a study of learning styles of students enrolled in english for professional development
DESCRIPTION
A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for Professional Development (EPD) Classes at National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA)TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY OF LEARNING STYLES OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN
ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CLASSES
AT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
SUBMITTED TO
ASST. PROF. DR. ML. JIRAPA ABHAKORN
BY
PRAPHAT SIRIVONGRANGSAN
A RESEARCH PAPER FOR EPD 9000 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
(ENGLISH FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
2014
ii
ABSTRACT
Title of Dissertation A Study of Learning Styles of Students Enrolled in English for
Professional Development (EPD) Classes at National Institute of
Development Administration (NIDA)
Author Praphat Sirivongrangsan
Degree Master of Arts Program in English for Professional Development
Year 2014
Learning Styles are closely related to students’ academic achievement and several
environmental factors such as gender, age, field of study, and occupation. By realizing their
own learning styles, students can choose strategies to improve academic outcomes. Second
or foreign language acquisition is one of the most difficult learning environment one can
experience in a classroom setting. This study looked into the relationship between learning
styles and academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation of students
studying at NIDA for the Master’s Degree in EPD Program. This study employed a mixed
methodological approach including both quantitative and qualitative methods centered
around the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) including questionnaires and interviews.
The results showed that the majority of the students preferred Accommodating style
(59.09%) and Diverging style (34.09%). Only three persons out of 44 samples preferred
Assimilating or Converging. Findings from chi-square tests indicated that there were
significant correlations of learning styles and academic performance, gender, age, field of
study, and occupation. Most students preferred classroom activities such as open-ended
problems, student presentations, design projects, subjective exams, and simulations. They
also like to solve homework problems, conduct computer simulations, enjoy field trips,
making individuals’ reports, and demonstrating what they knew. Students and educators
would benefit from this study through a better understanding of factors affecting academic
performance and the adaptation of learning and teaching strategies.
Key Words: Learning Styles, Second Language Acquisition, Academic Achievements, Kolb
Learning Style Inventory, Chi-Square Test
iii
บทคั�ดย่�อ
ชื่��อวิ�ทยานิ�พธ์ การศึ�กษาร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ของนิ�กศึ�กษา หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการพ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พ คณะภาษาแลัะการสู��อสูาร สูถาบ�นิบ�ณฑิ�ตพ�ฒนิบร�หารศึาสูตร
ชื่��อผู้��เข�ยนิ นิายประพ�ชื่ร ศึ�ร�วิงศึ ร�งสูรรชื่��อปร�ญญาศึ�ลัปศึาสูตร มหาบ�ณฑิ�ต หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการ
พ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พป-การศึ�กษาภาคเร�ยนิท�� 2/2556
การวิ�จั�ยนิ�/ศึ�กษาร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ท��ม�ต0อควิามสู1าเร2จัในิการเร�ยนิแลัะควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ระหวิ0างร�ปแบบของการเร�ยนิร� �ก�บ เพศึ อาย4 สูาขาวิ�ชื่า แลัะอาชื่�พ กลั40มต�วิอย0างจั1านิวินิ 44 คนิ เป5นินิ�กศึ�กษาระดั�บปร�ญญาโท หลั�กสู�ตรภาษาอ�งกฤษเพ��อการพ�ฒนิาอาชื่�พ สูถาบ�นิบ�ณฑิ�ตพ�ฒนิบร�หารศึาสูตร เคร��องม�อท��ใชื่�เป5นิแบบวิ�ดัร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ตามแนิวิค�ดัของเดัวิ�ดั คอลั บ (David Kolb) ซึ�งแยกร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ออกเป5นิ 4
แบบ ค�อ แบบอเนิกนิ�ย (Diverger) แบบดั�ดัซึ�ม (Assimilator) แบบเอกนิ�ย(Converger) แลัะแบบปร�บปร4ง(Accommodator) แลัะใชื่�การสู�มภาษณ แลัะเข�ยนิบ�นิท�กจัากต�วิอย0าง 4 คนิท��เลั�อกจัากกลั40มต�วิอย0างข�างต�นิ ผู้ลัการศึ�กษาพบวิ0านิ�กศึ�กษาม�ร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ท��กระจั4กต�วิอย�0สูองร�ปแบบค�อ ร�ปแบบปร�บปร4งมากท��สู4ดัค�อร�อยลัะ 59.09% แลัะรองลังมาเป5นิร�ปแบบอเนิกนิ�ยค�อร�อยลัะ 34.09% สู0วินิควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ของร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �ต0อผู้ลัการเร�ยนิ เพศึ อาย4 สูาขาวิ�ชื่า แลัะอาชื่�พ เคร��องม�อท��ใชื่�ค�อไคสูแควิร (Chi-
square) การทดัสูอบม�ควิามสู�มพ�นิธ์ ก�นิอย0างม�นิ�ยสู1าค�ญ ท�� .05 ผู้��วิ�จั�ยเชื่��อวิ0า
iv
ผู้ลัการศึ�กษาคร�/งนิ�/ไดั�ให�แนิวิค�ดัดั�านิการออกแบบหลั�กสู�ตรการเร�ยนิการสูอนิภาษาอ�งกฤษไดั�ดั� โดัยเนิ�นิควิามค�ดัเชื่�งร�ปธ์รรม การทดัลัองท��ให�ประสูบการณ จัร�ง แลัะควิามหลัากหลัายในิการใชื่�ควิามค�ดัของนิ�กเร�ยนิเป5นิสู1าค�ญ
ค1าสู1าค�ญ: ร�ปแบบการเร�ยนิร� �, เดัวิ�ดั คอลั บ, ไคสูแควิร , การเร�ยนิการสูอนิภาษาอ�งกฤษ, ควิามสู1าเร2จัในิการเร�ยนิ
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research paper is the sign of the end of my journey in fulfilling a major part of
requirement for my Master’s Degree at NIDA. I own a debt of gratitude to many persons
during my struggle for knowledge, and I need to mention them here. First and foremost, I
would like to express my gratitude to Assistant Professor Jirapa Abhakorn for her kind and
persistent advice in her role as my supervisor and helping me throughout this research task.
Her constructive comments and encouragement have been invaluable and inspired me to do
the best I can.
Additionally, I wish to mention the following faculty members of Graduate Language
and Communication for their great effort in teaching me: Assist. Professor Saksit
Saengboon for World Englishes and Research Methods, Assist. Professor Kasma
Suwanarak for Integrated Reading and Writing and English for Business Communication,
Assist. Professor Ketkanda Jaturongkachoke for Grammar for Professional Context,
Associate Professor Varasiri Sagaravasi for English for Human and Social Services, Assist.
Professor Compol Sawanboonsatic for Professional Writing, Assist. Professor Yu-Hsiu
(Hugo) Lee for English for Media and Technology, Assist. Professor Ora-Ong Chakorn for
Theory and Practice in Translation, and, again, Assist. Professor Jirapa Abhakorn for
Listening and Speaking in Workplaces, and English for Academic Professions. I am
eternally grateful and proud to be their students.
I also would like to thank Dr. Narathip Thumwongsa for teaching me a practical 3-
hour course in information retrieval technique of searching the internet, which proved
helpful in doing this research.
Indeed, I would not have been able to complete this paper without the help of students
who filled in the questionnaires and did the interviews. I am in their debts.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Ajarn Andrew James West for proofreading this
paper, providing the clear language of a native English speaker.
Finally, my special thanks go to my family for their support and understanding so that
I could concentrate on my study.
Praphat Sirivongrangsan
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES VII
LIST OF FIGURES VIII
LIST OF ACRONYMS IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Rationale of Research 2
1.3 Research Objective 2
1.4 Significance of the Research 3
1.5 Scope of the Study 3
1.6 Research Hypothesis 4
1.7 Organization of the Research 4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Background of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Learning
Styles 5
2.3 Definition of Learning Styles 6
2.4 Classifications of Learning Styles 6
2.5 Review of Previous Research 9
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 11
3.1 Introduction 11
3.2 Research Questions 11
3.3 Research Method 11
3.4 Participants 12
3.5 Procedure for Developing Instruments 12
vii
3.6 Procedures for Scoring and Analyzing 13
3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research 14
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 16
4.1 Introduction 16
4.2 Quantitative Results 16
4.3 Qualitative Results 23
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 25
5.1 Introduction 25
5.2 Discussion of Research Question 1 25
5.3 Discussion on Research Question 2 26
5.4 Discussion on the Third Research Question 27
5.5 Discussion of the Hypothesis 27
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 29
BIBLIOGRAPHY 31
APPENDICES 34
Appendix A: Questionnaire 35
Appendix B: Interview Questions 37
Appendix C: Data from the Questionnaire 38
Appendix D: Data Analysis 53
Appendix E: Interview Transcript 55
Appendix F: Table of Chi-Square Probabilities 59
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1 Mean of Four Dimensions 16
2 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles 17
3 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Academic Achievement 18
4 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Gender 19
5 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Age 20
6 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Fields of Study 21
7 Chi-Square on Learning Styles and Occupation 22
8 Ranking the Chi-Square Values among the Findings 23
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1 A Four-Stage Hypothetical Learning Cycle 8
2 The Learning Style Grid on Fields of Study 10
3 Learning Style Type Grid by Kolb (1976) 17
x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AC Abstract Conceptualization
ACC Accommodating
AE Active Experimentation
AEC Asean Economic Community
ASS Assimilating
C Converging
CE Concrete Experience
D Diverging
df Degree of Freedom in Chi-Square
ELM Experiential Learning Model
EPD English for Professional Development
GPA Grade Point Average
KLSI Kolb Learning Style Inventory
L2 Second Language
LSI Learning Style Inventory
NIDA National Institute of Development Administration
p Possibility in Chi-Square
RO Reflective Observation
SLA Second Language Acquisition
1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Background
It is commonly known that only a comparatively few adult second language
(L2) learners can attain a native speaker level, and that not all child L2 beginners will
be equally successful in the long term (Hulstijin, 2007). For several decades,
researchers have tried to explain these learning phenomena by investigating a wide
range of factors including mental and physical mechanisms in the brain/mind. One of
the major questions raised by researchers concerns how learning styles affect
outcomes in second language acquisition (SLA). Learning styles closely relates to
SLA due to the fact they are phenomena of mind. Learning styles are an individual’s
natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new
information and skills (Reid, 1995). In the early 70s, scholars began to explore
influential factors from different academic backgrounds in order to explain the
fundamental issues in SLA. During the past three decades, linguists, psychologists,
and educationalists have identified 21 models of learning styles in relation to L2
learning (Reid, 1995). The conclusion, thus far, have led to further questions with
respect to the relative weight of various socio-psychological factors (e.g. learning
context, quantity and quality of input; and leaner attributes, e.g., attitudes, motivation,
aptitude) (Hulstijn, 2007). Researchers have explored this vast area of study, raising
the importance of this field of study. However, only few publications are available in
the literatures that discuss learning styles with reference to academic achievement of
L2 learners in Master’s Degree programs in Thailand. In this paper, the researcher
studies the learning styles of students enrolled in the Master of Arts Degree in English
for Professional Development (EPD) courses at National Institute of Development
Administration (NIDA). The study focusses on Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory
(KLSI) as a research instrument, and the relationships of learning styles and students’
academic performances. Also, the researcher studies the relationship between learning
styles and the environmental factors such as age, gender, field of study, and
occupation of the subjects.
