1. 1
Learning Styles Of SMPN 1 Students Of Dagangan Madiun
And Their Implication To English Teaching
(A Thesis Summary submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to complete the
degree of Post-graduate Program in Language Studies)
Zainal Arifin
S.200.120.056
Post-graduate Program in Language Studies
Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta
Abstract
A language is probably the most difficult set of skills a person could ever
struggle to learn. There is no easy way to master a language, particularly a
language which is not our first language. In the process of learning a language
particularly a second language, there are many variables that determine the
success of a language learner which include language learning styles. In a class
made up of various learning styles, it is always necessary for the teachers,
particularly the language teachers to identify, respect and work on the diversity of
the learners’ differences. The study investigated the diverse learning styles
employed by ESL students in SMPN 1 Dagangan, Madiun Regency, East Java.
The students were classified into three levels of competence; high, middle, and
low level competence. They were also classified based on gender; males and
females. A set of questionnaire was distributed to fifteen students. To get deeper
interpretation on their learning styles, the students were also interviewed. The
students’ learning style preferences were identified besed on their levels of
competence and gender in order to investigate their differences. The data was
analysed using the case study method and the findings revealed that the students’
learning styles can be categorised as visual, auditory, kinesthethic, tactile,
individual and group learners. The results of the study indicated that there were
some differences in using learning styles by the students of high, middle and low
levels of competence. A little difference was also found in male and female
students in using learning styles. Thus, it is important for teachers to be aware of
their students learning styles. It is clear then that one factor which can lead to the
success of a language teaching-learning process is the match between students`
learning styles and the teaching methods used by the teachers.
Keywords: Learning styles, levels of competence; high – middle – low, gender,
PLSPQ, ESL, case study.

2. 2
1. Introduction
This study aimed to identify learning style preferences of the students at
SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun and their implication to English teaching. SMPN 1
Dagangan is one of the state secondary schools in Madiun Regency. It is located
in Banjarsari Kulon Village, about 15 km from Madiun City, East Java. The
school has 632 students and most of their parents are farmers. Living in a village
makes the students tend to be ashamed and low motivated, especially in learning
English. Thus they have many kinds of learning styles. The ways how to learn are
influenced by their backgrounds; where they live, what their parents are and how
they do their lives.
In the process of learning the language, there are many variables that
determine the success of a language learner. Language learning success is
associated with a range of factors including age, gender, motivation, intelligence,
anxiety level, learning strategies and language learning styles (Sharp, 2004). In a
class made up of various learning styles, it is always necessary for the teachers,
particularly the language teachers to identify, respect and work on the diversity of
the learners’ differences.
Some researches in the field of language teaching have been trying to find
out teaching methods, classroom techniques, and instructional materials that will
promote better language instruction. However, in spite of these efforts there has
been a growing concern that the students have not progressed as much as it was
hoped. Because there are considerable individual differences in language learning
such as gender, age, social status, motivation, attitude, aptitude and culture. As

3. 3
results what work for one student might not work for another. Grenfell and Harris
(1999:10) stated that “Methodology alone can never be a solution to language
learning. Rather it is an aid and suggestion”.
Today's teachers are well trained and they know that they have not
succeeded as long as some students have not reached the objectives of their
teaching. A knowledge and understanding of the learning process, the importance
of sensorial stimuli and activity, and recognition of the significance of learning
styles, will enable today's teachers to succeed in teaching English.
2. Background
It would be a mistake, however, to imagine that any individual student
relies on a single style of learning. What the teacher must realize is that some
students require more sensorial or motor engagement than others in order to learn
effectively. It has always been recognized, of course, that sensorial experience and
activity are the fundamentals of anyone's learning process, whether the students
and effective teachers have always provided the opportunity for these in their
lesson plans. If some students do not succeed well by one approach, then perhaps
they will do better by another.
The success of teaching-learning process is not only determined by how
the teachers teach but also, most importantly and principally is determined by how
the students learn. Language learning styles is one of the main factors that help
determine how the students learn a second or foreign language. However, the
students have different personalities so they learn in many ways or styles.

