VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN NAM THIÊN HƯƠNG
A SURVEY ON THE FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS’ ENGLISH
LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES
AT HANOI UNIVERSITY OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY

(Khảo sát phong cách học tiếng Anh được yêu thích của sinh viên
năm thứ nhất trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội) MA. MINOR THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Hanoi, 2012
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration …………………………………………………………………. i
Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………… iii
Table of contents …………………………………………………………… iv
List of graphs and table …………………………………………………… vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale ………………………………………………………………………. 1
2. Aims of the study ……………………………………………………… ……. 2
3. Research question ………………………………………………………. ……. 2
4. Significance of the study ……………………………………………………… 2
5. Scope of the study ………………………………………………………. ……. 3
6. Organization of the study ……………………………………………… ……. 4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Definition of learning style …………………………………………………. 5
1.2. The origins of human‟s learning style preference ……………………. … 5
1.3. Background history – Categorization of learning styles ……………… …… 6
1.3.1. Background ………………………………………………………. 6
1.3.2. Categorization of learning styles …………………………………. 7
1.4. Students‟ learning style preferences …………………………………. …… 9
1.5. Mismatch between students‟ and teachers‟ perception of learning style … 12


CHAPTER 4: SUGGESTIONS FOR TEACHING DIFFERENT LEARNING
STYLES
4.1. Suggestions for teaching visual style learners ……………………………… 33
4.2. Suggestions for teaching kinesthetic style learners ………………………… 34
4.3. Suggestions for teaching read/write style learners …………………………. 35
4.4. Suggestions for teaching auditory style learners …………………………… 35

PART C: CONCLUSION
1. Major findings ………………………………………………………… …… 37
2. Contribution of the study ……………………………………………….…… 38
3. Limitations ……………………………………………………………….…… 39
4. Suggestions for further studies …………………….…………………………. 39

vi LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES

GRAPHS:
Graph 1: Students‟ interest in learning English
Graph 2: Students' and teachers' perceiving style preferences in real life
Graph 3: Students' perceiving information style preferences by age
Graph 4: Students‟ and teachers‟ view on Perceiving style preferences in classroom
Graph 5: Students‟ perceiving style preferences by age and gender
Graph 6: Students' and teachers' view on learning mode
Graph 7: Students‟ view on learning mode by age and gender
Graph 8: Students and teachers‟ view on new words learning

appearance of the new textbook set since 2006 in Vietnam, which mainly based on the learner-
centered approach and communicative language teaching. These approaches require educators
to pay more attention to individual learners to help them expand and improve their
communicative competence. Hence, understanding students including understanding learning
styles preferences plays an important role to educational improvement and success.
According to Reid (1987), the ways in which an individual characteristically acquires,
retains, and retrieves information are collectively termed the individual‟s learning styles.
Learning styles reflect our preferred manner of acquiring, using and thinking about knowledge.
We do not have just one learning styles, but a profile of styles. Even though, our ability may be
identical to someone else‟s, our learning styles might be quite different. The students, for
instance, learn in many ways – by seeing and hearing; reflecting and acting; memorizing and
visualizing; some students prefer working individually, others learn a lot from group work.
While some students like learning through games and activities, others can get much from
presentations. Some students never mind being immediately corrected in front of the class,
other students easy to lose face being corrected.
Furthermore, teachers do not apply the same method of teaching. Felder and Henriques
(1995: 21) noted that “teaching methods also vary. Some instructors lecture, others
demonstrate or discuss; some teachers focus on rules and others on examples; some teachers
emphasize memory and other understanding”. Serious mismatches will occur when teachers
ignore or are not aware of their students‟ learning style preferences. It is the teachers‟
unawareness of students‟ learning style preferences that negatively affects the quality of 2
students‟ learning, their attitudes toward the class and the subject, the atmosphere and the
outcome.