2
1.2 Rationale of Research
The Graduate School of Language and Communication at NIDA offers a
Master’s Degree in EPD to develop the English communication proficiency of the
Thai community in preparation to meet the challenges resulted from Thailand’s
imminent integration as part of the Asean Economic Community (AEC) in 2015. This
program consists of many intermediate to advanced courses in listening, speaking,
reading, and writing to develop students’ English proficiency. These comprehensive
courses are useful for career development and, as a result, attract people in large
numbers from the Thai community. Students with different backgrounds apply for the
courses. The students are differed in their English proficiency level, gender, age, field
of study, and occupation and despite the school administering an admission exam,
there remains a high level of withdraws , with ten out of every forty-four students
leaving the school after only the first term. Therefore, it is a challenge for both
educators and students to find an effective means to improve the situation other than
simply screening out the lower-achieving students. One-way to approach the problem
is to rely on teaching methods and classroom activities that build optimal teaching and
learning performance. To implement an effective approach, the learning styles of
students need to be determined so that educational and research tools and strategies
can be designed.
Among the numerous theories of learning, David A. Kolb (1971) developed a
theory of experimental learning that proved useful in many areas including
educational strategies and career development. In this theory, Kolb created the
learning style inventory (LSI) as a tool to classify students’ learning styles. From that
time, Kolb’s LSI (KLSI) emerged as the essential instrument in many academic fields
as it helped determine the uniqueness, complexity, and variability of individual
approaches to learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005: 8).
1.3 Research Objective
3
This study aims to understand the relationship between learning styles and SLA
by looking at academic achievement. It also investigates the influence of gender, age,
field of study, and occupation on learning styles. To be more specific, this research
adopts the following objectives:
1.3.1 To determine the characteristics of learning styles among the students in
two EPD classes.
1.3.2 To examine if there were the correlations between learning styles and
their academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation among the
students in two EPD classes.
1.3.3 To understand the perceptions of a few selected students from the two
EPD classes concerning their learning styles.
1.4 Significance of the Research
The literature concerning learning styles indicates that some individuals
demonstrate a quick learning absorption of subject matter when the pedagogical
approach utilized in instruction caters to the students’ learning style inclination
(Felder & Silverman, 1988; Garcia, Schiaffino & Amandi, 2008; Honey & Mumford,
1992; Kolb, 1984; Litzinger & Osif, 1993). This current research may be useful in
that it could achieve the following outcomes:
1. The finding of this research would improve the understanding of
experimental learning theory, linked to practice in the classroom, resulting in
an improved overall academic performance among EPD students.
2. Entrance examiners may select EPD students due to a better understanding
of individuals through looking into the backgrounds, saving resources and
disappointments of those who had been admitted inappropriately.
3. This paper highlights areas for future research on SLA in particular in the
area of dynamic interactions between teachers and students.
1.5 Scope of the Study
4
This research uses KLSI to determine learning styles of 50 students from two
NIDA EPD classes. The study uses a statistical quantitative approach to determine the
relationships of students’ learning styles and academic performance. In addition, it
investigates the correlation of students’ learning styles compared to gender, age, field
of study, and occupation. This paper classifies subjects by gender; classifies subjects
into four categories of age 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, and 51-60; classifies subjects by field
of study into language, education, service, and others; and classifies subjects by
occupation into language, education, science, and others.
1.6 Research Hypothesis
The hypotheses formulated for the study are as follows:
1. The students in the two EPD classes have the characteristics of learning
styles fairly distributed among all learning types.
2. The learning styles of the students in these classes correspond to the fields of
study as suggested by Kolb’s learning style grid on Fields of Study.
3. There are correlations between the EPD students’ learning styles and their
academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation.
1.7 Organization of the Research
This paper is organized into six chapters. After this introduction, Chapter 2
examines the extent literature addressing the research questions of this thesis. It also
provides the theoretical concepts of the fields required to support the arguments
presented in this paper. This paper, then, reviews the work of previous researchers in
order to identify a gap in the research raises and justifies the research questions in the
next chapter.
Chapter 3 portrays the research methodology adopted in the study. Following
introductory statements giving an overview of the chapter, research questions are
established based on the research objective. In turn, the reasoning for the adoption of
a mixed method, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches, is discussed.
5
Subsequently, details of participants, procedure for developing instruments, and
procedure for scoring and analyzing the data are discussed to corroborate the designed
process. Significantly, issues of reliability and validity are provided at the end of this
chapter.
Chapter 4 concludes the findings from an analysis of the research data based on
the use of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
Chapter 5 includes a detailed interpretation of the findings in relation to both
research questions and previous relevant research findings.
In the final chapter, Chapter 6, a summarization of the study with a focus on key
findings draws the conclusion of this study. This chapter ends with an outline of this
study’s limitations and suggestions for further research.
6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This literature review contained five sections. After the introduction, section 2.2
provides background of SLA related to learning styles. The third section defines
learning styles as related to SLA. Next, in section four learning styles are divided into
four types according to KLSI. The fifth and final section focuses on previous studies
on SLA, KLSI, and factors affecting them.
2.2 Background of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and
Learning Styles
SLA represents all languages that learners learn after their first or native
language. In general, it refers to the scientific discipline devoted to studying the
process of acquiring a second language. In the past two decades, with the
collaboration of many researchers in the fields of linguistics, psychology, and
education, researchers in SLA have shifted the view of transferring knowledge from
the traditional way of “How to Teach” to a new way of “How to Learn”. This “How
to Learn” method focused on factors related to learners themselves. Learning styles
became the emphasis for researchers in SLA. Students and educators in SLA needed
to know the learning styles of students in order to implement effective learning and
teaching strategies. This study explores the learning styles of students from different
backgrounds so that strategies were implemented with a proper awareness of factors
affecting the learning outcomes. Moreover, Saengboon (2013) concluded that the
success of learning among L2 students was not based on the teachers themselves;
rather it was based on the learners and the learning process. This conclusion
strengthened the view that learning strategies and styles were important factors in
students’ academic success. Similarly, students were more inclined to use social and
practical learning strategies. The learners and the learning process, then, became the
central issue among L2 learners as it would benefit them and to add practical learning
7
environment and their learning process (Suwanarak, 2012).
Many studies on L2 learning have found out that social and practical classroom
activities were important to students’ learning process. For instant, Abhakorn (2004)
concluded that the students in a MBA program at NIDA preferred Extraversion,
Sensing, Thinking, and Judging to Introversion, Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving.
She also urged that language learners were diverse in learning styles and that the
social and practical types of learning activities contributed to the learning success.
2.3 Definition of Learning Styles
Learning styles are characteristics of individuals related to how they perceive
and process information, and represent unintentional or automatic responses. Learning
styles are related to all types of learning including the acquisition of English as a
second language. Learning styles promote learning strategies in the achievement of
L2 learning in the classroom (Suwanarak, 2012: 3). Learning strategies are actions
chosen by students to facilitate learning to achieve the best possible learning outcome.
Students need to know their own learning styles in order to choose effectively their
learning strategies. In fact, the difference between learning styles and learning
strategies was the level of intentionality and awareness (Spolsky quoted in Bailey,
2000:116-117). Furthermore, Bailey (2000:115) stated that recent research in the field
of L2 acquisition have increasingly examined a multitude of variables affecting
foreign language achievement. Moreover, the study of learning styles and the SLA
had become an increasingly interesting subject as many students appeared to have
difficulty adapting their cognitive set to study foreign languages, and understanding of
their learning styles appeared to play an important role in finding a solution to this
problem.