4. 4
A previous study was conducted by Stapa (2003) concerning teachers’
awareness of ESP students’ learning preferences. In this study, it was discovered
that students’ tendency towards working in pairs or small groups was well
perceived by teachers. In a more recent study, Felder and Silverman (2005)
formulated a learning style model that comprises of four dimensions including
sensing and intuitive learners, visual and verbal learners, active and reflective
learners as well as sequential and global learners. Later, another study was
conducted by Hoque (2008) who investigated the learners’ strategies and
preferences in learning EFL. It was discovered that most of the students studied
English due to its curriculum requirement, and that they studied English just for
the sake of examinations. Only a few number of students realized the actual need
for English in practical life (Hoque, 2008)..
Based on the previous studies, it is necessary that this study be done using
a slightly different set of sample. Therefore, this study was carried out in SMP
Negeri 1 Dagangan Kab. Madiun which is located in the rural area where the
majority of the students find that English is not a major priority and learning it
would only add to their burden while studying for the examinations. Another
factor contributing to this condition is that very little effort is put in particularly by
the school management to motivate their students to be proficient in the language.
The knowledge of students’ learning styles may help teachers in handling
the diversity of learner differences and learning styles among them and thus set a
new guideline on how to better help them in achieving good performance in
teaching English.

5. 5
Moreover, the match between the students’ learning styles and the
teachers’ teaching styles can enhance an effective teaching-learning process.
Thus, it is important for teachers to be aware of their students learning styles. Due
to the importance of knowing the students` learning style and limited number of
studies done on identifying the students` learning style difference, this study is
conducted.
2.1. Problem of the Study
Based on the research statement, the writer raised some questions research
questions as follows:
1. Do the three level competence Students have different learning styles?
2. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by the high level
competence Students?
3. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by the middle level
competence Students?
4. What is the kind of learning style mostly applied by low level competence
students?
5. Are there any differences of using learning styles by the students based on
gender?
3. Literature Review
One of the most popular categorization of learning style models is sensory
or perceptual learning styles which are classified under cognitive styles.

6. 6
Individuals rely on these different sensory modalities to experience the world
(Messick, 1976). To interact with the world and to organize information, three
sorts of these sensory styles are pinpointed: the visual leads to figural thinking;
the auditory leads to verbal thinking; and kinesthetic leads to physical or motoric
thinking (Willing, 1988). One of the popular researchers emphasizing sensory
modes is Reid (1987). She focuses on ‘perceptual’ and ‘sociological’ learning
style preferences. The perceptual learning style dimension measures the learner’s
preferences for one or using a combination of sensor modes of experiencing
learning such as auditory or verbal, visual or spatial, tactile or hands-on, and
kinesthetic or psychomotor. Reid identifies these two different preferences as
individual preferring and group preferring sociological learning styles. Further,
Reid (1987) developed her model and presented it in a questionnaire called
Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ). She divides her
learning style instrument into six categories to address visual, auditory,
kinesthetic, tactile, as well as group and individual learning (Reid, 1987:88).
Students learn in many different ways. In many cases, students’ learning
style preferences show how well they learn material in different situations. The
following explanations of major learning style preferences describe the
characteristics of those learners. The descriptions will give some information
about ways in which the students learn best.
1. Visual Major Learning Style Preference
They learn well from seeing words in books, on the chalkboard, and in
workbooks. They remember and understand information and

7. 7
instructions better if they read them. They do not need as much oral
explanation as an auditory learner, and they can often learn alone with a
book. They should take notes of lectures and oral directions if they want
to remember the information.
2. Auditory Major Learning Style Preference
They learn from hearing words spoken and from oral explanation. They
may remember information by reading aloud or by moving your lips as
they read, especially when they are learning new material. They benefit
from hearing audiotapes, lectures, and class discussion. They benefit
from making tapes to listen to, by teaching other students, and by
conversing with their teacher.
3. Kinaesthetic Major Learning Style Preference
You learn best by experience, by being involved physically in
classroom experiences. You remember information well when you
actively participate in activities, field trips, and role-playing in the
classroom. A combination of stimuli – for example, an audiotape
combined with an activity – will help you understand new material.
4. Tactile Major Learning Style Preference
They learn best when they have the opportunity to do “hands-on”
experiences with new materials. That is, working on experiments in
laboratory, handling and building models, and touching and working
with new materials provide them with the most successful learning
situations. Writing notes or instructions can help them remember