2. Aims of the study
The survey on the first-year students‟ English language learning style preferences at
Hanoi University of Business and Technology aims at certain points. Firstly, the study aims at

Instructors who assign frequent activities involving oral presentations and demonstrations
might be indicating that their learning style is somewhat auditory. On the other hand,
instructors whose assignments consist of frequent written work may have a more visual style.
So, what if students‟ learning styles are mismatched with learning and teaching styles of their
instructors? According to Oxford (2003) cited in Le Sa‟s (2010), if there is a harmony between
students‟ learning styles and given instructional methodology, the students are likely to
perform well, fell confident and experience low anxiety. If clashes happen, serious breakdowns
in teacher-student interaction will occur. These conflicts even result in the dispirited students‟
rejection of the teaching methodology, the teacher and the subject matter. Consequently,
finding out the students‟ learning style preferences is an important step to create the harmony
between teachers and students.
The results gained from this survey can derive an overview of students‟ learning style
preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, as well as the extent to which
teachers are aware of their students‟ learning style preferences. The teachers can also find out
their own learning styles and check out whether they impose their own one on their students.
The awareness of students‟ real language learning styles preferences is the basic for teachers to
not only find out teaching methods that suit the best to them, but also make their lessons more
attractive, effective and practical. As a result, the atmosphere in the class, the outcomes, and
the teacher-student interactions can be improved significantly. The study‟s results can certainly
improve the language learning and teaching at Hanoi University of Business and Technology.
Such information is also significant to other teachers from other universities in similar teaching
context.

5. Scope of the study
The study examines students‟ English language learning style preferences at Hanoi
University of Business and Technology. About 227 students from 10 classes randomly selected
and 10 teachers teaching in these classes are invited to participate in the study. This number of
students is hoped to be sufficient to provide valid and reliable information, the contribution of
which is vital to the success of this modest research. Students‟ and teachers‟ answers in the 20-
item questionnaires on two major criteria: the preferred style of acquiring knowledge and
5
PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Part B – Development – consists of three chapters: Literature Review, Methodology,
and Data Analysis. Specifically, this part gives a brief review of the literature, including the
key concepts and related studies in the field; the methodology applied in the study; the data
analysis as well as the study‟s results and discussion.

CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 1 – Literature Review – presents definitions of terms, the origin, background
history and categorization of learning styles, students‟ learning style preferences, mismatches
between students‟ and teachers‟ perceptions of learning styles.

1.1. Definition of learning style
In literary studies, first personal differences of individuals and then the effects of
applying these differences in the environment have been investigated. One of these personal
differences is the individual‟s learning style. When individuals learn with the same method, in
the same learning environment and are assessed by the same evaluation tools, it should not be
expected that all of them gain the same amount of success, because individuals have different
learning styles.

Joe Chandle has given a very clear background history of learning styles in his study.
According to him, in 1904, Alfred Binet - a French psychologist - developed the first
intelligence test, which spawned interest in individual differences. The study of learning styles
was the next step. In 1907, Dr. Maria Montessori, who invented the Montessori Method of
education, began using materials to enhance the learning styles of her students. Dr. Montessori
believed that students did not demonstrate mastery of subjects through a multiple-choice
answer sheet, but through their actions. The study of learning styles declined for approximately
50 years before re-emerging in the 1950s. The decline was due to the rise in emphasis on IQ
and academic achievement. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom developed a system known as Bloom's
Taxonomy, which took another step toward defining learning-style differences. Isabel Myers-
Briggs and Katherine Briggs developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in 1962.
Further advancement was made when the Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model was
introduced in 1976, generating diagnostic instruments for evaluation. From the 1980s to the
present day, lots of different research and learning-style models have been developed building
on previous discoveries. In 1984, David Kolb published his learning-style model, where he
determined that learning styles are closely related to cognitive skills. Then, in 1987, Reid had 7
conducted a great study with the help of participants from 98 countries over the world to prove
his hypothesis that all students had their own learning strengths and weaknesses. In 1992, Neil
Fleming and Mills launched one of the most popular learning style research and assessment
throughout the world. Up to now, the emphasis is placed on having teachers address learning
styles in the classroom through adjustments in curriculum that incorporate each style, giving an
equal chance for students to learn.