2.4 Classifications of Learning Styles
Many scholars have simplified and categorized individual approaches to
8
learning over the last five decades, from Field-dependence / independence by Witkin
(1962) to SPQ by Biggs, Kember, & Leung (2001). In total, scholars offered as many
as 23 models with eight different disciplinary aspects (Cassidy, 2004). For example,
Keefe proposed that learning styles were cognitive, affective, and physiological traits
that were relatively stable indications of how learners perceived, interacted with, and
responded to the learning environment (Keefe, 1979: 4, quoted in Eliason, 1989). In
addition, Reid (1995: 14) classified learning styles into Sensory, Cognitive, and
Temperament. Each classification consisted of two to four different types of learning
styles. The three most prominent styles were Kolb Experiential Learning Model
(ELM) in Cognitive, Perceptual Learning Styles in Sensory, and Myers-Briggs
Temperament Styles in Temperament. Due to a limitation of time, this paper uses
Kolb ELM as a method of classification.
Kolb (1976) defined ELM based on his theory of experiential learning to assess
individual learning style. This concept was based upon three previous works: the
developmental studies by Piaget, experiential learning by Dewey, dialectical tension
by Lewin, and ideas of types and nonpreferred modes of learning by Jung (Koob &
Funk 2002:294). Later, Kolb (1984) described learning as the process of transforming
experience into knowledge, having four dimensions: (1) affective (sensing, feeling),
(2) perceptual (skills of observation), (3) symbolic (cognitive, thinking skills), and (4)
behavioral (doing).
Based on these four dimensions, Kolb developed four learning abilities: (1)
affective into Concrete Experience (CE) (feeling), (2) perceptual into Reflective
Observation (RO) (reflection, watching), (3) symbolic into Abstract
Conceptualization (AC) (abstractness, thinking), (4) behavioral into Active
Experimentation (AE) (action, doing). Learners choose between two polar opposites:
(1) AC to CE, and (2) AE to RO, as shown in figure 1. The first polar opposite AC to
CE represented prehension or perceiving (the vertical axis) – the grasping of
information from experience. The second polar opposite AE to RO represented
transformation or processing (the horizontal axis) – the process of grasped
information.
The two polar opposites formed a four quadrant of learning models:
accommodating, diverging, converging, and assimilating, with each representing a
9
prevalent learning style. Moreover, they formed a four-stage learning circle, starting
from the top and moving in clockwise direction. From the top, people started the four-
stage circle by having a concrete experience. Then they observed and reflected upon it
from different perspectives. After the reflection, they formed concepts,
generalizations, and theories in their mind. Finally, they tested their understanding of
abstracts in a tangible way of doing through complex situations. Again, if the tested
theory failed, they began the first stage of the circle by learning from failure,
experiencing a new problem at hand.
Figure 1 A Four-Stage Hypothetical Learning Cycle
(Adapted from Litzinger & Osif, 1992: 79)
10
Kolb (1984) characterizes learning styles into the following four basic types
based on both research and clinical observation of the patterns on LSI scores.
Divergers, the imaginative learner, carefully considered observations and
experiences, sought information and pondered all things thoroughly, postponed
judgement until all data was collected, watched, and listened to before yielding an
opinion. In the classroom situation, Divergers preferred working in groups, listening
with an open mind, and receiving personal feedback (Francis, Mulder & Stark, 1995).
Assimilator, the analytic learner, moves gradually toward problems, pulls
together raw facts into coherent theories, seeks perfection, and is bored by flippancy
and uninformed decision-making. Concerning classroom activities, Assimilators rely
on readings, lectures followed by a demonstration, exploring a subject in a lab with
analytical models, and thinking things through (Litzinger & Osif, 1992).
Converger, the precision learner, acts fast with confidence, implements practical
problem-solving and decision-making ideas, and considers problems as a way to
success. For learning in the class, Converger prefers experiencing with new ideas,
running simulations, laboratory testing, and practical application. (Kolb, 1993)
Accommodator, the dynamic learner, acts first, considers the consequences later,
focuses on the present, tries anything once, tackles problems by brainstorming, thrives
on challenges, and dislikes implementation. In formal learning situations,
Accommodator prefers working with others to complete assignments, setting goals,
performing fieldwork, and testing different approaches to completing a project. They
also tend to solve problem in an intuitive trial and error method relying on other
people for information (Kolb, 1993).
2.5 Review of Previous Research
This study aims to study the relationship between learning styles and academic
achievement and investigate the effects of gender, age, field of study, and occupation
on the academic achievement of EPD students at NIDA. To begin with, the author
used key words such as “Learning Theory” to search for research and this approach
yielded a large number of previous studies. The author next used the key words
“Learning Style” to narrow down the topic, and produced large volumes of articles
11
and research papers. Moreover, Kolb’s Learning Styles Inventory was well
represented in this genre of Learning Styles since the mid-1970s as a test instrument.
Therefore, numerous articles discussed in detail the validity and reliability of this test
instruments. During the past decade, the trend of study had shifted from Learning
Styles to Learning Strategies particularly in EFL or ESL. Nevertheless, learning style
remained necessary for teaching in a balanced way according to students’ learning
style (Xu, 2011:415).
A large volume of research papers addressed how learning styles is associated
with other factors related to transactions between people and their environment. It was
the prime interest to researchers as they could make use of the learning styles by
relating it to help in difficult situations such as learning a L2. People in the
educational specialization tended to instill a positive attitude sets of learning styles as
suggested in figure 2 (Kolb, 1976). For example, people specializing in the arts,
history, political science, English, and psychology tended to prefer the Diverging
learning style, while those concentrating on more abstract and applied sciences such
as engineering and medicine employed the Converging learning style. Furthermore,
people with academic background in education, communications, and nursing adhered
to the Accommodating learning style, and those with a major in mathematics and
physical science adhered to the Assimilating style (Kolb and Kolb, 2005: 6).
12
Figure 2 The Learning Style Grid on Fields of Study
(Adapted from Kolb, 1976)
In the like manner, people with professional careers developed a preference for
a particular learning style. People in social services and art careers preferred
Diverging learning style; those in the sciences and information, or research had
people with an Assimilating learning style; the Converging learning style tends to be
dominant among professionals in technology and applied science such as medicine
and engineering; and finally, people with careers in sales, social service, and
education learnt most using the Accommodating learning style (Kolb & Kolb, 2005:
36-43).
13
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Due to the limitation associated with most research methods and complexity of
classroom learning, a mixed method approach was adopted to data collection to
strengthen the quality of this research. The mixed methods technique represented the
most appropriate approach for this project because the qualitative approach would
complement the quantitative approach, adding to the elaboration, enhancement,
illustration, and clarification of the results. This study employed a quantitative
questionnaire and a qualitative interview to collect data.
3.2 Research Questions
Based on the designed research objective, this study will answer the following
questions:
3.2.1 What are the characteristics of learning styles according to David Kolb’s
learning styles model (1984) among EPD students at NIDA?
3.2.2 How the learning styles of the samples corresponded with the findings in
the KLSI (1984) model?
3.2.3 Are there correlations between the students’ learning styles and their
academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and occupation?
3.3 Research Method
The mixed method approach consisted of both the quantitative and qualitative
parts. Both parts attempted to answer the same research questions. While the
quantitative approach aimed to gather data for the findings, the qualitative approach
was intended to understand the opinions of selected samples. No generalizations were
made based on the qualitative data. The mixed methodology has been used in this
research, as it is the most suitable technique to examine the learning styles and factors
14
affecting academic performance. The key issue in using mixed methods is to cover
both the characteristics of the research purpose and to understand the point of view of
the students studied.
Quantitative Method
A quantitative approach is used as it is convenient and time saving to answer the
research question in general, describing characteristics of students in relation to the
research purpose. After knowing the scores of the questionnaire, students are divided
into four groups according to each learning style. The author used basic statistics such
as mean and percentage to determine the characteristics of students’ learning styles. In
the findings (Chapter 4), the author selected chi-square to determine the correlations
between learning styles and others factors as it showed the degrees of significant
differences between observed and expected frequencies. Educators could pay
attention to the items with relatively larger degrees of chi-square.
Qualitative Method
Selected students have been interviewed in order to gain an insight into the
attitudes and awareness of their learning styles in relation to factors affecting
academic performance.
3.4 Participants
The respondents consisted of 50 students from the entire EPD2 and EPD3
classes. The samples from the population and the numbers of samples gave adequate
statistical reliability to find modest or strong relationships among the variables in this
study. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured and informal manner. The
researcher selected two samples from the top GPA students and another two samples
at random. They were asked the open-ended questions provided in Appendix B. The
purpose of the interview is to discover whether the answers from the interview were
consistent with the answers obtained from the questionnaire.
15
3.5 Procedure for Developing Instruments
Questionnaires consisted of nine multiple-choice questions adapted from Kolb
(1976, 1984) to determine the learning style of the individual samples as shown in
Appendix A. Each question had four options. Students were requested to assign a
score from 4 to 1 to each expression, starting from the most likely to the least likely.
For instance, the expression in one of the questions was “I am open to new
experiences.” and the respondent was asked to rank the four learning styles from 4 to
1, to the extent that each learning style applied to him or her. The scoring system was
based on ranking in which no score could be repeated twice on the same row. In other
words, each expression on the same row was dependent on the others in terms of
ranking. Next, the fill-in the blanks section was provided for other information: name,
phone number, age, GPA, gender, field of study, and occupation. Each of the other
information was divided into four categories, except gender, for analysis as shown in
the tables in the next chapter. These tables are ordered in four categories following the
pattern provided by EPD grading system of academic performance. In addition, by
using the same pattern the calculation in the Excel of the value of the chi-square of the
tables is facilitated.
