A STUDY OF LEARNING STYLES OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN …library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/lang/2014/20088.pdf · 2015. 1. 22. · a study of learning styles of students enrolled in english

A STUDY OF LEARNING STYLES OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN

ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSES

AT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT

ADMINISTRATION

SUMITTED 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

บทคดยอ

ช�อวทยานพธ การศกษารปแบบการเรยนรของนกศกษา หลกสตรภาษาองกฤษเพ�อการพฒนาอาชพ

คณะภาษาและการส�อสาร สถาบนบณฑตพฒนบรหารศาสตร

ช�อผเขยน นายประพชร ศรวงศรงสรร

ช�อปรญญา ศลปศาสตรมหาบณฑต หลกสตรภาษาองกฤษเพ�อการพฒนาอาชพ

ปการศกษา ภาคเรยนท� 2/2556

การวจยน2 ศกษารปแบบการเรยนรท�มตอความสาเรจในการเรยนและความสมพนธระหวางรปแบบ

ของการเรยนรกบ เพศ อาย สาขาวชา และอาชพ กลมตวอยางจานวน 44 คน เปนนกศกษาระดบปรญญา

โท หลกสตรภาษาองกฤษเพ�อการพฒนาอาชพ สถาบนบณฑตพฒนบรหารศาสตร เคร�องมอท�ใชเปนแบบ

วดรปแบบการเรยนรตามแนวคดของเดวด คอลบ (David Kolb) ซงแยกรปแบบการเรยนรออกเปน 4

แบบ คอ แบบอเนกนย (Diverger) แบบดดซม (Assimilator) แบบเอกนย(Converger) และแบบ

ปรบปรง(Accommodator) และใชการสมภาษณและเขยนบนทกจากตวอยาง 4 คนท�เลอกจากกลม

ตวอยางขางตน ผลการศกษาพบวานกศกษามรปแบบการเรยนรท�กระจกตวอยสองรปแบบคอ รปแบบ

ปรบปรงมากท�สดคอรอยละ59.09% และรองลงมาเปนรปแบบอเนกนยคอรอยละ34.09% สวน

ความสมพนธของรปแบบการเรยนรตอผลการเรยน เพศ อาย สาขาวชา และอาชพ เคร�องมอท�ใชคอไคส

แควร(Chi-square) การทดสอบมความสมพนธกนอยางมนยสาคญ ท� .05 ผวจยเช�อวาผลการศกษาคร2 งน2

ไดใหแนวคดดานการออกแบบหลกสตรการเรยนการสอนภาษาองกฤษไดด โดยเนนความคดเชงรปธรรม

การทดลองท�ใหประสบการณจรง และความหลากหลายในการใชความคดของนกเรยนเปนสาคญ

คาสาคญ: รปแบบการเรยนร, เดวด คอลบ, ไคสแควร, การเรยนการสอนภาษาองกฤษ, ความสาเรจในการ

เรยน

iv

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

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

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

vi

3.5 Procedure for Developing Instruments 12

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 34

Appendix B: Interview Questions 36

Appendix C: Data from the Questionnaire 37

Appendix D: Data Analysis 52

Appendix E: Interview Transcript 54

Appendix F: Table of Chi-Square Probabilities 58

vii

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

viii

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

ix

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

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

3

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

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.

4

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.

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.

5

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

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,

6

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 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

7

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 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)

8

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

9

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 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).

10

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).

11

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 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.

12

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.

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

13

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.

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

14

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 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).

15

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.

16

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

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

17

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 Accommodating

style (59.09%).

Table 2 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles

Learning Styles Frequency Percentage

Diverging (D) 15 34.09%

Assimilating (ASS) 1 2.27%

Converging (C) 2 4.55%

Accommodating (ACC) 26 59.09%

Total 44 100.00%

AE-RO = 3.61,

AC-CE = -2.75

18

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

OBSERVED

Diverging 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

EXPECTED


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 - EXPECTED


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 / EXPECTED


Excellent 0.207792 9.090909 0.136364 1.136364 10.57143

V. Good 0.071429 0.5 0.75 0.09 1.411429

F. Good 0.142857 1 0.166667 0.02 1.329524

Others 0.260462 0.409091 0.243266 0.153636 1.066455

TOTAL 0.68254 11 1.296296 1.4 14.37884

19

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.