1.3.2. Categorization of learning styles – Definition of terms
Learning styles have been classified into nine different models. The Kolb Model is
based on experiential learning theory. Using the Kolb model, Peter Honey and Allen Mumford
developed the Honey and Mumford model. The other models include Anthony Gregorc's

based input and output - reading and writing in all its forms but especially manuals, reports,
essays and assignments
● Kinesthetic (K):
This modality refers to the "perceptual preference related to the use of experience and
practice (simulated or real)." The key is that people who prefer this mode are connected to
reality, "either through concrete personal experiences, examples, practice or simulation"
(Fleming & Mills, 1992: 140-141). It includes demonstrations, simulations, videos and movies
of "real" things, as well as case studies, practice and applications.

Despite the fact that Fleming's VARK theory is relatively simple compared to other
learning style models, it is not adequate and very difficult to implement in a functional
classroom. Moreover, it has not dealt with the problem of mixture, usually defined as
multimodality. Recently, Feldman (2003) has presented one categorization of learning styles
that seems to be more adequate which can combine the above models and neatly solve the
question of mixture. According to Feldman (2003: 64-65), there are four main categories of
learning style.
● Receptive learning styles
Visual/verbal: a style that involves a preference for material in the written format,
favoring reading over hearing and touching.
Visual/nonverbal: a style that favors material presented visually in diagram or picture.
Auditory/verbal: a style in which the learners favors listening as the best approach.
Tactile/kinesthetic: a style that involves learning by touching, manipulating objects,
and doing things.
● Information Processing Styles
Analytic: a style which the learner starts with small pieces of information and uses
them to build the big picture. 9
Relation: a style in which the learner starts with the big picture and breaks it down into

from organized context” (Witkin, 1976: 41-42 see in Erickson et al., 2006). According to 10
Felder and Henriques (1995), learning styles have been extensively discussed in the
educational psychology literature (Claxton and Murell, 1987; Schmeck, 1988) and specifically
in the context of language learning by Oxford and her colleagues (Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al,.
1991; Wallace and Oxford, 1992; Oxford and Ehraman, 1993). Although over 30 learning style
assessment instruments have been developed in the past three decades (Guild and Garger,
1985; Jensen, 1987), research that identifies and measures perceptual learning styles relies
primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which students select their preferred learning
styles.
Reid (1987) stated a major hypothesis about learning style that “All students have their
own learning strengths and weaknesses”. To prove that hypothesis, Reid did a survey by
mailing instructions for administration to 43 university-affiliated intensive English language
programs across the United States, the faculties of which had volunteered to participate in the
study. A total of 1,234 questionnaires were returned from 39 of the 43 participating intensive
English language programs. Respondents representing 98 countries, 29 major fields of study,
and 52 language backgrounds completed the questionnaire. Reid‟s study results presented that
students strongly preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning styles. Almost all groups showed a
negative preference for group learning. By separating students in groups of different languages,
backgrounds, cultures, age, sex, level etc., Reid concluded that the learning style preferences of
nonnative speakers often differ significantly from those of native speakers; that ESL students
from different language backgrounds sometimes differ from one another in their learning style
preferences. She also found that variables such as sex, length of time in the United States,
length of time studying English in the U. S., field of study, level of education, TOEFL score,
and age are related to differences in learning styles.
The result that students prefer kinesthetic and tactile learning styles is favored with
Melton‟s 1990 study with Chinese students (N=331), John‟s 1997 research with Taiwan
students (N=312), Hyland‟s 1993 research with Japanese learners. In the study of Chu and