For the interview, the author used the semi-structured form, providing
opportunities to interact with the participants and to collect informative data. Since
the author was a classmate and friend of the respondents, the author was aware of
possible bias during the interview. The interviews questions were limited to 10 items
in order to concentrate on important issues. Some items of the same nature had two
questions to cover all aspects. The multiple questions, leading questions, and yes-or-
no questions were avoided to eliminate confession and bias. Four types of questions
suggested by Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and Sabshin (1981) were used in the
interview such as: Devil’s advocate question in item no. 1, hypothetical question in
item no.10, ideal position question in item no. 2, and interpretive question in item no.
4. Other types of questions suggested by Patton (2002) were also used in the
interview, such as the feeling question in item no. 6, sensory question in item no. 9,
and opinion and value question in item no. 8.
16
3.6 Procedures for Scoring and Analyzing
The questionnaires were distributed on May 17, 2014. The author explained the
purpose, the definition, the methods for answering the questionnaire, and the ethical
aspect of maintaining the privacy of the respondents. This questionnaire was designed
to explore the way students preferred to learn English. There were no right or wrong
answers. The purpose of the inventory was to describe the style in which students
preferred to learn English most often, not the style students were permanently locked
into, and not how effectively students learn. Students read the four statements in
column A, B, C, and D in each row and decide to give scores to them according to
his/her preferences. The score ran from 1-4 according to the following meaning: 4 =
Best describes you, 3 = Second Best, 2 = The Third best, and 1=Least describes you.
The students were reminded to apply a different ranking number to each choice in a
row. Finally, the questionnaires were collected for data analysis.
For the analysis, Excel was the only software used because it was capable of
performing most of the common forms of statistical analysis for a quantitative
research project (Arthur, Waring, Coe, & Hedges, 2012: 261). First, simple statistical
functions such as mean and percentage were used to determine characteristics of
learning styles. To determine the complicated parts, chi-square was used, to discover
if there was a correlation between any sets of categories. For example, one category
was the four types of learning styles and another category was the students’ academic
achievement. Chi-square was selected because it was easy to access, being readily
available as a function in Excel, and could be shown explicitly step-by-step in tables,
and was known to find correlation between two sets of categories, fitting the
analytical patterns (Introduction to SAS, 2006). The calculation of chi-square
involved the concept of probability represented by the “p” values as provided
throughout Chapter 4, and a test of independence describing the likelihood of the
results being the product of chance (Sealey, 2010: 39).
In the chi-square process, the data was organized into sets of categories, each set
displayed as frequencies and not in percentages, more than 20% of the cells being
17
larger than five cases, and the data at random representing the population of interests
(Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2008: 313). Calculation of chi-
square using excel are shown in tables throughout Chapter 4.
3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Research
The researcher carefully selected the 44 out of 52 questionnaires distributed to
two EPD classes and used a p-value of p = 0.05 with the degrees of freedom of df =
16 in chi-square test. The questionnaire adopted from Kolb (1981) and McCarthy
(1987) was LSI 3.1, a modified LSI 3 that included new normative data that had new
norms relying on a larger, more diverse and representative sample of 6,977 LSI users.
Results from seven different studies of the LSI 3.1 suggest that the scales show good
internal consistency reliability across a number of different populations. In several
studies, test-retest correlation coefficients range from moderate to excellent
(McCarthy, 2010: 134).
The interview questions were adopted from the questionnaire that was to be
conducted in an informal, semi-structure manner. A recording device was used
throughout the interview. The interviews were used to strengthen the validity of this
research. Three experts, each one with 10-30 years of teaching experience in the fields
of English language, accounting, and marketing, reviewed the interview questions and
approved for the validity. The recording device recorded all interviews for
transcription. Finally, the interviewees approved all transcripts for accuracy.
18
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
The findings were divided into two parts – quantitative and qualitative results.
These two parts are treated separately in this chapter and related to each other in the
next chapter.
4.2 Quantitative Results
The quantitative results were divided into five parts to answer the research
questions given in chapter 3.2.
4.2.1 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles
First, table 1 and figure 3 show that the mean value of the dimension perception
in the vertical axis for AC-CE was -2.75 and the mean value of the dimension
processing in the horizontal axis for AE-RO was 3.61. The mean of the perceiving
vertical axis was nearer to the top, and it was nearer to the left side of the processing
horizontal axis. As the result, the learning style of most students was
Accommodating. The calculation of mean is provided in Appendix D.
Table 1 Mean of Four Dimensions
19
Score of all
students
No. of students Mean
CE 728 44 16.54545455
RO 581 44 13.20454545
AC 607 44 13.79545455
AE 740 44 16.81818182
AC-CE -2.75
AE-RO 3.613636364
Figure 3 Learning Style Type Grid by Kolb (1976)
Distribution of students’ English learning styles preferences is given in Table 2.
The result shows that the majority of EPD students at NIDA preferred the
AE-RO = 3.61,
AC-CE = -2.75
20
Accommodating style (59.09).
Table 2 Distribution of Students’ Learning Styles
Learning Styles Frequency Percentage
Diverging (D) 15 34.09** Expression is
faulty **** Expression is
faulty **
Assimilating (ASS) 1 2.27
Converging (C) 2 4.55
Accommodating (ACC) 26 59.09
Total 44 100
21
4.2.2 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Academic
Achievement
Student achievement had been divided into four groups according to their GPA
namely excellent (3.80-4.00), very good (3.40-3.79), fairly good (3.00-3.39), and
others (2.99 or below). Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) =
3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9. Table 3 below shows the chi-square value = 14.37884.
Because the chi-square value was much higher than the chi-square critical value, it
can be concluded that there were correlations between the learning styles and the
academic achievement among the EPD students.
Table 3 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Academic Achievement
OBSERVEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Excellent 1 1 0 0 2
V. Good 3 1 0 7 11
F. Good 8 0 2 12 22
Others 2 0 1 6 9
TOTAL 14 2 3 25 44
EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Excellent 0.636364 0.090909 0.136364 1.136364 2
V. Good 3.5 0.5 0.75 6.25 11
F. Good 7 1 1.5 12.5 22
Others 2.863636 0.409091 0.613636 5.113636 9
TOTAL 14 2 3 25 44
OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Excellent 0.363636 0.909091 -0.13636 -1.13636
V. Good -0.5 0.5 -0.75 0.75
F. Good 1 -1 0.5 -0.5
Others -0.86364 -0.40909 0.386364 0.886364
TOTAL
(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Excellent 0.207792 9.090909 0.136364 1.136364 10.57143V. Good 0.071429 0.5 0.75 0.09 1.411429F. Good 0.142857 1 0.166667 0.02 1.329524
22
Others 0.260462 0.409091 0.243266 0.153636 1.066455TOTAL 0.68254 11 1.296296 1.4 14.37884
23
4.2.3 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Gender
Students had been divided into four groups according to their gender – male and
female. Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,3) = 0.351846318, p = .05, df =
3. From table 4 below, the chi-square value = 0.883223. Because the chi-square value
was higher than the chi-square critical value, it can be concluded that there were
correlations between the learning styles and gender among the EPD students.
EXPECTEDDiverging (D)
Assimilating (ASS)
Converging (C)
Accommodating (ACC)
TOTAL
Male 3.068182 0.204545 0.409091 5.318182 9Female
11.93182 0.795455 1.590909 20.68182 35
TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44
OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging (D)
Assimilating (ASS)
Converging (C)
Accommodating (ACC)
TOTAL
Male -0.06818 -0.20455 -0.40909 0.681818Female
0.068182 0.204545 0.409091 -0.68182
TOTAL
(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging (D)
Assimilating (ASS)
Converging (C)
Accommodating (ACC) TOTAL
Male 0.001515 0.204545 0.409091 0.0874130.70256
4Femal 0.00039 0.052597 0.105195 0.022478 0.18065
Table 4 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Gender
OBSERVEDDiverging (D)
Assimilating (ASS)
Converging (C)
Accommodating (ACC) TOTAL
Male 3 0 0 6 9Female
12 1 2 20 35
TOTAL 15 1 2 26 44
24
e 9
TOTAL0.001905 0.257143 0.514286 0.10989 0.88322
3
25
4.2.4 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Age
Table 5 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Age
OBSERVEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Senior 1 0 0 1 2
Up-Mid 1 0 0 5 6
Low-Mid 6 0 2 9 17
Junior 7 1 0 10 18
TOTAL 15 1 2 25 43
EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Senior 0.697674 0.046512 0.093023 1.162791 2
Up-Mid 2.093023 0.139535 0.27907 3.488372 6
Low-Mid 5.930233 0.395349 0.790698 9.883721 17
Junior 6.27907 0.418605 0.837209 10.46512 18
TOTAL 15 1 2 25 43
OBSERVED - EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Senior 0.302326 0.953488 -0.09302 -1.16279
Up-Mid 0.906977 0.860465 -0.27907 3.511628
Low-Mid 2.069767 -0.39535 1.209302 2.116279
Junior -4.27907 -0.4186 0.162791 -4.46512
TOTAL
(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Senior 0.131008 19.54651 0.093023 1.162791 20.93333Up-Mid 0.393023 5.306202 0.27907 3.535039 9.513333Low-Mid 0.722389 0.395349 1.849521 0.453133 3.420392Junior 2.916107 0.418605 0.031654 1.905116 5.271481
TOTAL 4.162527 25.66667 2.253268 7.056078 39.13854Students had been divided into four groups according to their age namely senior
(51 or above), upper-middle (40-50), lower-middle (30-39), and junior (29 or below).
