutions. The Clearing House,82(3), 135-140.

Evans, C., Harkins, M.J., & Young, J.D. (2008). Exploring teaching styles and cognitive styles: evidencefrom school teachers in Canada. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 567-582.

Felder, R.M. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.

Gregorc, A.F. (1997). Relating with style. Colombia, CT: Gregorc Associates.

Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, Va.: National Association of secondary school Principles.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Oxford, R.L., M. Ehrman, R. Z. Lavine. (1991). Style wars: teacher-student style conflicts in the language classroom. In Magnan, S.S. (Ed.), Challenges in the 1990s for College Foreign Language Programs: Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.

23

Willing. K.(1988). Learning styles in adult migrant Education. Adelaide: Nation Curriculum Resource Center.

Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, P. Oltman, D.R. Goodenough, F. Friedman, D.R. Owen and E. Raskin. (1977). Role of field dependent and field independent cognitive styles in academic evolution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 197-211.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their individual learning style: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. (373.1394 DUN- Book)

Dunn, R. (1996). 19 Easy-to-try Ways to Turn on Students. Teaching Pre K-8, 27(3), 50-51.

Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362.

Singh, H. (2003) Building effective blended learning programs, Educational Technology, 43, 51-54.

Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, P. Oltman, D.R. Goodenough, F. Friedman, D.R. Owen and E. Raskin. (1977). Role of field dependent and field independent cognitive styles in academic evolution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 197-211.

Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant education program. Sydney, NSW: Adult Migrant Education Service.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education, 5th Ed. London: Routledge- Falmer.

Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf

Reid, J. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Riazi, A. & Riasati, M.J. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A case study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_2007_EBook.pdf

24