EXPECTED

Diverging

(D)

Assimilating

(ASS)

Converging

(C)

Accommodating

(ACC) TOTAL

Male 3.068182 0.204545 0.409091 5.318182 9

Female 11.93182 0.795455 1.590909 20.68182 35

TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44

OBSERVED - EXPECTED

Diverging

(D)

Assimilating

(ASS)

Converging

(C)

Accommodating

(ACC) TOTAL

Male -0.06818 -0.20455 -0.40909 0.681818

Female 0.068182 0.204545 0.409091 -0.68182

TOTAL


Diverging

(D)

Assimilating

(ASS)

Converging

(C)

Accommodating

(ACC) TOTAL

Male 0.001515 0.204545 0.409091 0.087413 0.702564

Female 0.00039 0.052597 0.105195 0.022478 0.180659

TOTAL 0.001905 0.257143 0.514286 0.10989 0.883223

Table 4 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Gender

OBSERVED

Diverging

(D)

Assimilating

(ASS)

Converging

(C)

Accommodating

(ACC) TOTAL

Male 3 0 0 6 9

Female 12 1 2 20 35

TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44

20

4.2.4 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Age

Students 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.

Table 5 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Age

OBSERVED


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

EXPECTED


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 - EXPECTED


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



Senior 0.131008 19.54651 0.093023 1.162791 20.93333

Up-Mid 0.393023 5.306202 0.27907 3.535039 9.513333

Low-Mid 0.722389 0.395349 1.849521 0.453133 3.420392

Junior 2.916107 0.418605 0.031654 1.905116 5.271481

TOTAL 4.162527 25.66667 2.253268 7.056078 39.13854

21

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

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.

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

OBSERVED


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


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



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

22

4.2.6 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Occupation

Students had been divided into four groups according to their occupation – 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.

Table 7 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Occupation

OBSERVED


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



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 0.747804

TOTAL 1.05303 1.055556 1.340278 0.34843 3.797294

23

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. 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.

24

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.

25

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 could

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

26

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 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

27

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 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

28

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.

29

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 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

30

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.

31

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. 250-252.

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

32

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 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”:

33

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.

34

APPENDICES

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. 4=Best describes you 3 = Second Best 2 = The Third 1=Least describes you

Be sure to apply different above ranking number to each choice in a row. Do not put the same number in the same row. A B C D 1)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.

Scores 2)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 6)When I learn I like concrete I like to be active. I like to observe. I like ideas and

35

English, things, things I can see, feel touch or smell.

theories.

Scores 7)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.

Scores 8)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

Name / Telephone No.

Age 29 or Below 30-39 40-50 >50 GPA EPD Program

2.99 or Below 3.00-3.39 3.40-3.79 3.80-4.00

Gender Male Female xxx Field of Study (I got my B.S. degree in …) Occupation

36

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?

37

Appendix C: Data from the Questionnaire

Sample 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 Accommodator


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


FS English Occup English Instructor

38

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



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 Accommodator


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

39

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



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



FS English Occup Instructor

40

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



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



FS Food Science Occup Research and Development Supervisor

41

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



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


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



FS n/a Occup n/a

42

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



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



FS physical education Occup physical therapy

43

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



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

44

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



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



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



FS Journalism and Mass Communication Occup Communicator

45

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



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



FS English Occup Meeting Coordinator

46

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



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



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



FS n/a Occup Student

47

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

48

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



FS English Occup Sales Coordinator

49

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



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



FS Engineering Occup Engineer

50

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



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



FS English Language Occup Information Technology

51

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



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

52

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

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

53

43 17 10 16 16

44 13 16 14 18

Total 728 581 607 740

Mean 16.54545455 13.20454545 13.79545455 16.81818182

54

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.

55

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.

56





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.

57





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.

58

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

59

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

Documents

A STUDY OF LEARNING STYLES OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN …library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/lang/2014/20088.pdf · 2015. 1. 22. · a study of learning styles of students enrolled in english