Chi-square critical value = CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9. From
table 5 below, chi-square value = 39.13854. Because the chi-square value was much
higher than the chi-square critical value, it can be concluded that there were
correlations between the learning styles and ages among the EPD students.
26
27
4.2.5 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Fields of
Study
Table 6 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Fields of Study
OBSERVEDDiverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Language 9 1 2 9 21
Education 0 0 0 2 2
Science 3 0 0 3 6
Others 1 0 0 7 8
TOTAL 13 1 2 21 37
EXPECTED
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Language 7.378378 0.567568 1.135135 11.91892 21
Education
0.702703 0.054054 0.108108 1.135135 2
Science 2.108108 0.162162 0.324324 3.405405 6
Others 2.810811 0.216216 0.432432 4.540541 8
TOTAL 13 1 2 21 37
OBSERVED - EXPECTED
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Language 1.621622 0.432432 0.864865 -2.91892
Education
-0.7027 -0.05405 -0.10811 0.864865
Science 0.891892 -0.16216 -0.32432 -0.40541
Others -1.81081 -0.21622 -0.43243 2.459459
TOTAL
(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTED
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating 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
28
Students had been divided into four groups according to their fields of study –
language, education, science, and others. Chi-square critical value =
CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9 From table 6 below, chi-square
value = 7.642987964. Because the chi-square value was much higher than the chi-
square critical value, it can be concluded that there were correlations between the
learning styles and fields of study among the EPD students.
29
4.2.6 Correlation between EPD Students’ Learning Styles and Their Occupation
Table 7 Chi-square on Learning Styles and Occupation
OBSERVED
DivergingAssimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Language 1 0 0 2 3
Education 1 0 1 6 8
Science 3 0 0 5 8
Others 6 1 1 10 18
TOTAL 11 1 2 23 37
EXPECTED
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
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
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating TOTAL
Language 0.108108 -0.08108 -0.16216 0.135135
Education -1.37838 -0.21622 0.567568 1.027027
Science 0.621622 -0.21622 -0.43243 0.027027
Others 0.648649 0.513514 0.027027 -1.18919
TOTAL
(OBSERVED - EXPECTED)^2 / EXPECTED
Diverging Assimilating Converging Accommodating 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 0.747804TOTAL 1.05303 1.055556 1.340278 0.34843 3.797294Students had been divided into four groups according to their occupation –
30
language, education, science, and other. Chi-square critical value =
CHISQ.INV(0.05,9) = 3.325112843, p = .05, df = 9 From table 7 below, chi-square
value = 3.797293588. Because the chi-square value was a little higher than the chi-
square critical value, it can be concluded that there were correlations between the
learning styles and occupation among EPD students.
31
4.2.7 Comparing the Degrees of Correlation among the Findings
Table 8 Ranking the chi-square Values among the Findings
Chi-square Statistical Value Ranking
Academic Achievement 14.37884 2
Gender 0.883223 n/a (Different df)
Age 39.13854 1
Fields of Study 7.642987964 3
Occupation 3.797293588 4
While the chi-square critical value was equal to 3.325112843 for every finding
except gender, table 8 shows the levels of likelihood that there were statistically
significant differences between observed and expected frequencies. The results
suggested the ranking of the findings in relative degrees of correlation with the
learning styles shown in column 3 of table 8.
The findings of chi-square statistics from table 3-7 also suggested the balance
between observed frequencies – numbers of times students fell into specific category
(how many females and males preferred each of the learning styles), and expected
frequencies – (numbers of times one would expect students to fall into a specific
learning style). Further research could use the chi-square table provided in Appendix
F to predict the level of confidence in correlations of the findings in this study.
4.3 Qualitative Results
The interviews with four students in EPD class gave results consistent with
those results from the questionnaires. One student preferred the Diverging learning
styles while the other three learned mostly by the Accommodating learning style.
Students No.1 was a female aged between 30-39 years old. She earned a GPA of
nearly 4.0 and preferred the Diverging learning style. She preferred concrete
experience and reflective learning that were the characteristic of the Diverging style.
32
She also thought that group discussion and role play were useful and fun. However,
she would prefer more time to reflect on the experience. She did not think that
learning style affected the learning outcome.
Students No.2 was a female in between 30-39 years old. She earned a GPA of
3.9 and preferred the Accommodating learning style. She stated in the interview that
she liked a group discussion most, above play role. She believed that the learning
outcome was affected by the learning style.
Student no. 3 was a female aged below 30. She earned a GPA between 3.40-
3.79 and preferred the Accommodating learning style. She was a concrete and active
learner. She learned by practicing. She liked a systematic way of learning. In addition,
she thought that lecturing alone was boring.
Student no. 4 was a female aged below 30. She earned a GPA of 3.00-3.39 and
preferred Accommodating style. Her interview indicated the same result as the
questionnaire. She liked group discussion more than role-play and was in the
Accommodating quadrant of the matrix. She disliked a long lecture and actively asked
questions in the class.
The interviews indicated that the first student had a learning style different from
the other three students who showed a distinguished preference in classroom activities
– the ability to reflect the information. Student no.1 adapted well to all types of
classroom activities including a long lecture. She welcomed information from
listening and, then, reflected on it to gain knowledge.
The other three students with the Accommodating learning style distanced
themselves from the long lecture of type that characterized the traditional teaching
style. They preferred learning by experience in diverse situations.
The qualitative results were congruent with the quantitative results because as
all the students fell into two only types of learning types – Diverging and
Accommodating. In addition, the majority of students preferred the Accommodating
learning style.
33
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter takes the findings of previous chapter and answers the research
questions with reference to previous research studies. Section 5.2 discusses the
characteristics of learning styles. The learning styles of the samples corresponded
with the findings of the previous study by Kolb’s LSI model are discussed in section
5.3. Next, section 5.4 presents the level of the correlations between the students’
learning styles and their academic achievement, gender, age, field of study, and
occupation. The last section is the discussion on the hypothesis of this research that
may have been unanswered by previous sections.
5.2 Discussion of Research Question 1
The first research question examined the characteristics of learning styles
according to David Kolb’s learning styles model (1984) among EPD students at
NIDA. Although the subject was large and covered many theoretical concepts
including education, psychology, and language, the data collection was limited in this
study to two EPD classes at NIDA. With this narrow scope in mind, it was difficult to
compare the results of this study to previous research in this field. The author was
well aware of this limitation; however, the study may be significant and prove useful
in its application. The findings of this study may have revealed a phenomenon: that
almost entire population of EPD students preferred only two types of learning styles,
that is Accommodating and Diverging. Only three persons out of 44 samples
preferred Assimilating and Converging. In fact, this finding was no surprise in terms
of identification of preference as the results agreed with the previous studies as
described in section 2.5. Should the results point in another direction, the discussion
part would be complicated and probably provide no immediate usefulness. Although
the overwhelming nature of preferences looked doubtful, it did not hinder the
usefulness concerning the finding’s application. To this end, scholars and students
34
could use this finding to help plan for strategic implementation of learning and
studying.
5.3 Discussion on Research Question 2
The second research question compared the findings with the previous research
by Kolb (1971, 1984). First, Kolb did not intent to reveal how people fall into the
categories because the classifications did not exist at that time. When Kolb started his
project, it was much more problematic than other academic projects due to the fact
that he was trying to formulate a theoretical concept. He surveyed thousands of
samples from a diversity of populations across vast areas to determine patterns of
similarity. The outcome of the research was the theoretical concepts based on
cognition and experience in psychological and educational fields. In 1971, he
published a text on individual learning styles and learning process that became one of
the most popular reference books across many fields.
When comparing this study to Kolb’s work, any inconsistent findings deserve an
explanation focusing on the inconsistency of the findings. Primarily, while Kolb’s
database covered the general population, this study used a small database that
concentrated on L2 learners at NIDA. The results showed a large discrepancy in that
characteristics of learning styles in this study were extremely concentrated. The
author used original English version of standard questionnaires adapted from Kolb’s
to identify the learning styles in the subject group that were familiar with the English
language. The whole process of data collection and analysis was conducted following
standard practices under supervisions of experts in the field. As the result, deviation
caused by the application of non-standard survey technique can be ruled out. The
samples in the survey share the similarities in terms of society, culture, native
language, L2 learner status, classroom environment, and living in the same area. The
combinations of these factors may affect the samples and cause them to adopt similar
learning styles. Moreover, Kolb developed his questionnaire on a ranking system that
it reflected the internal comparison of preference in the scoring system. In other
35
words, the questionnaire was valid within the comparison of each question itself and
limited the independence of assigning the score according to level that the participants
would prefer to give them.
Finally, Kolb’s LSI was based from the beginning on the learning process on
concrete experience that the learners would learn from the sensory cortex of the brain,
observing the environment around them (Zull 2002: 18-19). In case of the EPD
students, they had a short span of time to process the learning that they experienced,
which was the same learning environment in the same classroom. They did not have
enough time to reflect on the way they learned and move to the next level of learning
process. Many students tried to grasp the knowledge as best they could to pass the
intensive learning while concurrently working for a living. The subjects all fit into the
same competitive mold of learning which may result in them also falling into the
same category of learning styles.
5.4 Discussion on the Third Research Question
The third research question investigated the correlations of the factors affecting
the learning styles. Primarily, the results showed that all individual factors have chi-
square values higher than the chi-square critical values. As the result, there are
correlations between these factors and the learning styles.