such as pair or group work, they like practicing English both inside and outside classroom. Nga
also stated that although teachers at Pham Hong Thai high school were aware of some
students‟ language learning style preferences in terms of perceiving and processing
information, teaching aids, and class activities; they did not fully understand their students‟
liking and disliking such as learning mode, error correction, homework, assessment, sense of
satisfaction, etc.
Le Sa‟s explosion on students‟ language learning style preferences, carried out at Do
Luong 2 high school revealed the similar result as Nga‟s one. Although her students also
expressed more various preferences than Nga‟s students (the kinesthetic and visual learning
style and minor preferences for auditory style), the teachers were still not aware fully of
students‟ language style preferences. Teachers thought students preferred learning grammar but 12
they did not; teacher mentioned students preferred copying from the board but they expressed
the preferences of learning by pictures, videos, games; teachers thought students preferred
translating into Vietnamese, in contrast they really did not like to. There was a big mismatch
between what teachers thought of students‟ preferences and what it really was.
Since being considered, learning style preferences studies have shown us a
misunderstanding or even unawareness of teachers about their students‟ learning styles.
According to Reid (1987), “A mismatch between teaching and learning styles causes learning
failure, frustration and demotivation”; then teachers‟ unawareness make a big gap in teaching
modality. To conclude, it is relevant to explore learning styles due to the fact that they affect
not only the way individuals acquire and process information but also the teaching process. By
understanding students‟ individual learning style, both teachers and students can beneficially
join the teaching and learning process in a more active and successful way.

1.5. Mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of learning style
Investigation on learning and teaching styles has provided teachers and students with a
different view of learning and teaching in classrooms. Both the two Vietnamese studies of

and auditory styles.
Dao Zhenhui (2001) analyzed how to match teaching styles with learning styles in East
Asia contexts. He explored learning styles and developed self-aware EFL learners. He
mentioned that an effective matching between teaching and learning styles could only be
achieved when teachers are aware of their learners‟ needs, capacities, potentials and learning
style preferences. He also added that it is necessary to adapt the teaching styles to create a
teacher-student style matching.
There is no doubt that narrowing the gap between teachers‟ and learners‟ perception
plays “an important role in enabling students to maximize their classroom experience.”
(Zhenhui: 2001).
As can be seen, being aware of students‟ learning style preferences and understanding
the relationship between factors (environment, age, gender, etc.) play an important part in
teaching process. The implication of the study is that teachers find out their students‟ preferred
learning styles, their feeling and thinking, their needs and their experiences, etc., so that the
teachers can not only adapt teaching methods to suit the best to students, make the lessons
more attractive, effective and practical but also facilitate the desired learning outcome in the
class. To this end, the present study with the above-mentioned goals and objectives are
designed. 14
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

The following chapter embraces the main points regarding the methodology applied in
the study namely the methods of the study, the participants, research instruments as well as
data collection and data analysis procedures. Simultaneously, it provides for the selection of
research methods and clarifies specific steps carried out to gain valid and reliable data.

randomly invited to take part in the study.
These students are all fresh-year students in the school year 2011 – 2012, who come
from 47 provinces all over Vietnam, which means that they have diversifying educational
background. They are studying in different major departments namely Accountancy, Banking,
Finance, Business Management, Information Technology (IT), etc. Moreover, because students
were taking either full-time courses or in-service courses for incumbent, they vary in age, from
18 to 26.

Table 1: Students’ characteristic of age and gender
Age
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 -26
Male
5 (6.6%)
18
(23.7%)
9
(11.8%)
17
(22.4%)
12
(15.8%)
3 (3.9%)
12
(15.8%)

16
approximately 7 years of teaching English. Moreover, all of them have used the Market Leader
textbook and have taught English for first-year students for at least 2 years.