8. 8
information, and physical involvement in class-related activities may
help them understand new information.
5. Group Major Learning Style Preference
They learn more easily when they study with at least one other student,
and they will be more successful completing work well when they work
with others. They value group interaction and class work with other
students, and they remember information better when they work with
two or three classmates. The stimulation they receive from group work
helps them learn and understand new information.
6. Individual Major Learning Style Preference
They learn best when they work alone. They think better when they
study alone, and they remember information they learn by themrselves.
They understand material best when they learn it alone, and they make
better progress in learning when they work by themselves.
(Reid, 1995, pp. 162-167)
4. Method
In this research method, the writer presents the point of research method,
namely: (a) type of research, (b) subject of the study, (c) data and data source, (d)
technique of data collection, (e) technique of data analyses and (f) checking the
reliability and validity of the data.
4.1. Type of Research

9. 9
The writer analyzes the data using qualitative case study method that does
not include any calculating and enumerating. Besides that, there is no data
manipulation because all analyzes based on real condition.
4.2. Subject of the Study
The subject of this study was 15 Students of the third year from Class 9A
and 9H of SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun in the 2013/2014 academic year. They are
divided into 3 groups of competence. Each group has 5 Students. They are:
1. High level competence Students (5 Students);
2. Middle level competence Students (5 Students);
3. Low level competence Students (5 Students).
4.3. Data and Data Source
The data used in this study were:
1. Documentation (The Students’ test scores)
2. The results of questionnaire
3. The results of interview
The data source in this study was fifteen Students taken from class 9A and 9H of
SMP Negeri 1 Dagangan Kab. Madiun, East Java. The Students of the third year
were divided into eight classes based on their achievement levels. They were class
9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 9F and 9H. Class 9A had the highest competence level,
whereas class 9H had the lowest one.

10. 10
4.3. Technique of Data Collection
4.3.1. Documentation
Documentation is a supporting method of collecting data by using the
documents or archival records of the Students to support other sources of data.
The documents were the list of Students’ marks or study reports, the result of a
test, and any items that support the research. The researcher used the study reports
of the Students to identify the three levels of competence; high level competence,
middle level competence, and low level competence. The achievement test was
used to ensure result of the identification of the level competence.
4.3.2. Questionnaire
A questionnaire is a written or printed form used in gathering information
on some subject or subjects consisting of a list of questions to be submitted to one
or more persons. The researcher used Reid’s Perceptual Learning Style Preference
Questionnaire (PLSPQ).
4.3.3. Interview
Interview is one of the most important sources of case study information.
The interview could take one of several forms: open-ended, focused, or structured.
The researcher used a focused interview. The students were interviewed for only a
short time, and the questions asked came from the case study protocol which were
adopted from the questions in PLSPQ.

11. 11
4.4. Technique of Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using the case study method as described by
Merriam (1998). The reason for choosing a case study for this research was that
the case study allows for in depth analysis of a particular group who occupy a
similar background. In depth analysis is useful for building an understanding of
issues related to a theory such as learning style in this research.
"Data analysis consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, or
otherwise recombining the evidence to address the initial propositions of a study"
(Yin, 1994). The analysis of case study is one of the least developed aspects of the
case study methodology. The researcher needs to rely on experience and the
literature to present the evidence in various ways, using various interpretations.
This becomes necessary because statistical analysis is not necessarily used in all
case studies. This case study employs a series of statistical tests to help in the
presentation of the data to the reader.
Explanation-building is considered a form of pattern-matching, in which
the analysis of the case study is carried out by building an explanation of the case.
This implies that it is most useful in explanatory case studies, but it is possible to
use it for exploratory cases as well as part of a hypothesis-generating process.
There are some things that the researcher must be careful to review to
ensure that the analysis will be of high quality, including: showing that all
relevant evidence was used, that all rival explanations were used, that the analysis
addressed the most significant aspect of the case study, and that the researchers
knowledge and experience are used to maximum advantage in the study.