5.5 Discussion of the Hypothesis
The three hypotheses are the reflections of the research questions that aim to
answer the research objective of this study. This section discusses the hypothesis
itself, avoiding a repetitive discussion of subjects covered above. To begin with, the
hypotheses in this paper utilize the advantage of One-Tail Hypotheses in that they
predict the specific nature of the relationship or difference by making positively
predictive statements. However, many scholars argue that researchers should observe
the Two-Tailed Hypotheses that does not predict the specific nature of the difference
or relationship. According to the consensus of scientific community, researchers
should assume that the null hypothesis is true until the results show support to the
36
contrary (Wrench et al., 2008: 91). Fisher (1935) urges that researchers can never
really prove anything as true using statistics; however, researchers can use statistics to
prove that something is false. Imagine a researcher observed 10,000 swans that were
white and then made the statement, “every swan was white”. In the null hypothesis,
all the researcher had to do was to find a swan that was not white to disprove the
statement “every swan was white.” Based on this argument, it has been accepted as a
common practice to make a null hypothesis so that the researchers can prove that the
null hypothesis is false. Yet, this paper uses One-Tailed Hypotheses, which is an
opposing view held by much of the scientific community, for two reasons. First, this
research narrows down its scope to include only two EPD classes, avoiding the
necessity to prove the hypotheses in general. In addition, the research takes the whole
population of the two EPD classes as the samples, leaving little room for uncertainty.
Second, many scholars in the field of language and communication find it easier to
comprehend the positive statement of the One-Tailed Hypotheses. To this end, the
purpose of this study is to provide the educational tool that works and the one-tailed
hypothesis provides a satisfactory proving principle in this research.
37
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS
This study was to investigate the characteristics of learning styles among the
EPD students and to study the correlation between learning styles and background
factors. This study employed a quantitative questionnaire and a qualitative interview.
Chi-square was selected as an instrument to determine the correlations of the
quantitative data. For the interview, the author used a semi-structured format,
providing opportunities to interact with the participants and to collect informative
data.
The results showed that the majority of the students preferred Accommodating
style (59.09%) and Diverging style (34.09%). Only three persons out of 44 samples
preferred Assimilating or Converging. Most students preferred to learn from concrete
experience and they are active learners. They preferred classroom activities such as
open-ended problems, student presentations, design projects, subjective exams, and
simulations. They also like to solve homework problems, conduct computer
simulations, enjoy field trips, making individuals’ reports, and demonstrating what
they knew. The finding indicated that learning styles of EPD students correlated with
academic performance, gender, age, field of study, and occupation. However, the
characteristics of the sample indicated a strong preference to learn from experience
regardless of their processing continuum, having scores distributed primarily above
the x-axis.
Although the research was performed in a strict disciplinary fashion;
nevertheless, there are limitations that need mentioning. However, other researchers
could develop a board research plan to address the gap and limitations that occurred in
this study. While small studies can be completed over a short time-frame, there needs
to be a balance between those that can be performed in few months and those that
should investigate issues extensively and hence may take many years to complete.
Notably, this research provides a narrow scope of the large theory to fit the available
resources. In fact, it is not a bad practice to conduct well-designed small-scale studies;
they only need to be defined to justify the content carefully. While small studies can
provide results quickly, they do not typically yield reliable or precise estimates to
represent the large picture. Therefore, this research will not make strong conclusions
38
in its findings, or judge whether the results are accurate or not. Instead, data from this
study should be used to design larger confirmatory studies. If the aim is to provide
reliable evidence to make an important decision, the future study should be large
enough to do so.
In particular, learning style research seems outdated due to the lack of the
development of theory for a specific purpose. For the most part, people in the field of
L2 learning are adhering to learning theories that have been utilized since many
decades ago. It is clear that learning styles in foreign language learning remains a new
topic in Thai society. Therefore, it will take time to discern the implications for SLA
and claim its full usefulness in the learning of foreign languages. It will require the
understanding of and efforts by scholars, students, and teachers alike. With
commitment from all parties, language learners can learn about learning styles and
benefit from teaching that focuses on the process of learning; teachers can center their
teaching on the students and drive forward the development of the entire field of L2
teaching and learning in Thailand.
39
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur, James; Waring, Michael; Coe, Robert and Hedges, Larry V. 2012. Ressearch
Methods & Methodologies in Education. 1st ed. London: Sage.
Abhakorn, J. 2004. Matching of Learning and Teaching Styles, and Its Effects on
Students’ Language Learning Achievement. Master’s Thesis, National
Institute of Development Administration.
Bailey, P.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Daley, C. E. 2000. Using Learning Style to Predict
Foreign Language Achievement at the College Level. System. Vol. 28, Issue 1
(March):115-133.
Biggs, J.; Kember, D. & Leung, D. Y. P. 2001. The revised two-factor study process
questionnaire; R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 71:
133-149.
Cassidy, S. 2004. Learning Styles: An Overview of Theories, Models, and Measures,
Educational Psychology. Vol. 24, No. 4 (August): 421-422.
Eliason, P. 1989. Perceptual Learning Style Preferences of Second Language
Students: A Literature Survey and Research Report. Master’s thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Felder, R. M. & Silverman L. K. 1988. Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in
Engineering Education, The 1988 Annual Meeting of the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, Nov. 1988.
Fisher, Ronald Aylmer. 1935. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd.
Francis, M. C., Mulder, T. C. & Stark, J. S. 1995. International Learning: A
Process for Learning to Learn in the Accounting Curriculum. American
Accounting Association: Sarasota, FL.
Garcia, P.; Schiaffino, S. & Amandi, A. 2008. eTeacher: Providing personalized
assistance to e-learning students. Computers & Education 51 (4), 1744-1754.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. 1992. The Manual of Learning Styles 3rd Ed.
Maidenhead, Peter Honey.
Howell, D. C. 2011. Chi-square Test: Analysis of Contingency Tables. International
Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Pp. 250-
40
252.
Hulstijn, J. H. 2007. Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition,
EUROSLA Yearbook, 7 (2007), 191-203. Retrieved from
http://dare.uva.nl/document/176436
Introduction to SAS. 2006. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. from
http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/notes2/ (accessed June 16, 2014).
Keefe, J. W. 1979. Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (ed.), Student
learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston,
VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. 2005. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1
Technical Specifications. USA: Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct.
Kolb, D. A. 1981. Learning Style Inventory: Self-Scoring Inventory and
Interpretation Booklet. Boston, MA: McBer & Company.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. 1971. Individual Learning Styles and the Learning Process. Working
Paper #535-71, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Kolb, D. A. 1976. The Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring test and
interpretation. Boston: McBer & Company.
Kolb, D. A. 1993. LSI-IIa: Self Scoring Inventory and Interpretation Booklet.
Boston: McBer & Company.
Koob, Jeffrey J. & Funk, Joanie. 2002. Kolb's Learning Style Inventory: Issues of
Reliability and Validity. Research on Social Work Practice. 12: 293.
Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. 1992. “Accomodating Diverse Learning Styles: Designing
Instruction for Electronic Information Sources.” What Is Good Library
Instruction Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Ed. Linda Sharito. MI:
Pierian Press, 1992: 79.
Litzinger, M. & Osif, B. 1993. Accommodating Diverse Learning Styles: Designing
Instruction for Electronic Information Sources. What is Good Instruction
Now? Library Instruction for the 90s. Pierian Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
McCarthy, B. 1987. Teaching Around the 4MAT Cycle. Illinois: About Learning
41
Ltd.
McCarthy, M. 2010. Experienntial Learning Theory: From Theory to Practice.
Journal of Business & economics Research. Vol.8, No. 5 (May): 131-139.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed.
Thousand Oaks. CA.: Sage.
Reid, J. M. 1995. Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. USA: Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Saengboon, S. 2013. Thai English Teachers’ Understanding of “Postmethod
Pedagogy”: Case Studies of University Lecturers. English Language
Teaching; Vol.6, No. 12; 2013: 156-166.
Sealey A. 2010. Researching English Language. 1st ed. London: Routledge: 39.
Strauss, A.; Schatzman, L.; Bucher, R. & Sabshin, M. 1981. Psychiatric ideologies
and institutions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Suwanarak, K. 2012. English Language Learning Beliefs, Learning Strategies and
Achievement of Masters Students in Thailand. TESOL in Context, Special
Edition S3: November 2012.
Witkin, H. A. 1962. Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Development. New
York: Wiley.
Wrench, J. S.; Thomas-Maddox, C.; Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. 2008.
Quantitative research methods for communication: A hands-on
approach. Oxford University Press, Inc.: 313-314.
Xu, Wu. 2011. Learning Styles and Their Implications in Learning and Teaching.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol.1, No. 12 (December): 1780-
1788.
Zull, J. E. 2002. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by
Exploring the Biology of Learning. Stering, VA.: Stylus.
42
APPENDICES
43
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1981 & McCarthy, 1987)This survey is designed to explore the way you prefer to learn English. There is no right or wrong answer. The purpose of the inventory is to describe the style in which you prefer to learn English most often, not the style you are permanently locked into, and not how effectively you learn.Read the four statements on column A, B, C, and D in each row and decide to give scores to them according to your preferences.
44
4=Best describes you
3 = Second Best
2 = The Third
1=Least describes you
45
Be sure to apply different above ranking number to each choice in a row. Do not put the same number in the same row.
46
A B C D1)When I learn English,
I like to get involved.
I like to take my time before acting.
I am particular about what I like.
I like things to be useful.
Scores2)When I am learning English,
I like to try things out.
I like to analyze things and break them into parts.
I am open to new experiences.
I like to look at all sides of issues.
Scores3)When I am learning English,
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.
Scores4)When I am learning English,
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.