2.2.2 Instrument
As mentioned in Literature Review, although over 30 learning style assessment
instruments have been developed in the past three decades, research that identifies and
measures perceptual learning styles relies primarily on self-reporting questionnaires by which
students select their preferred learning styles. Style questionnaires vary in reliability and
validity, but over the last few decades, they have provided useful data for teachers and students
to understand learning style preferences.
The instrument used in the study was questionnaire of language learning style
preference adopted from Brindley (1984) and Fleming‟s VARK (2011 version). It consisted of
two versions: version 1 for students and version 2 for teachers. Both two versions were divided
into three main parts; the first part expressed the participants‟ background information as well
as attitude toward English, the second part presented participants‟ perceiving information style
preferences in real life, and the last one mentioned the preferred learning styles in classroom.
The questionnaire consists of two main types close-ended questions - multiple-choice questions
and scaled questions. With scaled questions, participants were required to measure their level
of like or dislike toward learning modes, learning methods, learning activities, learning aids,
vocabulary learning, etc. on the scale from 1 to 5, with 1=strongly dislike, 2=dislike, 3=neutral,
4=like, and 5=strongly like. With multiple-choice questions, there were four options for
respondents to choose. In some questions, participants were provided space and were
encouraged to give their own answers if they were different from the limited provided ones.
Participants, therefore, had more chances to more accurate about their actual preferred
language learning styles.
In the students‟ version (20-item questionnaire), the students were supposed to state
how they prefer to learn English language in terms of perceiving and processing information,
learning modes, learning methods, teaching aids, teaching activities, new words, feedback,
error correction. In the 20-item questionnaire, teachers were required to express their opinions

Lastly, the purpose of the study (investigating the first-year students‟ language learning
style preferences at Hanoi University of Business and Technology) as well as the appreciations
for the teachers‟ and students‟ co-operation were added to the beginning in both versions.
Thanks to such a choice of questionnaire, suitable adaptation, and careful translation,
there was no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the questionnaire, which assists ensure
the reliability and validity of data.

18
2.2.3 Data collection procedure
The data collecting process was carried out in two main steps
At first, the required data were collected in the last week of May 2012. The
questionnaire was delivered to students during class session in that week. At the same time and
during the same session, the teachers were provided with questionnaire (teachers‟ version).
Thanks to the establishment of a good rapport and participants‟ enthusiasm, all the given
questionnaire sheets were filled in fully, which resulted in the collection of 227 completed
student questionnaire sheets and 10 complete teacher questionnaire ones after all.
After that, the collected data from the questionnaires were synthesized, classified and
analyzed according to eight different issues (as mentioned in 2.2.2), and other sub-criteria such
as students‟ interest in learning English, age and gender.

2.2.4 Data analysis procedure
The author applied the statistic procedure, from coding data to classifying, analyzing,
summarizing, and reporting data in a reader-friendly way. Besides, participants‟ other opinions
were analyzed and summarized to provide a deeper view into the research matter. All the
results gained from these sources will be comprehensively analyzed and discussed in the
following Data Analysis chapter.
The data obtained from the questionnaire were presented in graphs and tables, basing

Graph 1: Students's interest in learning English
89%
73%
11%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Male Female
Interested
Uninterested

In contrast to what teachers usually believe, the number of males interested in learning
English is higher than the number of females. While, there are 89% male students enjoy
studying English, just 73% female students do. Although, the performance of males in
classroom is not as good as females‟ (they are often lazy and do not focus much on the
lessons), males learners do satisfy with their achievement in English. When asked, 51 (≈ 67%)
males answered that they were pleased with their marks and performance in English, whereas,
only 47 (≈ 31%) said that they were contented with their achievement. In fact, the marks of
females students in every university paper examination are usually higher than the marks of
males‟ ones. In summary, there are 81% students interested in learning English and only a
small number of students do not enjoying learning English (19%). Moreover, in spite of lower
marks in examination, boy students satisfy with their achievement more than girls do. 20
3.2. Perceiving and processing information in real life and classroom

60%
80%
100%
Aural Visual Read/Write Kinesthetic
Male student
Female student
Teacher
As can be seen from the graph, male students showed a very clear difference of their
favored style. They were favored of Read/Write (Visual/verbal) - a style that involves a
preference for material in the written format, favoring reading over hearing and touching.
Whereas, females did not express any big disparity between the three styles of Aural,
Kinesthetic and Read/Write although they seemed to be more Aural (Auditory/verbal) - a style
in which the learners favors listening as the best approach. Moreover, about teachers, their
perceiving style preferences did not vary much. There appeared an equal percentage between