12. 12
4.5. Checking the reliability and validity of the data
Reliability is concerned with the replicability of a research study, over
time, instruments, and respondents, and the extent to which it produces similar or
identical results (Ary et al., 2006; Bryman, 2008; Bush, 2007; Cohen et al., 2007;
Davidson & Tolich, 2003). Cohen et al. (2007) point out that in qualitative
research, reliability “can be regarded as a fit between what researchers record as
data and what actually occurs in the natural setting that is being researched”.
Reliability however, does not automatically imply that research findings
are valid. Validity is concerned with the “integrity of the conclusions that are
generated from a piece of research” (Bryman, 2008:32) and whether the methods
and tools “devised to gauge a concept really measures that concept” (Bryman,
2008:51). The issue of internal validity was considered in this research study.
Internal validity is concerned with the credibility and authenticity of research
findings and whether these conclusions or explanations can be sustained by the
data (Bryman, 2008; Cohen et al., 2007; Keeves, 1997). Internal validity can be
ensured through triangulation and respondent validation.
Triangulation is the use of two or more methods of data collection or
sources of data in the study of some aspect of human behaviour (Bryman, 2008;
Cohen et al., 2007; Denzin, 1997; Sturman, 1997).
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Learning Styles of the Three Level-Competences of the Students.

13. 13
Due to the research problems and the limitation of this study, the
researcher identified 15 Students as the object of the research. They are divided
into three groups based on the ranking. The groups are high level, middle level,
and low level.
The data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed to establish
frequency distribution in the form of descriptive statistics. The results showed that
there were differences in the use of language learning style all of the six
categories by the three-level competence of the Students.
In order to discover the types of perceptual learning styles of SMPN 1
Dagangan Students in general, the descriptive statistic of the six kinds of learning
styles were computed. The general tendency of the distribution showed that of 15
Students, in general, Group learning style preference ranked first, followed by
Visual learning style, Individual learning style, Kinesthetik learning style,
Auditory learning style, while responses to Tactile learning style had the lowest
rank.
After identifying the Students’learning styles via the questionnaire, the
researcher planned to interview the participants to get deeper interpretation on
their learning styles. The results of the interview showed that the Students of
SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun were the most Group in their learning style
preferences. This result is in line with the questionaire result that Group learning
style got the most responses from the Students. Most Students enjoy working in
group so they learned best when working with others. They preferred group
interaction and class work rather than working alone to exchange ideas,

14. 14
understand them better and quite probably accept others ideas. This style helped
them to learn and understand new material better.
Based on the data from the questionnaire and interview results, the
participants in this study, indicated that the most preferred style was group
learning style, visual learning style ranked the second. The third place in the
ranking order was taken by the individual, and the fourth was kinesthetic learning
style. But there were two differences in rank five and six. Auditory learning style
ranked the fifth in questionnaire but it ranked the sixth in interview. Tactile
learning style ranked the sixth in questionnaire but it ranked the fifth in interview.
6.2. Learning Styles of High Level Competence Students
The finding result of questionnaire showed that Individual learning style
ranked the first (80% of questionnaire and 100% of interview), then followed by
Visual one (72% of questionnaire and 96% of interview). The third rank was
Group learning style (60% of questionnaire and 80% of interview). The next rank
was Tactile learning style (50% of questionnaire and 60% of interview).
Kinesthetic learning style ranked the fifth (26,6% of questionnaire and 60% of
interview), and Auditory ranked the last (35% of questionnaire and 30% of
interview).
Moreover the results of interview showed that almost all Students of high
level competence used individual learning style. They learned best when they
worked alone. They could think well when they studied alone, and they could
remember information they learned by themselves. They would like studying
alone such as self-directed study or independent reading and study.