Scores5)When I am learning English,
I have gut feelings and hunches.
I have a lot of questions.
I am logical.
I am hard working and get things done.
Scores
47
6)When I learn English,
I like concrete things, things I can see, feel touch or smell.
I like to be active.
I like to observe.
I like ideas and theories.
Scores7)When I learn English,
I prefer learning in the here and now.
I like to consider and reflect about them.
I tend to think about the future.
I like to see the results of my work.
Scores8)When I learn English,
I have to try things out by myself.
I rely on my own ideas.
I rely on my own observations.
I rely on my feelings.
Scores9)When I am learning English,
I am quiet and reserved.
I am energetic and enthusiastic.
I tend to reason things out.
I am responsible about things.
Scores
Fill-into the blank or circle the appropriate answers below
48
Name / Telephone No.Age 29 or
Below30-39 40-50 >50
GPAEPD Program
2.99 or Below
3.00-3.39 3.40-3.79
3.80-4.00
Gender Male Female xxxField of Study
(I got my B.S. degree in …)
Occupation
49
Appendix B: Interview Questions
1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD
class, what would you response to them?
2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities.
4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help
you in your career development?
5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete
your homework exercises before coming to the class?
6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?
7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find
an answer to the question in your mind?
8. What do you think about a group work on discussion and presentation?
9. What would you do if you do not understand something from the lecture in the
class?
10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD
class, what do your suggest?
50
Appendix C: Data from the QuestionnaireSample No. 01
CE RO AC AE
1A 1 1B 3 2B 4 2A 1
2C 3 2D 2 3D 1 3C 4
3B 3 3A 2 4C 3 6B 1
4A 2 6C 3 6D 4 7D 4
8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4
9B 2 9A 4 9C 1 9D 3
TOTAL 14 15 15 17
AC-CE 1 AE-RO 2 Style Diverger
Age R 2 GPA R 4 Gender F
FS Accounting Occup Auditor/Tutor
Sample No. 02
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 1 2B 4 2A 2
2C 3 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4
3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 1
4A 3 6C 4 6D 3 7D 3
8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4
9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4
TOTAL 18 11 14 18
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 7 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 4 Gender F
FS Library Science Occup Librarian at NGO
Sample No. 03
CE RO AC AE
1A 1 1B 3 2B 3 2A 2
2C 1 2D 4 3D 4 3C 1
3B 2 3A 3 4C 4 6B 3
4A 2 6C 4 6D 2 7D 2
8D 3 8C 2 8B 1 8A 4
9B 4 9A 3 9C 1 9D 2
TOTAL 13 19 15 14
AC-CE 2 AE-RO -5 Style Diverger
51
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender F
FS English Occup English Instructor
52
Sample No. 04
CE RO AC AE
1A 1 1B 2 2B 3 2A 2
2C 4 2D 1 3D 1 3C 4
3B 3 3A 2 4C 3 6B 2
4A 1 6C 1 6D 4 7D 3
8D 4 8C 2 8B 1 8A 3
9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2
TOTAL 17 9 15 16
AC-CE -2 AE-RO 7 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 3 GPA R 2 Gender F
FS Occup Human Resource
Sample No. 05
CE RO AC AE
1A 3 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2
2C 3 2D 4 3D 4 3C 3
3B 2 3A 1 4C 1 6B 2
4A 2 6C 1 6D 3 7D 4
8D 1 8C 4 8B 2 8A 3
9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4
TOTAL 12 14 14 18
AC-CE 2 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 3 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE 2 AE-RO 0 Style Diverger
Age R 4 GPA R 3 Gender M
FS Engineering Occup Production Manager
53
54
Sample No. 07
CE RO AC AE
1A 1 1B 3 2B 1 2A 4
2C 3 2D 2 3D 3 3C 4
3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4
4A 3 6C 2 6D 1 7D 2
8D 3 8C 4 8B 2 8A 1
9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2
TOTAL 16 13 12 17
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender M
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
Age R 2 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
AC-CE -7 AE-RO 3 Style Accommodato
55
r
Age R 3 GPA R 1 Gender F
FS English Occup Instructor
56
Sample No. 10
CE RO AC AE
1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 1
2C 4 2D 2 3D 1 3C 3
3B 2 3A 4 4C 2 6B 4
4A 3 6C 2 6D 1 7D 3
8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4
9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3
TOTAL 17 11 13 18
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 7 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE 2 AE-RO 3 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
57
FS Food Science Occup Research and Development Supervisor
58
Sample No. 13
CE RO AC AE
1A 2 1B 4 2B 1 2A 3
2C 4 2D 2 3D 4 3C 3
3B 1 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4
4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 3
8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4
9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4
TOTAL 14 15 12 21
AC-CE -2 AE-RO 6 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
AC-CE -9 AE-RO 5 Style Accommodato
r
Age R n/a GPA R 1 Gender M
FS n/a Occup Teacher
Sample No. 15
CE RO AC AE
1A 2 1B 4 2B 3 2A 1
2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 4
3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3
4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 4
8D 4 8C 2 8B 3 8A 1
9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3
TOTAL 19 12 15 16
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
59
Age R 3 GPA R 2 Gender F
FS n/a Occup n/a
60
Sample No. 16
CE RO AC AE
1A 3 1B 1 2B 3 2A 2
2C 4 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4
3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 3
4A 4 6C 1 6D 2 7D 3
8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4
9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4
TOTAL 19 8 12 20
AC-CE -7 AE-RO 12 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 0 Style Diverger
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -3 AE-RO 9 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
61
FS physical education Occup physical therapy
62
Sample No. 19
CE RO AC AE
1A 1 1B 3 2B 1 2A 3
2C 4 2D 2 3D 2 3C 3
3B 1 3A 4 4C 2 6B 2
4A 3 6C 3 6D 1 7D 4
8D 3 8C 1 8B 2 8A 4
9B 1 9A 2 9C 3 9D 4
TOTAL 13 15 11 20
AC-CE -2 AE-RO 5 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
Age R 1 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE -1 AE-RO 0 Style Diverger
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender M
FS Science Occup Medical Assistant
63
64
Sample No. 22
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 1 2B 1 2A 3
2C 4 2D 2 3D 4 3C 2
3B 3 3A 1 4C 4 6B 1
4A 3 6C 2 6D 3 7D 2
8D 2 8C 3 8B 1 8A 4
9B 4 9A 1 9C 3 9D 2
TOTAL 20 10 16 14
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender M
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
AC-CE -9 AE-RO 7 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 3 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 10 Style Accommodato
r
65
Age R 2 GPA R 3 Gender F
FS Journalism and Mass Communication Occup Communicator
66
Sample No. 25
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2
2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 4
3B 2 3A 1 4C 2 6B 4
4A 4 6C 3 6D 2 7D 2
8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4
9B 4 9A 1 9C 2 9D 3
TOTAL 19 13 12 19
AC-CE -7 AE-RO 6 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE -6 AE-RO -2 Style Diverger
Age R 3 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE 0 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender M
67
FS English Occup Meeting Coordinator
68
Sample No. 28
CE RO AC AE
1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1
2C 3 2D 4 3D 3 3C 2
3B 4 3A 1 4C 4 6B 4
4A 2 6C 2 6D 3 7D 1
8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4
9B 3 9A 1 9C 2 9D 4
TOTAL 15 12 16 16
AC-CE 1 AE-RO 4 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -1 AE-RO 10 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
AC-CE -8 AE-RO -4 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
69
FS n/a Occup Student
70
Sample No. 31
CE RO AC AE
1A 3 1B 2 2B 1 2A 2
2C 4 2D 3 3D 4 3C 3
3B 2 3A 1 4C 1 6B 4
4A 3 6C 3 6D 2 7D 2
8D 1 8C 4 8B 2 8A 3
9B 3 9A 4 9C 1 9D 2
TOTAL 16 17 11 16
AC-CE -5 AE-RO -1 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE -10 AE-RO -1 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -8 AE-RO 0 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
FS English Occup Administrator
71
72
Sample No. 34
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 3 2B 3 2A 4
2C 2 2D 1 3D 2 3C 4
3B 3 3A 1 4C 2 6B 1
4A 1 6C 4 6D 2 7D 3
8D 1 8C 3 8B 4 8A 2
9B 2 9A 1 9C 4 9D 3
TOTAL 13 13 17 17
AC-CE 4 AE-RO 4 Style Converger
Age R 2 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -6 AE-RO 10 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 2 Gender F
FS English Occup Sales Coordinator
73
74
Sample No. 37
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 3 2B 2 2A 1
2C 4 2D 3 3D 1 3C 4
3B 3 3A 2 4C 2 6B 4
4A 4 6C 2 6D 1 7D 2
8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4
9B 1 9A 4 9C 3 9D 2
TOTAL 17 17 11 17
AC-CE -6 AE-RO 0 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 1 Gender F
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
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 11 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -3 AE-RO 8 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 1 GPA R 1 Gender M
75
FS Engineering Occup Engineer
76
Sample No. 40
CE RO AC AE
1A 4 1B 3 2B 3 2A 2
2C 4 2D 1 3D 3 3C 2
3B 4 3A 1 4C 3 6B 4
4A 1 6C 3 6D 2 7D 3
8D 4 8C 2 8B 1 8A 3
9B 3 9A 2 9C 4 9D 1
TOTAL 20 12 16 15
AC-CE -4 AE-RO 3 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE 0 AE-RO 2 Style Diverger
Age R 1 GPA R 2 Gender F
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
AC-CE -2 AE-RO 6 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 2 GPA R 3 Gender M
77
FS English Language Occup Information Technology
78
Sample No. 43
CE RO AC AE
1A 2 1B 1 2B 2 2A 1
2C 4 2D 3 3D 3 3C 2
3B 4 3A 1 4C 2 6B 2
4A 4 6C 1 6D 4 7D 3
8D 1 8C 3 8B 2 8A 4
9B 2 9A 1 9C 3 9D 4
TOTAL 17 10 16 16
AC-CE -1 AE-RO 6 Style Accommodato
r
Age R 4 GPA R 3 Gender F
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
AC-CE 1 AE-RO 2 Style Diverger
Age R 2 GPA R 3 Gender M
FS Nursing Science Occup Aviation physiology
79
Appendix D: Data Analysis
Student ID CE RO AC AE
1 14 15 15 17
2 18 11 14 18
3 13 19 15 14
4 17 9 15 16
5 12 14 14 18
6 15 13 17 13
7 16 13 12 17
8 15 14 14 15
9 18 15 11 18
10 17 11 13 18
11 15 17 10 15
12 15 14 17 17
13 14 15 12 21
14 20 12 11 17
15 19 12 15 16
16 19 8 12 20
17 18 13 14 13
18 17 10 14 19
19 13 15 11 20
20 11 18 18 13
21 16 15 15 15
22 20 10 16 14
23 18 13 9 20
24 17 11 13 21
25 19 13 12 19
26 18 18 12 16
27 16 10 16 14
28 15 12 16 16
29 17 10 16 20
30 19 16 11 12
31 16 17 11 16
32 18 18 8 17
33 18 17 10 17
34 13 13 17 17
35 15 13 19 16
36 20 8 14 18
80
37 17 17 11 17
38 18 9 14 20
39 19 8 16 16
40 20 12 16 15
41 18 14 18 16
42 15 13 13 19
43 17 10 16 16
44 13 16 14 18
Total 728 581 607 740
Mean 16.54545455 13.20454545 13.79545455 16.81818182
81
Appendix E: Interview Transcript
(Excerpted from the interview on May 17, 2014)
Sample 01 (Accuracy check confirmed by respondent on May 27, 2014)
1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD
class, what would you response to them?