15. 15
6.3. Learning Styles of Middle Level Competence Students
The second group of the students that the researcher interviewed was the
middle level competence students. The results showed that there were any
differences in using learning styles between the high level and middle level
competence students. The middle level competence students like Group learning
style most. This finding was different from the high level competence students
who preferred Individual learning style as their first choice. The students enjoyed
working in the group style so they learnt best when working with other, this style
helped them to learn and understand new material better.
Based on the results of the questionnaire, none of the middle level
competence used Tactile learning style when they were studying. This finding was
6.4. Learning Styles of Low Level Competence Students
The finding showed that the low level competence students preferred
Group learning style than others. The results of questionnaire were in line with the
results of interview that Group learning style got the most response from them. So
there was no doubt that they could learn best when working with others. This style
helped them to study and understand new material better.
The results of interview to the students with low level competence
indicated that all of them like to study in groups. It was very common among the
students to look for help from other classmates in order to complete tasks and
share ideas about the development of some activities. The main purpose of

16. 16
collaboration was to let the students know other styles for learning and to share
their own styles with classmates.Working with classmates, in groups or in pairs,
gave students the opportunity to explore their styles. As the students were given a
specific task, they showed how they could develop it by using their styles and, at
the same time, they could observe the styles used by their partners.This way of
working let the students develop a specific task in a complementary way; that is to
say, every student contributed with his own learning styles to carry out the task.
6.5. The Students’ Learning Styles Preferences based on gender
To devide the students based on gender, the researcher classified the
fifteen students of the three level groups into males and females. There were 5
males and 10 females. The results of questionnaire were analysed to identify their
learning style preferences into six catagories to address visual, auditory,
kinesthetic, tactile, as well as group and individual learning style.
Based on the results of questionnaire, we can observe that males had
preference for the groupl style as well as females. Male and female enjoyed
working in the group style so they learned best when working with other, this
style helped them to learn and understand new material better.
There was a little difference between the results of questionnaire and the
results of interview. The results of interview showed that all male students used
individual as their learning style (100%) but female students used group learning
style (90%), which was suitable with the results of questionnaire.

17. 17
We can observe that males have preference for the individual style while
females prefer the group learning style. Males enjoy studying alone. They
preferred working on their own and they learned new information by themselves
and they remembered the materials better if they learned it alone. But females
enjoyed working in the group style so they learned best when working with
others. However the average results of the questionnaire and interview showed
that both males and females chose group learning style as their preference.
7. Conclusion
Based on the perceptual learning styles’ classification which is categorized
by Reid (1995), the dominant learning style preferences of SMPN 1 Dagangan
students indicated that the majority of SMPN 1 Dagangan students considered
themselves as Group learners. They preferred learning English as a foreign
language by working on some activities in pairs and small groups; they relied on
others' ideas when solving problems and were good at interpersonal relationships
because they felt that this approach would be useful for their needs, facilitating
them to improve their English skills.
The followings are the perceptual learning style preferences of SMPN 1
Dagangan students based on their competence levels and gender:
1. The students with high level competence preferred Individual learning
style. They learned best when they work alone. They could think well
when they studied alone, and they could remember information they
learned by themselves. The students with middle level competence

18. 18
preferred Group learning style. They enjoyed working in the group style so
they learnt best when working with other.
2. The students with low level competence preferred Group learning style.
Even all of them like to study in groups. It was very common among them
to look for help from other classmates in order to complete tasks and share
ideas about the development of some activities.
3. The male students preferred Group learning style. But they
also preferred Individual learning style. However the difference of average
results of questionnaire and interview was small; 80% group and 60%
individual. It means that male students sometimes like to learn alone and
sometimes in groups. They liked the teacher to make variation in their
teaching straregy that enabled them to study English individually at one
time and in group at another time. Whereas the female students preferred
Group learning style to Individual one. They enjoy working in the group
style so they learned best when working with others.
Not only students learn in different ways but also teachers teach with
various methods. Some of them explain, others demonstrate or discus; some focus
on principles and others on applications; some emphasize memory and others
understanding.Therefore, teaching and learning style dimensions parallel one
another.
The differences of using learning styles by the students influence
classroom dynamics and student success. It also has provided implications for

19. 19
future to match teaching and learning styles so as to develop students’ potentials
in learning English.
The results of this study indicated that there was difference of learning
styles used by the high level competence students, middle level competence
students and low level competence students of SMPN 1 Dagangan Madiun. But
there wasn’t difference of learning styles used by male and female students.
Further research may study the reasons why the results did not indicate
significant differences on the gender variables because various studies claim that
learning style preferences have a great effect on academic achievement, student
attitudes, and student behavior.
Since this study was restricted to a small group of the students, i.e. 15
students, it is recommended that it can be replicated and the sample size be
increased by including a large number of students from the same school and/or
other schools to enhance the generalizability of the findings.
Further research should not only investigate the students’ learning style
preferences but also find out the teaching styles used by their teachers and see
whether they match the students’ learning styles. Being aware of the learning
styles of the students, knowing their likes, dislikes, easy ways of learning may
facilitate both teaching and learning and make this learning-teaching cycle much

20. 20
REFERENCES
Sharp, A. (2004). Language learning and awareness of personality type in Chinese
settings. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.asian-efl
journal.com/Article_1_June_as_2004.pdf
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies in
theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Stapa, S.H. (2003). ESP students’ learning preferences: Are the teachers aware?
Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_4/Stapa.htm
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). English for specific purposes: Learners’ preferences
and attitudes. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from
http://www.shakespeare.uk.net/journal/jllearn/1_1/kavaliauskiene_learn1_1.html
Felder. R. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering ed
ucation. Journal of Engineering Education 78 (7). pp. 674-681.
Felder, R.M. & Spurlin, J.E. (2005). "Applications, reliability, and validity of the
index of learning styles." Intl.
Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112
Hoque, M.E. (2008). Learners’ strategies, preferences and styles in learning
English as a foreign language: A study on the preferences of higher secondary
students in Bangladesh. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from
http://www.languageinindia.com/march2008/bangladeshenglishlearning.pdf
Rahil, M., Habibah, E., Cheong, L.S., Muhamad, M.F., Nooreen, N. & Maria C.A.
(2006). The relationship between students’ self-efficacy and their English
language achievement. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from
http://www.usm.my/education/publication/4%20Rahi%20(61-71).pdf
Marlyna, M., Hua, T.K., & Khazriyati S. (2007). Interference in learning English:
Grammatical errors in English essay writing among rural Malay secondary school
students in Malaysia. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from
http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~ebangi/makalah-j2-b2-jan-julai-07/Marlyna-baru.pdf
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern
Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies in

21. 21
theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Grenfell, M., Harris, V., (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In
theory and practice. Routledge, London. In: Grifths, C. (Ed.), Lessons from
Good Language Learners. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Keefe, J. W. (1979). Learning style: An overview. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.) Student
learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs (pp.1-17). Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Oxford, R. L. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do
they mean? In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 34-
46). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL
Quarterly,21 (1), 87-111.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Learning styles in the ESL/EF
L classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Understanding learning styles
in the second language classroom. (pp. ix- xiv). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Perceptual learning style preference survey. In J. Reid
(Ed.). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. (pp.
162-167). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL
students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 118-
125). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterl
y, 9 (1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies and language
learning. (pp. 15-29). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learning
strategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23,
2003 from the following World Web Site :
http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.
Stebbins, C. (1995). Culture-specific perceptual – learning – style preferences of
Post secondary students of English as a second language. In J. M. Reid (Ed.)