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.
4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help
you in your career development?
All classes serve some purposes; however, I am a serious writer and I find
writing classes most useful to my interest.
5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete
your homework exercises before coming to the class?
I love writing exercises especially when the teacher takes time to look and
correct our works.
6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?
Role play is fun and useful. We need role plays to practice our English
conversation
7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find
an answer to the question in your mind?
I don’t mind some lecture. It is for my logical thinking and gives me time to
work on my own reflection.
8. What do you think about a group work on discussion and presentation?
We should have more group discussions so that we could share the ideas.
9. What would you do if you do not understand something from the lecture in the
class?
I would wait to find out on my own. I am a quite type of girl.
10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD
class, what do your suggest?
The classes are useful; but, could be improve to accommodate serious learners.
82
Interview Transcript (Excerpted from the interview on May 17, 2014)
Sample 02 (Accuracy check confirmed by respondent on May 27, 2014)
1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD
class, what would you response to them?
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.
2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities?
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.
4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help
you in your career development?
I love to learn pragmatic in EPD7003 class.
5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete
your homework exercises before coming to the class?
I finish my work at last minute just before the deadline.
6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?
I don’t mind doing the role play.
7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find
an answer to the question in your mind?
I don’t think much of the lecture at master level.
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?
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.
10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD
class, what do your suggest?
I would recommend to a friend who likes to learn in different classroom
activities.
83
Interview Transcript (Excerpted from the interview on May 17, 2014)
Sample 13 (Accuracy check confirmed by respondent on May 27, 2014)
1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD
class, what would you response to them?
The love for English language is the key factor for success in taking this class.
2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities?
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.
4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help
you in your career development?
I found writing class useful for future learning classes.
5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete
your homework exercises before coming to the class?
I manage to finish my homework every times coming to classes.
6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?
I love role play most among all activity.
7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find
an answer to the question in your mind?
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.
8. What do you think about a group work on discussion and presentation?
I like group work with discussion and presentation.
9. What would you do if you do not understand something from the lecture in the
class?
I will not ask the teacher in the class. I will ask my friend later outside the class.
10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD
class, what do your suggest?
I would recommend to common learners. The course is weak for serious
language learners.
84
Interview Transcript (Excerpted from the interview on May 26, 2014)
Sample 18 (Accuracy check confirmed by respondent on May 27, 2014)
1. People say that some students have advantage background in taking this EPD
class, what would you response to them?
I think that people graduate in linguistics or English Language background
have the advantages.
2. Please explain your ideal of classroom settings and enjoyable activities?
I like the combination of teaching environment except field trip and singing
contest.
4. How would you find all EPD classes useful? How would this EPD program help
you in your career development?
The EPD course did not meet my expectation.
5. What do you think about the homework exercises? How would you complete
your homework exercises before coming to the class?
I don’t like to write.
6. How do you feel about a role play in the class?
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.
7. What do you think about a long lecture session? Please explain the way you find
an answer to the question in your mind?
It depends on the things you have to learn. Some subjects could be learned
through lecture alone.
8. What do you think about a group work on discussion and presentation?
I like to work in group and don’t mind presentation
9. What would you do if you do not understand something from the lecture in the
class?
I would raise my hand or find the opportunity to ask the question right away.
10. What if you have been asked by a friend who is considering taking the EPD
class, what do your suggest?
I find the translation class useful to my career development; however, I don’t
recommend this EPD course to friends.
85
86
Appendix F: Table of Chi-Square Probabilities
(from Howell, D. C. (2011: 250-252)
df 0.995 0.99 0.975 0.95 0.90 0.10 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005
1 --- --- 0.001 0.004 0.016 2.706 3.841 5.024 6.635 7.879
2 0.010 0.020 0.051 0.103 0.211 4.605 5.991 7.378 9.210 10.597
3 0.072 0.115 0.216 0.352 0.584 6.251 7.815 9.348 11.345 12.838
4 0.207 0.297 0.484 0.711 1.064 7.779 9.488 11.143 13.277 14.860
5 0.412 0.554 0.831 1.145 1.610 9.236 11.070 12.833 15.086 16.750
6 0.676 0.872 1.237 1.635 2.204 10.645 12.592 14.449 16.812 18.548
7 0.989 1.239 1.690 2.167 2.833 12.017 14.067 16.013 18.475 20.278
8 1.344 1.646 2.180 2.733 3.490 13.362 15.507 17.535 20.090 21.955
9 1.735 2.088 2.700 3.325 4.168 14.684 16.919 19.023 21.666 23.589
10 2.156 2.558 3.247 3.940 4.865 15.987 18.307 20.483 23.209 25.188
11 2.603 3.053 3.816 4.575 5.578 17.275 19.675 21.920 24.725 26.757
12 3.074 3.571 4.404 5.226 6.304 18.549 21.026 23.337 26.217 28.300
13 3.565 4.107 5.009 5.892 7.042 19.812 22.362 24.736 27.688 29.819
14 4.075 4.660 5.629 6.571 7.790 21.064 23.685 26.119 29.141 31.319
15 4.601 5.229 6.262 7.261 8.547 22.307 24.996 27.488 30.578 32.801
16 5.142 5.812 6.908 7.962 9.312 23.542 26.296 28.845 32.000 34.267
17 5.697 6.408 7.564 8.672 10.085 24.769 27.587 30.191 33.409 35.718
18 6.265 7.015 8.231 9.390 10.865 25.989 28.869 31.526 34.805 37.156
19 6.844 7.633 8.907 10.117 11.651 27.204 30.144 32.852 36.191 38.582
20 7.434 8.260 9.591 10.851 12.443 28.412 31.410 34.170 37.566 39.997
21 8.034 8.897 10.283 11.591 13.240 29.615 32.671 35.479 38.932 41.401
22 8.643 9.542 10.982 12.338 14.041 30.813 33.924 36.781 40.289 42.796
23 9.260 10.196 11.689 13.091 14.848 32.007 35.172 38.076 41.638 44.181
24 9.886 10.856 12.401 13.848 15.659 33.196 36.415 39.364 42.980 45.559
25 10.520 11.524 13.120 14.611 16.473 34.382 37.652 40.646 44.314 46.928
26 11.160 12.198 13.844 15.379 17.292 35.563 38.885 41.923 45.642 48.290
27 11.808 12.879 14.573 16.151 18.114 36.741 40.113 43.195 46.963 49.645
87
28 12.461 13.565 15.308 16.928 18.939 37.916 41.337 44.461 48.278 50.993
29 13.121 14.256 16.047 17.708 19.768 39.087 42.557 45.722 49.588 52.336
30 13.787 14.953 16.791 18.493 20.599 40.256 43.773 46.979 50.892 53.672
40 20.707 22.164 24.433 26.509 29.051 51.805 55.758 59.342 63.691 66.766
50 27.991 29.707 32.357 34.764 37.689 63.167 67.505 71.420 76.154 79.490
60 35.534 37.485 40.482 43.188 46.459 74.397 79.082 83.298 88.379 91.952
70 43.275 45.442 48.758 51.739 55.329 85.527 90.531 95.023 100.425 104.215
80 51.172 53.540 57.153 60.391 64.278 96.578 101.879 106.629 112.329 116.321
90 59.196 61.754 65.647 69.126 73.291 107.565 113.145 118.136 124.116 128.299
100 67.328 70.065 74.222 77.929 82.358 118.498 124.342 129.561 135.807 140.169