22. 22
Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 108-117). New York: Heinle
and Heinle Publishers.
Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult immigrant education. Research Series
(Ed. David Nunan). Australia: National Curriculum Research Center: Adult
Migrant Education Programme.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL Students. TESOL
Quarterly,21 (1), 87-111.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Learning styles in the ESL/EF
L classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learning
strategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23,
2003fromthefollowingWorldWebSite:
http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.
Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., Ehrman, M., (1988). Vive la diference? Reflections on
sex diferences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign language Annals 21
(4), 321 329.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1995). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Learning styles in the
ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. viii- xvii). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Perceptual learning style preference survey. In J. Reid
(Ed.). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. (pp.162-
167). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid , J. M. (Ed.). (1998). Preface. In J. Reid (Ed.). Understanding learning styles
in the second language classroom. (pp. ix- xiv). USA: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, J., (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL Students. TESOL
Quarterly 21 (1), 87-111.
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL
Students. In J. M. Reid (Ed.) Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. (pp. 118-
125). New York: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Rossi-Le, L., (1989). Perceptual Learning Style Preferences and their Relationship
to Language Learning Strategies in Adult Students of English as a Second
Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
Shih, C. C., & Gamon, J. (2003). Student learning styles, motivation, learning

23. 23
strategies, and achievement in web-based courses. Retrieved on January 23, 2003
from the following World Web Site:
http://iccel.wfu.edu/publications/journals/jcel/jcel1990305/ccshih.htm.
Dunn, R.S., & K.J. Dunn. (1979). Learning styles/teaching Styles: Should
they...can they...be matched?
Educational Leadership,36, 238-244.
Dunn,R.(1984). Learning style: State of the scene. Theory Into Practice, 23, 10-
19.
Dunn, R.S. and S.A. Griggs. (1988). Learning styles: Quiet revolution in America
n schools. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principles.
Dunn, R.S. and s.A. Griggs. (1989). Learning styles: Quiet Revolution in America
n secondary schools.
Clearing House, 65(1), 40-42.
Dunn, R.S., Honigsfeld, A., & Doolan, L. (2009). Impact of learning-
style instructional strategies on
students’ achievement and attitudes: Perceptions of educators in deverse institutio
ns. The Clearing House,
82(3), 135-140.
Evans, C., Harkins, M.J., & Young, J.D. (2008). Exploring teaching styles and co
gnitive styles: evidence
from school teachers in Canada. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 56
7-582.
Felder, R.M. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language
education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Gregorc, A.F. (1997). Relating with style. Colombia, CT: Gregorc Associates.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, Va.: National Ass
ociation of secondary school Principles.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and d
evelopment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R.L., M. Ehrman, R. Z. Lavine. (1991). Style wars: teacher-student style
conflicts in the language classroom. In Magnan, S.S. (Ed.), Challenges in the
1990s for College Foreign Language Programs: Boston, MA: Heinle&Heinle.

24. 24
Willing. K.(1988). Learning styles in adult migrant Education. Adelaide: Nation
Curriculum Resource Center.
Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, P. Oltman, D.R. Goodenough, F. Friedman, D.R.
Owen and E. Raskin. (1977). Role of field dependent and field independent
cognitive styles in academic evolution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
197-211.
Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1992). Teaching secondary students through their
individual learning style: Practical approaches for grades 7-12. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon. (373.1394 DUN- Book)
Dunn, R. (1996). 19 Easy-to-try Ways to Turn on Students. Teaching Pre K-8,
27(3), 50-51.
Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences. The Journal of Educational
Research, 88(6), 353-362.
Singh, H. (2003) Building effective blended learning programs, Educational Tech
nology, 43, 51-54.
Witkin, H.A., C.A. Moore, P. Oltman, D.R. Goodenough, F. Friedman, D.R.
Owen and E. Raskin. (1977). Role of field dependent and field independent
cognitive styles in academic evolution. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
197-211.
Brindley, G. (1984). Needs analysis and objective setting in the adult migrant
education program. Sydney, NSW: Adult Migrant Education Service.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education,
5th Ed. London: Routledge- Falmer.
Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Retrieved
January 1, 2009 from
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_D
ifferences.pdf
Reid, J. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Riazi, A. & Riasati, M.J. (2007). Language learning style preferences: A case
study of Shiraz EFL Institutes. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.asian-
efl-journal.com/March_2007_EBook.pdf